reason for any lisbon referendum?

conchubhar1

having met them, and having met and discussed or found out their political beliefs are two different things

meeting someone from munster often is obvious because of accent - beliefs or outlooks are ''deeper'' and not as obvious

Iwasfrozen

conchubhar1 wrote: »

''i understand statistics'' ^

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

It's not ? :eek:
Then would you mind telling me how stats do work ?
[/sarcasm]

conchubhar1

well it was quite a wrong claim or a badly composed ''joke''

33% = 1 in 3 does not mean that every one in 3 believes that certain comment or statement or whatever.....

Iwasfrozen

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well it was quite a wrong claim or a badly composed ''joke''

33% = 1 in 3 does not mean that every one in 3 believes that certain comment or statement or whatever.....

No, but statisticaly one in three people would share that view.
As I said if Tony hadn't met any one who shares that view then one can assume that he has met less then three people in his life.

Johnboy1951

Let me first say that for what is below I have no reference, except my memory ... so treat it as you wish.

During the first Lisbon referendum I recall reading that we require a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because we need to alter our rights under our constitution, and to do so requires a referendum.

It is my understanding that if we vote yes then we are granting our elected representatives power to sign significant treaties on our behalf, which apparently they were told by their legal consultants, they presently do not have.
Further, if I am remembering correctly, after this referendum passes, EU laws that are applied here will no longer be challengeable under our constitution.

Now without access to the material that was available at the time of the last referendum, I can do no more than express the above as an unfounded opinion.

The only reason I posted was to try, as best I could, to help answer the original question, or at minimum to point in a particular direction which may answer the question.

As I said I have no grounds/links/articles to refer to, but I feel sure that if someone is interested enough, my failing memory can be shown for what it is.

Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, but statisticaly one in three people would share that view.
As I said if Tony hadn't met any one who shares that view then one can assume that he has met less then three people in his life.

Well, for fun, the chances of everyone Tony meets being of the majority persuasion go as follows:

1 person | 59.00%
2 person | 34.81%
3 person | 20.54%
4 person | 12.12%
5 person | 7.15%
6 person | 4.22%
7 person | 2.49%
8 person | 1.47%
9 person | 0.87%
10 person | 0.51%
11 person | 0.30%
12 person | 0.18%


By the time Tony has met a dozen randomly selected people, there's only a 0.18% chance of them all sharing the majority opinion. Of course, that's not how it works in real life, because people know people like themselves, generally. However, it does rather make the point that if I say everyone I know is a Yes voter (not actually true), then all I'm telling you is something about myself - it's entirely without value as evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

The only absurdity is the position you and Oscarbravo hold.

Besides, nobody said the above.

What I said was, "the vast majority of European people would have liked a chance to vote on Lisbon in the first place".

You have misunderstood the point, or you have deliberately misquoted it to confuse the issue.

Many people, as I have said, may not want vote on particular items. But they would like their choice to vote intact. They may not give a damn about Lisbon, but they may very well care about the next set of reforms that the Eurocrats propose.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

Of course they're being denied a vote. That whole paragraph is just silly.

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.

There's plenty of evidence. The 'No' votes on the EU Constitution from France and Holland (many people feel that Lisbon is the EU Constitution tweaked). The Irish 'No' vote. The overwhelming suspicion that, if granted a vote, the British would return a 'No'...and finally the very fact that European governments are not giving their electorate the chance to vote on Lisbon, because they fear that they would be returned with an answer they don't want to hear.

And yes, let's be clear, because both you and Oscarbravo have done your best to muddy the issue. My objection isn't about a 'Yes' or 'No' return. It's also not about the majority of the votes being one way or the other. It's about giving the people of Europe the chance to decide, democratically, whether they want the treaties, etc, passed or not.

Scofflaw

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Let me first say that for what is below I have no reference, except my memory ... so treat it as you wish.

Actually, I imagine you were told exactly this kind of thing...however, it isn't accurate.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

During the first Lisbon referendum I recall reading that we require a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because we need to alter our rights under our constitution, and to do so requires a referendum.

