Equality for EU citizens means we should Vote No

Galliard

What 'nonsence' is that sink? - explaining why people should have the right to be heard?

At least by trying to stop me being heard you are being consistent.

And as for oscarbravo - they have regular referenda in the German federal states. No problem having them there. We can all add up the totals to see what the German people want.

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

...they have regular referenda in the German federal states. No problem having them there. We can all add up the totals to see what the German people want.

Alternatively, we could respect another member state's process for ratification, the same way we expect them to respect ours.

Galliard

This is about equality among EU citizens. It is not about state governments. You keep avoiding that.

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

This is about equality among EU citizens. It is not about state governments. You keep avoiding that.

I'm not avoiding it, it's a red herring. The EU consists of its member states. You're asking for precisely the type of EU interference in member states' business that its critics consistently claim it's trying to achieve. The irony is utterly fascinating.

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

Because this isn't an area of EU competence.

Honestly, at this stage it has to be taking a herculean effort of will on your part not to understand this.

Galliard

EU citizenship is an area of EU competence.

You don't need Hercules to tell you that. Read the treaty.

It also says decisions will be taken as close as possible to the citizens.

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

EU citizenship is an area of EU competence.

Cool. Point me to the area of EU law that allows for EU-wide plebiscites.

Galliard

You didn't like the answer about the Germans so you changed tack. You don't like the fact that you are wrong about the competence so you are changing tack again.

I won't play this game of hunt your latest mistake forever.

Very simple idea - one citizen one vote. Right in '68, right in '08.

You don't want that - I do.

PeakOutput

Galliard wrote: »

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

because national methods come before eu ones. our elected government has a choice on how to decide to ratify the treaty and their elected goverments have a choice as well its not a difficult concept to grasp

the people elect the goverments to make choices for them

on a side note as far as i know we hold referenda when we want to change the constitution so the treaty is probably going to have to change something in the constitution so we have a referendum.....the treaty might not affect anything in the other countries constitutions therefore no need to vote......im not positive on that though

edit; galliard you have your vote i have my vote if the other countries citizens want to vote on it they can force their own goverments to allow them to if they dont they wont its not your place to tell them what to do

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

You didn't like the answer about the Germans so you changed tack.

It sort of missed the point that the decision about how Germany ratifies treaties is none of the EU's business, or yours.

You don't like the fact that you are wrong about the competence so you are changing tack again.

Excuse me? You implied that the EU has the authority to hold an EU-wide plebiscite. When has the EU ever done anything on the basis of a simple majority of its population agreeing to it?

Very simple idea - one citizen one vote. Right in '68, right in '08.

You don't want that - I do.

The principle of subsidiarity - you don't want that - I do.

thebman

Galliard wrote: »

This is about equality among EU citizens. It is not about state governments. You keep avoiding that.

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

The laws in each member state aren't the same that's why. Each member state is different and to suggest that they should all hold a vote because you want them to isn't a good enough reason TBH.

Like I said, I'm in favor of them all voting on it, I don't have a problem with it, I'd encourage it in fact but their government don't want to and the people in the other member states aren't complaining about it so obviously the governments in the other member states are representing the majority of people accurately.

I respect that choice by their government and their citizens. When they complain, I'll support them, I'm not going to vote no on the assumption they are upset or care about it. Its none of my business really since I don't live in their countries.

Galliard

brim4brim wrote: »

I respect that choice by their government and their citizens. When they complain, I'll support them, I'm not going to vote no on the assumption they are upset or care about it. Its none of my business really since I don't live in their countries.

Here is the chance to support them that you were waiting for. Let us know how it goes.

IRLConor

PeakOutput wrote: »

on a side note as far as i know we hold referenda when we want to change the constitution so the treaty is probably going to have to change something in the constitution so we have a referendum.....

Correct. Strictly speaking we're not voting on the Lisbon Treaty itself, we're voting for or against the 28th Amendment of the Constitution. The text of the amendment is available here.

The Crotty case established that substantial changes to the treaties governing the EU requires an amendment to our constitution. Since constitutional amendments require a referendum, that places a de facto requirement for an Irish referendum on substantial changes to the treaties.

