Disreputable sentiments in Europe

ixtlan

In reality it would take years for any such break because of complications inherent in how to apply Nice to Ireland and Lisbon to everyone else.

The only quick way would be for Ireland to leave voluntarily.

If faced with a choice... Lisbon with protocols or leaving the EU... a new referendum would likely pass but might disillusion us further.

Ix

force eleven

Another solution would be to leave the EU. Surely thats not as mad as it may sound. We have had 35 years, used the economic benefits to grow our country and now we can fly free. Norway Switzerland and Iceland have hardly suffered by non-membership. We still have our trade links, but none of the interference. Our entrpreneurs our being suffocated by EU red tape and standards. Our fishermen have lost millions in revenue while we let the Spaniards fish our waters. Our farmers have seen the EU become a millstone round their necks. Lets lower our corporation tax and give a chance to entice industry back into Ireland. We don't have to plead the poor mouth anymore to Brussels either. I'm sick of the way the EU is heading and believe me it is not heading in a good direction for us, regardless of the No vote. We'll be made to heel by them some way some how.
Anti-European, absolutely not
Anti EU? Yes, I have drawn that conclusion over the last ten years.

limklad

sink wrote: »

There is a very interesting interview on ireland.com of Steven Collins the political editor. He thinks that people voted no because they resented being asked to vote in the first place. He also thinks they voted no because they're sick of politicians and the whole political system.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0614/breaking16.htm

It is very navive of him thinking that way otherwise the citizens of europe especially small countries will wake up and see how the bigger nations will treat us for Saying NO. That will have a bigger effect than our NO vote.

Rb

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a discussion on this at Lunchtime on radio one.
All they have to do is re-present the present treaty to their parliaments with a new line containing the words "ratify without Ireland" and they are away.
Simple.

Whether they will do that or not I don't know.T'will be interesting to see what it is they do decide.

If the 25 do go ahead in that way,we (Ireland) would be entering the realms of a type of quasi associate membership.
I say 25 because it's not known if the Czech Republic will go along with the treaty either as it is going to court over there.

Interesting. I wonder what effect shunning our country and it's citizens voice would have on the "world stage" that the EU leaders are so keen to make a bigger impression on?

If they do go ahead and try to exclude us, it really only cements peoples fears of the EU and their democratic deficit.

Rb

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if they go down that road ,they'd be countering your argument there by saying those that were going down that road were the EU and were unified going down it.

The only bit that would be fractured off to an extent would be Ireland and perhaps the czech Rep.
25 countries Vs 2
They don't need a new treaty either and I'd imagine since this one took 7 years of negotiating to formulate,they can race ahead with a new line in the text that simply says as I pointed out earlier "ratify without Ireland".

If the Czechs back out there'll be war if they try to proceed with this, in my opinion anyway.

Time will soon tell I suppose, the Czechs were very quick to announce that they may not ratify, who knows what the others will do yet? We've set a precedent so if any were unsure of rejecting it in fear of consequences, or that they'd be the only 1, they may reconsider their stance and come out and reject it.

limklad

force eleven wrote: »

Another solution would be to leave the EU. Surely thats not as mad as it may sound. We have had 35 years, used the economic benefits to grow our country and now we can fly free. Norway Switzerland and Iceland have hardly suffered by non-membership. We still have our trade links, but none of the interference. Our entrpreneurs our being suffocated by EU red tape and standards. Our fishermen have lost millions in revenue while we let the Spaniards fish our waters. Our farmers have seen the EU become a millstone round their necks. Lets lower our corporation tax and give a chance to entice industry back into Ireland. We don't have to plead the poor mouth anymore to Brussels either. I'm sick of the way the EU is heading and believe me it is not heading in a good direction for us, regardless of the No vote. We'll be made to heel by them some way some how.
Anti-European, absolutely not
Anti EU? Yes, I have drawn that conclusion over the last ten years.

I am not anti -EU but anti-current direction of governance of a EU Supersate and lack of accountability to its citizens.

Looking at the voting Rights of the Lisbon treaty. I now understand why France is objecting to Turkey joining the EU. It is turkey Huge Population size 71 Million and much of their population is Young. France 64Million older population) will lose more influence in the EU over time. While Germany 82 Million.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_population

Rb

limklad wrote: »

I am not anti -EU but anti-current direction of governance of a EU Supersate and lack of accountability to its citizens.

