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
Comments
-
Well, there haven't been angry mobs hurling petrol bombs, thats for sure. But to assume that, because there aren't angry mobs throwing petrol bombs equates to the citizens of Europe all being happy about the Lisbon treaty may not be correct. You claim that 99% of the citizens of Europe are happy about the Lisbon treaty. While I think that's unlikely, I guess we'll never know as they have been denied an opportunity to express their opinion.
There seems to be an argument that, because we are 4 million out of 500 million people, then we really shouldn’t have been allowed to vote “no”. If that is the case, then why bother to have held a referendum at all? That is what has happened in all the other countries, where there are great claims made that the treaty is supported by the people. So confident are teh politicians of this ( like Mr Sarkozy) that they wouldn't let their people express the level of their support with a referendum!
Certainly, the opinion polls across the EU don't support your claim that 99% of us would vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty, but polls are just polls and there is only one poll which counts, as we are always being told by politicians! The “I want a referendum” poll in the UK resulted in 89% saying “no” to Lisbon, it’s unlikely many in France would have changed their vote, but were denied an opportunity to vote Although opinion polls in France suggested a majority of voters would preferred to have another referendum, President Sarkozy has denied them the opportunity and pressed ahead for a speedy ratification without a referendum. Quite where your figure of 99% comes from is unclear, and it doesn’t seem credible.
My judgement is that we ignore the democratic deficit at our peril. You may judge differently, but I think there could well be petrol bombs in the streets at some time in the future if the EU project does not have the support and confidence of all of us.
Ah now auerillo you're going to have to do better than that.
1. People can object and protest Lisbon without petrol bombs etc. In fact they can do it in a number of ways. For example they can challenege the legality of the Government ratifying the Treaty without referendum in the Court of Law just like Crotty and that Euro-skeptic in the UK did. Are there people doing that? They can march if they so wish, or in most nations begin a petition that actually has a certain amount of legal weight behind it. Strangely you can also not elect a President that has ratifying Lisbon without a referendum as part of his agenda. There is nothing at all to suggest that the people of the EU are dissatisfied with Lisbon to any relevant degree. If you have something that might shed some doubt on that statement, by all means link us to it. If not then please stop making the same point without any evidence what-so-ever. Saying the polls exist means nothing as you haven't provided any links and we have no idea of the context in which they were run.
2. When I said 99% vs 1% you may have realised that I said we were 1%, when in fact it was under 900,000 people that voted No here which is less than 0.2% of the population of the EU. I was taking total populations based on whether they have/would ratify vs not. Again this links into point 1 in that there is no evidence (that I have seen anyway) that could lead me to the conclusion that there is significant or relevant opposition to the Treaty in the other member states.
3. Nobody was denied the opportunity to vote on this. Had people wanted to there was plenty of time over the last few years for people to push for the oppourtunity. It was obviously not something that was raised in enough numbers (if at all) during election times throughout the EU to make it happen, and again using France as the example it would appear that people were quite happy not voting, given that they elected someone who told them he wouldn't be putting it to them. You seem to want to use Sarkozy as an example of someone denying his people the right to vote, when in reality they elected him with that being one of his major agenda items. Its a disingenuous point on your part. Again if you have any evidence to the contrary please present it.
4. I don't think anyone said we shouldn't be allowed to vote No. The points that are being made (at least predominantly) are that the EU may well wish to move ahead with Lisbon without us, which they are entitled to do. If that does indeed become a reality then surely we should be given the right to vote again as this was not on the cards the first time around. Ultimately the EU wants (and needs) these reforms. 870,000 odd of us shouldn't be in a position to keep them from proceeding with the changes. The question should not be whether we want to be a part of a union that will proceed with Lisbon without us, it should really be should we even be a part of the union at all given that we alone are at odds with everyone else in it?0 -
And yet, you're confident that there are "many". How many is many? Twenty? Twenty thousand? Twenty million?Alas, we have been denied the opportunity to know how many as they haven't been allowed a referendum to tell us the number.
What measure are you using to gauge the depth of unhappiness among EU citizens?0 -
Ah now auerillo you're going to have to do better than that.
When I said 99% vs 1% you may have realised that I said we were 1%, when in fact it was under 900,000 people that voted No here which is less than 0.2% of the population of the EU. I was taking total populations based on whether they have/would ratify vs not. Again this links into point 1 in that there is no evidence (that I have seen anyway) that could lead me to the conclusion that there is significant or relevant opposition to the Treaty in the other member states.
You seem to be saying that, as you have seen no evidence that there is no significant or relevant opposition to the treaty, then it does not exist.
If it is your judgment that those who voted “no” to the constitution in France and Holland have changed their minds, then that is your judgment. If it is your judgment that 99% of the UK population would vote “yes” to Lisbon, than so be it. It’s a matter of opinion as they have not been allowed to vote on the treaty, and my judgement differe from yours.Nobody was denied the opportunity to vote on this.
It’s a matter of fact that Ireland was the only country allowed to vote on the Lisbon treaty.
I certainly know a lot of people who live in the UK, France and Italy who disagree with you and consider they have been denied the opportunity to vote..
4. I don't think anyone said we shouldn't be allowed to vote No. The points that are being made (at least predominantly) are that the EU may well wish to move ahead with Lisbon without us, which they are entitled to do. If that does indeed become a reality then surely we should be given the right to vote again as this was not on the cards the first time around. Ultimately the EU wants (and needs) these reforms. 870,000 odd of us shouldn't be in a position to keep them from proceeding with the changes. The question should not be whether we want to be a part of a union that will proceed with Lisbon without us, it should really be should we even be a part of the union at all given that we alone are at odds with everyone else in it?
When you say the EU may well wish to move on without us, are you forgetting that the EU is us? It’s not a case of “us” and “them” but we are part of the EU and we are all in the EU together.
My understanding is that there is no legal basis for the EU to proceed and implement the provisions in the Lisbon treaty without all the members signing up for it, as it stands.
You claim that the “EU may well wish to move ahead without us”. Apart from the fact that we are part of EU, from where would the rest of the EU get their legal authority to do this?
I don’t accept we are at odds with “everyone else in it”, although that’s the impression that the politicians and bureaucrats are trying to create. But again, it s a matter of judgement as no one else has been polled on it. To say that, fro example, because France signed up to Lisbon (without a referendum) means 100% of its citizens support the Lisbon treaty, simply defies logic.oscarBravo wrote: »And yet, you're confident that there are "many". How many is many? Twenty? Twenty thousand? Twenty million?
What measure are you using to gauge the depth of unhappiness among EU citizens?
What I said, in response to a claim that 99% of the EU are in favour of the Lisbon treaty, that that was not true and that there are many citizens in the EU who are not in favour of the treaty. I made no claims as to the number (or the percentage) as those figures don’t exist.
It’s interesting you question my obvious statement that “many” are against the implementation (obvious I’d have thought from the Irish referendum results, the French referendum results on the constitution, the Dutch referendum results on the constitution, the Spanish referendum results on the constitution and the Luxembourg referendum results on the constitution that that aptly demonstrated there were many who have voted their dissatisfaction) and don’t question the claim that “99%” of EU citizens support the treaty.0 -
Where did the EU get the legal authority to exist?You claim that the “EU may well wish to move ahead without us”. Apart from the fact that we are part of EU, from where would the rest of the EU get their legal authority to do this?
And yet, you seem confident that it's a sufficiently significant percentage to warrant concern. On what is this confidence based?What I said, in response to a claim that 99% of the EU are in favour of the Lisbon treaty, that that was not true and that there are many citizens in the EU who are not in favour of the treaty. I made no claims as to the number (or the percentage) as those figures don’t exist.
