Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Barroso seeks speedy Lisbon vote

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The problem there is that voting either No or Yes is an imposition of Ireland's will on the rest of Europe. If you truly believe that the rest of Europe should vote in a referendum or referendums (delete as preferred) because it is undemocratic that only Ireland votes, then the correct choice is surely to abstain, rather than imposing our decision on everyone else?

    I appreciate one might argue that voting No retains the status quo, but if, say, 99% of European citizens want to change the status quo, then by voting No you are preventing them doing so, and taking the decision out of their hands. After all, if the treaty is rejected a second time, it will not be going anywhere.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    It wasn't my position that it was undemocratic that only Ireland votes, that was someone else. But for your second statement to be provable (that 99% of EU citizens want the treaty) it would be necessary for all EU member states to have a referendum wouldn't it? (This is the point where someone tells me its illegal to have referenda in Austria-I know, this was a hypothetical).


  • Options
    #63
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    brianthebard wrote: »
    It wasn't my position that it was undemocratic that only Ireland votes, that was someone else. But for your second statement to be provable (that 99% of EU citizens want the treaty) it would be necessary for all EU member states to have a referendum wouldn't it? (This is the point where someone tells me its illegal to have referenda in Austria-I know, this was a hypothetical).

    It's more the case that we shouldn't vote on behalf of Europe without knowing how Europe would vote. In the absence of a Europe-wide referendum, or otherwise knowing how Europe would vote, voting either Yes or No is an imposition of the Irish decision on the rest of Europe. The majority of European citizens might want the treaty, in which case a No vote denies them what they want - or a majority might want it binned, in which case a Yes vote denies them what they want.

    In the absence of knowing for certain which way Europe would vote, neither Yes nor No is acceptable - as long as one is claiming that we are voting on behalf of Europe, that is.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #64
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Just to point out, the EU Treaties are pretty clear on how the Treaties can be modified. To quote from the post-Nice version of the TEU.
    Article 48
    The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

    If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

    The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

    In other words, unless referenda are already an existing part of the constitutional requirements of a member state, then the status quo is that the member state shall NOT use referenda.

    Voting Yes or No does not alter this.

    The only thing a No vote will do is cause a crisis for Ireland's relationship with the EU. The other member states will not engage in an endless game of "Let's guess what the Irish electorate want" (nor should they). Instead, they'll drop the ball back in our court leaving us with the problem, that the No side - who as the European elections so graphically demonstrated are highly unrepresentative of the electorate - would be hard put to agree a coherent set of demands amongst themselves much less persuade anyone else to agree to them.


  • Options
    #65
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I haven't shifted argument, I tried to illustrate how Yes voters have said that both voting with Ireland in mind, in isolation of all else, and voting with the EU in mind, are both undemocratic.

    You set up a false dichotomy, and that is what I picked you up on. Being a sovereign state and having international linkages such as membership of the EU are not mutually exclusive. You might be able to make a case for a no vote based on either condition, but that case might not stand up where both conditions are satisfied.


  • Options
    #66
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    i will choose my vote on my beliefs and what i see best for ireland - that is all anyone can do

    in relation to ''view'' and that comment and many others....

    i am growing sick of the scaremongering used by the yes side.

    1 - no to lisbon is not no to the eu.
    2 - a no to lisbon will not put us on the sidelines of the eu.
    3 - we will not be austracised and if we are, why the hell would we advocate and accept that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    After all, if the treaty is rejected a second time, it will not be going anywhere.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    yeah and it will have to be re thought out and people given a better deal and a vote

    that would eliminate most of the no vote and it might pass - should the actual majority see fit.

    i dont think anyone would complain if 400 million (roughly excluding germany) people got to vote on it and it passed or did not, because that would represent the eu, and the eu is what it is all about.
    if they dont vote, well then no matter how ireland votes it is unfair - but that is not our decision or fault


  • Options
    #68
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    yeah and it will have to be re thought out and people given a better deal and a vote

    that would eliminate most of the no vote and it might pass - should the actual majority see fit.

    i dont think anyone would complain if 400 million (roughly excluding germany) people got to vote on it and it passed or did not, because that would represent the eu, and the eu is what it is all about.
    if they dont vote, well then no matter how ireland votes it is unfair - but that is not our decision or fault

    Why "excluding Germany"?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #69
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    yeah and it will have to be re thought out and people given a better deal and a vote

    Out of curiosity, what's your idea of a better deal?


