The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

RedPlanet

Of course he cannot provide any source of that threat, because it is baseless.
It just goes to show that the YES side lack substance and base their position on things like scaremongering.

I on the otherhand, am confident that our good neighbour the UK, will not agree to terms of Europe that seek Ireland's exclusion.
They won't.

sink

RedPlanet wrote: »

Of course he cannot provide any source of that threat, because it is baseless.
It just goes to show that the YES side lack substance and base their position on things like scaremongering.

I on the otherhand, am confident that our good neighbour the UK, will not agree to terms of Europe that seek Ireland's exclusion.
They won't.

I do not expect them or anyone else to deny themselves anything on our behalf. The UK will do what serves their purpose, that is all. They always have and always will.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say there was a threat. I made a simple statement of fact. If you don't think it's true, demonstrate why not.

If it's a fact it can be demonstrated. Demonstrate it.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

Of course he cannot provide any source of that threat, because it is baseless.

Put away the straw man. I never said there was a threat.

dresden8 wrote: »

If it's a fact it can be demonstrated. Demonstrate it.

Think of it as a testable hypothesis. I've stated that there's nothing to stop them - all you have to do to prove me wrong is show just one thing that could prevent 26 sovereign states from entering into an agreement among themselves.

The Raven.

DeVore wrote: »

This is the part that annoys me. If we dont ratify then there is no treaty. 25 out of 26 is not unanimous and the treaty HAS to be scrapped. They can go and have an accord between them all but the EU laws wont be changed because it wasnt unanimous. Its the idea that they can just proceed without us that makes me mad and also makes me determined to make them respect our vote.

DeV.

+1 That's it in a nutshell. There is nothing they can do other than try to bully us into voting again. There is no respect for our vote unless it is a 'yes'.

What is so insidious about all of this is that the 'yes' votes in the other member states are voted by the governments and not the people. There is no point in saying that they represent the people if they haven't asked them. Two weeks ago, Micheal Martin stated the following:

"But the Germans are very committed to Lisbon, they are not leaving us in any doubt about that."

Source:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1116/breaking42.htm

What Germans? I don't understand why there is so little media coverage of what the electorate of these countries think about it. Here's an interesting article from one German demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3510referendum_lisbon.html

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

Put away the straw man. I never said there was a threat.

Think of it as a testable hypothesis. I've stated that there's nothing to stop them - all you have to do to prove me wrong is show just one thing that could prevent 26 sovereign states from entering into an agreement among themselves.

You may never have said it was a threat but you did say it was a fact.

Only now it's not a fact, it a hypotheses, testable or not.

Nice squirming, but unconvincing.

Furious-Dave

The only reason I want another referendum is because I feel the true will of the people was not expressed in the first referendum. If there was a 2nd that was represented honestly and there was again a No vote, then I would respect that vote. However, until a referendum can be held without lies from both sides democracy will fail and I will continue to demand yet another referendum.

Scofflaw

The Raven. wrote: »

+1 That's it in a nutshell. There is nothing they can do other than try to bully us into voting again. There is no respect for our vote unless it is a 'yes'.

What is so insidious about all of this is that the 'yes' votes in the other member states are voted by the governments and not the people. There is no point in saying that they represent the people if they haven't asked them. Two weeks ago, Micheal Martin stated the following:

"But the Germans are very committed to Lisbon, they are not leaving us in any doubt about that."

Source:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1116/breaking42.htm

What Germans? I don't understand why there is so little media coverage of what the electorate of these countries think about it. Here's an interesting article from one German demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3510referendum_lisbon.html

If we follow the line of line of your logic, we rapidly find ourselves in a place where our government cannot do any business with any other governments, because we cannot know for certain that they are expressing the will of their people without a referendum.

That then applies just as much to the day to day business of our own government - and then in turn to any group that uses representative democratic methods. How do we know the government expressed the will of the people in the Arramara Teoranta (Acquisition Of Shares) Act, 2002?

It's very easy to get excited about the concept of elected governments not expressing the will of their people, particularly at a time when it is incredibly easy to project our own dissatisfaction with our own elected government onto other nations - but you're on a hiding to nothing.