Firstly, I'm not sure why you're bringing the results of referenda on a different treaty into the discussion - why not bring in the Danish referendum on Maastricht? Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that because any number of people voted against a treaty, that it shouldn't come into effect - are you advocating a Europe-wide plebiscite in which unamimity is required? Thirdly, it has clearly been shown that a substantial percentage of those who voted against the Lisbon treaty in Ireland did so for reasons other than unhappiness with the provisions of the treaty itself, and there is ample evidence that this was the case in the French referendum on the Constitution also.It’s interesting you question my obvious statement that “many” are against the implementation (obvious I’d have thought from the Irish referendum results, the French referendum results on the constitution, the Dutch referendum results on the constitution, the Spanish referendum results on the constitution and the Luxembourg referendum results on the constitution that that aptly demonstrated there were many who have voted their dissatisfaction) ...
I took the 99% figure as a rhetorical device - not one I would have used, or agree with the use of, but I can make the logical leap required to understand its basis....and don’t question the claim that “99%” of EU citizens support the treaty.
You seem determined to consider the EU an organisation whose members are the citizens of 27 European countries. It's not. When you understand the distinction, we'll have something to discuss.0 -
You seem to be saying that, as you have seen no evidence that there is no significant or relevant opposition to the treaty, then it does not exist.
So you're saying that even though I haven't seen any evidence to back up your assertion that there is mass discontent with Lisbon, and even though you yourself seem to be completely unable to provide any proof either, that I should still admit that it exists? Why?If it is your judgment that those who voted “no” to the constitution in France and Holland have changed their minds, then that is your judgment. If it is your judgment that 99% of the UK population would vote “yes” to Lisbon, than so be it. It’s a matter of opinion as they have not been allowed to vote on the treaty, and my judgement differe from yours.
It is certainly my opinion that the French support the Treaty and aren't too unhappy with not getting to vote on it. They did after all elect Sarkozy who promised to ratify the Treaty without a referendum during his election campaign. We can keep trotting this point out for you if you'd like, or you could drop, at the very least, your points on the French.
As for the Dutch they have had over 12 months to react to the Treaty. It was released on 04/06/2007 and ratification was agreed in their Parliament on 05/06/2008, but has yet to be voted on in their Senate - this will happen next Tuesday. Local elections were held in May of this year and the councillors elected then subsequently elect the members of the Senate. If the Lisbon Treaty was such a hot topic (and it was all over the European media) then they had the opportunity then to voice their opinion. If they really had a problem with the Treaty, or with the fact that it is very similar (note not the same) as the EU Constitution they could, and should, have brought that to the attention of their politicians over the last year and in that election. I guess we'll have to wait and see next week what way the Senate votes. I would be curious to hear if you would be willing to accept that vote as being the will of the people?It’s a matter of fact that Ireland was the only country allowed to vote on the Lisbon treaty.
It is also a matter of fact that we were the only ones required to vote. No other country was. I will concede that maybe the UK are an exception to this however no other country has sought a referendum. The French willingly elected someone who openly said they wouldn't have one and the Italians aren't legally allowed to hold a referendum on treaties AFAIK. Again if the Italians were not happy with this they have had the last 12 months to challenge it. The last elections to their Senate & Parliament was in April so this was a perfect time for them to raise any issues with the Treaty or with the ratification process. They have yet to set a date for the voting on this, but there is no suggestion thus far that it is not supported.I certainly know a lot of people who live in the UK, France and Italy who disagree with you and consider they have been denied the opportunity to vote.
The word "lot" is very relative. Other than the UK though the French and the Italians have had their opportunity to voice discontent with both the Treaty and the ratification processes in their countries. So if they did not do that (and we've already established that the French didn't) would you be willing to accept that the will of the people in these countries has been done, given that there is far more evidence to suggest this than refute it?When you say the EU may well wish to move on without us, are you forgetting that the EU is us? It’s not a case of “us” and “them” but we are part of the EU and we are all in the EU together.
My understanding is that there is no legal basis for the EU to proceed and implement the provisions in the Lisbon treaty without all the members signing up for it, as it stands.
You claim that the “EU may well wish to move ahead without us”. Apart from the fact that we are part of EU, from where would the rest of the EU get their legal authority to do this?
By removing us as signatories to the Treaty then they can move ahead without us and the Treaty would act as an agreement between member states. From here further EU legislation could be introduced as amendments to the Treaty and therefore not apply to us. It would certainly require a bit of work to figure out how we would operate within the EU in that scenario, but it is technically quite possible. It would therefore leave us on the fringes of the EU. Alternatively we could be asked to leave the EU, for which there is a precedent - Greenland. Although I don't think we can be kicked out.I don’t accept we are at odds with “everyone else in it”, although that’s the impression that the politicians and bureaucrats are trying to create. But again, it s a matter of judgement as no one else has been polled on it. To say that, fro example, because France signed up to Lisbon (without a referendum) means 100% of its citizens support the Lisbon treaty, simply defies logic.
I never said 100% of French citizens support the Treaty. Of course they don't, and to suggest they do is lunacy. However they, as a democratic nation have had their say on the matter. Every other nation thus far has expressed support for the Treaty, and the only country I can see that could potentially reject it in a referendum would be the UK. So we pretty much are at odds with all the other member states, or at least the vast majority of them. To say we are not is ignoring the facts of the matter. You keep going on about people having their say, well as I've pointed out about other countries, they have through their election choices. Lisbon hasn't been a secret you know.0 -
Advertisement
-
As for the Dutch they have had over 12 months to react to the Treaty. It was released on 04/06/2007 and ratification was agreed in their Parliament on 05/06/2008, but has yet to be voted on in their Senate - this will happen next Tuesday. Local elections were held in May of this year and the councillors elected then subsequently elect the members of the Senate. If the Lisbon Treaty was such a hot topic (and it was all over the European media) then they had the opportunity then to voice their opinion. If they really had a problem with the Treaty, or with the fact that it is very similar (note not the same) as the EU Constitution they could, and should, have brought that to the attention of their politicians over the last year and in that election. I guess we'll have to wait and see next week what way the Senate votes. I would be curious to hear if you would be willing to accept that vote as being the will of the people?
It is unlikely we are going to agree on this.
My view is one of principle and the principle is that the people are sovereign.
In our western democracy, the people elect representatives to represent their views on a regular basis, and temporarily hand over this sovereignty, on a temporary basis into the care of the elected representatives, to guard on behalf of the people.
This sovereignty is not owned by the representatives of the people, but by the people themselves, and their representatives have no power to give it away. Only the people have the power to give up what is theirs.
We are lucky that our constitution protects us from our representatives, and stops them giving away any or all of our sovereign power without a majority of us voting, in a free, fair and secret referendum, to enable them to do so.
Even without this point of principle being enshrined in a constitution, it is a bedrock of any democratic system, and that the peoples representatives of other countries have signed up for some of the provisions in the Lisbon treaty, without asking the people of those countries for permission directly, is disgraceful.
To say that, because the people voted for politicians in a general election, then if the politicians give away part or all of the people’s sovereignty citing the general election as authority, simply isn’t good enough.
I am just back from a trip to France, Belgium and the UK and, was amazed to find everywhere I went people wanted to talk about the Lisbon treaty. Virtually all wanted to thank me, (as what they supposed was a representative of the Irish people) for rejecting the Lisbon treaty, and most expressed disgust at their politicians for ratifying the treaty without asking the people of their particular country.
The vast majority of people I met astonished me by being so interested in the treaty and also by their support and gratitude to Ireland for rejecting the treaty. It’s not empirical evidence, but it is nonetheless compelling anecdotal evidence. To suggest there is a thirst in the people I met for a EU with a foreign minister, president etc simply is the opposite from what these people said they want, but what they virtually all expressed was a desire for less and less interference from the EU and not more powers to be transferred to Brussels.
It is also a matter of fact that we were the only ones required to vote. No other country was. I will concede that maybe the UK are an exception to this however no other country has sought a referendum.
I’m not sure my opinion is worth anything, and I am not sure how valuable anyone’s opinion is as to whether or not other countries would or would not vote to ratify the Lisbon treaty if it were put to a referendum. Where we disagree seems to be that I think all countries should ballot their people on this single issue. You don’t. And we are not going to agree on it.
I am also not sure how a country can seek a referendum, especially when the political classes seem so vehemently opposed to it. Personally, I wish the politicians in every country were more keen to promote democracy rather than signing up to the Lisbon treaty and pro-actively denying their people a referendum on what is a very important issue. But I am a realist and realise that the political classes now favour expediency over democracy, and will compromise democracy to get their own way. I think that is regrettable and am surprised there are people who appear to think that is not only acceptable but desirable.
By removing us as signatories to the Treaty then they can move ahead without us and the Treaty would act as an agreement between member states. From here further EU legislation could be introduced as amendments to the Treaty and therefore not apply to us. It would certainly require a bit of work to figure out how we would operate within the EU in that scenario, but it is technically quite possible. It would therefore leave us on the fringes of the EU. Alternatively we could be asked to leave the EU, for which there is a precedent - Greenland. Although I don't think we can be kicked out.
The point you make about the EU moving “ahead” without one or more of the 27 present countries is interesting and it seems more and more apparent that it is likely that the EU will become a two-speed or even multi speed EU.
My guess is that the EU itself will resist this as their preferred course of action seems to be to amass more and more power at the centre and will resist any of the member countries who do not comply. (For instance , it is not readily comprehensible how 26 countries could proceed with a common foreign minister of the “EU”, with one country not being represented). But, as in the case of the Euro, it seems to work quite well that not every country signed up for that and, perhaps, in the future the EU will operate on a sort of à la carte basis.0 -
My view is one of principle and the principle is that the people are sovereign.
And this is most welcome but this is the kind of wooly commentary that conveniently overlooks the fact that we couldn't be bothered to exercise that "sovereignty" and only invoke it when we get upset and we are in a strop about something.
Unfortunately we, unlike the French or the Belgians or the Spanish, do not take that responsibility seriously and either don't inform ourselves or in many cases don't even bother to exercise it.
Our public representatives are who we choose to vote in, as a consequence of this "sovereignty". You can't just deny any knowledge of them when they won't do what you want or you don't like what they are doing or just because we need or want to blame them for where we find ourselves. A choice was made, the people have spoken and that's democracy.0 -
auerillo wrote:The point you make about the EU moving “ahead” without one or more of the 27 present countries is interesting and it seems more and more apparent that it is likely that the EU will become a two-speed or even multi speed EU.
My guess is that the EU itself will resist this as their preferred course of action seems to be to amass more and more power at the centre and will resist any of the member countries who do not comply. (For instance , it is not readily comprehensible how 26 countries could proceed with a common foreign minister of the “EU”, with one country not being represented). But, as in the case of the Euro, it seems to work quite well that not every country signed up for that and, perhaps, in the future the EU will operate on a sort of à la carte basis.
The EU already operates on exactly such an à la carte basis. The lists of opt-outs, opt-ins, special declarations, exemptions, protocols, grows with every treaty - major EU economies are not signed up to the Euro, or in Schengen. There's even a formal EU mechanism for groups of countries to make such a patchwork EU. Even where countries are all signed up for a particular area of common action, and all implement Directives in that area, a Directive is only a baseline common standard - the Directive is transposed into national law with a huge amount of discretion.
This happens because the EU is a framework for common action, and a mechanism for producing common standards in a common market - the natural result of which is, well, common standards and common action. The natural counter-tendency is for countries to seek exemptions from common standards which they feel do not benefit them, and these are resisted because they prevent there really being a common market in that particular area.
Still, I'm aware people prefer the more exciting "EU superstate" narrative.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You've obviously mis-interpreted my point altogether. I don't have an opinion one way or another because it isn't my place to say. All I'm saying is that it is down to the people of each country to ensure their own democracy works the way they want it to. For example the Italians voted for the Parliament and Senate in April. If they wanted to change their laws re ratification they needed to tell their politicians as much then so that the laws could be changed for a referendum to be called. If the Italian people did not push for change in this area then we can logically come to 2 possible conclussions. Either they are happy (or not sufficiently unhappy) with the current state of affairs (and by extension the ratification of Lisbon without referendum) or they disregarded Lisbon entirely in their elections. In the first case then who are you or I to say how right or wrong the Italian method is? Surely it has nothing to do with us and is their (sovereign) right to decide how they should proceed. In the second case if they ignored or didn't bother raising the issue then all we can say is that it is their tough luck. Democracy only works when you want it to and when you make it.It is unlikely we are going to agree on this............I think all countries should ballot their people on this single issue. You don’t.
Noone, not you or I or the Italian politicians, has the right to dictate what the "correct" course of action is. Only the Italian people can do that. It would seem thus far (and note I said "seem", which is what the sort of thing you'll see in all my posts, I don't assume my points are fact) that the Italian people are happy enough for their democracy to function the way it does. The same can be said of most EU countries. You seem to want to have your perception of what is right apply all over the continent when it is simply not your place to judge any other nation but your own. Leave Italy to the Italians and France to the French. Let their people be the judge of what is right for them or not, it is not your place to do so, just as it is not mine.
In your opinion.Even without this point of principle being enshrined in a constitution, it is a bedrock of any democratic system, and that the peoples representatives of other countries have signed up for some of the provisions in the Lisbon treaty, without asking the people of those countries for permission directly, is disgraceful.
Why not? Thats the law in those countries. If noone from those countries goes looking to get them changed why should they be changed? Again this is all your opinion, and thats fine. I understand it completely. However there is no real loss of sovereignty in Lisbon so please stop hyping the thing up. Also, if it is apparent that these changes are coming and that the politicians are making no moves to call a referendum and the same politicians are going up for election in the mean-time, shouldn't the people speak up at this stage if they wanted a referedum? Or should every country run a costly referendum on every change that might be a bit sensitive to the people, even if there is no indication that it is?To say that, because the people voted for politicians in a general election, then if the politicians give away part or all of the people’s sovereignty citing the general election as authority, simply isn’t good enough.
Please stop talking about the French FGS, we've been through this. Had they not been happy letting Sarkozy ratify the Treaty without a referendum then they should not have elected him.I am just back from a trip to France, Belgium and the UK and, was amazed to find everywhere I went people wanted to talk about the Lisbon treaty. Virtually all wanted to thank me, (as what they supposed was a representative of the Irish people) for rejecting the Lisbon treaty, and most expressed disgust at their politicians for ratifying the treaty without asking the people of their particular country.0 -
auerillo wrote:My view is one of principle and the principle is that the people are sovereign.molloyjh wrote:... it is down to the people of each country to ensure their own democracy works the way they want it to.
Exactly - because they are sovereign in their country. Each sovereign people decides for itself how it will ratify treaties. To dismiss how other countries' peoples have chosen to ratify treaties as somehow 'worse' than our way is to completely ignore the principle of the sovereignty of the people.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Exactly - because they are sovereign in their country. Each sovereign people decides for itself how it will ratify treaties. To dismiss how other countries' peoples have chosen to ratify treaties as somehow 'worse' than our way is to completely ignore the principle of the sovereignty of the people.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Eh, yeah, thats exactly what I meant Scofflaw. So why couldn't I just say it that way!?
0 -
Advertisement