reason for any lisbon referendum?

Tony EH

reunion wrote: »

Well thats how the people of EVERY other country in the EU seems to think is the correct way of doing it.

The people, or the governments? There's a huge difference.

reunion wrote: »

Also how do you know when you vote for someone in a general election that they will vote the way you like?

Yep, that's the point.

Look, you're happy with voting in someone that you hope will see things the same way on future issues that haven't been thought of yet.

I cannot take that seriously. Especially when we're taking about reform documents with a wide range of different measures like Lisbon.

cooperguy

Tony EH wrote: »

The people, or the governments? There's a huge difference.

The people, because at some stage the people agreed to that law, even if it went as far back as them accepting the constitution

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

The people, or the governments? There's a huge difference.



Yep, that's the point.

Look, you're happy with voting in someone that you hope will see things the same way on future issues that haven't been thought of yet.

I cannot take that seriously. Especially when we're taking about reform documents with a wide range of different measures like Lisbon.

Well, that is how representative democracy works. You vote in your preferred party/candidate without having any idea what the future will bring, or how exactly they'll vote - but you rely on your judgement of their judgement, their history, and their known stances on particular issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, that is how representative democracy works. You vote in your preferred party/candidate without having any idea what the future will bring, or how exactly they'll vote - but you rely on your judgement of their judgement and their known stances on particular issues.

The "representative democracy" argument is bunkum.

You vote people in based on the issues of the day. NOT issues that haven't even been thought of yet.

It's a completely specious argument.

There is no sound reason why items such as the Lisbon Treaty cannot be put to a democratic public vote.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

The "representative democracy" argument is bunkum.

You vote people in based on the issues of the day. NOT issues that haven't even been thought of yet.

It's a completely specious argument.

There is no sound reason why items such as the Lisbon Treaty cannot be put to a democratic public vote.

Actually, I'm afraid it's your argument that's bunkum. I think it's inarguable that we elect our politicians to decide on the expected as well as the unpredicted, because we obviously don't know everything that's going to happen when we vote. Plus, of course, if you can't predict the issues that will arise from Lisbon, how are you qualified to determine how you should vote on it anyway?

Or are you able to predict in advance every issue that will come up over a five-year term? Are you, perhaps, Mystic Meg?

amused,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, I'm afraid it's your argument that's bunkum. I think it's inarguable that we elect our politicians to decide on the expected as well as the unpredicted, because we obviously don't know everything that's going to happen when we vote. Plus, of course, if you can't predict the issues that will arise from Lisbon, how are you qualified to determine how you should vote on it anyway?

FFS, I'm not just talking the Lisbon Treaty. How can anyone predict what will be proposed in future EU reforms?

You know, I really am staggered that there are people trying to argue against a public vote on Lisbon. I find that truly incredible.

I still haven't heard a decent reason why there shouldn't be one.

passive

Tony EH wrote: »

I still haven't heard a decent reason why there shouldn't be one.

Gee, I wonder what could be stopping you from hearing decent reasons and/or sensible arguments...

Tony EH wrote: »

Ignored.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=157

:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

You know, I really am staggered that there are people trying to argue against a public vote on Lisbon. I find that truly incredible.

You have yet to explain why it's more important to vote on a relative minor EU treaty than any of the myriad things people delegate to their elected representatives.

turgon

Tony EH wrote: »

You know, I really am staggered that there are people trying to argue against a public vote on Lisbon. I find that truly incredible.

Im really staggered that people in Ireland are trying to dictate how other countries ratify international treaties.

The same people who would be, of course, up in arms for British intervention in the North.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

FFS, I'm not just talking the Lisbon Treaty. How can anyone predict what will be proposed in future EU reforms?

You know, I really am staggered that there are people trying to argue against a public vote on Lisbon. I find that truly incredible.

I still haven't heard a decent reason why there shouldn't be one.

That's because you haven't been listening, possibly - instead, you've taken yourself round to a position where you're claiming we shouldn't use representative democracy at all because we don't know how our representatives will vote on things that happen in the future.

