Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

oscarBravo

the-island-man, read the section in the charter about linking to videos. Not everybody is in a position to watch them, so be prepared to provide a summary of the points contained in them, and to discuss them.

The UKIP is an intrinsically Euroskeptic party. I wouldn't rely on them for a balanced view.

Jimkel

As Europeans and Irish citizens I believe that we should vote no on principle that none of the other countries were allowed vote. In the name of democracy we should vote no and insist that if any amendments are to be made it will be done so in a DEMOCRATIC mannar in which all citizens have a vote in all member states regardless of how long it takes.

This is a farce, we are lucky enough to get out of being dictated by the EU in this decision, if we vote YES we insult all our european neighbours who were not allowed a voice and we will show our support for this type of undemocratic decision making in the future. what kind of world do you want your children to grow up in?
We must vote NO if democracy is to survive.

oscarBravo

Jimkel wrote: »

As Europeans and Irish citizens I believe that we should vote no on principle that none of the other countries were allowed vote.

Weren't "allowed" by whom?

The people of the other member states are not voting because their democratically-elected governments have decided that they don't get to vote. The EU has no say in how the member states ratify treaties.

This is a farce, we are lucky enough to get out of being dictated by the EU in this decision...

Nobody is being dictated to by the EU in this decision. See above.

We must vote NO if democracy is to survive.

That's just hyperbole, predicated on the assumption that the EU is some sort of dictatorship. It isn't.

the-island-man

oscarBravo wrote: »

The people of the other member states are not voting because their democratically-elected governments have decided that they don't get to vote.

Does it really matter why other countries didn't get to vote? The fact of the matter is that there are 500 million E.U citizens and 4 million get to decide whether this treaty is passed or not! Surely if the E.U is a democatic institution it should demand a referendum in every E.U country!!

IRLConor

the-island-man wrote: »

Surely if the E.U is a democatic institution it should demand a referendum in every E.U country!!

As far as I know, it can't. It simply doesn't have the power to do that.

To get the power to do that it would have to be given that power by the member states which puts you back at square one.

oscarBravo

Of course, if the EU did have the power to dictate the ratification process in the member states, there would be complaints about a transfer of sovereignty.

We elected a government that decided we should have a 12.5% corporation tax rate. Why should we let the EU dictate differently to us?

Other countries elected governments that decided they should ratify the Lisbon Treaty through their parliaments. Why should they let the EU (or us, for that matter) dictate differently to them?

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

Surely if the E.U is a democatic institution it should demand a referendum in every E.U country!!

As far as I know, it can't. It simply doesn't have the power to do that.

To get the power to do that it would have to be given that power by the member states which puts you back at square one.

True. The EU cannot decide anything in respect of the member states' internal constitutions at all.

Referendums would be illegal in at least Germany and Austria, anyway. They have a constitutional ban on national referendums.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

the-island-man wrote: »

Does it really matter why other countries didn't get to vote?

Yes. Yes it does.

You are implying that the EU is somehow forcing the Lisbon Treaty on every member state except Ireland, when this is patently not the case.

the-island-man wrote: »

Surely if the E.U is a democatic institution it should demand a referendum in every E.U country!!

Which would constitute precisely the kind of dictating that the "NO" side are complaining about in the first place.

auerillo

djpbarry wrote: »

Yes. Yes it does.

You are implying that the EU is somehow forcing the Lisbon Treaty on every member state except Ireland, when this is patently not the case.
Which would constitute precisely the kind of dictating that the "NO" side are complaining about in the first place.

Some facts;

- The EU proposed this as a constitution. It was defeated by France and Denmark.
- This document has been re-hashed as a "treaty" which specifically circumvents the need to have plebicites.
As someone who is a Euro-enthuaist, I am disturbed by the way in which this is being steam-rolled through without the consent of the people.

boomslang

Having read and thought on this issue I will be voting NO.
I fail to see how it benefits me personally by voting yes. I disagree with some of the amendments so for me it's a no vote.

oscarBravo

boomslang wrote: »

I fail to see how it benefits me personally by voting yes.

How does a no vote benefit you personally?

I disagree with some of the amendments so for me it's a no vote.

Which amendments do you disagree with, and why?

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

Some facts;

- The EU proposed this as a constitution. It was defeated by France and Denmark.
- This document has been re-hashed as a "treaty" which specifically circumvents the need to have plebicites.
As someone who is a Euro-enthuaist, I am disturbed by the way in which this is being steam-rolled through without the consent of the people.

