Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    No I misread there. Sorry. I thought we'd just have an opt out of the new areas which would be fair enough. I don't think they could stop us having a say in the pre-lisbon areas which is the problem as we would be using completely seperate voting systems. Unless this NuLisbon treaty was to exclude on all voting which in effect would be kicking us out of the E.U. Highly unlikely but if it happened because we made a decision we were entitled to make again, I'd say it would come across as bullying (I.E we wont bring it in unless we have unanimous vote, that is unless anyone actually tries to block it , in which case we'll remove you and carry on anyway).

    No you are right... things would continue on as usual on Nice competencies, but probably using QMV (doesn't require a constitutional change), and we wouldn't get any say in NuLisbon competencies, nor would we get the benefits, where they existed (e.g. cheaper home heating oil or enviornmental efficiency grants under Energy).

    We've already lost the right to nominate a Comissioner to the E.U. Commission (it's not Irelands Comissioner and never was) under Nice, and we've just rejected the offer of getting that nomination back for 10 years out of 15.

    Be of little doubt, a two track Europe will be bad for Ireland, which is why the 'No' side dismissed it as scaremongering.

    The others will feel no obligation to Ireland but to adhere to the legally minimal amount of cooperation.

    I think after 3 years of feeling cold shoulders wherever we turn, particularly when it comes to our Credit Crunch (which is only affecting the Anglophonic world, and doesn't feature highly for the rest of the ECB States) and coming economic downturn, we'll be more than ready to apologise and ask to be let back into the house.

    My only hope is they'll accept us.


  • Options
    #93
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    A quick return to said poll points you to the topic about it and that the wording was actually what they expected to happen not what they wanted... which if correct (again I haven't seen it) proves my point over wording. One can expect something to happen but not want it to...

    Agree... poor reporting, not sure if that was down to the publication, or to the Boards OP.


  • Options
    #94
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    Ireland is a small country which is after putting itself in a weak political position thanks to this No vote

    "keep ireland strong in Europe" :( they said


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    I'd say it would come across as bullying (I.E we wont bring it in unless we have unanimous vote, that is unless anyone actually tries to block it , in which case we'll remove you and carry on anyway).

    Yes it does come across at bullying if you put it that way


    but as i said theres nothing to stop them from rewording the treaty and carrying one under different name


    anyways i can also turn it right around right at you

    lets say the positions reverse and lets say Turkey (insert any country on the fringe of europe thats not doing too well and want to join the party) is after joining the EU, we pour billions into their economy over next 35 years out of our pockets, and then Ireland, UK and other countries propose and lead a new treaty, one of the main points of the treaty is the Guinness prices have to be "harmonised" across the union :p but Turkey is exempt from it for whatever reason or have a veto.This treaty is written in Ankara during their presidency, then a few years later this Ankara Treaty is rejected in a referendum in Turkey even tho Turkey were given huge consesions and has benefited greatly over this 35 years, whats worse is when asked the people couldn't provide a coherent answer to why they voted No that had anything to do with this hypothetical treaty


  • Options
    #95
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    No you are right... things would continue on as usual on Nice competencies, but probably using QMV (doesn't require a constitutional change), and we wouldn't get any say in NuLisbon competencies, nor would we get the benefits, where they existed (e.g. cheaper home heating oil or enviornmental efficiency grants under Energy).

    We've already lost the right to nominate a Comissioner to the E.U. Commission (it's not Irelands Comissioner and never was) under Nice, and we've just rejected the offer of getting that nomination back for 10 years out of 15.

    Be of little doubt, a two track Europe will be bad for Ireland, which is why the 'No' side dismissed it as scaremongering.

    The others will feel no obligation to Ireland but to adhere to the legally minimal amount of cooperation.

    I think after 3 years of feeling cold shoulders wherever we turn, particularly when it comes to our Credit Crunch (which is only affecting the Anglophonic world, and doesn't feature highly for the rest of the ECB States) and coming economic downturn, we'll be more than ready to apologise and ask to be let back into the house.

    My only hope is they'll accept us.

    Honestly I don't see this happening as a lot of countries have already rejected the idea from what I have read. Also if our government agreed to the QMV and Veto changes without referring to the people I think regardless of whether you see it as positive negative indifferent etc there would be outcry that they went ahead with that change regardless considering people have an eye on it now.


  • Options
    #96
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    On the bullying point, here's the scariest thought:

    They won't give a flying f*ck.

    We'll already be halfway out with zero leverage. We'll have nothing to offer them. So they can say to us, either shut up or leave.

    Now you might say our reaction to them will be, right so chum, we're packing our bags, thanks for the dosh suckers. But the thing is... they won't care.