Looking at the voting Rights of the Lisbon treaty. I now understand why France is objecting to Turkey joining the EU. It is turkey Huge Population size 71 Million and much of their population is Young. France 64Million older population) will lose more influence in the EU over time. While Germany 82 Million.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_population

I doubt it's to do with their age tbh and more to do with the Islamic presence in Turkey.

Personally I wouldn't want a muslim state in the EU whatsoever.

murphaph

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because they have no constitutional mechanism for doing so, because they have a constitutional bar on doing so, because the citizens of those countries think referendums are a bad way of doing this kind of thing.

People really need to get over the idea that other countries stopped their citizens having a referendum - and over the even dafter one that the EU stopped member state citizens having referendums. It isn't the case.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Come now Scofflaw, the modus operandii of the architects of this treaty was to ensure that legally it required as few public referenda as possible. They just couldn't get around our brutally worded article 29 of the irish constitution so we ended up with just 1 referendum.

France and the Netherlands don't bar referenda and the fact they already rejected the essence of Lisbon and then were not asked on Lisbon itself makes me extremely sceptical of the motives of the politicians and civil servants involved in drafting Lisbon.

It's not good enough to say that most people favour the EU so therefore we are going against popular public opinion as there simply has never been a Europe wide vote on general support for the EU. In my opinion it has overstepped the mark. I am not a nationalist but I believe we need to keep democracy local. Also, the notion that we vote for politicians and then delegate to them to decide on complex matters (eg, taxation) is only relevant when those SAME politicians can be removed at the next election-Lisbon is totally different in this regard as it involves further transfer of powers to persons who CANNOT be removed by the irish people in future. For this reason alone it is right and proper that such treaties are put to the public to choose if they are happy with this.

I sincerely hope the Czechs halt ratification and further force the hand of Mr. Brown. If the UK government can be pressured into a referendum it'll be a resounding NO. Is 3 states rejecting Lisbon enough, Mr. Barosso? :mad:

is_that_so

Rb wrote: »

If the Czechs back out there'll be war if they try to proceed with this, in my opinion anyway.

Time will soon tell I suppose, the Czechs were very quick to announce that they may not ratify, who knows what the others will do yet? We've set a precedent so if any were unsure of rejecting it in fear of consequences, or that they'd be the only 1, they may reconsider their stance and come out and reject it.

The Czechs are playing silly buggers with it and have been since they signed it in December. The main govt party - the Civic Democrats and their leader Vaclav Klaus are strongly Eurosceptic. Their Senate, through a Civic Democrat senator,sent the treaty to the Constitutional Court(Supreme Court) a while back to "test its constitutionality" and to avoid having to ratify it in the hope that someone else would reject it. This is expected to take quite a few months to sort out.

The current centre right coalition also appears to be having problems with their own reforms and is a three party coalition, which is under pressure of fracturing.

As we have now done them a favour they are free to be as Eurosceptic as they want, without any pressure and if the Court confirms the constitutionality of the Treaty then they'll be in a good position to ratify it in time for their own Presidency, which starts in January.

murphaph

clown bag wrote: »

I share your sentiments. Boarders are lines on maps, inside which nationalism and other harmful ideals can be concentrated.

Do you not think however that a strong EU is a voice for european nationalism, competing against the likes of US / Russia / India / China and so on. That is the aim after all, a stronger voice on the world stage.

I feel a looser co-operative of Europen states is more in line with a boarderless, less nationalistic and ultimately more free and democratic europe.

Spot on! Those who complain about natonalism being responsible for x, y and z and then in the same breath stating that the way the EU is headed (in my mind to a federal superstate, no question about that) is a good thing is clearly contradictory! The EU will (if it isn't stopped by the ordinary people-us) develop into a state which wil 'face off' with the americans, chinese, russians etc..This is in nobody's interest. I too am a world citizen-BUT I DO NOT WANT WORLD GOVERNMENT! Originally tribes became nation states to make them easier to govern, now the process is trying to eliminate nation states and deliver the next level (EU, NAFTA etc.) and in another 100 years they'll tell us EuroNationalists that federalism (as opposed to nationalism) is bad and it's time to move on....

murphaph

is_that_so wrote: »

The Czechs are playing silly buggers with it and have been since they signed it in December. The main govt party - the Civic Democrats and their leader Vaclav Klaus are strongly Eurosceptic. Their Senate, through a Civic Democrat senator,sent the treaty to the Constitutional Court(Supreme Court) a while back to "test its constitutionality" and to avoid having to ratify it in the hope that someone else would reject it. This is expected to take quite a few months to sort out.

