Ireland the only country to have Referendum on new EU treaty?

Dublin's Finest

So what was the negative effect of Nice then?

Do we have an EU army superseding Irish neutrality?
Do we have a super state?

The answer to both is No.

There seems to be an assumption here that the new Reform Treaty forces across the board changes upon members - this is not the case.

In fact, the very reason that negotiations went on until 4am was to accomodate the various national interests of members through a series of opt-outs, protocols and declarations.

For example, Ireland has the option to opt-out on matters relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Also, the reference to "free and unhindered competition" is embedded lower in the Treaty.

liberty 2007

Judt wrote:

Well, we always hold a referendum so that's no big surprise.

As to the issues on hand, I think that most of it is the EU attempting to function now that it has 27 member states as opposed to 15.

As for the voting on Nice, the people could have voted "No" again if that was the strongly held position. I think there was more at play that time than simply "Vote again until we get the answer we want." That's a simplistic and silly assertion.

Hello all, just joined this thing, not sure how to use, but here goes.
The problem with holding the second Nice referendum was'nt so much that it was held, but the resources that were behind the yes camp and denied to the no camp. The government spent no money therefore, were not obliged to provide funds to the no camp (under the McKenna judgement). Instead, the political parties funded the yes camp, along with their media allies and industry. By demonising the leaders of the no camp they managed to swing the 10% they needed. There was and never is a level playing field.

liberty 2007

Judt wrote:

Well, we always hold a referendum so that's no big surprise.

As to the issues on hand, I think that most of it is the EU attempting to function now that it has 27 member states as opposed to 15.

As for the voting on Nice, the people could have voted "No" again if that was the strongly held position. I think there was more at play that time than simply "Vote again until we get the answer we want." That's a simplistic and silly assertion.

Hello all, just joined this thing, not sure how to use, but here goes.
The problem with holding the second Nice referendum was'nt so much that it was held, but the resources that were behind the yes camp and denied to the no camp. The government spent no money therefore, were not obliged to provide funds to the no camp (under the McKenna judgement). Instead, the political parties funded the yes camp, along with their media allies and industry. By demonising the leaders of the no camp they managed to swing the 10% they needed. There was and never is a level playing field.

sovtek

Dublin's Finest wrote:

For example, Ireland has the option to opt-out on matters relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Also, the reference to "free and unhindered competition" is embedded lower in the Treaty.

IIRC this was the majority reason for rejecting it in just about every country that did so.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

They didn't run it "until they got the result they wanted". They ran it one additional time. There is nothing to suggest that there would have been a third time had the public said no a second time.

Bertie et al statements at the time suggest they would have rammed it through in some form or another if it didn't pass.

There is, however, evidence to suggest that voter apathy as well as government laziness in communicating clearly the issues led to a low turnout which was in turn what led to the No result.
They used your tax money to inform the public what the issues were and why they believed you should vote one way rather than the other. Though you may dislike it, thats part of their job.

Government laziness or government intransigence. There is no doubt Bertie wanted a yes to Nice and they used our money not to educate on the issues of Nice but to spin on their part.
That is NOT their job.

That is simply not what happened. The notion that there would be additional referenda after the second is a straw-man. It is a work of fiction dreamt up to hold on to the illusion that something was done wrong.

Maybe not a referenda but just as being done with the constitution a back alley way of getting the thing through.

The government broke no law. At most, they could be argued to have "gamed" the system within the boundaries of the law, but even then there has been a total lack of interest in making sure such gaming could not be done again in the future.

I don't recall anyone saying that they broke the law but they definitely didn't respect the democratic will.

Why would that be? I put it to you that the opponents of Nice know that there is more mileage to be gained complaining about a straw-man situation then there is to be gained in fixing something thats not really a problem at all. Rather than try and have this so-called loophole closed since Nice was accepted, it will serve the Euro-skeptics better to have it left in place so that they can do as you are now doing - complain bitterly to try and provoke sympathy and gain support.

Maybe that's the Euro skeptics game, but a majority reason for rejecting it isn't Euro skepticism. I agree with you that effort should have been put toward changing the law that allowed the government to ram it through.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

There is no doubt Bertie wanted a yes to Nice and they used our money not to educate on the issues of Nice but to spin on their part. That is NOT their job.

Just because you opposed the motion doesn't mean that the argument for accepting it was "spin". Furthermore, there are laws which determine how the government can spend money on such issues. This is important because of your comment that :

I don't recall anyone saying that they broke the law but they definitely didn't respect the democratic will.

If the government didn't break the law, then they have nothing to legally answer for. I just want to be clear that when people keep inisting the government did something wrong, they mean "something I don't approve of, but which is not in contravention of any law they are required to uphold".

