Why voting no?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the Constitution and Lisbon are "essentially the same", what percentage change would be required before you would consider them sufficiently different to void this argument, and how would you measure such change?

I don't know about FutureTaoiseah but I would look at the political ramifications of both treaties, both in terms of the implied political goals and specific consitutional amendments. In terms of Consitution/Lisbon both are virtually identical. I suppose if something significant were changed such as exclusion of the Fundamental Charter of EU Rights, large changes to QMV, role of comissioners, etc there would be enough differences to call them different treaties (vote staggering by Poland is hardly sufficient)

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

And issues that the public don't feel are that important are exactly the issues that the public delegates to its representatives.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that there is any sense of outrage in Europe at the oft-paraded "denial" of referendums. There was supposed to be a series of public demonstrations all round Europe last year in favour of referendums. They were unbelievably sad - the largest was maybe 30 people, but most of them didn't even make double digits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Find any evidence at all of support for a referendum in Ireland.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, you still don't see it.

How could we possibly have the cheek to override the people and their constitution whether we think they want it or not.

If they want to change their constitutions, they have both the right and the duty to put in motion the necessary procedures to do so.
I'm surprised how much difficulty you're having grasping the simple fact of sovereignty.

How exactly should they go about changing their constitutions? Through their political parties who are opposed to referenda?

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

How exactly should they go about changing their constitutions?

How exactly should they go about holding referenda?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Find any evidence at all of support for a referendum in Ireland.

We are having one, so public outrage against being "denied" one is hardly likely to be a prominent feature of Irish public life. An interesting question, though - in the absence of Crotty, would there be any public pressure for a referendum to be held here?

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't know about FutureTaoiseah but I would look at the political ramifications of both treaties, both in terms of the implied political goals and specific consitutional amendments. In terms of Consitution/Lisbon both are virtually identical. I suppose if something significant were changed such as exclusion of the Fundamental Charter of EU Rights, large changes to QMV, role of comissioners, etc there would be enough differences to call them different treaties (vote staggering by Poland is hardly sufficient)

Funnily enough, something I consider a major plus point of the Treaty is indeed new in Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't know about FutureTaoiseah but I would look at the political ramifications of both treaties, both in terms of the implied political goals and specific consitutional amendments. In terms of Consitution/Lisbon both are virtually identical. I suppose if something significant were changed such as exclusion of the Fundamental Charter of EU Rights, large changes to QMV, role of comissioners, etc there would be enough differences to call them different treaties (vote staggering by Poland is hardly sufficient)

How do you arrive at a percentage difference, and who gets to decide what the percentage threshold is for acceptability as a "new" treaty?

ixtlan

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh! How didn't I see it! The people of the other 26 member states don't want a referendum. How could we possibly have the cheek to override the people and their constitution and force them to vote, when they clearly do not want to - obviously the case because if they wanted a referendum they would have voted for communists or neo-nazis in their parliaments.

Hold on! By that logic the Irish don't want a referendum either (Sinn Fein and Socialists being almost non-existent). Ah nuts! If only our constitution could be swell like those in Europe we wouldn't be in this mess now.

We can not override the constitutions of other member states; but the governments of those states are allowed to change the constitutions of their states without consulting the people? God - I keep being stupid - if the people didn't want their constitutions to be changed by Lisbon they would have voted neo-nazi.

Don't you just hate how the Unionists in the US Civil War forced their undemocratic views of emancipation onto the slaves (who clearly did not like the idea)?

I'd humbly suggest you are being a little silly here. To equate the electorate of the EU to slaves?! The slaves clearly did not like the idea of slavery, and they knew what slavery meant.

The sad sad reality, which all of us debaters should worry about is that the vast vast majority of the EU electorate don't care about Lisbon, and know nothing about it. Surveys showing that some want a referendum have to put in context besides surveys showing that most have never even heard of Lisbon. If a person with a clipboard walks up to you on the street or rings you at home and tells you that there is this important treaty being signed and do you think you should have a vote on it, most people will say yes. However will they then mention it to the politicans who call to their door? Will they even remember it after a few weeks?

You have a point in saying that people will not vote for a Communist or neo-Nazi group just to make a point about Lisbon, but doesn't that give you pause? Why are all the extreme groups anti-Lisbon? Why are all the moderate groups which people want to vote for pro-Lisbon? If there really was a reasonable argument about Lisbon then there would be someone reasonable for people to vote for.

