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
Why voting no?
Options
Comments
-
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »... A yes vote, on the other hand, will mean the French and Dutch peoples having 95% of the provisions they rejected by referenda in 2005 foisted on them anyway ...
95% is not 100%. Lisbon is different, so what is now on offer is not what was rejected. Some of the 5% was silly stuff like flags and anthems and grandiosity like calling a housekeeping job a constitution -- much of what caused people to reject it.
So they fixed it, and you still won't have it. And you have the arrogance to set yourself up as the defender of French democracy through the way you vote in an Irish ballot.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »95% is not 100%. Lisbon is different, so what is now on offer is not what was rejected. Some of the 5% was silly stuff like flags and anthems and grandiosity like calling a housekeeping job a constitution -- much of what caused people to reject it.
So they fixed it, and you still won't have it. And you have the arrogance to set yourself up as the defender of French democracy through the way you vote in an Irish ballot.
Weak.0 -
-
The differences are miniscule, including mainly symbolic issues like the flag and the anthem. It's risible to suggest they were why the French and Dutch peoples voted no. The way the EU political-elites reacted to the 2 no votes was nothing short of outrageous and anti-democratic. It constitutes a defiance of the rights of the French and Dutch peoples to self-determination. It underlines though how fortunate we are to have the Constitution we have, so as to prevent a similar betrayal by our political-elites.P. Breathnach wrote: »95% is not 100%. Lisbon is different, so what is now on offer is not what was rejected. Some of the 5% was silly stuff like flags and anthems and grandiosity like calling a housekeeping job a constitution -- much of what caused people to reject it.
So they fixed it, and you still won't have it. And you have the arrogance to set yourself up as the defender of French democracy through the way you vote in an Irish ballot.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »So they fixed it, and you still won't have it. And you have the arrogance to set yourself up as the defender of French democracy through the way you vote in an Irish ballot.
If they feel that they have fixed it, then let the French, Dutch, UK and others vote as well - otherwise we are the only ones that have a proper democratic say in what is supposed to be a pan European issue.
Its not our arrogance that puts us in this position, its the arrogance of our own Government and the EU institutes.
Its an accident that we seem to be the last line of European Democracy.0 -
Advertisement
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »95% is not 100%. Lisbon is different, so what is now on offer is not what was rejected. Some of the 5% was silly stuff like flags and anthems and grandiosity like calling a housekeeping job a constitution -- much of what caused people to reject it.
So they fixed it, and you still won't have it. And you have the arrogance to set yourself up as the defender of French democracy through the way you vote in an Irish ballot.P. Breathnach wrote: »Is that all you can say? That's truly weak.
:pac: House is falling down.
- what's wrong with it?
:pac: Hideous colour, roof has rotted, lot of damp; rising and falling, some subsidence, an extension that has no planning permission.
- changed the colour. Fixed it
:pac: It's at least 95% the same!
- fixed it fixed it fixed it. In fact... it's a different house!0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »As I said before. The difference between how the yes and no votes should be regarded as follows: no nation has the moral right to force another to surrender sovereignty against its will. It is true that there isn't the same tradition of direct-democracy in most other EU member states as we have in Ireland.
so you're saying your 'no' vote has more impact than my 'yes' vote, well thats not how democracy works. each vote is the same, and you should get used to it.
i would like to ask on this point, with regards to the eu president, the 'no' campaign says he needs to be voted on directly, so are you for imposing your direct democracy on other nations? and what if, say Luxembourg, rejects the candidate, while ireland was highly in favour of him, would you accept on nation saying no to the candidate? or would you impose your will upon them?FutureTaoiseach wrote: »Nonetheless, having asked their respective peoples in referenda in the first place, it was a betrayal of the Franco-Dutch govts to come back with an almost identical treaty and to refuse to put it directly to their peoples. When your actions directly take something from others, it becomes their business.
its the internal business of the two countries. and seeing that both the holand's main gov party and sarkozy's party won in the eu elections, it shows their electorate supports them.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »At least with respect to Spain and Luxembourg, it cannot be said that Lisbon not coming into force will take something from them.
