Irish democracy, in light of lisbon result

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

No alternative has been presented. There has been speculation as to what the outcome of a rejection of Lisbon would be; speculation that some on the "no" side seem strangely reluctant to acknowledge. The net effect of which has been our failure to ratify Lisbon. And if we continue indefinitely to refuse to allow the government to ratify the treaty, what then?

Not that I expect a straight answer.

Well as I said the yes side did suggest an alternative:

ShooterSF wrote: »

What ever happened to a two tier Europe? I was keen on the idea and was trying to discuss the ins and outs but could never get anywhere with people and now its completely forgotten and it's either in or out.

Id prefer this to leaving or going on with lisbon. The thing that bugs me is that the minute you accept a suggestion like this a lot of people on the yes side (that pitched the notion in the first place) then forget about it and go more extreme (The in or out situation) which smacks of scaremongering tbh.

Im not saying that was everyone's intentions but the cynical side of my mind plays it out like this:

Post Lisbon.
Yes supporter (note im not bulking all yes voters in here just a sample):

Hmm maybe if we warn people of a two tier Europe that'll scare them.

No supporter: I actually like that idea.

Yes supporter: Damn right lets go further extreme. No you're either in Europe or not.

---

I'd prefer not to look at it that way but it's how it's coming across.

Eurosceptic2008

dresden8 wrote:

It's odd that the yes side who are pro-Europe apparently are presenting us with the alternative to go with Lisbon or get out of the EU.

We can't be thrown out of the EU. There have been many no votes across the EU over the years on issues ranging from Lisbon to EMU (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), but it never lead to a country being forced out of the EU, and this is no different. From the horses mouth:

Charlie McCreevy wrote:

There is no provision to throw out anybody, unless unanimously all the existing members of the club agreed to throw you out. And I doubt now, or in the future, any Irish Government is going to unanimously agree to throw themselves out.

dresden8

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We can't be thrown out of the EU. There have been many no votes across the EU over the years on issues ranging from Lisbon to EMU (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), but it never lead to a country being forced out of the EU, and this is no different. From the horses mouth:

That's what I've been saying for months.

There is no mechanism to throw us out of the EU, therefore I cannot show the no mechanism to throw us out.

How hard is that to understand?

As a counterpoint I've asked the Yes side supporters to show the mechanism under which we would be thrown out, and been accused of dodging the issue, somehow.

So there you go, show me the mechanism yes people, how are they going to throw us out?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

So there you go, show me the mechanism yes people, how are they going to throw us out?

They individually withdraw from the treaties establishing the European Community and the European Union, and collectively enter into a new treaty establishing a replacement Union.

It's not exactly likely, but it's not impossible either.

Now, would you care to address my earlier question?

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

They individually withdraw from the treaties establishing the European Community and the European Union, and collectively enter into a new treaty establishing a replacement Union.

It's not exactly likely, but it's not impossible either.

Now, would you care to address my earlier question?

There is no consensus for setting up a new EU, and if we go down the road with every EU treaty of voting yes just so that might not happen, then we lose all leverage in terms of making sure our leaders get the best deal for Ireland. I happen to have researched the Treaty in great detail before the referendum, and I do not accept the interpretation given by the yes parties to the govt and EU research into the reasons for voting no. First of all, in he Eurobarometer study, the proportion citing lack of information among the no voters was only 25%, compared to around 40% in the govt-research. But public-trust in Fianna Fáil is at rock-bottom and few are going to believe what they are saying just because they are saying it. Citing "lack of information" is not the same as saying you don't understand the Treaty. It can mean that you feel there's something the political-class are keeping from you that in turn makes you feel suspicious enough to vote no.

I would also contend that not understanding the issues was an equal problem on the yes side, usually masked in the numbers of yes voters in the respective researches saying they only voted yes because "EU membership has been good for Ireland". For the majority of the Irish people who vote in these referendums, that sort of justification is no longer good enough. You don't vote for something that will change the constitution because of something that happened in the past that worked out well. Each EU treaty is different and has different implications. And I don't accept that Ireland is isolated in Europe. The French and Dutch no voters are glad we voted no, because in doing so we prevented their govt from forcing a blueprint on them they rejected democratically in 2005.

The test of a democracy is the willingness of the political-elite to take no for an answer. While favourably disposed to the EU as it stands, I am critical of its intolerance of dissent and bullying of electorates that vote no. It is no coincidence that after the French and Dutch no votes, a string of EU member state govts cancelled plans for referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty blueprint. It is an indictment of the democratic-legitimacy of the EU that it feels that public-consultation on policy is something to be got around and avoided. It's like they are afraid of giving the people a say - sort of like the "men of property" in the 19th century who opposed expanding the franchise to the working-classes whom Edmund Burke termed "the swinish multitude". Brussels seems to me to regard no voters and European citizens that disagree with them in the same light. In that context the general direction of the European project is away from democracy and towards an oligarchic form of govt, where more and more power goes to people national govts don't elect, be it Commissioners, the ECJ (through the Charter), etc. That is not a healthy development for democracy, and bearing in mind what happened in 1800 and what we've learned from the Tribunals, we have more reason than most nations to distrust what our politicians are telling us to do on Lisbon. I am unmoved by their pleas and intend voting no again. I believe that in the longterm, Irish democracy will be illserved by this Treaty. I want to elect the people who govern me, and to determine through constitutional referenda the parameters within which they are free to act. The current constitution is the rule book, and I don't want to give the seal of approval to this pandora's box of a treaty that will undermine its supremacy in this country insofar as it still exists.

tolosenc

ShooterSF wrote: »

Huh? What exactly are you suggesting here?