PeakOutput wrote: »

the treaty might not affect anything in the other countries constitutions therefore no need to vote......im not positive on that though

Some states don't require a referendum to amend their constitution (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain to name but a few). The UK doesn't have a formal written constitution, it's a blend of statutes (amendable by Parliament) and custom. From a quick skim of many of the constitutions of the member states it seems to me that Ireland is rather unusual in requiring that referendum is the only way to amend our constitution.

turgon

What Galliard is trying to say, is that in his opinion every citizen of the European Union deserves to have a say on the treaty. I think he is saying it on principle alone, and he feels that the methods of ratification in other individual countries are thus flawed, and un-democratic.

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

What Galliard is trying to say, is that in his opinion every citizen of the European Union deserves to have a say on the treaty. I think he is saying it on principle alone, and he feels that the methods of ratification in other individual countries are thus flawed, and un-democratic.

That's all well and good. Many here (myself included) would agree that ratification of the treaty should be done by referendum and that the lack of one in other countries is a flaw in their process.

Where we disagree is on the idea that the Irish people should take that into account in our own referendum. Our referendum is about whether we want the changes brought about by the treaty, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about punishing Bertie/Cowen, opposing Sinn Féin, supporting the citizens of other member states or expressing content/discontent at any other part of the EU project. Trying to claim otherwise is nothing but an attempt to distort the debate.

thebman

Galliard wrote: »

Here is the chance to support them that you were waiting for. Let us know how it goes.

go team! :rolleyes:

Happy now?

Galliard

IRLConor wrote: »

That's all well and good. Many here (myself included) would agree that ratification of the treaty should be done by referendum and that the lack of one in other countries is a flaw in their process.

Where we disagree is on the idea that the Irish people should take that into account in our own referendum. Our referendum is about whether we want the changes brought about by the treaty, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about punishing Bertie/Cowen, opposing Sinn Féin, supporting the citizens of other member states or expressing content/discontent at any other part of the EU project. Trying to claim otherwise is nothing but an attempt to distort the debate.

You cannot follow your own logic then.

One of the things this treaty is about, is the nature of EU citizenship. That change is something our fellow citizens should have a say in. It affects us, sure, but it also affects them.

If you followed your own logic you would see that this is a perfectly valid issue on which to decide your vote.

You seem to have your mind so firmly made up for some other reasons that you cannot even see this. Then of course you add the ritual accusation about distorting the debate. If you cannot follow the debate you are not in a good position to make that accusation.

One citizenship, one Union.

One citizen, one vote.

Democracy in every language.

oscarBravo

But you are distorting the debate.

This is an EU treaty. Like all EU treaties before it, it comes into existence through ratification by the member states. Each member state has its own procedures for ratification, and always has.

By dragging out this red herring about democracy, you're introducing an entirely new concept of ratification by a simple majority of the EU's population, which - to my knowledge - has never even been considered by the member states.

In order to fulfil your wish for an EU-wide plebiscite on the treaty, a mechanism would have to be implemented for it. Such a mechanism could only be implemented by a treaty, which would have to be ratified by all the member states, in accordance with their individual ratification processes.

So please - give the red herring a rest.

turgon

Well I suppose one way to phrase this is

"Galliard is unhappy at the method of ratification pursued by the member states, feels it is undemocratic in nature, and is saying no to the Lisbon Treaty as he does not like the direction it appears to be taking itself, and the way in whcih it is operating".

Now before I get given out to, Lisbon will not change the way the EU will "operate" in this regard, failing to have referenda in every country is not something dealt with in the Treaty.

Also one does feel more than a little skeptical if the very organization that "takes its inspiration from democracy" will not let 99% of its citizens vote on the way it runs.

But I must agree with IRLConor, voting NO for this reason is wrong, because the EU will not understand why we voted no, give it us again accept this time confirm our neutrality in a declaration, and double the amount of posters on the Kinsale road roundabout.

IRLConor

Galliard wrote: »

You cannot follow your own logic then.

One of the things this treaty is about, is the nature of EU citizenship. That change is something our fellow citizens should have a say in. It affects us, sure, but it also affects them.