Other countries in the EU chose their governments, according to their constitutions, as the best people to represent them. It really isn't possible for Irish people to make any sort of meaningful claim that they don't represent the people they were elected to represent - and it's frankly impolite to make the meaningless ones that are being made. If you want to change how the German or Italian or Polish public is represented, go live there and vote on it. In the absence of doing so, your right to comment on the legitimacy of other people's democratically elected governments is zero, exactly as it is the other way round.

a little harshly,
Scofflaw

The Raven.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we follow the line of line of your logic, we rapidly find ourselves in a place where our government cannot do any business with any other governments, because we cannot know for certain that they are expressing the will of their people without a referendum.

That then applies just as much to the day to day business of our own government - and then in turn to any group that uses representative democratic methods. How do we know the government expressed the will of the people in the Arramara Teoranta (Acquisition Of Shares) Act, 2002?

I had a feeling that someone would use this argument, but I certainly didn’t think it would be you, judging from your other well-written posts, which display considerable knowledge and experience in these matters. One can take any line of argument to the point of absurdity, but it serves no purpose other than to frustrate. I was referring only to the Lisbon Treaty, which is what this thread is about. This situation is unique as it concerns the Irish Constitution and the sovereignty of each EU member state.

It's very easy to get excited about the concept of elected governments not expressing the will of their people, particularly at a time when it is incredibly easy to project our own dissatisfaction with our own elected government onto other nations - but you're on a hiding to nothing.

I think that is underestimating my intelligence. My views on democracy are not fashioned by a comparison to a bunch of dysfunctional dabblers in Dail Eireann. That would be a road to nowhere.

Other countries in the EU chose their governments, according to their constitutions, as the best people to represent them. It really isn't possible for Irish people to make any sort of meaningful claim that they don't represent the people they were elected to represent - and it's frankly impolite to make the meaningless ones that are being made.

I don’t find it ‘impolite’ or ‘meaningless’ to express my opinion on these matters. Politicians get elected for various reasons by a percentage of voters. They don’t always live up to their promises and often do things that are unacceptable to the society they are supposed to represent.

If you want to change how the German or Italian or Polish public is represented, go live there and vote on it.

That’s a bit unrealistic.

In the absence of doing so, your right to comment on the legitimacy of other people's democratically elected governments is zero, exactly as it is the other way round.

I never said these governments were illegitimate. I said that ‘the 'yes' votes in the other member states are voted by the governments and not the people.’ In other words, they didn’t hold a referendum like Ireland.

a little harshly,
Scofflaw

I would say more than a little.

Sadly,
The Raven.

Scofflaw

The Raven. wrote: »

I had a feeling that someone would use this argument, but I certainly didn’t think it would be you, judging from your other well-written posts, which display considerable knowledge and experience in these matters. One can take any line of argument to the point of absurdity, but it serves no purpose other than to frustrate. I was referring only to the Lisbon Treaty, which is what this thread is about. This situation is unique as it concerns the Irish Constitution and the sovereignty of each EU member state.

I'm afraid that yours is the expected counter-argument, too! No, there's nothing particularly special about the Lisbon Treaty. The Danish constitutional lawyers determined that there was nothing in the Treaty that impacted Danish sovereignty (and thus required a Danish referendum), and there's even a question-mark over whether we legally required a referendum.

That brings it out of the realm of the extraordinary, which is essentially your argument, and back into the realm of government business. All international treaties involve a certain abrogation of the right of the government of Ireland to govern Ireland - be it the UN or the Landmines Treaty.

The Raven. wrote: »

I think that is underestimating my intelligence. My views on democracy are not fashioned by a comparison to a bunch of dysfunctional dabblers in Dail Eireann. That would be a road to nowhere.

I certainly didn't intend to insult your intelligence!

The Raven. wrote: »

I don’t find it ‘impolite’ or ‘meaningless’ to express my opinion on these matters. Politicians get elected for various reasons by a percentage of voters. They don’t always live up to their promises and often do things that are unacceptable to the society they are supposed to represent.

That is certainly so - but nevertheless, they remain the elected representatives of the society they represent, and often our views that they are doing things that are "unacceptable to the society they are supposed to represent" is a very personal view supported by nothing but our own indignation.

The Raven. wrote: »

That’s a bit unrealistic.

It is the only meaningful route. That it is unrealistic is neither here nor there, I'm afraid. If someone doesn't vote in the Dáil elections, and then complains about the government, I would make the same point - you didn't vote, and you thereby rendered your complaint meaningless.

The Raven. wrote: »

I never said these governments were illegitimate. I said that ‘the 'yes' votes in the other member states are voted by the governments and not the people.’ In other words, they didn’t hold a referendum like Ireland.

Indeed not, because their constitutions don't require them. That is their choice, and to suggest otherwise is indeed to suggest that their governments are illegitimate in their support for Lisbon - and by extension, anything else where we would have held a referendum and they do not. In this case, you are suggesting that the governments of the other member states do not have full legitimacy in supporting Lisbon because they did not hold referendums on it as we did - but they are not obliged to hold referendums, and who are you to say they are less than 100% legitimate because they do not do so?

You cannot judge other people's governments by what we do without suggesting that their way is not as legitimate as our way - it looks like a plea for democracy, but it's actually parochialism. Is Germany's law on divorce less than 100% legitimate because they held no referendum as we did?

The Raven. wrote: »

I would say more than a little.

Sadly,
The Raven.

Regrettably, a bad argument is a bad argument. There's nothing special about Lisbon that justifies the abandonment of the principle that representative democratic governments represent their people, or the principle that other people's constitutions are 100% as legitimate and acceptable as ours, whether they use referendums as we do or not. The only reason Lisbon seems special is if we have a special interest in it (as most posters here do) - and that is no justification at all.

Democratic representatives, at the end of the day, are not elected solely to express from moment to moment the will (or whim) of the people who elected them. They are elected primarily to do the best for the people according their judgement, and we, in theory, elect those who we feel will best judge what is best for us. When representatives oppose the popular will to do something we approve of (abolishing slavery, repealing discriminatory laws) we call them 'statesmen', and applaud their courage. When they oppose the popular will to do something we disapprove of (supporting Lisbon, proposing a second referendum), we deride them as out of touch elitists and perhaps traitors. In both cases they are doing neither more nor less than what they were elected to do.

It's an imperfect system, but a good deal less imperfect than the alternatives.

cordially nonetheless,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

all you have to do to prove me wrong is show just one thing that could prevent 26 sovereign states from entering into an agreement among themselves.

If they were fully sovereign states there wouldn't be anything stopping them entering into an agreement among themselves. As they're members of the EU though they have obligations under existing treaties which would prevent them from changing the rules or the institutions of the EU without the unanimous consent of the member states affected by those changes.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

If they were fully sovereign states there wouldn't be anything stopping them entering into an agreement among themselves. As they're members of the EU though they have obligations under existing treaties which would prevent them from changing the rules or the institutions of the EU without the unanimous consent of the member states affected by those changes.

EU member states remain sovereign - while they cannot change the rules of the existing EU without unanimity, that does not preclude them entering into a new European union or leaving the existing one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

You may never have said it was a threat but you did say it was a fact.

You might want to explain the distinction to RedPlanet.

Only now it's not a fact, it a hypotheses, testable or not.

Nice squirming, but unconvincing.

This is your best effort at proving me wrong?

Scofflaw wrote: »

EU member states remain sovereign - while they cannot change the rules of the existing EU without unanimity, that does not preclude them entering into a new European union or leaving the existing one.

Precisely.

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

EU member states remain sovereign - while they cannot change the rules of the existing EU without unanimity, that does not preclude them entering into a new European union or leaving the existing one.

Maybe. I would imagine that the rules of the existing EU would make that very difficult though. I would be surprised as well if there would be the unanimous support among the other 26 members to waste any energy setting up a new EU when doing so would mean having to go back to get the consent of their electorates. As far as I'm aware, most EU countries held referendums to enter the first EU. Wouldn't they need to hold another referendum to enter the second one? And if so, wouldn't those referendum be de facto referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? What do you think the chances are of most Europeans voting to become part of a Lisbon Treaty EU rather than remain part of the one we all know and love?

oscarBravo wrote:

This is your best effort at proving me wrong?

What makes you think it's up to others to prove you wrong? When you make a statement that is not self-evidently factual the onus should be on you to provide the evidence to back it up. You and others on the yes side have tried to suggest that the EU can go behind our backs and do a deal that would exclude us. I have yet to see any evidence that this is a realistic prospect. Until you or anyone else can provide the evidence to back this up I think we're more than justified in treating it as no more than baseless scaremongering of a kind that people such as yourself would be quick to condemn in the other side if they engaged in it.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

Maybe. I would imagine that the rules of the existing EU would make that very difficult though.

Which rules of the existing EU prevent the member states from agreeing treaties among themselves?

