Well, if the socialistic and internationalist EU wants to play hard ball, and treat ireland like a rebel colony (sounds familiar?) then be my guest. It has happened before (mixed with religious, cultural, and political elements). If Sinn Fein and the parties who championed Irish independence in every aspect from the UK want to abandon their primary reason for being created, let them. That means their day is done for the Irish.

it is evident that the Irish population and the political elite are two worlds apart. it seems, historically, it always has. If we had a sham democracy like some Latin American country, where democracy is manipulated for the elite's purpose, the results would be different. But there is a referendum instead, direct democracy if you will, and the people are free to express their decisions by vote.

Irish -- Be not afraid!

Hi,
I'm proud to be Irish, and thank God for the result. I distibuted No Campaign leaflets door to door on crutches, and did it to save my country from the communists, or who do you think these land-grabbers are; disguised as the EU/UN? Ireland is a Democratic, sovereign nation, with the right, under God, according to our Constitution, to be self-governing. For 800 years we have been fighting off the foreigners who invaded, and took over our country, making our lives hell on earth. Thousands of our brave men & women gave their lives for our freedom, and now, because our so-called leaders, have so steeped themselves in corruption, and lies that we are expected to betray those who died for our freedom.This has nothing to do with Commsioners; nothing to do with getting a better deal for Ireland. It is to do with remaining a self-governing, Gaelic Nation. The EU have taken more from us than they have given; it's all a fairy-tale. We lost our Corrib Oil and Gas find; we lost our fishing rights; our right to farm as we have done when we owned our own land; we cannot even move to the rural areas because they want us in the towns where they can control us,and now they want to privatise our ESB, worth billions to the government every year all our rights have been taken away from us. We, the people are not stupid, but we, who are truly, Gaelic Irish, are angry. We told them No to Nice, and we were tricked at Nice 2 by the Voting Machines; you could say this our revenge for not listening to our Democratic Vote. We are Irish, and we want to stay Irish, and do not want to be absorbed by Europe - we would be much worse off than we were during our long, tortured history of foreigh occupation. Our "leaders" have lost touch with God, with Nationhood, and with their own people, and if another Referenum is forced upon us, we will say No again, and we add our voice to the voice of James Connolly, as he stood on the steps of the GPO in Dublin in 1916, and bravely shouted - NO SURRENDER. Eire go Brath. God save Ireland.

When Roman civilization was collapsing, Irish monks saved Western classics and laid a foundation for reinjecting Europe with the gifts of thoughtful reflection handed on by the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, and early Christian thinkers.

for dumb uneducated idiots like you:

Europe is much bigger then Ireland and Britain

Saw some of Cóir's materials over there - really first class stuff, reached out to people on lost of issues. Well done - go on the Irish

A SECOND SAVE FOR THE IRISH!

When Roman civilization was collapsing, Irish monks saved Western classics and laid a foundation for reinjecting Europe with the gifts of thoughtful reflection handed on by the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, and early Christian thinkers.

Now they rise once again to save Europe from plunging down a path of darkness lit by the "black light" of post-modern elitists who, in the name of protecting individual rights, are setting up a system of government that will inevitably disempower and objectify individiuals, their families, and even their cultures.

God bless the Irish! We thank you for your wisdom!

In a democracy proposals should be debated and passed on their merits and unfortunately the Lisbon treaty was complex and opaque making it very difficult for even some legal experts to understand.

The Lisbon Treaty is a treaty between governments to amend the workings of the EU; it is quirk of the Irish constitution that in all of the 27 member countries it had to be put to a referendum (18 of the 27 EU member states have ratified it.)

This allowed the Libertas NO campaign to make all sorts of ludicrous claims as to what passing this Treaty would entail.

Now there is the perception and the reality in other EU countries regarding the Irish No vote.

On both counts the anti-Lisbon vote was against the interests of Ireland and the European Union will move without us.

How does it look when we grabed billions in EU funding since it joined in 1973 with our 'poor mouth", and then turn around a give them the two finger salute?

Thirty years of hard work in shaping a favourable opinion and a positive image and good will toward Ireland as successful, small a pro European nation in Brussels has been squandered.

As for "civic pride" more blarney from a “jackeen” that owes his very right to work in Germany to the EU!

The Irish voter turnout was a meager 52% of eligible voters, quite low by Irish standards, and actually similar to voter turn outs in the United States of American (which can be less) which are often run on gross simplifications and caricature, come to think of it quite similar to the tactics of the Anti-Lisbon campaign.

Don't expect any sympathy from the EU as ECB interest rates go higher, farm supports are gutted, structural funding dry up and foreign investors have second thoughts all while Ireland enters a recession.

The best thing the Taoiseach could do would be to resign and call a general election with all the main political parties which back the treaty to campaign for it again.

Let’s see how many of the electorate really wants to elect the Christian Solidarity Party, Sinn Fein and the Brit interloper Declan Ganley to the run the country and the Irish economy.

As an Irishman happily living in Germany i was non too pleased to see my Berliner Zeitung morning newspaper's headline read;

"The Irish vote against Europe"

We are being villified as being somehow anti-European and, as one member of the Bundesrat quantly put it, the irish "duped Europe".. well! Aue contraire, mein lieber Herr! The Irish are amongst the most pro Europeans. Similar to our American cousins, we have a stong sense of civic pride and take our civic responsibilities seriously.

Jan Smajic: "Elected representatives exist so they can act on the behalf of their constituents, protecting their interests concerning matters that tend to be beyond the scope of comprehension of the average voter and such a decision was of that nature."

What planet do you live on and if these are matters that tend to be beyond the scope of comprehension of the average voter they should damn well be voted down.

T'is a Great Day for the Irish!

Yes, No, and in fact

Did the Lisbon Treaty endanger Ireland’s tax regime?

The Yes side says:

All parts of the Yes campaign say that the Lisbon Treaty has no implications for taxation policy. It remains an ‘‘exclusive competency’’ of the member states – Brussels-speak for something that the EU is not allowed to interfere with. All the political parties (bar Sinn Fein), the European Commission, Ibec and the Business Alliance for Europe say that Lisbon has no implications for our taxation rates - though, obviously, they have a stake in the argument. More persuasively, representative bodies of accountants and tax advisers, as well as the OECD, say that Ireland’s tax rates remain outside the influence of Brussels, with or without the treaty. Even Laszlo Kovacs, the EU commissioner for taxation, who is pushing the plan for a common corporate tax base across Europe, last week confirmed to Labour’s Eamon Gilmore that the Irish veto would remain in place after Lisbon.

The No side said:

The Libertas campaign bus is adorned with the slogan: ‘‘Don’t let Brussels set our tax rates’’. The group’s posters warn that the treaty could allow Brussels to alter the Irish taxation regime though the back door. Coir, associated with the antiabortion group Youth Defence, has printed thousands of posters which advise a No vote in order to ‘‘Keep taxes low’’. Libertas also argues that the European Court of Justice could decide that Ireland’s low corporation tax is a barrier to competition and therefore illegal under EU treaties. The group also warns about plans by the taxation commissioner, backed by the French who hold the next presidency of the EU, to introduce a common corporate tax base. ‘‘The fact is that business can, and should, put a stop to CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) with a No vote,’’ Libertas says.

In fact:

Ireland’s taxation position is not affected by the treaty, as the independent Referendum Commission has said. Suggestions that Lisbon spells the end of Ireland’s ability to set low corporate tax rates are simply wrong. The other countries of Europe - some of them with even greater sensitivity about their tax rates - concur with this. The European Commission is preparing proposals for a common corporate tax base which could have implications for how taxes are calculated across the EU, though Ireland cannot be forced to take part. As Commission President Jose¤ Manuel Barroso confirmed in an interview with The Sunday Business Post, a group of countries could proceed with the CCCTB under the enhanced cooperation procedures. But that is unaffected by Lisbon.

How will the Lisbon Treaty affect employment rights?

The Yes side said:

The EU has been of enormous benefit to Irish workers, and all of the social legislation which has improved working conditions - including equal pay, better holidays, health and safety in the workplace, limits on working time, parental leave and anti-discrimination provisions came from Europe - says the Yes side. The treaty contains new social values that improve workers rights by enshrining the Charter of Fundamental Rights in EU law. The charter will make the right to collective action and to bargain collectively with employers a Europe-wide right. Consequently, the treaty cannot be used to interfere with the fundamental right of workers to take strike action to protect their livelihoods. Irish trade unions do not currently have the right to collective bargaining enshrined in law, and there is no automatic guarantee that the charter’s rights will apply in all instances in domestic law. But if the treaty is passed, says the Yes side, trade unions will be in a stronger position to negotiate with the government on extending to Irish workers the rights that will apply to most other EU countries.

The No side said:

The EU is headed in a neo-liberal direction which favours big business over employment rights and should not be given additional powers. The No side points to three key judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which they say show that the pendulum has swung against workers’ rights and that the EU’s political direction has moved away from ‘social Europe’. Judgments in the Laval and Viking cases accepted that workers had the right to organise in unions, but raised questions about the right to undertake industrial action where it conflicted with the provision of goods and services. In the Ruffert case, it found that a Polish subcontractor operating inGermany was entitled to pay workers less than half the agreed minimum wage for the German construction sector, as the right to provide unrestricted services tookpriority over collective wage agreements.They also say that, since Irish law does not guarantee workers the right to collective bargaining, the treaty’s charter would have no application to Irish workers on this matter.

In fact:

Recent ECJ decisions appear to favour the free movement of goods and services over the rights of labour. Nonetheless, the overall thrust of the court on social justice issues has been positively disposed to employee rights, particularly in relation to equal pay. Failure to apply the Lisbon Treaty’s charter to Irish workers would be a matter for Irish law, the government and trade unions to negotiate in the context of social partnership talks, rather than a shortcoming of the treaty. It appears likely that the Labour Court will refer a test case dispute on collective bargaining rights to the ECJ to adjudicate on the applicability of the charter in domestic law.

Does the Lisbon Treaty endanger Ireland’s neutrality?

The Yes side said:

There is no threat to Ireland’s traditional policy of neutrality. The Yes side points to the declaration secured after the defeat of the first Nice referendum and the constitutional amendment that took place after that. Ireland cannot participate in any military action without a UN mandate, a proposal from the government and approval by the Dail. The treaty will enhance European co-operation in peacekeeping activities, the Yes side says, not promote militarism. Pointing to the warnings given by No campaigners in previous referendums they ask: ‘‘Exactly how many times can we lose our neutrality?”

The No side said:

The treaty enhances and deepens a military role for the EU and Ireland’s participation in it. For many of the left-wing groups campaigning against the treaty - groups such as the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (Pana), the Irish Anti-War Movement and the People’s Movement, neutrality is the big issue of the campaign - not just a political issue, but a moral question. ‘‘Lisbon is all about creating a centralised, militarised, neo-liberal EU superstate allied to the US and engaged in wars all over the world,’’ wrote Roger Cole of Pana recently.

In fact:

Because there isn’t general agreement on what Ireland’s neutrality means, it’s not really possible to say if it is undermined or not. Some see the use of Shannon by US forces as having ended Irish neutrality, but others believe that it doesn’t affect our traditional stance. What is indisputable is that, in recent years, defence co-operation has become an increasing - though still relatively minor - part of the EU’s operations. Lisbon continues this process with a provision that creates the possibility for ‘‘permanent structured co-operation’’ among states wishing to have it. However, Ireland is under no obligation to join any such arrangements. Currently, the Irish army cannot participate in overseas missions unless the ‘‘triple lock’’ – UN mandate, government decision, Dail approval - is satisfied, and this will not change if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.

Will Lisbon lead to the legalisation of abortion?

The Yes side said:

Europe is not interested in the Irish abortion debate. Besides, the Maastrict protocols are still in place. Opposition from the hardcore wing of the pro-life movement has been a feature of every European referendum campaign, they say, but abortion hasn’t yet been foisted on Ireland yet. Most pro-life people agree, they say. However, nobody is happier than the Yes side when anti-abortion campaigners get into the debate. Because the Charter of Fundamental Rights only has effect where EU law is being administered, it has no effect on Irish law relating to abortion.

The No side said:

Many of the groups campaigning for a No vote are wary of making an issue of abortion, conscious that middle-ground voters who harbour doubts about the treaty could be nervous about aligning themselves with some elements of the pro-life movement, such as Youth Defence. However, Coir, a group which is fronted by at least one former member of Youth Defence and which shares an address with that organisation, has claimed that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to the legalisation of abortion, gay marriage, hard drugs and prostitution. Libertas says that it is not campaigning on the issue of abortion but it has raised the possibility that it could lead to Ireland’s strict regime on abortion being compromised. No campaigners say that because European law will override Irish law, the European Court could rule that abortion must be permitted here.

In fact:

In areas where the states have agreed through treaties to share common laws, EU law has always has primacy over national law. If member states could cite the superiority of national law when confronted with EU directives, then the EU would be unable to function. Common standards and rules could not exist. This has been the case since 1972. Generally, abortion is not permitted in Ireland, and there is specific protection for the unborn written into the Irish Constitution. The protocol to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 explicitly recognises that nothing in any European treaty can affect the Irish constitutional position on abortion. The Referendum Commission has issued a statement in these terms, and the Catholic bishops - not normally known as backsliders on abortion - have agreed. The guarantees with regard to abortion that Ireland enjoys might never have happened were there not a strong awareness among pro-life campaigners and politicians that Ireland’s position could have been subject to European challenge - but the protocol is there now, and it is unaffected by the Lisbon Treaty.

Will Ireland lose its commissioner?

The Yes side said:

Having 27 commissioners doesn’t make sense - there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around. On Romanian accession, for instance, the new Romanian member of the Commission, Leonard Orban, was given responsibility for multilingualism. The rotation of commissioners will ensure that large and small countries are treated on the basis of strict equality. The No side says:

Though the theory is that commissioners leave their national allegiances at the door, in fact each state’s commissioner is a vital national champion at the highest decision making level in the EU. They are even more important for small states, as the big countries have inherent clout anyway. The Lisbon proposal means that Ireland would be deprived of a vital voice for five out of every 15 years, which would seriously damage Ireland’s national interest, say most of the No side.

In fact:

Ireland does face the loss of a commissioner for five out of every 15 years under the Lisbon Treaty, but so does everybody else. If Lisbon is defeated, the existing position, where every member state has a commissioner, will expire in 2009 - a provision of the Nice Treaty. Though no mechanism has been agreed by the council, this would have to happen in the next year and a half, and must be agreed unanimously by the prime ministers. The number of commissioners will be reduced in 2014 if Lisbon is passed, and in 2009 if it is defeated.

Does the Lisbon Treaty weaken Ireland’s voice in the EU?