If you've no idea what will be proposed in future EU reforms, you'd have to admit that you have equally no idea what will be proposed in future budgets (can anyone honestly claim to have been able to predict the most recent budget in June 2007?), or in future legislative cases (could you have predicted the current FF maneouvering in respect of imprisonment for debt?). Yet presumably you voted in 2007.

You're using an argument that's of such wide scope that it opposes the entire idea of representative democracy. We can't predict future EU reforms, but that's just one of a huge set of political events we can't predict. Various people have made the point to you that if we're prepared to trust our representatives with the power to decide on the rest of them, there's nothing bizarre about trusting them with the power to decide on EU treaties. We also, if it comes to it, trust them with the power to make every other treaty than the EU treaties. Last year we ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions - one of the first four countries to do so - without any outcry, without any referendum.

I would strenuously resist any attempt to change our ratification method from referendum to parliamentary, and I would completely support any move in any other European country to move to having referendums - the difference between our positions is that I don't think parliamentary ratification is somehow illegitimate, whereas you appear to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

But we're not talking about some domestic issue here, thought up by a single national ruling power of the day.

I've never said we "shouldn't use rep democracy". Representative democracy is ok, when you can vote out the party that's making a balls of things in the next general election and replace them with somebody else (to make a balls of things).

However, in the case of Europe, we are dealing people we (and consequently other nations) never voted for, making decisions that affect multiple countries.

Most people vote along party lines anyway, or because of tradition, in the hope that "their" party will do the right thing by them. However, I know FF'ers who are 'No' voters to Lisbon and don't agree with the (enforced) party line on the matter. They are happy to have a referendum on the matter (not so that it has to be done twice though).

I would strenuously resist any attempt to change our ratification method from referendum to parliamentary, and I would completely support any move in any other European country to move to having referendums

Well, then we find ourselves in agreement on that matter.

the difference between our positions is that I don't think parliamentary ratification is somehow illegitimate, whereas you appear to.

I never said it was entirely illegitimate. But I do find undemocratic in the case of Europe and especially when countries like France and Holland offered their people a referendum on matters previously, but are denying them now. It's especially galling that the likes of France etc are not getting a chance to vote is because their power establishment are afraid of getting an answer they don't like.

I cannot find that anything but undemocratic.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

But we're not talking about some domestic issue here, thought up by a single national ruling power of the day.

You insist there's a difference - others seem to disagree. If it's impact we're talking about, then I'd have to agree with OB that the budget probably has much more effect on my life than something like Lisbon. There's no a priori objection to your position that Lisbon is different, but I'd like to see your reasoning for viewing it as different.

Tony EH wrote: »

I've never said we "shouldn't use rep democracy". Representative democracy is ok, when you can vote out the party that's making a balls of things in the next general election and replace them with somebody else (to make a balls of things).

However, in the case of Europe, we are dealing people we (and consequently other nations) never voted for, making decisions that affect multiple countries.

OK - I take it that's an answer to the question above - that Lisbon is qualitatively different because it involves representatives from other countries, who aren't subject to our normal procedures of democratic accountability. If that is the argument, it's weak, because the involvement of other countries is irrelevant - our government signs on our behalf, and is subject to our control. We don't need to vote out the French government because our government negotiated poorly.

What you're asking for there is very similar to the idea of me wanting to be able to fire my wife's lawyer in a divorce case because my lawyer agreed to something her lawyer suggested - or to put it another way, we can't fire the union representatives because the government negotiates a poor deal with them.

Tony EH wrote: »

Most people vote along party lines anyway, or because of tradition, in the hope that "their" party will do the right thing by them. However, I know FF'ers who are 'No' voters to Lisbon and don't agree with the (enforced) party line on the matter. They are happy to have a referendum on the matter (not so that it has to be done twice though).

It's extremely easy to point to people who vote for a particular party but who don't agree with all their policies, which makes that point of no special significance. I vote Green, but I'm pro-nuclear. Should I therefore require every decision that the Greens make on energy to be subject to a referendum?

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, then we find ourselves in agreement on that matter.

