Poland: Please, say No to Lisbon Treaty

Iwasfrozen

Will OscarBravo or Scofflaw check his/her IP adress, I have a strong suspiction that Almanac is Mayo1.

oscarBravo

If you have a problem with a post or poster, please use the "report post" function instead of commenting in-thread, thanks.

Euro_Kraut

Almanac wrote: »

The very fact that the rest of Europe is being denied a say is enough to vote no before even looking at the contents.

Your desire an increase in direct democracy across the European Union is admirable. However, the question on the ballot paper in October will be 'Do you support the ratificaiton of the Lisbon treaty' and not 'Would you like to see more referendum in other EU states'.

turgon

^ True, and the fact is that if you vote No this situation will not change.

Almanac

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm interested to know how Lisbon is momentous, as compared against Rome, Amsterdam, Maastricht?

If anything I would have thought it pretty tame?

Can you clarify please?

Among other things, Lisbon gives the EU full legal personality and corporate identity, it formally states the supremacy of EU law and it gives formal structure to its institutions. Most importantly it makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, which will lead to conflict with the constitutions of member states. It's no use waffling about limitations in the ECJ's sphere of action. There are dozens of ways in which the Court can and will intervene, for example, when conflict occurs in the value systems of two states resulting from one national moving somewhere else. The Charter will be the frame of reference and the ECJ's interpretations will be determinative. It is a legal timebomb unless you agree with handing over to unelected judges the right to determine and standardise legal rights across the EU. Articles 51 and 53 are almost identical to the 9th and 10th amendments to the US constitution and will be about as effective in restraining centralisation.

Almanac

Scofflaw wrote: »

They will be doing so, of course, Countries ratify according to their constitutional requirements, and their elected governments then face their voters in the usual way. Why do you feel Lisbon should be different from any other policy decision?

If voters around Europe are "opposed to Lisbon" - as we are constantly told, albeit without any evidence - and if it is important to them - as we are told it is - then any government ratifying the Treaty can expect a thorough drubbing at the next election - right?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A direct decision is required where possible for the assent to the ceding of sovereignty.

Almanac

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Will OscarBravo or Scofflaw check his/her IP adress, I have a strong suspiction that Almanac is Mayo1.

No I'm not.

Almanac

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused. Are you arguing that only the Irish people can give permission for Polish sovereignty to be ceded?

Or are you just another in a long line of people arguing that we need to respect the sovereignty of other countries by dictating to them how they should manage their affairs?

Well we wouldn't be dictating to them certainly, the object of these criticisms would be the elected representatives who are happy to sign away their countries' sovereignty without referring to their electorates. In fact ordinary people want to be consulted as polls indicate, such as the most recent in Germany indicating 77% want a say. Since sovereignty in democracies lies with the people, only the people really are entitled to assent to its surrender, not elected representatives going beyond their remit.

oscarBravo

Almanac wrote: »

It is a legal timebomb unless you agree with handing over to unelected judges the right to determine and standardise legal rights across the EU.

Yeah, because we don't let no unelected judges make binding decisions on legal matters in this country. No siree bob.

Almanac wrote: »

A direct decision is required where possible for the assent to the ceding of sovereignty.

Required by whom? You?

Almanac

Scofflaw wrote: »

They will be doing so, of course, Countries ratify according to their constitutional requirements, and their elected governments then face their voters in the usual way. Why do you feel Lisbon should be different from any other policy decision?

If voters around Europe are "opposed to Lisbon" - as we are constantly told, albeit without any evidence - and if it is important to them - as we are told it is - then any government ratifying the Treaty can expect a thorough drubbing at the next election - right?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Unfortunately the next election will be far too late to reverse the decision taken previously.

Remember that the Lisbon Treaty was framed precisely in order to obviate the need for referendums. As Amato said, the good thing about not calling it a constitution is that you don't have to have a referendum on it. However its purpose and effects are the same. They have the same foundational and constitutional effect as the European Constitution, albeit with the superficial bits removed (but which are still there though without a formal legal basis).

Almanac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, because we don't let no unelected judges make binding decisions on legal matters in this country. No siree bob.

Well they are Irish not European judges and we can reverse the decisions in referendums if necessary. Unlike with the ECJ.

Required by whom? You?

No required by reality. It's a moral imperative. You can't hand over something you don't own.

oscarBravo

Almanac wrote: »

Well we wouldn't be dictating to them certainly...

Could have fooled me. I'm seeing an awful lot of people lately saying that the mechanisms other countries use to ratify treaties is wrong, and that they should do it our way (which is, naturally, the perfect way, as Ireland epitomises everything that is best practice in everything we do).

In fact ordinary people want to be consulted as polls indicate, such as the most recent in Germany indicating 77% want a say.

