Possibility of a Lisbon #2

ixtlan

auerillo wrote: »

I have to say I think that its extraordinary the way posters keep trying to decide they know why others voted. It seems the exclusive preserve of those who want to speculate why others voted “no”, and I have seem no such speculation to know why others voted “yes”.

Well it obviously it is important to know why people voted no, so that we can move forward as you suggest. It's kind of clear why people voted yes... some because they believed the treaty was in Ireland's and the EU's best interest and some because they did not understand but trusted their elected representatives. These yes votes allow the politicians to proceed. The no votes demand an understanding.

auerillo wrote: »

My own view is that the best way to get out of this mess is for the EU to become democratic. Its no good the politicians deciding they will not listen to the people of Europe, and no good the politicians riding roughshod over the wishes of the electorate.

With all due respect, this "democratic deficit" thing is very easy to say but very hard to pin down. How exactly is the EU not democratic? All members of the parliament are elected and would have had significant power under Lisbon. Most decisions are taken by the democratically elected ministers and heads of state.

The only powerful non-elected EU officials are the commissioners, and I'm sure you can see why these are not elected by popular vote. 1/ They can't be elected by one country because they cannot represent only that country. 2/ They can't be elected by an EU-wide vote because then similar problems arise.... they can't promise anything to voters in any country, and most likely an Irish candidate would never get elected, which would mess with our concept of "our commissioner".

Ix

Tim Robbins

auerillo wrote: »

The language we use is instructive. I don’t think of “we” as Ireland, and “they” as everyone else. I think of “we” as all of us, as in all of us in the EU together.

What a load of absolute fluff. They ratified Lisbon, we didn't. If you can't delinate grouping on that issue, you cannot realise the most obvious fact here.

Likewise, whatever happens, we will “move forward”. It’s not a case that we can only “movr forward” if we agree with one point of view. Whichever point of view we take, we will still “move forward”.

We can't move forward if we all have completly different views and can't reach compromise.

My own view is that the best way to get out of this mess is for the EU to become democratic. Its no good the politicians deciding they will not listen to the people of Europe, and no good the politicians riding roughshod over the wishes of the electorate.

We are not at this stage because three out of five countries have had the temerity to vote "no" to the constitution/treaty. It was, and is, our right to vote no, or yes, as we each individually please. It simply is a ridiculous argument that we should not be allowed to vote no because it might upset some politicians egos, or because we ought to know what is good for us and do as we are told by our political masters. If we ( and by "we" I mean many people across europe) don't like what out politicians are proposing, then they, teh politicians, should recognise that and represent us, rather than threatening us and bullying us into doing what they want.

Your views don't make anysense and like many no voters you are incapable of articulating a way forward. All you are doing is coming out with vacuous rhetoric, like "will of the people" and "they'll have to listen". You appear to be incapable of grasping the complexity of this matter.

May I just repeat the key facts?

We are in limbo. This is because we are in the EU but not in Lisbon. This is a mess. It's an arrangement that can't work and has no easy answer. If you try to understand the situation and give up with the soundbites, you might realise that.

People have a right to create that mess if they really want to. But the reality is most no voters don't understand the complexity of the mess and haven't a clue or the will to get us out of it.

You make like the sound of your rhetoric but it does nothing to progress anything. It's a mechanism for going around in circles.

ionix5891

auerillo wrote: »

Quite obviously your question is rhetorical. How do you know its 800000 of us in Europe who are opposed to this constitution/treaty and, as you imply, 499200000 in favour?



At least no one would stoop so low, in a democracy, even rename what might have been called a "constitution" something else ( a "treaty" perhaps), to get around some inconvenient "no" votes?

do you see riots on the streets of the 19 countries who ratified it? obviously a majority of the populations either dont care or support it

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

I have to say I think that its extraordinary the way posters keep trying to decide they know why others voted. It seems the exclusive preserve of those who want to speculate why others voted “no”, and I have seem no such speculation to know why others may have voted “yes”. Might they have voted yes because they felt threatened by the overwhelming weight of political pressure? We simply don't know, and speculating is merely that, speculation.