Also, you appear shocked that governments change constitutions without consulting the people. This shows your lack of an international viewpoint. Some countries like Ireland the US must consult the people. Others do not. They have operated this way for a long time. I don't consider them police states or dictatorships because of this. Many of them have better operating states than we do. Why are you so contemptuous of them and their governments? That contempt transfers to the peoples who elected those governments.

RandomName2 wrote: »

P.S. The argument of the French presidential election does have some validity (even though Le Pen was the only candidate who was anti-Lisbon, Royal did promise a referendum). It clearly is the case that issues concerning running the country were more important for the French than the availability of a vote on a theoretical treaty, as it would have been for me.

Absolutely. We agree. So if Lisbon is such a disaster waiting to happen, why are all those other issues so important? Remember the people voted specifically on europe just a few weeks ago. They expressed no significant concerns with Lisbon there either, and that was an EU vote. I find it a very hollow argument that we must vote no to save the enslaved oppressed peoples of Europe with no vote. They have a vote, they use it regularly. They don't vote on everything, and they seem to be OK with that. I respect that. Do you?

Also, I have to point out the irony of your US civil war analogy, since that war started not over slavery but over an accept to break the federal union. Would you like a federal Europe which could then enforce laws on how every country should take decisions?

Ix

Iwasfrozen

RandomName2 wrote:

- obviously the case because if they wanted a referendum they would have voted for communists or neo-nazis in their parliaments.

So you are saying that the only non-Lisbon politicians are Neo-Nazis and Communists ?

thoughtfully,
Iwasfrozen.

oscarBravo

ixtlan wrote: »

Some countries like Ireland the US must consult the people.

Actually, in the US, constitutional amendments are not ratified by the people, but by the states - and only three quarters of states need to ratify for the amendment to be accepted.

I guess the US is the antithesis of democracy.

ixtlan

RandomName2 wrote: »

How exactly should they go about changing their constitutions? Through their political parties who are opposed to referenda?

Big sign (actually I meant to type sigh... but sign seems appropriate too :-)... Yes through their political parties. If it really concerned people it would become an issue and some major party would support it just to get an advantage over the others.

The reality, which no voters here cannot seem to grasp is that outside of Ireland there is no desire for such referenda. Yes, there are some people who are angry/annoyed they don't have the opportunity to vote no, but these appear to be a tiny number.

Possibly the UK might be an exception, but I say possibly. Many people there just want to say no to the EU in general. They are not asking for required constitutional referenda on all changes. Up to now, it has never been an issue at a general election there, and probably will not be next time either.

Ix.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you arrive at a percentage difference,

Arbitrarily. It's in the same realm as "X% of our laws are made in Brussels."

and who gets to decide what the percentage threshold is for acceptability as a "new" treaty?

Those who oppose both the old and the new treaties, and the threshold is always at least one point higher than whatever is on offer.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

We are having one, so public outrage against being "denied" one is hardly likely to be a prominent feature of Irish public life. An interesting question, though - in the absence of Crotty, would there be any public pressure for a referendum to be held here?

amused,
Scofflaw

No. What would be the point?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

No. What would be the point?

So, in the absence of judgements similar to Crotty in other European countries, what would be the point in those countries? Unless you feel that Crotty should apply to everybody else's countries too?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB

I wonder how we would react if another EU nation told us that we shouldnt have referendums on these issues.

If people want a referendum in their own country, they can demand it. Wer've no right to expect or even give out about what they do there, just like they've no bloody right to talk about how we do it here.

Utter contradictions all over the place.

RandomName2

ixtlan wrote: »

If it really concerned people it would become an issue and some major party would support it just to get an advantage over the others.

That's a big if.

Were Crotty not available in Ireland does this mean I would have to vote Sinn Fein or Socialist if I wanted to vote on Lisbon?
Despite the fact that I don't agree with their economic policies
Depite the fact that I don't agree with their political outlook or methods
Despite the fact that they would be able to change nothing in relation to the availability of a referendum?

I would vote for FF or FG. As I did. By this logic I would have approved of the fact that I wasn't given a vote.

To P.B - do you consider Eire and the Republic of Ireland to be the same country? As far as I can see there is more difference between the two than there is between Constitution and Lisbon.

BTW the leaders of other countries [and hence the countries, by the strain of logic here] have indeed stipulated that we shouldn't have referendums on these issues.

The only real way to judge whether there is any public desire for a vote is the amount of interest it generated when there was such a vote available - which as far as I can see was considerable, apart from in Spain.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

To P.B - do you consider Eire and the Republic of Ireland to be the same country? As far as I can see there is more difference between the two than there is between Constitution and Lisbon.

What difference?

BTW the leaders of other countries [and hence the countries, by the strain of logic here] have indeed stipulated that we shouldn't have referendums on these issues.

With the greatest of respect to anyone from outside Ireland who suggests that we shouldn't hold a referendum: they're entitled to their opinion, but once they think that their opinion should carry some weight here, they can get knotted.

ixtlan

RandomName2 wrote: »

Were Crotty not available in Ireland does this mean I would have to vote Sinn Fein or Socialist if I wanted to vote on Lisbon?
Despite the fact that I don't agree with their economic policies
Depite the fact that I don't agree with their political outlook or methods
Despite the fact that they would be able to change nothing in relation to the availability of a referendum?

I would vote for FF or FG. As I did. By this logic I would have approved of the fact that I wasn't given a vote.

In the Irish case it's hard to say whether the main parties would have decided on a referendum in the absence of Crotty. If they perceived that it was something the public wanted then they probably would. Any large party in Europe would consider doing the same, if the public was demanding it. If the public isn't demanding it then politicans will take the easier option of parliamentary ratification.

Regarding voting Sinn Fein or Socialist, then you have a choice to make on Lisbon. If those who are anti Lisbon don't represent your views in any other area as you describe, then you really should consider your position. Vote for those groups so that they can advance your EU view. If you don't/didn't vote for them then you are saying that Lisbon is not an important enough issue to change your vote from the main parties, and you should vote yes to Lisbon or perhaps abstain.

Doesn't it worry you that all the no groupings disagree with your view of the world? As you said yourself "their economic policies" and "their political outlook or methods". Those very things are why they are against Lisbon!

You do have one other option, which would be to found another political party, but if you agree with the main parties on the non-EU issues (which feed directly into the EU anyhow) then what would be the point?

Sometimes we have to accept an imperfect solution for the greater good. I'd suggest you take Lisbon as a less worse option than an EU controlled by Communists and neo-Nazis (a description of no groupings made by another no-voter).

Ix

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

In the Irish case it's hard to say whether the main parties would have decided on a referendum in the absence of Crotty. If they perceived that it was something the public wanted then they probably would. Any large party in Europe would consider doing the same, if the public was demanding it. If the public isn't demanding it then politicans will take the easier option of parliamentary ratification.

Possibly, although an interesting point is that we don't know that this referendum is directly as a result of the Crotty judgement. It may be an indirect effect, where the government prefers to hold a referendum rather than suffer a legal challenge.

RandomName2 wrote:

Were Crotty not available in Ireland does this mean I would have to vote Sinn Fein or Socialist if I wanted to vote on Lisbon?
Despite the fact that I don't agree with their economic policies
Depite the fact that I don't agree with their political outlook or methods
Despite the fact that they would be able to change nothing in relation to the availability of a referendum?

I would vote for FF or FG. As I did. By this logic I would have approved of the fact that I wasn't given a vote.

I think the point being made is more that the absence of a mainstream political party that opposes Lisbon (or, let's be honest, EU treaties, since all the parties opposing Lisbon have opposed all the rest too) is explained by the absence of a large mainstream vote that opposes the EU. The UK has such a party - the Tories - as do other eurosceptical nations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly, although an interesting point is that we don't know that this referendum is directly as a result of the Crotty judgement. It may be an indirect effect, where the government prefers to hold a referendum rather than suffer a legal challenge.



I think the point being made is more that the absence of a mainstream political party that opposes Lisbon (or, let's be honest, EU treaties, since all the parties opposing Lisbon have opposed all the rest too) is explained by the absence of a large mainstream vote that opposes the EU. The UK has such a party - the Tories - as do other eurosceptical nations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's hard to claim that there is an "absence of a large mainstream vote to oppose the EU". In 3 out of 5 votes on the constitution or treaty, it would appear that there was the mainstream vote against it.

We can all decide for ourselves why governments across europe, for example the governments of countries such as the UK and France, denied their electorates a vote on Lisbon.

To claim that the Tory party in the UK "opposes the EU" seems to suggest that they wish to leave the EU, which is not the case, and has never been Tory party policy.