I'm suggesting that there are certain people that just should not be allowed to vote on certain issues due to not knowing a thing about them. This is just my opinion, but I think we could have seen a 3%-6% swing were the treaty named after a part of Ireland - due to ignorant people.

dresden8 wrote: »

So there you go, show me the mechanism yes people, how are they going to throw us out?

How about when writing new treaties, Ireland no longer is a compulsory signatory. That is, create an EU of 2 tiers - 26, and Ireland. Making the situation inviable for us, so we leave "of our own will".

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

They individually withdraw from the treaties establishing the European Community and the European Union, and collectively enter into a new treaty establishing a replacement Union.

It's not exactly likely, but it's not impossible either.

Not only is it unlikely, it's ridiculous.

dresden8

obl wrote: »

How about when writing new treaties, Ireland no longer is a compulsory signatory. That is, create an EU of 2 tiers - 26, and Ireland. Making the situation inviable for us, so we leave "of our own will".

There are several 2 tiers within Europe already.

Brits and the Euro?

dresden8

Those with open immigration from the EU, those with restricted?

You make it sound like the end of the world.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We can't be thrown out of the EU. There have been many no votes across the EU over the years on issues ranging from Lisbon to EMU (e.g. Sweden and Denmark), but it never lead to a country being forced out of the EU, and this is no different. From the horses mouth:

There is no provision to throw out anybody, unless unanimously all the existing members of the club agreed to throw you out. And I doubt now, or in the future, any Irish Government is going to unanimously agree to throw themselves out.

Charlie McCreevy undoubtedly has a deep relationship with stables, but that does not actually make him a horse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Not only is it unlikely, it's ridiculous.

At least I answered the question. Which, of course, gave you an opening to make a smart-arse remark about my post, which seems to be what passes for discussion in your world.

One of these days you'll shock me to the core and contribute something interesting.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

At least I answered the question. Which, of course, gave you an opening to make a smart-arse remark about my post, which seems to be what passes for discussion in your world.

One of these days you'll shock me to the core and contribute something interesting.

So it's likely ALL other members of the EU will walk away, leaving us the ECJ and the European Parliament, all other European Institutions and the fishing rights to the whole of European waters?

Stop smoking that sh1t Oscar, it's messing with your head.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

So it's likely ALL other members of the EU will walk away, leaving us the ECJ and the European Parliament, all other European Institutions and the fishing rights to the whole of European waters?

Rather more to the point, the issues involved in the continuation of EU Directives, grants, programmes, agencies, and so on, make it highly unlikely. Highly unlikely, though, isn't quite the same as impossible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather more to the point, the issues involved in the continuation of EU Directives, grants, programmes, agencies, and so on, make it highly unlikely. Highly unlikely, though, isn't quite the same as impossible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I suppose highly unlikely is the best we'll ever get on the internet.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

So it's likely ALL other members of the EU will walk away...

Not only did I not say it was likely, I said it was unlikely - and you responded, quoting me saying so. You're not even trying anymore.

dresden8 wrote: »

I suppose highly unlikely is the best we'll ever get on the internet.

At least some of us actually answer questions.

strathspey

At the end of the day, Ireland is too much of a small, piss-willy little country on the extreme fringes of Western Europe, to be able to stop the European Project. Ireland was pretty happy to take the money off the EU table for the past 35 years and it seems pretty dillusional to me that anybody should think that there wouldn't be a price to pay. That price just may be the Irish constitution. Ireland must realise that it needs Europe, however Europe does not need Ireland.

meglome

Personally I didn't vote as I just didn't know enough about the treaty at the time. But I'd be very much in favour, as a rule, of the EU. I remember the good oul 80's when we didn't have a pot to piss in. However I think it's very undemocratic that Ireland is the only county in Europe that actually had a referendum. I'm also uncomfortable with the government just running it again until we get it 'right'. I'm finding it difficult not to be irritated with the concept that the NO voters got it wrong, as they didn't understand the treaty. When on the flip side I would say the majority of Yes voters didn't understand it either but it seems that's perfectly fine as they made the 'right' decision. The elite in this country (did I really just say that) are looking down their noses at the No voters like a silly child, which given the chance, will eventually cop themselves on.

Would I vote no the next time, maybe not, I support the EU but I'm not liking the tone of the debate so far. And I wonder are there many other people that won't like it either. It won't be fun if we reject it the second time but it'll leave a bitter taste in many peoples mouths if we're bullied into a yes.