  • Options
    #70
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    in relation to ''view'' and that comment and many others....

    i am growing sick of the scaremongering used by the yes side.

    Let's examine my "scaremongering".
    View wrote: »
    The only thing a No vote will do is cause a crisis for Ireland's relationship with the EU. The other member states will not engage in an endless game of "Let's guess what the Irish electorate want" (nor should they).

    Are you really stupid enough to believe that the other member states will engage in endless rounds of negotiations with the Irish Government on the off-chance they might come up with a treaty version that might be acceptable to even the most off-the-wall No campaigners here?
    View wrote: »
    Instead, they'll drop the ball back in our court...

    This follows from the above - if they can't conduct meaningful negotiations with the Government, they most assuredly will start asking questions of us like "Which exact clause or clauses in the treaty do you want changed?". And, oddly enough, they will expect coherent answers to the questions.

    What else do you expect them to do? Randomly take guesses as to which clause or clauses the electorate want changed?
    View wrote: »
    ... leaving us with the problem, that the No side - who as the European elections so graphically demonstrated are highly unrepresentative of the electorate - would be hard put to agree a coherent set of demands amongst themselves ...

    And the scaremongering here is what? That the No campaigners could agree a coherent set of demands amongst themselves? You really believe that Joe Higgins, Declan Ganley, Patricia McKenna, COIR and SF have agreed a coherent set of demands amongst themselves?

    If so, how come they weren't individually able to produce a list of demands either before or after the last referendum, much less agree a group program?

    Or, perhaps I am scaremongering by suggesting that they are highly unrepresentative of the electorate? If so, please remind me again - was it 6 or 7 seats in the EP that our leading No campaigners won in the elections?
    View wrote: »
    ...much less persuade anyone else to agree to them.

    Even if the No campaigners did manage to agree a coherent set of demands, they would need to persuade:
    a) the Government to represent the demands (Article 29.4.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann is still there),
    b) the Governments of 26 other member states to agree to them, and
    c) the electorate in a referendum in which you could be sure there would be another set of fringe politicans and crack-pots issuing warnings how the new "improved" treaty would result in mandatory sterilisation for all (or something equally stupid).

    What are the chances of those demands ever being acceptable to any or all of the above (particularly the electorate here)?

    But, I presume, it is "scaremongering" to point this out...


  • Options
    #71
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Well the voters who chose no in France and the Netherlands on the constitution would make up a strong no vote again.
    With respect, that’s pure speculation. If there is a strong anti-Lisbon sentiment in both those countries, where were the protests against parliamentary ratification?
    brianthebard wrote: »
    There are more than a few parties across Europe that would campaign against Lisbon given the chance.
    There certainly are, but they are in the minority and most are extremists with little of value to contribute to any debate.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    Tbh I hardly think your experiences in the UK would be seen as a thorough and full investigation of the UK electorate on the topic of the Treaty.
    I’m not saying that it is. What I am saying is that Lisbon does not seem to be the big issue for the British that some would like to think.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    Its not difficult at all for me to accept this is not the norm, and I'd thank you to be less condescending.
    Apologies, it was not my intention to patronise.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    But when no voters are derided for saying we should vote no because the rest of Europe has no say, and are then told we acted undemocratically because we are a minority imposing our opinion on the majority, it gets a bit confusing which excuse the yes side is going with on any given day to justify a second referendum.
    Well, I suppose I would agree. My own opinion is that I think it is rather unrealistic for people to think that we can repeatedly say ‘No’ to the rest of the EU and that they will be forced to acquiesce to our (various incoherent) demands (because that’s apparently how democracy works). Neither the “Vote ‘No’ because nobody else gets to vote” nor the “Vote ‘Yes’ because we are a tiny minority” arguments cut it for me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    a no to lisbon will not put us on the sidelines of the eu.
    So what, in your opinion, will happen in the aftermath of a second ‘No’ vote?
    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    yeah and it will have to be re thought out and people given a better deal and a vote
    Perhaps you could outline this “better deal”?


  • Options
    #73
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    With respect, that’s pure speculation. If there is a strong anti-Lisbon sentiment in both those countries, where were the protests against parliamentary ratification?
    There certainly are, but they are in the minority and most are extremists with little of value to contribute to any debate.
    Perhaps it is speculation, but not without grounding. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7225913.stm
    Although opinion polls in France suggest a majority of voters would prefer to have another referendum, President Sarkozy has called for a speedy ratification before France takes on the EU presidency in July.

