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
The Economist Magazine's Article About The No Vote & Reaction of the EU
Options
-
25-06-2008 5:48pm#1Just Bury It.
It is time to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead. The European Union can get along well enough without it.
Voters have once again shot an arrow into the heart of a European Union treaty.
This time it was the Irish, who voted no to the Lisbon treaty on June 12th by 53-47% on a high turnout. They follow the French and Dutch, who rejected Lisbon's predecessor, the EU constitution, in 2005. In 2001 the Irish also turned down the Nice treaty, but the Danes started this game when they voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992.
Europe's political leaders react to these unwelcome expressions of popular will in three depressingly familiar stages. First they declare portentously that the European club is in deep "crisis" and unable to function. Next, even though treaties have to be ratified by all members to take effect, they put the onus of finding a solution on the country that has said no. Last, they start to hint that the voters in question should think again, and threaten that a second rejection may force the recalcitrant country to leave the EU. The sole exception to this three-stage process was the Franco-Dutch no in 2005. Then, after two years of debate the politicians hit on the cynical wheeze of writing the constitution's main elements into the incomprehensible Lisbon treaty, with the deliberate aim of avoiding the need to consult Europe's voters directly again.
Now the Irish, the only people in the EU to be offered a referendum on Lisbon, have shot down even this wheeze. And as EU leaders gathered for a Brussels summit, after The Economist went to press, most had duly embarked on their usual three-stage reaction, all the while promising to "respect" the outcome of the Irish referendum - by which they mean to look or a way around it. Some may have had the gall to argue, with a straight face, that Lisbon must be brought into effect despite the Irish no because it will make the EU more democratic. This is Brussels' equivalent of a doctor saying that the operation was a success, but the patient died. In truth, it is the Lisbon treaty that should be allowed to die.
Democracy and efficiency don't always go together.
Every part of EU leaders' three-stage response is wrong-headed. The Irish rejection of the treaty is a setback, certainly. But in the days after the vote, the Brussels machinery has acted normally, approving mergers, looking into state-aid cases, holding meetings and passing directives. The claim that an expanded EU of 27 countries cannot function without Lisbon is simply not true. Indeed, several academic studies have found that the enlarged EU has worked more efficiently than before. Besides, it is not always desirable to speed up decision making; democracy usually operates by slowing it down. Many of the institutional reforms in the Lisbon treaty would not have taken effect until 2014 or 2017 in any case.
Nor is it right to treat the outcome as a problem for Ireland alone, still less to start talking of making the Irish vote again. As it happens, a case can be made that EU treaties are too complex to be readily susceptible to a simple yes/no vote. But eleven EU governments grandly promised such referendums on the constitution, and ten of them have been dishonest in pretending that Lisbon is a wholly different document. The Irish constitution requires a vote on any treaty that transfers any power at all to the European level. Even if one believes that referendums are not always desirable, it is both stupefyingly arrogant and anti-democratic to refuse to take no for an answer. Just what kind of democracy is being practiced by the EU when the only outcome of a vote that is ever acceptable to Brussels is a yes?
A mess of pottage.
It is not as if the Lisbon treaty is such a wonderful text. Besides being incomprehensible, it was - as so many EU treaties are - a messy compromise. And, like the constitution, it failed to meet the objectives laid down by an EU summit in Laeken almost seven years ago. The broad aims then were to clarify the EU's distribution of powers, with an eye to handing more of them back to national parliaments; and to simplify the rules so as to make the EU more transparent and bring it closer to its citizens. Nobody could pretend that Lisbon fulfills these goals.
This is not to say that everything in the treaty is bad. It would have improved the institutional machinery in Brussels, sorted out a muddle in foreign-policy making and brought in a fairer system of voting by EU members. But these are not the sorts of changes to set voters alight. And in truth, few EU governments or institutions, are genuine enthusiasts for the treaty as such (Germany, which would gain voting weight, and the European Parliament, which would win extra powers, are two exceptions). Most simply wanted to get it out of the way and move onto issues more interesting than the institutional navel-gazing that has preoccupied the EU for too long.
After the Irish no, that is precisely what they should now do. The treaty should be buried so that the EU can focus on more urgent matters, such as energy, climate change, immigration, dealing with Russia and the EU's own expansion. It is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that without Lisbon no further enlargement is possible. Each applicant needs an accession treaty that can include the institutional changes, such as new voting weights or extra parliamentary seats.
Needless to say, many of Europe's leaders will instead look for ingenious ways to ignore or reverse the Irish decision. But to come up with a few declarations or protocols and ask the Irish to vote again would not just be contemptuous of democracy: the turnout and margin of defeat also suggest that it might fail. Nor can Ireland, legally or morally, be excluded from the EU. Attempts by die-hards to forge a core group of countries that builds a United States of Europe would also founder because, outside Belgium and Luxembourg, there is no longer a serious appetite for a Federal Europe.