The current centre right coalition also appears to be having problems with their own reforms and is a three party coalition, which is under pressure of fracturing.

As we have now done them a favour they are free to be as Eurosceptic as they want, without any pressure and if the Court confirms the constitutionality of the Treaty then they'll be in a good position to ratify it in time for their own Presidency, which starts in January.

aargggh! If they're main party is strongly eurosceptic then is it not reasonable to assume that at least some of the people are too? I mean before the election we were told by many here that the 'people of Europe' are broadly in favour of the EU project because EU sceptics don't win elections! You can't have it both ways.

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

... force the hand of Mr. Brown. If the UK government can be pressured into a referendum it'll be a resounding NO. Is 3 states rejecting Lisbon enough, Mr. Barosso? :mad:

Much as the Conservatives want to dig at Brown, I would imagine he'll go through with it. Part of the argument is that they are committed to do so and will ratify it through Parliament. In fact politically it would probably suit the Cons to be strongly anti-Lisbon seeing as they can't be associated with any of the blame for it. They'll hope it'll be gone by the time the next GE comes along. Having Europe as a campaign issue as part of a GE campaign is really not desirable .

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

aargggh! If they're main party is strongly eurosceptic then is it not reasonable to assume that at least some of the people are too? I mean before the election we were told by many here that the 'people of Europe' are broadly in favour of the EU project because EU sceptics don't win elections! You can't have it both ways.

I am not having it any way, merely clarifying what the Czechs are up to. One of the reasons there is such Euroscepticism in the likes of the Czech Republic and Poland is that they have been forced into unpopular structural and financial reforms that have caused hardship but are required to be good EU members. This makes the EU an easy target and also makes populist/nationalist/Eurosceptic parties who can tap into that resentment electable.

FionnMatthew

ixtlan wrote: »

Fionn, I am certainly not advocating "aggressive political action".

Oh dear. I'm sorry about the ambiguity. I was actually talking about the Napolitano there. Not you. His call for the ejection of those who did not support the treaty, (ie. only us) was the "aggressive political action on the basis of the frustration of mistaken impressions." Hope that didn't annoy you.

As for the other states, yes I meant the governments of the states. We can debate whether that really means the people, but I would say that unless there is a popular view in their country against their representations, then they do represent the public in actual fact. Whereas the Irish government is now seen not to represent the Irish people.

I begin to wonder, however, if the noises being made in England, for instance, aren't enough to encourage that the ratification process be put to a public vote. Surely, if there is even the slightest doubt, by the government, that on a particular issue, the public has a loss of confidence in the representational accuracy of the government's position, the commitment to democratic ideals on the part of the government ought to compel them to take an opinion poll on whether it should be put to referendum, and should the poll indicate so, then they should feel compelled to do so.

You can argue that is good, or bad, but there's no doubt that it makes treaties very difficult.

Indeed. But perhaps the populace needs to do the sort of growing up that every junior diplomat or MEP is faced with, and made aware by experience, which is, after all, the best educator, of the fact that voting blind on something like the Lisbon treaty, or anything else, simply isn't conducive to functional democracy. We're really like so many children, who want to be involved in booking the holiday, but haven't the faintest idea where any of the destinations are, or what awaits us there.

Look at Kyoto. If we abide by the rules it looks like it will cost us hundreds of millions in fines. If it went to referendum there is no way we or probably anyone would have passed it. Was it wrong for the government to approve?

That really depends on whether the electorate supports the decision or not. And in many cases, that fact won't be discernible. But in this particular instance, it is evident that had the government acted on their own representative mandate, and ratified the Lisbon treaty, they would have been acting contrary to the majority will on the part of the people.

