Will changes be made to the Lisbon treaty before being voted on again?

cabinteelytom

How did the massacres in Rwanda end?
(Brief recap, cogged from http://www.hmd.org.uk. The massacres began on 6th April 1994, and are conventionally regarded as 'ending' on 17th July 1994, when Tutsi forces [the people who were being massacred] in the form of the RPF invading from , I think Uganda, reached the capital Kigali.)

Would the RPF have had an easier task if the international community had forces already deployed in Rwanda?
Could the international community have actually got forces from Europe or America on the ground faster than the RPF did?

Rwanda is often cited as a case where a more 'interventionist' Blair/Bush policy could have saved a lot of lives from the malevolent bent on murder. Sounds great until you consider that today, for instance, those Blair/Bush troops are so over-stretched from their previous interventions that they could not act in the event of a Rwanda II.

There is also the argument, rarely heard, that the foreign interventions before the massacres had made the carnage worse- France and Zaire had trained and equipped (possibly with the best will in the world, I don't actually know in detail) the [Hutu] army, the FAR, which proceded to encourage and protect the Interahamwe militia.
Maybe the better strategy in the event of communal conflict/civil war in former Yugoslavia or Africa is to permit arms to the weaker side until a stalement is established.

turgon

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Maybe the better strategy in the event of communal conflict/civil war in former Yugoslavia or Africa is to permit arms to the weaker side until a stalement is established.

So your strategy in attempting to stop the conflict would be to inject weapons into it? I suppose it never occured to you the deaths this would entail, nor the residue left over. You appear to think that once the war is over these supplied arms would magically vaporize into air. On the contrary they would be used to sell on the black market of by power-hungry militias.

WooPeeA wrote: »

I think if there will be any new referendum about the Treaty the question will probably be "Do you want to reject the Treaty and leave the EU"...

So let me get this straight. No matter what sort of treaty the EU throws at us, you would have them threating us with expulsion if we didn't accept it. So basically you envisage an EU where you either do as your told or just get out.

Wait a second ... thats not democracy!!!

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

So let me get this straight. No matter what sort of treaty the EU throws at us, you would have them threating us with expulsion if we didn't accept it. So basically you envisage an EU where you either do as your told or just get out.

Wait a second ... thats not democracy!!!

Well, no - nor is the idea that a single country can block a treaty desired by the rest. Vetoes are in all cases inherently undemocratic, since they run entirely counter to the idea that the minority agrees to be bound by the decision of the majority, which is the essence of democracy. Instead, they are far more similar to warlordism, where everyone accepts that you get consensus or fight.

All of this is because the arrangements that create the EU are anything but democratic - they are, instead, the result of bargaining between sovereign countries, with no-one agreeing to be bound by majority rule. Oddly enough, this is what many of those currently holding forth on 'democracy' actually mean by the term - intergovernmentalism with vetoes.

So, while the question of whether we would want to belong to an EU that said "my way or the highway" is certainly an open one, it has nothing to do with democracy as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boggle

So, while the question of whether we would want to belong to an EU that said "my way or the highway" is certainly an open one, it has nothing to do with democracy as such.

On the contrary, if this is such a democratic union (and this question has been asked many times) then why has nobody in any other member state consulted the people about this treaty directly? Saying that its part of their democratic process is fine but if we are to truly integrate with them then their democratic process becomes our democratic process and I'm not overly comfortable with that.

Where we are at the minute is that ANY change can be brought in, the other govts only have to rubber stamp it (free villa each for the lads!!) and the only country which actually has to consult its people will be told do it or get out - thus risking economic disaster. This bull really has to be addressed sooner rather than later imo or it will face catastrophic failure when the popular opinion swing violently anti-eu...

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

So, while the question of whether we would want to belong to an EU that said "my way or the highway" is certainly an open one, it has nothing to do with democracy as such.