In all of my previous posts on the matter I have carefully avoided falling into the "All Nos are ignorant" trap. And if you read what I actually wrote (and even reviewed some of my other posts today) you will see that I have clearly stated that ignorance exists on both sides. I fell that any referendum where there is so much ignorance is a waste of time because the peolpe are not really deciding on the issue at hand. I have also stated in the past, and will continue to state, that if the whole thing is shot down by a relatively knowledgable electorate then so be it. I personally voted yes after deciding to ignore both camps and by reviewing as much info as I could on the topic, i.e. I figured it out for myself. And strangely it wasn't all that hard, just a little time consuming.

auerillo wrote: »

To suggest we are alone in voting “no” is clearly untrue, as has already been pointed out.

We were the only ones to vote no. After the Constitution was blocked the French an Dutch went back to the EU and changes were made. Therefore the two things, while being very similar are not the same.

auerillo wrote: »

My own view is that the best way to get out of this mess is for the EU to become democratic. Its no good the politicians deciding they will not listen to the people of Europe, and no good the politicians riding roughshod over the wishes of the electorate.

Lets take a quick look at European politics shall we:
National Government: directly elected by the people
European Parliament: directly elected by the people
Council of Ministers: Ministers from National Governments (directly elected by the people)
EU Commission: Put forward by directly elected National Governments, should not be voted for by national electorates as they do not represent one nation alone.
Voting: Each member state has votes according to their population which is then weighted to ensure that the smaller state don't get trampled on by the larger states.
Ratifying treaties etc: These are ratified in accordance with each countries individual laws, therefore making it a soverign (i.e. non-EU) issue.

Can you please let me know where this added democracy can be achieved?

seamus

auerillo wrote: »

At least no one would stoop so low, in a democracy, even rename what might have been called a "constitution" something else ( a "treaty" perhaps), to get around some inconvenient "no" votes?

Constitutions and treaties are functionally very different things. Try consider the implications of calling the Republic of Ireland Act a "treaty" between Ireland and the UK.

and if they vote no second time around.... do we go on till the 'correct' vote is cast?

Or until the electorate votes out the plebs who keep asking them to vote "no".

force eleven

Ah well, Monsieur Sarkozy will rescue us 'fools when he visits next month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4174476.ece

ionix5891

force eleven wrote: »

Ah well, Monsieur Sarkozy will rescue us 'fools when he visits next month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4174476.ece

will he bring his wife?

D.S.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are in limbo. This is because we are in the EU but not in Lisbon. This is a mess. It's an arrangement that can't work and has no easy answer.....

...People have a right to create that mess if they really want to. But the reality is most no voters don't understand the complexity of the mess and haven't a clue or the will to get us out of it.

Completely agree. The problem is we are not in Lisbon and we need to find a way around it.

The goverment is going to look for guarantees from Europe on issues such as tax/neutrality etc which is pointless as Lisbon relates how Europe is operationally ran.

The real issue is whether or not the Irish government will have any real power/influence to protect those interests (tax/neutrality etc) under Lisbon. The only way forward is for Cowen & Co to prove to the electorate that they have the power to protect these interests. I think this is the crux of the problem. Lisbon removes the veto in many instances in favour of QMV. If Cowen & Co can't prove this, I don't really thing a 'Yes' vote will come to pass next time round.

Scofflaw

D.S. wrote: »

are 800,000 people a majority in Europe of half a billion?

Thats irrevelant. It's a treaty which needs to be ratified by every country. If it's not ratified by every country, it doesnt get through.

That is very much having one's cake ("it's undemocratic for the rest of the EU to ignore our vote") and eating it ("it has to be ratified by each country").

Countries each having a veto is not 'democratic', unless you are going to argue that the countries are the 'demos' of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

D.S. wrote: »

Completely agree. The problem is we are not in Lisbon and we need to find a way around it.

