reason for any lisbon referendum?

oscarBravo

carveone wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there were 145 EU Treatries ratified by our Government in 2008. There were a whole bunch on organised crime, extradition and assistance in criminal matters.

Not quite what I meant - those would be directives.

What I'm asking is: of all the member states that ratified the Nice treaty, how many held referenda? Similarly Amsterdam, Maastricht, etc.

conchubhar1

what other people have done in the past should not dictate what gets done now/the future

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

what other people have done in the past should not dictate what gets done now/the future

I haven't said that it should. I'm arguing with the viewpoint that referenda are the "right" way to ratify treaties, and that the good people of Europe are being denied a right to vote that they desperately (although apparently silently) demand.

It's similar to insisting that jury trials are the only fair way to arrive at a conclusion of guilt or innocence, and - based solely on that belief - claiming that the good people of Germany are being denied the jury trials that they so desperately crave. It may be true, but I ain't buying it until I see something resembling evidence.

carveone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not quite what I meant - those would be directives.

Ooops. Sorry, thought that sounded wrong when I typed it!

What I'm asking is: of all the member states that ratified the Nice treaty, how many held referenda? Similarly Amsterdam, Maastricht, etc.

Is this right?

2008 Lisbon (unratified): Ireland
2003 Nice: Ireland
1999 Amsterdam: Ireland, Denmark
1993 TEU (Maastricht): Ireland, Denmark, France
1987 SEA: Ireland, Denmark
1967 Merger (Brussels):
1958 Rome:

Bit of a pattern there. The last two I can't find references to referenda at all. Ireland wasn't in EU till 1973 otherwise it would probably have wanted more referenda.

oscarBravo

That looks about right. Based on that, would it really be fair to say that referenda are the standard way for EU member states to ratify treaties?

Which begs the question: what's so special about this treaty, that there should be a pan-EU referendum on it? It's a much less profound treaty than many of its predecessors.

carveone

oscarBravo wrote: »

That looks about right. Based on that, would it really be fair to say that referenda are the standard way for EU member states to ratify treaties?

I look at that list and I feel quite uneasy. I don't know how to phrase it properly but what does Ireland bring to the table here apart from referenda and impasse. Really. Tell me we bring something positive to the EU experience. English classes, fishing, something! It's not as if binding us into the EU stopped us going off and invading Poland or something.

Our net EU receipts from joining in 1973 to 2001, at €34 billion, were equal to our national debt at that time. We got 400 quid each from the EU in 2003, according to finfacts.ie. Each! And at the same time we were complaining about these damn foreigners coming here, something that presumably will get worse now...

At least the other country that gets a lot from Europe, Portugal, has nice food and good weather and semi-naked women. That's not really a good point (except for the women) but it's something dammit!

This post is quite off topic, I understand that, but I'm just suddenly unhappy about this. Presumably replies will go something like: So, do you want us cowtowing to Europe now? No, but if we're going to go around with our hat out, we could at least do it with some humility. Otherwise put the hat away, forever.

Edit: This isn't meant to be an antagonistic post so please don't read it like that. I'm just suddenly personally uneasy. Mainly at what a big bat such a tiny country wields.

opo

carveone wrote: »

I look at that list and I feel quite uneasy. I don't know how to phrase it properly but what does Ireland bring to the table here apart from referenda and impasse. Really. Tell me we bring something positive to the EU experience. English classes, fishing, something! It's not as if binding us into the EU stopped us going off and invading Poland or something.

Our net EU receipts from joining in 1973 to 2001, at €34 billion, were equal to our national debt at that time. We got 400 quid each from the EU in 2003, according to finfacts.ie. Each! And at the same time we were complaining about these damn foreigners coming here, something that presumably will get worse now...

At least the other country that gets a lot from Europe, Portugal, has nice food and good weather and semi-naked women. That's not really a good point (except for the women) but it's something dammit!

