Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Elmo · 21-01-2008 3:47pm #1

Sorry if there is another thread on this topic.

So as far as I can tell most of our political representives are for this treaty.

FF/FG/PD are all cut from the same cloth so I expected that they would all want us to vote YES

Labour/The Green I thought they might think about it, well the green thought about and haven't come to any conclusions other then to allow there sentors and TD pander to FF/PD logic.

Sinn Fein well they would be againist it wouldn't they.

Will any of the indepedents campaign? Unlikely they have their seats in the Dail got.

I just think it is strange to see that in every European country that all of the leaders are for this treaty, even those in opposition. The Conservatives in Britian will even sign on the dotted line, despite their protests of not having a referendum on the Treaty.

It is strange to see that of the elected representives in the Dail only 5 will campaign againist this treaty, and yet even if the Yes side win they will only have 60% of the vote. What about the other 40% of people who vote NO, where are their representives on this treaty?

I will vote againist this treaty as I feel it is undemocratic and it continues centralise Europe. I do not need any other reasons to vote againist this treaty.

Tommy T · 21-01-2008 4:03pm

It's possible a very broad coalition of very different ideologies could join forces to reject the referendum.

I am a PD/FF supporter but have no interest in rubber stamping a Treaty that no one else in Europe had an oppertunity to have their say on. That doen't make me 'anti-Europe' and support Ireland's continuing membership. But you'll also have the sceptics who say we're giving up even more sovereignty to Brussels and of course there's the Bertie haters who'll jump at the chance to give the Government a bloody nose...

It will be an interesting campaign...

The_Minister · 21-01-2008 4:08pm

I'm not sure how I'll vote yet.
I would be default yes (I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists), but I'm going to give it a good read before I vote.
I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes. Libertas is probably the most trustworthy "No" campaign by a long shot, but I've heard criticisms of some of the things its saying too.

EDIT: Has anyone spotted the new SWP front yet?

Tommy T · 21-01-2008 4:13pm

The_Minister wrote: »

EDIT: Has anyone spotted the new SWP front yet?

One of the downsides of Democracy... Putting up with the obnoxious Richard Boyd Barrett pontificating...:rolleyes:

Elmo · 21-01-2008 4:18pm

I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists

Strange that but I always thought that the PDs where Nazis.

I don't think thats is such a good reason to vote YES because you don't want to be on the same side as the following. Surely if you don't beleive in something then you should vote againist even if others who are prehaps not in your line of thinking also disagree with it.

I would hate to be associated with the PDs but I am sure I agree with somethings that they have said. at some stage but don't quote me on that because I cann't give a real specific time when I did agree with them.

I hate the fact that the NO vote will be take over by the far right and left. And everyone else is afraid to vote againist it because it is undemocratic.

Putting up with the obnoxious Richard Boyd Barrett pontificating

Well at least we have shut up Micheal McDowell

I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes.

From what I gather some of the treaty is like that.

I think that that is a real generalisation. You could say that about anyone you disagree with, about anything.

LostinBlanch · 21-01-2008 5:15pm

Like I said before in a previous thread, If the last EU campaign was anything to go by, I think this is going to be a very dirty campaign. The electorate are going to come under a lot of pressure to vote yes for a treaty which is the constitution with only a few cosmetic changes to

head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary

according to Valerie Giscard D'Estaing.

Or, as he put it another way

The proposed institutional reforms, the only ones which mattered to the drafting convention, are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties.. . In the Treaty of Lisbon, the tools are largely the same. Only the order in which they are arranged in the tool-box has been changed. Admittedly, the box itself is an old model, which you have to rummage through in order to find what you are looking for.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3109877.ece

Now, if one of the architects of the Constitution comes out and says that the Lisbon treaty is the constitution with a few phrases left out of it. Don't you think that all EU citizens should get the chance to vote on it? The fact that they aren't raises huge suspicions in my mind.

We are going to get Bertie, Enda et al tell us that we have to vote yes or else. There will probably be some mutterings from some members of the commission that if we vote no, we are bad Europeans and should be thrown out of the EU. Though quite how this will happen God knows.

The Yes campaign will try and build up a No campaign figurehead such as JBB in order to bring them (and hopefully the campaign) down. Of course there will be name calling with people campaigning for a no campaign described as Nazis, Socialists and Communists and Fascists and worse I'm sure.

