Ireland rejects Lisbon treaty .....

[Saracen]

.... according to early signs.

No, at the time of typing, the results aren't in. Not confirmed, anyway. But the Irish Justice Minister, Dermot Ahern, says it looks like it's been rejected.

BBC News article

"It looks like this will be a No vote," Mr Ahern said on live television. "At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken."

Earlier, Europe Minister Dick Roche had admitted "it is not looking good", after state broadcaster RTE said that the Yes vote was "in difficulty".

Well, if true, that'll put the cat among the Euro pigeons. It'll be interesting to see what happens now.

My guess? Just like after the French and Dutch rejected the Constitution, they'll go away, rethink it, dress it all up in different clothes and do it anyway. The rethinking, by the way, will consist of trying to come up with a way of doing it, perhaps piecemeal, without even bothering to ask the Irish next time seeing as they're determined to do it despite the French an Dutch votes, and don't even dare let the British have a say in a referendum.

Will this, if this result is confirmed, cause the Eurocrats and Europols to change course? I doubt it. They'll just come up with a way to try again.

[Funkstar]

And for those that don't know what on earth Saracen is on about, here is a handy linky

Treaty of Lisbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pollaxe]

They'll just come up with a way to try again.

Absolutely, why let a little matter such as the will of the people stop a rollercoaster project?

At least the Irish were considered grown-up enough to be allowed a referendum on the matter.

I'm really not particularly pro or anti Europe (mainly because no-one has ever made a particularly well-reasoned argument either for or against it to me) but I do dislike the way the Eurocrats attempt to steamroller things through whether people like it or not. A bit like New Labour. Though probably most politicians would if they could.

I hope it's a resounding no vote in this case, to be honest because I feel the Treaty was backdoored on the vast majority of us.

[Saracen]

Absolutely, why let a little matter such as the will of the people stop a rollercoaster project?

Quite so.

...At least the Irish were considered grown-up enough to be allowed a referendum on the matter. ....

As I understand it, not really, no. They just have a constitution that requires it to be put to them. If that wasn't mandatory, given that just about the entire political elite wanted and supported the "yes" vote, would they have bothered asking the people? Not in my opinion, and certainly not if they thought they might lose.

..... I'm really not particularly pro or anti Europe (mainly because no-one has ever made a particularly well-reasoned argument either for or against it to me) but I do dislike the way the Eurocrats attempt to steamroller things through whether people like it or not. A bit like New Labour. Though probably most politicians would if they could.

I hope it's a resounding no vote in this case, to be honest because I feel the Treaty was backdoored on the vast majority of us.

I'm currently very Anti-EU. The main reason is that we (as in the UK) have had it shoved down our throats without our political masters ever bothering to ask us if we wanted it.

For those that don't know, or don't remember, we were taken into the EEC by Heath (Tory) without being given a voice. And the EEC was a very different creature from the EU.

We then, having spent the money and screwed up trade relations with traditional trading partners, including the Commonwealth countries, and put them on the outside of a trade barrier with us on the inside, were asked if we wanted to waste all that money spent going in by coming out? In other words, we were take in without being asked, presented with a fait accompli, and then told it would be economic suicide to leave, but here's a vote so you can if you want.

And that was about a trade block. All sorts of things were specifically excluded from that, including common borders, common or unified legal systems, common tax regimes, a common currency, common foreign policy, and so forth. All of which has, despite being promised it would not, has subsequently either happened or is in the process of happening.

And if anyone, like me, says "we've never been asked", the answer is "you could have voted for someone else at a General Election".

Oh? Who?

Until relatively recently, UKIP didn't exist, and even now, they don't have much credibility beyond a single issue. Other than them, the most Euro sceptical was the Tories and it was, don't forget, not only the Tories that took us in to the EEC in the first place but them that signed us up for Maastricht, etc. So, hardly a vote against the EU then.

Besides, General Elections are multi-issue events. They're about a whole range of things, not least, perceptions about the competence of the incumbent party and of the wannabees, and about the current economic climate. They're not a mandate on the EU project, especially when all three major parties are essentially for it, to greater or lesser degrees.

I have practical concerns about and issues with the EU. One is a common currency which, for us and for now, would be a mistake in my view. Another is the farcical administration of the EU, and the fact that they haven't even been able to sort out perceptions of (and perhaps actual) corruption, or to get their accounts signed off by auditors for a decade.

But my main current objection, and why I'm against the EU until such time as this has been addressed, is that We, the People, haven't been asked. And I get the distinct impression that that is a MAJOR part of the gripe a lot of us have.

If any government had the balls to do it, they could completely neutralise that objection, both from me and from a lot of people, by actually discussing the issues, make the arguments (for and against) and have a full, frank, intelligent and grown up debate about it. Then ASK PERMISSION. Get a mandate ..... if you can. Hold a referendum.

Or if they didn't think they could make the case, they should have stayed with the status quo, not made a huge constitutional decision for us.

Frankly, I have no idea how I'd vote if we were actually asked. It would depend on the issues at stake. I'd want categoric annunciation of where the project was going and what it was about, and what the limits on it were. Given that, and given protections about it being, for instance, up to THIS country when (and if) we join the Euro zone, I'd probably vote for it.

But I naffing well want to be asked, and I intensely resent it being shoved down my throat by successive generations of politicians, and Eurocrats, who don't have the courtesy or the cojones to ask us. They're support to represent us, not patronise and nanny us.