I never thought we weren't.

Tony EH wrote: »

I never said it was entirely illegitimate. But I do find undemocratic in the case of Europe and especially when countries like France and Holland offered their people a referendum on matters previously, but are denying them now. It's especially galling that the likes of France etc are not getting a chance to vote is because their power establishment are afraid of getting an answer they don't like.

I cannot find that anything but undemocratic.

AKA illegitimate, but using the terminology du jour. Possibly you don't find it illegal, but you very clearly consider it illegitimate. Further, you apparently consider it relevant to our vote on Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

What you're asking for there is very similar to the idea of me wanting to be able to fire my wife's lawyer in a divorce case because my lawyer agreed to something her lawyer suggested

It's not similar at all. You're in a battle with your wifes lawyer. The 27 member states are not in a divorce case.

It's extremely easy to point to people who vote for a particular party but who don't agree with all their policies, which makes that point of no special significance. I vote Green, but I'm pro-nuclear. Should I therefore require every decision that the Greens make on energy to be subject to a referendum?

Probably not, didn't Eamonn Ryan say that the nuclear option should be looked at? That's a very bad analogy.

AKA illegitimate...

No...undemocratic.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not similar at all. You're in a battle with your wifes lawyer. The 27 member states are not in a divorce case.

No, they're in negotiation with each other, just as the lawyers are. You want to have a referendum on the basis that we don't control the other negotiating teams - the principle is the same. We control our negotiating team - the involvement of others is entirely irrelevant.

Tony EH wrote: »

Probably not, didn't Eamonn Ryan say that the nuclear option should be looked at? That's a very bad analogy.

You know what I'm saying is true - it's extremely rare for someone who votes for a given party to agree with all their policies. Don't try to wriggle out of it with specious little pedantries like that.

There's nothing special about an FF voter disagreeing with FF on Lisbon - it doesn't constitute an argument for a referendum any more than an FF voter disagreeing with FF on educational policy.

Tony EH wrote: »

No...undemocratic.

So it's entirely legitimate, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they're in negotiation with each other. You want to have a referendum on the basis that we don't control the other negotiating teams

No, a divorce case is rarely a negotiation. it's a bad analogy.

Also, I want the treaties such as Lisbon put to the people of Europe, because it's democratic. People should have their say whether they want the Lisbon reforms implemented or not.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You know what I'm saying is true - it's extremely rare for someone who votes for a given party to agree with all their policies. Don't try to wriggle out of it with specious little pedantries like that.

It's a bad analogy, Scofflaw. Simple as. Besides, if they feel that strongly about Green nuclear energy policy, they can vote the, out of government.

People across Europe, who may feel strongly about elements of the Lisbon treaty simply aren't getting a chance to vote on it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's nothing special about an FF voter disagreeing with FF on Lisbon - it doesn't constitute an argument for a referendum any more than an FF voter disagreeing with FF on educational policy.

Well it does. FF will lay out a broad policy at the time of election. The voter can choose to vote for them based on that policy. That policy may change, of the course, over the period of their tenure and the voter can get a chance to vote again in the next election.

Scofflaw wrote: »

So it's entirely legitimate, then?

It's undemocratic.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

No, a divorce case is rarely a negotiation.

You can't be serious?

Also, I want the treaties such as Lisbon put to the people of Europe, because it's democratic. People should have their say whether they want the Lisbon reforms implemented or not.

Letting people vote on Finance Bills would be democratic. Why don't you want that? People should have their say whether their taxes are increased or not.

People across Europe, who may feel strongly about elements of the Lisbon treaty simply aren't getting a chance to vote on it.

I didn't get to vote on whether the Irish Army would be deployed in peacekeeping roles - and that involves putting people's lives on the line!

How undemocratic is it that I don't get to vote on whether or not our armed forces are put at risk of being killed in a foreign country?

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

No, a divorce case is rarely a negotiation. it's a bad analogy.

Also, I want the treaties such as Lisbon put to the people of Europe, because it's democratic. People should have their say whether they want the Lisbon reforms implemented or not.

It's a bad analogy, Scofflaw. Simple as. Besides, if they feel that strongly about Green nuclear energy policy, they can vote the, out of government.

People across Europe, who may feel strongly about elements of the Lisbon treaty simply aren't getting a chance to vote on it.

Well it does. FF will lay out a broad policy at the time of election. The voter can choose to vote for them based on that policy. That policy may change, of the course, over the period of their tenure and the voter can get a chance to vote again in the next election.

It's undemocratic.

Hm. OK, we've hit a brick wall again. You won't admit to anything that contradicts you, whether analogy or argument, and you can't understand why people won't simply agree that you're right, since it's totally clear to you that you are.

You very obviously mean that parliamentary ratification is illegitimate compared to referendums, but you can't even admit to that, because you know that you have no right to call other people's mechanisms illegitimate, so you avoid the point. If being undemocratic doesn't make parliamentary ratification illegitimate, then there's no problem with it - but you don't mean that, and I've no interest in watching you wriggle round the point any further.

You're not here to discuss, really, are you? You're here to make your point, refuse all arguments against your point, and be dismissive of anyone else's view. We have a word for that - it's called 'soapboxing', and it's not a legitimate use of a discussion forum.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hm. OK, we've hit a brick wall again. You won't admit to anything that contradicts you, whether analogy or argument...

Balls.

It's not about "not admitting". I don't agree with your analogy. The EU is not a divorce case. It's a bad analogy.

Also, I never said anything about government ratification of EU treaties as being illegitimate. Even though you are trying desperately to force that word into my mouth.

But, in my opinion, it is an undemocratic second to direct will of the people through referenda.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Balls.

It's not about "not admitting". I don't agree with your analogy. The EU is not a divorce case. It's a bad analogy.

Any other negotiation situation will do as an analogy - including the other one I put forward, and which you've ignored. The point is the same either way - the involvement of negotiators apart from our elected representatives doesn't form any sort of reason to call a referendum, because, like all the other things you've used in support of your argument, they're routine.

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, I never said anything about government ratification of EU treaties as being illegitimate. Even though you are trying desperately to force that word into my mouth.

But, in my opinion, it is an undemocratic second to direct will of the people through referenda.

Well, I'm saying that you see it as a less legitimate alternative, but you're using the word democratic to avoid challenge. However, it's clear that you're using democracy (direct democracy) as a yardstick to measure legitimacy - you're very clearly not making a dispassionate observation here. That you put parliamentary ratification 'second' makes that clear.

I'll say it again - you're putting forward your claim, and rejecting or avoiding any discussion of it. You're soapboxing - and rudely, too.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Any other negotiation situation will do as an analogy - including the other one I put forward

I don't accept your analogy. It's a bad analogy.

Well, I'm saying that you see it as a less legitimate alternative...

You're free to think what you wish.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't accept your analogy. It's a bad analogy.

You don't accept anything that doesn't agree with your argument, though. You're unable or unwilling to refute the substantive points, so you've resorted to being both petty and sulky. It ain't pretty, but it ain't exactly novel either.

Tony EH wrote: »

You're free to think what you wish.

Very kind of you.

slight regards,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

You don't accept anything that doesn't agree with your argument, though. You're unable or unwilling to refute the substantive points, so you've resorted to being both petty and sulky. It ain't pretty, but it ain't exactly novel either.

I haven't "resorted" to anything of the sort.

I simply haven't seen a decent reason why it shouldn't be put to a democratic public vote.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

I haven't "resorted" to anything of the sort.

I simply haven't seen a decent reason why it shouldn't be put to a democratic public vote.

Or offered one why it should.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oberoth

[OK, Here this is the information on why Ireland needs a referendum]

In order for Ireland to ratify the lisbon treaty, Article 46 of the constitution of ireland declares that any ammendment to the constitution must be passed by both houses of the oireachtas (The Dáil and Seanaid) and then be put to referendum, after which if the people declare it is acceptable, the president signs it into affect.
[This somewhat explains why ireland has referendums regarding amendments, now for why we need an amendment in our constitution to ratify the lisbon treaty]

The requirment for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, comes from a Legal Supreme Court decision precedence regarding the 'Single European Act' (a major amendment to the Treaty of Rome). which ruled that any significant change to the Sovereignty of the Republic of Ireland requires an amendment to the constitution.