    In addition the Socialist MPs in France opposed Sarkozy's denying the French people a referendum.
    I’m not saying that it is. What I am saying is that Lisbon does not seem to be the big issue for the British that some would like to think.
    Perhaps, but non issues become issues rather quickly-for instance if a tory government took power as suggested earlier in the thread. The reason people don't know or care about lisbon in Britain may be because the government voted on it last year-its simply old news.
    Apologies, it was not my intention to patronise.
    Well, I suppose I would agree. My own opinion is that I think it is rather unrealistic for people to think that we can repeatedly say ‘No’ to the rest of the EU and that they will be forced to acquiesce to our (various incoherent) demands (because that’s apparently how democracy works). Neither the “Vote ‘No’ because nobody else gets to vote” nor the “Vote ‘Yes’ because we are a tiny minority” arguments cut it for me.

    Thanks. That is perhaps true, but this is the way imperfect coalitions of states work-each must retain enough sovereignty to act as they see fit when passing laws, etc, and not be downgraded to a homogeneous group of entities which are forced to act in the same way. Will Ireland be punished for voting no as many have suggested? That doesn't seem very democratic to me either.


  • Options
    #74
    passive
    Registered Users Posts: 2,403 ✭✭✭passive


    brianthebard wrote: »

    In addition the Socialist MPs in France opposed Sarkozy's denying the French people a referendum.

    .

    They were the ones who won that election against Sarkozy, due to his promise to ratify Lisbon, right?


  • Options
    #75
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    I'm not sure what you mean?


  • Options
    #76
    passive
    Registered Users Posts: 2,403 ✭✭✭passive


    brianthebard wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you mean?

    You're talking about the Socialist MPs opposing Lisbon, and Sarkozy "denying the people" a referendum, which conveniently and hilariously ignores the fact that the French people voted for Sarkozy, so those Socialists lost democratically, and they voted for him with his intention to ratify Lisbon without a referendum clear on the table.

    This has been explained dozens of times on this forum.


  • Options
    #77
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    passive wrote: »
    You're talking about the Socialist MPs opposing Lisbon, and Sarkozy "denying the people" a referendum, which conveniently and hilariously ignores the fact that the French people voted for Sarkozy, so those Socialists lost democratically, and they voted for him with his intention to ratify Lisbon without a referendum clear on the table.

    This has been explained dozens of times on this forum.

    You are missing the point. djpbarry asked for evidence of significant opposition in France to the Lisbon Treaty. It was provided. The fact that this opposition wasn't enough to win the general election there is immaterial.


  • Options
    #78
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    You are missing the point. djpbarry asked for evidence of significant opposition in France to the Lisbon Treaty. It was provided. The fact that this opposition wasn't enough to win the general election there is immaterial.

    Ah it's probably confusion over the subjective term 'significant' it can mean anything from a large minority to a large majority I guess.


  • Options
    #79
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    passive wrote: »
    You're talking about the Socialist MPs opposing Lisbon, and Sarkozy "denying the people" a referendum, which conveniently and hilariously ignores the fact that the French people voted for Sarkozy, so those Socialists lost democratically, and they voted for him with his intention to ratify Lisbon without a referendum clear on the table.

    This has been explained dozens of times on this forum.

    We're told here not to treat referenda as a vote on the government right? Do you think the election of Sarkozy is an automatic endorsement of whatever he wants, a referendum on Lisbon by proxy?
    In addition, didn't Sarkozy's party take quite a few losses after the treaty was passed in the next election? And isn't Sarkozy's approval ratings extremely low, Biffo-level low?


  • Options
    #80
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Ah it's probably confusion over the subjective term 'significant' it can mean anything from a large minority to a large majority I guess.

    Well, I would disagree with passive's implicit definition of it as "enough to win a general election which was fought on many issues besides the Lisbon Treaty".


  • Options
    #81
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Ah it's probably confusion over the subjective term 'significant' it can mean anything from a large minority to a large majority I guess.

    If you'd read my posts you'd see my position was never that if France/EU citizens as a whole were given a referendum that the treaty would definitely not pass, only that there is opposition on France.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    brianthebard wrote: »
    If you'd read my posts you'd see my position was never that if France/EU citizens as a whole were given a referendum that the treaty would definitely not pass, only that there is opposition on France.