Ireland is a small country, to be sure. But the EU is an inter-governmental organisation that needs to be conscientious to proceed. It is bogus to claim that one million voters are thwarting the will of 495 million Europeans by blocking this treaty. Referendums would have been lost in many other countries had their people been given a say. Voters have thrice said no to this mess of pottage. It is time their verdict was respected.
End.
*****
Personally I agree that the EU are being unfair by using the vote-again-and-this-time-do-it-right tactic. I don't think the treaty was all bad and I didn't actually vote (I was out of the country), but the way the EU are reacting to Ireland's decision is fairly patronizing.
Sorry about the no-opinion thing. It's been a while since I've signed into Boards...0
Comments
-
The treaty should be buried so that the EU can focus on more urgent matters, such as energy, climate change, immigration, dealing with Russia and the EU's own expansion.
Hmmm, interesting viewpoint, but it was through Lisbon that these urgent matters were going to be tackled.
Currently, energy is not a matter under QMV control so the EU cannot come to any co-ordinated response. Any country can do whatever they want.
Currently as far as I am aware there is no EU treaty statement that says anything about climate change. Lisbon was going to introduce that so that any EU policies would have to take that into account. Now we can continue to ignore the issue if it suits us.
Lisbon was going to put some immigration issues under QMV (although Ireland opted out) so again there will not be a properly co-ordinated response.
Dealing with Russia is not going to be helped by the lack of a common foreign policy position (where there was unanimous agreement).
All these things can still be worked on with the existing EU, but it was going to be easier under Lisbon when countries had to find a consensus. Now everyone can do what they want if they really think it's in their own best interest.
Ix.0 -
Dealing with Russia is not going to be helped by the lack of a common foreign policy position (where there was unanimous agreement).
Indeed:
Negotiations on a new pact between the European Union and Russia risk being complicated by the confusion surrounding the adoption of the Lisbon reform treaty, according to Moscow’s ambassador to the EU.
“I sincerely wish our EU partners find a way out of yet another impasse,” Vladimir Chizhov told the Financial Times. “Above all, we’re not gloating. It’s not entirely a sign of the EU’s strength, of course, but we’ll be closely following developments.”
"Above all, we're not gloating." Lovely.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Dinxminx: You have 24 hours to provide an opinion on the piece. Please read the charter before posting in this forum again.
Going off on a tangent: isn't it most coincidental that excellent articles seem to only ever coincide directly with the original poster's beliefs?0 -
Could someone point to a pro-EU articles from the Economist for balance?0
-
Going off on a tangent: isn't it most coincidental that excellent articles seem to only ever coincide directly with the original poster's beliefs?
I've been linking to plenty of good articles for the No side. I'm hoping it'll raise the quality of the debate...
Could someone point to a pro-EU articles from the Economist for balance?
Define pro-EU. The Economist basically applauds the EU for measures it agrees with and publishes articles like the above (and many similar since the Irish result) when it thinks the EU, or more accurately, EU leaders are being unfair/unreasonable/whatever. As a paper it strikes a decent balance, neither Euro-sceptic nor blindly pro-EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
The reaction to the democratic vote ( democratic - think about that) has been interesting.
Ireland’s ingratitude. ‘We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this,’ said Axel Schäfer, SPD leader in the Bundestag.
Others moaned that the little countries were getting uppity. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the Euro-Greens, snarled: ‘It is not truly democratic that less than a million people can decide the fate of nearly half a billion Europeans.’ Spot on, Danny. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too?
Then there were the attempts to claim that the Irish had misunderstood the question. The Vice-President of the Commission, Margot Wallström, plans to run some Eurobarometer opinion polls to find out what the Irish were really voting against. Let me help you with that one, Margot: they were voting against the Lisbon Treaty. The giveaway was the ballot paper, which asked people whether they wanted to amend the constitution so as to, you know, ratify the Lisbon Treaty.
Favourite was the reaction by the President of the European Parliament, the amiable Hans-Gert Pöttering. ‘The ratification process must continue,’ he declared, because ‘the reform of the European Union is important for citizens, for democracy and for transparency.’ Got that? The reason the EU is tossing aside the democratic verdict of the Irish people is for democracy.
The EU’s leaders, having given up on persuading their electorates, seek compliance rather than consent, acquiescence rather than approval.
What happens next? First, there will be an attempt to bully Ireland into falling in line. Ratification will go ahead everywhere else in the hope that the Irish will obligingly lie down. When this fails — and, as an Irish friend put it to me during the campaign, ‘sure we didn’t fight off the might of the British empire just to be bossed about by the Belgians’ — the EU will simply implement the Lisbon Treaty.
The leaders of the EU, in short, have resolved never again to consult their peoples. Public opinion, in their eyes, is an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to change direction. See whether I’m proved right. And then tell me whether my parallel with the apparatchiks is far-fetched.