In saying that, I'll try and read as much of it as I can before I make up my mind. But I think this campaign is going to be a bitter one, because there is so much at stake.

LostinBlanch · 21-01-2008 5:19pm

Elmo wrote: »

Strange that but I always thought that the PDs where Nazis.

Elmo, much as I dislike the PDs, they aren't nazis and rising to the bait doesn't do your argument any good.

OK that's me off the soapbox for a while :rolleyes:

duggie-89 · 22-01-2008 10:41am

The_Minister wrote: »

I would be default yes (I find it hard to stomach being on the same side as the Nazis, Socialists and Communists), but I'm going to give it a good read before I vote.
I would warn anyone who is thinking of voting no that most of the no campaigns are relying (as always) on lies, and misquotes. Libertas is probably the most trustworthy "No" campaign by a long shot, but I've heard criticisms of some of the things its saying too.

default yes??? why would you automactiaclly vote yes?? do you not read or undersdtand what you vote for??

and i would also warn those who are thinking of voting yes are been misguided by the politicans. they are covering up its main effects. not only will ireland lose at least one MEP we will also lose a good deal of our national soverignty.

i will be voting NO and campaigning for a NO.

Tommy T · 22-01-2008 11:09am

duggie-89 wrote: »

default yes??? why would you automactiaclly vote yes?? do you not read or undersdtand what you vote for??

and i would also warn those who are thinking of voting yes are been misguided by the politicans. they are covering up its main effects. not only will ireland lose at least one MEP we will also lose a good deal of our national soverignty.

i will be voting NO and campaigning for a NO.

I will be voting No. But I find it amusing to see Sinn Fein and Jean-Marie LePenn united in a common cause.

Will Caoimhin and J-M share a platform prior to the vote..;)

Seriously though like all other EU referenda this will be mainly ignored by the People and conversely thats the No campaign's best chance...

oscarBravo · 22-01-2008 11:41am

duggie-89 wrote: »

not only will ireland lose at least one MEP we will also lose a good deal of our national soverignty.

Please explain how.

Elmo · 22-01-2008 11:50am

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00001re01en.pdf

This is a draft treaty. Are we only voting on the draft treaty or can some boby point us in the direct of the actual treaty. Also what is the Treaty of the Fuction of the EU? We seem to be voting for that as well.

Kaiser_Sma · 22-01-2008 1:04pm

Could someone try to explain to me how this treaty is undemocratic? Obviously the lack of referendum around europe is not directly democratic, but it's still decided by elected representatives.
The real reason this hasn't gone to referendum is because (as polls have shown) there is a vast amount of apathy towards european affairs and in particular this treaty. If it does go to referendum everywhere it will only be the very opposed who will vote, and they represent a tiny minority of voters at present.

The treaty itself if anything increases the democratic nature of the EU by making the directly elected european parliment as powerful as the european council. There are enough stipulations in the treaty to prevent it from completly superseeding a national veto.
It will also allow the EU to make diplomatic relations on it's own providing that they do not interfere with individual foreign policies.
The affirmation of fundemental rights and tougher restrictions on entry are reason alone to vote for this.

Tommy T · 22-01-2008 1:09pm

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Could someone try to explain to me how this treaty is undemocratic? Obviously the lack of referendum around europe is not directly democratic, but it's still decided by elected representatives.

some countries never use referenda in passing Eu treaties but others like Denmark, Holland and France have decided the People cannot be trusted to exercise their Right as before.

For this arrogance alone the Treaty deserves to be defeated...

Kaiser_Sma · 22-01-2008 1:25pm

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

Elmo · 22-01-2008 1:33pm

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

One of the major problems here is that we have a group of representives who totally agree and continue to make agreement without asking the people what they think.

There are many people who are againist aspects of the EU and their voices aren't heard, because parliments across europe have very few TD/MP who are anti-europe.

The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

60% of people vote in the 2nd Nice Ref.

35% in the first but they where also asked about 2 other specific changes to the Consitution and they still didn't turn out for those specfic changes. (Removal of the Death Penalty and the Council of Rome).

Lack of referendums in other countries isn't a reason. Just because countries don't wish to take a referendum. Perhaps you shouldn't vote since the other countries won't be voting.

Apathy is not a reason not to vote. You could say the same about all elections if people don't want to vote its their right but to have that right you must give them the right to vote first.

