What Happens if No Wins again?

ei.sdraob

Tony EH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It's not about "forcing" them.

But the simple fact is that the people of Europe are just no being given a chance to voice an opinion on Lisbon because of the situation re: the EU Constitution.

That should have alarm bells ringing for anyone who claims to believe in democratic institutions, regardless of whether they wish to see a Yes or a No vote returned.

yes it is forcing our ways (our constitutional quirk ) on others

referendums wont go down well in other countries like Germany where last time they had a referendum a certain Hitler came about

PopeBuckfastXVI

Tony EH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It's not about "forcing" them.

But the simple fact is that the people of Europe are just no being given a chance to voice an opinion on Lisbon because of the situation re: the EU Constitution.

That should have alarm bells ringing for anyone who claims to believe in democratic institutions, regardless of whether they wish to see a Yes or a No vote returned.

Why then wasn't the Nice treaty put to a vote, there was no constitution, failed or otherwise then?

Does the Nice treaty have democratic legitimacy?

Does Maastricht?

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Why then wasn't the Nice treaty put to a vote, there was no constitution, failed or otherwise then?

Does the Nice treaty have democratic legitimacy?

Does Maastricht?

But Pope...I think his arguement is that it would be wrong to suggest that in the event of a NO vote and the subsequent demise of treaty...Ireland is stopping the other 26 member countries from progress.
The EU expressly states that all member nations must ratify the treaty ..however unfair it may be..that is democracy at work.
In future it could be Poland or Romania...that is why it is a union.

And like Mccrevy said the other day...Lisbon treaty would probably have been rejected by 3/4 of EU nations if a referendum was held in all countries.In my opinion ,holding referenda should be best practise when it comes to ratifying treaties.

Like numerous posters have mentioned the roof did not fall when France and Holland voted against the EU constitution .

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Treaties like Lisbon that will affect millions across many Nations should be put to a vote by the people of those member states.

So you reject the idea that sovereign countries should be allowed to choose their own ratification mechanisms for international treaties?

OK, you can express a personal preference for ratification by referendum, in the same way that you could express a personal preference for trial by jury. But voting against Ireland ratifying Lisbon just because Germany didn't hold a referendum on it makes exactly as much sense as voting against it because Germany doesn't have jury trials.

Do you think all EU countries should be forced to hold referenda? If so, who should do the forcing?

Tony EH

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You haven't shown me why a state should ratify a treaty by direct democracy, but use representative democracy when passing every other law.

Do I need to show you, honestly?

On a National level, issues are taken based on National interests. A government, voted in by the people based on promises with regard to those National interests take actions based on such (or at least should). If the people aren't happy with the direction of that government, they will have a chance to voice their opinion on that in a general election and vote in someone who'll change the situation to a different path.

With something like Lisbon, a paticular nation's government is but a part of a larger number of governments who are drawing up plans for there own national interests and the option to vote in different political sensibilities isn't really there as people from France don't get a say who's voted into power in Germany. I know we get to vote on MEP's etc, but it isn't really the same effect.

This may seem inoccuious in regards to Lisbon (because it is a relatively mickey mouse document), however the precedent is rather worrying. There may come a day when a Nation's government are interested in passing an EU treaty, but their population is not as they may have serious issues with that document's contents. However, with no say, they have no choice.

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

In my opinion ,holding referenda should be best practise when it comes to ratifying treaties.

That's a perfectly valid view to hold. I disagree with it strongly, but it's a valid view.

What it's most certainly not is a valid reason to vote against Lisbon.

Tony EH

KINGVictor wrote: »

But Pope...I think his arguement is that it would be wrong to suggest that in the event of a NO vote and the subsequent demise of treaty...Ireland is stopping the other 26 member countries from progress.
The EU expressly states that all member nations must ratify the treaty ..however unfair it may be..that is democracy at work.
In future it could be Poland or Romania...that is why it is a union.

And like Mccrevy said the other day...Lisbon treaty would probably have been rejected by 3/4 of EU nations if a referendum was held in all countries.In my opinion ,holding referenda should be best practise when it comes to ratifying treaties.

