What Happens if No Wins again?

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

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.

In other words, most UK citizens are anti-EU because they've been bombarded with lies.

Sounds like a compelling reason not to have referenda.

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, most UK citizens are anti-EU because they've been bombarded with lies.

Sounds like a compelling reason not to have referenda.

But the alternative would be distrust/disaffection and general apathy...I really don't the EU can afford that .

PHB

Nobody relaly knows for sure what will happen.

But ask yourself this. If Slovenia had continuously voted against the Lisbon Treaty, and were unwilling to budge in any way, and we passed it, how do you think you would react? Or more accurately, how do you think the leaders of the other 26 countries would react?

If nothing else, it'll be bloody interesting.

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

In other words, most UK citizens are anti-EU because they've been bombarded with lies.

Sounds like a compelling reason not to have referenda.

And a lot of people could equally argue that a lot of Pro-EU people are un realistic and Empire hungry folks.
My point is that it would help if people discuss the treaties and would be in a postion to make informed decisions.

KINGVictor

PHB wrote: »

Nobody relaly knows for sure what will happen.

But ask yourself this. If Slovenia had continuously voted against the Lisbon Treaty, and were unwilling to budge in any way, and we passed it, how do you think you would react? Or more accurately, how do you think the leaders of the other 26 countries would react?

If nothing else, it'll be bloody interesting.

No doubt...we would be gutted ....but also reasonable to understand that they have every right to their position.The EU is evolving...it is not a do or die affair.
I don't sense blood at all...if the Irish vote No ..it wont come as a major surprise that would send Markets crashing...the major sting was delivered on the first referendum.

Sam Vimes

hobochris wrote: »

Just out of interest, can you provide a link to the document that contains these guarantee's in writing? and more importantly where in the said document they are?

The guarantees arrived on a leaflet in my door the other day and I'm sure they arrived in yours too. The guarantees themselves are not in the treaty because all the guarantees do is spell out in no uncertain terms what's already in the treaty. There is no need to rewrite the treaty because the guarantees are already in it just with different wording.

It's difficult to point to, say, the part that says it won't force Ireland to make abortion illegal because the treaty doesn't say anything about that. There are an infinite number of things that the treaty doesn't do and they're not all listed. It doesn't require everyone to own a green toaster for example but I can't point to the bit in the treaty that says that

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you know that these people, who you kindly call idiots, haven't listened? The referendum hasn't been held yet. When the yes side is voted down again and you want to denounce people do it then, but until then you know precisely jack **** about what people are planning on doing this time round.

I know because exactly the same incorrect and irrelevant arguments are still being put forward all over the place. Look in this thread for someone still saying it will make abortion illegal and the fact that the group Coir is still saying it and the insistence that acceptance or rejection of the treaty has anything to do with Fianna Fail. I'm sure some people have come around but it's clear just from reading this board that many haven't

brianthebard wrote: »

Then why the language about a boss who hates you screwing you over and various other statements that suggested that we should do what the EU told us? If you want to get a message across, drop the analogies and speak clearly.

The language about the boss screwing you over was not to suggest that we should do what the EU told us, as I said you read too much into it. It was to show that someone can make your life difficult even though technically he's not supposed to. That doesn't mean you can never disagree with him, just that you shouldn't act the eejit by rejecting everything he says without good reason.

KINGVictor wrote: »

That is a flawed comparison...Elections are used for political continuity while referenda are used on one- off issues.

So if the divorce referendum had turned out the other way would you fight anyone who attempted to hold another one?

And will you fight any future attempts at another abortion referendum? (assuming you're pro choice)

marco_polo

KINGVictor wrote: »

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.

That may be true but the EU has no authority over than such matters.

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.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. There is nobody here who is anti referendum, but thing as the way they are in other countries and we have to respect that, indeed most of them score far higher than Ireland when you see ranking tables of openness and anti-corruption etc (For whatever these are worth, but thats another matter). So they must be doing something right. This referendum should be about what we the people of Ireland think about the contents of this treaty and the implications for us, nothing more, nothing less.

Sam Vimes

KINGVictor wrote: »

I am not voting No because every nation is not ratifying the treaty via a referendum.

You do realise that that is the system of government in those countries, the EU had no power to make that decision for them and that logic can be used to reject every treaty the EU will ever bring forward right?

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not the same and you know it.

I know that you work hard to dismiss the analogy every time it's brought up.