With apologies to Daniel Hannan, MEP.0 -
The Irish vote was democratic, for Ireland. We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it).
Extending that to "and so no-one else in Europe can have it either" is not an exercise in democracy at all. It is an attempt to enforce the Irish vote on the rest of Europe - naturally applauded by those who would like that, naturally decried by those who don't. Either way, it is an attempt to impose the decision of a tiny number of Europeans on the rest of Europe - exactly what is 'opposed' by the No side.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The Irish vote was democratic, for Ireland. We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it).
Extending that to "and so no-one else in Europe can have it either" is not an exercise in democracy at all. It is an attempt to enforce the Irish vote on the rest of Europe - naturally applauded by those who would like that, naturally decried by those who don't. Either way, it is an attempt to impose the decision of a tiny number of Europeans on the rest of Europe - exactly what is 'opposed' by the No side.
cordially,
Scofflaw
The problem with wondering about what the rest of the EU citizens want is we simply don't know. We know what the politicians want, but not what the citizens want. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too, so we can know beyond any doubt?
To say
simply conjectures why you think you know why the Irish voted as they did. The Irish voted that they did not want the Lisbon treaty. Full stop. To tell the Irish they "apparently didn't know enough about it" is patronising....We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it)...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The Irish vote was democratic, for Ireland. We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it).
Extending that to "and so no-one else in Europe can have it either" is not an exercise in democracy at all. It is an attempt to enforce the Irish vote on the rest of Europe - naturally applauded by those who would like that, naturally decried by those who don't. Either way, it is an attempt to impose the decision of a tiny number of Europeans on the rest of Europe - exactly what is 'opposed' by the No side.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Do you understand what democracy is? You seem to just be restating your general disapproval of the outcome of our referendum without offering any solutions or adding anything to the debate.
Nobody is trying to enforce the will of a "tiny" number (1.5 million odd) of Europeans on the rest of the Union. We were asked specifically to vote on the proposed amendment to our Constitution. i did not like parts of the Treaty. i did not like the process by which it was brought forward (the way the draft Constitution was written into it) and i certainly dont like the direction that some countries are trying to force the EU to move in. i voted No. Simple. The rules say 27 ratify it or it doesn't come into force. If you want to change the rules now, then i suggest you approach your local MEP!
How many tiny millions of Europeans voting No would it take to satisfy you that it should be abandoned? Would you favour referenda in all countries to make it more democratic?
There are plenty of good reasons why the EU exists and should continue to, with us as members. The Lisbon Treaty isn't one of them0 -
The problem with wondering about what the rest of the EU citizens want is we simply don't know. We know what the politicians want, but not what the citizens want. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too, so we can know beyond any doubt?
Why? They have their constitutions, we have ours. If they want referendums, let them ask for them. Thus far, they have been conspicuously silent (bar the usual suspects).To say simply conjectures why you think you know why the Irish voted as they did. The Irish voted that they did not want the Lisbon treaty. Full stop. To tell the Irish they "apparently didn't know enough about it" is patronising.
Not a bit. It's a matter of record.CtrlSource wrote:Do you understand what democracy is? You seem to just be restating your general disapproval of the outcome of our referendum without offering any solutions or adding anything to the debate.
Nobody is trying to enforce the will of a "tiny" number (1.5 million odd) of Europeans on the rest of the Union. We were asked specifically to vote on the proposed amendment to our Constitution. i did not like parts of the Treaty. i did not like the process by which it was brought forward (the way the draft Constitution was written into it) and i certainly dont like the direction that some countries are trying to force the EU to move in. i voted No. Simple. The rules say 27 ratify it or it doesn't come into force. If you want to change the rules now, then i suggest you approach your local MEP!
Er, yes - exactly. "The rules say" is an entirely different argument from democracy.CtrlSource wrote:How many tiny millions of Europeans voting No would it take to satisfy you that it should be abandoned? Would you favour referenda in all countries to make it more democratic?
There are plenty of good reasons why the EU exists and should continue to, with us as members. The Lisbon Treaty isn't one of them
None of this comes close to addressing the point, which is that we voted, in Ireland, on Ireland ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. According to democracy, we in Ireland are not having it apply to us, and we aren't. Whether or not people expected a No to prevent the process of EU reform is beside the point - we were not voting on that. According to the rules the Lisbon Treaty qua the Lisbon Treaty is dead, and it is, but that does not prevent reform going ahead.
You have your result in Ireland, and a legal stop to the Lisbon Treaty, but you cannot enforce a full stop on EU reform. If necessary, that will almost certainly simply go ahead without Ireland. In turn, you are welcome to claim that that is not really respecting Ireland's wishes, but what you mean is merely that it doesn't respect yours.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by auerillo
The problem with wondering about what the rest of the EU citizens want is we simply don't know. We know what the politicians want, but not what the citizens want. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too, so we can know beyond any doubt?
Why? They have their constitutions, we have ours. If they want referendums, let them ask for them. Thus far, they have been conspicuously silent (bar the usual suspects).
They have been conspicuously silent because they haven't got a vote! You can't be dismissive of the 'usual suspects'. They're also paid up members of the Union.Not a bit. It's a matter of record.
It's also a matter of record that there are a host of reasons why people voted No. You're just using that in order to discount the importance of the No vote. To diminish it and make it look like the views of the ignorant.None of this comes close to addressing the point, which is that we voted, in Ireland, on Ireland ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. According to democracy, we in Ireland are not having it apply to us, and we aren't. Whether or not people expected a No to prevent the process of EU reform is beside the point - we were not voting on that. According to the rules the Lisbon Treaty qua the Lisbon Treaty is dead, and it is, but that does not prevent reform going ahead.
You have your result in Ireland, and a legal stop to the Lisbon Treaty, but you cannot enforce a full stop on EU reform. If necessary, that will almost certainly simply go ahead without Ireland. In turn, you are welcome to claim that that is not really respecting Ireland's wishes, but what you mean is merely that it doesn't respect yours.
Agreed. You didn't make this point in your previous statement however. And my reply then was based on what you said in that post.
The fact is democracy has worked just fine internally in Ireland. It is not undemocratic to expect the rest of Europe to respect our position. It's up to the rest of the EU how they wish to proceed with reform. We cannot stop them0 -
CtrlSource wrote: »They have been conspicuously silent because they haven't got a vote! You can't be dismissive of the 'usual suspects'. They're also paid up members of the Union.
True - on the other hand they tend to have levels of support similar to, say, the SWP here.CtrlSource wrote: »It's also a matter of record that there are a host of reasons why people voted No. You're just using that in order to discount the importance of the No vote. To diminish it and make it look like the views of the ignorant.
Hmm. Don't take offence! Some people (quite a lot) voted No because they felt they had not had the Treaty explained to them. Both the pre-vote polls (such as the IT one), and the post-vote polls (such as the Flash Eurobarometer) show "because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with" as the largest group of No voters. The Flash Eurobarometer has:
Because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with|22%
To protect Irish identity|12%
To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters|6%
I do not trust our politicians|6%
We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission|6%
To protect our tax system|6%
I am against the idea of a unified Europe|5%
To protest against the government's policies|4%
To avoid that the EU speaks with one voice on global issues|4%
Because large Member States decide on EU matters|4%
To protect the influence of small states|3%
It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia|2%
To avoid an influx of immigrants|1%
The EU does not need any fixing, it works fine|1%
Other|14%
So, "didn't know, voted no" is the largest category, by nearly 2:1. The Irish Times poll before the vote was very similar. Like I said, it's a matter of record.
I don't consider that a failure on the part of the voters. The Government's job was to sell them the Treaty, to explain why it was important, to secure the ratification that implemented the deal the Government had negotiated. Had they done so, it probably would have been a Yes - but they entirely failed to do so.CtrlSource wrote: »Agreed. You didn't make this point in your previous statement however. And my reply then was based on what you said in that post.
My apologies - I'd just written a long post on that in another thread.CtrlSource wrote: »The fact is democracy has worked just fine internally in Ireland. It is not undemocratic to expect the rest of Europe to respect our position. It's up to the rest of the EU how they wish to proceed with reform. We cannot stop them
Indeed. However, it has nothing to do with democracy, but is actually about respecting Ireland's sovereignty.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Why? They have their constitutions, we have ours. If they want referendums, let them ask for them. Thus far, they have been conspicuously silent (bar the usual suspects).
Scofflaw
Your "bar the usual suspects" says more about you than you perhaps intended. All people, whether the "usual suspects" or not, are entitled to have a say.
You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?
On a serious note, thats actually a very good point, and perhaps the time start petitioning other governments for referenda has come.
I have to say your response to this point is always the same, perhaps because you are afraid of the likely outcome of other referenda which would be a lot of other countries expressing a majority "no" vote.
So you retreat to a position that, even though the majority might want a no vote, the politicians should be allowed to ignore it and sign up to the treaty is spite of the wishes of their electorates.
It's an interesting definition of democracy where the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them. It is curious that you have constantly argued that this is the right and proper way for a democracy to operate.
No amount of clever arguments can alter this central fact, and that you seem happy to argue that it is wrong for governments to represent the will of their people, on this issue, and to represent the opposite of what their people want, is perverse. To ignore the democratic will of their people and argue, as you seem to, that that is democratic merely exposes your own apparent bias.
Not a bit. It's a matter of record.
The only think which is a matter of record is that the irish people were asked whether or not they wanted to ammend the constitution and vote for or against the Lisbon treaty, and we voted that we did not want to do that.