I'm sure those 77% will be kick-starting the process of changing the legal mechanism by which Germany ratifies treaties, so.

Any day now.

Real soon.

Since sovereignty in democracies lies with the people, only the people really are entitled to assent to its surrender, not elected representatives going beyond their remit.

The point you and others seem to miss is that the sovereignty in a democracy lies with the people of that democracy, and not with anybody else. If the German people are unhappy with their country's mechanism for ratifying treaties, then they have both the right and the duty to do what it takes to bring about that change.

Unless you're a German citizen, it's none of your business, nor is it any of mine, and the question of how Germany does or should ratify treaties will have no bearing on my vote in the upcoming Lisbon referendum - and nor should it influence yours.

View

Almanac wrote: »

A direct decision is required where possible for the assent to the ceding of sovereignty.

No it isn't. Some member states have constitutions that explicitly state their Parliaments have the sole right to cede sovereignty. In their systems, it is Parliament that is sovereign. Those states are not going to re-write their constitutions just to keep you happy.

Furthermore, the referendum in Ireland contained few arguments by either the pro or con for the cases where Lisbon did actually result in a "ceding" of sovereignty (i.e. areas such as space policy or trans-european (energy) networks). That, of course, fatally undermines the case for a "direct decision", since if people don't actually understand what the issues are, it it hard to make the case that the result is a definitve answer either way.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote:

The point you and others seem to miss is that the sovereignty in a democracy lies with the people of that democracy, and not with anybody else. If the German people are unhappy with their country's mechanism for ratifying treaties, then they have both the right and the duty to do what it takes to bring about that change.

Unless you're a German citizen, it's none of your business, nor is it any of mine, and the question of how Germany does or should ratify treaties will have no bearing on my vote in the upcoming Lisbon referendum - and nor should it influence yours.

I think that covers the main points very well. Other countries' ratification mechanisms are their business, not ours, and the issue has absolutely nothing to do with how Irish people should vote on Lisbon, because it has nothing to do with Lisbon.

Aside from anything else, it means that we should have voted no to all the preceding EU treaties as well. I wonder if that's accidental? Almanac, have you ever voted Yes to an EU treaty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Almanac wrote: »

Remember that the Lisbon Treaty was framed precisely in order to obviate the need for referendums. As Amato said, the good thing about not calling it a constitution is that you don't have to have a referendum on it. However its purpose and effects are the same. They have the same foundational and constitutional effect as the European Constitution, albeit with the superficial bits removed (but which are still there though without a formal legal basis).

Underlying that observation is the point that it never was a constitution in anything like the fundamental sense that the word is used in politico-legal contexts: it was a set of administrative arrangements. The mistake was to propose a flag and anthem, and dress it up in a silly way and label it a constitution. The bad packaging got up people's noses.

View wrote: »

Some member states have constitutions that explicitly state their Parliaments have the sole right to cede sovereignty. In their systems, it is Parliament that is sovereign.

Indeed. The British people do not have sovereignty, and the chances of parliament ceding it to them are vanishingly small. A referendum in the UK has no legal status: it is a political stunt.

Almanac

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Underlying that observation is the point that it never was a constitution in anything like the fundamental sense that the word is used in politico-legal contexts: it was a set of administrative arrangements. The mistake was to propose a flag and anthem, and dress it up in a silly way and label it a constitution. The bad packaging got up people's noses.

It was much more than that. The minimalist interpretation only emerged in response to the backlash.

Almanac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Could have fooled me. I'm seeing an awful lot of people lately saying that the mechanisms other countries use to ratify treaties is wrong, and that they should do it our way (which is, naturally, the perfect way, as Ireland epitomises everything that is best practice in everything we do). I'm sure those 77% will be kick-starting the process of changing the legal mechanism by which Germany ratifies treaties, so.

Any day now.

Real soon. The point you and others seem to miss is that the sovereignty in a democracy lies with the people of that democracy, and not with anybody else. If the German people are unhappy with their country's mechanism for ratifying treaties, then they have both the right and the duty to do what it takes to bring about that change.

Unless you're a German citizen, it's none of your business, nor is it any of mine, and the question of how Germany does or should ratify treaties will have no bearing on my vote in the upcoming Lisbon referendum - and nor should it influence yours.

Really. So democrats everywhere should adopt the approach of 'Beggar thy neighbour'? Nice. I suppose Zimbabwe and Iran are none of our business either? The reality is that the betrayal of the fundamental principles of democracy anywhere should be of concern to democrats everywhere. The fact that Merkel was unable to circumvent the requirement for a referendum here is testimony to the interpreted quality of our constitution. The reality is folks that Lisbon represents a coup d'etat against the wishes of millions of voter across Europe.

Almanac

View wrote: »

No it isn't. Some member states have constitutions that explicitly state their Parliaments have the sole right to cede sovereignty. In their systems, it is Parliament that is sovereign. Those states are not going to re-write their constitutions just to keep you happy.

Er.. "where possible", I did say that.

View

Almanac wrote: »

Er.. "where possible", I did say that.

Well, you fatally undermine your case with that admission I am afraid. If many of the member states don't allow referenda, there is no point in going on about "everyone must use referenda".

As it is, the post-referenda opinion polls which showed the reasons why people voted No or Yes, would be unlikely to impress many people (from the other member states) that referenda are the way to go.

Scofflaw

Almanac wrote: »

Really. So democrats everywhere should adopt the approach of 'Beggar thy neighbour'? Nice. I suppose Zimbabwe and Iran are none of our business either? The reality is that the betrayal of the fundamental principles of democracy anywhere should be of concern to democrats everywhere. The fact that Merkel was unable to circumvent the requirement for a referendum here is testimony to the interpreted quality of our constitution. The reality is folks that Lisbon represents a coup d'etat against the wishes of millions of voter across Europe.

I've seen this claim hundreds of times at this stage, but without evidence. You don't speak for the people of Europe, not does anyone else involved in any Irish campaign. The arrogance behind the assumption is staggering.

We vote on EU treaties as a result of our Constitution. Other countries don't, as a result of theirs. Short of pretending that our way is the only right way, which is what you're doing, we have to accept that the other countries of Europe - many of them democracies for longer than us - have their own way of doing things, and their own reasons for doing them. Swedes elect Swedes to the Swedish Parliament, and if the Swedish Parliament has never chosen to make referendums a requirement of the Swedish Constitution, that is the business of the Swedes, not some Irish self-styled 'democrat' with pretensions to deciding what's best for everybody. Down that road lies the Iraq War, and feeling justified in your foreign interventions because you know better than they do.

It's an evil road you're pointing to, and I doubt even your intentions are noble, since you're not even fighting for referendums abroad, but just using it as an argument to persuade people here to vote the way you want.

disgusted,
Scofflaw

K-9

Almanac wrote: »

Really. So democrats everywhere should adopt the approach of 'Beggar thy neighbour'? Nice. I suppose Zimbabwe and Iran are none of our business either? The reality is that the betrayal of the fundamental principles of democracy anywhere should be of concern to democrats everywhere. The fact that Merkel was unable to circumvent the requirement for a referendum here is testimony to the interpreted quality of our constitution. The reality is folks that Lisbon represents a coup d'etat against the wishes of millions of voter across Europe.

Democracies should respect other Democracies, even ones that are slightly different from our model.

Almanac

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've seen this claim hundreds of times at this stage, but without evidence. You don't speak for the people of Europe, not does anyone else involved in any Irish campaign. The arrogance behind the assumption is staggering.

We vote on EU treaties as a result of our Constitution. Other countries don't, as a result of theirs. Short of pretending that our way is the only right way, which is what you're doing, we have to accept that the other countries of Europe - many of them democracies for longer than us - have their own way of doing things, and their own reasons for doing them. Swedes elect Swedes to the Swedish Parliament, and if the Swedish Parliament has never chosen to make referendums a requirement of the Swedish Constitution, that is the business of the Swedes, not some Irish self-styled 'democrat' with pretensions to deciding what's best for everybody. Down that road lies the Iraq War, and feeling justified in your foreign interventions because you know better than they do.

It's an evil road you're pointing to, and I doubt even your intentions are noble, since you're not even fighting for referendums abroad, but just using it as an argument to persuade people here to vote the way you want.

disgusted,
Scofflaw

Yes I have my evil eye on North Korea next. Are you so blind that you cannot see that Merkel revived, by her own admission, the European Constitution, which was going through a process of consultation by referendums but which had to be aborted because of having been rejected twice, and oversaw the representation of 96% of the Constitution's content as a series of amendments precisely in order to obviate the need for national referendums? Very noble, eh? And what respect for democracy.

And by the way I do speak for millions of Europeans. Millions of Europeans want a say on Lisbon- millions in Germany alone- and millions have also rejected 96% of Lisbon's provisions.

I know the truth is unpleasant but part of participating in reality is conforming our mind to the facts not the facts to our mind.

Almanac

View wrote: »

Well, you fatally undermine your case with that admission I am afraid. If many of the member states don't allow referenda, there is no point in going on about "everyone must use referenda".

As it is, the post-referenda opinion polls which showed the reasons why people voted No or Yes, would be unlikely to impress many people (from the other member states) that referenda are the way to go.