I would be surprised as well if there would be the unanimous support among the other 26 members to waste any energy setting up a new EU when doing so would mean having to go back to get the consent of their electorates. As far as I'm aware, most EU countries held referendums to enter the first EU. Wouldn't they need to hold another referendum to enter the second one? And if so, wouldn't those referendum be de facto referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? What do you think the chances are of most Europeans voting to become part of a Lisbon Treaty EU rather than remain part of the one we all know and love?

This is a much more compelling argument that "I'd imagine it's impossible."

I don't think it's necessarily all that likely, and I don't think it would be easy - but I also think we're utterly kidding ourselves if we think that we get to sit back and dictate the future of the EU all by ourselves.

Once again, the point is that a "no" vote to Lisbon has created a climate of deep uncertainty throughout Europe. So much for voting for the status quo.

What makes you think it's up to others to prove you wrong? When you make a statement that is not self-evidently factual the onus should be on you to provide the evidence to back it up.

It is self-evidently factual, as demonstrated by the fact that nobody who's arguing with me has been able to show that it's untrue. It's also self-evidently factual, as demonstrated by the fact that EU member states are signatories to treaties other than the EU treaties.

If you think it's not true, show it to be untrue, using something more concrete than your imagination.

You and others on the yes side have tried to suggest that the EU can go behind our backs and do a deal that would exclude us. I have yet to see any evidence that this is a realistic prospect. Until you or anyone else can provide the evidence to back this up I think we're more than justified in treating it as no more than baseless scaremongering of a kind that people such as yourself would be quick to condemn in the other side if they engaged in it.

I didn't say that it's a realistic prospect. I said it's possible. You and others would have us believe it's impossible, thereby creating the impression that we're permanently in control of Europe's future destiny.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Maybe. I would imagine that the rules of the existing EU would make that very difficult though. I would be surprised as well if there would be the unanimous support among the other 26 members to waste any energy setting up a new EU when doing so would mean having to go back to get the consent of their electorates. As far as I'm aware, most EU countries held referendums to enter the first EU. Wouldn't they need to hold another referendum to enter the second one? And if so, wouldn't those referendum be de facto referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? What do you think the chances are of most Europeans voting to become part of a Lisbon Treaty EU rather than remain part of the one we all know and love?

That is a rather different point, though. That doing it would be a pain, or might not be accepted by the electorates of the various countries, is a far cry from being unable to do it. Are you under the impression that the "rules of the existing EU" contain some kind of exclusivity deal? If so, perhaps that explains to some extent why you think those rules have a greater impact on Irish sovereignty than is the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say that it's a realistic prospect. I said it's possible.

:rolleyes:

So if you feel your proposal is not realistic, then why even raise it as a possibility? It's ridiculous.

There are probably millions of possibilites.
It's the ones that are pertinent and have more likelihood of occuring that are ones we need concern ourselves.
The EU army could introduce a form of conscription, that is a possibilty.
Another possibility of Lisbon is that member states would have to increase military spending. Which is particularly relevant to Ireland as we currently spend the least on military.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So if you feel your proposal is not realistic, then why even raise it as a possibility? It's ridiculous.

But the rest of Europe cheerfully accepting that the EU will have to work on the basis of the Nice treaty for the remainder of its existence is a more realistic proposition?

There are probably millions of possibilites.

There's a spectrum, sure. On one end, the EU is stuck with Nice in perpetuity. On the other, the existing EU dissolves and is replaced with something that doesn't involve Ireland. Neither is likely.

Somewhere in between is the logical next step: Ireland ratifies Lisbon and the EU gets on with business as usual. An appalling vista for the Euroskeptics, I know.

It's the ones that are pertinent and have more likelihood of occuring that are ones we need concern ourselves.
The EU army could introduce a form of conscription, that is a possibilty.
Another possibility of Lisbon is that member states would have to increase military spending. Which is particularly relevant to Ireland as we currently spend the least on military.

It's instructive to compare your speculation as to what could happen if Lisbon is ratified, to my speculation as to what could happen if it's not. If it is ratified, we know what can and can't happen, because it's written down in black and white - and neither conscription nor increased military spending are included there. If it's not ratified, we're in uncharted territory.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

But the rest of Europe cheerfully accepting that the EU will have to work on the basis of the Nice treaty for the remainder of its existence is a more realistic proposition? There's a spectrum, sure. On one end, the EU is stuck with Nice in perpetuity. On the other, the existing EU dissolves and is replaced with something that doesn't involve Ireland. Neither is likely.