The_Minister · 22-01-2008 1:45pm

Elmo wrote: »

Strange that but I always thought that the PDs where Nazis.

The Progressive Democrats are not Nazi's. Look at the name. They are a Liberal (not libertarian) party, whose core founding principles were
1) A Free Democratic Society
2) Individual Freedom Promoting Social Justice
3) Minimum State Interference
4) Citizens Rights Balanced By Citizens Responsibilities
5) Pro-Free Market, Pro-Competition, Pro-Regional Development
6) Progressive Taxation To Promote Work
7) Decent Standard Of Living For All
8)Independent, Transparent & Accountable Government
9) Pro-Environmental Sustainability
10) Pro-Irish Unity
11) Separation Of Church & State
12) Supporting Community Development & Voluntary Work
13) Protect & Promote Irish Culture
14) Promote A Liberal EU

That is not a nazi party. You may disagree with the PDs, but they have done more to reduce the power of the state than any other party. Nazi's favour a strong state.

Elmo wrote: »

I don't think thats is such a good reason to vote YES because you don't want to be on the same side as the following. Surely if you don't beleive in something then you should vote againist even if others who are prehaps not in your line of thinking also disagree with it.

I said that that will influence my starting point. I am fully open to voting no if I think the treaty is the wrong thing.

Tommy T · 22-01-2008 1:50pm

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
The level of apathy is far to high to make this a worth while referendum, Especially when the majority of people are voting based on the lack of previous referendums or the lack of referendum in other countries. If you can't vote on the actual subject of the referendum, then you shouldn't be voting at all.

In this Constitutional Democracy we are free to vote on the issue at hand for any reason we like.

As a Constitutional democracy we have a Right to vote on any issue that fundamentally changes our Constitutional status.

I, for one, do not see the need to change the workings of the EU as it's currently constituted and have my heckles raised when politicians and Eurocrats try to steamroll this Treaty though Parliamants rather than give a voice to the People. The UK being a prime example.

I'll be voting No and hope that we have a low turnout as the less vote the more likely it will be rejected...

Elmo · 22-01-2008 3:18pm

The Progressive Democrats are not Nazi's. Look at the name. They are a Liberal (not libertarian) party, whose core founding principles were

LOL and LostinBlanch thought I was rising to the bait.

1) A Free Democratic Society
2) Individual Freedom Promoting Social Justice
3) Minimum State Interference
4) Citizens Rights Balanced By Citizens Responsibilities
5) Pro-Free Market, Pro-Competition, Pro-Regional Development
6) Progressive Taxation To Promote Work
7) Decent Standard Of Living For All
8)Independent, Transparent & Accountable Government
9) Pro-Environmental Sustainability
10) Pro-Irish Unity
11) Separation Of Church & State
12) Supporting Community Development & Voluntary Work
13) Protect & Promote Irish Culture
14) Promote A Liberal EU

LOL

Neo-liberal overtly conservative IMO.

10) Pro-Irish Unity

Comedians as well.

Totally of the topic, I won't get into this with The Minister, we would just be back where we started.

A rose by another name Minister.

Kaiser_Sma · 22-01-2008 3:49pm

Tommy T wrote: »

In this Constitutional Democracy we are free to vote on the issue at hand for any reason we like.

Of course you are, but i'd like to think people would be responsible enough to vote for the nature of the issue at hand.

As a Constitutional democracy we have a Right to vote on any issue that fundamentally changes our Constitutional status.

I'm not quite sure how this alters our constitution. Could you clarify for me?

]I, for one, do not see the need to change the workings of the EU as it's currently constituted and have my heckles raised when politicians and Eurocrats try to steamroll this Treaty though Parliamants rather than give a voice to the People. The UK being a prime example.

This isn't steam rolling, this is the second time they have tried to get the constitution put through. This time it is heavily altered to amend previous problems with the consitution, even so far as to remove all nationalised terminology including sugesting that it is a constitution.

Your parliments dials and diets are all consituted of your representatives. It is not subverting democracy by leaving it up to them, alot of them were even voted in based on their policies and views towards europe. This treaty does nothing but make the EU a more effective democratic entity and does not enfringe on your national powers anymore then making it illeagal for your country to abuse human rights.

I'll be voting No and hope that we have a low turnout as the less vote the more likely it will be rejected...

