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

Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

Options
1…79111213

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    We voted 'No' on that last year.
    ...and now we have an opportunity to vote on it again.
    As far as I'm aware the Lisbon Treaty should now be dead.
    That's phrased as if there's some legal requirement that the treaty cease to exist after a failure to ratify it. No such requirement exists.


  • Options
    #243
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    The recent turn about in elections had more to do with the domestic situation rather than anything in Europe.

    In fact, I'd say that Lisbon was extremely low on most people's minds when they cast their vote.

    From an EU point of view there has been NO turn about/change or whatever you want to call it.

    We have 11 pro-Lisbon MEPs, like before and the anti-Lisbon group have lost one.

    One would have to despair somewhat if Lisbon was not on people's minds for the EU elections!

    The point I'm making as a frustrated Yes voter is that since we keep electing pro-EU-Lisbon politicans, people can hardly be surprised that Lisbon is being presented to us again. And if we vote no again, the views of the entire nation will have to be represented by Joe Higgins alone in the EU parliament, since 11 of the 12 believe Lisbon was the best deal they could get!

    It seems like we don't understand representative democracy. If you must vote no to Lisbon, then at least ensure that there are elected negotiators in place to explain why.

    Ix.


  • Options
    #244
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...and now we have an opportunity to vote on it again. That's phrased as if there's some legal requirement that the treaty cease to exist after a failure to ratify it. No such requirement exists.

    As far as I'm aware, if a member state vetos a proposition, that proposition is considered null and void.

    And what if a 'No' vote is returned again?

    Will we be asked again to vote?

    How "democratic"...


  • Options
    #245
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    How do you know I voted 'No'?

    It wasn't put to the vote by the people of Europe though, that's the issue and when the Irish voted 'No', that was dismissed and we are being asked to vote again.

    That's not forcing something through?

    No, it's not forcing it through. You are going to vote again. You can vote not again, as can anyone else. However I'm sure you would agree that people should vote on the treaty itself and not on being asked a second time?

    Tony EH wrote: »
    Look, I'm pro-Europe. I believe that it can be the best thing to happen to the continent in Centuries. However, I believe that items, such as the Lisbon treaty should be put to the vote by the people it's going to effect.

    Every opponent to every EU treaty we have had has been pro-Europe as far as they themselves are concerned. So much so that the phrase is meaningless. It's like me saying I'm pro-charity. I think it's a good idea in theory but I don't give money to any causes because I don't trust the administration of the money. I don't do any volunteer work because I'm too busy. I don't agree with some of the goals of some groups. I think they could be run better, and maybe if they sorted out all their problems I might possibly reconsider my involvement, but I am definitely definitely pro-charity.

    Regarding a vote, would you be happy with an EU-wide vote with Ireland comprising a few percent of the total electorate? Or would you insist on 27 separate referenda? Even where they are currently illegal?

    Ix


  • Options
    #246
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    As far as I'm aware, if a member state vetos a proposition, that proposition is considered null and void.
    Denmark voted "no" to Maastricht. Ireland voted "no" to Nice.

    Your awareness is incorrect.
    And what if a 'No' vote is returned again?
    No idea. I'd rather not find out.
    Will we be asked again to vote?
    I doubt it.
    How "democratic"...
    Yeah, voting is the very antithesis of democracy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    No, but ignoring the answer is.


  • Options
    #248
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    No, but ignoring the answer is.
    The answer wasn't ignored. If the answer had been ignored, the constitution would have been amended and the treaty ratified. It wasn't, and it wasn't.


  • Options
    #249
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Denmark voted "no" to Maastricht. Ireland voted "no" to Nice.

    Your awareness is incorrect.

    In addition, didn't the Danes vote 'No' to their inclusion to the common European monetary system? That's a different set circumstances.

    And as far as Ireland voting 'No' to Nice, that's just a silly point OB, when you know damn well that we were asking to vote again on that as well.


  • Options
    #250
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    In addition, didn't the Danes vote 'No' to their inclusion to the common European monetary system? That's a different set circumstances.
    They voted against the Maastricht treaty. Then they voted again, and voted for the Maastricht treaty. Those bloody undemocratic Danes.
    And as far as Ireland voting 'No' to Nice, that's just a silly point OB, when you know damn well that we were asking to vote again on that as well.
    You said: "As far as I'm aware, if a member state vetos a proposition, that proposition is considered null and void." This is quite simply not the case, as the precedents I have cited make clear.

    Perhaps you meant to say something else.