Somewhere in between is the logical next step: Ireland ratifies Lisbon and the EU gets on with business as usual. An appalling vista for the Euroskeptics, I know. It's instructive to compare your speculation as to what could happen if Lisbon is ratified, to my speculation as to what could happen if it's not. If it is ratified, we know what can and can't happen, because it's written down in black and white - and neither conscription nor increased military spending are included there. If it's not ratified, we're in uncharted territory.

I disagree. A no vote is a vote for the status-quo. There is no precedent for it being any other way. In any case, the impending UK GE where Brown won't want the Tories portraying him as caving into Brussels, the usual 'period of reflection' in the EU resulting from a second no vote, and the difficulty in reaching unanimous agreement among the other EU states - possibly including Croatia in 2009 - would make it impossible to effectively isolate Ireland in my humble opinion. Senator Pearse Doherty put it well on the Oireachtas Committee on Ireland's Future in Europe recently in distinguishing between good Europeans and compliant Europeans. The pro-Treaty parties apparently make no such distinction.

This is a much more compelling argument that "I'd imagine it's impossible."

I don't think it's necessarily all that likely, and I don't think it would be easy - but I also think we're utterly kidding ourselves if we think that we get to sit back and dictate the future of the EU all by ourselves.

It's not just us. It's also the Czechs whose presidential signature is required for Lisbon to come into force and who has said he won't sign until Ireland votes yes. It's the Polish president whose intentions remain unclear but he hasn't signed yet either. Then there is the shadow hanging over this whole process - the French and Dutch no votes to the EU Constitution that Bertie and Biffo admit is 90%+ the same as Lisbon. The overwhelming evidence is that were this Treaty put to separate national referenda in the other member states, many nations would support us. I don't equate nations with politicians, especially in terms of their views on EU issues.

Once again, the point is that a "no" vote to Lisbon has created a climate of deep uncertainty throughout Europe. So much for voting for the status quo.

More like it has created deep uncertainty as to whether Bertie Ahern can become President of the European Council.

There is also a moral question as to whether it is fair to foist the EU Constitution/Lisbon blueprint on the peoples of France and the Netherlands who voted no and were not asked a second time. Personally, I feel that beyond the legal implications of Lisbon is a wider philosophical question as to the attention political elites should have to pay to public-opinion in order to get their policies on Constitutional matters with respect to European integration through. If they succeed with Lisbon, then the word will have gone out that the political-classes in the EU can ignore and override democratically-expressed opposition to further European integration or to their model of European integration (there are alternative models that would be more democratic). In my opinion, successful ratification of Lisbon would make politicians even more dismissive of public-opinion that disapproves of their policies, as well as setting a precedent whereby while referendum results are ignored today, it will be the turn of General Election results to be ignored tomorrow if we don't give 'the right answer'. The survival of democracy is at stake in the battle over Lisbon, in my opinion.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I disagree. A no vote is a vote for the status-quo.

Sure - for now. Do you really think the status quo will persist indefinitely?

The survival of democracy is at stake in the battle over Lisbon, in my opinion.

Ah, democracy. That pure, abused poster boy for the "no" campaign.

Tell me: do you admire the action of the Czech president in unilaterally preventing his country's ratification of a treaty that's been approved by parliament and the supreme court? Is that your idea of democracy?

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure - for now. Do you really think the status quo will persist indefinitely?

Those are the rules of the EU so yes it will persist with respect to EU institutions, unless the politicians come back with a treaty we can accept. I believe that Enhanced-Cooperation, which is already allowed for in Nice to allow some member states to integrate faster without the consent of all member states, is an acceptable solution to the disparity in attitudes to European integration between different member states, but in no way would it force Ireland out of the EU.

Ah, democracy. That pure, abused poster boy for the "no" campaign.

Tell me: do you admire the action of the Czech president in unilaterally preventing his country's ratification of a treaty that's been approved by parliament and the supreme court? Is that your idea of democracy?

Yes I do, given that I believe that the Czech people are entitled to a referendum on the Treaty. Remember how out of touch Irish politicians were on the Lisbon treaty. On this issue, experience of national referenda in France, Holland, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden underlines that the views of the European political-class diverge sharply on many matters of European integration from the ordinary European citizens. If it were not so, we would not be the only country to have a referendum on Lisbon.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Those are the rules so yes unless the politicians come back with a treaty we can accept.

So we come back around to re-negotiating the entire treaty, just to address the ill-founded concerns of a poorly-informed electorate.

