Lisbon 2 The Return!

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Because then you have to have the whole thing re-run (and presumably, re-named).

Again, it was done for the French and the Dutch, why not us?

RandomName2 wrote: »

With Lisbon, even with this being the case, another referendum is the most logical step for them to take. If lisbon is voted down again, THEN something along the French-dutch lines can be taken. Even if it is slightly dubious whether or not the French and dutch got what they wanted as there was no direct vote on either what changes should be made to the Constitution Treaty, and then whether or not they apporved such changes through referenda.

But when people's reasons are still mostly nothing to do with the treaty, things like a general objection to the EU, dislike of Irish politicians, the farcical idea that the guarantees are not actually guarantees, objections to being asked to vote again etc, what exactly are they to renegotiate?

There are people who object to articles of the treaty such as the increase in QMV but these are not the majority issues. The majority issues cannot be renegotiated because they are not articles of the treaty

And if we do get issues renegotiated we'll still have people coming out and saying "this new treaty is 90% the same, it's a carbon copy!!!1!!1!". They just can't win

Sam Vimes

dub_skav wrote: »

I think a lot of the anger now is based on the fact that we were told before the referendum that a No vote meant the treaty was dead.
We were not told that if we voted No the government would commission a survey with leading questions which they would then use to staple things to the envelope the treaty is contained in and try again.

That's a very serious accusation against Milward Brown. They could go out of business if people got the perception that their surveys had leading questions. Can you substantiate it?

dub_skav wrote: »

Level of understanding was never even mentioned until after the No vote.

It was mentioned several hundred times a day on boards and in the rest of the country
Remember the slogan "if you don't know, vote no"?

dub_skav wrote: »

A Yes / No question has 2 possible answers, not 1 answer plus 1 answer that leads to further discussion so that you get the other answer in the end.

Democracy works through compromise. A 300 page document does not just get thrown in the bin, they try to find out why people rejected it and see what can be done to handle their objections and renegotiate. That's how democracy works. The surveys showed that the Irish people did not have any specific objections to parts of the treaty in large numbers so there was nothing to renegotiate. The majority reason was lack of understanding. The only way to handle that problem is to increase understanding, which there has been a somewhat feeble attempt at. Handling objections and re-proposing issues is not undemocratic, it's the essence of democracy. The treaty would have gone through hundreds of such iterations before being finalised

dub_skav

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's a very serious accusation against Milward Brown. They could go out of business if people got the perception that their surveys had leading questions. Can you substantiate it?

As i said before the fact that Abortion was not mentioned when people were asked a flat question of why they voted no. Only when presented with the word abortion and asked how important an issue it had been to them did it register. Others may not find that leading, but I do - especially when it ended up being one of the pointless things that the government grabbed hold of and brough to the EU for guarantees.

It was mentioned several hundred times a day on boards and in the rest of the country
Remember the slogan "if you don't know, vote no"?

I mean it was never mentioned as a reason for a possible rerun of the referendum. Ignorance has and always will be a powerful vote getter in Ireland, we were not informed this time would be any different.

Democracy works through compromise. A 300 page document does not just get thrown in the bin, they try to find out why people rejected it and see what can be done to handle their objections and renegotiate. That's how democracy works. The surveys showed that the Irish people did not have any specific objections to parts of the treaty in large numbers so there was nothing to renegotiate. The majority reason was lack of understanding. The only way to handle that problem is to increase understanding, which there has been a somewhat feeble attempt at. Handling objections and re-proposing issues is not undemocratic, it's the essence of democracy. The treaty would have gone through hundreds of such iterations before being finalised

This we just fundamentally disagree on

Sam Vimes

dub_skav wrote: »

As i said before the fact that Abortion was not mentioned when people were asked a flat question of why they voted no. