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
why so afraid to go it alone
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
marco_polo wrote: »Nothing. As there would be nothing wrong with any subsequent votes.
If you are concerned that potential no voters are not being allowed to register to vote, and are being forced to become refugees, then perhaps you ought to bring it up with the relevant state authorites.
No, as long as they accept that we can't vote on exactly the same Treaty again and someone has to haul them through the courts to keep them on the straight and narrow
The whole thing is a bit awkward really.
Wonder what they will do if the Czech people get their vote and say 'No' as well, will they still try and proceed with the Lisbon Treaty.
Oh, and Brown MIGHT be in trouble as well about ratifying it without a Referendum.
Hell of a lot to worry about now, other than little old Ireland. A few more countries might be feeling a bit uneasy about it. What do you think?0 -
thehighground wrote: »No, as long as they accept that we can't vote on exactly the same Treaty again and someone has to haul them through the courts to keep them on the straight and narrow The whole thing is a bit awkward really.
Yes we can, on what legal basis could that be challenged. I a m not saying it wouldn't be a terrible idea and political sucide perhaps, to do so without addressing any concerns of voters.Wonder what they will do if the Czech people get their vote and say 'No' as well, will they still try and proceed with the Lisbon Treaty.
Oh, and Brown MIGHT be in trouble as well about ratifying it without a Referendum.
Hell of a lot to worry about now, other than little old Ireland. A few more countries might be feeling a bit uneasy about it. What do you think?
Both of those things have the ability to change things considerably of course. These will have played out one way or the other by the end of the year, and we will know what the situation is one way or the other before we may or may not have to revisit the issue ourselves.
Of course it is possible that there is nothing to revisit next spring.0 -
thehighground wrote: »No, as long as they accept that we can't vote on exactly the same Treaty again and someone has to haul them through the courts to keep them on the straight and narrow The whole thing is a bit awkward really.
I don't know about that. Quite a lot of people seem to have been concerned about various issues that both the Yes side and the EU characterised as 'inaccurate', but about which sufficient concern and doubt was felt that people voted No on the strength of them. That being the case, then if what the government said about those issues was in fact true and accurate, they should be able to get guarantees from the other EU members to that effect.
If those guarantees are believed to address the concerns of a sufficient number of voters, it is entirely reasonable to put the matter to the voters again. If it turns out that the guarantees are not sufficient, then the result will be a No again.
That seems to me like a perfectly acceptable piece of democratic bargaining, but I am sure people will disagree (SF particularly).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Actually, the political reason they could put "Nice" again was that the amendment was changed - to include, for example, the constitutional bar on joining a common defence - and guarantees were given by the EU (the Seville declarations) in respect of those things the voters were concerned about (which then, as now, had little relation to the Treaty).
As far as I know there is also no constitutional bar on putting the same question once a week. There's no reference to repeat referendums, or anything like a clause saying "once an amendment has been vetoed it shall not be put forward again". I am open, as ever, to correction, but there doesn't seem to be any legal bar on repeating a referendum, and there definitely isn't anything in the Constitution about it.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Thanks for all of that (which I knew). Problem is if any changes/ amendments are made to Lisbon, they will have to go back to all the other countries who have already ratified it. Poor first turnout was also given as a reason for holding Nice II.
There would be no legal bar on a repeat referendum. But (imo), according to the Constitution, it would be an illegal act by the Irish Government / Dail not to accept and ratify the results of the referendum that we had last week 0 -
thehighground wrote: »Thanks for all of that (which I knew). Problem is if any changes/ amendments are made to Lisbon, they will have to go back to all the other countries who have already ratified it. Poor first turnout was also given as a reason for holding Nice II.
True. For that reason Lisbon is unlikely to be renegotiated. The question is more likely to be changed to "with the following guarantees, will you allow the government to ratify Lisbon?".thehighground wrote: »There would be no legal bar on a repeat referendum. But (imo), according to the Constitution, it would be an illegal act by the Irish Government / Dail not to accept and ratify the results of the referendum that we had last week
There's nothing to 'ratify' though. If an amendment is voted down at referendum, it is simply not passed, so I think your issue there is more with the form of the question. The one you were looking for would be "the Government may not ever ratify the Lisbon Treaty"...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
thehighground wrote: »Thanks for all of that (which I knew). Problem is if any changes/ amendments are made to Lisbon, they will have to go back to all the other countries who have already ratified it. Poor first turnout was also given as a reason for holding Nice II.
There would be no legal bar on a repeat referendum. But (imo), according to the Constitution, it would be an illegal act by the Irish Government / Dail not to accept and ratify the results of the referendum that we had last week
As far as I can tell they did ratify the result of the Referendum, by not inserting the rejected ammended articles into the constitution. There is nothing more that is required to be done.
Actually this another reason is why an second referendum on an unchanged treaty could not be illegal, because from a technical perspective the object of the referendum was not the Treaty itself but articles giving the government the power to ratify it (This is probably not the most absolutely accurate way of putting it, but is basically what was happening).
As a result of the no vote they do not have the legal authority to ratify the treaty, but they do not have to go back to Europe and say "no we are not ratifing this treaty" to satisy any legal requirement with regard to the referendum validity itself.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh, I do apologise. Could you outline the huge cultural differences between northern and southern Scotland?
Highlanders v. Lowlanders
Urban v. Country (except mainly very remote, large estates, harsh, low population, very inclement weather, lack of sunshine, midges).
Whatever about southern Italians thriving in an urban area (lowlands) in Scotland, I'd say they might find the isolation of the Northern Scotland quite difficult to cope with. As it is, Italians seem to very much stick to themselves anyway and not integrate too much (if you have a look at the Italian restaurants / chipper owners in Ireland).0 -
If Ireland were to leave the EU, then an Irish passport would obviously no longer be an EU passport. Hence, any Irish citizens resident in EU states would (presumably) be required to apply for visas to remain. Any individuals who are refused a visa would be deported (again, presumably; this is hypothetical after all).
Unless of course the Irish government negotiates separate deals with each of the EU member states to allow Irish citizens freedom of movement within said states. This would also mean that, by reciprocity, said member states' citizens would have to be granted free access to Ireland. All of which would leave us in a similar position to that which we are in now, with the added complexity of 27 stand-alone agreements, rather than the one single, all-encompassing agreement we have at present.
We don't have an EU passport. We have an Irish Passport though. Its "The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland requests all "..... etc. The EU is not a country (just yet anyway) so doesn't issue passports.
Shouldn't be too much of a problem to sort out any deals as Ireland already has diplomatic relations/trade relations/embassies with/in all of the EU countries. Did you miss the fact that there is a spot of trouble over the trying to get agreement over the Lisbon Treaty. 26 stand-alone agreements might be a lot easier to achieve than to get all 27 countries to agree to the one thing !0 -
thehighground wrote: »We don't have an EU passport. We have an Irish Passport though. Its "The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland requests all "..... etc. The EU is not a country (just yet anyway) so doesn't issue passports.
Shouldn't be too much of a problem to sort out any deals as Ireland already has diplomatic relations/trade relations/embassies with/in all of the EU countries. Did you miss the fact that there is a spot of trouble over the trying to get agreement over the Lisbon Treaty. 26 stand-alone agreements might be a lot easier to achieve than to get all 27 countries to agree to the one thing !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_passport0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement