Maybe we won't be voting on Lisbon

Bottle_of_Smoke

Looking like Tories will be taking over in the UK pretty soon.

Cameron has promised a public referendum on the Lisbon treaty. A lot of the UK population were annoyed at not being allowed to vote on it so this might make them vote no. I don't know much about the Great Britain population but in Northern Ireland the only party for it are the Alliance party, who don't have significant support. Perhaps SDLP, I'm not sure, but once again don't have much support compared with Sinn Fein. From what I've read on forums the Unionist population seem to be very much against it.

So if the UK votes no, Lisbon will effectively be dead.

Does anyone know more about voters in Great Britain, will there be any drive toward a yes vote? Are the tories actually against it or is promising a referendum just to attract support for their party?

ShooterSF

I'd imagine if they got a referendum you would get very big odds on a Yes vote from old Paddy Power. I just don't see it happening. I think Labour will hold out for as long as possible before holding a General Election.
The text of the treaty has not been edited and the cynic in me will suggest that's to allow us to fast track the treaty through if Ireland vote Yes in a new referendum rather than holding it up passing it through the other nations again.
To be honest I can see the E.U's point in this as the UK public are nigh on certain to shoot down the treaty before they read a page of it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

The text of the treaty has not been edited and the cynic in me will suggest that's to allow us to fast track the treaty through if Ireland vote Yes in a new referendum rather than holding it up passing it through the other nations again.

Don't call yourself a cynic, you're exactly right. I'm sure most, if not all, the other states don't want to have to go through the ratification process again, which is why the explicit protocols they have agreed with us aren't in the treaty itself.

PHB

The tories would be in an impossible situation. They aren't that stupid to realise that Lisbon is needed, they know its needed, and that if they vote no, Europe will be thrown into disarray. Then again, maybe they are.

At the same time, they are using it as a political football which is very useful for an election.

It should be noted however, that at no time ever has the more eurosceptic party won a British election, and this will be the first time if the Conservatives get in.

USE

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Does anyone know more about voters in Great Britain, will there be any drive toward a yes vote?

If UK will make a referendum, the treaty is dead.

The only way to have this treaty into force is ratifying it in Ireland before the government in UK will change. Therefore the present government of UK should withstand until their intended elections.

In UK Labour and LibDems supports the treaty but all the other major parties are against it. At the moment Conservatives would get 37%, Labour 22%, LibDems 19% (source). Labour + LibDems would still overcome Conservatives (in terms of percentage, not sure if they would overcome them in terms of seats), but I doubt if that would be enough.

And Brits are conservative nationalists. That's the worst composition possible

cornbb

Truth be told, having a referendum to ratify such a complex treaty is a bad idea. I don't know if the Tories would realistically follow up on such a promise - if they did, and if a trend of holding referendums was to spread across Europe, it would be seriously damage the EU's ability to grow and progress.

The only real reason we're doing it in Ireland is due to a constitutional anomaly, which is, in reality, a pain in the ass. And don't claim that not democratic to not hold a referendum - we elect politicians to make decisions on things like international treaties on our behalf every day. Can you imagine if we held a referendum on the Budget every year? Arguably a much more important issue than an EU treaty, it would never be passed as everyone would focus on the bits that don't suit them (or at least the stuff they perceive to be bad) and reject it on that basis. This is arguably what happened with the Lisbon treaty, and it is likely to happen in the UK if they hold a referendum, and if they see the same sort of half-truths and scare tactics that led to fear of the treaty here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well that is a problem with single question complex treaties.

You get enough small subsections finding something wrong to add up to a majority against the whole thing.

Now move that to a Continental scale and you'll always find one electorate who'll block something from going through, because electorates find it very hard to compromise.

Why should Malta have the same veto's as Germany? The Germans might ask. Why should Poland get more money than Britain? The British might ask.
Why should France have more parliamentary seats than the Czech Republic? The Czechs might ask.

All in all it adds up to at least one electorate finding just enough wrong with a treaty to block it, because it's very hard to sell compromise to voters.

ShooterSF

cornbb wrote: »

Truth be told, having a referendum to ratify such a complex treaty is a bad idea. I don't know if the Tories would realistically follow up on such a promise - if they did, and if a trend of holding referendums was to spread across Europe, it would be seriously damage the EU's ability to grow and progress.

The only real reason we're doing it in Ireland is due to a constitutional anomaly, which is, in reality, a pain in the ass. And don't claim that not democratic to not hold a referendum - we elect politicians to make decisions on things like international treaties on our behalf every day. Can you imagine if we held a referendum on the Budget every year? Arguably a much more important issue than an EU treaty, it would never be passed as everyone would focus on the bits that don't suit them (or at least the stuff they perceive to be bad) and reject it on that basis. This is arguably what happened with the Lisbon treaty, and it is likely to happen in the UK if they hold a referendum, and if they see the same sort of half-truths and scare tactics that led to fear of the treaty here.

Strange. I mentioned that as a reason I felt obliged to give Libertas my 2nd preference in Europe even though I don't like them. I don't like their (lack of) policies however I felt a vote for a pro-lisbon candidate would lend to the claim that I helped elect someone who I knew supported the treaty.
Neither situation is perfect I guess.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Strange. I mentioned that as a reason I felt obliged to give Libertas my 2nd preference in Europe even though I don't like them. I don't like their (lack of) policies however I felt a vote for a pro-lisbon candidate would lend to the claim that I helped elect someone who I knew supported the treaty.
Neither situation is perfect I guess.

MEP's don't make treaties on our behalf though, TD's do (more specifically the ruling party does).

So your vote for Libertas is a carte blanche for Declan Ganley to pursue his Americentric agenda at the heart of Europe.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

MEP's don't make treaties on our behalf though, TD's do (more specifically the ruling party does).

So your vote for Libertas is a carte blanche for Declan Ganley to pursue his Americentric agenda at the heart of Europe.

Fair point. I guess I equaled EU treaty and MEPs.
Though if there was a GE tomorrow and assuming Libertas put forward candidates I would be in the same situation then based on the reason not to have referendums.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair point. I guess I equaled EU treaty and MEPs.
Though if there was a GE tomorrow and assuming Libertas put forward candidates I would be in the same situation then based on the reason not to have referendums.

I think a vote for Libertas in a GE would be more appropriate for someone who's overriding agenda was 'No to Lisbon' than in the Euros.

Edit: I should also add, if you're not satisfied that Libertas' worldview accurately reflects your own, you might consider standing yourself as an independent?

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I think a vote for Libertas in a GE would be more appropriate for someone who's overriding agenda was 'No to Lisbon' than in the Euros.

Edit: I should also add, if you're not satisfied that Libertas' worldview accurately reflects your own, you might consider standing yourself as an independent?

I'm not sure my social networking skills are up to running for election. Also I think at 25 I'm too young to run for a GE ( I think..)

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well it's pretty academic anyway, I think by the time the next GE rolls round Lisbon will either be ratified or buried.

According to wikipedia: 'Membership of the Dáil is open to citizens who are 21 or older.'

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well it's pretty academic anyway, I think by the time the next GE rolls round Lisbon will either be ratified or buried.

According to wikipedia: 'Membership of the Dáil is open to citizens who are 21 or older.'

true.

Also interesting fact. Always thought you had to be in your 30's for some reason.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

true.

Also interesting fact. Always thought you had to be in your 30's for some reason.

You have to be over 35 to be president, maybe that's what you were thinking of?

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You have to be over 35 to be president, maybe that's what you were thinking of?

Damn. Ten more years to wait. :pac:

Affable

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So if the UK votes no, Lisbon will effectively be dead.

Does anyone know more about voters in Great Britain, will there be any drive toward a yes vote? Are the tories actually against it or is promising a referendum just to attract support for their party?

Hi. I'm British. There won't be a drive towards yes because the British, or at very least the English, are traditionalist people who treasure the past. There is not enough people open minded to Europe for it to get a Yes vote.

This obsession with preservation of the past is half of Britain's stagnancy and problem IMO. but, I guess America even has it to some degree.

conchubhar1

also isnt the likely elected mep for norther ireland a eurosceptic, he quit the dup over going into power with sinn féin

then there is sinn féin - so easy majority there for a no vote just on people who already vote anyway

was watching the results all night and there is a lot of votes for parties like ukip and then lower down but still high bnp and sayno2eurrope and parties of the likes of that

so if there was a vote i would say a no would be more secure than a no was predicted here before lisbon 1

ejmaztec

I think at this stage, Britain would actually pull out of the EU altogether, were there a referendum on the matter, so Lisbon would definitely be a no no.

I see Cameron promises a referendum if he takes office before all of the EU members ratify the treaty. He's probably hoping that the ratification happens first, so that he can wriggle out of a referendum in a less obvious way than Gordon did.

conchubhar1

ye, considering if the govt lasts and we will be forced to vote yes next time (tada nice all over) and everyone else then falls into line it will be an empty promise

clever ploy if that works - if a general election is called sooner

coolio - we won't be the only democratic country in the village

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye, considering if the govt lasts and we will be forced to vote yes next time (tada nice all over) and everyone else then falls into line it will be an empty promise

clever ploy if that works - if a general election is called sooner

coolio - we won't be the only democratic country in the village

another member who cant tell his representative democracy from direct democracy

i am getting rather sick of pointing out the differences and showing how one is no less "democratic" than the other

CiaranC

ionix5891 wrote: »

another member who cant tell his representative democracy from direct democracy

i am getting rather sick of pointing out the differences and showing how one is no less "democratic" than the other

A direct referendum on the treaty is more democratic than electing a government which has hundreds of policies, of which Lisbon is only one, surely?

ShooterSF

CiaranC wrote: »

A direct referendum on the treaty is more democratic than electing a government which has hundreds of policies, of which Lisbon is only one, surely?

+1 It might not be someones more favoured option but of the two it is surely more democratic if nothing else.

ionix5891

CiaranC wrote: »

A direct referendum on the treaty is more democratic than electing a government which has hundreds of policies, of which Lisbon is only one, surely?

Lisbon is a very complex document which alot of people do not understand, and is ripe for exploitation by far right groups like Libertas for their own gain

btw why dont you go and tell Germans to hold a referendum, see where they send you, thats how Hitler got into power there and this happened

is it democratic for Ireland to be imposing its form of direct democracy onto other countries?



democracy 101 (yet again explained for the slow learners):

people elect politicians to represent them, this is how democracy works in Ireland and rest of Europe (its called representative democracy) we have a clause in our constitution to hold referenda (direct democracy) on important issues, our constitution is not the same as the other countries and forcing it down their throats is not right and in some cases offensive, capiche??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
.

getz

Affable wrote: »

Hi. I'm British. There won't be a drive towards yes because the British, or at very least the English, are traditionalist people who treasure the past. There is not enough people open minded to Europe for it to get a Yes vote.

This obsession with preservation of the past is half of Britain's stagnancy and problem IMO. but, I guess America even has it to some degree.

so am i,you are right in thinking the british distrust a lot of the EU countrys,just what has the EU done for me?,flooded the country with economic migrants,leaving the NHS and job markets in a mess,countrys like france and germany flouting EU law in their own interests, and the UK is sending over 40 million pounds a day to prop up other EU countrys ,big buisness may love it ,but it is the working[if lucky]man who ends up in urinal

ShooterSF

ionix5891 wrote: »

democracy 101 (yet again explained for the slow learners):

people elect politicians to represent them, this is how democracy works in Ireland and rest of Europe (its called representative democracy) we have a clause in our constitution to hold referenda (direct democracy) on important issues, our constitution is not the same as the other countries and forcing it down their throats is not right and in some cases offensive, capiche??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
.

ionix5891 wrote: »

another member who cant tell his representative democracy from direct democracy

i am getting rather sick of pointing out the differences and showing how one is no less "democratic" than the other

Wiki article on direct democracy:
Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy

I'm not arguing the merits of one or the other or suggesting we push our system down others throats. I was taking exception to your quote that one is not more democratic than the other.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm not arguing the merits of one or the other or suggesting we push our system down others throats. I was taking exception to your quote that one is not more democratic than the other.

Our whole system is set up to restrict democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the majority, along with protecting the people from their own local selfishness.

Go ask northern nationalists what they thought of the Stormont democracy. Ask Palestinians what they think of Isreali democracy.

Micromanaging the country by referendum is a surfire road to disaster.

conchubhar1

either am i

and i know the difference


but on this key piece in changing and shaping europe - how can people not be asked?

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but on this key piece in changing and shaping europe - how can people not be asked?

It's barely worth news reports in most European countries, including Britain really, because people don't have to be asked about it, they don't care.

We're the only ones with our knickers in a twist about a completely standard, and not even slightly unusual EU treaty.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Our whole system is set up to restrict democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the majority, along with protecting the people from their own local selfishness.

Go ask northern nationalists what they thought of the Stormont democracy. Ask Palestinians what they think of Isreali democracy.

Micromanaging the country by referendum is a surfire road to disaster.

That was my point though. The current system for better or worse is restrictive democracy and to be fair you picked two countries (Israel and the North) that have a lot of growing up to do and have a genuine split in populous which leaves the minority in trouble in a pure democracy setup. We don't have that especially re: Euro referenda.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

That was my point though. The current system for better or worse is restrictive democracy and to be fair you picked two countries (Israel and the North) that have a lot of growing up to do and have a genuine split in populous which leaves the minority in trouble in a pure democracy setup. We don't have that especially re: Euro referenda.

Yes but we are very selfish, and we don't tend to vote for things without enough 'sweeteners', I had hoped we had grown up a bit since the 70's with all our 'wealth' and such, but apperently not...