(and here are the two relevent articles of the constitution)
Article 46
1.Any provision of this Constitution may be amended, whether by way of variation, addition, or repeal, in the manner provided by this Article.
2.Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the time being in force relating to the Referendum.
3.Every such Bill shall be expressed to be "An Act to amend the Constitution".
4.A Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other proposal.
5.A Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution shall be signed by the President forthwith upon his being satisfied that the provisions of this Article have been complied with in respect thereof and that such proposal has been duly approved by the people in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Article 47 of this Constitution and shall be duly promulgated by the President as a law.


Article 47
1.Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment into law.
2.1° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register.
2° Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall for the purposes of Article 27 hereof be held to have been approved by the people unless vetoed by them in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing sub-section of this section.
3.Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum.
4.Subject as aforesaid, the Referendum shall be regulated by law.

[Regardless of what other countries want or do themselves, we are legaly bound to have our referendum. "This will only be by-passed by having the Lisbon Treaty passed"(opinion) ]
[This is my first post, I am not voicing opinion, merely fact]

PopeBuckfastXVI

Oberoth wrote: »

[we are legaly bound to have our referendum. This will only be by-passed by having the Lisbon Treaty passed]

That is not true, we will still be bound to have referenda for increasing EU competencies, after Lisbon, as before.

Nobody questioned why Ireland has a referendum, the question was why should any other country have a referendum.

Thanks for taking the time to look up the relevant articles though, even if it was answering the wrong question!

Oberoth

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That is not true, we will still be bound to have referenda for increasing EU competencies, after Lisbon, as before.

Nobody questioned why Ireland has a referendum, the question was why should any other country have a referendum.

Thanks for taking the time to look up the relevant articles though, even if it was answering the wrong question!

It was quite a general title so i thought i'd clear up the irish end of things,
It was a reference to the second post which stated that no-one knows which part of the lisbon treaty requires a referendum.

the self-amending clause allows the referendum to no longer be required.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Oberoth wrote: »

the self-amending clause allows the referendum to no longer be required.

That is not true... this has been dealt with many many times on this very forum, but here we go again...

Article 48 TEU, Post Lisbon wrote:

The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may
also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
9.5.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 115/41
Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may
submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia,
serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These
proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall
be notified.
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts
by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the
European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national
Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament
and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional
changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall
adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the
Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European
Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed
amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a
conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by
the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be
made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with
their respective constitutional requirements.
5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member
States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with
ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.
Simplified revision procedures
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may
submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the
Union.
The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after
consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case
of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is
approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on
the Union in the Treaties.
C 115/42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 9.5.2008
7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides
for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision
authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph
shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.
Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted
by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a
decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall
be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six
months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the
second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may
adopt the decision.
For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European
Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be
given by a majority of its component members.

I've bolded the important part.

If you do a search for 'self-amending' on this forum, you'll probably find the same thing several times.

smithcity

Voting yes would be a wonderful way to prove that democracy is well and truely dead, since clearly our no vote was discarded by a government that took "No" to mean, "We're just too ignorant to do what we're told"

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

Voting yes would be a wonderful way to prove that democracy is well and truely dead, since clearly our no vote was discarded by a government that took "No" to mean, "We're just too ignorant to do what we're told"

So you've no opinion on the subject matter of this thread? Or even on the subject matter of the Lisbon Treaty?

Oberoth

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That is not true... this has been dealt with many many times on this very forum, but here we go again...



I've bolded the important part.

If you do a search for 'self-amending' on this forum, you'll probably find the same thing several times.

Very well, Comment withdrawn with regard to this. (for the sake of continuity. I wont actualy Remove the line from my previous post.

Although I doubt this treaty leaves the EU needing anymore increases to competencies.