The Yes side said:

A new system of qualified majority voting (QMV) is needed to ensure that an expanded EU with 27 member states functions more effectively. This new ‘‘double majority’’ system will give smaller countries protections and prevent three larger countries grouping together to support a decision of the Council of Ministers. The double majority system stipulates that 55 per cent of the member states must agree a decision of the Council of Ministers, which accounts for 15 of a total 27 member states. Additionally, 65 per cent of the EU population must support a decision. The treaty will also expand the number of areas - including energy, transport, humanitarian aid and the election of the European Council president - where QMV, rather than unanimity, applies to increase efficiency of decision-making at EU level. There is an opt-out clause in immigration, asylum and justice matters. The Referendum Commission has stated that the veto is retained in key decisions including taxation, World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks, the constitutional ban on abortion, neutrality and common foreign and security policy. Additionally, national parliaments will have eight weeks to vet EU proposals and offer an opinion.

The No side said:

The treaty’s new voting system puts more emphasis on member states’ population, and has the effect of increasing the weighted vote of larger member states - France, Germany, Italy and Britain - while reducing the weighted vote of smaller countries. Currently, a decision based on QMV requires 255 weighted votes of a total 345,which is almost 74 per cent of the total. Under the system, Germany’s relative voting weight on the Council of Ministers will double from 8 per cent to 17 per cent, and the voting weight of France, Britain and Italy will increase from 8 per cent to 12 per cent. Ireland’s weighted vote will more than halve from2 per cent to 0.8 per cent. They say the double majority system means Germany and France can still band together with two other countries to forma blocking minority against decisions by the Council of Ministers. The No side also feels the EU is extending into more and more policy areas, while the threshold for a blocking minority has come down. It is removing the veto from more policy areas – the No side claims 60 areas are removed, while the Referendum Commission states it is 24 areas.

In fact:

While the Referendum Commission states that the new double majority voting system is not directly comparable with the current system, it is recognised that the current weighted voting system gives more representation to smaller countries than the new population-weighted system. The relative loss of influence will to some extent be counterbalanced by a double-majority clause. The new system permits four countries including Germany and France to take a blocking minority to decisions of the Council of Ministers and extends the number of areas in which the veto is removed. Most decisions are currently reached by forming deals with other member states, and not by member states threatening to forma bloc to veto deals. Nonetheless, the power to employ a veto is integral to consensual decision-making. The political imperative to change the voting system to increase efficiency suggests that it may become more influential in speeding up policy decisions after the Lisbon Treaty. Aspects of the treaty may be amended without a referendum. However, this will be based on advice sought by the government from the Attorney General, and must conform with the constitution.

Can we send it back?

The Yes side said:

Following the tortuous construction of the Constitutional Treaty - and its defeat - Lisbon has been agreed by 27 member states. It’s a careful balancing act where everyone accepts compromises while protecting their vital national interests. If Ireland rejects the treaty, reopening negotiations between all the member states is simply not feasible. The treaty will fall, the Yes side says, and Ireland’s position in Europe will be severely damaged - with severe consequences for Ireland’s interests in EU negotiations. Last week, Dermot Ahern said it was ‘‘ludicrous’’ to say Ireland could go back and renegotiate the treaty.

The No side says:

Both Libertas and Sinn Fein say we can send the treaty back and demand a better deal for Ireland, citing several demands that Ireland should make in new negotiations. These range from narrow demands for a protocol on taxation to a wholesale renegotiation on such issues as the number of commissioners. Other No groups say that the entire thrust of the European project should be changed. Their slogan is: ‘‘Another Europe is possible’’. But even if the present treaty were renegotiated, they would be unlikely to support it.

In fact:

It’s impossible to know if a renegotiation is possible and, if it was, whether the outcome would be favourable to Ireland. Most people in Brussels say Ireland’s interests would be severely damaged; but most of them are pro-Lisbon. What we can say is that the EU will not cease to function if the treaty is defeated; it has, after all, managed to exist without it in recent years. However, most people accept that Ireland has benefited greatly from being an enthusiastic participant in the EU. Should Ireland reject the treaty, that status will unquestionably be altered.

Heavens, every conspiracy theorist going is thumping his chest and bragging about his Irish granny and what a proud blow for liberty the Irish have struck against the faceless bureaucrats.

Some interesting neutral comment here

http://wombatdiet.net/2008/06/13/lucky-friday-the-13th/

Sometimes the truth is rather prosaic.

"It ran contrary to the values of democracy and recognition of constituent, subsidiary entities that are enshrined in the US constitution (through, for example, the provision of a popularly elected president and a state-based Senate)"
Well let’s talk about the “American style democracy” everybody talks about it but nobody would actually want to do it!
How many of the worlds democracies run on the US model of executive presidency? Sure the world might look up to the Unites States for ideals in freedom but nobody would seriously want to actually run a “democracy” like the US.
But certainly the Anti-Lisbon was run just like American style campaign fueled with outright misinformation, distortion, scare tactics and secretive funding resulting in the Anti-Lisbon campaign winning with a large share of the ultra-nationalist (red states) working class (blue-collar) and ultra-Catholics (evangelicals) who won with 53% No vote to 47% for the Yes with only 53% of the electorate actually turning out! And some Irish wonder how President Bush won two elections?!!
For proof enough of the misinformed on the anti-EU camp, the last time I checked the office of the US President was not popularly elected! But through the process of the "electoral college" which as we have seem recently can elected the President of United States even without winning the popular vote.