If a whole new treaty is drawn up and presented in 5 years or 10, which some would advocate, there will be a shadow hanging over it during the negotiations, along the lines of... "no matter what we agree to... it may not be enough for the Irish"

I should think a good democratic should be nothing if not dogged. We, and the european officials both, are not entitled to sentiments like the one you've suggested. Cynicism like that is actually anathema to putting trust in the people. I should think part of the burden for the decisional atrophy of the electorates in Western states is to be shouldered by such attitudes, which take the power, and hence the maturing responsibility, away from the people, in fear of their misusing it. I don't defend the ignorance of the Irish electorate during the Lisbon treaty, but I remain committed to the idea that had they been cultivated as a rational body, and had experience of being trusted with decisional authority, they might have conducted themselves less like children, and more like the sovereign will of a state.

FionnMatthew

Scofflaw wrote: »

Second, there is the question of whether voting Yes represented a good idea in terms of European realpolitik. The answer here again is Yes - the other European governments support the Treaty, with more or less reservation depending on how strongly they support the EU project, and how good a deal they felt they were getting. While we may have gained some support from the No demographic in other EU countries, we will have made far less of a good impression on other governments.

On that subject - while we may personally enjoy the back-slapping from other EU citizens who wanted a No, we have made as many enemies as friends, because there isn't a majority in Europe opposed to the EU. Further, they won't be carrying the can - we will.

This is part of the point I've been making though. In the position they find themselves, with all this airy talk of democracy and population weight, those officials simply aren't entitled to consider the NO vote as being worthy of oppositionship, or of making or breaking alliances or enemies. The quotes here almost look as if they've taken it personally, and are trying to project their chagrin onto the European electorate, who, frankly, don't come into it.

It all sounds so much like the undue indulgence of wrath.

Anyone who now considers himself an enemy, or holds a grudge against the Irish state, for the decision of the electorate, is indulging in feelings he simply isn't entitled to. In the spirit of democratic philosophy, he ought to feel as if a new discussion has been engendered. Democracy is probably the least practical of governmental forms. A commitment to it is a commitment to endless talking. To say of the Irish vote that one respects it, and yet at the same time, regrets it, is a contradictory position. If nothing else, they should be looking forward to proper feedback. So long as there is no agreement, let's talk until the world stops turning. If they have a commitment to 'getting things done' which prefigures their commitment to doing justice to the will of the people, well... they ought not to consider themselves democrats then. If efficiency is what you're after, let's dispense with this coquettish profession of commitment to democracy.

Third, there is the question of whether the EU project is going in the right direction, and whether those who believe it isn't can contribute constructive opposition as a minority. Here is the fundamental divide. The EU is a profoundly anti-nationalist project - that is its raison d'etre, because European nationalism is a deadly force - so those to whom emotive nationalism is a vital component of their outlook, it can never be anything other than antithetical. As long as those who require Westphalian style national sovereignty - untrammelled sovereignty based on territorial integrity, national cohesion, and the rigid exclusion of external forces including supranational actors - are in a minority, the supranational EU project remains feasible.

Nothing sounds more attractive to me than to move beyond the facile, antiquated commitment to Irish nationalism that I have come to observe in diverse corners of this country. I dislike nothing more than the notion of geopolitical division and cultural history dictating to me my personal identity in a prefabricated and rigid fashion. The notion of empty customs, and observance of flags and petty national songs turns my stomach, and the expectation that I might have some abstract duty to join in, or to be moved by such things in a manner so beneath me makes me physically angry.

I remain undecided as to relative strengths and weaknesses of the treaty. I still don't know which way I ought to have voted, and am still glad I abstained. But the tangible arrogance to be perceived in these soundbites from Europe minds me that, whatever the merits of this treaty, whatever the relative benefits and deficits it might have afforded us, certain people had more than a principled commitment to it, and more of a partial commitment. Sarkozy, for instance, has no right to be annoyed on the behalf of the curtailed prospects of his political career, no matter how annoyed he very well may be, according to the papers.

Since the majority of arguments against the EU have a subtext of such nationalism, the majority of such arguments are not constructive.

Don't you think that's a little unfair? Certain of the arguments against the EU could be interpreted as having a subtext of nationalism, but could equally be interpreted as having nothing to do with it, and as having more to do with the converse worries about the resultant order of the Union that is thereby brought into being, and the shape of such. Don't such arguments, at least at the risk of doing a disservice to the more intelligent of their exponents, deserve the benefit of the doubt. (This is not to suggest that you have not given such a benefit on many previous occasions! And also, the catchment area of your next paragraph, which addressed the arguments of Democrates, does to some extent proffer the benefit of the doubt to such exponents.)