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

It's hard to claim that there is an "absence of a large mainstream vote to oppose the EU". In 3 out of 5 votes on the constitution or treaty, it would appear that there was the mainstream vote against it.

However, countries don't vote, and the balance of Yes and No votes cast there is roughly 4 million in favour of Yes - and even there you're assuming that every No to the Constitution/Lisbon is a vote against the EU. Whatever happened to the "pro-EU, anti-Lisbon" pretence?

bokspring71 wrote: »

We can all decide for ourselves why governments across europe, for example the governments of countries such as the UK and France, denied their electorates a vote on Lisbon.

Indeed, although some of us, of course, might think it had something to do with referendums not being their ordinary ratification mechanism. Others prefer a conspiracy.

bokspring71 wrote: »

To claim that the Tory party in the UK "opposes the EU" seems to suggest that they wish to leave the EU, which is not the case, and has never been Tory party policy.

Your straw man is handsome, but still made of straw. It would suggest that "the Opposition" wishes to derogate from the Irish political system...

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

bokspring71 wrote: »

It's hard to claim that there is an "absence of a large mainstream vote to oppose the EU".

Scofflaw, was clearly referring to the fact that the electorate in most EU states vote over-whelmingly for pro-EU parties in elections. It is hard to see them doing so if they are fundamentally opposed to the EU.

Presumably, setting up an anti-EU party (or an EU but not this way party) wouldn't be all that difficult if there was a popular demand for it.

bokspring71 wrote: »

In 3 out of 5 votes on the constitution or treaty, it would appear that there was the mainstream vote against it.

If only the post-referenda polls showed those votes as being anti-EU or even anti-Treaties. However, when they show "confusion about the treaty" as being the major No factor, that claim falls a bit flat.

Darragh29

Date has been set this morning for Lisbon II, 2nd October...

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, countries don't vote, and the balance of Yes and No votes cast there is roughly 4 million in favour of Yes - and even there you're assuming that every No to the Constitution/Lisbon is a vote against the EU. Whatever happened to the "pro-EU, anti-Lisbon" pretence?



Indeed, although some of us, of course, might think it had something to do with referendums not being their ordinary ratification mechanism. Others prefer a conspiracy.



Your straw man is handsome, but still made of straw. It would suggest that "the Opposition" wishes to derogate from the Irish political system...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Politics is the art of the possible. For example, in the UK there is a widely held view by virtually the whole political class and virtually all the commentators that the electorate would not pass Lisbon if asked. So the governments policy was to avoid asking and ram the treaty through parliament.

Some people may think that is democracy in action, others think it is a subversion of the democratic will of the people. I really am not sure myself.

I am not sure if I have much appetite for parts of the treaty, and have an appetite for other parts. For example, I am not sure a "president of Europe", as the job has been dubbed, will be a good thing it it means we have some washed up politician being appointed to the job only to strut the world stage supposedly speaking on all our behaves.

RandomName2

ixtlan wrote: »

In the Irish case it's hard to say whether the main parties would have decided on a referendum in the absence of Crotty. If they perceived that it was something the public wanted then they probably would. [...]

Regarding voting Sinn Fein or Socialist, then you have a choice to make on Lisbon. If those who are anti Lisbon don't represent your views in any other area as you describe, then you really should consider your position. Vote for those groups so that they can advance your EU view. [...]

Doesn't it worry you that all the no groupings disagree with your view of the world? As you said yourself "their economic policies" and "their political outlook or methods". Those very things are why they are against Lisbon!

You do have one other option, which would be to found another political party, but if you agree with the main parties on the non-EU issues (which feed directly into the EU anyhow) then what would be the point?

Sometimes we have to accept an imperfect solution for the greater good. I'd suggest you take Lisbon as a less worse option than an EU controlled by Communists and neo-Nazis (a description of no groupings made by another no-voter).

Ix

I seriously doubt that in the absence of Crotty that any of the main political parties would advocate a referendum - prior to the vote they [particularly FF] claimed that having a vote would not jeopardise the ratification as there was vastly greater support for the treaty than there was opposition. After the 'no' vote there were distinct murmurings in the Dail that Crotty should be overturned because the public is too stupid to be trusted.

I absolutely see what you mean about the 'parties' who are anti-EU. But that is not actually the point. Sinn Fein as a nationalist-socialist party has a policy of autarky. Fair enough. It would be seriously odd from that perspective if they supported a treaty which reduced local governmental power - because ultimately they have the ambition of taking over in both the north and the south; and there wouldn't be much point in doing so, in their view, if the Dail became little more than a token force. But I digress.