On the contrary, if this is such a democratic union (and this question has been asked many times) then why has nobody in any other member state consulted the people about this treaty directly? Saying that its part of their democratic process is fine but if we are to truly integrate with them then their democratic process becomes our democratic process and I'm not overly comfortable with that.

Where we are at the minute is that ANY change can be brought in, the other govts only have to rubber stamp it (free villa each for the lads!!) and the only country which actually has to consult its people will be told do it or get out - thus risking economic disaster. This bull really has to be addressed sooner rather than later imo or it will face catastrophic failure when the popular opinion swing violently anti-eu...

Well, at the risk of repeating myself almost immediately, this is because the EU as an institution is not created democratically. It is created by intergovernmental deal-making, as all international treaties and institutions (the UN, the WHO, NATO, etc etc) are.

Whether the EU itself is democratic in operation depends on what actually goes into the treaties - because once created, the EU is separate from the governments that created it - but has absolutely nothing to do with how the treaties were negotiated or ratified, any more than the democracy of our constitution and country depend on their creation through armed revolt, assassination, and civil war.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boggle

Well, at the risk of repeating myself almost immediately, this is because the EU as an institution is not created democratically. It is created by intergovernmental deal-making, as all international treaties and institutions (the UN, the WHO, NATO, etc etc) are.

Exactly the point. is it not time to initiate a serious consultation process with the public in order to give the Eu the popular consent to maintain, reduce or, possibly even, enhance its control over individual member states?
Quite simply, if the populace of each member state is unhappy that european instruction must be carried into law, then that practice should cease - if, on the other hand they can put together a compelling proposal to the people, then and only then should the EU continue its progression towards a superstate.

Whether the EU itself is democratic in operation depends on what actually goes into the treaties - because once created, the EU is separate from the governments that created it - but has absolutely nothing to do with how the treaties were negotiated or ratified, any more than the democracy of our constitution and country depend on their creation through armed revolt, assassination, and civil war.

Constitutions which are written on the back of an armed revolt are slightly different in that they typically are a reaction to certain circumstances and should (usually at least) represent the will of the people who partook in the revolt. Assuming it takes a hugely significant portion of a regions (countries) people then its origins are loosely based on what they want.

The EU started as a common market and, when polled on entry, I would at least imagine that not everyone anticipated fully what it would become. Fortunately for us, we must be consulted every time this entity morphs whereas other sates do not get that option.

Again, in order to legitamise the course the EU is running, would you not agree that public approval should be sought?? At least then it could become what it wants to be with the full support of the people and not by stealth with the constant risk of revolt...

(That was a fair rant but please indulge me as I'd be interested in your opinion on this as you appear pretty up-to-speed with the process...)

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

Exactly the point. is it not time to initiate a serious consultation process with the public in order to give the Eu the popular consent to maintain, reduce or, possibly even, enhance its control over individual member states?

Hmm. I'd certainly be in favour of public input into the treaties.

Boggle wrote: »

Quite simply, if the populace of each member state is unhappy that european instruction must be carried into law, then that practice should cease - if, on the other hand they can put together a compelling proposal to the people, then and only then should the EU continue its progression towards a superstate.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. It's the reason for the primacy of EU law in the first place. I'll happily get behind greater democratic input to and control over legislation, as well as proper subsidiarity mechanisms (two reasons I was in favour of Lisbon), but if individual countries can opt out of legislation, then the EU immediately becomes meaningless.

Boggle wrote: »

Constitutions which are written on the back of an armed revolt are slightly different in that they typically are a reaction to certain circumstances and should (usually at least) represent the will of the people who partook in the revolt. Assuming it takes a hugely significant portion of a regions (countries) people then its origins are loosely based on what they want.

Indeed - but most armed revolts are minority affairs. We can safely say that the majority of the population doesn't usually participate in any way that would result in them having a noticeable input to the process of framing constitutions.

Boggle wrote: »

The EU started as a common market and, when polled on entry, I would at least imagine that not everyone anticipated fully what it would become. Fortunately for us, we must be consulted every time this entity morphs whereas other sates do not get that option.

Other states do get that option, but handle it differently.

Boggle wrote: »

Again, in order to legitamise the course the EU is running, would you not agree that public approval should be sought?? At least then it could become what it wants to be with the full support of the people and not by stealth with the constant risk of revolt...

(That was a fair rant but please indulge me as I'd be interested in your opinion on this as you appear pretty up-to-speed with the process...)

I favour any path that increases democratic input to the EU. However, first, a lot of the "obvious" moves don't do anything useful (such as electing Commissioners), and second, one has to accept that the democratisation of the EU is a slow process - the member states are only very slowly and gingerly getting comfortable with sharing their sovereignty through the EU, like an encounter group of armed psychopaths.

Democratising that shared sovereignty is something that has gone along side by side, step by step with the increases in the sovereignty pool, which seems right to me. Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy - complete democratisation now - but what you're trying to push along is a completely unnatural and unstable fusion in the first place. Obviously that argument itself can be used to cover resistance to democratisation for the sake of such resistance, but that does not make it untrue.

There's also a slight increase in governmental discomfort engendered by the sudden rapid increase in size, which has led to a large influx of countries without any serious democratic tradition, either direct or representative - something not envisaged at the founding of the EU, because it simply didn't seem possible - but, realistically, there was no other option.

In a sense, Ireland's requirement that EU treaties be put to popular vote is slightly too much democracy for the EU to handle - at this stage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy - complete democratisation now...

Speak for yourself. :P

Boggle

Have to make this quick...

but if individual countries can opt out of legislation, then the EU immediately becomes meaningless.

Might have been a little unclear on this but what I meant is that the people of each country should be part of this process. The question they should be asked is whether they support the eu project as it is now?
Lay out a road map fopr transparacy purposes and work towards that agenda with the full and uniified support of the people.

What has people worried is the gradual inching forward of the EU project purely on the back of political will. (I'd discriminate a little between public and political will)

Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy

Acually, what I'd argue is the opposite as it would take significant time for what I mentioned to be done properly. I view the big bang you mention as what is currently going on. Constant little changes which in the end amount to a big change over a relatively short period of time.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy - complete democratisation now...

Speak for yourself. :P

Well, apart from enemies of freedom like yourself, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

Have to make this quick...

Might have been a little unclear on this but what I meant is that the people of each country should be part of this process. The question they should be asked is whether they support the eu project as it is now?
Lay out a road map fopr transparacy purposes and work towards that agenda with the full and uniified support of the people.

What has people worried is the gradual inching forward of the EU project purely on the back of political will. (I'd discriminate a little between public and political will)

I don't think the EU itself is unclear about its essential idea, which is whatever measure of political and economic union produces the greatest stability, prosperity, and freedom within its borders.

However, it's impossible to produce a 'roadmap', since the forward movement of the EU does depend entirely on the political will of the member states, and is implemented by the intergovernmental bargaining process of the treaties.

Giving the EU treaties the capability of amendment by single articles, as Lisbon would have done, is a good step away from this process (by virtue of not having to say yea or nay to whole treaties), particularly were it supplemented by the capability to propose amendments by direct petition or through the EP.

Boggle wrote: »

Acually, what I'd argue is the opposite as it would take significant time for what I mentioned to be done properly. I view the big bang you mention as what is currently going on. Constant little changes which in the end amount to a big change over a relatively short period of time.

Hmm. Perhaps you could flesh that out a little when you have more time?

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no - nor is the idea that a single country can block a treaty desired by the rest.

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments. And I think if we were to add up the margins of Yes victories from all 26 states we would find that that number would be nowhere near the 110,000 victory margin for the No side in Ireland.

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

heyjude

ixtlan wrote: »

un-informed yes voters usually did that because they trusted their representatives to do the right thing, and since we live in a representative democracy that's not an unreasonable thing to do. Voting against the representatives advice is an unreasonable thing to do unless you are really sure that they are wrong.

Voting against the representatives advice might be unwise if our representatives were all barristers/lawyers, but looking at our TDs, the most popular former occupations of our TDs are teachers and farmers, with a sprinkling of publicans, businessmen and members of the professions such as doctors,accountants.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

It seems as though everyone is trusting someone else, the TDs are trusting the cabinet, who trust the Taoiseach(who may or may not have read the Treaty) and he presumably trusts the attorney general or the civil servants that advised them during the treaty negotiations, but where does the buck stop ? Trusting someone else is handy in case things turn pear shaped.

cabinteelytom

Would I have given arms to the Ghettos of Europe during 1940 to 45? Reply:Definitely.
Should I have been inhibited by the fear of irresponsible sales to the aftermarket?
Reply: I would hope not.

Is this really the strongest arguement against the 'enable self-defence' principle?

tolosenc

turgon wrote: »

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

Actually, elected politicians represent quite a large number of people, so to do so would be completely taking the Irish vote out of context. I mean in France, it's something like 500 politicians for 60,000,000 people - their votes should count for 120,000... Just respecting democracy here...

heyjude wrote: »

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

Most of them have advisors, like. Well, I hope anyway!

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments. And I think if we were to add up the margins of Yes victories from all 26 states we would find that that number would be nowhere near the 110,000 victory margin for the No side in Ireland.

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

Hmm. Well, you've as much factual data for that claim as any other claim that's been made as to who wants what on Lisbon, I suppose. The recorded figures, though, counting EU Constitution votes as per Lisbon votes, show this:

|Yes| No
Spain|10804464| 2428409
France |12806394 |15450279
Luxembourg |109494| 84221
Holland |2940730 |4705685
Ireland |750000 |860000
Total|27411082|23528594


Difference: 3,882,488 more Yes than No.

So, insofar as there's data, the Yes have it. The traditional move at this point is for you to point out that each country had to ratify it, even though that's not what we're arguing about. You're welcome to improve on my expectations, though!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

heyjude wrote: »

Voting against the representatives advice might be unwise if our representatives were all barristers/lawyers, but looking at our TDs, the most popular former occupations of our TDs are teachers and farmers, with a sprinkling of publicans, businessmen and members of the professions such as doctors,accountants.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

It seems as though everyone is trusting someone else, the TDs are trusting the cabinet, who trust the Taoiseach(who may or may not have read the Treaty) and he presumably trusts the attorney general or the civil servants that advised them during the treaty negotiations, but where does the buck stop ? Trusting someone else is handy in case things turn pear shaped.

Hmm. That suggests that we should elect farmers (or agricultural scientists) as Ministers for Agriculture, a transport engineer as Minister for Transport, etc etc.

Of course, that's not what we do. Our elected representatives' job in government is to oversee the experts who actually draw up policy - the reps are there to make sure our wishes are considered in the drafting, by setting our wants and needs as goals. They are supposed to be expert enough at dealing with people to get the best out of those they oversee, and to ensure that they are not being hoodwinked by their civil servants.

In short, the representative politician's job is to represent the interests of the public in shaping policy and executing it. Specialist knowledge is welcome, but it's fundamentally a people person's job - a management/leadership role. The same goes for foreign policy - the job of the representative politician is to ask policy, legal and drafting experts "does this treaty deliver benefit X?". The job of the experts is to say Yes or No, and then it's up to the politician to decide whether that's acceptable or not, not whether it's true or not.