If you followed your own logic you would see that this is a perfectly valid issue on which to decide your vote.

Of course the nature of citizenship is an issue on which I will decide my vote. It's a tiny and utterly uncontroversial part of the treaty.

I don't care how other countries ratify the treaty. They're all sovereign, democratic states and none of them (IMO) oppress their citizens. My concern for their methods of government end there. They're grown-ups, they can handle it themselves.

If you want other governments to have a referendum on Lisbon, ask them. They'll probably tell you to f*** off and mind your own business though.

Galliard wrote: »

You seem to have your mind so firmly made up for some other reasons that you cannot even see this. Then of course you add the ritual accusation about distorting the debate. If you cannot follow the debate you are not in a good position to make that accusation.

:rolleyes:

Galliard wrote: »

One citizenship, one Union.

One citizen, one vote.

Ein Bürgerschaft, Ein Union. Ein Bürger, Ein Abstimmung!

*Nods to Mike Godwin*

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

Also one does feel more than a little skeptical if the very organization that "takes its inspiration from democracy" will not let 99% of its citizens vote on the way it runs.

It's not a question of not letting its citizen have a vote - it's a question of it not having a say in whether its citizens get to vote.

Galliard

turgon wrote: »

Well I suppose one way to phrase this is

"Galliard is unhappy at the method of ratification pursued by the member states, feels it is undemocratic in nature, and is saying no to the Lisbon Treaty as he does not like the direction it appears to be taking itself, and the way in whcih it is operating".

Now before I get given out to, Lisbon will not change the way the EU will "operate" in this regard, failing to have referenda in every country is not something dealt with in the Treaty.

Also one does feel more than a little skeptical if the very organization that "takes its inspiration from democracy" will not let 99% of its citizens vote on the way it runs.

But I must agree with IRLConor, voting NO for this reason is wrong, because the EU will not understand why we voted no, give it us again accept this time confirm our neutrality in a declaration, and double the amount of posters on the Kinsale road roundabout.

They will understand perfectly. We can explain it if we need to. One citizen, one vote.

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

They will understand perfectly. We can explain it if we need to. One citizen, one vote.

Do you think nobody notices that you ignore pertinent questions and observations, but keep mouthing empty slogans?

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a question of not letting its citizen have a vote - it's a question of it not having a say in whether its citizens get to vote.

Yeah I know, but it is a bit much of these 27 countries to word the treaty so when they themselves refuse to have referenda on the Treaty. Democracy is about the people, not the representatives.

As regards Galliard, i think your argument would be greatly strengthened if you didnt say the same thing over an over again :):)

Galliard

You ignore pertinent answers.

And then you say One citizen, one vote is an empty slogan.

I do not agree. So I will vote No

menoscemo

Here's my take:
Voting no because other countries do not get a say is a valid thing to do.

It is a protest against lack of democracy.

The argument about other countries ratifying this the way they want is not valid. The problem is that the ruling class both here and in other countries have become arrogant. Of course no-one in France is protesting because they do not know much about Lisbon, much like we didn't know much about it and still don't- but we have to vote on it so people are starting to inform themselves about it.
The Fact is that Sarkozy is denying his people a vote becasue he knows they would lose http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569342/EU-polls-would-be-lost%2C-says-Nicolas-Sarkozy.html
He knows and admits that not only France but many other countries would vote 'no' in a referendum and so it is dangerous to European plans.
There seems little doubt that the ruling classes all want the treaty to be ratified, it is obviously an advantage to them and it also obviously of no concern to them what the electorate think. Hence the treaty is not even being publicised in other European countries. See Cowen's threat to TD's as proof of this in Ireland.

Democracy is being eroded all over Europe, mainly beacuse all the parties are more or less the same and very centrist in their outlooks. So a vote 'no' is a vote for Democracy IMO. It is not an anti-european vote at all, it is a vote for Europeans.

sink

In my view politicians in general don't like referenda exactly for the reason you're voting no.