Again, though, these are unavoidable consequences of bureaucracy - and the smaller the bureaucracy and the wider its sway, the more of an elite it will feel itself to be.

A feeling it ought not to allow itself, in the informed knowledge that it has a choice over the way it thinks, and is in a position of much responsibility and importance, in which it does not have the benefit of entitlement to reacting emotionally to situational stimuli.
Tolerance is the cardinal virtue of a true politician, or a diplomat, I should think.

Pride Fighter

FionnMatthew wrote: »

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty.

-Antonio Mussolini

I fixed that for you:)

ixtlan

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I should think a good democratic should be nothing if not dogged. We, and the european officials both, are not entitled to sentiments like the one you've suggested. Cynicism like that is actually anathema to putting trust in the people. I should think part of the burden for the decisional atrophy of the electorates in Western states is to be shouldered by such attitudes, which take the power, and hence the maturing responsibility, away from the people, in fear of their misusing it. I don't defend the ignorance of the Irish electorate during the Lisbon treaty, but I remain committed to the idea that had they been cultivated as a rational body, and had experience of being trusted with decisional authority, they might have conducted themselves less like children, and more like the sovereign will of a state.

I see where you are going, and I agree with your sentiments. The problem with as you splendidly call it the "decisional atrophy of the electorates in Western states" stems from the fact that most politics nowadays operates in the middle, so people feel there is little choice. And the politicans operate in the middle because there is a general consensus on policies. Therefore everything is stable, little real change happens and people feel divorced from the process. I'm not sure what you can do about this. Better civic training perhaps, but it's hard to get people interested when there is no massive desire for change. This is why Sinn Fein does well. For all their faults they are different, but they normally only appeal to a minority.

Another angle has suggested itself to me for comment.

There is a another problem here of choice. When the government was negotiating Lisbon it made probably hundreds of choices and compromises, giving up some control in one area perhaps in order to gain in another.

For the referendum we have made a simple choice of yes/no without really knowing what no means. The no side has said that the choice was for a better deal. If however such a deal is not forthcoming and it comes down to leaving the EU or ratifying Lisbon there may be a yes in a future vote. Governments often have to make difficult decisions, but for our referendum we have not really understood yet what the choice on the no side was for.

Ix.

ixtlan

FionnMatthew wrote: »

This is part of the point I've been making though. In the position they find themselves, with all this airy talk of democracy and population weight, those officials simply aren't entitled to consider the NO vote as being worthy of oppositionship, or of making or breaking alliances or enemies. The quotes here almost look as if they've taken it personally, and are trying to project their chagrin onto the European electorate, who, frankly, don't come into it.

A little harsh I think. The EU requires unanimity before any state must agree to new measures. So if Ireland does not agree the new measures cannot be implemented for Ireland. This does not mean however that those measures cannot somehow be implemented for the other countries, though I'm sure it would be a legal quagmire.

So, any officals are entitled to start thinking about whether they may move forward without Ireland. Any public statements like this though are unhelpful at this point in time.

I don't think this will happen anytime soon, and in fact our vote may trigger a larger collapse in EU progression, but it's a possibility. If they weren't saying it we would probably be hearing conspiracy stories about the seccession plans being drawn up for Ireland.

It's odd you say the European electorate don't come into it! I thought one of your arguments was the lack of referendums and democratic accountability elsewhere? Yes, it's true that they may not hold votes, but whether they do or not the attitudes of the EU electorate is important.

I have some work colleagues in Toulouse, France. I spoke to them before the vote. They were annoyed that Ireland was holding a vote and could possibly block everything. They did not want a vote in France, and considered the last one a complete disaster with all kinds of special interest groups jumping on multiple bandwagons.

Finally for those of you whom think the other states should hold votes, I guess Ireland's position would be helped if there were large street protests in those states demanding a referendum. However the sad truth is that people don't care enough. Even the UK, most Euro-skeptic of all, is not protesting. Yes, I know the papers are, but it seems nobody is bothered to pick up a placard and march on Downing st.

Ix.

FionnMatthew

peasant wrote: »

Even the ancient Greeks and Romans had that one sussed when they came up with the concept of elected tyrants and dictators.

Sorry to be pedantic, but a "tyrant," according to the way the word was originally used in ancient Greece (tyrannos) was, to the best of my knowledge, not typically elected.