I sometimes wonder where people get these ideas about government. The quickest way to lose them, of course, is to do a stint in the civil service as an expert. Politicians are generalists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

heyjude wrote: »

Voting against the representatives advice might be unwise if our representatives were all barristers/lawyers, but looking at our TDs, the most popular former occupations of our TDs are teachers and farmers, with a sprinkling of publicans, businessmen and members of the professions such as doctors,accountants.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

As Scofflaw has pointed out their job is not to be experts in their field, but to manage the experts and set the goals/targets they must meet. TDs are just management, and we should be more concerned with the knowledge levels of the civil servants than the TDs.

heyjude wrote: »

It seems as though everyone is trusting someone else, the TDs are trusting the cabinet, who trust the Taoiseach(who may or may not have read the Treaty) and he presumably trusts the attorney general or the civil servants that advised them during the treaty negotiations, but where does the buck stop ? Trusting someone else is handy in case things turn pear shaped.

This trust "issue" is present in everyone else's everyday life. A bank manager trusts his/her bank officials, the Garda Commissioner trusts the Gardai in general, you would trust a builder if he were building an extension to you home etc. You also neglected to mention that we trust our TDs, given that we elect them, to do certain things. Ultimately the buck stops with us I think as we are the ones who elect the Government and have to carry the can in the long run. However in the more immediate view it is the TDs who shoulder the "responsibility" given that it is them who are up for re-election every GE and not the civil servants.

As for the TDs reading or not reading the Treaty, I have a huge issue with this point. If you were to sit down and go through all the things that a TD has to deal with in a normal day and see how long that stuff takes you may find yourself surprised. As a rule I tend to be very distrustful of politicians and they wouldn't be my favourit profession, however they do have a busy job. They simply don't have the time to go through legal documentation on top of everything else, nor should they. This is the job of their legal advisors. How many people when buying a house read the contract they are signing in great detail? And how many trust their solicitor to do it for them and relate the details back?

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments. And I think if we were to add up the margins of Yes victories from all 26 states we would find that that number would be nowhere near the 110,000 victory margin for the No side in Ireland.

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

Is it me or is this a totally irrelevant point? Certainly it is true that if you look at things from that particular point of view the No side won overall, but who and why would anyone look at it from that point of view? It makes absolutely no logical sense. It would be far more logical to go with Scofflaws proportionality outlook, even though that too is flawed by the very nature that it is not strctly the voice of the people. At least his is logical and some way representative of peoples views, no matter how tenuous the link.

turgon wrote: »

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

Whether they want it or not is an unknown. The idea the rest want it is not a mis-truth, but rather an assumption. Looking at the facts in the case (at least the ones I've seen anyway) it is also probably the best assumption anyone can come up with. That doesn't make it true, but with the severe lack of protest on the continent (or apparent lack, as I haven't seen or heard of any myself) coupled with the ratification in the other member states there is no other assumption that I can logically reach. If there is a fault in my logic that you can see I'll gladly hear it.....

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments.

Whether or not this is factually correct, it's a piece of sophistry that utterly misses the point: the EU is an organisation with 27 members, not 500 million members. Unless it's written down in one or more of the treaties that something must be agreed by unanimous consent of a majority of the population of each member state, then your point is utterly irrelevant.

As I type this I can already hear the indignant howls decrying my anti-democratic credentials, but the word "democracy" has become a meaningless buzzword to be thrown around whenever weight of numbers, or even hypothetical numbers, can be used to validate one side or other of an argument.

Countries enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements all the time, and nobody seems to be screaming about a lack of democracy. Irish peacekeepers have traveled the world under UN mandates - why isn't anyone bemoaning the lack of referenda in all the UN member states before such mandates were forthcoming? Did you complain about there not being a UK-wide referendum on the Good Friday Agreement?

turgon

obl wrote: »

their votes should count for 120,000... Just respecting democracy here...

On the contrary I was giving one vote to every person who has voted on it, thus not only respecting democracy but expressing one of its cornerstones.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The recorded figures, though, counting EU Constitution votes as per Lisbon votes, show this:

Ah but remember Scofflaw, the Lisbon Treaty and the EU constitution are completely different things

molloyjh wrote: »

It makes absolutely no logical sense.