What does that leave? It leaves answering to the people, who get to express their approval in the form of a general election. They've just come out of an election which showed categorically that the public en masse did not have a major issue with their behaviour last time round.

So exactly what democratic will did they not go with? When the second referendum was run, the result showed that more people were in support of Nice than against it. Thus, their action most certainly was in respect of democratic will, or at least was no more against it than the public are willing to accept.

As for someone suggesting that they broke the law, I would refer you back to Hagar's comment, asking whether or not they were legally bound to accept the first decision, as well as your own comment regarding what their job is.

Their job is defined by the law. How they carry out that job is subject to public approval, but only in the sense that the public get to express meaningfully in the form of an election. By neither standard, is there anything to suggest that the government acted improperly.

If they betrayed the democratic process, then so too have the public by showing they don't care enough to remember come election time. The government are, thus, no worse than the public who have elected them. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. Thus, if you want to blame someone, blame the public. Of course, that won't win you any votes in a referendum, but you can't have everything.

I agree with you that effort should have been put toward changing the law that allowed the government to ram it through.

But it wasn't, which only adds to the argument that there wasn't really some betrayal of democracy at play. The vast majority of people complaining want to gain the mileage they can with their complaints that the system is allegedly being gamed, rather than make a case for fixing it.

Even now, rather than hearing people say "the government should be pressured into (at least) making a statement in advance saying they will not re-run the referendum should they not get the desired result", we hear the bleeding-heart, set-my-people-free cry of "whats the point in voting against them, because they'll just game the system if they lose".

To me, that complaint just sounds like a justification for why a democratically-arrived-at decision will be wrong if its not the one the complainers want. If they win, they'll cheer that democracy has triumphed. If they lose, they'll complain that democracy has failed because of some non-democratic influence corrupting the result. And the more they think they'll lose, the louder they cry. At the end of the day, though, the non-democratic influence they complain about is ultimately the voting public.

Judt

liberty 2007 wrote:

Hello all, just joined this thing, not sure how to use, but here goes.
The problem with holding the second Nice referendum was'nt so much that it was held, but the resources that were behind the yes camp and denied to the no camp. The government spent no money therefore, were not obliged to provide funds to the no camp (under the McKenna judgement). Instead, the political parties funded the yes camp, along with their media allies and industry. By demonising the leaders of the no camp they managed to swing the 10% they needed. There was and never is a level playing field.

Ohh, God, yeah, I almost forgot about that neo-nazi! I err, mean, the opposition to the Nice Treaty.

liberty 2007

Judt wrote:

Ohh, God, yeah, I almost forgot about that neo-nazi! I err, mean, the opposition to the Nice Treaty.

Thats the trouble with propaganda, we don't recognise it until it's given it's name.

jawlie

Letter from today's paper;

Sir,

...I took the trouble to read all 400-odd pages of the original EU constitution and, while there were many worrying clauses, only three clauses really mattered:

The first was that the EU will have a single legal identity – in other words it will be a country (or superstate) in its own right. Second, EU laws shall have supremacy over the laws of member states and, finally, that it is for "an unlimited period" – in other words for ever.

Since Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was in charge of the original EU constitution, assures us that all the earlier proposals will be in the new text we can assume that those three clauses have survived. What more do you need to know to convince you that, if you wish to live in an independent country, you have to vote "No"?

Graham Booth MEP (Ukip), Paignton, Devon

seamus

bonkey wrote:

If the government didn't break the law, then they have nothing to legally answer for. I just want to be clear that when people keep inisting the government did something wrong, they mean "something I don't approve of, but which is not in contravention of any law they are required to uphold".

What does that leave? It leaves answering to the people, who get to express their approval in the form of a general election. They've just come out of an election which showed categorically that the public en masse did not have a major issue with their behaviour last time round.

So exactly what democratic will did they not go with? When the second referendum was run, the result showed that more people were in support of Nice than against it. Thus, their action most certainly was in respect of democratic will, or at least was no more against it than the public are willing to accept.

I think this is really key here. No matter how much people complain about it being unfair that referenda are continually put to us only to be shot down, the electorate have thus far failed to act on their disapproval, or at the very least only a minority of the people consider it to be a significant issue. Otherwise the current Government wouldn't have been voted in.

This is the nature of a democracy, which seems to pass most people by (whether or not they get the Government they want) - the people you vote for should be representative of the people you want to see in Government. In this country we've a habit of not considering this at all and voting for the same guy every time or voting against the same guy every time.
If your guy doesn't get in, that's not an indication that everyone else made the wrong choice, it's an indication that most of your peers don't agree with your choice.

bill_ashmount

I'll be putting myself back on the electoral register in the next few days in order to vote on this. I shall be rejecting the treaty , not that I think it matters in the end, it'll get passed either way.