What Happens if No Wins again?

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

What has this got to do with EU wide treaties such as Lisbon?

Oh, come on. If you can't be bothered debating, don't bother replying.

Tony EH

KINGVictor wrote: »

I understand your point...but you would notice that my statements were simplified and based on hypothesis...
how can a political party promise to reverse a treaty that has already been passed?...but a party can promise to reverse disliked national government policies.There lies the difference.

Exactly.

The huge mechanism's of the EU operation alone precludes any realistic notion that a treaty that has been passed by the governments of multiple states can be reversed.

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

The flaw in your reasoning is that the only way you have to influence a government party is through the blunt instrument of a general election.

See my previous post. If I want the blasphemy bill overturned, I'll contact my local TDs and (a) tell the government TD they just lost any [slim] hope of a vote in the next election, and (b) extract a promise from the opposition TD that (s)he'll overturn it, in exchange for my vote.

If you want to influence government policy towards the EU, lobby the politicians. Why do you think all the major parties are pro-EU? Because they know perfectly well that most people are pro-EU. Why do most parties support the Lisbon treaty? Because they understand that its provisions are basically either benign, useful, or both. More to the point, their constituents aren't lobbying them about Lisbon-related issues.

The reason the Irish electorate rejected Lisbon last year was a combination of (a) the political establishment completely failing to explain why we should accept it, and (b) several very dedicated (and some very well-funded) vested interests lying through their teeth about why we should reject it.

The bottom line is, most Irish people don't give a damn about the EU on a day-to-day basis. If we did, we'd lobby our TDs, and they'd care a lot more too, believe me.

I agree with you that most Irish people are Pro-EU ...but in an economic and not political context.
You are also right that the correct mechanism would be via lobby of their TDs but we also have to be realistic ...while they may have issues with some EU policies it is only reasonable that local issues (that are numerous) would be more important than any problems we have with the EU.You cannot be sure of how many people lobby their TDs about EU policies and the kind of responce they get...TDs are well aware that Local failures are likely to get them out of office than any discontent about the EU.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. If you can't be bothered debating, don't bother replying.

I've told you before on another thread, that I cannot be bothered with bullshit, OB and that's all you have to offer on the subject.

It hasn't changed.

Finance bills are non-sequiturs and it's not comparing like with like.

I'm happy to debate with you and even take on board your points. But I refuse to get on the bullshit merry-go-round you keep trying to introduce.

ixtlan

KINGVictor wrote: »

how can a political party promise to reverse a treaty that has already been passed?...but a party can promise to reverse disliked national government policies.There lies the difference.

Well the EU has been continually reformed for several decades now. A national party can of course promise to reverse aspects of an existing treaty. They would then go into the negotiations for the next treaty with that goal. Or indeed it may not require a treaty change, it may just be EU legislation.

Your point raises one of the core problems with how we deal with the EU. The time to review the state of the EU and seek changes is when the treaty is being negotiated, not after it has been signed. We cannot all be in the room with the other states so we have to trust to some extent in our representatives, both government and opposition. If we elect FF/FG/Lab/Green(!) we should know what kind of policies they will seek to implement in Europe. The No advocates of today should have been raising their issues years ago, and the public should be carefully learning about how the EU operates and how it is proposed to operate.

I hear some people say, why should I have to learn about the EU?! That's the politicans job. And then they vote no because they don't trust the politicans!

It's very frustrating to hear people talk of how little influence Ireland will have under Lisbon, and then they have absolutely zero understanding of how voting in the council works or will work.

Ix

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

I agree with you that most Irish people are Pro-EU ...but in an economic and not political context.

Cynically, that translates into people wanting Ireland to be a net beneficiary of EU money, while not wanting to concede anything in return. We want free access to European markets, but we don't want durty furriners tekkin ur jawbs. We want agricultural subsidies, but we don't want Brussels telling us how clean our water should be.

All that said, I disagree with your premise: I doubt most people make the distinction.

You are also right that the correct mechanism would be via lobby of their TDs but we also have to be realistic ...while they may have issues with some EU policies it is only reasonable that local issues (that are numerous) would be more important than any problems we have with the EU.You cannot be sure of how many people lobby their TDs about EU policies and the kind of responce they get...TDs are well aware that Local failures are likely to get them out of office than any discontent about the EU.

And yet, we demand referenda on the unimportant EU issues we couldn't be bothered lobbying our TDs about, but don't seem to want to vote directly on those local issues that are important to us.

Strange that.

Macha

Tony EH wrote: »

I've told you before on another thread, that I cannot be bothered with bullshit, OB and that's all you have to offer on the subject.

Wilful ignorance is not a recommended debating strategy.

Tony EH wrote: »

Finance bills are non-sequiturs and it's not comparing like with like.

Yet you have so far failed to explain the qualitative difference between legislation like finance bills and EU treaties, that would support your argument that EU treaties must be decided by referenda but finance bills don't.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

I've told you before on another thread, that I cannot be bothered with bullshit, OB and that's all you have to offer on the subject.