Well unfortunantly you'll probably get your wish. The EU has the oppertunity, if not now then in the future to be a model for international symbiosis and cooperation around the world. Unfortunantly it is regularly impeded for the sake of it.

Tommy T · 22-01-2008 4:00pm

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Of course you are, but i'd like to think people would be responsible enough to vote for the nature of the issue at hand.

I'm not quite sure how this alters our constitution. Could you clarify for me?

This isn't steam rolling, this is the second time they have tried to get the constitution put through. This time it is heavily altered to amend previous problems with the consitution, even so far as to remove all nationalised terminology including sugesting that it is a constitution.

Your parliments dials and diets are all consituted of your representatives. It is not subverting democracy by leaving it up to them, alot of them were even voted in based on their policies and views towards europe. This treaty does nothing but make the EU a more effective democratic entity and does not enfringe on your national powers anymore then making it illeagal for your country to abuse human rights.

Well unfortunantly you'll probably get your wish. The EU has the oppertunity, if not now then in the future to be a model for international symbiosis and cooperation around the world. Unfortunantly it is regularly impeded for the sake of it.

Every Referendum from the formation of the State has been due to an Amendment to our Constitution. Therefore its a given that because we're having a Referendum this time its because it will alter our current Constitution.

The Politicians know that one or other of the countries would reject this in a referendum therefore are ignoring the People and pulling a fast one through the parliaments. The UK promised a referendum on the Treaty but have reneged on that promise. Check out the Commons debate yesterday...

The sky won't fall in if we vote No and I couldn't give a toss if Dick Roche has to face the Eurocrats after our No vote and they give him stick.

Message to Dick: if it gets too much for you I'll take your place and proudly defend the deomcratc voice on my People...!

jmayo · 22-01-2008 9:08pm

Tommy T wrote: »

In this Constitutional Democracy we are free to vote on the issue at hand for any reason we like.

As a Constitutional democracy we have a Right to vote on any issue that fundamentally changes our Constitutional status.

I, for one, do not see the need to change the workings of the EU as it's currently constituted and have my heckles raised when politicians and Eurocrats try to steamroll this Treaty though Parliamants rather than give a voice to the People. The UK being a prime example.

I'll be voting No and hope that we have a low turnout as the less vote the more likely it will be rejected...

OMG I actaully agree with Tommy for once

Why are we trying to change the EU into some United Sates of Europe which will enevitably be run by the bigger players.
Yes, there have been great strides made down the years by Brussels/Strasbourg which have helped transform the member countries, but why are we trying to create an artifical state to match US.
I have no problem with developing the newest members but why do we have to add yet more members. It is getting almost like a pyramid scheme and the more diverse states we have the more issues and problems.

No matter how some people talk up our importance we are only 4 odd million out of almost half a billion.

Also on lighter note just look how the once venerable Eurovision was hijacked by the former Soviet block, will the same happen to the EU ?

The_Minister wrote: »

The Progressive Democrats are not Nazi's. Look at the name. They are a Liberal (not libertarian) party, whose core founding principles were

8)Independent, Transparent & Accountable Government

They can strike that one out ....

CerebralCortex · 22-01-2008 9:51pm

Tommy T wrote: »

.... and of course there's the Bertie haters who'll jump at the chance to give the Government a bloody nose......

Are you lookin for a fight?

I'll be voting against it too OP. Not because I hate Bertie but for the same reasons in your original post.

Moriarty · 23-01-2008 5:27am

Anyone who bases their vote in a referendum on anything other than the issues proposed by the referendum does not deserve a vote. Irresponsible childishness is not to be encouraged.

Manic Moran · 23-01-2008 9:26am

Tommy T wrote: »

some countries never use referenda in passing Eu treaties but others like Denmark, Holland and France have decided the People cannot be trusted to exercise their Right as before.

Is that not an issue for the good denizens of Denmark, Holland and France to sort out, as opposed to foreigners? Had they any serious objections in this instance, I'm sure they might have seen fit to advise their elected representatives of their concerns, on pain of not being re-elected.

NTM

Elmo · 23-01-2008 11:09am

Is that not an issue for the good denizens of Denmark, Holland and France to sort out, as opposed to foreigners? Had they any serious objections in this instance, I'm sure they might have seen fit to advise their elected representatives of their concerns, on pain of not being re-elected.