The Constitution required referendums because it replaced the existing treaties. In order to replace the existing treaties, it had to contain all the transfers of sovereignty contained in all the previous treaties. The actual additions were minor.

The Lisbon Treaty contains only the additions (a couple of which have been dropped or changed). As a result, it contains very little that affects member sovereignty.

It is therefore being ratified by parliamentary ratification in those countries which usually ratify EU treaties by that method.

Nice was ratified by parliamentary ratification everywhere except Ireland. We were the only country to have a referendum then, and we are now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Irish foreign minister Dermot Ahern has reportedly tried to play down the significance of a possible No vote.

"'There would be no dire consequence should the referendum go amiss,' Ahern insisted. 'Life will go on as it did after the French and Dutch rejected the European constitutional treaty in 2005,'" said a report in the Irish Times of an interview he gave to the Buenos Aires Herald last month.

http://euobserver.com/9/26086

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Irish foreign minister Dermot Ahern has reportedly tried to play down the significance of a possible No vote.

"'There would be no dire consequence should the referendum go amiss,' Ahern insisted. 'Life will go on as it did after the French and Dutch rejected the European constitutional treaty in 2005,'" said a report in the Irish Times of an interview he gave to the Buenos Aires Herald last month.

http://euobserver.com/9/26086

Heavens! Was he trying to calm concerns in South America that a No vote might affect trade with Ireland? Or secretly saying to the press something he shouldn't? Hmm. Which will nay-sayers choose, I wonder?

expectantly,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heavens! Was he trying to calm concerns in South America that a No vote might affect trade with Ireland? Or secretly saying to the press something he shouldn't? Hmm. Which will nay-sayers choose, I wonder?

expectantly,
Scofflaw

Yeah, you're right...it doesnt matter what they really think, you can't always trust politicians to tell you the whole truth and just be straight with you...they soothe you and generally tell you whats best for them and their agenda at any given moment.

Glad to hear you have a healthy skeptism of politicians as well Scofflaw. History has shown that this is a very pragmatic attitude.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Yeah, you're right...it doesnt matter what they really think, you can't always trust politicians to tell you the whole truth and just be straight with you...they soothe you and generally tell you whats best for them and their agenda at any given moment.

Glad to hear you have a healthy skeptism of politicians as well Scofflaw. History has shown that this is a very pragmatic attitude.

I'm not specifically skeptical about politicians - I'm skeptical about anyone in the political arena. I don't, however, have much of a problem with the Foreign Minister doing his job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not specifically skeptical about politicians - I'm skeptical about anyone in the political arena. I don't, however, have much of a problem with the Foreign Minister doing his job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Even when he lies? Many people have said that on numerous occasions that the NO vote will have terrible consequences for Ireland. Who is lying? Or is it a white lie...is he a soother for gullible foreigners??

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Even when he lies? Many people have said that on numerous occasions that the NO vote will have terrible consequences for Ireland. Who is lying? Or is it a white lie...is he a soother for gullible foreigners??

The latter, on this one, I think. It's lovely to think that he went to Buenos Aires, let his hair down, and the cat simply popped out of the bag, but not actually credible. What the Irish Foreign Minister says in an interview to a foreign newspaper is not off-the-cuff commentary, but carefully vetted.

In this case, the concern would be that South American businesses who do business with Ireland as an EU entry point might start looking for alternative arrangements.

Lying for Ireland abroad is, after all, the job of the Irish Foreign Minister.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Constitution required referendums because it replaced the existing treaties. In order to replace the existing treaties, it had to contain all the transfers of sovereignty contained in all the previous treaties. The actual additions were minor.

The Lisbon Treaty contains only the additions (a couple of which have been dropped or changed). As a result, it contains very little that affects member sovereignty.

It is therefore being ratified by parliamentary ratification in those countries which usually ratify EU treaties by that method.

Nice was ratified by parliamentary ratification everywhere except Ireland. We were the only country to have a referendum then, and we are now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've read this and re read it and am not sure in what way it ties in with the point I was making, quoted above it.

A lot of people I speak to about this express their concerns at the way in which the Reform Treaty has replaced the previous constitution and particularly about the way this has been orchestrated by those is power to get around the inconvenience of plebiscites. Particularly when it has already been rejected by plebiscites in France and Denmark.