    Meanwhile we'll all be sitting around with our cut off noses in our hands saying "that'll learn ye face"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Honestly I don't see this happening as a lot of countries have already rejected the idea from what I have read. Also if our government agreed to the QMV and Veto changes without referring to the people I think regardless of whether you see it as positive negative indifferent etc there would be outcry that they went ahead with that change regardless considering people have an eye on it now.

    Possibly they will retain the veto on pre NuLisbon competencies so.

    And probably, if they do, they will veto everything we want.


  • Options
    #98
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    If we are voting on the "exact same proposal" - then yes, it's undemocratic. Why have a vote in the first place if they are just going to keep having referendums until it goes slightly more in their favour?


  • Options
    #99
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    So they can say to us, either shut up or leave.
    I thought this issue had been dealt with on other threads. They can say what they want but where is the legal basis for forcing Ireland to leave?


  • Options
    #100
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    anyways i can also turn it right around right at you

    lets say the positions reverse and lets say Turkey (insert any country on the fringe of europe thats not doing too well and want to join the party) is after joining the EU, we pour billions into their economy over next 35 years out of our pockets, and then Ireland, UK and other countries propose and lead a new treaty, one of the main points of the treaty is the Guinness prices have to be "harmonised" across the union :p but Turkey is exempt from it for whatever reason or have a veto.This treaty is written in Ankara during their presidency, then a few years later this Ankara Treaty is rejected in a referendum in Turkey even tho Turkey were given huge consesions and has benefited greatly over this 35 years, whats worse is when asked the people couldn't provide a coherent answer to why they voted No that had anything to do with this hypothetical treaty

    Damn Turks! :D Hmm well again I might not like their decision (depends on my opinion of the treaty) but I'd be pissed if we passed it without referendum (And yes I know we elect blah blah blah.... argument)
    However as we seem to be in the mood for metaphors the idea that recieving should be the reason we accept a following proposal is a scary idea ( If you ever get the chance read Influence: The psychology of persuasion) the Hari Krishna in America use it to great effect handing you a flower (Gift) and then and only then asking for a donation (as you feel more obliged to return the favour) and it works fantastically well.
    What am I saying is maybe Turkey accepted the Billion's of Euros on the premise that it was to help not to buy their agreement , maybe even to give up some of their own powers, in a treaty they just don't trust.


  • Options
    #101
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I thought this issue had been dealt with on other threads. They can say what they want but where is the legal basis for forcing Ireland to leave?

    You're right, they can't force us to leave.

    I was saying if we complain about 'bullying' they won't care. i.e. Tell us 'like it or lump it', or 'shut up or leave'.

    That's not forcing somebody out, that's just saying we don't care if you think we're bullying you or not, you have nothing to offer us, so if you don't like us pack your bags and f*ck off.

    It would then be up to us to either pack our bags, or stay and put up with them.

    N.B. I'm not saying there is or will be bullying, I'm just pointing out to the people who think there is what the probable response would be to any complaints we might make.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I thought this issue had been dealt with on other threads. They can say what they want but where is the legal basis for forcing Ireland to leave?

    nobody is forcing Ireland out

    but once again theres nothing stopping any group of other European countries going ahead and making a "No Homer's Club" (remember the stonecutters episode of simpsons? :p ) this would leave Ireland behind


    there is a difference and i highlighted it


    EDIT: PopeBuckfast we should meet one day for a bottle of B down the Arch :)


  • Options
    #103
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    That's not forcing somebody out, that's just saying we don't care if you think we're bullying you or not, you have nothing to offer us, so if you don't like us pack your bags and f*ck off.
    How much influence did you think Ireland actually has? Whatever influence Ireland has is due to the fact that we can't be kicked out and we have certain voting rights. We are told by our politicians that we are at the heart of Europe but the current situation makes apparent the reality of the situation. We are a small country on the edge of Europe.


  • Options
    #104
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    dlofnep wrote: »
    If we are voting on the "exact same proposal" - then yes, it's undemocratic. Why have a vote in the first place if they are just going to keep having referendums until it goes slightly more in their favour?

    So you feel it's undemocratic if people change their minds and get to voice that change?

    I would suggest it's extremely undemocratic to hold the people to a decision they previously made if they have changed their minds.

    Tell me dlofnep, would you say that if a girl told a guy she wouldn't marry him, she should never be allowed marry him, unless he got plastic surgery, or had a significant change in his income? Or should she be allowed to change her mind?


  • Options
    #105
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    How much influence did you think Ireland actually has? Whatever influence Ireland has is due to the fact that we can't be kicked out and we have certain voting rights. We are told by our politicians that we are at the heart of Europe but the current situation makes apparent the reality of the situation. We are a small country on the edge of Europe.

    And far more so today than last Thursday, on this we agree.

    Like I say... I'm all for a referendum to leave the EU, or stay under Lisbon rules.

    I'd accept the outcome either way, even if it included a clause which disallowed a rerun for 10 years.


  • Options
    #106
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    EDIT: PopeBuckfast we should meet one day for a bottle of B down the Arch :)


    haha... I like your moxy! But in the spirit of the debate I propose it renamed the Donegal Arch... fckin Spanish/EU trying to rob our Arches... bullys!


  • Options
    #107
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    nobody is forcing Ireland out

    but once again theres nothing stopping any group of other European countries going ahead and making a "No Homer's Club" (remember the stonecutters episode of simpsons? :p ) this would leave Ireland behind
    Why would we want to be part of any of those clubs and what power would they have? These other countries would still be bound by the Nice treaty and the rest of the EU rules. They could not raise trade barriers against us for example. Let them form their silly clubs. What are these clubs actually going to do?

    What you are saying is that we've upset some other countries. No one is surprised at that. The mistake these other countries made is that they assumed the Irish people would go along with their wishes. They have been put right on that point.


  • Options
    #108
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    What are these clubs actually going to do?

    Everything you didn't want Ireland to do under Lisbon.

    Really it's a win/win for the No camp, so I don't know what people are complaining about when politicians in Europe say that's what they want to do.

    I think it'd be a disaster for Ireland, but then obviously the majority of voters disagreed with me.


  • Options
    #109
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Everything you didn't want Ireland to do under Lisbon.

    Really it's a win/win for the No camp, so I don't know what people are complaining about when politicians in Europe say that's what they want to do.

    I think it'd be a disaster for Ireland, but then obviously the majority of voters disagreed with me.
    I'm not complaining, I kind of expected it. As far as I'm concerned unless there's going to be some substance to it, there's no reason for Ireland to be concerned by some club of the miffed.


  • Options
    #110
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I'm not complaining, I kind of expected it. As far as I'm concerned unless there's going to be some substance to it, there's no reason for Ireland to be concerned by some club of the miffed.

    Sure we can reevaluate in 2011 :pac:


  • Options
    #111
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Why would we want to be part of any of those clubs and what power would they have? These other countries would still be bound by the Nice treaty and the rest of the EU rules. They could not raise trade barriers against us for example. Let them form their silly clubs. What are these clubs actually going to do?

    What you are saying is that we've upset some other countries. No one is surprised at that. The mistake these other countries made is that they assumed the Irish people would go along with their wishes. They have been put right on that point.

    Why do people continue throwing around the false notion that there are 26 other countries out to oppress Ireland. And I am not just talking about the in the days since the referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Why do people continue throwing around the false notion that there are 26 other countries out to oppress Ireland. And I am not just talking about the in the days since the referendum.
    I think some of the Yes voters are scared of what might be done to Ireland by upset governments because Ireland rejected the treaty.


  • Options
    #113
    Sauron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,139 ✭✭✭Sauron


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I think some of the Yes voters are scared of what might be done to Ireland by upset governments because Ireland rejected the treaty.

    It's not necessarily a fear about what they'll do to us, but what they'd do without us.

    Buckfast made the point earlier about member states not caring about our wishes. Simplifying to the extreme, after such a long, painful period of negotiation, those that ratified the treaty might very well say that they'd like to push ahead without us in some shape or form (the examples that have been mentioned already). Many were indeed angry that the fate of the treaty that would affect so many was decided by so few.

    They may feel no need to address our concerns in such areas as, for example, the reduction of the commission size - which was decided with Nice.

    They may decide to push ahead when the main parties campaigning for a No vote wanted a "better deal" (ie, one more tailored to our needs and not necessarily those of anyone else).

    If these scenarios hold true, then frustration could result, not in retaliation as such, but in resolve to ignore further roadblocks.


  • Options
    #114
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Sauron wrote: »
    It's not necessarily a fear about what they'll do to us, but what they'd do without us.

    Buckfast made the point earlier about member states not caring about our wishes. Simplifying to the extreme, after such a long, painful period of negotiation, those that ratified the treaty might very well say that they'd like to push ahead without us in some shape or form.
    I subsequently questioned whether this club excluding Ireland would have any substance and if not, why should we be worried.


  • Options
    #115
    Sauron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,139 ✭✭✭Sauron


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I subsequently questioned whether this club excluding Ireland would have any substance and if not, why should we be worried.

    Regardless, my point still stands that any fear is not about a direct retaliation from member states but from this isolation that would come about as an indirect result of the "new club".

    Whether or not you think this new club would have any substance does not change the fact that there is still fear about it.