  • Options
    #251
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    No, as far as I'm aware, the veto of a proposition in Europe means that that proposition doesn't go through.

    Of course, the proponents of that veto can always be dragged to the voting booth again, until they get the right answer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    Tony EH wrote: »
    No, as far as I'm aware, the veto of a proposition in Europe means that that proposition doesn't go through.

    Of course, the proponents of that veto can always be dragged to the voting booth again, until they get the right answer.

    Electorates do not propose vetoes, in the sense that this term is used for occasions when decisions at the council of ministers are blocked in areas not covered by QMV. We must be careful not to mix up people even more than they already are!

    However, if we do look at such "vetoes", when they are used (which is extremely rarely), they block the proposal until such time as the council can agree a change that is acceptable, or a guarantee that assures the concerned party.

    So, in a way, this is no different. When a minister or a state says no, the solution is not to leave the table, fly home, refuse to answer the phone and hide under a blanket. We must talk/discuss/negotiate and see how the concerns can be accomodated.

    While Lisbon remains intact, the commissioner is a change of policy, and the protocols are guarantees that Lisbon does mean what the yes-side said it means.

    Note that in Ireland we have never had a debate on whether a treaty was good or bad. We always debate on the meaning of the treaty.

    Ix.


  • Options
    #253
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    No, as far as I'm aware, the veto of a proposition in Europe means that that proposition doesn't go through.
    Do you consider vetoes democratic?


  • Options
    #254
    Mario007
    Registered Users Posts: 877 ✭✭✭Mario007


    Tony EH wrote: »
    No, but ignoring the answer is.

    do you even know how politics works? if something doesnt go through in the dail the first time does that mean that it wont be proposed again? of course not, and no one complains.
    You might not like it, but stop complaining that its undemocratic. Democracy is you stating your opinion so go and state it again, in fact it gives you the opportunity to state it again!
    Btw just a little small point last time we voted on whether we're ok with the dail voting on the lisbon treaty...that was the actual wording. just an interesting fact to keep in mind

    Just as a small example i'll include the People's Budget put forward by Lloyd George in 1909 which was rejected by the House of Lords and that meant a complete veto back then. There was a general election held and Asquith's liberals got back in power. And what did they do? the reduced House of Lords' powers of veto to just 2 year postponement and then passed the budget anyway(also Ireland achieved Home Rule back then, but thats way off the point). And no one remarks this as undemocratic or as an act of a dictator.


  • Options
    #255
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do you consider vetoes democratic?

    No, in fact I don't.


  • Options
    #256
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    No, in fact I don't.
    So surely as a champion of democracy you should accept that no country should have a veto over a proposal? That if fourteen countries ratify the treaty, it should come into effect?


  • Options
    #257
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Not if the people of those countries didn't vote for it's ratification.

    If Lisbon is put before the people of Europe and it's passed, then the people will have spoken.

    You say "Champion of Democracy" with such apparent distaste.


  • Options
    #258
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Not if the people of those countries didn't vote for it's ratification.
    Basically, you don't care how it works, you think it should work a particular way, and because it doesn't work the way you personally think it should, then it's unacceptable.

    Tell me: are you upset that we, the people, weren't consulted about our ratification of the Ottowa Treaty? Do you there should have been a referendum in all 156 signatory countries?
    If Lisbon is put before the people of Europe and it's passed, then the people will have spoken.
    Hypothetical question: if there was a single EU-wide plebiscite on the treaty, and it passed by a majority - even though the majorities in several member states voted against it - do you then think it should be implemented?

    Or is another idiotic question that's beneath your dignity to answer?
    You say "Champion of Democracy" with such apparent distaste.
    Irony, actually.


  • Options
    #259
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    All of Europe - that is, the whole population (of citizens and other legal entities) and future generations.

    If you are entirely unwilling to believe that those in positions of power are in it for anything other than personal gain, I'm sorry for you.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    you need to reread the Lisbon Treaty. there are many passages that refer to the interests of the "European Union" - as in the institution, rather than referring to the interests of the electorate.


    secondly, how come the EU accounts have never been signed off by their own auditors?

    And furthermore - how come a failed British politican , Neil Kinnock, is now a multi millionaire because of the EU gravy train? Not exactly a great advert for the EU is it?


  • Options
    #260
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Tell me: are you upset that we, the people, weren't consulted about our ratification of the Ottowa Treaty? Do you there should have been a referendum in all 156 signatory countries?

    The Ottawa Treaty does not cede sovereignty. It just bans landmines.