As for subsidiary within the EU there are the

"European Council"

which is a twice annual meeting of the Heads of State of all EU members,

And the

"Council of Ministers" an Executive Body drawn up from the twenty-seven EU national ministers represented with one minister per state.

These two bodies are analogous to the US Senate.
(Which of course is not strictly democratic since the votes of North Dakota’s 1/2 million people count as equal to that of 30 million Californians as far as Senate representation goes)?

The last time I checked "elected representatives" are elected to represent and negotiate such as treaties between national governments.

How is this undemocratic?

Do the anti-Europeans want a plebiscite every time a new EU directive is proposed?

As far as analogies to Nazi Germany just goes to show how much Murdoch’s British tabloids have seeped into the minds of some the Irish electorate.

It is little cart before the horse would nt you say?

The one thing that has prevented conflict these past fifty years (asides from American and Russian military hegemony) and will forever prevent conflict between Poland and Germany is their membership within the European Union;

The same will be true for Bosnia Croatia and Serbia someday. The EU is not perfect but it’s the only game in town and your “in” or sidelined.

Its far better Europeans come to consenus within the EU rather than be divided and subject to the stategic interests of the United States, Russia and China.

The idea of Ireland as a totally independent economically self sufficient sovereign 32 county Irish Republic was a 19th century romantic dream, and is as much out touch with 21st century realities as the Jacobite cause was in the age of the French Revolution.

The Irish vote on Lisbon was a case of democracy working to reject an anti-democratic proposal, presented undemocratically, and it vindicates what often may seem a naive belief that when the general public is consulted, they can make very serious decisions very well.

This proposal was part of an ongoing trend in EU planning, whereby a small group of political leaders and bureaucrats has tended to arrogate to itself the authority and image of a State, without any sense of obligation to obtain the democratic mandate that makes such authority legitimate. The thrust of this draft was to limit the voice of small states by enhancing that of bigger ones.

At the same time, through creation of a "presidency" and a "foreign affairs" service, it would give still further powers to an unelected bureaucracy, which judging by past experience can be expected to favour the interest of big business, and to show very little insight or sensitivity to the concerns of less-powerful constituencies.

While this Treaty would give powers to EU institutions that would increasingly resemble those of the US federal bodies, it ran contrary to the values of democracy and recognition of constituent, subsidiary entities that are enshrined in the US constitution (through, for example, the provision of a popularly elected president and a state-based Senate) and make it such an effective basis for joint action.

Alongside of these substantive problems, the manner in which this was advanced displays a similar contempt for public opinion.

This "Treaty" is essentially the same "Constitution" that was rejected by popular votes in France and Netherlands four years ago. It is an extraordinary piece of effrontery to try to ram this through a second time, essentially unchanged, but this time relying on Parliamentary ratification precisely because its supporters don't want to be bothered with consulting or persuading those whom the Treaty affects. It is very likely that, if they were asked, a majority of European voters today would be just as unenthusiastic as the Irish electorate that alone among the public of all EU members actually had the opportunity to express their views.

And the kinds of arguments that were addressed to the Irish voters in the run-up to the referendum suggest the same kind of arrogance, both foreign politicians' outrageous threats that Irish voters “had better approve, or else...”; and national leaders efforts to "guilt-trip" voters into accepting out of "gratitude" for what the EU had done for them in the past. Ireland is a co-equal and voluntary partner in a multi-State experiment in collaboration; it is not a wayward child to be reprimanded or intimidated into doing what others know is best for it. Never was there any sign of a respectful and serious effort to explain to voters what was in this for them - which is the obvious starting point if any sovereign people is being asked to voluntarily accept a new legal relationship to a larger body.

Hopefully, this vote may be taken seriously as a challenge to substantive problems of a democratic deficit, and a rejection of efforts to side-line public opinion, rather than merely eliciting further efforts to brow-beat and hood-wink voters to swallow what they have now twice clearly rejected. There is plenty of enthusiasm in Ireland and in Europe for closer collaboration, but the question should be posed seriously. If presented respectfully with thoughtful proposals, perhaps including an elected President or a State-based Senate, the Irish -- and European -- publics might respond quite differently than they did this week.

I voted no. I didn't think that Europe should be given even more power. Now that I see the venom of the pro-Europeans and their anti-democratic attitude, I'm doubly glad I voted no and I will vote no again when they present the same EU demands again in another form. If they want to rule us, why don't they just march in, instead of insisting that we must pretend to say yes.

As the European Empire begins to look like the Fourth Reich in its mentality am I wrong in thinking that 1936-39 was the era of using false plebescites to cover Empire-building?

'How dare the Irish in 2008' begins to echo 'how dare the Poles' in 1939.

