Poland: Please, say No to Lisbon Treaty

Almanac

View wrote: »

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?

Well those who are anti-Lisbon may not agree with Eurosceptic parties on other issues so their choices are quite limited. And it is possible to dissect any vote and pick apart people's reasons for voting the way they do, and equally so for yes voters.

Almanac

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

There's certainly an agenda being pushed- an agenda that sweeps Europe clean for multinationals and dramatically increases the EU's power over our lives- and I am going to oppose it in every way that I can.

Almanac

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.

The EU constitution was going through the process of consultation by a number of member states until it was rejected by Holland and France.

oscarBravo

Almanac wrote: »

The EU constitution was going through the process of consultation by a number of member states until it was rejected by Holland and France.

That's not even in the same parish as an answer to the question I asked.

Almanac

I'd recommend reading 'European Institutions as an Interest Group' which was published a short while ago. If you still feel as comfortable about further European integration in its present form then fair wind. If you want to hand over your democratic rights then that's your choice but at least you'll be doing so with your eyes open

http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book457pdf?.pdf

oscarBravo

Nope, that's not an answer to my question either.

Iwasfrozen

That document appears to be very Euroskeptic.
Any chance of a neutral link ?

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That document appears to be very Euroskeptic.
Any chance of a neutral link ?

Did you check the site on which it is hosted? Scary.

ixtlan

Almanac wrote: »

Well those who are anti-Lisbon may not agree with Eurosceptic parties on other issues so their choices are quite limited. And it is possible to dissect any vote and pick apart people's reasons for voting the way they do, and equally so for yes voters.

There's some very limited merit in this argument, but what you are saying then is that the EU and Lisbon were overwhelmed by other issues, which suggests that people don't actually consider Lisbon all that important at all. This would be surprising if "Lisbon represents a coup d'etat against the wishes of millions of voters across Europe".

Don't you seen the contradictions in your arguments? Insisting that all Europeans should vote on Lisbon, while explaining away the recent European parliament elections (massively dominated by pro-Lisbon groupings) as influenced by other issues. What other issues? It was an EU parliament election?! That is directly where the people need to express their views on the direction of the EU!

In Ireland we have elected 11 pro-Lisbon MEPs out of 12. What message has this sent to the EU?

Ix.

Almanac

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope, that's not an answer to my question either.

That was a general comment directed to all Euromantics here. You are quite right, it has not been the norm to hold referendums on European treaties. In fact, as you know, the only reason we have been in the habit of holding them is because of the Crotty case.

Almanac

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Did you check the site on which it is hosted? Scary.

What frightens you about Policy Pointers?

Almanac

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That document appears to be very Euroskeptic.
Any chance of a neutral link ?

You should evaluate it on the basis of the strength of the arguments and the quality of the information, both of which I think are of a high standard.

Almanac

ixtlan wrote: »

In Ireland we have elected 11 pro-Lisbon MEPs out of 12. What message has this sent to the EU?

Ix.

I don't believe for a second that they were elected on the basis of being pro-Lisbon. Three anti-lisbon candidates suffered damaging smear campaigns, Ganley, McDonald and Sinnott. Ganley got an extremely good vote in spite of the all out assault on his personal character, more than Sinnott, more indeed than Dana previously.

Scofflaw

Almanac wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that they were elected on the basis of being pro-Lisbon. Three anti-lisbon candidates suffered damaging smear campaigns, Ganley, McDonald and Sinnott. Ganley got an extremely good vote in spite of the all out assault on his personal character, more than Sinnott, more indeed than Dana previously.

Of course! It's the only possible reason why they failed to get elected. Nothing to do with Ganley's questionable connections and utter lack of policy*, nothing to do with McDonald's failure to turn up at the Parliament she was elected to, and nothing to do with Sinnott's apparent failure to have actually done anything with her time as an MEP - no, the electorate could only possibly have voted down these wonderful people on the basis of smear.

Or not, of course. Possibly people really didn't think that much of them. Either way, the suggestion that the voters 'got it wrong' is deliciously ironic.

amused,
Scofflaw

*by the way, he achieved 13.66% of the vote to Dana's 13.52%, which is a 1% improvement. Considering the amount he spent, that's not really a very good result at all.

P. Breathnach

Almanac wrote: »

What frightens you about Policy Pointers?

Policy Pointers?

The Institute for Economic Affairs is so far to the right that it probably considered Margaret Thatcher to be a pinko.

K-9

Almanac wrote: »

I don't believe for a second that they were elected on the basis of being pro-Lisbon. Three anti-lisbon candidates suffered damaging smear campaigns, Ganley, McDonald and Sinnott. Ganley got an extremely good vote in spite of the all out assault on his personal character, more than Sinnott, more indeed than Dana previously.

Yet, Joe Higgins got elected instead of McDonald and Ferris got a strong vote that split Sinnotts' vote. That's PR for ya.

Ganley had the strong Eurosceptic vote to himself, an unpopular Govt. and a weak SF candidate and still failed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Either way, the suggestion that the voters 'got it wrong' is deliciously ironic.

amused,
Scofflaw

Indeed.

oscarBravo

Almanac wrote: »

You are quite right, it has not been the norm to hold referendums on European treaties.

Thank you. Doesn't that, then, give the lie to the idea that the people of Europe are being "denied" referenda on Lisbon?

Iwasfrozen

[QUOTE=Almanac ]
You should evaluate it on the basis of the strength of the arguments and the quality of the information, both of which I think are of a high standard.
[/QUOTE]
And where is that exactly ?

FutureTaoiseach

We will say no.

Iwasfrozen

We will say Yes.