Not quite - we require a referendum if a treaty impinges on our sovereignty. That's because Bunreacht states that sovereignty comes from the people, so our elected government can't sign up to something that affects it without the consent of the people. The requirement is the result of the Crotty case against the government's ratification (through the Dáil) of the Single European Act, and the particular point at issue was that the SEA obliged the government to consider the interests of the other member states in formulating Irish foreign policy.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is my understanding that if we vote yes then we are granting our elected representatives power to sign significant treaties on our behalf, which apparently they were told by their legal consultants, they presently do not have.

Not at all! We'd be allowing the government to ratify Lisbon, and Lisbon alone.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Further, if I am remembering correctly, after this referendum passes, EU laws that are applied here will no longer be challengeable under our constitution.

Again, no. We passed that into our Constitution when we joined the EU in 1973. It's Article 26.4.10 of the Constitution:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

You can read it here.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Now without access to the material that was available at the time of the last referendum, I can do no more than express the above as an unfounded opinion.

The only reason I posted was to try, as best I could, to help answer the original question, or at minimum to point in a particular direction which may answer the question.

As I said I have no grounds/links/articles to refer to, but I feel sure that if someone is interested enough, my failing memory can be shown for what it is.

Those claims were all made at the referendum. They were false, though, and they remain false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

This is another example of you derailing the thread with sillyness.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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?

This is a non-issue.

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

This is another non-issue.

opo

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Just like any license, it matters little what is eventually actualised. The rights sell on their own merits and expectations and it is up to the purchaser to maximise the return.


I think of 3G in the UK for an example of how you can rake in the cash on rights alone regardless of losses due to lack of foresight.

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, for fun, the chances of everyone Tony meets being of the majority persuasion go as follows:

1 person | 59.00%
2 person | 34.81%
3 person | 20.54%
4 person | 12.12%
5 person | 7.15%
6 person | 4.22%
7 person | 2.49%
8 person | 1.47%
9 person | 0.87%
10 person | 0.51%
11 person | 0.30%
12 person | 0.18%

By the time Tony has met a dozen randomly selected people, there's only a 0.18% chance of them all sharing the majority opinion. Of course, that's not how it works in real life, because people know people like themselves, generally. However, it does rather make the point that if I say everyone I know is a Yes voter (not actually true), then all I'm telling you is something about myself - it's entirely without value as evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And another example of injecting pointless nonsense to cloud the issue.

Tony EH

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, but statisticaly one in three people would share that view.
As I said if Tony hadn't met any one who shares that view then one can assume that he has met less then three people in his life.

That's one in three people from x amount of people polled in France.

Jesus H Christ...... :rolleyes:

Dinner

Tony EH wrote: »

That's one in three people from x amount of people polled in France.

Jesus H Christ...... :rolleyes:

Which is generally accepted as being statistically accurate (To within a few %) when scaled up to larger groups.

Or do you feel, as conchubhar does, that statistics are just an indicator.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

The only absurdity is the position you and Oscarbravo hold.

Besides, nobody said the above.

What I said was, "the vast majority of European people would have liked a chance to vote on Lisbon in the first place".

You have misunderstood the point, or you have deliberately misquoted it to confuse the issue.

Many people, as I have said, may not want vote on particular items. But they would like their choice to vote intact. They may not give a damn about Lisbon, but they may very well care about the next set of reforms that the Eurocrats propose.

That claim is exactly the claim I have addressed, and opposed, on the reasonable basis that you have offered no evidence for it whatsoever. If you want to show me some evidence that what you say is true, I'll happily consider it.

I would add to that the point that many people, when given a yes/no cost-free choice like "vote/no vote", will happily say "vote", but if you asked them to spend a euro to do so, wouldn't. Many a marketing campaign has fallen on stony soil because people fail to distinguish between "would prefer of the two options" and "actually care".

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course they're being denied a vote. That whole paragraph is just silly.