Furious-Dave

It's already been explained that the only reason why Ireland had a referendum was because it's in our constitution to do so when changes to that constitution are proposed. Other countries didn't have a vote because they didn't need to, it's not in their constitutions. IMO issues like treaties should not be put to the people as they are far too complicated. That's why we have a parliament who's expertise it is to decide and consider such matters.

meglome

Furious-Dave wrote: »

It's already been explained that the only reason why Ireland had a referendum was because it's in our constitution to do so when changes to that constitution are proposed. Other countries didn't have a vote because they didn't need to, it's not in their constitutions. IMO issues like treaties should not be put to the people as they are far too complicated. That's why we have a parliament who's expertise it is to decide and consider such matters.

I know why... but that we are the only country in the EU to need one is a sad reflection. I heard some of our own politicians admit they hadn't read it so I think I'll take my chances with a vote for the people, this being a democracy an' all.

CiaranC

Oh come on, if it had been put to the people anywhere else it would be rejected also. France and Holland rejected it in its previous form. The treaty is seen to be strengthening the apparatus of a federal Europe, which the people are just not interested in.

Furious-Dave

meglome wrote: »

I know why... but that we are the only country in the EU to need one is a sad reflection. I heard some of our own politicians admit they hadn't read it so I think I'll take my chances with a vote for the people, this being a democracy an' all.

Indeed it is a democracy and the government was democratically elected. I think it's a sad reflection when democratically elected governments have to check with the people on everything they do. Why have a government at all? Why not a committee that simply gathers the information and then holds referendum to decide on how to proceed? I only wish that it was not in our constitution to hold a referendum when any changes are to be made, because the treaty would have already been ratified, and most people wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I know why... but that we are the only country in the EU to need one is a sad reflection. I heard some of our own politicians admit they hadn't read it so I think I'll take my chances with a vote for the people, this being a democracy an' all.

A sad reflection on what, though? The way other countries have decided to run themselves? You know that some of them think having referendums on international treaties is dangerously stupid? Why are we right, and they wrong?

cordially,
Scofflaw

strathspey

meglome wrote: »

I know why... but that we are the only country in the EU to need one is a sad reflection. I heard some of our own politicians admit they hadn't read it so I think I'll take my chances with a vote for the people, this being a democracy an' all.

For example, when you make the biggest decision and the biggest investment on your future, in buying a house, do you read the fine print? No, you hire a solicitor. The same with the vote on the Lisbon Treaty. As a common citizen, it can't be expected that we should be able to understand the treaty. I voted, 'YES' without reading much into it and my reasoning was 2-fold. Firstly, if every single 'rational' party was urging me to vote yes then I assumed that within these same parties, their legal teams would have given the thumbs up. Secondly, every treaty since the Rome treaty of 1953 has been for the betterment of Europe, so why should this treaty be any different?

Furious-Dave

strathspey wrote: »

every treaty since the Rome treaty of 1953 has been for the betterment of Europe, so why should this treaty be any different?

Because the Lisbon Treaty will mark the beginning of the "Fourth Reich" and the emergence of a new Nazi Europe. :pac:

strathspey

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Because the Lisbon Treaty will mark the beginning of the "Fourth Reich" and the emergence of a new Nazi Europe. :pac:

Well, that's a purile comment, if I've ever read one.

Furious-Dave

strathspey wrote: »

Well, that's a purile comment, if I've ever read one.

Steviemak

meglome wrote: »

I think it's very undemocratic that Ireland is the only county in Europe that actually had a referendum.

Hitler's power was given to him by referendum so I guess you can see why most europeans don't think referendums are all that. They elect governments to rule the country. If the people decide the government aren't repressing their views they don't get re-elected. Its called democracy.

CiaranC

We have a constitution to protect us from governments that wish to make laws that we dont want. If we are to simply hand over all power to central government, we might as well just adopt the British model and abandon our republic.

Dyr

Steviemak wrote: »

Hitler's power was given to him by referendum so I guess you can see why most europeans don't think referendums are all that. They elect governments to rule the country. If the people decide the government aren't repressing their views they don't get re-elected. Its called democracy.

Our constitution is there because some decisions are too important to be taken with the peoples explicit consent. If it wasnt for the constitution we'd have been signed up to lisbon against our wishes. Which, of course, is what the european project would like.

There should be at least five years before this issue is put to the people again. Anything less is the govt. deciding when to accept referendum results as being valid. And just for the laugh why dont we put Nice to the people too, or is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? :pac:

Furious-Dave

I think there should be one more attempt at having a properly informed referendum, and then if the result is still 'No', leave the matter rest for a while. I just can't help but feel that a lot of 'No' voters and campaigners aren't really concerned about democracy but will throw the word "undemocratic" around as long they can hang onto their "victory" in the referendum. Likewise, I'm sure there are plenty of people on the 'Yes' side who want another referendum simply because they didn't "win" the first one.