Barroso seeks speedy Lisbon vote

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

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

Should that be a straight vote among all citizens of the EU, with a simple majority, or should it be a vote in every member state, with a majority of member states, or should it be a vote in every member state with every member state given a veto, or some other option?

Also you are aware, I presume, that even in Ireland we only require a referendum where the competencies of the EU versus our own government are being extended, and not on just changing of the functioning of the institutions.

conchubhar1

gizmo555 wrote: »

"Yes" voters were in the minority here in the last referendum - were they "irrelevant" because they didn't win?

no they were not - but if a no vote is a minority this time can there be another vote some time about a year after? :rolleyes:

conchubhar1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Should that be a straight vote among all citizens of the EU, with a simple majority,

or should it be a vote in every member state, with a majority of member states,

or should it be a vote in every member state with every member state given a veto,

or some other option?

every state should be allowed to be given a vote on wether they want it implemented

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Also you are aware, I presume, that even in Ireland we only require a referendum where the competencies of the EU versus our own government are being extended, and not on just changing of the functioning of the institutions.

i am aware of that

but the yes side keeps stating that we dont have the right to decide for europe
ok - let them vote (minus germany)

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

every state should be allowed to be given a vote on wether they want it implemented



i am aware of that

but the yes side keeps stating that we dont have the right to decide for europe
ok - let them vote (minus germany)

Your first idea is up to the national governments of the member states, it's not for the EU or anyone else to dictate.

I'm on the 'yes' side and I say we have the right to decide for ourselves.

I'd rather people didn't take what they do or don't think other people would do into account, and vote on the merits or demerits of the treaty itself as they see it.

The 'yes' side is not a single person with many mouths, any more than the 'no' side.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no they were not - but if a no vote is a minority this time can there be another vote some time about a year after? :rolleyes:

If a government is elected on that platform, then yes, there can.

conchubhar1

a govt is elected on more than one issue

no, i wont be voting no because others wont be getting the vote

but, i dont like be targetted and bashed when people say oh no its unfair that ireland stops europe progressing - that may well be true but most irish people will vote on what they think, and the plebs who voted fianna fáil will vote for anything.

so if it gets voted down this time - we voted for ireland. we dont speak for the eu as a whole and it is not unfair that it cant go ahead without us...

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but, i dont like be targetted and bashed when people say oh no its unfair that ireland stops europe progressing - that may well be true but most irish people will vote on what they think, and the plebs who voted fianna fáil will vote for anything.

so if it gets voted down this time - we voted for ireland. we dont speak for the eu as a whole and it is not unfair that it cant go ahead without us...

I agree, I would have liked a chance to vote 'yes' to the constitution, and I wouldn't like to think people are going around saying the French or Dutch 'no' vote speaks for me, it spoke for them alone.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

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.

Fair enough. But there's no article that says an action by the elected government is supported by the electorate and yet that conclusion has been reached by a number of people. I'm merely pointing out that if that is true, the drubbing Sarkozy's party took one month afterwards must also be connected/connectible to the ratification. The article was just to act as evidence that they did take losses in the election, I wasn't looking for one to prove it as because of ratification, I just chose the first link I found.

conchubhar1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree, I would have liked a chance to vote 'yes' to the constitution, and I wouldn't like to think people are going around saying the French or Dutch 'no' vote speaks for me, it spoke for them alone.

not that vote counts for the french and dutch - who oddly eneough were not allowed to vote this time

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

not that vote counts for the french and dutch - who oddly eneough were not allowed to vote this time

Well, unfortunately, they managed to kill the constitution that I wanted to vote for, official flag, anthem and all, so it very much did count.

The French and Dutch method of ratification of Lisbon is between the French and Dutch people, their constitutions and their Governments, and none of my business.

I certainly wouldn't take kindly to any suggestion from the French that Ireland shouldn't have a vote on Lisbon, to turn it around.

conchubhar1

we have a (e.u) flag - it flies over o'connol bridge
hum the anthem if you want

fine, but i wish the yes side would not use the argument of a no vote in ireland is unfair because we decide for the rest of the eu

djpbarry

gizmo555 wrote: »

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".