  • Options
    #116
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Sauron wrote: »
    Regardless, my point still stands that any fear is not about a direct retaliation from member states but from this isolation that would come about as an indirect result of the "new club".
    Indirect retaliation if you like then. The point was made that some of these countries that don't like Ireland not ratifying the treaty may do something (with or without Ireland) to the detriment of Ireland.

    My question remains. What exactly is this thing we're supposed to be afraid of. If they form a club, is there to be any substance to this club and if so, what?
    Whether or not you think this new club would have any substance does not change the fact that there is still fear about it.
    I'm not sure of the point you are making here. I never said there was no fear, I'm questioning the extent to which this fear is founded.


  • Options
    #117
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I think some of the Yes voters are scared of what might be done to Ireland by upset governments because Ireland rejected the treaty.
    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I subsequently questioned whether this club excluding Ireland would have any substance and if not, why should we be worried.

    I don't see how it would be a positive development if it came to pass. Do you accept that vast majority of countries wish to move the union forward?

    I haven't seen any evidence that our no vote has sparked any kind of a revolution across Europe in the countries that have already ratified the treaty, though it has raised the hope of Euroskeptics in countries that have yet to do so. This implies to me that most citizens are happy enough with their governments decisions.


  • Options
    #118
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I don't see how it would be a positive development if it came to pass. Do you accept that vast majority of countries wish to move the union forward?
    I didn't say I thought it would be positive. What I was asking (again!) is what people who have this fear are thinking such a club would amount to.


  • Options
    #119
    ionix5891
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭ionix5891


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I didn't say I thought it would be positive. What I was asking (again!) is what people who have this fear are thinking such a club would amount to.

    it doesnt have to amount to much

    just the fact that we are not at the "heart of Europe" as promised by the No campaigners or knowing that Ireland is the odd one out might be very damaging especially for business

    right now this uncertainty hanging in the air like bad smell is not good for business, bad enough theres a global downturn this No outcome just adds salt to the wound


  • Options
    #120
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    it doesnt have to amount to much

    just the fact that we are not at the "heart of Europe" as promised by the No campaigners or knowing that Ireland is the odd one out might be very damaging especially for business

    right now this uncertainty hanging in the air like bad smell is not good for business, bad enough theres a global downturn this No outcome just adds salt to the wound

    Ths uncertainty could definately have an impact on any new inward investment in the short to medium term.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    I fear we will miss out on Common Energy policy and collective bargaining power, leaving us to fend for ourselves while ~500,000,000 people club together to buy Oil & Gas.

    I fear we will have no say when it comes to Environmental Energy policy and that we will not be able to push forward our point of view on the way to tackle global warming.

    I fear our abundant wind and tide resources will be ignored and unavailable when it comes to selecting the Energy Policy of the Union over the next 20 years.

    I fear we will miss out on grant aid to spec up our energy production and conservation for the green agenda.

    I fear we will miss out on EU aid if the seas begin to rise and we find ourselves flooded more and more, this is particularly worrying to an Island nation with scant internal resources like ours.

    I fear we will have no say when it comes to the foreign policy of the Union, I already dislike having America run the world without my say so, and now as the Union moves to be a bigger player on the world stage I fear we will not be at the heart of progressive foreign policy.

    I fear vetoes will be used against Ireland, and our respected and historically successful diplomats will be ignored.

    I fear Union policy will not be directed in Irelands favour, and that the Union will not concern itself with worrying about our wants or needs.

    I fear we will miss out on competition in the provision of goods and services as we will be outside competition legislation from the EU.

    I fear we will miss out on consumer protection legislation, already I can't get electronics from Amazon because of our PRF, I feel this is unfair discrimination in the provision of goods and services from another member state, but I am powerless to do anything about this at present.

    I fear missing out on Health aid, as the EU would have taken on more of a supporting role in this through Lisbon.

    I fear missing out on Educational grants, and University exchanges as the EU would have taken on more of a supporting role in this through Lisbon.

    I fear missing out on Tourism support as the EU would have taken on more of a supporting role in this through Lisbon.

    I fear not being able to veto any military actions or involvements which the EU decides to take.

    I fear not getting help from other EU members if Ireland were to suffer a natural disaster, as would have been the case under Lisbon.

    I fear not having my rights guarunteed under the Charter of Fundamental rights of the Union.

    I fear FDI avoiding Ireland, which may no longer be considered a stable member of the Union.

    I fear no help coming from the Union as our massive Capital Gains haul dries up in the wake of the housing market correction.

    I fear unfinished capital infrastructure projects as our money dries up and the EU is no longer of a mind to help us.

    And that's just off the top of my head...


Advertisement