It is crazy to have to attempt to influence the make-up of your country's consitution through national election, as national elections have always been founded on the issue of taxation as an absolutely overriding priority [from the point of view of political election, anything outside the realm of taxation and expenditure allocation is a meaningless sideshow]. Yet, this is the manner in which Europeans are forced to have any say at all on their relationship with Brussels.

I do not think that the main political parties are of any real value when talking about the EU - same applies to the minority parties. But I will return to why I think that at a later time. To sum up: I don't think my ememy's enemy is my friend naturally applies in relation to Lisbon.

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

Politics is the art of the possible. For example, in the UK there is a widely held view by virtually the whole political class and virtually all the commentators that the electorate would not pass Lisbon if asked. So the governments policy was to avoid asking and ram the treaty through parliament.

Some people may think that is democracy in action, others think it is a subversion of the democratic will of the people. I really am not sure myself.

I'd have to say, though, that kind of misses the way the UK doesn't use referendums except as a political stunt in any case. The constitutional core of the UK is different - the "monarch in parliament" is supreme there. Constitutional monarchy rather than a republic like ourselves.

As I've said before, my own view is that the UK electorate would vote to leave the EU entirely for EEA status, given the option. Whether that's the right thing for them to do is a separate issue - it almost certainly isn't, but realistically I couldn't see any other outcome to such a referendum. That, in turn, means that a Lisbon referendum would be a proxy referendum on leaving the EU, and would be defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with Lisbon.

I'm not really sure why there's an assumption that the electorate vote solely, or even primarily, on the matter at hand. A quick test is easy - punch someone in the face, then ask them a perfectly reasonable question.

bokspring71 wrote: »

I am not sure if I have much appetite for parts of the treaty, and have an appetite for other parts. For example, I am not sure a "president of Europe", as the job has been dubbed, will be a good thing it it means we have some washed up politician being appointed to the job only to strut the world stage supposedly speaking on all our behaves.

While the job itself isn't by any means the scary "President of Europe" conjured up by many, you've probably put your finger on the most obnoxious aspect of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I've said before, my own view is that the UK electorate would vote to leave the EU entirely for EEA status, given the option. Whether that's the right thing for them to do is a separate issue - it almost certainly isn't, but realistically I couldn't see any other outcome to such a referendum. That, in turn, means that a Lisbon referendum would be a proxy referendum on leaving the EU, and would be defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with Lisbon.


cordially,
Scofflaw

I think this is where we may differ. You have said elsewhere that we shouldn't speculate as to the strength of anti-eu feeling in europe because its not been vioted on, yet you feel at liberty to speculate on how people in the Uk might vote and, further, that they might use a vote on lisbon as a referendum on the EU as a whole, and not really vote on lisbon. The implication is that they are too stupid to vote on what they are asked and might vote on something else entirely. While your point may be a fair point, it may also be bunkum.

The view that a referendum should not be held because the electorate might be too stupid, and might not vote on the questoin they are being asked, is patronising. Every election runs that risk and is no reason to abandon elections and votes and instead hand over the decision to some political elite for it to decide what's best.

If the UK does want to leave the EU for EEA status, why should the politicians of the UK feel they have a democratic mandate to act contrary to the electorate they represent?

The answer, of course, is that politicians no longer represent their electorate, but they attempt to manage them.

Perhaps part of the revolt against lisbon might be explained by a feeling that the EU, and our national politicians, will do as they want anyhow, and it doesn't matter how anyone votes, they will just "manage" the situation to get what they want.

Perhaps people vote with more weight given to their emotional response rather than to the sheer logical position?

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

While the job itself isn't by any means the scary "President of Europe" conjured up by many, you've probably put your finger on the most obnoxious aspect of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But this is something that you support.If you punch someone and ask them a reasonable question, it would be perfectly reasonable for the person not to divorce the two issues.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

But this is something that you support.If you punch someone and ask them a reasonable question, it would be perfectly reasonable for the person not to divorce the two issues.

The advantages of it though are that instead of changing the President every 6 months, you now have one for I think 2 1/2 years. As for the "speaking on our behalf", well they already do, so I think the actual position maybe more of a problem for you, that what they actually do.

Parser

Darragh29 wrote: »

Date has been set this morning for Lisbon II, 2nd October...

I predict a No vote.