They can't be denied a vote if they don't have a vote, unless their constitutions are wrong. Italians run Italy, and Italians decided the Italian Constitution, and that Constitution specifically rules out the use of referendums for ratifying international treaties. You can say that's wrong if you like, but all you;re saying is that the Italians should do what you say, not what they say. I can't for the life of me understand how you confuse that position with democracy.

Tony EH wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence. The 'No' votes on the EU Constitution from France and Holland (many people feel that Lisbon is the EU Constitution tweaked). The Irish 'No' vote. The overwhelming suspicion that, if granted a vote, the British would return a 'No'...and finally the very fact that European governments are not giving their electorate the chance to vote on Lisbon, because they fear that they would be returned with an answer they don't want to hear.[?QUOTE]

It's been pointed out repeatedly that the vast majority of EU member states have never used referendums for EU treaties. There's no "not giving their electorate a chance" because there's nobody calling for referendums in those countries.

Tony EH wrote: »

And yes, let's be clear, because both you and Oscarbravo have done your best to muddy the issue. My objection isn't about a 'Yes' or 'No' return. It's also not about the majority of the votes being one way or the other. It's about giving the people of Europe the chance to decide, democratically, whether they want the treaties, etc, passed or not.

No, it's about people here wanting to decide how other European countries vote. You want to dictate how other European countries vote, and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever why you should do so. Their democracies are their democracies. Not yours.

What exactly is your difficulty with that very simple point?

regards,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

All polls are a snapshot in time.

I simply introduced the CSA poll to show that their was French sentiment for a vote on Lisbon.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

This is another example of you derailing the thread with sillyness.

This is a non-issue.

This is another non-issue.

No, Tony, this is another example of you not addressing people who point out the flaws in your position. Debate the points others raise - it's a discussion forum, not a soapbox.

Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

That claim is exactly the claim I have addressed, and opposed...

You misquoted what I said. I corrected you. Nobody mentioned "always".

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would add to that the point that many people, when given a yes/no cost-free choice like "vote/no vote", will happily say "vote", but if you asked them to spend a euro to do so, wouldn't. Many a marketing campaign has fallen on stony soil because people fail to distinguish between "would prefer of the two options" and "actually care".

That's meaningless to the issue at hand.

Scofflaw wrote: »

They can't be denied a vote if they don't have a vote...

There is evidence that the people of France wanted a referendum on Lisbon. There is evidence that people want a referendum in Britain. They are being denied an oportunity to vote. The same can be said of Holland, who were given a referendum on the EU Constitution (in which 65% turned out), but are denied that same oportunity for Lisbon.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's been pointed out repeatedly that the vast majority of EU member states have never used referendums for EU treaties

That doesn't mean a damn thing.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it's about people here wanting to decide how other European countries vote. You want to dictate how other European countries vote, and there's absolutely no reason whatsoever why you should do so. Their democracies are their democracies. Not yours.

What exactly is your difficulty with that very simple point?

It's not about dictating to othe rnations. It's about other Nation's listening to the will of their electorate. There's evidence that at least the French would like a vote. The British would like a vote. We're happy with our ability to vote (even if it is ignored) and the Dutch turned out to vote on the EU Constitution to the tune of 65%, which suggests that they too quite like having their say.

You're simply happy, because the governments of Europe are voting in the same way you wish.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be signing a very different tune though.

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, Tony, this is another example of you not addressing people who point out the flaws in your position. Debate the points others raise - it's a discussion forum, not a soapbox.

Scofflaw

I have no interest in wasting time with non sequiturs.

Scofflaw

You're simply happy, because the governments of Europe are voting in the same way you wish.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be signing a very different tune though.

So you keep saying - and since you're neither inclined to discuss others points, nor have any truck with evidence, I won't bother arguing the toss with you. I had enough of that kind of thing on the Creationist thread.

I have no interest in wasting time with non sequiturs.

Then I have good news for you - you're no longer wasting mine.

Scofflaw

Tony EH

No, we probably will have to agree to disagree on the matter. Because I don't think we will see eye to eye.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

No, we probably will have to agree to disagree on the matter. Because I don't think we will see eye to eye.

