No, Non, Nien etc
You get my drift 
The great thing about a poll like this is that no matter how anyone votes UI will keep reposting the poll until everyone gets it right.
A no only lasts as long as it takes to get a yes. Resistance to the EU is futile.
By the by, I thought this article by Daniel Hannan was interesting on the topic.
YES Yes YES I'm glad that we weren't all afraid of losing our sovereignty when the money was being doled out. The Irish have had more puching power in the world since joining the EU and this scare mongering about France and Germany ruling the roost, The small countries will have as much say in what happens. Anyway just because we said no once does mean we can't change our minds we did with Divorce and the Nice treaty after we got the New clause protecting neutrality that was the reason for the no vote.
As always it comes to the thorny issue of what you mean by losing our sovereignty. By our share of the vote in the council falling from just over 1% to just under 1%? Che Tragedia!
I voted yes because the 'constitution' merely reiterates most of what's in the previous treaties. It says very little that's new, makes for fairer voting in the light of enlargement and does so in a tidier way.
One thing is though, whoever thought to call the thing a treaty should be flayed.
I'm with Ciaran on this one. It has to be a YES. As already stated the document merely contains what what has already been agreed in previous treaties with the important addition of new voting rights without which the EU will not be able to function. Like it or loathe it we as a small nation need the EU, we also need to keep our high profile and the respect of other EU nations. This document I feel should never have been called a Constitution, it has put the fear of God in most people about federal governance from Europe, which just isn't realistic at the moment. If it was marketed as a treaty which combines all that we have previously agreed with new voting procedures to allow the accession states to join I don't think there would be so much hullaballoo. Oh yeah and it also brings the convention for Human Rights into a more prominant position and surely thats a good thing?
I am probably undecided but might lean towards Yes myself.
Some other parts of the statement by Noel Tracy are quite interesting:
"The holidays are drawing to a close. In other circumstances we might now be locked in a heated debate on a referendum to determine whether Ireland should ratify the European Constitution, but that is not to be this year.
One could be tempted to draw relief at that, frankly I am very disappointed...It is salutary that the product of an exercise involving so much effort and care has been rejected in two referendums. That has led to calls for a debate on the future of Europe, but we should not forget that the process leading to the Constitution itself began with similar calls, reflected in the declarations of Nice and Laeken. Nor should we forget that Spain and Luxembourg approved the Constitution by referendum as have the Parliaments of eleven further member states. The point of this is that we should not deceive ourselves about the likely outcomes of launching new processes. Let's focus on what we might achieve, starting with improving the basis for discussion and debate."
MacDaraMicahel
"The Irish have had more puching power in the world since joining the EU"
Yes and under this Constitution the EU will punch that power out of us!
"Anyway just because we said no once does mean we can't change our minds we did with Divorce and the Nice treaty after we got the New clause protecting neutrality that was the reason for the no vote"
You bring up the Nice treaty, do you think if we had said 'Yes' the first time there would have been another vote? Of course not. More proof that the EU will do anything to get their way. Spitting on democracy, even.
Ciaran
"As always it comes to the thorny issue of what you mean by losing our sovereignty. By our share of the vote in the council falling from just over 1% to just under 1%? Che Tragedia!"
"a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing member states comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union".
That seems pretty threatening to me.
Fi
"Like it or loathe it we as a small nation need the EU, we also need to keep our high profile and the respect of other EU nations."
Why as a small nation do we need the EU? What exactly is this "high profile" we have and why should we give a damn about the "respect of other EU antions" when we are a sovereign independent State?
Why can't they go back to the drawing board and deliver a Constitution that nation-states WILL support? The French and Dutch don't support it, hopefully neither will we and the British almost certainly won't. So it's time to scrap this abomination...
Don't get me wrong UI: I accept that the constitution is dead in the water. It was voted down (even if the votes reflected the crap governments of France and the Netherlands) and that's all there is to it.
Of course, some way has to be found to run a post-accession EU, so something will have to be done.
On your sovereignty point, well sovereignty is a word that lots of anti-constitution and anti-EU (not the same thing I know) bandy about, but I've no idea what they mean by it. I can't see how the constitution has any impact on the levels of sovereingty that Ireland has.
But those levels of sovereignty are not total. Could we set our own interest rates if we were outside the Eurozone (just for the sake of argument: I'm not suggesting that this is your line)? Well the answer is no. The Irish economy would collapse unless we tied an Irish currency to the Dollar or Euro or Sterling etc. So we'd have to follow their decisions about interest rates, not make our own.
Same for lots of issues in Europe: economic integration doesn't cede sovereignty because we never had economic sovereignty. Political integration gives us some degree of a worldwide voice, but not in exchange for some sort of sovereign unilateral worldwide voice. We just wouldn't have any voice if we didn't have some role in shaping and articulating the European line.
And as for domestic legislation, well lots of it is patently worthwhile and necessary for dealing with globalisation (unified risk management strictures for banks being a good example) or for giving us a single market to sell to.
Long comment I know. Anyway here's the thing. Instead of using the blanket term 'sovereingty,' why don't you name a specific element in the constitution and state why it stops the Irish doing something that they were totally free to do in the first place. Then at least we can argue over whether this is the case and if it is, over whether this element of sovereignty was worth having in the first place.
As for a constitution that (the electorates of) nation states will support, well I'm not sure that that's possible anymore, but that's for another comment!
Oh and
That seems pretty threatening to me.
Why?
Ciaran,
Article 5 of Bunreacht na hEireann:
"Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state."
The definition of sovereignty:
"The concept that a nation has complete autonomy to determine its own policies. There is no higher authority that dictates the decisions of a nation-state."
Now under this Constitution, our national veto vanishes over most areas and asylum and immigration issues will be decided by a voting system whereby:
"a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55% of the members of the council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing member states comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union".
Surely you accept this is a threat to our sovereignty since a 'higher authority' will dictate our decisons?
No I don't. Yes, QMV was extended to the Common Asylum Policy (without much debate among heads of government I might add), but again what degree of sovereignty would Ireland or any other EU state have if they went alone?
Specifically on asylum, the common policy doesn't mean that member states can't develop their own policies (a quick look at different policies would tell you that they have). Rather, they cooperate on the areas where cooperation is mutually beneficial. Sure, QMV decisions would be made, but only with regard to the EU's common line, based on the Tampere protocols, agreed way before this treaty.
Ciaran
"what degree of sovereignty would Ireland or any other EU state have if they went alone?"
I'm not suggesting Ireland leave the EU, I just object to this farcical voting system.
"Specifically on asylum, the common policy doesn't mean that member states can't develop their own policies (a quick look at different policies would tell you that they have). Rather, they cooperate on the areas where cooperation is mutually beneficial. Sure, QMV decisions would be made, but only with regard to the EU's common line, based on the Tampere protocols, agreed way before this treaty."
So we can "develop our own policies" yet the final decision will not be up to us? And you deem that acceptable?
Commenting by HaloScan