Both Holland and France rejected the Constitution, this is the reason for the reform treaty. And the reason for them not to bring the reform treaty to their public.

Politicans don't need to worry about the consequence of their actions for example FF really shouldn't have won the last election but they did.

Anyone who bases their vote in a referendum on anything other than the issues proposed by the referendum does not deserve a vote. Irresponsible childishness is not to be encouraged.

I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

oscarBravo · 23-01-2008 11:47am

Elmo wrote: »

I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

So basically you're voting against a reform treaty because it doesn't reform enough?

The_Minister · 23-01-2008 12:11pm

Elmo wrote: »

I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

In a democratic Europe we would be marginalised and side-lined, as a tiny country with a tiny population. We would get no say in anything about anything, as opposed to now, where at the very least, our democratically-elected representatives can defend us.

jmayo · 23-01-2008 12:12pm

Elmo wrote: »

Both Holland and France rejected the Constitution, this is the reason for the reform treaty. And the reason for them not to bring the reform treaty to their public.

Politicans don't need to worry about the consequence of their actions for example FF really shouldn't have won the last election but they did.

I am voting againist it because I beleive it to be Anti-democratic.
Un-elected Commissioners, unelected Presidents etc. <<<< the current crowd are the same but the treaty doesn't go to change these democratic problems with in the EU.

But how can you have democratically elected commisioners ?
Do you want to relace them with an actual EU government that is elected by the people directly ?
If so, do you base it on the political groupings within the European parliament or would you then be moving towards cross border political parties ?
Only real one I guess would be Greens but look at ours :rolleyes:

Should we go with an elected EU president, ala the US, who then decides on a cabinet and then this replaces the Commissioners ?
Of course the cabinet decisions would have to be rubber stamped by the EU parliament rather than the elected governments of sovereign states.
Then we go with federal Europe and the nations are equivalent to US states which I believe is the ultimate aim of some of our European policiticans.

I am just throwing these ideas out there to see what people think.

duggie-89 · 23-01-2008 1:06pm

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Would you have a referendum on everything the government passes?
(quote]

well they should if it will have a founding impact on a topic such as europe. as europe is to important to take lightly.

Kaiser_Sma · 23-01-2008 1:19pm

jmayo wrote: »

OMG I actaully agree with Tommy for once

Why are we trying to change the EU into some United Sates of Europe which will enevitably be run by the bigger players.
Yes, there have been great strides made down the years by Brussels/Strasbourg which have helped transform the member countries, but why are we trying to create an artifical state to match US.
I have no problem with developing the newest members but why do we have to add yet more members. It is getting almost like a pyramid scheme and the more diverse states we have the more issues and problems.

No matter how some people talk up our importance we are only 4 odd million out of almost half a billion.

Also on lighter note just look how the once venerable Eurovision was hijacked by the former Soviet block, will the same happen to the EU ?

This isn't really about creating a united states of europe or necisarily creating a rival to the US, it's about creating a succesfull model for cooperative government. It will not continue to improve if we continue to delay actions based on squabbles with our own governments.
The insular nature of nation states since the world wars has created now disparity and termoil in the world, yet people still have this nationalistic concept of seperating themselves from others inorder to preserve their nature.
This us and them division is exactly why we can't make any progress to tackling broad liberal issues like world hunger, human rights, disease control, poverty, global warming, war and peak oil. Right now the only way to fix a country is to plow in there under false or dubious pretences and start from scratch.
Entities like the EU run across many problems as they absorb different states, but the good it's done, even with it's embryonic democracy in terms of development and regulation is being expressed everywhere.

Elmo · 23-01-2008 1:19pm

But how can you have democratically elected commisioners ?

Each country would have a commissioner who they would elected at the european elections.

Of the 28 commissioner one would become the President in a european wide election.

Not all 28 commissioners would brought to the European public for election, rather within their groupings the MEPs would vote for whom they see as fit go up for election for their group. An independent Commissioner would need to have the support of a number of MEPs to go for the presidency or the support of their National Parliment. (National parliments would only be able to support Independent Candidates to avoid any national pride that might go into electing a person to run for the presidency).

The workings of the EU would remain the same (unless a new treaty is signed and voted upon by ALL* European Citizens) but the Commissioners and President would be elected by the people for the people.

*If you want to vote, but that choice should be given to ALL citizen over the age of 18.

Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Comments