The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well now were in hypothetical land would the yes people vote this through (minus the absurd equal pay crap)?

No. I'd vote "yes" again for the existing treaty, unmodified. I wouldn't vote for this.

Wudyaquit

oscarBravo wrote: »

The answer was "no". It wasn't "no, and don't ever, ever, ever ask me again".

Never said it was. But a second referendum within a year or two is not "ever ever ever" - in political terms it's straight away.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. I'd vote "yes" again for the existing treaty, unmodified. I wouldn't vote for this.

Ah so we just have different views on how we'd like to see Europe move! Can I ask would you make ANY concessions to the SF list if it won over some of the No voters to give the nation a majority of yes voters then?

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I might be a little more comfortable here. Though I'm still not sure yet. I don't agree with everything on their list and some points are ludicrous though one would hope they would be concession points to get the others through (Though this is all very hypothetical as FF are not going to be seen to be bowing to SF).
The major one for me, and you can all go on about my tinfoil hat, is the removal of the "self-amending" articles. I had serious problems with them and was assured that they weren't actually allowing them to amend the treaty without further referendum but if so take it out and leave the subject properly defined.

And here we hit an impasse....I'd have to consider that the most important article, and one I would vote Yes to all on its own. Indeed, its inclusion in a treaty would always make me more prone to vote Yes, because it means that the treaty can then be repealed one article at a time if wished.

I don't think there's any real doubt over the treaty text and what it means, as far as an EU treaty can determine matters. It doesn't say "and Ireland shall have a referendum on each amendment" because that's none of the EU's business. It's our Constitution that determines that we have referendums, and it is our Constitution that should be amended to ensure this, if that is what is wanted.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I know it means more hassle for any further changes but I don't care. My beliefs are that Europe in general wants (eventually) a European superstate and I don't expect my government to block it but fortunately currently they can't without asking us, and maybe with it in they still couldnt but I feel more comfortable as is and I'm happy to have the disadvantage of a slower evolving Europe in exchange for the safe knowledge that nothing can be done without our approval.

I see no evidence that "Europe in general" wants a European superstate at all!

ShooterSF wrote: »

The legal entity issue is less important but I'd rather keep it without being a seperate legal entity. Also I agree on not coming to the support of others due to terrorist attack. Sorry I won't sugar coat it but here I'm happy to be everyone for themselves. (And don't give me the what if we're attacked line cause we wont because we keep our nose out).

I'm good with the legal entity issue. It's intended to clear up the way that currently some bits 'pillars') are EEC and some are EU, and one or the other has to have legal personality. As to the view that we "keep our nose out" - we don't.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd rather scrap the citizens initiative bollox. Nice idea but it doesnt work as if you make it mandatory you get the "creationism" issue and if you dont it's rather as pointless as handing a petition to them right now.

Not really. We don't have a petition tradition here, but a number of European countries do. As it stands in Lisbon, it would rapidly become the case that the Commission was politically obliged to do something about them, without having its hands tied by a treaty obligation to do so.

ShooterSF wrote: »

The QMV issue, as I stated I'd rather hold onto our vetoes than get a slight increase in voting because realistically our strenght would not be in our small vote percentage but in our veto.

Realistically, our strength is in neither of those things, unless the rest of Europe is permanently hostile to us - in which case we would be better off out. As it stands, given that the Council operates by consensus 75% of the time, our strength is in goodwill.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well now were in hypothetical land would the yes people vote this through (minus the absurd equal pay crap)?

No, I'm afraid not. Making the Commission subservient to the Council is a huge step in the wrong direction, and a complete change from the EU that even SF (claim to) believe has served us so well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Never said it was. But a second referendum within a year or two is not "ever ever ever" - in political terms it's straight away.

Will the rest of the EU wait years?

rhetorically,
Scofflaw

Wudyaquit

Scofflaw wrote: »

Will the rest of the EU wait years?