FionnMatthew

ixtlan wrote: »

It's odd you say the European electorate don't come into it! I thought one of your arguments was the lack of referendums and democratic accountability elsewhere? Yes, it's true that they may not hold votes, but whether they do or not the attitudes of the EU electorate is important.

Nah!

My point was that, seeing as the ratification process was based on the unanimity between member-states individual ratification processes, the way we ended up doing it should have no bearing on how the decision is interpreted.

The quotes at the start of this thread keep comparing the "minority of a minority of a minority" who voted on it in Ireland, to the vast majority of people in Europe, who purportedly "want" the treaty. This is disingenuous. The only thing those officials are entitled to consider is the fact that Ireland says NO. Population weight is not a valid concern for these people, since the condition upon which the ratification process relied was unanimity between member-states. If it had been a pan-European, popular vote, that method would begin to look flawed, but it wasn't. Hence, the some half-billion people who are being invoked in quotes such as are to be seen at the start of this thread ought not to be invoked at all, just as the Irish electorate ought not to be invoked. The real issue is that Ireland said NO, while, at this point, the majority of other member-states said YES. By the very ratification process, population weight was left at the door.

Talk of democracy is just so much rhetorical muscle flexing. It's a political tail-feather display. And it's rather insultingly transparent.

FionnMatthew

ixtlan wrote: »

I see where you are going, and I agree with your sentiments. The problem with as you splendidly call it the "decisional atrophy of the electorates in Western states" stems from the fact that most politics nowadays operates in the middle, so people feel there is little choice. And the politicans operate in the middle because there is a general consensus on policies. Therefore everything is stable, little real change happens and people feel divorced from the process. I'm not sure what you can do about this. Better civic training perhaps, but it's hard to get people interested when there is no massive desire for change. This is why Sinn Fein does well. For all their faults they are different, but they normally only appeal to a minority.

Well... perhaps what I'm advocating is something more like direct democracy, within which civic engagement is part of a pedagogic induction into the intellectual community. That way voter engagement and voter competence would be the measure of each other.

But here I run the risk of being accused of "idealism."

FionnMatthew

ixtlan wrote: »

For the referendum we have made a simple choice of yes/no without really knowing what no means. The no side has said that the choice was for a better deal. If however such a deal is not forthcoming and it comes down to leaving the EU or ratifying Lisbon there may be a yes in a future vote. Governments often have to make difficult decisions, but for our referendum we have not really understood yet what the choice on the no side was for.

Ix.

Agreed.

I have more or less argued for exactly that elsewhere on this forum.

PrivateEye

1) If we voted Yes- would we know what it means?
Or would it be because of a few nice posters?
Wouldn't matter then anyway :rolleyes:

2) They'd all be out hailing democracy if the above happened.
Now its gone 'wrong', they're trying to work around it.

NO MEANS NO
Respect the peoples wishes.

FionnMatthew

PrivateEye wrote: »

1) If we voted Yes- would we know what it means?

Certainly not. Not with our electorate.

Or would it be because of a few nice posters?

No. I should think posters are one of the reasons why people were less inclined to know what YES or NO actually meant.

2) They'd all be out hailing democracy if the above happened.

Probably, but they'd have been wrong.

NO MEANS NO
Respect the peoples wishes.

Actually, I don't think it's about the people. It's about the Irish refusal to ratify the treaty. It just so happens that we held a referendum on it. It might easily have been otherwise, in which case the "people's" wishers might not have been respected.
But that's besides the point. Ireland says NO.

NO is all Europe has to work with, and NO is something that ought to be taken seriously, given the lofty premises under which the ratification process was initiated.

Not wishing to denigrate your contribution, but we've sort of been over that kind of point already, and we're down to more specific things at the moment!

limklad

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Certainly not. Not with our electorate.

So you would ask us to blindly vote yes and give away our rights without a word, lying down and let our foolish government (not very smart in most cases) who is from society (most not highly educates) vote our rights away. That very cheeky and snobbish and anti-democratic of you. We suppose to be a highly educated society in europe and this comment from you claims otherwise. Governments have been wrong and blindly led people down the wrong path around the world. DO YOU WANT THE SAME HERE?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Ireland have made many intelligent amendments to the constitution through referendum Most were highly successful votes, such as the Good Friday agreement which was significant piece to agree on.
We had other referendums which was not hijacked by other interest groups
http://electionsireland.org/results/referendum/

Summary of Referendums 1937-2004
The Referendum Commission
________________________________________
Referendums in Ireland
The draft Constitution was approved by the people at a plebiscite held on 1st July 1937. The constitution provides for two kinds of referendum:
• A referendum on a proposal to amend the Constitution (referred to in law as a "constitutional referendum"), and
• A referendum on a proposal other than a proposal to amend the Constitution (referred to in law as an "ordinary referendum").
An ordinary referendum may take place when a proposal contained in a Bill is determined to be of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained. No ordinary referendum has taken place up to the present.
A constitutional referendum relates to proposals for the amendment of the Constitution. The first two amendments to the Constitution took place during the transitional period within which the Constitution could be amended by ordinary law without a referendum in accordance with Article 51. These amendments were effected by the First Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1939 and the Second Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1941 respectively.
________________________________________
Results and Details of Referendums
The Referendums marked with an asterisk below do not have detailed voting figures available yet
12 June 2008
Referendum on EU Lisbon Treaty [REJECTED]
28th Constitutional Amendment (14 of 2008 - 6 March 2008)
On 11 March 2008 the Taoiseach announced the vote on the revised Treaty would be held in the second week of June 2008. Ireland is the only country in the EU which by law requires ratification of EU treaties by referendum. On 12 May 2008, the date for this referendum was confirmed as Thursday 12 June 2008.
A Referendum Commission was established on 6 March 2008 by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley TD. The Commission was chaired by High Court judge, Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill, who was nominated to the position by the Chief Justice, John Murray. A dedicated website was set up by the Referendum Commission for information relating to this referendum: www.lisbontreaty2008.ie
2007
Referendum on Child Protection [PROPOSED]
In February 2007 the Government published the proposed wording of the 28th Constitutional Amendment to replace Article 42 of the Constitution, which affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children. No date has been agreed for the referendum, but it will now be held on a later date than the Referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty, which is now the proposed 28th Constitutional Amendment.
2005
Referendum on EU Constitution [PROPOSED]
28th Amendment of the Constitution (15 of 2005 - 26 May 2005)
On 26 May 2005 the Government published a bill for a referendum on the ratification of the proposed EU constitution. The referendum was expected some time in 2006, but was postponed following the 'no' votes in France and the Netherlands. It was subsequently re-introduced on 6 March 2008 (see Referendum on EU Lisbon Treaty).
11 June 2004
27th: Referendum on Citizenship [ACCEPTED]
19 October 2002
26th: Nice Treaty II [ACCEPTED]
6 March 2002
25th: Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy [REJECTED]
7 June 2001
21st: Abolition of the Death Penalty [ACCEPTED]
23rd: International Criminal Court [ACCEPTED]
24th: Nice Treaty I [REJECTED]
There is no Twenty�second Amendment of the Constitution. The Twenty�second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 [relating to the removal of a judge from office and providing for a body to be established by law to investigate or cause to be investigated conduct constituting misbehaviour by a judge or affected by incapacity of a judge] was not passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
11 June 1999
20th: Recognition for Local Government [ACCEPTED]
22 May 1998
19th: Northern Ireland [ACCEPTED]
18th: Treaty of Amsterdam [ACCEPTED]
30 June 1997
17th: Cabinet Confidentiality [ACCEPTED]
28 November 1996
16th: Bail [ACCEPTED]
24 November 1995
15th: Dissolution of Marriage [ACCEPTED]
25 November 1992
12th: Right to Life [REJECTED]
13th: Travel [ACCEPTED]
14th: Information [ACCEPTED]
18 June 1992
*11th: European Union [ACCEPTED]
26 May 1987
*10th: Ratification of the Single European Act [ACCEPTED]
26 June 1986
*10th: Dissolution of Marriage [REJECTED]
14 June 1984
*9th: Extension of Voting Right at Dail elections [ACCEPTED]
7 September 1983
*8th: Right to Life of the Unborn [REJECTED]
5 July 1979
*6th: Adoption [ACCEPTED]
*7th: University Representation in Seanad [ACCEPTED]
7 December 1973
*4th: Voting Age [ACCEPTED]
*5th: Recognition of Specified Religions [ACCEPTED]
10 May 1973
*3rd: Accession to the European Communities [ACCEPTED]
16 October 1968
*3rd: Formation of Dail Constituencies [REJECTED]
*4th: Change in Voting System [REJECTED]
17 June 1959
*3rd: Change in Voting System [REJECTED]
30 May 1942
§2nd: General Amendments [ACCEPTED]
An omnibus proposal, covering a range of disparate Articles, aimed at tidying up the Constitution in the light of experience since its enactment.
2 September 1939
§1st: State of Emergency [ACCEPTED]
Extended to conflicts in which the State is not a participant the provision for a state of emergency to secure the public safety and preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion.
1 July 1937
*Plebiscite on the Draft Constitution [ACCEPTED]
§The first two amendments to the Constitution took place during the transitional period within which the Constitution could be amended by ordinary law without a referendum in accordance with Article 51.

It is when we vote NO does the YES people claim we are stupid and start with smears campaign.

Neamhshuntasach

If they can't even accept our answer to the treaty, what makes me or anyone think that they will respect circumstances where Ireland are the only country vetoing it? Will the 'we must push ahead as it is good for Europe' approach come into play then too?

ixtlan

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

If they can't even accept our answer to the treaty, what makes me or anyone think that they will respect circumstances where Ireland are the only country vetoing it? Will the 'we must push ahead as it is good for Europe' approach come into play then too?

Personally I think this issue of vetoing the treaty and it not being accepted is not being looked at in the right way.

We have vetoed the treaty and it cannot be applied to us. The other states accept that it cannot be applied to us. Whether it might apply to them through some legal means is a separate issue.

That's what the veto means. We refuse to accept this for us. We have the vote rather than an average of EU referendums (if they held them).

However ultimately this is academic. As I said it will be years before other countries would move ahead if ever, and before that happens there will be another referendum with whatever concessions are made to Ireland included.

I still am perplexed at this attitude of the no side that we must not vote on anything that has a line of text from the old Lisbon text.

Maybe we should have a poll. If Lisbon is modified as follows:

Remove the military clause, or specifically exclude Ireland in the text.
Remove Ireland from the EU battlegroups. (external to the treaty)
Remove the possibility of a CCTB, or specifically in the text say that Ireland must have a referendum to adopt it.
Leave the commission at one commissioner per state.
Abolish the council president, and foreign affairs representative.

Surely that would address many of the concerns? Even though I don't approve these changes, I'd live with them to respect the concerns of those who voted no.

Why throw the entire treaty out?

Ix.

limklad

limklad wrote: »

We suppose to be a highly educated society in europe and this comment from you claims otherwise. Governments have been wrong and blindly led people down the wrong path around the world. DO YOU WANT THE SAME HERE?

Do you accept that Coir might have got a 100k+ voters to the polls to keep out abortion,prostitution and hard drugs?How blind was that part of the vote?

I'd imagine theres at least a 100k mass goers who went into the ballot box with that attitude and then theres the people who wanted to stop European army conscription..how blind was their vote?

Finally-My own bank manager voted no because he went to the post office on the day of the poll to pay a €40 parking fine and was told he must pay €60 because he was 2 days late paying so he went to the polling station and voted no saying that will stuff them.
How inteligent is that?

limklad

ixtlan wrote: »

Leave the commission at one commissioner per state.
Abolish the council president, and foreign affairs representative.

Surely that would address many of the concerns? Even though I don't approve these changes, I'd live with them to respect the concerns of those who voted no.

Why throw the entire treaty out?

Ix.

It would be great if a referendum on the various issues would be put to the people.

But on the following points i need to add

The commissioner is a false non-issue because of NICE treaty- We have lost that in sometime in the future, maybe not Immediately, since we vote NO and in case the Lisbon Treaty is put to us again,

Most Nations within the EU is part of NATO or want to join NATO, since Majority rule under Lisbon, our foreign policy will be NATO point of view. Therefore the foreign affairs High representative will give NATO point of view. We will no longer be neutral in world view.

limklad

limklad wrote: »

Therefore the foreign affairs High representative will give NATO point of view. We will no longer be neutral in world view.

Well I don't know what view he or she might project.It's open to debate as he/she would have to reflect the views of all the council of foreign ministers not just the 7 or 8 nato alligned ones.
I do know that the treaty wouldn't have abolished our membership of the united nations and our right to speak up there on our own behalf or our ability to be one of the temporary members of the UNSC.