The No campaign was pretty much a proxy fight by Brit Euroskpectics, Sinn Fein ultra-nationalist, fundamentalist Catholics, paranoid pacifist and folks who were genuinly confused and misinformed.

Its ironic that the anti-Lisbon "Liberatas" organisation talked about the loss of Irish netrality when its British founders are part of the US military supply chain through their companies.

Its ironic that they claimt eh EU would treaten Irish corporate tax rates when it was the EU that forces the Irish government to harmonize the difference between the rates for domestic and export industries under EU trade rules.

Its ironic that we had the British tabloid press in Ireland urging a note note to mainatin Irish independence.

Its ironic since had Sinn Fein/IRA had its way the island of Ireland would have gone the same way as Bosnia with massive ethnic clensing.

Its ironic that the ultra-catholics denounces the treaty because of fears the introduction of abortion when even the Irish bishops denounced such misinformation and the Pope himself seem to favour the Yes campaign when he spoke of Irish contribution to European civilisation.

Its ironic the misinformation by leftie pacifist regarding common EU defence arrangements since the status quo allows for American military hegemony over western Europe.

The Yanks and their Brits poodles dont want to see an more unified and assertive EU (nor of course does Russia) Good to have a common market access but thats about all.

We saw how the Yanks picked off and divided Europeans over Iraq, missile defense, trade etc all the better to maintain their geo-stategic dominance.

Do you think the French and Germans publics would have voted for the European Coal and Steel pact back in the 1950s? The EU is founded on and functions on treaties between elected governments not by the popular vote.

If the popular sentiment was prime we probably have had several more wars in Europe by now.

Had the EU not existed today European nations would all have closed borders with heavily protected markets, lumbering state owned industries,restricted travel and immigration and be far more ultra-nationlist, hostile and xenophobic.

THe EU project will still proceed two steps forward and one step back and in a century the EU will like Switzerland but of the globe. A peaceful and properous conferderation of European states build on consesus and compromise.

Masonic conspiracy failed. The garbage elitist in Brusselles showe the real intentions to go ahead with their agenda. These Irish people said NO and still the fricking masons don't want to give up.After this blow what else will they come with to enthrone the new order government a single religion and so on.All of us should be aware.

The EU Empire: Lisbon Treaty

The Irish people are at a crossroads. They can choose to remain a relatively young democratic nation or become a province of an empire once again.

http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Denny10.htm

The Irish have chosen!

Joe in Ireland wrote " It was poorly delivered by the EU, and looked suspicious in all the official's hands. "

The people of Europe don't have a clue where their leadership will lead them. It's a preparation for WW3 and the EU is like a big frying pan. The silent motto is "join and be fried later".

Congratulations Ireland for saying NO. But the EU won't stop here. It will return just as it did in other countries when the people voted NO but was later overuled by their parliaments.

Several commentators have referred to me and my comments regarding the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty. To respond to a few of their points: 1) There is no question but that many aspects of EU governance are bureaucratic and, indeed, wasteful. Due to a decades-old indulgence to de Gaulle, for example, the European Parliament ports itself on a regular basis from its base in Brussels to Strasbourg, France at a cost of some 600 million Euro per year, a ridiculous expenditure of which European taxpayers are justifiably resentful. 2) Likewise, there is also no question but that the EU’s administrative branch, the Commission, particularly in the past, has shown itself possessed of a’tin ear’ with regard to how it is perceived by the citizens of the Member States; the Lisbon Treaty curbs the power of the Commission and makes it more responsive as an entity. 3) Anyone who follows Member State politics is very aware of the fact that national governments routinely use Brussels as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings; failings in the EU structure are often created, or exacerbated, to enhance domestic political policies and reputations. 3) Globalization, and the loss of traditional internal controls that characterize the phenomenon are, indeed, a matter of concern to Europeans, Americans and to many others. But the rush of global capital to the lowest common denominator is a contemporary reality, one that is affecting, and changing, every society. Blaming Brussels for the loss of Member State “sovereignty” is both wrong and short-sighted. However imperfectly, the EU is attempting to maximize Europe’s collective role in the world. Strength in numbers is not merely a slogan, it is a fact. 4) By any measure the standard of living of the citizenry of every Member State has risen since the accession of each into the Union, and the benefit to the Irish of EU membership has been among the most dramatic. 5) Only the most naïve would doubt that there are elements of the American polity which seek to ensure a Europe that is strong and stable enough to serve useful geo-political and trade functions but simultaneously desire a Europe that cannot aggressively chart a foreign policy disfavored by the US. To ask for proof of such machinations is akin to asking for Bush administration for confirmation of the details of extraordinary rendition.

On balance the growth of the European Union has been a net plus. It is an entity borne out of the wreckage of a post-WWII Europe, one that continues to evolve. Americans can pine for the hegemony of the 1950s and 60s, but that world is gone. So change happens for everyone. Europeans, however inelegantly, are forging a new way in the world, and is so doing are reshaping themselves and the rest of us.

Joe in Ireland wrote " It was poorly delivered by the EU, and looked suspicious in all the official's hands. "

The people of Europe don't have a clue where their leadership will lead them. It's a preparation for WW3 and the EU is like a big frying pan. The silent motto is "join and be fried later".