how would you justify theat? the spanish and luxembourg people wanted eu constitution to come to force, ie taking this way from them in form of the lisbon treaty not coming to force would be rejecting their votes as being worthless. see, its not as easy to come to a consensus.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »A no vote will mean the constitutional status-quo in Europe. A yes vote, on the other hand, will mean the French and Dutch peoples having 95% of the provisions they rejected by referenda in 2005 foisted on them anyway - admittedly with the collusion of their politicians.
there you go again arguing the french a dutch vote is more important than any other vote, because it simply suits your point.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »But the govts of those countries cannot claim a mandate to so defy their respective electorates. The EU Constitution had not been recycled into Lisbon when Sarkozy stood for the Presidency in Summer 2007. He promised a "mini-treaty" but wasn't specific on what it would contain. Likewise, the Dutch govt had no mandate for parliamentary ratification of an almost identical treaty.
they can claim a mandate because the mandate has been given to them in a general election. they can face backlash and the subsequent governments can pull out of eu, if lisbon is passed, and the electorate so wish, but as of now they have a full mandate.FutureTaoiseach wrote: »You repeat the yes campaign mantras that confuse the legal with the moral. Just because ratification without referendum and forcing something on nations that when asked voted no is acceptable in the eyes of the law does not make it morally acceptable. To my mind it represents an attack on democracy which, if successfully, will further encourage the political-class to encourage public opinion when it disagrees with them on issues. This is not desirable in my opinion. I refuse to be talked down to by the elites. I have every right to say no to the surrender of Irish sovereignty and am very proud to have done so.
it does make it morally acceptable in other countries. whats with you no voters, proclaiming you want ireland's sovereignty yet you advocate that all other countries should pass lisbon by the vote of the people, even though their constitution states clearly otherwise(like for example Germany where referenda are illegal) so in fact you're taking away the sovereign right of other countries!
and yet again the conspiracy talk of elites...i've had the chance to talk to an MEP, for example, and let me tell you that there was nothing about her to suggest she thought herself above the public, or that she is indeed an 'elite'. and it is not an attack on democracy, do you honestly think that lisbon will survive another 'no' vote? of course not, so if you are so proud of your opinion then go on and express it in october, there's nothing stopping you. in fact those 800 000 votes should be guaranteed for 'no' votes. however we both know that most of those people were mislead by the campaign of libertas and such so, in fact, the second referendum is enhancing democracy in its way to allow people to express their opinion again, hopefully without any lies from both camps.0 -
Voting No in Lisbon 2 will not change the constitutional arrangements of any European state. We will continue to be in the EU with 26 other countries that each have their own preferred method of ratifying treaties, and it is clearly ludicrous to claim that we shall have to vote No to every future EU treaty no matter what's in it unless the other countries adopt our ratification mechanism - but that is the claim that is being made here.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Voting No in Lisbon 2 will not change the constitutional arrangements of any European state. We will continue to be in the EU with 26 other countries that each have their own preferred method of ratifying treaties, and it is clearly ludicrous to claim that we shall have to vote No to every future EU treaty no matter what's in it unless the other countries adopt our ratification mechanism - but that is the claim that is being made here.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Voting 'yes' to lisbon will change the constitutional arrangements in every European state (albeit from a different perspective).
'Their own preferred method' - I suppose Iran has its own preferred method of electing presidents (as in the Ayatollah's preferred method) - the fact that it is the country's preferred method doesn't necessarily mean that it is the people's preferred method (but I suppose you would argue that it is just that with reference to representative democracy)
I think it is eminently sensible to vote no to every single proposal that is issued by Brussels that is not democratic, regardless of its content. It just so happens that I am opposed to the majority of the content of the Lisbon Treaty as well (apart from some changes made to the EU Parliament).0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Voting 'yes' to lisbon will change the constitutional arrangements in every European state (albeit from a different perspective).