You seem unhappy with that outcome, as I suspect the desire to work out "why" the irish people voted as they did is the beginnings of an attempt to reverse it.
It seems a curious definition of democracy to accept that it is legitimate for a government to do something which is diametrically opposed to the willof the people whom it is supposed to represent, and also a curious definition of democracy to not respect the democratically expressed will of the electorate and look for a means to overturn it.True - on the other hand they tend to have levels of support similar to, say, the SWP here.
Hmm. Don't take offence! Some people (quite a lot) voted No because they felt they had not had the Treaty explained to them. Both the pre-vote polls (such as the IT one), and the post-vote polls (such as the Flash Eurobarometer) show "because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with" as the largest group of No voters.
I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.
Quite apart from the fact that we are constantly told by all the politicians that opinion polls are irrevelant and there is only one opinion poll that matters, no one has explained how the questions in this particular poll were slanted as, no doubt we are all aware, its quite easy in an opinion poll to phrase a question, or ask it in a context, so it is more likely to produce the response one is looking for.
Are you really saying that this is now how we should run our democracy? That because some are unhappy with the result of democratic votes, that we must hunt around afterwards for reasons to show why the vote was not legitimate, and why it must be re-run until such times as those people are happy that enough of us vote the "correct" way?
Thats not democracy, and its a very slippery road you are on.0 -
CtrlSource wrote: »They have been conspicuously silent because they haven't got a vote! You can't be dismissive of the 'usual suspects'. They're also paid up members of the Union.
If you look across Europe (and particularly France) people are quite willing to protest over those matters that really concern them.
The French students protested over changes in employment law.
Truckers have been protesting over fuel costs.
Fishermen have been protesting over policy and fuel costs.
Farmers frequently protest.
People protested over Iraq.
and so on and so on.
These protests were so large that they were shown on our news programmes. In contrast there have been no large protests demanding a vote on Lisbon. A handful of people "protested" outside the Irish embassies, but this was a tiny lobby group which could not possible be considered the will of the people.
So, it is not unreasonable to say that the will of the people in Europe is that they are content to let their elected representatives represent them on this. As I've said before... sure... if you ask them would they like to vote they may say yes, but they are not taking it seriously if it does not affect their voting in a GE.
In France Sarkozy pledged NOT to have a referendum, and was elected. Why? I can offer some opinion from colleagues in Toulouse who thought that the referendum was a disaster, with every interest group from the left and right airing their grievances about France in particular. So, while they would indeed like to have an informed vote where everyone could vote on the treaty itself and what it might offer or not offer, the intense division that the last referendum caused meant that for many people it really was a case of "ok... let the politicians take care of it, that's why we elected them..."
Ix0 -
You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?
They "ask" for referendums by making it an election demand. Politics is a bit like competition in business. If one party perceived that there was an advantage in saying that they would put every treaty to a public vote, and there was a strong current of public opinion wanting that, then it would happen.
That's how a representative democracy works. The political "elite" are elected by the people. They come from the people. They work for the people. If the people think they are not working for them they can vote for someone else. If the existing parties do not represent the desires of the people they can form new parties.
I grow weary of this talk of the "elite" and that the public does not have a choice. Why don't they? Every 4-5 years the public votes in every country in the EU. That's when they make their choice.
We do not live, whatever the no side says, in a dictatorship where political opposition is oppressed. I can form a party and run for election if I want. Ulick McEvaddy on Q&A said the EU was like the Soviet Union, an absolutely outrageous comparison. Any one of these Warsaw pact states would have loved the choice the EU may eventually offer Ireland. Leave, and do what you wish. And they would have loved the opportunity to elect a government to express their desires.
Ix.0 -
...
I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.
...
Well said Auerillo. This sums up the way a lot of people in Ireland and Europe are thinking at the moment. Excellent post btw.0 -
That's how a representative democracy works.
Ix.
I can't agree that a representative (the hint is in the title) democracy should work in a way where the government represents the opposite view to that held by the people.
Historically a representative democracy is one where the elected member represents the views of his constituents.0 -
Unfortunately, the views you'd like the government to represent on "our" behalf consist of a mixture of "I didn't understand the treaty" and "I bought into the lies I was told", as well as such legitimate concerns that exist.I can't agree that a representative (the hint is in the title) democracy should work in a way where the government represents the opposite view to that held by the people.
Historically a representative democracy is one where the elected member represents the views of his constituents.0 -
I quite like the economists take on Europe, don't agree with it, but I find them very fair about the EU in relation to their beliefs.
--I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.
This whole argument is stupid. What happens if the Irish people vote yes the next time? What does that mean? Which vote is legitimate? Why is the one in the past more legitimate than the one in the future?
The problem with this whole debate is that the idea that you must listen to the first referendum is based on a position that the public knew what they were doing and that they should be trusted, but the very fact that they change their minds 3 months later undermines that.