Like numerous posters have mentioned the roof did not fall when France and Holland voted against the EU constitution .

Which is exactly why it isn't being put to a democratic vote by the people of Europe.

I cannot help but be extremely suspicious of that.

nesf

Tony EH wrote: »

Do I need to show you, honestly?

On a National level, issues are taken based on National interests. A government, voted in by the people based on promises with regard to those National interests take actions based on such (or at least should). If the people aren't happy with the direction of that government, they will have a chance to voice their opinion on that in a general election and vote in someone who'll change the situation to a different path.

With something like Lisbon, a paticular nation's government is but a part of a larger number of governments who are drawing up plans for there own national interests and the option to vote in different political sensibilities isn't really there as people from France don't get a say who's voted into power in Germany. I know we get to vote on MEP's etc, but it isn't really the same effect.

This may seem inoccuious in regards to Lisbon (because it is a relatively mickey mouse document), however the precedent is rather worrying. There may come a day when a Nation's government are interested in passing an EU treaty, but their population is not as they may have serious issues with that document's contents. However, with no say, they have no choice.

This makes no sense. A Government acts in the national interest in national matters, but somehow cannot act in the national interest at a supranational level? Do you mean to say that politicians are elected on local issues and not international issues and as such aren't necessarily representative of the people on them?

PopeBuckfastXVI

KINGVictor wrote: »

But Pope...I think his arguement is that it would be wrong to suggest that in the event of a NO vote and the subsequent demise of treaty...Ireland is stopping the other 26 member countries from progress.
The EU expressly states that all member nations must ratify the treaty ..however unfair it may be..that is democracy at work.
In future it could be Poland or Romania...that is why it is a union.

And like Mccrevy said the other day...Lisbon treaty would probably have been rejected by 3/4 of EU nations if a referendum was held in all countries.In my opinion ,holding referenda should be best practise when it comes to ratifying treaties.

I don't buy into the 'Ireland deciding things for the others' idea really myself, even if I entertained it straight after the last referendum.

We should decide things for ourselves, a good thought experiment would be to imagine every other country is voting, but we are voting first. How would you vote then?

McCreevy made an unverifiable claim in his own foot-in-mouth fashion, I don't put much store in his claims.

In my opinion referenda for large complex treaties, which invariably involve compromise and taking the 'good' with the 'bad' are a bad option, but then the only country you and I can influence do referenda, and that's not going to change any time soon.

Lastly, he wasn't arguing that, if you look at his statement he is claiming:
'Treaties like Lisbon that will affect millions across many Nations should be put to a vote by the people of those member states.'
without providing sufficient justification to convince me.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

There may come a day when a Nation's government are interested in passing an EU treaty, but their population is not as they may have serious issues with that document's contents. However, with no say, they have no choice.

There may come a day when a Nation's government are interested in passing a Finance bill, but their population is not as they may have serious issues with that document's contents. However, with no say, they have no choice.

You just made an argument against representative democracy - not against Lisbon.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Tony EH wrote: »

Do I need to show you, honestly?

On a National level, issues are taken based on National interests. A government, voted in by the people based on promises with regard to those National interests take actions based on such (or at least should). If the people aren't happy with the direction of that government, they will have a chance to voice their opinion on that in a general election and vote in someone who'll change the situation to a different path.

With something like Lisbon, a paticular nation's government is but a part of a larger number of governments who are drawing up plans for there own national interests and the option to vote in different political sensibilities isn't really there as people from France don't get a say who's voted into power in Germany. I know we get to vote on MEP's etc, but it isn't really the same effect.

This may seem inoccuious in regards to Lisbon (because it is a relatively mickey mouse document), however the precedent is rather worrying. There may come a day when a Nation's government are interested in passing an EU treaty, but their population is not as they may have serious issues with that document's contents. However, with no say, they have no choice.

But they have to decide to ratify a treaty in the Nations interest, unless you are saying Governments act against the Nations interest when ratifying treaties?

There's also a flaw with your 'precedent' argument, because it's not a precedent. It's the norm.