No, it won't. It will change the constitutional arrangement of the EU, it has no effect on the member states' constitutions.RandomName2 wrote: »'Their own preferred method' - I suppose Iran has its own preferred method of electing presidents (as in the Ayatollah's preferred method) - the fact that it is the country's preferred method doesn't necessarily mean that it is the people's preferred method (but I suppose you would argue that it is just that with reference to representative democracy)
I think it is eminently sensible to vote no to every single proposal that is issued by Brussels that is not democratic, regardless of its content. It just so happens that I am opposed to the majority of the content of the Lisbon Treaty as well (apart from some changes made to the EU Parliament).
So, you're entirely happy saying that we should vote No to every EU treaty unless every member state adopts referendums, and that we should also have voted No to every EU treaty that's ever been, because they weren't?
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I think there should be a treat titled "Why vote Yes?", because I've yet to see anyone give a good reason to vote yes.0
-
No, it won't. It will change the constitutional arrangement of the EU, it has no effect on the member states' constitutions.
Is amusement condescending? Not in that case, perhaps :rolleyes:. The treaty will change the manner in which laws are created and imposed in member states.So, you're entirely happy saying that we should vote No to every EU treaty unless every member state adopts referendums, and that we should also have voted No to every EU treaty that's ever been, because they weren't?
I am entirely happy saying that there should be a vote across Europe, yes, that is not limited strictly to the hundred or so representaives of each said member states.
Hilarious, no? Image that, lots of people voting - what a riot! How would they ever organise such a venture? How could it be coordinated -.... (EU parliamentary Election '09... US Presidential Election '08... ) Of course the EU rules would have to be changed for pan-euopean referenda (very likely...) or alternatively you could have individual ratification (even though this would probably mean the treaty could not pass).
And yes... we have been a bit lax... Crotty vs An Taoiseach being the only bar to limitless pan-european changes being enacted without a single public vote cast.0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Is amusement condescending? Not in that case, perhaps :rolleyes:. The treaty will change the manner in which laws are created and imposed in member states.
And a change in the UN rules of procedure, or the WTO's rules of procedure, or those of umpteen other international organisations, will also affect the way things are done here.
Anyway, enough of that will voting No to Lisbon change the ratificaiton mechanisms of the member states?RandomName2 wrote: »I am entirely happy saying that there should be a vote across Europe, yes, that is not limited strictly to the hundred or so representaives of each said member states.
Hilarious, no? Image that, lots of people voting - what a riot! How would they ever organise such a venture? How could it be coordinated -.... (EU parliamentary Election '09... US Presidential Election '08... ) Of course the EU rules would have to be changed for pan-euopean referenda (very likely...) or alternatively you could have individual ratification (even though this would probably mean the treaty could not pass).
And yes... we have been a bit lax... Crotty vs An Taoiseach being the only bar to limitless pan-european changes being enacted without a single public vote cast.
You appear to be trying to avoid the consequences of your position. Let's try that again - are you happy saying that we should vote No to every EU treaty unless every member state adopts referendums, and that we should also have voted No to every EU treaty that's ever been, because they weren't?
Because that is what you're saying.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
RandomName2 wrote: »I am saying what I am saying?
I'm glad to hear it.
You appear to be trying to avoid the consequences of your position. Let's try that again - are you happy saying that we should vote No to every EU treaty unless every member state adopts referendums, and that we should also have voted No to every EU treaty that's ever been, because they weren't?
You won't avoid this, my dear - I trained on Creationists.
patiently,
Scofflaw0 -
You appear to be trying to avoid the consequences of your position. Let's try that again - are you happy saying that we should vote No to every EU treaty unless every member state adopts referendums, and that we should also have voted No to every EU treaty that's ever been, because they weren't?
You won't avoid this, my dear - I trained on Creationists.
patiently,
Scofflaw
You 'trained' on Creationists? Well, that's all very well, but Creationists are wrong - and besides which, by definition you cannot win an argument against someone who insists upon taking upon himself the converse of Descartes' Dubito (what if all perceived reality was the result of a good God with too much time on his hands, who just liked fooling people?)
