Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Green party “reform treaty” motions
Read more about: Coalition, Europe, Green Party
They’re being voted on at the moment. As expected, the motion to make it party policy to support the treaty fell short of the required 2/3 majority. But the motion to make it party policy to oppose the treaty will also fail. So the only one that really matters is the third one, which would free the ministers, TDs, and Senators to campaign in favour of it while others in the party might be opposed. Text of this motion (on which a vote is awaited) below [UPDATED].
As Dan Sullivan points out in comments, they abandoned the 3rd motion. Their press release also claims members “voted in favour” of the EU treaty even though the rules require 2/3. It didn’t pass. That’s it.
That this Special Convention
* recognises that, with the signing of the Lisbon Treaty by An Taoiseach on behalf of the Irish Government on December 13th 2007, Green Party Ministers are obliged by virtue of collective cabinet responsibility to facilitate ratification of this Treaty, and that Green Party members of the Oireachtas are similarly obligated to bring through the Dáil and Seanad a Referendum Bill that will allow this question to be constitutionally determined by the people;
* has voted [X]% in favour of a motion that [INSERT TEXT OF MOTION ACHIEVING HIGHEST VOTE] which [meets/does not meet] the requirements of the Party’s Constitution as being a valid decision;
* notes the vote of this party’s membership and its prevailing opinion on this matter,
* whilst also recognising that participation in a national constitutional referendum is a personal responsibility of each individual citizen.”
So motion three wasn’t even risked and the Green leadership want us to believe that they have a “mandate” to campaign for the treaty. Does anyone for a moment believe that the GAA would have had soccer/rugby is they didn’t get a 2/3’s majority for rule 42? Of course not, the Green’s have rules that they decided on and if they want to ditch them that is up to them but don’t ever let them be claiming some moral high ground about party democracy after this. The vote was public so I wonder how much it might have been had it been a secret ballot.
Ah. I’m a bit late on comments here. Forgive me.
Hello. I’m Swedish, and a fellow European.
I don’t think that your politicians will ever acknowledge that there’s no support for the treaty among their voters. The tendency in all previous referendums that have been held - in northern Europe on the topic of EMU, and in France and the Netherlands on the constitutional treaty - has been that the pro-side, often people with distinguished financial backing or ditto political prestige and careers, have categorically denied that there could even be a possibility of resistance.
I think I recognise an opposition against the treaty on your side - opposition is rather heavy in most other European nations as well but only Ireland will vote. As a reference, I think that ATTAC may have considerable experience on the elections in France and the Netherlands, where they worked to oppose the constitutional treaty in its current form.
Well, the government is worried enough to be apparently thinking about a “neutrality patch” amendment along with the referendum itself since that would be one promising angle for the No campaign. It’ll be interesting to see if European issue groups like ATTAC come into the fray, because as of now the main foreign participants for No are groups that would be used by the Yes side to prove how fringe the No side is e.g. Le Pen.