Of course, you still wouldn't be happy with that treaty unless it was ratified by referendum in every member state, including those member states that don't ratify treaties by referendum.

Yes I do, given that I believe that the Czech people are entitled to a referendum on the Treaty.

"Entitled"? What entitles them to one? Are they entitled to a referendum on every single treaty that their country signs up to? Or is it just EU treaties that generate this entitlement?

Remember how out of touch Irish politicians were on the Lisbon treaty.

I would argue that the Irish electorate were much more out of touch on the Lisbon treaty than were the politicians.

On this issue, experience of national referenda in France, Holland, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden underlines that the views of the European political-class diverge sharply on many matters of European integration from the ordinary European citizens. If it were not so, we would not be the only country to have a referendum on Lisbon.

As long as people's votes in referenda are informed by anything other than the bare facts at issue, politicians will strive to avoid them.

Eurosceptic2008

OscarBravo wrote:

So we come back around to re-negotiating the entire treaty, just to address the ill-founded concerns of a poorly-informed electorate.

I think the yes and no sides had equal proportions of misinformed voters. Overall I have faith in the intelligence of the Irish electorate to pass judgement on such matters. The politicians can be wrong, you know. On the Czech entitlement I am referring to a moral entitlement. The Irish politicians in 1800 wanted the Act of Union too remember. Was it right to leave that decision to them? Would we have been too "misinformed" to vote on it? Had we voted no should we have had more referenda until we gave the right answer? Should the American people vote a second time for president? :rolleyes:

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

If it's a fact it can be demonstrated. Demonstrate it.

It is a fact that I can get up from my desk and walk out the door right now. Without actually doing it how could I prove it? Similarly it is a fact that there is nothing to stop you from slapping yourself in the face while reading this. Again how, unless doing it, can this be proven? OB said that there is nothing to stop other EU countries to negotiate treaties among themselves. Now to prove that would mean proving something doesn't exist, which is quite tough. You seem to think that something DOES exist to prevent this. Proving that is far easier (assuming it could be done).

The Raven. wrote: »

+1 That's it in a nutshell. There is nothing they can do other than try to bully us into voting again.

Not one single member state, not one single head of state, has told us what to do next. There has been no bullying.

The Raven. wrote: »

There is no respect for our vote unless it is a 'yes'.

We said No, the Treaty hasn't been ratified by all members therefore it has not come into force. Therefore the result was respected. End of. There is nothing in the world wrong with someone trying to convince us to change our minds after all of that of course.

The Raven. wrote: »

What is so insidious about all of this is that the 'yes' votes in the other member states are voted by the governments and not the people. There is no point in saying that they represent the people if they haven't asked them.

I'm not sure if you are aware of why we "got to vote". We did so because a citizen of this country made it happen, because someone here felt that we should be having a say in matters such as this. In other member states they have the same right to do just this. They haven't. Our Government didn't just give us this right. We asked for it. If the other member states people didn't ask then they must not have much of a problem with the way things are at the moment.

The Raven. wrote: »

What Germans? I don't understand why there is so little media coverage of what the electorate of these countries think about it. Here's an interesting article from one German demanding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3510referendum_lisbon.html

I'm glad you mentioned the Germans, after all referenda are not legal in Germany, and haven't been since the Nazis. And there has been no popular outcry against this in 60 years. You haven't seen any media coverage of what the rest of Europe thinks because to them the Lisbon Treaty isn't a big deal. If there was widespread unhappyness with it then we'd be sure to see it all over the news, it would be a real headline grabber. The fact is that there has been no significant opposition to this Treaty on the continent. The Czech President (an openly Euroskeptic anyway), the Polish President and Ireland are really about the only ones causing an issue.

as for the link.....WW3....come on! :rolleyes:

O'Morris wrote: »

You and others on the yes side have tried to suggest that the EU can go behind our backs and do a deal that would exclude us. I have yet to see any evidence that this is a realistic prospect. Until you or anyone else can provide the evidence to back this up I think we're more than justified in treating it as no more than baseless scaremongering of a kind that people such as yourself would be quick to condemn in the other side if they engaged in it.

Didn't OB say that while its a possibility its also unlikely? It is a possibility. And it is unlikely. However, what do you think will happen now? I for one have no idea. A club, which is what this is in essence, where 26 of the 27 members want to go one way and the other doesn't only has a limited number of options. The idea of the "status quo" is as ridiculous a notion as any, as that would imply that we are in control of the EU, a small country with approx 1% of the total population of this club. We have to go somewhere from here. No club in the world would allow 1 member to control its direction like this. So where, realistically, do you think we're going to end up?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I disagree. A no vote is a vote for the status-quo.