But that is, I think, besides the point (although your dancing around issues may have, indeed, been inspired by theology). I know you wish to take what I said and hand me the unpleasant product of your digestion; for if you wanted an answer, all that you had to do was read my statementRandomName2 wrote: »
I am entirely happy saying that there should be a vote across Europe, yes, that is not limited strictly to the hundred or so representaives of each said member states.
Hilarious, no? Image that, lots of people voting - what a riot! How would they ever organise such a venture? How could it be coordinated -.... (EU parliamentary Election '09... US Presidential Election '08... ) Of course the EU rules would have to be changed for pan-euopean referenda (very likely...) or alternatively you could have individual ratification (even though this would probably mean the treaty could not pass).
And yes... we have been a bit lax... Crotty vs An Taoiseach being the only bar to limitless pan-european changes being enacted without a single public vote cast.
But even that is besides the point. You don't like public votes, and any arguments you make will be to that effect (even if such arguments are simply attempts to make my statements look like hyperbole).
With the greatest respect,0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »You 'trained' on Creationists? Well, that's all very well, but Creationists are wrong - and besides which, by definition you cannot win an argument against someone who insists upon taking upon himself the converse of Descartes' Dubito (what if all perceived reality was the result of a good God with too much time on his hands, who just liked fooling people?)
But that is, I think, besides the point (although your dancing around issues may have, indeed, been inspired by theology). I know you wish to take what I said and hand me the unpleasant product of your digestion; for if you wanted an answer, all that you had to do was read my statement
But even that is besides the point. You don't like public votes, and any arguments you make will be to that effect (even if such arguments are simply attempts to make my statements look like hyperbole).
With the greatest respect,
No, it's very simple. If your argument is that we should vote No because other EU member states are not holding referendums, that's an argument that has no specific relevance to Lisbon - it is equally relevant to every EU treaty both past and future, as long as other EU member states don't hold referendums.
You haven't even tried to argue that point, which is sensible of you, because it's inarguable. What you're doing instead is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and claiming you can't hear me.
So, do you accept that the logical extension of your position is that we should have voted No to every previous EU treaty (because other countries didn't have referendums on them), and that we should vote No to every future EU treaty no matter what the content unless and until every EU member state ratifies them by referendums?
patiently,
Scofflaw0 -
No, it's very simple. If your argument is that we should vote No because other EU member states are not holding referendums, that's an argument that has no specific relevance to Lisbon - it is equally relevant to every EU treaty both past and future, as long as other EU member states don't hold referendums.
You haven't even tried to argue that point, which is sensible of you, because it's inarguable. What you're doing instead is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and claiming you can't hear me.
So, do you accept that the logical extension of your position is that we should have voted No to every previous EU treaty (because other countries didn't have referendums on them), and that we should vote No to every future EU treaty no matter what the content unless and until every EU member state ratifies them by referendums?
patiently,
Scofflaw
It is specific to Lisbon, it is not exclusive to Lisbon. Although you are attempting to hold up the sacred cows of former treaties - which I fail to find sacred - as counter examples, it does not tackle the actual issue of whether or not there should be a vote (which you, implicitly, feel there shouldn't)
Moreover, your reply is designed to direct the argument to semantics so that you can hold up a caveat which seems false, and parade it as symbolic of having defeated the entire argument.
To repeat myself: pan-european referenda are possible (one man one vote, majority to pass - probably high like 60%, invalidated for low vote turnout across Europe of under 40%, etc.) - but would require EU reform.
Individual EU referenda are also possible, but more likely to create stagnation (less likely though, if individual issues were tackled seperately) - in the unlikely event that the people of a state decided by referendum that they no longer wanted to decide EU treaties by referendum, I suppose that would float, as long that was this was the sole issue decided in that referendum.