You’re missing the point. Either you accept that the French parliament represents the French people or you don’t. If you don’t (which is apparently the main basis for the argument for EU-wide referenda), then stating that Socialist MP’s in France oppose Lisbon is irrelevant because you’ve already decided that they don’t represent the people. Or are we going to be selective and say that pro-Lisbon MP’s don’t represent the people while the anti-Lisbon MP’s do?

djpbarry

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so if it gets voted down this time - we voted for ireland. we dont speak for the eu as a whole and it is not unfair that it cant go ahead without us...

So what do you think will be the consequences of a second 'No'?

Oh and we're still waiting for an explanation of the "better deal" that you mentioned here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we have a (e.u) flag - it flies over o'connol bridge
hum the anthem if you want

fine, but i wish the yes side would not use the argument of a no vote in ireland is unfair because we decide for the rest of the eu

Yes but they aren't official. Anyway, it's not looking likely that they will be any time soon, so there's no point in me getting upset about it.

As I said already the 'yes side' is not a single animal. Some people use that argument, and I disagree with that too.

conchubhar1

it is flying over dublin - wether you choose to see it as your flag is your choice
i am european - but my flag is irish as with my anthem.

no there are any who advocate a no and a yes vote - 53 to 47 last time
i fail to see your point

conchubhar1

djpbarry wrote: »

So what do you think will be the consequences of a second 'No'?

Oh and we're still waiting for an explanation of the "better deal" that you mentioned here.

a second no vote would be be keeping the status qou - but i am undecided on how to vote this time around as i have stated before
i am annoyed at several arguments used tho

the better deal is the one we got when we voted no the first time - the one being negogiated to get us to vote yes this time

the one which scofflaw calls ''lisbon plus''

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no there are any who advocate a no and a yes vote - 53 to 47 last time
i fail to see your point

Indeed you do.

I was agreeing with your wish that some on the 'yes' side of the house would stop saying that we shouldn't vote 'no', as we are supposedly voting for the rest of Europe.

I was also pointing out that not everyone on the 'yes' side has the same opinions, and makes the same arguments.

In the same way that people on the 'no' side don't agree on every point and argument.

BlitzKrieg

who oddly eneough were not allowed to vote this time

One could argue that both countries had general elections after the referendums (2006. 2007) and in both cases the parties that promoted a *yes to lisbon* stance and supported the original european constitution were elected comfortable.

conchubhar1

blitz and others

ye must have simple minded opinions when voting - parties and individulas have more opinions and outlooks than the lisbon treaty or any issue

its not that simple to say that the election after was a vote for agreeing with the elected people who agreed to vote on lisbon

PopeBuckfastXVI

Nobody knows for sure what the French electorate would do with Lisbon, either at the time it was ratified or now.

It's absolutely ripe for anyone on either side to project their own opinions onto the blank wall of French opinion, and that being the case, we're never going to come to a conclusion.

Can we put this to bed now please, or at the very least quarantine it into it's own thread?

brianthebard

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re missing the point. Either you accept that the French parliament represents the French people or you don’t. If you don’t (which is apparently the main basis for the argument for EU-wide referenda), then stating that Socialist MP’s in France oppose Lisbon is irrelevant because you’ve already decided that they don’t represent the people. Or are we going to be selective and say that pro-Lisbon MP’s don’t represent the people while the anti-Lisbon MP’s do?

How do you square this with the gains the socialists made a month after the treaty was ratified?

conchubhar1

a seperate vote is the only way to make sure people get a say on this issue

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

a second no vote would be be keeping the status qou

As I already pointed out, post-Nice the TEU states:

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, the status quo is that the member state shall NOT use referenda, unless referenda are already an existing part of the constitutional requirements of a member state (such as is the case in Ireland in the limited scenario set out in the Crotty judgement).

But, it is crystal clear from your posts, that you want to force the other 26 democracies in the EU to use Irish constitutional procedure for ratifying EU Treaties, even though - in the case of some - their constitutions specify that their Parliaments have the sole legal authority to ratify international treaties.