The goverment is going to look for guarantees from Europe on issues such as tax/neutrality etc which is pointless as Lisbon relates how Europe is operationally ran.

We got those guarentees. We were able to pull that one after Nice 1 failed, but now there is no specific obvious thing to look for a guarentee. This is what makes this situation such a mess.

The real issue is whether or not the Irish government will have any real power/influence to protect those interests (tax/neutrality etc) under Lisbon.
The only way forward is for Cowen & Co to prove to the electorate that they have the power to protect these interests. I think this is the crux of the problem. Lisbon removes the veto in many instances in favour of QMV. If Cowen & Co can't prove this, I don't really thing a 'Yes' vote will come to pass next time round.

Of course it would have. We got the guarentees, this is why we look very stupid to our neighbours. They know know tax and defense are big issues for us. We got them so now they are saying to themselves, what more does Ireland want?

In fact our own government and any yes voter is also asking that question. We are not getting intelligble answers, only fluffy rhetoric such as "the people have spoken" and all these soundbites which may sound great but in a political context in terms of where we go are absolutely asinine.

D.S.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is very much having one's cake ("it's undemocratic for the rest of the EU to ignore our vote") and eating it ("it has to be ratified by each country").

Countries each having a veto is not 'democratic', unless you are going to argue that the countries are the 'demos' of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As far as Ireland's constitution is concerned, democracy was upheld - a referendum was held and was not passed.

As far as the EU and Lisbon is concerned, it's not a simple story. Not every person in the EU voted on the treaty. Elected representatives in certain countries passed the treaty on behalf of their people without holding any referendum at all. So we're not comparing like with like.

In either case, the ratification process in this instance demanded that all countries ratified the treaty in order for it to get through.

I still support the view that it is perfectly democratic for a Lisbon to be put back to the Irish people, and that is is still democratic for the treaty to be held up by Ireland as per the ratification protocols under the EU's democratic system.

D.S.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course it would have. We got the guarentees, this is why we look very stupid to our neighbours. They know know tax and defense are big issues for us. We got them so now they are saying to themselves, what more does Ireland want?

In fact our own government and any yes voter is also asking that question. We are not getting intelligble answers, only fluffy rhetoric such as "the people have spoken" and all these soundbites which may sound great but in a political context in terms of where we go are absolutely asinine.

I agree. From the EU's perspective, they are quite rightly asking - what more do you want? And the government are focusing on this when I dont think this is the actual problem.

The problem is convincing the electorate the government actually has control/influence over these issues. There was hardly any real discussion/assurances from the Yes compaigners on the central issues during the campaign.

The 'Yes' campaigners need to get their act together if we are to move forward from here. Real understanding of the issues needs to be exhibited.

Ancillory guarantees etc from Europe may help (while being repition granted). But it's Cowen and Co predominately who need to deliver on this.

conceited

Ireland has been given a year by his European counterparts to push through a second referendum on the lisbon treaty. So basically say yes in spring or ?

dlofnep

Basically it's a - Do what Europe tells you, because they know best and Irish voters are too stupid to make decisions. I find it funny all the European leaders went around stating "We respect the Irish vote". What the really mean is, they respect the Irish vote - so long as it's in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

conceited

I couldn't agree more with you honestly now what is best for ireland?

Brian Cowen, the Irish Taoiseach, is expected to support the calls for ratification to continue in other countries and to plead that Ireland is not left behind.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, is working with European Union officials and diplomats to plan a special "legal arrangement" to bypass Ireland's referendum rejection.

ionix5891

good we now have a year to clear alot of the lies spread by Liberats and SF and beat some sense into politicians who instead of explaining the treaty to the people put their smiley faces on the damned posters

conceited

Why weren't the Dutch and the French told to re-run their referenda?

ionix5891

conceited wrote: »

Why weren't the Dutch and the French told to re-run their referenda?

they didnt have to hold another referenda

as their concerns were addressed by this Lisbon treaty (the one we said No to) which was then ratified by their elected representative governments (they don't have the bit in their constitutions that require a referendum on every decision) without riots or complaints from the populace

capiche?