Congratulations Ireland for saying NO. But the EU won't stop here. It will return just as it did in other countries when the people voted NO but was later overuled by their parliaments.

Well done, lads.

We, the people are the sovereign.

Let the people speak and decide!

Long live Irish democracy!

Such a small country has global impact. Why is that? Ireland is strategically located, a coastal island not yet having celebrated its centennial. 100 years of recovery and numbness from invasion and civil war.

Not to complicate the treaty of Lisbon, a 'yes' vote would have perhaps buried, while certainly making murky the waters for Irish independence.

The result of the poll reflects a collective consciousness of a fractured country; 26 counties in a free state, and 6 counties to the north where the forced marriage between 2 partners is teetering on divorce.

I don't like the fact that people are reacting like we're snubbing the EU. I'm pro-European, count myself as being a European and I voted no because I looked at what was asked of me. The Lisbon Treaty is self-amending. Any state would have to be crazy to allow a self-amending treaty to be ratified. It was poorly delivered by the EU, and looked suspicious in all the official's hands.

And while I would agree with many others that there are people out there resistant to change, to European ideas, etc, I don't think articles like this help. You're polarising the argument, and that won't bring us to any formative solution. The beautiful thing about a democracy is that it must move slowly. I like to think that we in Ireland served our European family well, and slowed things down enough today. And while we may get bad press, there are more important things at stake.

With 27 nations and a necessity of consensus for everything, Europe is simply too big to move on. The EU should be formed only by its founders : France, Germany Italy and the Benelux(Belgium,the Netherlands and Luxembourg) with some differents agreements with other nations like the UK, Irland, Spain and others.
What is the common point between a Scott and a Greek by instance?: none.
Its time to reduce the paquet and let the nations who burded Eurosceptics to follow their own track without bothered the real Europe believers...

Cheers to my fellow no-voting and abstaining citizens - we are now screwed. Don't ever expect to see us carry any weight in Europe again. There was nothing to fear from Lisbon. Now we have everything to fear. I voted yes. I am proud of Irish democracy and I respect the result. However, I am utterly embarrassed and ashamed that we are now rightly viewed as selfish and ingrateful by our fellow Europeans. When things start to slip down hill, which they will, remember that we did this to ourselves.

It is important to remember that the majority of citizens opposed the Treaty of Lisbon before, when it was packaged as a European Constitution. The differences between the two are negligble, thus says Angela Merkel, Gordon Brown, and other leaders while speaking to their parliaments. In polls taken throughout Europe, there is still widespread and deeply felt opposition to it - and in a number of countries like Great Britain, apparently a majority. So why are their leaders so darn eager to cram it down their throats that they will repackage it as a treaty so that no plebiscites are needed?

Maybe people oppose it in Britain or Ireland as an expression of dissatisfaction with the way their national governments represent them. Or perhaps, they are dissatisfied with their national governments' representation of them on such issues.

So? What's the difference?

The point is that in a democracy leaders are to be somewhat responsible to the will of their constituents. If people in Ireland are willing to let their economy tank in order to live in Ireland rather than in Irengancany, in order to be governed from Dublin rather than from Brussels - so be it. They have that right. So have the people in ENGland, FrANCe, and GermANY. Kudos to the Irish Republic's government for recognizing that, in the face of the cold cynicism and political manipulations of other national governments.

The campaign advertisements in Ireland show a great deal. To sell a "Yes" supporters placed posters of their own visages, or of half-naked people and sexual innuendo promising enlarged "opportunities." Opponents, on the other hand, reminded citizens of the bravery and sacrifice of their grandparents to secure the right to control their own national destiny, and not to sell it overseas for the price of a couple melons in front of a pretty blonde's chest.

Leaders in Europe are trying to forge a new nation, a transethnic state to compete with the US and China. America was not forged in the same way as modern Europe - we shared a history of pilgrimage, exile from home, search for liberty, and common concerns from the outset. Europe, on the other hand, is being forged by the hands of very powerful and wealthy people who want only to increase their own wealth and power.

This is truly a case of the mouse that roared. Way to go, Ireland. Keep at home the rule you fought so long to bring there.

Freedom what a great word!:

I find it ironic you criticize Americans about commenting on this issue and then say at the end of your post Go Obama.

I don't know if media coverage is the same partial bias over there as here but a lot of Americans actually looking into the candidates find Obama is not what he is made out to be.

I don't presume to think that I know which politicians European countries should elect so I don't understand it I guess. In my opinion Americans, Europeans and other people around the world have a lot in common but devisive media and politicians forward their agendas by dividing and conquering.

Each of our nations has unique problems as well as common ones. One of the big problems plaguing health care and other facets of life in America is litigation. My understanding is litigation isn't as out of control in most European countries.

Once again hats off to Irish for this vote. I've read through some of the proposed treaty and although confusing I did see some things that I would be concerned with if I lived in Europe. I bet the no vote would represent a lot of voters as evidenced by French and Dutch the last time.

Irish fellows voted for no. What would the people of the other EU countries have would said if they had given a right to vote? Why don't we create a poll asking people of each country? AT least we can have and Idea, I'm sure Ireland wouldn't be the only one with the NO. Lets play the "If.." factor

Way to go Ireland!

And with a huge Housing Bubble ready to explode...! You know! things can easily go downhill from here...

Ireland voted to preserve the very same EU it benefited from so much. There is no moral obligation in accepting the benefits of union as currently constituted which requires accepting a radical change in said union, nor any logical connection between the two.

This is especially true since the Lisbon Treaty, in all major respects, is the same constitution rejected by the French and Dutch peoples. The EU, understood in democratic terms, is the people of the member states, not any specific set of institutions or politicians. The people of Ireland arguably owed it to the EU to reject the treaty, lest it be imposed on the people of France and the Netherlands against their expressed will.

People voting on a treaty they have not read, extreme-rights front groups fueling the No vote with a Goebbelsian propaganda, a pitiful Sinn Féin playing again the "B plan" card -vote No to allow us to discuss another treaty which will of course fit better our narrow views- etc. It was a pitiful day for Ireland.

Hurray for Ireland!

If you don't understand the terms of a treaty, and if officials cannot cogently explain it, that's a pretty good reason to reject it.

A NO vote was just a postponement in this case. The issue will come up again, and hopefully, the bureaucrats who work and act as the servants of the people will be able to explain it better.

This result has nothing to do with Ireland in particular; most other nations would also have rejected the treaty if they'd beeen allowed to have a say. So all of the sniping at "ungrateful" Irish is disingenuous. The real lesson here is that Europeans are not satisfied with the distant, unaccountable beaurocratic process that drives EU integration these days. That the beaurocrats didn't get this back when the previous treaty was rejected is made clear by their response: to draft yet another bloated, obscure treaty without public input, and demand that it be enacted with even less public approval. The entire process is backwards: you build a consensus, and then enshrine it in a treaty. You don't start with the treaty and then insist that people support it. Some serious thought needs to be put into the problem of connecting a supranational organization to the people, not just to their respective national governments. When the people of Europe are pushing their national governments for a treaty, rather than the other way around, is when this will succeed.

Well... with or without Ireland the Lisbon treaty will move on. So, the Irish are now one of the riches countries in the EU. Congratulations! Apparently many of the critics supporting the no were afraid of losing power in Brussels. But it would be a miracle if a country with 6 million inhabitants would have more power in the world if it were outside the EU.

I Love a Democracy!!!!!

I (also) live in Southern California, do business in the EU, and my Scots wife of 39 years, as well as my German son-in-law join me in a hearty "CONGRATULATIONS" to the Irish - well done!

Way to go Ireland! Love you for your independence and fortitude in the face of oppression. Not once but many times. If all the countries had the right of referendum this farce of democracy wouldn't have come close to passing. Keep up the fight for freedom and God bless Ireland.
ERIN GO BRAGH!

The working class were fooled with spin, lies and misdirection.

A sad day for Ireland.

The article says that the populace of several other counries would reject the treaty if there were a referendum. Wouldn't that be just terrible. Thank God the Irish constitution requires a vote by the people. Ironic that the anti-EUers in Britian still have a chance to prevent loss of soverignity due to the action of a people they kept in thrall for centuries. Erin Go Bragh!

*GDP per capita, obviously...

As an Irish voter, I'm taken aback by the venom of the pro-treaty comments, and by the enthusiasm of people who think we were voting for Freedom or against the European project.

As I said before, I voted 'yes', with serious reservations about some of the provisions of the treaty, and without - despite my best efforts and 8 years of university education - fully understanding it.

I can see why other Irish people voted 'no', in all conscience, as Irish people and Europeans, because they didn't think it was in the interests of Ireland or Europe.

To suggest that Irish people in general are somehow anti-Europe is nonsense, but people voted 'no' for a whole host of specific reasons - not only because the detailed checks and balances and pro-democratic measures in the treaty weren't enough in the end to convince voters that their voices would be heard.

It's also worrying that people seem to think that Ireland owed it to the EU to vote yes because it was a beneficiary of EU aid - are you seriously in favour of vote-buying on a national scale?

Ireland is now a net contributor to the EU and has been more open than most EU states in allowing entry to migrant workers from accession states. And, in passing, EU financial assistance in building Irish infrastructure in the 90's was a major factor in Ireland's economic miracle (we now have the third highest GDP in Europe), but it wasn't the only one...

If in the end really happens that Ireland will have to face solitude being isolated by the rest of Europe because of their NO on this Treaty, people around the world against bulling should stand and back this country that had the guts to be themselves saying their opinion. Is so sad to hear people say that Ireland is arrogant after all the help has been given in the past, I thought all the humanitarians works on helping countries to develop were unconditional. Do we really want a Europe that "helps" their countries on the condition of their silent content that can cost their soul? No thanks.

Mr McCall

You selfish amadan, all you can think of is your self and your partner. So narrow minded and simplistic. This was not a vote about you and your partner.

Wash, DC