Doubt it. I think I see the point you're making - you're pointing out to Oscar that the options weren't, "Yes" or "No and don't ever ever ever ask me again"; they were "Yes" or "No, but make sure and keep get back to me as soon as you can to see if I've changed my mind"

Scofflaw

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Doubt it. I think I see the point you're making - you're pointing out to Oscar that the options weren't, "Yes" or "No and don't ever ever ever ask me again"; they were "Yes" or "No, but make sure and keep get back to me as soon as you can to see if I've changed my mind"

I think you'll find that would be the case whenever 26 out of 27 people wanted to do something. Certainly if they'd spent all year planing a group holiday and at the last minute someone's partner vetoed our participation, they'd ask twice, and quite quickly.


cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

And here we hit an impasse....I'd have to consider that the most important article, and one I would vote Yes to all on its own. Indeed, its inclusion in a treaty would always make me more prone to vote Yes, because it means that the treaty can then be repealed one article at a time if wished.
I don't think there's any real doubt over the treaty text and what it means, as far as an EU treaty can determine matters. It doesn't say "and Ireland shall have a referendum on each amendment" because that's none of the EU's business. It's our Constitution that determines that we have referendums, and it is our Constitution that should be amended to ensure this, if that is what is wanted.

Well there's little point debating this one as we both just have a different outlook on it. Though I dare say mine would be in the majority (No offense)

I see no evidence that "Europe in general" wants a European superstate at all!

I never said there was. All I can offer is a gut feeling I'm afraid. And while I feel that way I'll do whatever possible to guarantee us a say even if it seems paranoid and slows things down.

Not really. We don't have a petition tradition here, but a number of European countries do. As it stands in Lisbon, it would rapidly become the case that the Commission was politically obliged to do something about them, without having its hands tied by a treaty obligation to do so.

To me it seems pointless. You're either obliged to act on them which is a bad thing or you only have to take them under consideration which is like making a complain to shopkeeper and been told "I'll take it under consideration".

Realistically, our strength is in neither of those things, unless the rest of Europe is permanently hostile to us - in which case we would be better off out. As it stands, given that the Council operates by consensus 75% of the time, our strength is in goodwill.

I wouldnt say permanently or even regularly but in a one off situation an increased vote is weaker than a veto. Anyway if it's mostly on consensus where's the need to change it?

No, I'm afraid not. Making the Commission subservient to the Council is a huge step in the wrong direction, and a complete change from the EU that even SF (claim to) believe has served us so well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair enough. I would never argue with someones right to reject something. Though, and this is completely hypothetical as as I've said FF are not going to take SF's proposals on board but typing that last sentence I had an idea. I just want to turn something on it's head and give you an idea of an average no voter's problem.
Let's say SF got into power 10 years ago and somehow held onto it, negotiated lisbon along with other countries (who also had different ideas) and came up with SF proposal above. Now lets say all the other governments passed it but we had to have a referendum. Now you would be personally against said proposal, how would you vote?

I know its really hypothetical but it's similar to something some yes voters suggest quite often, that one cant hold back the rest of Europe.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well there's little point debating this one as we both just have a different outlook on it. Though I dare say mine would be in the majority (No offense)

None taken - you may well be right that your view is more common than mine, but if you're referring to your doubts over what the text means, your view is also unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) incorrect.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I never said there was. All I can offer is a gut feeling I'm afraid. And while I feel that way I'll do whatever possible to guarantee us a say even if it seems paranoid and slows things down.

Fair enough - not much I can do about a gut feeling!

ShooterSF wrote: »

To me it seems pointless. You're either obliged to act on them which is a bad thing or you only have to take them under consideration which is like making a complain to shopkeeper and been told "I'll take it under consideration".

Which neatly illustrates our problem with it, because there are countries (most of Europe) where that actually means something other than "p. off and stop wasting my time". Most of us, inured as we are to the Irish way of doing things, assume that officialdom will not do things for us without coercion, trickery, or bribes. Most of Europe assumes they will, because it's their duty to do so.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I wouldnt say permanently or even regularly but in a one off situation an increased vote is weaker than a veto. Anyway if it's mostly on consensus where's the need to change it?