the same can not happen in Ireland as our constitution is slightly different and we have to be asked instead of the elected government doing the job they were elected to do


France and Netherlands had a clear example of direct and representative democracy in action working to address the will of the people, now all we need is someone to start screaming "thats undemocratic" in this thread and show their ignorance on the subject of democracy and how it works


:cool:

murphaph

ionix5891 wrote: »

good we now have a year to clear alot of the lies spread by Liberats and SF and beat some sense into politicians who instead of explaining the treaty to the people put their smiley faces on the damned posters

We also get to see the true colours of the "European project"-look at forums across the continent-previous YES supporters are now questioning the whole damn thing given the apparent "do what we say" attitude emanating from the political elite across the continent. These a$$holes need a lesson in people power. I've already got a sharpened pencil ready to vote NO again....This will (I hope) be the first time the EU political elite have been unable to bully the people into 'moving forward'. The Danes were bullied into voting twice on Maastricht, us on Nice and now us on Lisbon. This time they're not even going to bother with the sham of changing anything substantive in the treaty. It's a real "you stupid people-you should vote yes on this, vote again" moment. I've been reading comments from english supporters of the 'Project' and many questions are being asked of the whole thing now. We should have had this europe wide debate years ago, before Nice.

ionix5891

murphaph wrote: »

We also get to see the true colours of the "European project"-look at forums across the continent-previous YES supporters are now questioning the whole damn thing given the apparent "do what we say" attitude emanating from the political elite across the continent. These a$$holes need a lesson in people power. I've already got a sharpened pencil ready to vote NO again....This will (I hope) be the first time the EU political elite have been unable to bully the people into 'moving forward'. The Danes were bullied into voting twice on Maastricht, us on Nice and now us on Lisbon. This time they're not even going to bother with the sham of changing anything substantive in the treaty. It's a real "you stupid people-you should vote yes on this, vote again" moment. I've been reading comments from english supporters of the 'Project' and many questions are being asked of the whole thing now. We should have had this europe wide debate years ago, before Nice.

so you are going to vote on something that has nothing to do with the treaty? how is that democratic? or for that matter how is that not selfish and not arrogant? you are accusing other people of that you have yourself become :rolleyes:

conceited

Oh i see ,so they voted yes for the people that voted no.
Very good.

ionix5891

conceited wrote: »

Oh i see ,so they voted yes for the people that voted no.
Very good.

their DEMOCRATICALLY elected representatives have voted YES

without the people complaining as their concerns and demands were addressed

and yes it is very good its an example of democracy in action, if you don't see that im sorry but maybe someone else can make it clearer


now once again let me correct that line for you
so they voted yes for the people after the concerns of the people that voted no we addressed.


do you propose some fancy type of democracy that we are not aware of yet?


the complete and utter lack of understanding on how direct and representative democracies works is shocking in some people who posted in this thread, you may as well start here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


:cool:

dlofnep

ionix5891 wrote: »

so you are going to vote on something that has nothing to do with the treaty? how is that democratic? or for that matter how is that not selfish and not arrogant? you are accusing other people of that you have yourself become :rolleyes:

He already voted on the treaty, like many others. Why would he have to justify himself again?

dlofnep

ionix5891 wrote: »

their DEMOCRATICALLY elected representatives have voted YES

without the people complaining

That's a blatant lie. A vast amount of people have expressed concern across Europe. Try again.

babarino

The antics of the European political 'elite' since the no vote have reassured that I made the right call on polling day - reluctantly voted against.

jellybeans

murphaph wrote: »

We also get to see the true colours of the "European project"-look at forums across the continent-previous YES supporters are now questioning the whole damn thing given the apparent "do what we say" attitude emanating from the political elite across the continent. These a$$holes need a lesson in people power. I've already got a sharpened pencil ready to vote NO again....This will (I hope) be the first time the EU political elite have been unable to bully the people into 'moving forward'. The Danes were bullied into voting twice on Maastricht, us on Nice and now us on Lisbon. This time they're not even going to bother with the sham of changing anything substantive in the treaty. It's a real "you stupid people-you should vote yes on this, vote again" moment. I've been reading comments from english supporters of the 'Project' and many questions are being asked of the whole thing now. We should have had this europe wide debate years ago, before Nice.

Why are you voting no is it to make a point (as in biting off your nose to spite your face) or are you voting no because you really believe its best for the future of Ireland to be left out of the treaty? think about your motives first

SkepticOne

conceited wrote: »

Ireland has been given a year by his European counterparts to push through a second referendum on the lisbon treaty. So basically say yes in spring or ?

So has Cowen agreed to this? I'm not going to take it seriously until I see an announcement from Cowen. I think another No would be very damaging for the EUs credibility as well as the end of Cowen's political career.

ionix5891

dlofnep wrote: »

That's a blatant lie. A vast amount of people have expressed concern across Europe. Try again.

where is this vast amount you speak of? where are these revolutions and protests on the streets of Europe??


if the people across Europe dont like their democratic governments they democratically elected in (these governments didn't appoint themselves you know) they have the power to remove them, some like the French get very vocal and riot and burn cars whenever they are pissed of with their representatives

we are not seeing any of it, not a single government who ratified this treaty has been shown the door by the people


there is some insane belief held by some people who post in this thread that the other countries in Europe are not democratic and we are the only shinning beacon of hope for them poor oppressed people, come on ffs

:cool:

murphaph

ionix5891 wrote: »

they didnt have to hold another referenda

Deliberately so-the Lisbon treaty was 'crafted' so as to legally avoid as many referenda as possible!!

ionix5891 wrote: »

as their concerns were addressed by this Lisbon treaty

How do you know? They didn't ask the people to give their apporval to this so your claim is totally unfounded. Given the number of reasons for the NO vote being spouted by YES supporters here, it is reasonable to suppose the french/dutch also voted no for some spurious reasons.

ionix5891 wrote: »

which was then ratified by their elected representative governments

Aye, but it is a treaty which hands over more power to the EU and so people can't reverse the decision by removing those elected representatives, who all seem hell bent on castrating themselves. Remember the irish parliament voted to extinguish itself and capitulate to London rule? They were BRIBED to do so. It made no sense on the face of it. Neither does the 'project'.

ionix5891 wrote: »

(they don't have the bit in their constitutions that require a referendum on every decision)

Neither do we, just important laws which will see any increase in european powers that nullify our constitution. It is a good thing to have this protective mechanism in any country's constitution.

ionix5891 wrote: »

without riots or complaints from the populace capiche?

That dodn't mean the populace agree. We likely wouldn't have rioted or held mass protests if we'd been denied a referendum either, even though we voted NO when given the chance, so your argument is rubbish. Comprende?

ionix5891 wrote: »

the same can not happen in Ireland as our constitution is slightly different and we have to be asked instead of the elected government doing the job they were elected to do

They weren't elected to decide this matter. Our constitution provides that we the people decide such matters by direct referendum, as they are deemed so important to national sovereignty (read:democracy).

ionix5891 wrote: »

France and Netherlands had a clear example of direct and representative democracy in action working to address the will of the people, now all we need is someone to start screaming "thats undemocratic" in this thread and show their ignorance on the subject of democracy and how it works

You're a gas man. I was talking to a french friend in Lyon the other day. She had previously voted YES to the constitution and is broadly in favour of the European project. She was raging that they had been denied the right to give their ascent to this new treaty which the politicians claimed to have addressed WHAT THEY PERCEIVED the issues to be! She was delighted that we voted NO. The french people are not all happy with Lisbon and even many who are are upset that they didn't get to say so! They all know they were deliberately denied a referendum by way of the treaty itself. It was no accident of law, quite deliberate. There's only one reason to do that.

SkepticOne

jellybeans wrote: »

or are you voting no because you really believe its best for the future of Ireland to be left out of the treaty?

Left out of the treaty? The treaty is dead unless all countries ratify it.