This post is quite off topic, I understand that, but I'm just suddenly unhappy about this. Presumably replies will go something like: So, do you want us cowtowing to Europe now? No, but if we're going to go around with our hat out, we could at least do it with some humility. Otherwise put the hat away, forever.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0202/1232923381206.html

The current economic climate is also causing Irish people to question the previous disastrous negotiations undertaken by Irish governments with the EU – such as the deal which lost us more than €200 billion in fishing rights and destroyed what should be a thriving Irish industry. Concerns are also being raised about the damage caused to our economy by our handing control of our interest rates and our currency to the European Central Bank.

Scofflaw

opo wrote: »

The current economic climate is also causing Irish people to question the previous disastrous negotiations undertaken by Irish governments with the EU – such as the deal which lost us more than €200 billion in fishing rights and destroyed what should be a thriving Irish industry. Concerns are also being raised about the damage caused to our economy by our handing control of our interest rates and our currency to the European Central Bank.

Total value of fish taken by other EU countries from Irish waters since 1973: $7.5 billion.

Facts.

Euro area: warmer in than out.

Source: The Economist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, here's a simple exercise for you. Each EU treaty to date has been ratified by every member state that was then a member of the EU. Some of those ratifications have been by referendum; others have not.

What percentage of the ratifications of EU treaties to date have been by referendum?

I hereby predict that you will find a way to avoid answering this question. In your opinion.

Predict what you want. You're contribution here is again just obfuscation. It matters not a jot how many previous ratifications have been passed by referenda. That is an absolutely meaningless position.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an opinion you evidently hold dear, and I respect your right to do so.[ What I object to is your projection of that opinion onto the majority of EU citizens.

That's absolute nonsense. It was nonsense yesterday and it was nonsense the day before too and you know it is nonsense as well. You keep coming up with this and it still isn't any use. I just don't buy, as you claim to, that given the choice the majority of Europeans would turn down a vote on EU reforms. I find position wholly disingenuous.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously?? I'll draw your attention to the part of the charter that forbids accusing people of lying. If you have evidence that I'm saying something I know to be untrue, produce it - otherwise, drop the name-calling and participate in a civilised discussion.

I called your contribution out for what it is Oscarbarvo. I don't believe it to be a genuine position. It's simply born out of your desire to jump through hoops for a 'Yes' argument.

You see, the thing is, I just don't believe what you are saying.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for the Dutch, they can't have a referendum. Their constitution says that the parliament has to ratify treaties; therefore a referendum is non-binding, and as such completely pointless.

That's "mistaken".

The Dutch CAN have referenda. They had one in 2005 for the EU Constitution.

They voted 'No'.

Their Government ignored that (as they can by Dutch law, incredibly). But the Constitution was dead anyway, as the French voted 'No' to it too and it looked like many other Countries would too, if referenda was carried out, so it was scrapped in part and reborn as the Lisbon Treaty Reforms in part.

So, what do we have in 2008/09?

Governments simply bypassing their electorate and not putting a treaty to vote, because they feared a 'No' vote. Except, of course Ireland, who has it written in the constitution that referenda must be held by the people when major reforms are submitted.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

People don't vote on finance bills, and (despite what Tony would have us believe) they don't seem to have any particular interest in starting now.

You see, this is why I don't believe your position is anything but to continually fudge the issue.

Nobody mentioned "finance bills" except you. As a way to introduce ridiculous side argument nonsense and cloud the issue.

Were are talking about major reforms here, not relative minutiae.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

That's absolute nonsense. It was nonsense yesterday and it was nonsense the day before too and you know it is nonsense as well. You keep coming up with this and it still isn't any use. I just don't buy, as you claim to, that given the choice the majority of Europeans would turn down a vote on EU reforms. I find position wholly disingenuous.

Do you? That, in turn, is rather disingenuous of you. Yours was the original claim that everyone in Europe wanted referendums, and were being denied them - and that that, in turn, is a reason to vote No (and never mind the logic of that, since whether you vote Yes or No, you're making the choice for them).

The converse point is that most people in Europe aren't really bothered. I think, as I've said, that that's what the evidence shows, and a point you haven't addressed, because you prefer your straw man that we want to deny people the vote. The real point is that other countries don't have referendums, and that they seem to be happy enough with that.

So the argument that we should vote No because people are being denied democracy relies on imposing your view of what they should want on the situation, and then voting the way you think we should. That's not democracy - it's special pleading.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you? That, in turn, is rather disingenuous of you. Yours was the original claim that everyone in Europe wanted referendums, and were being denied them - and that that, in turn, is a reason to vote No (and never mind the logic of that, since whether you vote Yes or No, you're making the choice for them).

The converse point is that most people in Europe aren't really bothered. I think, as I've said, that that's what the evidence shows, and a point you haven't addressed, because you prefer your straw man that we want to deny people the vote. The real point is that other countries don't have referendums, and that they seem to be happy enough with that.

So the argument that we should vote No because people are being denied democracy relies on imposing your view of what they should want on the situation, and then voting the way you think we should. That's not democracy - it's special pleading.

regards,
Scofflaw

I haven't met a single person who has been even remotely comfortable with the fact that the people of Europe have been denied a say on Lisbon.

Except a couple of 'Yes' campers here.

A poll, last year, published in L’Humanité stated that 59% per cent of respondents wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, with 33% saying they were comfortable with their government ratifying it. I presume 8% were undecided.

That's significant.

But this isn't just about Lisbon. It's about the democratic best practice of putting the issues before a public vote.

I don't but what you and Oscarbravo are so desparate to push.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

The Dutch CAN have referenda. They had one in 2005 for the EU Constitution.

They voted 'No'.

Their Government ignored that (as they can by Dutch law, incredibly).

Hence the problem. Not only can the Dutch government ignore the referendum, they're required by law to ignore it, as the ratification of treaties is the sole competence of Parliament. Therefore - logically - it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to have a referendum on the subject.

Except, of course Ireland, who has it written in the constitution that referenda must be held by the people when major reforms are submitted.

I can't recall ever seeing that in the constitution. Can you quote the relevant article?

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Nobody mentioned "finance bills" except you. As a way to introduce ridiculous side argument nonsense and cloud the issue.

Were are talking about major reforms here, not relative minutiae.

Leaving aside the rather bizarre characterisation of finance bills as "minutiae", you claimed in this thread that most people want to vote on every bill that their respective parliaments pass. Are you trying to distance yourself from that claim?

By the way, any chance you could stop the arm-waving about "nonsense" and "idiocy" and have a grown-up discussion?

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

I haven't met a single person who has been even remotely comfortable with the fact that the people of Europe have been denied a say on Lisbon.

Except a couple of 'Yes' campers here.

A poll, last year, published in L’Humanité stated that 59% per cent of respondents wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, with 33% saying they were comfortable with their government ratifying it. I presume 8% were undecided.

Presumably, then, you haven't met any of the 33%?

Tony EH wrote: »

That's significant.

But this isn't just about Lisbon. It's about the democratic best practice of putting the issues before a public vote.

I don't but what you and Oscarbravo are so desparate to push.

I don't really hold with the idea of imposing my views of what democracy should be on other countries - it's an idea quite recently demonstrated to be a bad one.

All of that aside, voting No to Lisbon will not have any effect on whether the other EU member states hold referendums for EU treaties - because it's not in the power of the EU to decide. If anything, one would expect it to have the opposite effect.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hence the problem. Not only can the Dutch government ignore the referendum, they're required by law to ignore it,

Where does it say that?

If that is the case, then why did they have a referendum in 2005?

Not only that, but the Dutch Government stated that it would conform to the peoples decision, provided the turnout was about a certain percent. 30 or 40 per cent or so.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

you claimed in this thread that most people want to vote on every bill that their respective parliaments pass. Are you trying to distance yourself from that claim?

Where?

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presumably, then, you haven't met any of the 33%?

Hardly surprising, since they're the minority.


:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Tony EH wrote:

I haven't met a single person who has been even remotely comfortable with the fact that the people of Europe have been denied a say on Lisbon.

Hello.

Tony EH wrote:

Except a couple of 'Yes' campers here.

Wait, so Yes campainers aren't People ?

Tony EH wrote:

A poll, last year, published in L’Humanité stated that 59% per cent of respondents wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, with 33% saying they were comfortable with their government ratifying it. I presume 8% were undecided.

Link ?

Tony EH wrote:

But this isn't just about Lisbon. It's about the democratic best practice of putting the issues before a public vote.

Actualy Lisbon isn't radical enough to warrent a referendum, it's only by the good grace of the Government that people like you are even getting a say to begin with.

Tony EH wrote:

Hardly surprising, since they're the minority

So you have met less than 3 people in your whole life ? That must explain your narrow minded Euroskeptic views.

conchubhar1

''vote on every bill'' and ''a say on lisbon''


by dad - they are the same thing.......

Iwasfrozen

conchubhar1 wrote: »

''vote on every bill'' and ''a say on lisbon''

In what way are they the same thing ?

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Presumably, then, you haven't met any of the 33%?

Hardly surprising, since they're the minority.


:rolleyes:

A word to the wise: first do the arithmetic, then add the smiley.

Better yet, answer the points!

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

they aren't but oscarbravo was stating that s/he stated that people want all laws passed to be put to referendum

what was said and what was reported as said are different

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they aren't but oscarbravo was stating that s/he stated that people want all laws passed to be put to referendum

what was said and what was reported as said are different

Actually, OB was challenging the statement that people always want a vote on decisions. That was being put forward as a 'self-evident truth', and OB is merely demonstrating its absurdity.

If someone wants to claim that the majority of people in Europe want to vote on Lisbon, and are being denied that vote by (presumably) their governments, they need to demonstrate that (both parts) as a fact, not merely make it as an assertion.

It's not an assertion I have a particular issue with most of the time, but here it's being put forward as a reason for voting a particular way in our own referendum.

My own take on the situation is that the majority of people in Europe don't particularly care, and I base that on the low turnout in the euro elections, and the low level of interest in Europe in general. While I don't by any stretch think that's a good thing for democracy, any kind of claim that "the majority really want x" when there's no actual evidence is something I'd be inclined to dismiss, because in the absence of evidence, one can claim anything one likes (a point OB has also made a reductio ad absurdum on).

Just to be clear - and making it obvious that this is a purely baseless claim - what is to stop me claiming that the majority of people in Europe "really" want Lisbon passed? I can offer the same level of evidence (none) that have been offered for the contrary claim. It's irrelevant whether you believe the claim or not, what's important is that I'm offering no evidence for it - and the same is true of the claim that "most Europeans oppose Lisbon". Where is the evidence?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

A word to the wise: first do the arithmetic, then add the smiley.

Better yet, answer the points!

cordially,
Scofflaw

If 59% are in favor of...

and 33% are not...

That makes the 33% the minority view.

I would therefore be more likely to meet people from the 59% bracket.

And I have answered your points.

Iwasfrozen

33% is one in three.
If you haven't meet one of those 33% then one can assume you haven't met three people in your entire life.

conchubhar1

scofflaw - the beauty of an opinion
make that claim should you so wish...


i feel necessary to state this just in case - voting yes or no for any reason not solely based on the thing at hand is absurd
so in this case voting no because you view people as having been denied the right to vote is a bad way to vote on the lisbon treaty - but you are able to as that is your right (wether people view it as wrong or not)

conchubhar1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

33% is one in three.
If you haven't meet one of those 33% then one can assume you haven't met three people in your entire life.

''i understand statistics'' ^

that is not how stats work......

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

If 59% are in favor of...

and 33% are not...

That makes the 33% the minority view.

I would therefore be more likely to meet people from the 59% bracket.

And I have answered your points.

It makes the idea that you've yet to meet anyone from a group that comprises 33% of the population extremely unlikely, unless you have either a very small social circle, or a very selective one. It's like claiming that you've never met anyone from Munster, because they're in the minority in Ireland.

Nor have you addressed my points, let alone answered them:

1. Do you believe that imposing one's personal view of democracy on other countries is a good idea?

2. Do you understand that the EU doesn't have the power to decide which member states have referendums?

regards,
Scofflaw