Is Lisbon II undemocratic? No more so than Lisbon I.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Your "bar the usual suspects" says more about you than you perhaps intended. All people, whether the "usual suspects" or not, are entitled to have a say.
You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?
I can think of one such way in which this might happen. In the case of Ireland we had a supreme court case on the matter as as a result of that judgement this is why we now have referendums on every issue. Do you know of any legal impediment in any other EU country that prevents a citizen from taking the same course of action?
Do you also not think it a bit strange that while this has happened in a country of 4.5 million odd people, in all the other nations of the EU with a combined population of 490 odd million few have ever taken a similar action? If the citizen of the EU are so unhappy with their opressive "sham" democracies then wouldn't you expect to see something similar?On a serious note, thats actually a very good point, and perhaps the time start petitioning other governments for referenda has come.
So now we start lecturing others on how to run their countries properly as well. It just gets better and better. :rolleyes:
If you look at the figures you will see that eight other countries rank higher than Ireland in terms of the fairness of their democratic systems, all of whom are ratifying the Treaty using their parliamentary systems. And 13 of the top twenty most democratic nations in Europe are in the EU. To our credit we also rank very highly.
http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
The economist figures are pretty similar as well.
http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438
Should we also petition Germany to change their national laws with regard to referendums so they can hold one?
Denmark will be holding referendums in the near future on the four opt outs in place since 1992, so they are clearly not opposed to the principle, but have deemed it not nescessary in the case of Lisbon.I have to say your response to this point is always the same, perhaps because you are afraid of the likely outcome of other referenda which would be a lot of other countries expressing a majority "no" vote.
There is pretty scant evidence for that statement.So you retreat to a position that, even though the majority might want a no vote, the politicians should be allowed to ignore it and sign up to the treaty is spite of the wishes of their electorates.
I wasn't aware we were signing up to the treaty in spite of our rejection of it.It's an interesting definition of democracy where the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them. It is curious that you have constantly argued that this is the right and proper way for a democracy to operate.
Again we are not signing up to the treaty how is our will is being subverted in any way? And you have no evidence to support the assertion that it is the will of the people in to reject the treaty in other members states as well.
I can at least point out that 75% of Polish would back the treaty in a referendum, and that the French elected a leader who said he would ratify the treaty through parliament in his campaign.
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1205771527.71/
And 53% in the Czech republic.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/lisbon_treaty_backed_in_czech_republic/
Intresting also that these are the two countries whose parliaments most are likely to reject the treaty.No amount of clever arguments can alter this central fact, and that you seem happy to argue that it is wrong for governments to represent the will of their people, on this issue, and to represent the opposite of what their people want, is perverse. To ignore the democratic will of their people and argue, as you seem to, that that is democratic merely exposes your own apparent bias.
All of the above covers that last statement.The only think which is a matter of record is that the irish people were asked whether or not they wanted to ammend the constitution and vote for or against the Lisbon treaty, and we voted that we did not want to do that.
You seem unhappy with that outcome, as I suspect the desire to work out "why" the irish people voted as they did is the beginnings of an attempt to reverse it.
It seems a curious definition of democracy to accept that it is legitimate for a government to do something which is diametrically opposed to the willof the people whom it is supposed to represent, and also a curious definition of democracy to not respect the democratically expressed will of the electorate and look for a means to overturn it.
Again I ask what is the government doing that is diametrically opposed to the will of the people? By possibly calling another referendum? You seem to be implying here that referendums are only democratic some of the time. If that is the case then perhaps that is why other counties don't use them so much.
By electing them we gave them the authority to call a referendum as an when it is deemed nescessary. If you don't like who is calling the shots then you know what to do.
Besides if our democratic system is so obviously flawed then why would we seek to impose our model on the rest of Europe.
I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.
Quite apart from the fact that we are constantly told by all the politicians that opinion polls are irrevelant and there is only one opinion poll that matters, no one has explained how the questions in this particular poll were slanted as, no doubt we are all aware, its quite easy in an opinion poll to phrase a question, or ask it in a context, so it is more likely to produce the response one is looking for.
Are you really saying that this is now how we should run our democracy? That because some are unhappy with the result of democratic votes, that we must hunt around afterwards for reasons to show why the vote was not legitimate, and why it must be re-run until such times as those people are happy that enough of us vote the "correct" way?
Thats not democracy, and its a very slippery road you are on.
So I guess that infamous poll that the no camp pull out from time to time proporting to show that all the other citizens in the EU would like a vote is irrelevant as well?
I am also still confused as to why some referendums are democratic and some are not.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
This whole argument is stupid. What happens if the Irish people vote yes the next time? What does that mean? Which vote is legitimate? Why is the one in the past more legitimate than the one in the future?
The problem with this whole debate is that the idea that you must listen to the first referendum is based on a position that the public knew what they were doing and that they should be trusted, but the very fact that they change their minds 3 months later undermines that.
