Sarkozy: Ireland needs to vote on Lisbon again

is_that_so

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you including people who voted "yes" in that statement ? Those sheep who voted yes because the politicians told them to ?

That's what annoys me about the yes camp; they're extremely patronising when it comes to the opinions (the informed as well as uninformed) of those who disagree with them.

If you've read any of my posts you'll know I don't need to answer that question.

Surely the reverse is also true; the politicians give us a vote and we use it, so they should trust our opinions and respect our decisions, and (to quote your own phrase in the reverse context) "can't then go back .... and say that they don't like what we've done".

They are chosen to represent us, not for us to blindly rubber-stamp what they decide. And TBH, given their track record, I wouldn't trust the FF shower an inch at this stage......if they told me that it was raining I'd have to go out and check for myself......

Again I'd suggest you read my posts more closely.

carveone

This thread has gone back to the no/yes debate rather than what Sarkozy said. Anyway, I'll just shove my oar in here (considering that I might have missed a post someone that answers the following...) and say I'd love to know (in French) what the full text of the comment was. If it was along the lines of:

"Si Lisbonne doit entrer en vigueur, les Irlandais devront voter de nouveau."

(If Lisbon is to come into effect, the Irish will have to vote again)

well, that's rather different isn't it. SF and Libertas have already said the exact same thing. It might be interesting to play "what ifs" and ask what if Ireland had voted yes and, say, Poland has rejected the treaty. I wonder what type of comment would bubble to the surface then...

I'm rather more concerned, frankly, with what US investors are taking away from all this. RTE seemed to indicate that the US considers the No vote as an anti-european stance; a stance which is incompatible with investment in this country. That's off topic too of course :-)

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

We are supposed to be a pro-EU country too! We voted NO. Being in favour of 'some sort of european partnership' (and this whole sorry episode is making this look less of a partnership to me) does not mean the populaces of the above named states would vote in favour of 'this kind of european partnership'. For heaven's sake-I am a staunch NO voter who is in favour of 'some kind of european partnership'.

Again I question whether you are in a position to say that. There is little evidence beyond you thinking that you would like it to be true that 24 countries would vote No.

Yes, it is I'm afraid. It's not the same as a government which is duty bound to represent everyone, even those who didn't vote for them. This is a YES/NO referendum-one side must lose outright. To be honest, I was expecting a YES result and was fully prepared to take it on the chin and watch my country take another step on the road to a more militarised, federal Europe which might lead to God knows what....but I was pleasantly surprised that we voted NO and it should be the end of the matter but it isn't-we are told we got it wrong and must vote again (make no mistake-we will be voting again until we vote YES).

Unlike you I accept there are consequences and I also accept that issues not properly addressed by a referendum need to be revisited.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for "letting" us vote: they don't let us vote on the annual budget, which has an immediate and direct impact on all our lives. How come nobody's complaining about the lack of democracy there?

This chestnut needs putting to bed surely.

The treaty of Lisbon and other such treaties involve a transfer of power from national parliaments to supra national institutions. Once this is done-it's pretty irreversible or at least very difficult for the people of country X to reverse.

A budget has a massive effect on your day to day life (but don't underestimate how much of an effect the EU has on it) but your government knows if it gets it wrong it runs the real risk of being removed. It is somewhat reversible.

That's why our constitution (a document I once derided if I'm honest!) thankfully requires any treaties which transfer powers in this manner to face a public referendum. It is a wise safeguard.

In short, I elect my national government to govern this nation, not to transfer more and more powers to a supra-national organisation which has evolved (without proper debate or consultation or so much as a mission statement) into a political union-something we we didn't join. Is that so wrong?

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

A budget has a massive effect on your day to day life (but don't underestimate how much of an effect the EU has on it) but your government knows if it gets it wrong it runs the real risk of being removed. It is somewhat reversible.

Eh no they don't. The last government to fall based on a "budget" was way back in 1981 with the tax on kiddies shoes.

In short, I elect my national government to govern this nation, not to transfer more and more powers to a supra-national organisation which has evolved (without proper debate or consultation or so much as a mission statement) into a political union-something we we didn't join. Is that so wrong?

You elect a government to govern. Under that remit comes Foreign Affairs. We knew Lisbon was coming. We've known for quite a while so why didn't you consider this when you voted?

murphaph

carveone wrote: »

I'm rather more concerned, frankly, with what US investors are taking away from all this. RTE seemed to indicate that the US considers the No vote as an anti-european stance; a stance which is incompatible with investment in this country. That's off topic too of course :-)

Did the US FDI halt when we voted no to Nice (the first time)?

murphaph

is_that_so wrote: »

Eh no they don't. The last government to fall based on a "budget" was way back in 1981 with the tax on kiddies shoes.

I didn't say anything about governments falling. I said a government can be removed. If Brian Cowen and his cabinet is judged by the people to be making a mess of the economy (and the budget is the cornerstone of government fiscal policy!) they are likely to be removed by the electorate. I'm surprised I have to even debate this point.

is_that_so wrote: »

You elect a government to govern. Under that remit comes Foreign Affairs. We knew Lisbon was coming. We've known for quite a while so why didn't you consider this when you voted?

Rather arrogant of you to assume I didn't, don't you think? I knew a referendum would be required and in any case...are you suggesting I should have voted for SF (seeing as ALL the main parties are pro-Lisbon)?

As an aside...the treaty of Lisbon is much more than a dept. of Foreign Affairs matter! It is yet another treaty which transfers still more power away from Dail Eireann. It very much affects our domestic affairs.

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

Rather arrogant of you to assume I didn't, don't you think? I knew a referendum would be required and in any case...are you suggesting I should have voted for SF (seeing as ALL the main parties are pro-Lisbon)?

No arrogance implied. However I am suggesting that it is extremely unlikely that these issues were part of your decision to vote as you did in the GE. I have no influence nor do I wish to influence how people vote just as long as they do.

As an aside...the treaty of Lisbon is much more than a dept. of Foreign Affairs matter! It is yet another treaty which transfers still more power away from Dail Eireann. It very much affects our domestic affairs.

Yes it is but it is part of the Govt's remit, the one given responsibility to govern and the one people voted for. We cannot just separate out the parts that we don't like any more than we can prevent "wee Nick" or anyone telling us "what is good for us".

murphaph

is_that_so wrote: »

However I am suggesting that it is extremely unlikely that these issues were part of your decision to vote as you did in the GE.

Why?

is_that_so wrote: »

Yes it is but it is part of the Govt's remit, the one given responsibility to govern and the one people voted for. We cannot just separate out the parts that we don't like

In this case, we can. Our constitution respects that such important issues of sovereignty (whereby powers are transfered out of the country) require a specific referendum.

A majority voted against Lisbon in a straight YES/NO vote. A majority did not vote for FF, yet they govern us with their (very small) coalition partners. I put it to you that it is arguably more democratic the way it has worked out than if a party which garnered well under 50% popular support decided the issue for us.

auerillo

murphaph wrote: »

This chestnut needs putting to bed surely.

The treaty of Lisbon and other such treaties involve a transfer of power from national parliaments to supra national institutions. Once this is done-it's pretty irreversible or at least very difficult for the people of country X to reverse.

A budget has a massive effect on your day to day life (but don't underestimate how much of an effect the EU has on it) but your government knows if it gets it wrong it runs the real risk of being removed. It is somewhat reversible.

That's why our constitution (a document I once derided if I'm honest!) thankfully requires any treaties which transfer powers in this manner to face a public referendum. It is a wise safeguard.

In short, I elect my national government to govern this nation, not to transfer more and more powers to a supra-national organisation which has evolved (without proper debate or consultation or so much as a mission statement) into a political union-something we we didn't join. Is that so wrong?

I've been making this point again and again, and have found it extraordinary that some disagree and actually claim it would be more democratic had we not been allowed to vote and had our government signed up to lisbon without out approval. Lisbon is now dead and debate about the merits of Lisbon seem academic only.

According to today's IT, "Sarkozy says visit is to understand meaning of No vote; FRANCE'S PRESIDENT Nicolas Sarkozy is coming to Ireland on Monday to "listen and understand", he has said. "I need to understand the message that the Irish wanted to convey in voting No to a treaty signed by the representatives of the 27 member states," he told The Irish Times."

Surely the message we wanted to convey is clear, and that is "no" to lisbon.

irish_bob

Seanies32 wrote: »

But the party voting lines don't support that line.