Essentially, because vetoes have a chilling effect on the proposal of legislation. It's not a case that legislation is put forward in veto areas and then vetoed - it isn't put forward at all, because no-one wants to risk the loss of face involved in having their proposition vetoed, or the loss of goodwill involved in vetoing someone else's. So by tacit consensus, only the blandest legislation is proposed at all in veto areas - which would be alright, but some of those areas require EU action.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. I would never argue with someones right to reject something. Though, and this is completely hypothetical as as I've said FF are not going to take SF's proposals on board but typing that last sentence I had an idea. I just want to turn something on it's head and give you an idea of an average no voter's problem.
Let's say SF got into power 10 years ago and somehow held onto it, negotiated lisbon along with other countries (who also had different ideas) and came up with SF proposal above. Now lets say all the other governments passed it but we had to have a referendum. Now you would be personally against said proposal, how would you vote?

I'd vote No, except under exceptional circumstances.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I know its really hypothetical but it's similar to something some yes voters suggest quite often, that one cant hold back the rest of Europe.

I don't think I've ever used that argument, except in the 'realistic' sense. We're perfectly entitled to hold Europe back - it says so in the rules - but it is neither particularly wise to do so, nor would I consider it surprising if the rules were changed.

The exceptional circumstances in which I would vote Yes to a proposed EU treaty that I didn't like is when there was: (a) no realistic alternative; (b) a real danger of the absence of forward motion producing a power vacuum in Europe; and (c) a real risk of that vacuum being filled by extremist parties, due to, say, an economic depression.

Under those circumstances I would consider that the downside risks of voting No outweighed the negative elements of the Treaty you're proposing here.

Hmm.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

First off. Though I dont agree with with you alot I apprciate that you take the time to actually discuss the situation. I know alot of this has been gone over and over and it's easy to get tired and just flame one another (and alot do )

I'll try and keep this short.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Fair enough - not much I can do about a gut feeling!

I'm a very evidence based person usually and I fully understand that point. I guess the only hint at it was the failed constitution which was a lot closer to a European superstate (national anthem and all that) than lisbon which would make me believe that some politicians in Europe would like to see this (or it wouldn't be proposed) but realise that a nation's general public wouldn't pass it and so would have to be inched towards it.
Again I wouldn't claim it to be anymore than a gut feeling and wouldnt offer the above in anyway as definitive evidence.

Which neatly illustrates our problem with it, because there are countries (most of Europe) where that actually means something other than "p. off and stop wasting my time". Most of us, inured as we are to the Irish way of doing things, assume that officialdom will not do things for us without coercion, trickery, or bribes. Most of Europe assumes they will, because it's their duty to do so.

Fair point. It's probably an Irish issue. Though you yourself said that the job of a government is not to cater to the whims of it's people but to do what they think is best for them.

Essentially, because vetoes have a chilling effect on the proposal of legislation. It's not a case that legislation is put forward in veto areas and then vetoed - it isn't put forward at all, because no-one wants to risk the loss of face involved in having their proposition vetoed, or the loss of goodwill involved in vetoing someone else's. So by tacit consensus, only the blandest legislation is proposed at all in veto areas - which would be alright, but some of those areas require EU action.

To me this doesn't need a change of rules it needs a change of attitude. Let's all stop playing happy familys and actually argue pros and cons. Nations have a veto for a reason and the politicians need to stop walking on egg shells and propose their ideas knowing that if they're vetoed it's not the end of the world.

I'd vote No, except under exceptional circumstances.

Fair enough.

I don't think I've ever used that argument, except in the 'realistic' sense.

Again I'd accept it was hypothetical I was simply demonstrating one of the more irritating arguments.

We're perfectly entitled to hold Europe back - it says so in the rules - but it is neither particularly wise to do so, nor would I consider it surprising if the rules were changed.

The exceptional circumstances in which I would vote Yes to a proposed EU treaty that I didn't like is when there was: (a) no realistic alternative; (b) a real danger of the absence of forward motion producing a power vacuum in Europe; and (c) a real risk of that vacuum being filled by extremist parties, due to, say, an economic depression.

Under those circumstances I would consider that the downside risks of voting No outweighed the negative elements of the Treaty you're proposing here.

Hmm.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's fair enough. I wouldn't say personally that those circumstances are met by the current situation. I wont say anymore on that at the minute though or I'll just be going of-topic or back on myself.