Any election is a snapshot of opinion at that time. Who thinks Fianna Fail would gain the same share of the vote now, or the Labour party in the UK, should the electorate now re run the last general election in Ireland or the UK?
While I imagine we could summon the same clever argument along the lines that it's now apparent that a proportion of the electorate here voted for Fianna Fail based on their projected growth figures for the economy which have proved to have been misleading. Therefore, because they bought into the lies they were told by Fianna Fail and didn't understand the figures, then we should re run the last general election.
However, no one would buy that argument, nor shoud we. Yet this is what we are being asked to buy in relation to the recent referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
Becasue some clever people think we voted the wrong way, they contrive to think they also know the reasons why we voted, and that we misunderstood and voted the wrong way for a whole plethora of reasons, and that really the outcome of the vote should be quietly ignored and we should, for our own good, be made to vote again. And presumably again and again, until we eventually come up with the right answer.
The whole point is that some refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate as expressed in the ballot box.0 -
Any election is a snapshot of opinion at that time. Who thinks Fianna Fail would gain the same share of the vote now, or the Labour party in the UK, should the electorate now re run the last general election in Ireland or the UK?
We shouldn't expect them to, parties and nations run on electoral cycles. Cowan will push through the harder budgets now when we're far away from the next election and try and leave room for "nicer" budgets when the election is looming. The system, breeds these massive swings in popular opinion, it's one of its biggest problems but it's pointless to talk about Government parties being unpopular early in the election cycle, it's a product of the system rather than anything else. I don't mean to say that it's "right" but we really shouldn't expect anything else from them to be honest about it.0 -
Does anyone agree that voting NO for something simply because you do not understand it is a little ignorant. If you don't understand wouldn't you be better off spoiling your vote or something like that, rather than inhibiting something that may be for the greater good???
P.s. this is simply a question I am not taking a dig at people who voted NO, as I am aware that to the informed person there are an equal amount of reasons to vote on this end of the scale.
:D:D 0 -
Oh, I'm sorry. Why did we vote no?Becasue some clever people think we voted the wrong way, they contrive to think they also know the reasons why we voted, and that we misunderstood and voted the wrong way for a whole plethora of reasons...
Are you saying that the democratic will of the people is that we should never, ever, ever again vote on an EU treaty? Because I don't remember being asked that.The whole point is that some refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate as expressed in the ballot box.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Life just got a little bit lonier for us today as expected Spanish congress have ratified the Lisbon Treaty by a massive majority of 322 to 6 to become the 20th country to formally ratify the treaty.
That is alot of politicians that must be completely out of touch with the people in Spain :eek:.
http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_103259/politics/AFTER-IRISH-lsquoNOrsquo-Spanish-Congress-ratifies-Lisbon/0 -
marco_polo wrote: »Life just got a little bit lonier for us today as expected Spanish congress have ratified the Lisbon Treaty by a massive majority of 322 to 6 to become the 20th country to formally ratify the treaty.
That is alot of politicians that must be completely out of touch with the people in Spain :eek:.
http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_103259/politics/AFTER-IRISH-lsquoNOrsquo-Spanish-Congress-ratifies-Lisbon/
We'd expect that from Spain though, they passed the EU Constitution in a referendum 77% Yes to 23% No. Anyone expecting the Spanish parliament or people to oppose the Lisbon Treaty wasn't in touch with reality tbh.0 -
Going off on a tangent: isn't it most coincidental that excellent articles seem to only ever coincide directly with the original poster's beliefs?
How true.....who was it that said "I've never learned anything from someone who agreed with me"?
I read the article itself yesterday and it didn't strike me as particularly balanced journalism. Some of the points were a bit disingenuous (sp?) as ixtlan has pointed out.
I'd also like to point out to auerillo that we have dealt with this EU-wide referendum issue in other threads, at least once in reponse to your posts. You chose to ignore the reponses and instead come back to post the same drivel in other threads. Lets repeat this one last time shall we, it is not up to the EU to "allow" other EU citizens vote in a referendum. It is a sovereign issue that is in no way in the remit of the EU. The only reason we have a referendum is because of Crotty, an Irish citizen who used his democratic right to challenge the method for ratification on a previous treaty. If other citizens of the EU want to do the same the mechanisms are there for them to do it. If they do not then they are either happy with the way in which things are currently done or have noone to blame for themselves if they are not. None of this is down to the EU or the member states Governments, just like our right to vote wasn't down to either.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »I can think of one such way in which this might happen. In the case of Ireland we had a supreme court case on the matter as as a result of that judgement this is why we now have referendums on every issue. Do you know of any legal impediment in any other EU country that prevents a citizen from taking the same course of action?
Do you also not think it a bit strange that while this has happened in a country of 4.5 million odd people, in all the other nations of the EU with a combined population of 490 odd million few have ever taken a similar action? If the citizen of the EU are so unhappy with their opressive "sham" democracies then wouldn't you expect to see something similar?.