See above. The status quo as a future is a myth realistically.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

There is no precedent for it being any other way.

There is no precedent for this at all. Never in the EUs history has 1% (less in fact given that not every Irish man, woman and child voted or voted No) caused such uncertainty. The Constitution is the closest thing to this, and in that case 2 countries, one of which was a founding member and one of the largest in the union, rejected it and votes elsewhere in the EU were called off so we've no real idea just how many member states would have been in favour or opposed to it.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Senator Pearse Doherty put it well on the Oireachtas Committee on Ireland's Future in Europe recently in distinguishing between good Europeans and compliant Europeans. The pro-Treaty parties apparently make no such distinction.

That's because Senator Doherty is, unlike most politicians, one of the few that would bother using such terms. Its school-yard stuff at this point.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

...President of the European Council.

President of the Council eh...when they sneak that one in?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

There is also a moral question as to whether it is fair to foist the EU Constitution/Lisbon blueprint on the peoples of France and the Netherlands who voted no and were not asked a second time.

Sarkozy was openly pro-Lisbon and they elected him and there has been absolutely no popular opposition or dissent in France or the Netherlands. So you can question it all you want, the French and Dutch don't seem bothered.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

...setting a precedent whereby while referendum results are ignored today, it will be the turn of General Election results to be ignored tomorrow if we don't give 'the right answer'. The survival of democracy is at stake in the battle over Lisbon, in my opinion.

Get melodramatic much? :rolleyes:

molloyjh

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Yes I do, given that I believe that the Czech people are entitled to a referendum on the Treaty.

That's up to the Czech people to decide, not you or I and certainly not the Czech President all on his own.

Eurosceptic2008

molloyjh wrote:

Didn't OB say that while its a possibility its also unlikely? It is a possibility. And it is unlikely. However, what do you think will happen now? I for one have no idea. A club, which is what this is in essence, where 26 of the 27 members want to go one way and the other doesn't only has a limited number of options. The idea of the "status quo" is as ridiculous a notion as any, as that would imply that we are in control of the EU, a small country with approx 1% of the total population of this club. We have to go somewhere from here. No club in the world would allow 1 member to control its direction like this. So where, realistically, do you think we're going to end up?

See above. The status quo as a future is a myth realistically.

Decades of FF govt in Ireland suggest otherwise.

There is no precedent for this at all. Never in the EUs history has 1% (less in fact given that not every Irish man, woman and child voted or voted No) caused such uncertainty. The Constitution is the closest thing to this, and in that case 2 countries, one of which was a founding member and one of the largest in the union, rejected it and votes elsewhere in the EU were called off so we've no real idea just how many member states would have been in favour or opposed to it.

It isn't just us its also the Czech republic and possibly Poland. I refuse to accept that small nations' concerns are not equal with those of Big States, and I also refuse to accept that these countries are alone in having peoples opposed to this Treaty. If the politicians believe only 1% of Europeans are against Lisbon, then they should have separate national referenda to prove it. They won't because it isn't true. Do you seriously believe that the British people support this Treaty? :rolleyes:

That's because Senator Doherty is, unlike most politicians, one of the few that would bother using such terms. Its school-yard stuff at this point.

More like he is one of the few elected Irish politicians to stand up to Brussels. It takes courage to swim against the tide.

President of the Council eh...when they sneak that one in?

Lisbon replaces the rotating presidency of the Council with one chosen by the European Council. Bertie and others including the current Danish and Luxembourg PMs have also been floated in the press as potential candidates. This is already in the public domain.

Sarkozy was openly pro-Lisbon and they elected him and there has been absolutely no popular opposition or dissent in France or the Netherlands. So you can question it all you want, the French and Dutch don't seem bothered.

Wrong. Lisbon had not even been drafted, let alone signed, when he was elected president. The Treaty was drafted and signed on 7-8th September 2007 and 13th December 2007 respectively. Sarkozy assumed the office of President of France on 16th May 2007. So he could not have been elected on a "pro-Lisbon" platform because the Treaty didn't even exist at that stage.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

I think the yes and no sides had equal proportions of misinformed voters.

On what do you base that?

Overall I have faith in the intelligence of the Irish electorate to pass judgement on such matters.

