Right, sorry folks for taking so long to weigh in here (not that you've been waiting on hand and foot for an Irish comment (don't think anyone else got in before me)). I'm going to try an explain what went on in Ireland prior to the referendum and the reason for the result.
First off, I am generally pro-EU and I voted Yes, though not without some pretty big reservations. Ireland has benefitted massively, possibly more than any other nation, from EU contributions, we have maintained a voting power that is VASTLY above the proportionate population and we have, so far, had to give very little back. We have also, for the last 15 (?) years, had a very low corporate tax rate (12% I think), which has been instrumental in out 'Celtic Tiger' economy. Basically we had economic growth of 6% approximately for about 7 years. This tax rate is currently unwelcome in the EU and with Lisbon would probably have had to be abolished eventually. However, Ireland, like most other economies is facing a pretty severe downturn; our housing/construction industry has ground to a halt due to global market events and that was our biggest driver. However, it's definately not as bad as some. Ireland is also a neutral country and while we do commit a large percentage (1/3 I think) of our army (infantry with some support armour) to peacekeeping missions, they have to be UN mandated and it's a pretty big issue to make sure we're kept out of any kind of offense or mutual defense army (which I completely disagree with). So thats pretty much the picture going into the referendum.
First off, the main parties, which constitute the current government and the vast majority of the opposition, were all pro-treaty and they made a complete mess of the campaign. Initially, before they were forced to respond more intelligently to well targetted if still largely untrue No propaganda (such as legalised abortion, full military action, loss of tax control), the Yes campaign consisted of posters with pictures of local politicians saying vote yes. No explaination bar scare tactics such as claims of how disasterous it'll be if we refuse and that'd we'd be ejected from the treaty. It was all just publicity for the next national election. This kind of thing has been done before and frankly it sickens me that they did it with something so important. But it was done regardless. Finally some debates were held but the Yes-side generally came out looking worse because it's a really hard treaty to sell.
As big as it was, it had to be vague, and so I don't think anyone could predict where it would lead. It left a lot of room for implementation as current events best dictated. And it was very easy for the Naysayers to point out bad or what looked like bad points. Certainly, small states lose power in all the institutions.
In the EU Parliament the voting power is reduced. They still generally vote above their weight, but written in black and white, they lose power. That's hard for people to swallow. But personally, I can accept that, no problem.
The EU Commission is reduced from 27 to 15 commissoners at any time, meaning that for five years EVERY country is without representation on the Commisson, which is the main proposer of new laws and legislation. This, the more I thought about it, is a problem for me. No one can claim that in the years the big states are without a commissoner they won't still have sway on the commisson. To think otherwise is unrealistic. However, for small nations, when unrepresented, they WILL be voiceless. That doesn't work for me. The new majority voting rules should take care of any contested votes. For me, if 55% of the nations, constituting 65% of the EU population cannot be attained then the legislation in question needs more work. There's no need to shut nations out completely for five years at a time.
The other possible issue was militarisation and the seeming creation of a military market to regulate arms sales for the EU as a whole. Militarisation for the purposes of mutual defense, aid, peacekeeping and even aggressive peace enforcement I have few problems with (not the majority view in Ireland as stated) but I'm not such a fan of a dedicated arms industry/trade, although I accept it may be an unavoidable partner.
I think that those were the real issues for the public and everything else was subsidiary.
One point that I noticed (well, my brother. He's doing a Masters Degree in Globalisation and knows his stuff) was a seemingly black and white clause stating that Lisbon would grant exclusive competencies (basically the complete right) to establish market rules in member states. That could would mean the forced abolishment of public health care and a range of other government run social projects. And that, in my opinion was a big negative point. But! It was only a possiblity. It seemed to be contradicted a few paragraphs down (I never read the actual treaty mind, just summaries and brochures) and everything I read seemed to state fairly clearly that member nations would have a veto in these traditionally internal matters.
But I'm not under any illusions. The majority of No voters were working class or farmers (who stand to lose huge EU payments) and these groups in general didn't care or try to understand the treaty. They saw it in it's most basic light; a loss of power and money. And that, while inevitable to some degree, is the Yes campaigns fault. Because of they way they ran the elections, there is no real polling data on why people voted no, or what issues bothered them most. So our Taoiseach (Prime Minister) goes back to Brussels with absolutely nothing useful to give them.
And I understand the EU politicians being angry. Thats fine. But the petulance of Borosso and Zarkosy (can't be bothered to spell check) to blurt out, on the day of the result, that Irelands decision will be ignored is insulting and infuriating. After all the talk about national vetos being respected and then to undermine the strongest veto we as a nation can make!? The hypocrasy is mind-boggling. Regardless that we constitute less than 1% of the population. This is the kind of worry that made France and Belgium vote no to the initial constitution. The reason why no other people have been allowed a vote. Because I believed then as I believe now, the treaty would be rejected by a huge popular consensus. I tried not to let the democratic injustices forced on the rest of the EU people influence my vote, I can't, no one can, ever vote for someone else. A vote is your own, no one elses, and to try and vote because of how you guess the voiceless would like is fantasy. But that doesn't make it any less of a reality.
If this rejection is not heeded at all then the Union has become precisely the type of conglomerate I don't want to be a part of. I voted for the treaty. A treaty that would have, had it been passed, taken away the ability for us, as a nation, to have such a vote again. I was under the assumption that we or our representatives would still have the ability to refuse any following EU policies that would be especially damaging to Ireland as seemed to be made clear for any nation. However, the beligerance and sabre-rattling that initially came from the EU bureaucracy has made me doubt my Yes vote and convinced me that if a stand needed to be made against the transition of the EU into a corporate voiceless state, then Lisbon was the time.
If the treaty, unchanged, is returned to Ireland for another vote, I'll be a No.
Phew, I'm glad that's over. I think that's my longest HLP post ever. I hope it's readable.