It hasn't changed.

Finance bills are non-sequiturs and it's not comparing like with like.

I'm happy to debate with you and even take on board your points. But I refuse to get on the bullshit merry-go-round you keep trying to introduce.

It's funny how every time I come up with a point you can't counter, you fall back on this sort of non-argument.

Go ahead, pretend you don't see my point if it makes you feel like you've somehow won the argument.

Tony EH

taconnol wrote: »

Wilful ignorance is not a recommended debating strategy.


Yet you have so far failed to explain the qualitative difference between legislation like finance bills and EU treaties, that would support your argument that EU treaties must be decided by referenda but finance bills don't.

Then you need to go back and read the thread.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's funny how every time I come up with a point you can't counter, you fall back on this sort of non-argument.

Go ahead, pretend you don't see my point if it makes you feel like you've somehow won the argument.

I'm not interested in "winning" an argument.

The "representative democracy" and "finance bills" points are just not very good points to bring up in the context of EU treaties.

Macha

Tony EH wrote: »

Then you need to go back and read the thread.

I have. You still haven't answered the question.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

The "representative democracy" and "finance bills" points are just not very good points to bring up in the context of EU treaties.

If they are such poor points, you should have no trouble refuting them.

P. Breathnach

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not interested in "winning" an argument.

The "representative democracy" and "finance bills" points are just not very good points to bring up in the context of EU treaties.

Of course you are not trying to win an argument. You are not even trying to conduct an argument, because you are unwilling to tease out a principled basis for a particular position you are holding.

"Because I say so" might be a basis on which to cast your own vote, but it is not a good basis on which to persuade others to vote as you do, or to convince people who disagree with you that you have made a principled decision.

tlev

So is the general consensus in this thread is that nothing too bad will happen to Ireland but it might? The EU will just say back to the drawing board. Until when. Next year another referendum (sorry my question mark isnt working)

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Exactly.

The huge mechanism's of the EU operation alone precludes any realistic notion that a treaty that has been passed by the governments of multiple states can be reversed.

Why? All it takes is the governments of said multiple states to reverse it, or take it in a different direction at the next treaty. And what "huge mechanisms"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

Cynically, that translates into people wanting Ireland to be a net beneficiary of EU money, while not wanting to concede anything in return. We want free access to European markets, but we don't want durty furriners tekkin ur jawbs. We want agricultural subsidies, but we don't want Brussels telling us how clean our water should be.

All that said, I disagree with your premise: I doubt most people make the distinction. And yet, we demand referenda on the unimportant EU issues we couldn't be bothered lobbying our TDs about, but don't seem to want to vote directly on those local issues that are important to us.

Strange that.

I never implied such gross insurbodination from Ireland or any member nation .The fact that a lot of people believe that the EU should fundamentally be an economic body does not in manner or form suggest that we are anti-immigration or we wouldn't want to adhere to mutually beneficial regulations.

I have explained this before...if the generality of the electorate have a problem with internal government policy/policies..( as seems to be the case)...they can vote for parties with alternative policy strategy/ideas that conform with theirs....in the realistic hope that this policies would eventually be reversed/annulled.So there could be an economic arguement for wasting scarce funds in conducting referenda.
In the case of the EU treaty...the electorate that disagree with Govt won't have such luxury...End of story;)

K-9

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm not interested in "winning" an argument.

The "representative democracy" and "finance bills" points are just not very good points to bring up in the context of EU treaties.

But forcing Referenda on countries that generally don't use them is?

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

But forcing Referenda on countries that generally don't use them is?

But only for some EU treaties. I am still eagerly awaiting Tony's criteria for which ones we should reject because of other countries parliamentary approval and which ones we can vote yes on even though the others ratification processes may remain the exact same.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

One thread is not the same as the results of a referendum and you shouldn't base your opinions on it.

It's not just one thread, I've been keeping a close eye on the no campaign, even going as far as to talk to some people who were campaigning outside the GPO a few weeks ago where I corrected them on some misconceptions by quoting the treaty at them. I don't know if it's still the majority but that's not my point. My point is that those guarantees should not have been necessary because everything in them was common knowledge, they just refused to accept it because they wanted a reason to justify voting no

brianthebard wrote: »

Again, a no vote does not reject everything. I suppose you'll say that's not what you meant again. And I must again say that just because the EU could make things hard for Ireland is hardly a reason to endorse it and its policies. Some people on the thread might not like me saying so, but that sort of thing is scaremonger tactics-vote yes or all the money for our roads will be taken away.

It's not a reason on it's own but it's a factor. It's a response to the people who say that voting no changes nothing because that's not necessarily the case. Voting either way has consequences. That factor coupled with the fact that the treaty brings in a number of beneficial changes and, most importantly, no one can give any valid reason to reject it means we should endorse it. The default should be yes unless someone can give a very good reason to vote no

Unless you can give a valid, treaty related reason to reject it?