As it stands you 'argue' (for want of a better term) that people in Europe have decided to not have referenda because their own governments do not favour referenda: which is a bit of a weak theory, with little proof or justification (indeed there is evidence to the contrary by looking at the results of referenda where granted) - and besides which is not your genuine view, which is actually that such a system of voting is fundamentally flawed, leading to messy situations such as the collapse of the Constitution and current problems with Lisbon. But you don't want to articulate that because it sounds undemocratic, and undemocratic is not PC - but neither is being anti-EU, so my apparant opposition to previous EU treaties might make me look anti-EU and hey! You've got a swell argument there. Dear.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »Is that all you can say? That's truly weak.
What else is there to say? Your argument was weak.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
RandomName2 wrote: »It is specific to Lisbon, it is not exclusive to Lisbon. Although you are attempting to hold up the sacred cows of former treaties - which I fail to find sacred - as counter examples, it does not tackle the actual issue of whether or not there should be a vote (which you, implicitly, feel there shouldn't)
I haven't implied there shouldn't be a vote, rather that if countries have chosen not to use referendums as a ratification mechanism, they are within their rights to do so.
Specific/exclusive - well, whatever. The point is the same.RandomName2 wrote: »Moreover, your reply is designed to direct the argument to semantics so that you can hold up a caveat which seems false, and parade it as symbolic of having defeated the entire argument.
To repeat myself: pan-european referenda are possible (one man one vote, majority to pass - probably high like 60%, invalidated for low vote turnout across Europe of under 40%, etc.) - but would require EU reform.
Individual EU referenda are also possible, but more likely to create stagnation (less likely though, if individual issues were tackled seperately) - in the unlikely event that the people of a state decided by referendum that they no longer wanted to decide EU treaties by referendum, I suppose that would float, as long that was this was the sole issue decided in that referendum.
As it stands you 'argue' (for want of a better term) that people in Europe have decided to not have referenda because their own governments do not favour referenda: which is a bit of a weak theory, with little proof or justification (indeed there is evidence to the contrary by looking at the results of referenda where granted) - and besides which is not your genuine view, which is actually that such a system of voting is fundamentally flawed, leading to messy situations such as the collapse of the Constitution and current problems with Lisbon. But you don't want to articulate that because it sounds undemocratic, and undemocratic is not PC - but neither is being anti-EU, so my apparant opposition to previous EU treaties might make me look anti-EU and hey! You've got a swell argument there. Dear.
None of that changes the point - if you insist that we should vote No to this treaty because other countries are not ratifying by referendum, then we should also have voted No to previous treaties, and we should vote No to any future treaties, whatever the content of those treaties, unless and until the other member states choose to use referendums to ratify them.
That's the essential problem with your argument, and it has nothing democratic about it, I fear. It is an argument of convenience, nothing more, and its intrinsic absurdity is demonstrated by exactly the logical conclusion of it that I am putting to you, and which you are attempting to hide from behind clouds of verbiage.
patiently,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
That's the essential problem with your argument, and it has nothing democratic about it, I fear. It is an argument of convenience, nothing more, and its intrinsic absurdity is demonstrated by exactly the logical conclusion of it that I am putting to you, and which you are attempting to hide from behind clouds of verbiage.
None of this last part really makes much sense. But in essence your argument is structured on the line 'whatever the content of those treaties, unless and until the other member states choose to use referendums to ratify them.'
I don't really know - and I don't really care. The method is bad, and in terms of Lisbon, I believe the content to be bad as well. I would also say that Maashtricht was flawed in terms of both its content and ratification. If I was presented with a treaty which made Europe more democratic, without the flaws contained in Lisbon, I would vote yes, regardless of how many states in Europe were granted referenda, although one would hope it would be more than just us. However, if such a legislation had been voted down in at least two European countries, and yet their votes were subsequently being ignored, there would be no way I could ever support the ratification of such legislation. It would be akin to lending one's support to a despot, regardless of the feelings of those under his rule. But sure, you can vote yes on behalf of the minority who like him.
But this is not simply a case of whether all citizens in europe should be able to ratify by referendum. It is the case where the citizens of Europe are being willfully deprived of the availability of referenda - and that would apply as much in Ireland as anywhere else if it were not illegal. Do not the people of Europe count for anything?
You might say that they have not said 'no' to Lisbon. This is not true - no amount of pointing to the majority of the EPP or PES can change the patent antipathy felt towards Lisbon. I do not see how it can be justified to forcefully bypass at least three countries where, were there a vote, Lisbon would almost certainly be defeated. To make where there actually was a vote, count for nothing.
Did you notice how Denmark wasn't granted a vote by its own Parliament, much to the chagrin of the public? Payback for the previous hiccup the Danish public caused...
And so I say the state serves the people. And some of the 'yes' side scream 'strength and unity' and call me undemocratic. And I just point out this doublethink from behind all my 'verbiage'.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »This is a discussion group. If you want to contend that my argument is weak, then give reasons why it should be considered so.
Well, I like the arguement posted by futuretaoiseachThe differences are miniscule, including mainly symbolic issues like the flag and the anthem. It's risible to suggest they were why the French and Dutch peoples voted no. The way the EU political-elites reacted to the 2 no votes was nothing short of outrageous and anti-democratic. It constitutes a defiance of the rights of the French and Dutch peoples to self-determination. It underlines though how fortunate we are to have the Constitution we have, so as to prevent a similar betrayal by our political-elites.
and this posted by ZuiderzeeIf they feel that they have fixed it, then let the French, Dutch, UK and others vote as well - otherwise we are the only ones that have a proper democratic say in what is supposed to be a pan European issue.
Its not our arrogance that puts us in this position, its the arrogance of our own Government and the EU institutes.
Its an accident that we seem to be the last line of European Democracy.
And this posted by Randomname2House is falling down.
- what's wrong with it?
Hideous colour, roof has rotted, lot of damp; rising and falling, some subsidence, an extension that has no planning permission.
- changed the colour. Fixed it
It's at least 95% the same!
- fixed it fixed it fixed it. In fact... it's a different house!
All much more eloquent than me.0 -
Well, I find it difficult to like any argument put forward by FutureTaoiseach. This one is typical, and indicates why I feel that way: it's a pompous rant.Well, I like the arguement posted by futuretaoiseachThe differences are miniscule, including mainly symbolic issues like the flag and the anthem. It's risible to suggest they were why the French and Dutch peoples voted no. The way the EU political-elites reacted to the 2 no votes was nothing short of outrageous and anti-democratic. It constitutes a defiance of the rights of the French and Dutch peoples to self-determination. It underlines though how fortunate we are to have the Constitution we have, so as to prevent a similar betrayal by our political-elites.
This is no more than an iteration of the argument that our system should be imposed on everybody else.and this posted by ZuiderzeeIf they feel that they have fixed it, then let the French, Dutch, UK and others vote as well - otherwise we are the only ones that have a proper democratic say in what is supposed to be a pan European issue.
Its not our arrogance that puts us in this position, its the arrogance of our own Government and the EU institutes.
Its an accident that we seem to be the last line of European Democracy.
That's no argument. I could counter with a scenario where one demolishes a house because of a leak in the roof. But why bother?And this posted by Randomname2House is falling down.
- what's wrong with it?
Hideous colour, roof has rotted, lot of damp; rising and falling, some subsidence, an extension that has no planning permission.
- changed the colour. Fixed it
It's at least 95% the same!
- fixed it fixed it fixed it. In fact... it's a different house!
On that, I can agree with you. It makes your post redundant.All much more eloquent than me.0 -
Not much discussion there P.0
-
RandomName2 wrote: »None of this last part really makes much sense. But in essence your argument is structured on the line 'whatever the content of those treaties, unless and until the other member states choose to use referendums to ratify them.'
Essentially, yes - we can either apply the general argument that people should have referendums to all treaties or none. Or we can make a specific case that Lisbon requires a referendum where others don't.RandomName2 wrote: »I don't really know - and I don't really care. The method is bad, and in terms of Lisbon, I believe the content to be bad as well. I would also say that Maashtricht was flawed in terms of both its content and ratification. If I was presented with a treaty which made Europe more democratic, without the flaws contained in Lisbon, I would vote yes, regardless of how many states in Europe were granted referenda, although one would hope it would be more than just us. However, if such a legislation had been voted down in at least two European countries, and yet their votes were subsequently being ignored, there would be no way I could ever support the ratification of such legislation. It would be akin to lending one's support to a despot, regardless of the feelings of those under his rule. But sure, you can vote yes on behalf of the minority who like him.
Of all those who voted on the Constitution, the majority voted Yes by about 3 million. Hardly a minority - and last time I looked, I wasn't a country.RandomName2 wrote: »But this is not simply a case of whether all citizens in europe should be able to ratify by referendum. It is the case where the citizens of Europe are being willfully deprived of the availability of referenda - and that would apply as much in Ireland as anywhere else if it were not illegal. Do not the people of Europe count for anything?
"Wilfully deprived of referenda" is something of a claim. On what basis do you make it? Only ourselves and the Danes have any legal trigger for referendums, and the Danish Constitutional Court ruled that Lisbon didn't require one. None of the other countries have any legal requirement to use referendums for ratification of EU treaties.RandomName2 wrote: »You might say that they have not said 'no' to Lisbon. This is not true - no amount of pointing to the majority of the EPP or PES can change the patent antipathy felt towards Lisbon. I do not see how it can be justified to forcefully bypass at least three countries where, were there a vote, Lisbon would almost certainly be defeated. To make where there actually was a vote, count for nothing.
Did you notice how Denmark wasn't granted a vote by its own Parliament, much to the chagrin of the public? Payback for the previous hiccup the Danish public caused...
Denmark, like us, has a legal trigger for referendums. The Danish Constitutional Court decides whether a referendum is required, not the Parliament, and they decided that Lisbon didn't.RandomName2 wrote: »And so I say the state serves the people. And some of the 'yes' side scream 'strength and unity' and call me undemocratic. And I just point out this doublethink from behind all my 'verbiage'.
While engaged in doublethink of your own. More fully laid out, it seems your argument is specific to Lisbon, but appears to rely on:
1. the premise that it's not only the same in content to the Constitution, but legally identical, which I don't accept.
2. the premise that we should have a vote based on the "patent antipathy felt towards Lisbon" - again, I don't see that, I'm afraid. I see a certain vocal element in each country strongly opposed, but I don't see any widespread antipathy. Apathy, certainly, and perhaps that's as bad in its way.
3. the idea that certain countries would reject Lisbon if they held a referendum. I don;t have any doubt that the UK would, but fail to see the relevance, since any such vote in the UK would be a vote on the EU. If the UK would like to vote on Lisbon, it should vote on whether it wants to stay in the EU first. If they vote to leave the EU for, say, EEA status - which I think they would - then it's clear they shouldn't follow that up with a vote on Lisbon. Otherwise, any vote on Lisbon would simply be a proxy for that vote.
The comparison to despotism is more than slightly hysterical. I don't see our fellow EU states sliding towards despotism. I see them doing things I would prefer them not to, but those things are, regrettably, being supported by public majorities in the countries concerned.
Your claim that referendums have been "willfully denied" is probably the essential point at issue. One could make a case that a country having held a referendum on the EU Constitution generated an expectation that there would be a referendum on Lisbon - but that's rather a weak case, and certainly doesn't appear to me to merit the charge of referendums being "wilfully denied". If there is no requirement in France or Holland (or Spain or Luxembourg) to hold referendums, how are they being "denied"?
Finally, how would voting No to Lisbon change the picture?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'll ask you the same question I've asked several others (without ever receiving a straight answer) - what percentage change would be required between consecutive treaties before you'd consider them different treaties? How would you measure such change?FutureTaoiseach wrote: »A yes vote, on the other hand, will mean the French and Dutch peoples having 95% of the provisions they rejected by referenda in 2005 foisted on them anyway - admittedly with the collusion of their politicians.
I'll hazard a guess that I know more Danish people than you. News flash: they don't care.RandomName2 wrote: »Did you notice how Denmark wasn't granted a vote by its own Parliament, much to the chagrin of the public?0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement