Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Thoughts On The Lisbon Outcome
Read more about: Democracy, Europe, Government, Irish Politics, Lisbon Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Policy, Referenda
The people of the country have spoken, for good or ill. That must be respected.
Accordingly, I do not want to see another referendum - the outcome of this one must be heeded. The people are sovereign. The Constitution, deeply flawed as it is, governs this country over anything else; it is the source of power exercised by the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government in Ireland. It is also the source of our connection to the EU, but that does not mean it should not be altered to suit the EU over Ireland.
Listening to the tallies as they come in, the socio-economic breakdown was very clear - working class voters opposed it very much. It is purely my own view, but I’d be inclined to suggest that the left-wing arguments against privatisation were the ones that had the most impact, as opposed to the Libertas arguments. It was not, I believe, an anti-government vote - the two main opposition parties called for a Yes vote along with the Government. I do not believe it was a Eurosceptic vote either. Ireland is pro-Europe and pro-EU.
I never agreed with the the way the Treaty was being ratified across Europe and that was my primary reason for voting no. I know some people reading this will be very displeased at the outcome, and I am genuinely sorry for that. I want to see Europe integrated better than it is now. But not this way. 3 million people determining the outcome of a treaty by a direct vote, with the other several hundred million not having this same very powerful method of determining the outcome, is, to my mind, profoundly undemocratic. I do not believe either, that the people in the other EU member states gave their governments a mandate to decide on this treaty; they gave their governments a mandate to govern on domestic issues.
Another issue that bothered me was the Laval case. I hummed and hawed over this one, initially inclined to accept it and hope it was a one off. The Laval case gives rise to fundamental questions under EU law, namely, whether Community law can restrict or prohibit trade unions in one Member State taking industrial action. It also considers whether the application of collective agreements in a host Member State be restricted by EU law.
In the case, Swedish unions took action against a Latvian construction company - Laval - over the working conditions of Latvian workers refurbishing a school in a town called Vaxholm. Laval refused to sign a collective agreement, and a blockade of the work place was initiated by the trade unions as a consequence. The Swedish Labour Court referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
In December 2007, the ECJ indicated that the right to strike is a fundamental right, but not as fundamental as the right of businesses to supply cross-border services. It is my opinion that the ruling amounts to a licence for social dumping, and key features of national industrial relations systems face being superseded by the free movement provisions. This puts a fundamental right of an individual or group of individuals at a disadvantage to a company. It is my view that this is wrong. I had to vote no on this ground also.
I spent a great deal of time considering how I would vote on this momentous treaty. I am satisfied with my vote, and I am satisfied that I considered it from a European, and not an Irish perspective. I am a passionate European. I am not a Euro-sceptic. This was my first No vote on a European referendum. I fervently hope that it will be my last.
I’d be inclined to suggest that the left-wing arguments against privatisation were the ones that had the most impact, as opposed to the Libertas arguments
I’d disagree with you on that point I think it was far more to do with feeling cut off from power.
As for the rest of your post. Pretty much in agreement.
I fail to see how the Laval case amounts to a reason for voting down an entire EU Treaty. This post simply bears out the point that there were 800,000 reasons for voting ‘no’ to Lisbon and just as many reasons for voting ‘yes’. All this proves is that a referendum is a very blunt democratic instrument for making a decision on a complex agreement.
Like you Tom, I would have been profoundly disturbed by the Laval case. But I think that when it came to the Lisbon Treaty the real decision was whether Lisbon was in the best political interests of the EU and Ireland or not, from the point of view of the political process not any one hard case making bad law at the ECJ. What happens at the ECJ in respect of any particular issue is a bit of a distraction. Was the overall intent of the Lisbon Treaty a progressive development in European terms or was it not? No one ECJ case is sufficient to define this.
Was the overall intent of the Lisbon Treaty a progressive development in European terms or was it not?
My view is that it was not. If it was in any way progressive, all member states would have had referenda. What happens at the ECJ influences policy. And in the case of Laval, my own view is that it would influence a policy that prioritises business and profit before people.
Lisbon was a political arrangement. What happens in the courts , here or in the ECJ, or anywhere else by and large , is a 50/50 matter. You win or you lose on the basis of an argument at a particular point in time. The Laval case had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.
If you personally do not believe that the intent of the Lisbon Treaty was progressive in terms of the overall interests of 500m European citizens then of course you were right to vote against it and majority opinion was clearly with you.
I’ve no argument with that at all. My own opinion was, on balance, that voting ‘yes’ to Lisbon was in our best interests. Not that it matters much now anyway! Kind regards.
The will of the Irish people must be respected. But what does Ireland want from its relationship with Europe?
Respect flows two ways.
I hope that Ireland respects the will of 18 (and more) countries to bring this stage of the protracted treaty reform process to a positive conclusion by instituting the substance of the Lisbon Treaty among the ratifying states.
In my humble opinion, although there is some truth in what you say, I also believe that the great unspoken - immigration - was a bigger factor in why the working class were so overwhelmingly on the no side. A lot of the upper middle class like immigration because it gives them cheap labour to do housework etc. The working-class are at the cold-face of competition from cheap labour and displacement, and this resentment was expressed last Thursday. I also have been told by my mother that everyone she knows voted no because of immigration.
Ah now Tom, can you see any referendum regarding the EU passing in the UK? The French rejected the treaty in large part because a large segment wanted to bloody the noses of the powers that be. No treaty, no matter how ‘progressive’ would be passed by all member states.
No treaty, no matter how ‘progressive’ would be passed by all member states.
If that were true, what does that say?
I hope that Ireland respects the will of 18 (and more) countries
Correction; the governments of 18 or more countries. Or was the Lisbon Treaty part of the mandate that those 18 governments across Europe received on their elections?
“If that were true, what does that say?”
It says that people don’t always vote on the proposal put to them. It says that Rupert Murdoch has far too much power over the British media and that Francophobia is a major feature of British society. Mostly, it says that a referendum is a pretty blunt instrument and that it is not well suited to deciding on matters of international law.
Free Europe Constitution is… better!