    I didn't state you did, or even disagree with what you did say, perhaps your argument is with someone else?


  • Options
    #83
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Perhaps it is speculation, but not without grounding. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7225913.stm
    …
    In addition the Socialist MPs in France opposed Sarkozy's denying the French people a referendum.
    I was referring to popular opposition, but anyway…

    Either the wishes of the French parliamentarians reflect the wishes of the French electorate or they do not (on the issue of Lisbon). If they do, then democracy wins by virtue of a parliamentary vote and the wishes of the majority of French people are realised. If they don’t, then the wishes of the socialist MP’s are just as irrelevant as the rest of the MP’s.


  • Options
    #84
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I was referring to popular opposition, but anyway…

    Either the wishes of the French parliamentarians reflect the wishes of the French electorate or they do not (on the issue of Lisbon). If they do, then democracy wins by virtue of a parliamentary vote and the wishes of the majority of French people are realised. If they don’t, then the wishes of the socialist MP’s are just as irrelevant as the rest of the MP’s.

    Wow - that's a real "first is first and second is nowhere" attitude to democracy. I naively thought a democratic government was supposed to govern in the interests of all the citizens and not just the majority. Apparently I was wrong and the French socialist MPs (and by extension those who voted for them) are "irrelevant".


  • Options
    #85
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Wow - that's a real "first is first and second is nowhere" attitude to democracy. I naively thought a democratic government was supposed to govern in the interests of all the citizens and not just the majority. Apparently I was wrong and the French socialist MPs (and by extension those who voted for them) are "irrelevant".

    If there are two diametrically opposed positions on a particular question, and a government is elected that holds one of those views, it's rather hard to argue that they don't have a mandate to hold that view.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #86
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I was referring to popular opposition, but anyway…

    Either the wishes of the French parliamentarians reflect the wishes of the French electorate or they do not (on the issue of Lisbon). If they do, then democracy wins by virtue of a parliamentary vote and the wishes of the majority of French people are realised. If they don’t, then the wishes of the socialist MP’s are just as irrelevant as the rest of the MP’s.

    http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/french_want_vote_on_lisbon_treaty/

    This poll shows the majority of people questioned wanted a referendum. Perhaps its not a nationwide strike in anger at the ratification, but the point still stands.
    I'll have a look for election results after the ratification, I believe Sarkozy's party lost seats. In the meantime, if democracy is just about what the electorate think of the president, then what does his low approval ratings say about his policies?

    edit; http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0316/france.html

    UMP take heavy losses soon after the ratification. what does this say about the french peoples feelings on ratification?


  • Options
    #87
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If there are two diametrically opposed positions on a particular question, and a government is elected that holds one of those views, it's rather hard to argue that they don't have a mandate to hold that view.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Of course they have a mandate to hold that view. But djpbarry asked for evidence of opposition to ratification of Lisbon without a referendum in France. The election of socialists was cited. Then the goalposts were moved to say that even though there is opposition, because it's a minority it's irrelevant. "Yes" voters were in the minority here in the last referendum - were they "irrelevant" because they didn't win?


  • Options
    #88
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    brianthebard wrote: »
    edit; http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0316/france.html

    UMP take heavy losses soon after the ratification. what does this say about the french peoples feelings on ratification?

    Absolutely nothing, according to that article.


  • Options
    #89
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Absolutely nothing, according to that article.


    The election was held a month after the treaty was ratified. If you don't think its significant fine, I guess I was expecting too much.


  • Options
    #90
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    brianthebard wrote: »
    The election was held a month after the treaty was ratified. If you don't think its significant fine, I guess I was expecting too much.

    There's nothing in the article to support your theory, that's all I'm saying, you may be right, but the source you quoted doesn't back you up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    a government is elected on many issues

    to change the eu - every citezen should have a say
    nice will be ten years in effect - or so - by the time lisbon will be passed and in effect if that happens

    masstricht was about ten years before that and treaty of rome way before that


    my point is that a vote for the changing of europe is needed every ten years or so - so for everyone to get a vote on it would not be innconvient and expensive and unneccessary

    as the eu is as big as it is ever going to be - say 18 more countries could join (27 and 18 = 45 but realisticly that wont happen for a while)
    they will be stinted if ever allowed to join and for that to happen the workings of the eu will have to change again and another treaty decided by the people shuld be held


Advertisement