Indeed, such is the strength of this feeling both in Ireland and abroad, that many I have spoken to are voting NO due to what they consider is a duplicitous and underhand manouver by those in power. Not living in Ireland myself, I don't have a vote and , while I understand the level of this feeling, I am not sure it would in itself be enough to make me vote no. I am not sure, although think it is worrying that we are treated in this way.

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

I've read this and re read it and am not sure in what way it ties in with the point I was making, quoted above it.

A lot of people I speak to about this express their concerns at the way in which the Reform Treaty has replaced the previous constitution and particularly about the way this has been orchestrated by those is power to get around the inconvenience of plebiscites. Particularly when it has already been rejected by plebiscites in France and Denmark.

Indeed, such is the strength of this feeling both in Ireland and abroad, that many I have spoken to are voting NO due to what they consider is a duplicitous and underhand manouver by those in power. Not living in Ireland myself, I don't have a vote and , while I understand the level of this feeling, I am not sure it would in itself be enough to make me vote no. I am not sure, although think it is worrying that we are treated in this way.

It's directly addressed to that point. Previous EU treaties all across Europe were ratified by national parliaments. It is the standard mechanism for ratification. Most countries do not use referendums. Some countries do not even allow them, because referendums are susceptible to demagoguery - in other words, in several countries, they are considered a danger to democracy. We were the only country to have a referendum on Nice, just as we are the only country to have a referendum on Lisbon.

This is the normal situation. The Constitution was the exception, not, as people seem to think, the rule. It required referendums because it replaced the existing treaties, not because it contained changes that required referendums.

The Lisbon Treaty contains only the changes (and not all of those). The other member states are ratifying it by their usual methods. That those methods are not the same as ours is the choice of those countries, not us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

The latter, on this one, I think. It's lovely to think that he went to Buenos Aires, let his hair down, and the cat simply popped out of the bag, but not actually credible. What the Irish Foreign Minister says in an interview to a foreign newspaper is not off-the-cuff commentary, but carefully vetted.

In this case, the concern would be that South American businesses who do business with Ireland as an EU entry point might start looking for alternative arrangements.

Lying for Ireland abroad is, after all, the job of the Irish Foreign Minister.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So he lies for a living....nice job. I understand now...politicians only lie to foreigners....they always tell us the truth. Got it.

On another note...if a NO vote here will have disastrous consequences, since this treaty is broadly similar to the one that was voted down by the French and Dutch in '05, what "disastrous consequences" can we in retrospect observe from that NO vote.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

So he lies for a living....nice job. I understand now...politicians only lie to foreigners....they always tell us the truth. Got it.

Well, insinuations aside, yes, it is the job of the Foreign Minister to achieve the best result for Ireland abroad. In the case of South America he is reassuring foreign business that they need not start looking for alternatives, despite the possibility of a No vote to Lisbon.

Amberman wrote: »

On another note...if a NO vote here will have disastrous consequences, since this treaty is broadly similar to the one that was voted down by the French and Dutch in '05, what "disastrous consequences" can we in retrospect observe from that NO vote.

France will not, and cannot, become a 'semi-detached' member of the EU, because it was part of the reason for the founding of the Union. Ireland was not, and can.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Irish and Proud

Jimkel wrote: »

As Europeans and Irish citizens I believe that we should vote no on principle that none of the other countries were allowed vote. In the name of democracy we should vote no and insist that if any amendments are to be made it will be done so in a DEMOCRATIC mannar in which all citizens have a vote in all member states regardless of how long it takes.

This is a farce, we are lucky enough to get out of being dictated by the EU in this decision, if we vote YES we insult all our european neighbours who were not allowed a voice and we will show our support for this type of undemocratic decision making in the future. what kind of world do you want your children to grow up in?
We must vote NO if democracy is to survive.

Totally Agree!!!

Let those politicians go back to the drawing board and read up about democracy :mad: - some of them seem to lecture us with "what will 'Europe' think of us if we vote no?" - so must we be good little girls and boys for the leaders in Europe? :rolleyes: - well F*** them!!! :mad:

Ireland is a free country - a country of free speech - a country of free expression - a country of which I'm proud to be a part! I fear that a yes vote could eventually lead to American style federalism in which industry rules - industry which is largely led by the most basic of humans! :eek:

VOTE NO!!!

Irish and Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

Weren't "allowed" by whom?