So, you are not actually in favour of the status quo, are you?

djpbarry

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you square this with the gains the socialists made a month after the treaty was ratified?

Unless I'm mistaken, there has not been a legislative election in France since June 2007?

PopeBuckfastXVI

djpbarry wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, there has not been a legislative election in France since June 2007?

He's talking about the local elections.

conchubhar1

View wrote: »

As I already pointed out, post-Nice the TEU states:

In other words, the status quo is that the member state shall NOT use referenda, unless referenda are already an existing part of the constitutional requirements of a member state (such as is the case in Ireland in the limited scenario set out in the Crotty judgement).

But, it is crystal clear from your posts, that you want to force the other 26 democracies in the EU to use Irish constitutional procedure for ratifying EU Treaties, even though - in the case of some - their constitutions specify that their Parliaments have the sole legal authority to ratify international treaties.

So, you are not actually in favour of the status quo, are you?

if ireland votes no - it wont come ino effect without another vote
duh

i have always made an exception for germany as one example - no one could force a country to do something illegal....

status qou would be what the eu is now without the treaty - ie if ireland votes no it cant come into effect

anyway - i for one am waiting on the concessions to see if they actually are worth while or pure obvious crap that add nothing of use for ireland and the eu as a whole

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if ireland votes no - it wont come ino effect without another vote
duh

i have always made an exception for germany as one example - no one could force a country to do something illegal....

It is not just Germany - offhand the Italian Constitution specifically excludes the use of referenda for international treaties, the Czech one specifies that Parliament shall ratify international treaties. And I am sure there are more than those if all the constitutions were examined in detail.

As such, the idea that all other member states must hold referenda is, and always was, total nonsense.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

status qou would be what the eu is now without the treaty - ie if ireland votes no it cant come into effect

The status quo in the EU Treaties is that the EU member states will build on the existing treaties. As such, failure by Ireland to ratify an EU treaty that it has already agreed to would constitute a direct refusal to honour that commitment to build on the existing treaties.

Maybe, that is what the electorate does want - I'd personally have my doubts...

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anyway - i for one am waiting on the concessions to see if they actually are worth while or pure obvious crap that add nothing of use for ireland and the eu as a whole

Expect to be disappointed. Most of the "concessions" will be declarations/protocols saying the political equivalent of "As the Government told you in Lisbon I, issue X will not be effected by this treaty" (where X is abortion, corporate tax etc).

USE

Second referendum on Lisbon may be held in late September

TAOISEACH BRIAN Cowen has spoken to key EU leaders in recent days in an effort to get an agreement that will allow the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty to be held in late September or early October.

<...>

The Government is hoping to hold the referendum in the last week of September or the first week of October. The legislation to enable the referendum to take place is expected to be passed by the Dáil before it adjourns for the summer recess in early July.

The referendum will only go ahead if all other 26 countries agree to the legal guarantees for Ireland covering the issues of abortion, neutrality, tax and workers rights.

Lisbon 'essential to recovery' - Ibec

Employers' lobby group Ibec has thrown its support behind the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, describing a Yes vote as essential to economic recovery.

IBEC

USE

The UK Conservatives would not push for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if it has been ratified by the Irish by the time they come to power <...>

Source.

conchubhar1

View wrote: »

As such, the idea that all other member states must hold referenda is, and always was, total nonsense.

The status quo in the EU Treaties is that the EU member states will build on the existing treaties. As such, failure by Ireland to ratify an EU treaty that it has already agreed to would constitute a direct refusal to honour that commitment to build on the existing treaties.

Maybe, that is what the electorate does want - I'd personally have my doubts...

Expect to be disappointed. Most of the "concessions" will be declarations/protocols saying the political equivalent of "As the Government told you in Lisbon I, issue X will not be effected by this treaty" (where X is abortion, corporate tax etc).

jah, that is why no one advocates all.....

so we should agree to ratify it to fufil that obligation even if we feel it is not in our best interests? nonsense

well we will have to wait and see - but yes i wouldnt hold my breath