Tony EH

K-9 wrote: »

But forcing Referenda on countries that generally don't use them is?

No-one mentioned anything about "forcing". That's an idiotic statement.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

If they are such poor points, you should have no trouble refuting them.

They've been refuted.

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why? All it takes is the governments of said multiple states to reverse it, or take it in a different direction at the next treaty. And what "huge mechanisms"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

You don't think a body comprising 27 member states is a huge mechanism?

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

No-one mentioned anything about "forcing". That's an idiotic statement.

You said: "My point is that a referendum on issues like Lisbon and other EU treaties is the fair and democratic option."

Those countries have a system of representative democracy where their governments make such decisions for them, as we do in pretty much everything except changes to our constitution. If the fact that other countries are not having referendums is a factor in your decision to vote no you are indeed trying to force these countries to change their system of government by having a referendum for something which they normally wouldn't.

Who are you to tell them how to run their countries?

Tony EH

marco_polo wrote: »

But only for some EU treaties. I am still eagerly awaiting Tony's criteria for which ones we should reject because of other countries parliamentary approval and which ones we can vote yes on even though the others ratification processes may remain the exact same.

You'll be left waiting, because it's a pointless distraction.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

They've been refuted.

In fact no, you just keep stating your position over and over again and ignoring people pointing out the flaws in your points, saying "it's not a good point to bring up" without explaining why. You're not refuting anything

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said: "My point is that a referendum on issues like Lisbon and other EU treaties is the fair and democratic option."

Those countries have a system of representative democracy where their governments make such decisions for them, as we do in pretty much everything except changes to our constitution. If the fact that other countries are not having referendums is a factor in your decision to vote no you are indeed trying to force these countries to change their system of government by having a referendum for something which they normally wouldn't.

Who are you to tell them how to run their countries?

Don't be such bloody idiot. We're speaking in theoretical terms here. No-one's talking about marching in and forcing anyone to do anything. No-one on the board has the power to even do such a thing in the first place.

It's already been explained to you and OB why the "representative democracy" line is applicable to the likes of EU reforms.

force eleven

The treaty will be scrapped, and the next one, already on the drawing boards, will be implemented. Our economy won't collapse, at least not because of a No vote, and Hank BigBoss over in the US doesn't care if we vote yes or no btw, he's more worried about profits, and where he can get the best.

As usual, the politicians are not using the actual treaty text to back up their arguments, they simply say vote yes to save the economy. You have to see what is in the actual treaty to make a proper decision, not listen to some FF'er say you should do this or that.

We won't be regarded any differently, no more than France or Holland was when they rejected this. We won't be thrown out of Europe. Life will go on.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

Don't be such bloody idiot. We're speaking in theoretical terms here. No-one's talking about marching in and forcing anyone to do anything. No-one on the board has the power to even do such a thing in the first place.

Is or is not the fact that other countries are not having referendums a factor in your decision to vote no?

And if it is, are you or are you not effectively holding these countries to ransom by refusing to ratify the treaty until they change this particular aspect of how they run their countries?

Tony EH wrote: »

It's already been explained to you and OB why the "representative democracy" line is applicable to the likes of EU reforms.

No, you've said it and been corrected by people pointing out that treaties are ratified on a national level, not an EU level. This treaty is treated no different to a divorce or abortion referendum, the fact that it relates to the EU is incidental.

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact no, you just keep stating your position over and over again and ignoring people pointing out the flaws in your points, saying "it's not a good point to bring up" without explaining why. You're not refuting anything

In fact yes. Both suggestions are not comparing like with like.

Look, I have no problem with people who want to dismiss the point with a wave of the hand and say "representative democracy will handle that for us..." But, that's simply not good enough. There is absloutely no sound reason why EU reforms cannot be put to the people of the member states (in part or in whole).

I don't accept the "finance bill" and "representative democracy" whitewash of what I consider a serious point.

Sam Vimes

force eleven wrote: »

The treaty will be scrapped, and the next one, already on the drawing boards, will be implemented. Our economy won't collapse, at least not because of a No vote, and Hank BigBoss over in the US doesn't care if we vote yes or no btw, he's more worried about profits, and where he can get the best.

It won't collapse but to say it will have no effect would be naive.

force eleven wrote: »

As usual, the politicians are not using the actual treaty text to back up their arguments, they simply say vote yes to save the economy. You have to see what is in the actual treaty to make a proper decision, not listen to some FF'er say you should do this or that.

I absolutely agree except that the no side are just as bad. Read the treaty yourself and if you can't find anything you object to in it, vote yes to it.

force eleven wrote: »

We won't be regarded any differently, no more than France or Holland was when they rejected this. We won't be thrown out of Europe. Life will go on.

The difference is that France and Holland had actual reasons to reject it, we don't