It's slightly hard to simply agree to disagree when you're telling me what I would do under your circumstances, but it's better than wasting time on it. Fair enough - you see me as anti-democratic for wishing to deny people a vote, I see you as anti-democratic for wishing to impose your views on other people. So let it rest!

cordially,
Scofflaw

opo

opo wrote: »

Just like any license, it matters little what is eventually actualised. The rights sell on their own merits and expectations and it is up to the purchaser to maximise the return.


I think of 3G in the UK for an example of how you can rake in the cash on rights alone regardless of losses due to lack of foresight.

So Scof, did we get a good deal or sell ourselves short?

Johnboy1951

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, I imagine you were told exactly this kind of thing...however, it isn't accurate.



Not quite - we require a referendum if a treaty impinges on our sovereignty. That's because Bunreacht states that sovereignty comes from the people, so our elected government can't sign up to something that affects it without the consent of the people. The requirement is the result of the Crotty case against the government's ratification (through the Dáil) of the Single European Act, and the particular point at issue was that the SEA obliged the government to consider the interests of the other member states in formulating Irish foreign policy.

Thanks for the correction.

Not at all! We'd be allowing the government to ratify Lisbon, and Lisbon alone.

I guess I will have to wait to read the wording of the referendum to be certain in my own mind. I cannot say it as a certainty but I recall interpreting it otherwise -- as applying to future situations, not just the Lisbon Treaty.

Again, no. We passed that into our Constitution when we joined the EU in 1973. It's Article 26.4.10 of the Constitution:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

You can read it here.

I will have to look again tomorrow, as I cannot find the part you quoted tonight .... only found 26.3 1,2 & 3 ..... no 26.4
What am I missing?
It reminds me of what I recall in the failed referendum ....

Those claims were all made at the referendum. They were false, though, and they remain false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you for the reply.

Regards.

John

Scofflaw

opo wrote: »

So Scof, did we get a good deal or sell ourselves short?

Well, purely on the fish versus EU transfers, it was a pretty good deal. You could argue that since $7.5 bn is the catch value, we could easily have doubled or trebled that with a fish processing industry....but you can make exactly the same point about the EU transfers. Slightly more so, in fact, since money poured into farming, which has longer value chains than fishing, would have a higher multiplier.

Of course, it wasn't necessarily a good deal for Irish fishing communities - but even there, given that the EU paid for most of our fisheries protection fleet, and also applies the negotiating muscle that keeps the Russians out of our waters, it's not the worst deal in the world either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Johnboy1951

Reference of Bills to the Supreme Court
Article 26
This Article applies to any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas other than a Money Bill, or a Bill expressed to be a Bill containing a proposal to amend the Constitution, or a Bill the time for the consideration of which by Seanad Éireann shall have been abridged under Article 24 of this Constitution.
1. 1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, refer any Bill to which this Article applies to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question as to whether such Bill or any specified provision or provisions of such Bill is or are repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof.
2° Every such reference shall be made not later than the seventh day after the date on which such Bill shall have been presented by the Taoiseach to the President for his signature.
3° The President shall not sign any Bill the subject of a reference to the Supreme Court under this Article pending the pronouncement of the decision of the Court.
2. 1° The Supreme Court consisting of not less than five judges shall consider every question referred to it by the President under this Article for a decision, and, having heard arguments by or on behalf of the Attorney General and by counsel assigned by the Court, shall pronounce its decision on such question in open court as soon as may be, and in any case not later than sixty days after the date of such reference.
2° The decision of the majority of the judges of the Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of this Article, be the decision of the Court and shall be pronounced by such one of those judges as the Court shall direct, and no other opinion, whether assenting or dissenting, shall be pronounced nor shall the existence of any such other opinion be disclosed.
3. 1° In every case in which the Supreme Court decides that any provision of a Bill the subject of a reference to the Supreme Court under this Article is repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof, the President shall decline to sign such Bill.
2° If, in the case of a Bill to which Article 27 of this Constitution applies, a petition has been addressed to the President under that Article, that Article shall be complied with.
3° In every other case the President shall sign the Bill as soon as may be after the date on which the decision of the Supreme Court shall have been pronounced.


Reference of Bills to the People
Article 27

@ Scofflaw

I have quoted article 26 in full above which I found from your link given earlier.
I have been unable to find any Article 26.4 in the document, that you tell me is there since 1973.

Maybe you would be so kind as to point to it's location in the document as I have failed to find it.

As I mentioned, the 26.4.10 text you quoted seems to be similar to what I was asked to vote on in the last referendum which was not carried.

I should be grateful if you or someone else will point me in the right direction to the article holding the text you quoted:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

The above text clearly states that no provision of our Constitution can be used to invalidate, or prevent the enactment, of any law brought forward by a competent body of the EU. Neither can the Constitution be used to prevent anything adopted by the EU from having the force of law in this State.

It is my understanding that this is one of the changes that will be made if we vote Yes to the referendum.

If I am mistaken and this is already in our constitution then please someone show me where.

Thank you.

John.

Scofflaw

Apologies - it's 29.4.10, not 26.4.10.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Johnboy1951

Edited due to above response

Thanks for posting the correction Scofflaw.

Regards,

John

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's slightly hard to simply agree to disagree when you're telling me what I would do under your circumstances, but it's better than wasting time on it. Fair enough - you see me as anti-democratic for wishing to deny people a vote, I see you as anti-democratic for wishing to impose your views on other people. So let it rest!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Right, I'm not letting that horseshit go.

I am NOT imposing anything.

I am making the point that there is at least some sentiment for a referendum on Lisbon. I believe it can and should be put to a democratic vote by the so-called democratic EU states, like the EU Constitution was.

It's not, because respective governments are afraid of a 'No' vote.

I find that wholly undemocratic and a worrying precedent for the future of the EU. If major reforms are being touted, that will change how countries operate, then THAT should go to the population of those countries for approval.

That is a fundamental principle of the "democracy" that the EU says it's so proud of.

Another thing. I don't see you as "undemocratic." I see you as going ridiculous hoops because you are so firmly entrenched in 'Yes' camp, that you are willing to pull up all sorts on bullshit to see it get put though. I find your comments about a lack of a public vote, incredibly blase and nonchalant, because you are in the 'Yes' camp and suspect (as I would say many readers do) that you WOULD be signing a different tune if the circumstance was reversed.

That's why I find you position on the matter disagreeable.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Right, I'm not letting that horseshit go.

I am NOT imposing anything.

I am making the point that there is at least some sentiment for a referendum on Lisbon. I believe it can and should be put to a democratic vote by the so-called democratic EU states, like the EU Constitution was.

It's not, because respective governments are afraid of a 'No' vote.

I find that wholly undemocratic and a worrying precedent for the future of the EU. If major reforms are being touted, that will change how countries operate, then THAT should go to the population of those countries for approval.

That is a fundamental principle of the "democracy" that the EU says it's so proud of.

Another thing. I don't see you as "undemocratic." I see you as going ridiculous hoops because you are so firmly entrenched in 'Yes' camp, that you are willing to pull up all sorts on bullshit to see it get put though. I find your comments about a lack of a public vote, incredibly blase and nonchalant, because you are in the 'Yes' camp and suspect (as I would say many readers do) that you WOULD be signing a different tune if the circumstance was reversed.

That's why I find you position on the matter disagreeable.

Tell you what - and I'm sure you'll feel this is an abuse of position - how about you stop calling things you disagree with "horseshit" and other scatological terms. You disagree with me - that's all you need to say to me or to any other poster. Keep it polite, or take it somewhere else.

Complaints to the Help Desk as usual.

moderately,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Where?

Post #49 on this thread. I said:

If you asked the average European whether he or she would like to have to vote on every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament, I suspect they would rather leave that to their elected representatives - that is, after all, precisely why they elected them.

You replied:

SOME would. But most people would choose the right to have a say on the matter.

You cannot get away from that, no matter what hoops you try and jump through to suit your present argument.