Neither does the habit of the yes side to equate a No vote in a referendum to a No vote in a parliamentary ratification and vica versa.

oscarBravo wrote: »

your point is utterly irrelevant.

I was highlighting what appears to be the common assumption that a parliamentary ratification is the same as popular vote, notably in terms of expressing the will of the populace. I think this assumption is ridiculous, a train of thought I have explained a while back in the middle of the debate before the vote.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why isn't anyone bemoaning the lack of referenda in all the UN member states before such mandates were forthcoming?

The UN and the EU are completely different organizations and ideas. We are governed by the EU. We are not by the UN. We have a right to contribute to our government through the ballot box but because the UN is not a governmental organization from the point of view of producing legislation that has an impact on our lives, then in my opinion that question is not really relevant.

I personally think that everyone has a right to especially control how they are governed. Unlike tax bills (an example thrown around when ever the issue of having referendums in each state surfaced) and UN mandates, the Lisbon Treaty, as other EU treaties, changed the manner by which we are governed, thus we imo should have an opportunity to (dis)approve it.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

The recorded figures, though, counting EU Constitution votes as per Lisbon votes, show this:

Ah but remember Scofflaw, the Lisbon Treaty and the EU constitution are completely different things

Ah - even flippantly, one can only have it one way or the other. Either they are the same, or they're not - if they aren't, then it's been rejected in only one country, and if they are, there are more votes for it than against it.

Of course, 95% the same is rather less than the DNA similarity between humans and chimpanzees...

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

if they aren't, then it's been rejected in only one country

And approved by zero popular votes.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

And approved by zero popular votes.

That would be the corollary of picking that particular view, yes. The Lisbon Treaty has been put to 1 (one) popular vote, which resulted in a No balance of 110,000 - if we include the Constitution as the same as Lisbon (a popular angle, if I remember correctly), we have a total of 5 popular votes, with a Yes balance of 3 million plus. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

I was highlighting what appears to be the common assumption that a parliamentary ratification is the same as popular vote, notably in terms of expressing the will of the populace. I think this assumption is ridiculous, a train of thought I have explained a while back in the middle of the debate before the vote.

I don't recall anyone saying that they were the same thing. I do however remember people saying that this was the method of ratification for those countries and we have no right to interfere. I also remember people saying that should the people of the other member states actually want a referendum on anything it is up to them to make it happen, just as Crotty did here. In the absence of this the only logical assumption we can come to us that the people of those member states are quite happy with things as they are, and therefore while the parliamentary vote isn't exactly the same thing as a popular vote, the fact that no popular vote was actively sought would suggest that the parliamentary vote was not in direct conflict with the will of the people.....

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

I was highlighting what appears to be the common assumption that a parliamentary ratification is the same as popular vote, notably in terms of expressing the will of the populace. I think this assumption is ridiculous, a train of thought I have explained a while back in the middle of the debate before the vote.

I am under no illusions that they are the same thing. I am also under no illusions that the EU, as an organisation of member states (not of member citizens) requires popular votes for anything but the election of its members of parliament. All the talk of popular votes is a red herring.

The UN and the EU are completely different organizations and ideas. We are governed by the EU. We are not by the UN. We have a right to contribute to our government through the ballot box but because the UN is not a governmental organization from the point of view of producing legislation that has an impact on our lives, then in my opinion that question is not really relevant.

And yet, one of the (entirely spurious) objections to Lisbon was the fear of the EU sending Irish troops off to conflict zones; something we cheerfully allow the UN to do without referendum.

I personally think that everyone has a right to especially control how they are governed. Unlike tax bills (an example thrown around when ever the issue of having referendums in each state surfaced) and UN mandates, the Lisbon Treaty, as other EU treaties, changed the manner by which we are governed, thus we imo should have an opportunity to (dis)approve it.

When was the last time anyone demanded a referendum on a Local Government Act? Or on the number of ministries and junior ministries? These are all changes in how we are governed.