Gareth37

I know that politically and economically the treaty is a joke but I would have major problems with the agenda to introduce abortions. Thank God that we have a strong constitution protected by home rule governments for over 100 years. The people who died for this country didn't die for this anyway.

ShooterSF

^^^Palm 2 Face ^^^

Gareth37

ShooterSF wrote: »

^^^Palm 2 Face ^^^

We don't have a strong constitution?

djpbarry

Wudyaquit wrote: »

If the Government calls another referendum it is ignoring the voice of the people...

The government are ignoring us by asking us a question? Interesting….

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Never said it was. But a second referendum within a year or two is not "ever ever ever" - in political terms it's straight away.

So?

djpbarry

Gareth37 wrote: »

I know that politically and economically the treaty is a joke but I would have major problems with the agenda to introduce abortions. Thank God that we have a strong constitution protected by home rule governments for over 100 years. The people who died for this country didn't die for this anyway.

Is that you, Kathy?

sink

I don't think having any sort of discussion with Gareth37 is going to get you anywhere. He was on the atheist board trying to convince us that evolution was false. Let's just say the discussion did not proggress very far.

ShooterSF

Yea seemingly he's banned at the min from the religious forums and needs to wind people up else where...

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

I don't think having any sort of discussion with Gareth37 is going to get you anywhere. He was on the atheist board trying to convince us that evolution was false. Let's just say the discussion did not proggress very far.

That gave me a guilty twinge...still, I've done my bit for the cause.

neglectfully,
Scofflaw

trellheim

everyone is just going to use the next referendum to indicate po-ed'ness with the Government. I can't see a decent way forward .

oscarBravo

trellheim wrote: »

everyone is just going to use the next referendum to indicate po-ed'ness with the Government.

I'm not.

I can't see a decent way forward .

One way forward might be for people to educate themselves on the issues at hand, and vote accordingly.

I know, it's a lot to ask.

trellheim

Me ? Yes voter. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Anyone who says otherwise is wearing the tinfoil hat. <- that's an opinion. YMMV.

ShooterSF

trellheim wrote: »

Me ? Yes voter. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Anyone who says otherwise is wearing the tinfoil hat. <- that's an opinion. YMMV.

In this weather you need to wear a hat and in the recession all I could afford is a tinfoil one.

RedPlanet

From today's RTE's news:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

'Ireland is working intensively on ratifying the treaty and we support their efforts,' she said.

Isn't that great?
Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty yet the government is working intensivley to ratify it?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1204/eulisbon.html

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

From today's RTE's news:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Isn't that great?
Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty yet the government is working intensivley to ratify it?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1204/eulisbon.html

Well, yes - that's because the government thinks that ratifying Lisbon is the best thing for the country. They've failed to persuade the majority of the electorate of that, but that doesn't change their analysis of the Treaty - nor should it.

They're bound to respect the people's decision on the Treaty - by not ratifying without our consent - but they're not bound to accept our implied opinion of the Treaty. Similarly, you'll find that your doctor cannot treat you without your consent, but doesn't have to agree with you that you don't need treatment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Similarly, you'll find that your doctor cannot treat you without your consent, but doesn't have to agree with you that you don't need treatment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But equally s/he can't keep dragging you back to the surgery for consultation until your will to resist is broken.

oscarBravo

If asking you something twice will break your will to resist, I hope you're never entrusted with vital state secrets.

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

If asking you something twice will break your will to resist, I hope you're never entrusted with vital state secrets.

Reminds me of the guy from Austin Powers, Mustafa:

Austin: Who sent you?
Mustafa: You have to kill me.
Austin: Who sent you?
Mustafa: Kiss my ass, Powers!
Austin: Whose sent you?
Mustafa: Dr. Evil.

I would certainly hope the Irish people aren't that easy to break!

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Similarly, you'll find that your doctor cannot treat you without your consent, but doesn't have to agree with you that you don't need treatment.

But equally s/he can't keep dragging you back to the surgery for consultation until your will to resist is broken.

You'll find that they can (and will!) mention it every time you're in there, though...also, I somehow doubt anyone's will to say No is likely to be broken by a second referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

What's plan D if there's another no?

As Adams might say "They're not going to go away you know"

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

What's plan D if there's another no?

We still don't know.