I agree with much of what you say in this long and thoughtful post. My understanding is that the reason we have to have a referendum on changes to our constitution. I'm not a lawyer and have no idea what teh constitutions of other countries demand, but imagine that if there were a requirement to have a referendum on issues such as the Lisbon treaty, then I would be surprised that governments of other countries would have ignored it. But, I really don't know.marco_polo wrote: »
So now we start lecturing others on how to run their countries properly as well. It just gets better and better. :rolleyes:
I really wouldn't advocate lecturing anyone on any issue. Although to express ones view and to encourage others to petition their governments is not the same thing at all as lecturing.
Indeed, one of the things I find very unattractive about some of those who think we have voted the wrong way is that they seem to be lecturing the rest of us that we didn't understand it, and we were impressed by lies from the various organisations involved in the no campaign etc etc.marco_polo wrote: »
Should we also petition Germany to change their national laws with regard to referendums so they can hold one?
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "Germany". Certainly if you want to petition the German people, or government, to change their laws you are free to do so.
But to ask the question seems to have missed the point I was making, which was that there is a substantial body of opinion right across the people that make up the EU which is not in favour of the Lisbon treaty. Neither you, or I, know how substantial as they have not been ballotted on the issue, and my point was that it would be great if they were. As their governments seem against holding ballotts ( I wonder why?), I suggested it might be a good idea to start petitions which could be signed as an attemopt for them to put pressure on their individual governments and as a way of demonstrating how much support is there for ballotts on this important issue.marco_polo wrote: »
I wasn't aware we were signing up to the treaty in spite of our rejection of it.
Again we are not signing up to the treaty how is our will is being subverted in any way? And you have no evidence to support the assertion that it is the will of the people in to reject the treaty in other members states as well.
.
I agree, and I was also not aware that we are signing up to Lisbon.
Again, to ask the question seems to miss the point I was making which was that there are some who do not accept the result of the ballot and are searching for ways to declare it not legitimate ( "they didn't understand it" and "they fell for the lies of the no campaign" etc etc).marco_polo wrote: »
I can at least point out that 75% of Polish would back the treaty in a referendum, and that the French elected a leader who said he would ratify the treaty through parliament in his campaign.
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1205771527.71/
And 53% in the Czech republic.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/lisbon_treaty_backed_in_czech_republic/
Intresting also that these are the two countries whose parliaments most are likely to reject the treaty.
.
You may well be right, but then again the pollsters got it consistently wrong in the Clinton/Obama primaries and I am not happy to run a democracy based on the pollsters opinions.
France did, indeed, elect a president who said he would ratify the treaty? Were there any other serious candidates who said they would not ratify it? In any case, France's election of its leader was not a single issue and was more complex than that.
I could point out that Zimbabwe elected Mugabe as its leader, so technically the people of Zimbabwe agree with him murdering them, torturing them and terryfying them at this point.marco_polo wrote: »
Again I ask what is the government doing that is diametrically opposed to the will of the people? By possibly calling another referendum? You seem to be implying here that referendums are only democratic some of the time. If that is the case then perhaps that is why other counties don't use them so much.
By electing them we gave them the authority to call a referendum as an when it is deemed nescessary. If you don't like who is calling the shots then you know what to do.
Besides if our democratic system is so obviously flawed then why would we seek to impose our model on the rest of Europe.
So I guess that infamous poll that the no camp pull out from time to time proporting to show that all the other citizens in the EU would like a vote is irrelevant as well?
I am also still confused as to why some referendums are democratic and some are not.
Of course technically you are again right, our government can call referenda every day of the week if they wish. By calling a second referendum on Lisbon, they are showing they do not accept the first result. Interetstingly, should FF call a second referendum and lose it, in the uncertain economic and financial times ahead, it could be interesting to see what effects this might have on their standing in the country, and some commentators feel that it would be a big risk for Cowan personally and for the long term future of FF. Who knows.0 -
Advertisement
-
I quite like the economists take on Europe, don't agree with it, but I find them very fair about the EU in relation to their beliefs.
--
This whole argument is stupid. What happens if the Irish people vote yes the next time? What does that mean? Which vote is legitimate? Why is the one in the past more legitimate than the one in the future?
The problem with this whole debate is that the idea that you must listen to the first referendum is based on a position that the public knew what they were doing and that they should be trusted, but the very fact that they change their minds 3 months later undermines that.
Is Lisbon II undemocratic? No more so than Lisbon I.
+1
Well said.....its only undemocratic if the politicians do the opposite to what we say. Asking us again gives the people the same right to vote No again as the first one did. Maybe this time though the electorate will know a bit more about it. As I've said before I don't care what the result is as long as the voters actually understand what they are voting on in the first place. It cannot be said that this is true of the Lisbon referendum.0
Advertisement