You and others have tried to claim that there's something so earth-shatteringly profound about EU treaties that we can't trust our elected representatives to decide on them. Other international treaties are fine. Decisions about the public finances are fine - obviously the government has them well under control. Bills relating to trial without jury are in capable hands.

But a minor modification to a couple of supranational agreements - that's going to affect our lives in such incredibly earth-moving ways that it's absolutely crucial that every voter in the country is consulted for their opinion.

And, of course, if those voters want to vote for stupid or frivolous reasons, well, that's OK too.

I can't get my head around that sort of thinking.

oscarBravo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You do realise that that is the system of government in those countries, the EU had no power to make that decision for them and that logic can be used to reject every treaty the EU will ever bring forward right?

You might want to count and re-parse the negatives in the statement you quoted.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

I know that you work hard to dismiss the analogy every time it's brought up.

That's because it's easilly dismissed. It's a non sequitur that you keep trying to introduce, even though you know it's not the same thing.

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

But the alternative would be distrust/disaffection and general apathy...I really don't the EU can afford that .

If you feel that the result of not holding a referendum on a particular topic is distrust, disaffection and apathy - isn't that an indictment of representative democracy in general, rather than of the EU?

We don't have referenda on Criminal Justice bills - does that mean the public is distrustful, disaffected and apathetic about crime? Should we have referenda on Criminal Justice bills?

KINGVictor

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You do realise that that is the system of government in those countries, the EU had no power to make that decision for them and that logic can be used to reject every treaty the EU will ever bring forward right?

I think you misread the quoted statement.

Sam Vimes

KINGVictor wrote: »

I think you misread the quoted statement.

I did indeed Nothing to see here, move along

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

That's because it's easilly dismissed.

Any analogy is easily dismissed by saying "that's different." It's a lazy answer to an analogy. If there were no differences, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be an identity.

It's a non sequitur that you keep trying to introduce, even though you know it's not the same thing.

Yes, I know it's not the same. I think we've clearly established that you believe EU treaties are far more important to the average Joe than his social welfare payments getting cut by fifteen percent, or his income tax being doubled, or the increase in the price of diesel forcing him to walk to work.

This despite the fact that the average Joe can't be bothered to educate himself as to what the treaty actually involves.

It doesn't make sense to me.

sink

Tony EH wrote: »

That's because it's easilly dismissed. It's a non sequitur that you keep trying to introduce, even though you know it's not the same thing.

Given that the economic ideology of the three main parties revolves around free trade and FDI and every economic policy they come up with is informed by their ideology and given the fact that the EU and the Lisbon treaty are logical progressions of that ideology it is not rationale dismiss it as non-sequitur. If you vote for Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or Labour you are voting for economic and political integration with Europe, if you oppose economic and political integration with Europe why would you vote for those three parties?

marco_polo

Tony EH wrote: »

That's because it's easilly dismissed. It's a non sequitur that you keep trying to introduce, even though you know it's not the same thing.

Ah good you're back.

marco_polo wrote: »

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?

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you feel that the result of not holding a referendum on a particular topic is distrust, disaffection and apathy - isn't that an indictment of representative democracy in general, rather than of the EU?

We don't have referenda on Criminal Justice bills - does that mean the public is distrustful, disaffected and apathetic about crime? Should we have referenda on Criminal Justice bills?

You're on dodgy ground here OB with these fish you keep trying to thow into the pond.

I'd say there are a significant number of people who would like a direct say in how this Country deals with its justice and that there are a LOT of people who are very distrustful and disatisfied with the situation re: justice. It's something that fires up a lot of folk.

But then, they can interface with their govenment on a level that is nonexistent in an EU situation and try to reform those bills, or at least vote somebody else in to change the situation in the future.

Tony EH

sink wrote: »

Given that the economic ideology of the three main parties revolves around free trade and FDI and every economic policy they come up with is informed by their ideology and given the fact that the EU and the Lisbon treaty are logical progressions of that ideology it is not rationale dismiss it as non-sequitur. If you vote for Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or Labour you are voting for economic and political integration with Europe, if you oppose economic and political integration with Europe why would you vote for those three parties?

That's not even a reply to the post.

KINGVictor

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you feel that the result of not holding a referendum on a particular topic is distrust, disaffection and apathy - isn't that an indictment of representative democracy in general, rather than of the EU?

We don't have referenda on Criminal Justice bills - does that mean the public is distrustful, disaffected and apathetic about crime? Should we have referenda on Criminal Justice bills?

You make a lot sense but I disagree your comparison with national issues.If I am permitted to go by your example of the Criminal Justice bill..I have my councillor and TD and other elected officials to make complaints to and if I feel very strongly about it ,I vote against them at the next election...they are voted out of office..New politicians make a constitutional ammendment and reverse the previous Govt's decision.

If we extrapolate that in the context of the EU.If I dont like what my elected representatives have agreed on EU matters/policies...I might vote against them in the national election and if I am lucky they are out of office...still doesn't have any bearing on the decision that they would have made regarding the EU...Treaty passed...it would be too late..

It is not exactly the same.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

I'd say there are a significant number of people who would like a direct say in how this Country deals with its justice and that there are a LOT of people who are very distrustful and disatisfied with the situation re: justice. It's something that fires up a lot of folk.

Absolutely, I agree. I know that if I had a choice between a referendum on the blasphemy proposals in the Defamation bill and on the Lisbon treaty, I'd much rather have my say on the former.

But I don't get a say on it. For better or worse, that's how representative democracy works. I'll lobby my opposition TDs hard to make sure that if and when they're elected, they'll overturn that farcical nonsense - with a constitutional amendment, if necessary.

But you're trying to claim that, of all the things that people want to vote on, EU treaties are at the forefront of their concerns? I kinda doubt it.

But then, they can interface with their govenment on a level that is nonexistent in an EU situation and try to reform those bills, or at least vote somebody else in to change the situation in the future.

I'm not sure what cave you were in, but I directly elected three members of the European Parliament a few weeks ago.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you're trying to claim that, of all the things that people want to vote on, EU treaties are at the forefront of their concerns?

Nowhere did I say that.

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

sink

KINGVictor wrote: »

You make a lot sense but I disagree your comparison with national issues.If I am permitted to go by your example of the Criminal Justice bill..I have my councillor and TD and other elected officials to make complaints to and if I feel very strongly about it ,I vote against them at the next election...they are voted out of office..New politicians make a constitutional ammendment and reverse the previous Govt's decision.

If we extrapolate that in the context of the EU.If I dont like what my elected representatives have agreed on EU matters/policies...I might vote against them in the national election and if I am lucky they are out of office...still doesn't have any bearing on the decision that they would have made regarding the EU...Treaty passed...it would be too late..

It is not exactly the same.

It is the same but in a larger context. You can vote in a local TD who promises to reverse the previous governments decision, but unless enough of his colleagues are also voted in from other constituencies he is powerless to act alone. Similarly in a European context you can vote for a government who promises to reverse the decisions of the previous government, but the government represents just one constituency if you will, it would require a majority of governments from all other constituencies in order to reverse the decision.

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

If I dont like what my elected representatives have agreed on EU matters/policies...I might vote against them in the national election and if I am lucky they are out of office...still doesn't have any bearing on the decision that they would have made regarding the EU...Treaty passed...it would be too late..

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.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

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

Would a referendum on a Finance or Criminal Justice bill be unfair or undemocratic?

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would a referendum on a Finance or Criminal Justice bill be unfair or undemocratic?

actually i would very much like a referendum on this subject

but thats not here or there

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Nowhere did I say that.

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

It's a fair and democratic option, but it's certainly not the only one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

sink wrote: »

It is the same but in a larger context. You can vote in a local TD who promises to reverse the previous governments decision, but unless enough of his colleagues are also voted in from other constituencies he is powerless to act alone. Similarly in a European context you can vote for a government who promises to reverse the decisions of the previous government, but the government represents just one constituency if you will, it would require a majority of governments from all other constituencies in order to reverse the decision.

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.

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know because exactly the same incorrect and irrelevant arguments are still being put forward all over the place. Look in this thread for someone still saying it will make abortion illegal and the fact that the group Coir is still saying it and the insistence that acceptance or rejection of the treaty has anything to do with Fianna Fail. I'm sure some people have come around but it's clear just from reading this board that many haven't

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

The language about the boss screwing you over was not to suggest that we should do what the EU told us, as I said you read too much into it. It was to show that someone can make your life difficult even though technically he's not supposed to. That doesn't mean you can never disagree with him, just that you shouldn't act the eejit by rejecting everything he says without good reason.

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.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would a referendum on a Finance or Criminal Justice bill be unfair or undemocratic?

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