Even though a substantial proportion were misinformed as to what they were voting on? Your faith is misplaced.

The politicians can be wrong, you know.

Sure, but at least they were talking about stuff that's actually in the treaty.

On the Czech entitlement I am referring to a moral entitlement.

Are the Germans morally entitled to a referendum? Does this moral entitlement include any and all treaties their country signs up to, or only EU treaties?

The Irish politicians in 1800 wanted the Act of Union too remember. Was it right to leave that decision to them?

The Irish politicians of 1800 were blatantly bought off with massive bribes. If you're going to claim a parallel, you'd better be prepared to provide proof of the massive bribes the Irish politicians of 2008 were offered.

turgon

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Overall I have faith in the intelligence of the Irish electorate to pass judgement on such matters.

Step away from trying to defend your corner a minute. That statement is ridiculous. The Irish electorate and people have constantly proven themselves over this campaign to be willing to put forward and to fall for ridiculous lies.

You have faith in an electorate that votes No to a treaty based on issues that, on expecting the document, are non-existent? You have faith in an electorate that will vote depending on their party affiliation. You have faith in an electorate where people will vote without even thinking about it? How are you fooling?

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

On what do you base that? Even though a substantial proportion were misinformed as to what they were voting on? Your faith is misplaced. Sure, but at least they were talking about stuff that's actually in the treaty. Are the Germans morally entitled to a referendum? Does this moral entitlement include any and all treaties their country signs up to, or only EU treaties? The Irish politicians of 1800 were blatantly bought off with massive bribes. If you're going to claim a parallel, you'd better be prepared to provide proof of the massive bribes the Irish politicians of 2008 were offered.

The oft-repeated claim that Germany cannot have referenda is untrue. They cannot have national referenda, but can have regional state-referenda. The CDU blocked a SPD govt attempt under Schroeder to change the constitution to allow for national referenda. Where there's a will there's a way. My moral perspective goes like this: the politicians should only be allowed to act within a certain rulebook i.e. constitution, and that only the people should be able to change the rules themselves. On the question of which you put to referendum, I would put treaties affecting Irish sovereignty to referenda, as they are clearly in a special category of themselves.

The Irish politicians of 1800 were blatantly bought off with massive bribes. If you're going to claim a parallel, you'd better be prepared to provide proof of the massive bribes the Irish politicians of 2008 were offered

The Tribunals show that it can take forever for political-corruption but that doesn't mean it's not happening. I have no proof, only a suspicion based on what happened with Haughey, Liam Lawlor, Burke and what has been discovered in terms of rampant corruption - especially in FF - during and since that era.

turgon wrote:

Step away from trying to defend your corner a minute. That statement is ridiculous. The Irish electorate and people have constantly proven themselves over this campaign to be willing to put forward and to fall for ridiculous lies.

You have faith in an electorate that votes No to a treaty based on issues that, on expecting the document, are non-existent? You have faith in an electorate that will vote depending on their party affiliation. You have faith in an electorate where people will vote without even thinking about it? How are you fooling?

In a democracy you have to accept the decision of the people, which in this case was that Lisbon in its current form is unacceptable. The no side did not have a monopoly on misinformation in the campaign - I recall hearing Dermot Ahern in a radio discussion in an argument on Marian Finucane with Eamon Dunphy in which the former responded that you can't be pro-European if you oppose the Treaty, resulting in a furious "How dare you" from Dunphy. Pro-Europeans don't have to be compliant Europeans. In all referenda, both yes and no sides will scaremonger and exaggerate, but I believe, based on the Eurobarometer polls showing large proportions of yes voters cited 'EU membership has been good for Ireland', that just as many yes voters as no voters voted on matters not relevant to the Treaty. EU membership has benefitted Ireland, but it has destroyed the fishing-industry and we spent decades before the 1990's in the EU/EEC with mass-emigration and mass-unemployment. In that context we need to take a more questioning attitude to European integration and the EU than we did in the past. In particular our politicians - especially the older ones - need to realise that we are now a rich country, and that consequently, the slavish attitudes of the begging-bowl years are no longer appropriate or dignified. And before you mention we are in recession, so is the US but it remains the richest country on earth. It would take a recession of 25 years with -4% annual growth to reverse the Celtic Tiger increase in living-standards.

ShooterSF

molloyjh wrote: »

That's up to the Czech people to decide, not you or I and certainly not the Czech President all on his own.

But the people of the country elected him knowing his euroskeptic views.