The people of the other member states are not voting because their democratically-elected governments have decided that they don't get to vote. The EU has no say in how the member states ratify treaties. Nobody is being dictated to by the EU in this decision. See above. That's just hyperbole, predicated on the assumption that the EU is some sort of dictatorship. It isn't.

Oh Yeah? :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I fear that a yes vote could eventually lead to American style federalism in which industry rules - industry which is largely led by the most basic of humans! :eek:

But do you have any rational basis for that fear?

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, insinuations aside, yes, it is the job of the Foreign Minister to achieve the best result for Ireland abroad. In the case of South America he is reassuring foreign business that they need not start looking for alternatives, despite the possibility of a No vote to Lisbon.



France will not, and cannot, become a 'semi-detached' member of the EU, because it was part of the reason for the founding of the Union. Ireland was not, and can.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You seem to be saying, by omission, that there have been no disastrous consequences for the French or the Dutch that you can point out so far? Is that correct?

I wasn't aware that the EU was a 2 tier system and that we are not in the inner circle.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

You seem to be saying, by omission, that there have been no disastrous consequences for the French or the Dutch that you can point out so far? Is that correct?

And how we didn't upset anyone at all when we voted No to Nice?

Amberman wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the EU was a 2 tier system and that we are not in the inner circle.

The EU was founded in order to prevent war between the European powers. We have, traditionally, not been a player in that particular game. So, yes, we're not central to one of the major aims of the EU. France is, Holland to a lesser extent, us not at all. The UK is, which is why they're not chucked out for being bolshie.

If the EU feels that it is necessary to move forward, and Ireland will not let it, then our position in the Union is at risk (according to, amongst others, Peter Sutherland). That may sit uncomfortably with the notion that we're in the Union because we deserve it for being just so generally wonderful, but that's life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the-island-man

Can someone answer this question for me? Is it true that an auditor has not signed off on any E.U budget in the last twelve years?

Scofflaw

the-island-man wrote: »

Can someone answer this question for me? Is it true that an auditor has not signed off on any E.U budget in the last twelve years?

A perennial favourite of eurosceptics, this one.

The EU accounts get a normal audit sign-off every year. The EU sets itself an extra standard which it has yet to reach, though.

A normal audit states that the accounts are a true and fair depiction of the finances in question, and that fraud is negligible. This is the normal audit standard you get from any audit, and one the EU budget passes every year.

The EU has set itself another target, which is that not only is the above true, but that processes are such that there is not even the possibility of fraud, or of the accounts being incorrect. This is a theoretical standard which no-one has ever attained, and no-one else even tries to attain.

The EU has taken a certain amount of flak for setting itself this standard, because the EU's failure to reach it leads to the oft-repeated slur that the EU "fails its audit" every year. However, the EU's finance DG feel it is obtainable within a couple of years, and worth trying to achieve.

Hope that helps. You can find backup for what I'm saying at the European Court of Auditors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Irish and Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

But do you have any rational basis for that fear?

Yes!

The more centralised Europe becomes, the more the political institutions become divorced from the people. Taking the US for example, I've heard that Washington is awash with a huge number of industrial lobbyists in the city. I've also heard of the terrible working conditions for people in offices, the health system, the education system, the high levels of crime etc. Why?

Maybe the answer is in the following:

Firstly I was also told that if people in the US were heard criticising certain presidents within their time, they would find themselves out of a job - the workers there have far fewer rights than we have in Ireland - we have unfair dismissal legislation as well as almost double the holidays - on the former, we can criticise the government all we want. In the USA, the government is so centralised that in practical terms, it's above the people - at election time, it simply comes down to money - basically, how much money can a party spend on political spin doctors? - How much of the industry can the parties persuade to fund their campaigns and therefore, their spin doctors? - How much business friendly policies does each party have to adapt in order to get their campaign funding? - Where does the ordinary punter come into all of this?

Of course, there's a certain amount of the above happening in Ireland. However, as a small country, we have a far better chance of changing current policies than we have of changing same in a centralised Europe - look at how powerless our American counterparts seem to be - do you think they're happy to be exploited by companies, forced to spend hours in traffic each day, having to put up with massive health insurance bills and education fees.

I'd certainly think twice about Europe and the way it's going, especially in light of extremely condescending politicians from all over Europe - how can we trust them to protect our well-being. If this Lisbon treaty is so good for the ordinary European citizen, why doesn't he/she have a say - only the Irish people (4.25m out of around 450m) have a say because otherwise, a ratification here would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal!

Please Vote No!