    As a result of the Ottawa Treaty , i do not have faceless unelected bureaucrats ruling over my life.

    Big difference.


  • Options
    #261
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    netron wrote: »
    you need to reread the Lisbon Treaty. there are many passages that refer to the interests of the "European Union" - as in the institution, rather than referring to the interests of the electorate.

    Why the distinction?
    netron wrote:
    secondly, how come the EU accounts have never been signed off by their own auditors?

    Do a search on it on these boards. It has been addressed before.
    netron wrote:
    And furthermore - how come a failed British politican , Neil Kinnock, is now a multi millionaire because of the EU gravy train? Not exactly a great advert for the EU is it?

    Would be interesting to find out but that problem isn't only an EU one, as can be seen from recent UK and Irish politics.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    K-9 wrote: »
    Why the distinction?

    the distinction is important - it implies that the Comissioners are working for the interests of the EU , as an institution, first and foremost. The interests of the peoples of Europe come secondary.

    i find that somewhat disturbing, to say the least.


  • Options
    #263
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    K-9 wrote: »
    Would be interesting to find out but that problem isn't only an EU one, as can be seen from recent UK and Irish politics.

    ah - but the UK and Irish electorates can vote those corrupt politicians out of office.

    Neil Kinnock was appointed and could not be voted out. Big difference.


  • Options
    #264
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    netron wrote: »
    the distinction is important - it implies that the Comissioners are working for the interests of the EU , as an institution, first and foremost. The interests of the peoples of Europe come secondary.

    i find that somewhat disturbing, to say the least.

    OK, Fair enough. Any examples of this?
    netron wrote: »
    ah - but the UK and Irish electorates can vote those corrupt politicians out of office.

    Neil Kinnock was appointed and could not be voted out. Big difference.

    Yes and Glennys is now in what position?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #265
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    K-9 wrote: »
    Yes and Glennys is now in what position?

    she was appointed EU Minister in the UK. but cant take office as she's an MEP.


  • Options
    #266
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    K-9 wrote: »
    OK, Fair enough. Any examples of this?

    article 17:
    "The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. "


    article 21
    "The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation"


    consolidated lisbon treaty 2007
    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fx09.eu%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2Fother%2FConsolidated_LISBON_TREATY_3.pdf&ei=ZXhBStK0O8TB-QbC_6y_CA&usg=AFQjCNG-azJ6pq1DLCGmqg9vTtCkWWJXWw&sig2=di8EvY8xDTpe_brL3Uq9Qw


  • Options
    #267
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    netron wrote: »
    article 17:
    "The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. "


    article 21
    "The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation"


    consolidated lisbon treaty 2007
    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fx09.eu%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2Fother%2FConsolidated_LISBON_TREATY_3.pdf&ei=ZXhBStK0O8TB-QbC_6y_CA&usg=AFQjCNG-azJ6pq1DLCGmqg9vTtCkWWJXWw&sig2=di8EvY8xDTpe_brL3Uq9Qw

    Ireland is in the Union? Yes?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #268
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    K-9 wrote: »
    Ireland is in the Union? Yes?

    it is. your point being?


  • Options
    #269
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    netron wrote: »
    it is. your point being?

    So, if it's in the interest of the EU, who do do you mean exactly?

    In summary, what's your point?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #270
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    netron wrote: »
    the distinction is important - it implies that the Comissioners are working for the interests of the EU , as an institution, first and foremost. The interests of the peoples of Europe come secondary.

    i find that somewhat disturbing, to say the least.
    netron wrote: »
    article 17:
    "The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. "


    article 21
    "The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation"


    consolidated lisbon treaty 2007
    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fx09.eu%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2Fother%2FConsolidated_LISBON_TREATY_3.pdf&ei=ZXhBStK0O8TB-QbC_6y_CA&usg=AFQjCNG-azJ6pq1DLCGmqg9vTtCkWWJXWw&sig2=di8EvY8xDTpe_brL3Uq9Qw

    OK, Can you reconcile these 2 posts and state your point, to avoid confusion?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    the_dark_side wrote: »
    You would wonder, have certain people been recruited from 'deep' within the FF camp, to come onto boards and fight the corner of the 'Yes' campaign.
    You might wonder that, alright. Then you might look at the join dates of some of the more vocal "no" campaigners, and compare them to the join dates of the more vocal "yes" campaigners.

    I'll leave the drawing of conclusions as an exercise for the reader.


Advertisement