They know more about running a country and an international organisation than any of us. They know how to negotiate a complex treaty between 27 nations. They put a lot of effort into bargaining, trading and compromising to reach agreement. The constitution took 4 years of negotiation.

Then when they put it to a referenda the majority of the people didn't even bother reading the thing as was the case in France and Holland. Lies were spread by people with an ulterior agenda and people who do no research themselves believe these lies, as you can see is happening in Ireland now. Then there are other people such as yourself who protest vote for reasons completely outside of anything to do with the treaty. If the governments at the time in Holland and France were popular the treaty would have passed no problem.

If everyone votes against a treaty for 100 different reasons which have nothing to do with the treaty, then nothing will ever get passed.

IRLConor

menoscemo wrote: »

Here's my take:
Voting no because other countries do not get a say is a valid thing to do.

It is a protest against lack of democracy.

Voting either way as a "protest" is IMO a stupid thing to do. It's only worth protesting when the people you're protesting to have the ability to fix what you're protesting against. Your protest No vote could only be construed as protesting to the Irish government or the EU neither of whom have the power to hold a referendum in the other member states.

To vote no to protest a lack of democracy is biting off your nose to spite your face. You'd be throwing away the democratic improvements brought in by the treaty to protest a decision made by the democratically-elected government of a different sovereign nation.

Galliard

The arrogance is on parade again.

sink loftily lectures us on why other countries' citizens rejected the treaty. As if he knows the French and Dutch better than they know themselves. IRLConor loftily lectures us on how other people will interpret our vote. Such experts in everything and everyone, we are honoured.

We can tell everyone in the EU why we are voting No. It's not hard. The message was clear in 1968. It can be clear today.

One citizen,....

menoscemo

sink wrote: »

In my view politicians in general don't like referenda exactly for the reason you're voting no.

They know more about running a country and an international organisation than any of us. They know how to negotiate a complex treaty between 27 nations. They put a lot of effort into bargaining, trading and compromising to reach agreement. The constitution took 4 years of negotiation.

So People are thick and politicians know best? That attitude is a slippery slope to fascism.
Yes they might have put a lot of effort into negotiating into what suits them best, but this is not necessarily what suits the people best. If there is anything we can be sure about politicians it is that they will always do their utmost to do what suits them and to hold onto power. Look at the greens selling themselves out as a perfect example.
Maybe the people are happy with the way Europe runs now and would just like to keep it that way.

sink wrote: »

Then when they put it to a referenda the majority of the people didn't even bother reading the thing as was the case in France and Holland. Lies were spread by people with an ulterior agenda and people who do no research themselves believe these lies, as you can see is happening in Ireland now. Then there are other people such as yourself who protest vote for reasons completely outside of anything to do with the treaty. If the governments at the time in Holland and France were popular the treaty would have passed no problem.

If everyone votes against a treaty for 100 different reasons which have nothing to do with the treaty, then nothing will ever get passed.

You are assuming why people in holland and france voted no. How can you be sure of this? again you are assuming that people are thick. May aswell not give them a vote on anything at all and just let the politicians do what they want. Are you propsing that we scrap all elections too? This is basically the case all over Europe anyway as most political parties do the same as the other ones. As I said, when they get into power the only thing they look to do is hold onto it.

Nowadays hardly any political party is popular when in power. I believe it is because they really don't care what people think. Not giving people a chance to voice their opinion on Lisbon is a symptom of this. I think polticians in general and political parties in specific need to wake up to themselves and stop being so arrogant. That is why I am voting NO.

menoscemo

IRLConor wrote: »

Voting either way as a "protest" is IMO a stupid thing to do. It's only worth protesting when the people you're protesting to have the ability to fix what you're protesting against. Your protest No vote could only be construed as protesting to the Irish government or the EU neither of whom have the power to hold a referendum in the other member states.

To vote no to protest a lack of democracy is biting off your nose to spite your face. You'd be throwing away the democratic improvements brought in by the treaty to protest a decision made by the democratically-elected government of a different sovereign nation.

The democracy that exists in Europe at the moment is a sham for the reasons I have outlined. The people in the other countries have no ability to fix what I am protesting against. If they vote out said party of government the next one will do exactly the same thing.