Tony EH

nesf wrote: »

This makes no sense. A Government acts in the national interest in national matters, but somehow cannot act in the national interest at a supranational level? Do you mean to say that politicians are elected on local issues and not international issues and as such aren't necessarily representative of the people on them?

But how are people to know what those International issues are, when they haven't been thought of yet?

turgon

Tony EH wrote: »

Which is exactly why it isn't being put to a democratic vote by the people of Europe.

I cannot help but be extremely suspicious of that.

And will voting No change that?

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

There may come a day when a Nation's government are interested in passing a Finance bill, but their population is not as they may have serious issues with that document's contents. However, with no say, they have no choice.

You just made an argument against representative democracy - not against Lisbon.

Trying to bring up your "Finance Bill" non-issue again...every ****in time... :rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

Tony EH wrote: »

But how are people to know what those International issues are, when they haven't been thought of yet?

How are people to know what any issue in a Governmental term will be?

Look every country in the EU is in the EU (if you forgive the tautology), therefore when electing a Government in a country in Europe that doesn't have referenda for EU Treaties, you are choosing a Government which will represent your interest in any EU treaty which might come up.

That's the nature of representative democracy, be it for a finance bill or a treaty. Frankly it's their business how they do things, not yours.

I certainly wouldn't appreciate someone withholding ratification of Lisbon until we changed our constitution to ban referenda on Treaties.

sink

Tony EH wrote: »

Do I need to show you, honestly?

On a National level, issues are taken based on National interests. A government, voted in by the people based on promises with regard to those National interests take actions based on such (or at least should). If the people aren't happy with the direction of that government, they will have a chance to voice their opinion on that in a general election and vote in someone who'll change the situation to a different path.

With something like Lisbon, a paticular nation's government is but a part of a larger number of governments who are drawing up plans for there own national interests and the option to vote in different political sensibilities isn't really there as people from France don't get a say who's voted into power in Germany. I know we get to vote on MEP's etc, but it isn't really the same effect.

This may seem inoccuious in regards to Lisbon (because it is a relatively mickey mouse document), however the precedent is rather worrying. There may come a day when a Nation's government are interested in passing an EU treaty, but their population is not as they may have serious issues with that document's contents. However, with no say, they have no choice.

Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour all broadly follow a social democratic free market ideology with each party placing greater emphasis on particular aspects. This ideology espouses open markets, free movement and joint cross boarder political co-operation, together with public education, healthcare etc.

The EU and the Lisbon treaty are a logical progression in pursuit of these ideals, they lie at the heart of what each of the three main parties stand for. It is illogical to support any of these parties and by extension their ideologies and then to oppose these parties on one of their core issues, indeed the core issue.

If you want Ireland to be a dynamic open trade based economy, which pursues it's interests through strong intra national institutions vote for Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or Labour and also vote for Lisbon. If you perceive Ireland's main interests as lying elsewhere then don't vote for a party that holds those ideals at it's very core.

Tony EH

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How are people to know what any issue in a Governmental term will be?

Well, they won't know every issue, of course. But they vote a party in based on their election promises (that's the theory anyway). However, if a populace don't like the direction of a National government, they can get a chance to change that direction by voting them out and changing the items they don't like, in the next general election.

You just don't get that in a situation, that the likes of EU reforms present.

turgon

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, they won't know every issue, of course. But they vote a party in based on their election promises (that's the theory anyway). However, if a populace don't like the direction of a National government, they can get a chance to change that direction by voting them out and changing the items they don't like, in the next general election.

Exactly. And as sink says everyone knows that FF, FG and Labour's direction all include support of the EU and greater EU integration.

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't buy into the 'Ireland deciding things for the others' idea really myself, even if I entertained it straight after the last referendum.

We should decide things for ourselves, a good thought experiment would be to imagine every other country is voting, but we are voting first. How would you vote then?

McCreevy made an unverifiable claim in his own foot-in-mouth fashion, I don't put much store in his claims.

In my opinion referenda for large complex treaties, which invariably involve compromise and taking the 'good' with the 'bad' are a bad option, but then the only country you and I can influence do referenda, and that's not going to change any time soon.

Lastly, he wasn't arguing that, if you look at his statement he is claiming:
'Treaties like Lisbon that will affect millions across many Nations should be put to a vote by the people of those member states.'
without providing sufficient justification to convince me.

I think it would be unconstitutional and unfair to enforce referenda on all member nations...it would have to be their individual decisions or a form of collective agreement.
I dont like mccrevys antecedents either..but I feel it would be unfair to dismiss his statements .If he had made a statement that would have seemingly being in favour of the Yes campaigners..the same treatment wouldn't have been meted out to him.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Trying to bring up your "Finance Bill" non-issue again...every ****in time... :rolleyes:

Finance Bills are a non-issue. You heard it here first, folks.

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

I think it would be unconstitutional and unfair to enforce referenda on all member nations...

Would you also agree that voting "no" because you disagree with how other member states ratify treaties makes no sense?

marco_polo

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, they won't know every issue, of course. But they vote a party in based on their election promises (that's the theory anyway). However, if a populace don't like the direction of a National government, they can get a chance to change that direction by voting them out and changing the items they don't like, in the next general election.

You just don't get that in a situation, that the likes of EU reforms present.

The logical conclusion is that you would be in favour of us voting No to every EU treaty untill all the other 26 member states have changed their ratification process to a referendum. Looks like Croatia can forget about joining this century.

Fair summary?

Tony EH

turgon wrote: »

Exactly. And as sink says everyone knows that FF, FG and Labour's direction all include support of the EU and greater EU integration.

Yes, but doesn't automatically mean that every facet of a EU treaty will be agreeable to the supporters of those parties.

I know several FF'ers and Labour supporters who are anti-Lisbon, against the wishes of their parties.

Greater EU integration dosen't mean Yes to everything that is proposed in an EU treaty.

marco_polo

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but doesn't automatically mean that every facet of a EU treaty will be agreeable to the supporters of those parties.

I know several FF'ers and Labour supporters who are anti-Lisbon, against the wishes of their parties.

Greater EU integration dosen't mean Yes to everything that is proposed in an EU treaty.

Sound just like a Finance Bill to me

Tony EH

marco_polo wrote: »

The logical conclusion is that you would be in favour of us voting No to every EU treaty untill all the other 26 member states have changed their ratification process to a referendum. Looks like Croatia can forget about joining this century.

Fair summary?

No.

Tony EH

marco_polo wrote: »

Sound just like a Finance Bill to me

And if you don't like a finance bill, you can vote in somebody who'll change it to something more agreeable.

Once Lisbon goes through, that's it.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

And if you don't like a finance bill, you can vote in somebody who'll change it to something more agreeable.

Once Lisbon goes through, that's it.

If you don't like Lisbon, you can vote in someone who'll negotiate something more agreeable.

marco_polo

Tony EH wrote: »

No.

So only some EU treaties then. And how are we to decide which ones to vote No to simply because other the countries are not holding referenda, and which one are ok to vote Yes to anyway?

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a perfectly valid view to hold. I disagree with it strongly, but it's a valid view.

What it's most certainly not is a valid reason to vote against Lisbon.

I am not voting No because every nation is not ratifying the treaty via a referendum.But
I personally feel it would benefit the EU if they look into it...for instance I doubt if there is any EU populace that has had any discussions on the Lisbon treaty as much as Ireland.
In the Uk ,I think I would be right to suggest that about 65% of citizens would be anti-lisbon/EU and their reasons won't be dissimilar to the ones alluded by libertas.There are no healthy/realistic debates about it ....just the usual -Euro taking over the Pound etc..this would also be the same for other countries where majority support the treaty....a referendum-led debate might just change their mind.
Ultimately it would lead to a buy-in by EU citizens as they would have exhaustively discussed and understood it rather than letting politicians ratify a treaty some of them confessed to have never read.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you don't like Lisbon, you can vote in someone who'll negotiate something more agreeable.

It's not the same and you know it.