FF about 60/40 Yes
FG about half
Labour and Green more No voters.

SF were actually the party that had 95% following the party line.

no surprise there with regard sinn fein

there supporters are for the most part lemmings in there unquestionable devotion to the party line

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

Why?

You've already answered your own question on this.

In this case, we can. Our constitution respects that such important issues of sovereignty (whereby powers are transfered out of the country) require a specific referendum.

A majority voted against Lisbon in a straight YES/NO vote. A majority did not vote for FF, yet they govern us with their (very small) coalition partners. I put it to you that it is arguably more democratic the way it has worked out than if a party which garnered well under 50% popular support decided the issue for us.

How is that? It's like comparing chalk and cheese. They serve completely different purposes and are mutually exclusive. This looks like an attempt to use the brute force of numbers to bolster your point of view.
I can't argue with you on your sovereignty crusade because I really don't share it in any way. I think at this point it is best to agree to disagree.

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

The treaty of Lisbon and other such treaties involve a transfer of power from national parliaments to supra national institutions.

Does it? How?

auerillo wrote: »

Surely the message we wanted to convey is clear, and that is "no" to lisbon.

Can you answer the questions I asked you here?

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

The treaty of Lisbon and other such treaties involve a transfer of power from national parliaments to supra national institutions.

I'm pretty sure you've been asked more than once to explain how it does this. I haven't seen you answer.

A budget has a massive effect on your day to day life (but don't underestimate how much of an effect the EU has on it) but your government knows if it gets it wrong it runs the real risk of being removed. It is somewhat reversible.

Ironically, Lisbon is the most reversible of the treaties to date: if ratified, it provides a mechanism for secession from the Union. I would have thought you'd be pleased about that.

In short, I elect my national government to govern this nation, not to transfer more and more powers to a supra-national organisation which has evolved (without proper debate or consultation or so much as a mission statement) into a political union-something we we didn't join. Is that so wrong?

It's always been a political union. You're fooling yourself if you've thought otherwise.

I'm curious: what is so very wrong with it as a political union anyway? Over and over and over again, we've been told by the naysayers since 1972 what a terrible mistake we're making by getting involved with those nasty foreigners with their wars and smelly cheeses - but what adverse affects have EU membership really had? (Leaving aside fishing, it's been done to death on two other threads.) In 1972, the "no" camp warned us against joining the EEC, because of the risk of increased militarisation. How many wars has the EU participated in since? How, exactly, has Ireland been damaged by EU membership?

auerillo wrote: »

I've been making this point again and again, and have found it extraordinary that some disagree and actually claim it would be more democratic had we not been allowed to vote and had our government signed up to lisbon without out approval.

Who has claimed that it would have been more democratic had we not been allowed to vote? Links please, and don't even think about not answering.

Surely the message we wanted to convey is clear, and that is "no" to lisbon.

For most people, once they get past the age of two, merely answering "no" doesn't constitue intelligent dialogue. Based on your impressive command of the English language, I'm going to assume that you are more than two years old, so you'll have to elaborate on "no".

It's trivially easy to just say "no", and refuse to engage in a discussion about the consequences of that answer. As a thought exercise, let's imagine that you have been appointed spokesman and negotiator on behalf of Ireland, and that you will be meeting with Sarkozy and the other EU leaders over the coming weeks: what are you proposing in the place of Lisbon?

guinnessdrinker

If you look at it in this way, would the French people have been happy if Bertie Ahern said in 2005 that France would have to vote again after it voted Non to the EU constitution?

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

Did the US FDI halt when we voted no to Nice (the first time)?

Would it have halted if we'd voted no the second time?

is_that_so

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

If you look at it in this way, would the French people have been happy if Bertie Ahern said in 2005 that France would have to vote again after it voted Non to the EU constitution?

The French wouldn't have cared. Only the English or Germans commenting is enough to get their goat up.
Are you telling me that a vote you may or may not cast in a possible future referendum will be based on some little French bloke saying something you didn't like? He'll continue to say things you don't like , that the French don't like (but need anyway), even things the rest of the EU don't like. That is the nature of the man. However unlike our own bunch he is actually doing things. He even cut the size of his cabinet relative to the previous administration, a lesson Cowen could do with.

irish_bob

is_that_so wrote: »

The French wouldn't have cared. Only the English or Germans commenting is enough to get their goat up.
Are you telling me that a vote you may or may not cast in a possible future referendum will be based on some little French bloke saying something you didn't like? He'll continue to say things you don't like , that the French don't like (but need anyway), even things the rest of the EU don't like. That is the nature of the man. However unlike our own bunch he is actually doing things. He even cut the size of his cabinet relative to the previous administration, a lesson Cowen could do with.

cowen wont cut the size of the cabinet as irish people like having a minister in there constituency just like we like having a hospital in every town

K-9

murphaph wrote: »

Why?


In this case, we can. Our constitution respects that such important issues of sovereignty (whereby powers are transfered out of the country) require a specific referendum.

A majority voted against Lisbon in a straight YES/NO vote. A majority did not vote for FF, yet they govern us with their (very small) coalition partners. I put it to you that it is arguably more democratic the way it has worked out than if a party which garnered well under 50% popular support decided the issue for us.

AFAIK, a party has only over 50% twice, in 1938 and 1977, both FF.

Also FG would also have been pro EU as everybody is aware.

Morgans

Can we not just conclude the never ending arguement by saying all the intellegent people voted yes and all the fools voted no, and leave it at that?

I would save everyone an awful lot of arguing that never goes anywhere. People can read what they want into the 400 pages of lisbon.

murphaph

is_that_so wrote: »

You've already answered your own question on this.

So you accept that most people are unlikely to put Lisbon (or any EU treaty) to the forefront of their thinking when deciding the next government? In that case....the argument that people are happy to let the government decide such matters is false. Most people do indeed elect the government based on domestic policy and domestic economic matters. For that reason it is quite right that important matters of transfering domestic powers to EU institutions that we hold a specific referendum on the matter as the people are unlikely to have considered it (if indeed the treaty had even been proposed at election time!) when voting in a general election.

One of the main arguments of those in favour of pushing this treaty through parliament and not ratification by way of referendum is that people will be happy to let their elected government decide for them...that's all well and good EXCEPT when that elected government decides to transfer power away from itself and the people.

is_that_so wrote: »

How is that? It's like comparing chalk and cheese. They serve completely different purposes and are mutually exclusive. This looks like an attempt to use the brute force of numbers to bolster your point of view.I can't argue with you on your sovereignty crusade because I really don't share it in any way. I think at this point it is best to agree to disagree.

Democracy is an imperfect system but probably the best we've got. Unfortunately the brute force of numbers is what it's based on. My 'sovereignty crusade' has nothing to do with my undying love for Ireland over anywhere else....I see this becoming a federal Europe on the road to a single world government and the individual human beings of this planet becoming mere drones. I think someone needs to take a stand and call a halt to further political integration. I understand that many people think it's a crackpot idea and all this political integration is innocent and above board with no negative connotations for the ordinary joes of this world.

We in this country should remember the last parliament here which castrated itself and transfered powers outside the land. Those MPs in College Green were motivated not by the best interests of the people of Ireland, but by greed. History is riddled with lessons for us.....be wary of ANY politician who tells you it's a good thing to transfer powers away from local assemblies and parliaments to supra national ones.

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

So you accept that most people are unlikely to put Lisbon (or any EU treaty) to the forefront of their thinking when deciding the next government?

You might be surprised to see that I said exactly that. I have no comment on the rest of it.

One of the main arguments of those in favour of pushing this treaty through parliament and not ratification by way of referendum is that people will be happy to let their elected government decide for them...that's all well and good EXCEPT when that elected government decides to transfer power away from itself and the people.


Democracy is an imperfect system but probably the best we've got. Unfortunately the brute force of numbers is what it's based on. My 'sovereignty crusade' has nothing to do with my undying love for Ireland over anywhere else....I see this becoming a federal Europe on the road to a single world government and the individual human beings of this planet becoming mere drones. I think someone needs to take a stand and call a halt to further political integration. I understand that many people think it's a crackpot idea and all this political integration is innocent and above board with no negative connotations for the ordinary joes of this world.

Just not going there at all although I don't need a lecture on what democracy is thanks.

We in this country should remember the last parliament here which castrated itself and transfered powers outside the land. Those MPs in College Green were motivated not by the best interests of the people of Ireland, but by greed. History is riddled with lessons for us.....be wary of ANY politician who tells you it's a good thing to transfer powers away from local assemblies and parliaments to supra national ones.

Hmm, references to College Green and the general tone of your "speech" here suggests Robert Emmet. This quite bizarre tangent also removes any credibility from your arguments. I can offer nothing more useful to this if you feel that 18th century politics offers solutions. Good luck with it.

Ckal

Voting again is risky. People are getting pi$$ed off with the whole thing and will vote no the second time. I know people who voted yes, but will vote no if there is a second referendum. I'm a no person, but I'm 17 so I can't cast my vote.

Also, Why vote again when others haven't ratified it yet? What happens if Ireland votes yes and then Czech Republic rejects it? Will the Czechs vote again? No because they would stand up to Europe and will not be bullied into voting again.

K-9

Ckal wrote: »

Voting again is risky. People are getting pi$$ed off with the whole thing and will vote no the second time. I know people who voted yes, but will vote no if there is a second referendum. I'm a no person, but I'm 17 so I can't cast my vote.

Also, Why vote again when others haven't ratified it yet? What happens if Ireland votes yes and then Czech Republic rejects it? Will the Czechs vote again? No because they would stand up to Europe and will not be bullied into voting again.

This is getting ridiculous, the man made a stupid comment. You'd swear we have to do what Sarkozy does! Any second referendum will be after all the other countries have ratified, or indeed not!

The poll results that the Govt. commissioned will be back in September. Cowen will present that in October and the 27 will decide what to do. It may well be next year before anything is decided, by then Sarkozy wont be EU president, thank God!

thehighground

is_that_so wrote: »

Hmm, references to College Green and the general tone of your "speech" here suggests Robert Emmet. This quite bizarre tangent also removes any credibility from your arguments. I can offer nothing more useful to this if you feel that 18th century politics offers solutions. Good luck with it.

You need to read up about the 1800 Act of Union (Between Britain & Ireland). Gifts of peerages and honours helped to ensure the act passed through the Irish parliament.

is_that_so

thehighground wrote: »

You need to read up about the 1800 Act of Union (Between Britain & Ireland). Gifts of peerages and honours helped to ensure the act passed through the Irish parliament.

And how is this any more relevant to this thread, apart from the need to lecture me on Irish history, than Murphaph's initial mention of it?

thehighground

is_that_so wrote: »

And how is this any more relevant to this thread, apart from the need to lecture me on Irish history, than Murphaph's initial mention of it?

Well, then why did you comment on what Murphaph said about the Irish Parliament in Stephen's Green if it wasn't relevant? You are the one that mentioned Robert Emmet* in the first place

Ever hear the saying "that history continually repeats itself?' In fact, one of the reasons cited for having an EU is that no one wants a repeat of World War I or II again.

Edit: I don't think that Murphaph was referring to Robert Emmet, but the Act of Union itself. If that is the case, its very relevant to the Lisbon Treaty, even if it happened a couple of hundred years ago.

is_that_so

thehighground wrote: »

Well, then why did you comment on what Murphaph said about the Irish Parliament in Stephen's Green if it wasn't relevant? You are the one that mentioned Robert Emmet in the first place.

Because his comments were directed at me and my response was that imo his comments had no relevance and indeed make no sense to me.

Ever hear the saying "that history continually repeats itself?' In fact, one of the reasons cited for having an EU is that no one wants a repeat of World War I or II again.

Guess I should have gone to school so.

thehighground

is_that_so wrote: »

Because his comments were directed at me and my response was that imo his comments had no relevance and indeed make no sense to me.

So, why not be gracious and thank me for helping to make sense of his comments for you.

Guess I should have gone to school so.

I thought only 'No' voters didn't go to school Trying doing a search on the internet for the Act of Union - I'm sure you will get lots of information on it so you have no excuse.

is_that_so

thehighground wrote: »

So, why not be gracious and thank me for helping to make sense of his comments for you.



I thought only 'No' voters didn't go to school Trying doing a search on the internet for the Act of Union - I'm sure you will get lots of information on it so you have no excuse.

Sarcasm is lost on you as well I see. Let's just leave it there so.