Quite a lot actually did when leaders were more honest and presented their bag of proposals as the constitution.

View

Almanac wrote: »

Quite a lot actually did when leaders were more honest and presented their bag of proposals as the constitution.

Look, if the post-referenda opinions polls in those countries that held referenda on the EUC, showed that large numbers of people were voting Yes or No for various reasons that were not directly related to the content of the EUC or even to the idea of the EUC itself, then a perfectly reasonable conclusion is that referenda on it will not result in a meaningful result on what the people actually think about the EUC itself.

Furthermore, if the people in the other member states felt strongly about it, they could have used the opportunity presented by the recent European elections to rally to the banner of the various anti-EU/anti-Lisbon parties and/or raise referenda as an election topic. As it is, an overwhelming majority of the electorates of the other member states instead voted in favour of pro-EU/pro-Lisbon parties who did not favour the use of referenda.

As such, we have on the one hand your claim that the people of the EU are anti-Lisbon, and the reality that people vote for pro-Lisbon parties. Either the electorate's perception is faulty or yours is - which is it?

Scofflaw

Almanac wrote: »

Yes I have my evil eye on North Korea next. Are you so blind that you cannot see that Merkel revived, by her own admission, the European Constitution, which was going through a process of consultation by referendums but which had to be aborted because of having been rejected twice, and oversaw the representation of 96% of the Constitution's content as a series of amendments precisely in order to obviate the need for national referendums? Very noble, eh? And what respect for democracy.

And by the way I do speak for millions of Europeans. Millions of Europeans want a say on Lisbon- millions in Germany alone- and millions have also rejected 96% of Lisbon's provisions.

I know the truth is unpleasant but part of participating in reality is conforming our mind to the facts not the facts to our mind.

What I see is someone pushing an agenda, and using an awful lot of very obvious weaselling to push it, too. If millions voted against Lisbon, who appointed you their spokesperson? Do you speak for those millions who voted for Lisbon as well, or were you only elected by the No voters of Europe? Is that why I missed your election?

I didn't think very much of Declan Ganley appointing himself the spokesperson for Europe, and I don't think any more of you doing it. His claims turned out to be entirely hot air, and yours are too. You don't represent anyone but yourself, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself, unless you've been democratically elected to do so. Somehow, I don't think you have been, so you would do better to put your pretensions back in the box.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Almanac wrote: »

The reality is folks that Lisbon represents a coup d'etat against the wishes of millions of voter across Europe.

I'll ask you the same question I've asked others who have tried to argue the same point: prior to Lisbon, what percentage of national ratifications of EU treaties were by referendum?

To suggest that there's something somehow radical and subversive about the idea of the Lisbon treaty not being put to referendum in the member states implies that it has hitherto been the norm to put EU treaties to referendum in the member states. I think you'll find that that hasn't been the case, which gives the lie to your hyperbole.

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll ask you the same question I've asked others who have tried to argue the same point: prior to Lisbon, what percentage of national ratifications of EU treaties were by referendum?

To suggest that there's something somehow radical and subversive about the idea of the Lisbon treaty not being put to referendum in the member states implies that it has hitherto been the norm to put EU treaties to referendum in the member states. I think you'll find that that hasn't been the case, which gives the lie to your hyperbole.

Yes but if they stopped chewing that well worn bone they might have to find a reason that's actually related to the treaty to argue against it.

Much easier to engage in hyperbole and rhetoric, if it fits your agenda, don't you know.

bill_ashmount

Almanac wrote: »

Really. So democrats everywhere should adopt the approach of 'Beggar thy neighbour'? Nice. I suppose Zimbabwe and Iran are none of our business either? The reality is that the betrayal of the fundamental principles of democracy anywhere should be of concern to democrats everywhere. The fact that Merkel was unable to circumvent the requirement for a referendum here is testimony to the interpreted quality of our constitution. The reality is folks that Lisbon represents a coup d'etat against the wishes of millions of voter across Europe.

No need to worry, relax. This sham of an organisation is on its knees. Look at the trouble they are having forcing this treaty through. People who are against Europe only need to succeed once and then it is all over. I think that's what really annoys pro-Europeans.

Thank god for long term democracy.

P. Breathnach

bill_ashmount wrote: »

No need to worry, relax. This sham of an organisation is on its knees. Look at the trouble they are having forcing this treaty through. People who are against Europe only need to succeed once and then it is all over. I think that's what really annoys pro-Europeans.

Thank god for long term democracy.

So you are coming out as a Eurosceptic, whose hope is that we wreck the EU?

At least you are honest about it.

BlitzKrieg

People who are against Europe only need to succeed once and then it is all over.

Strangely enough I have always had a deep mistrust of anything you only need to do once and *its all over*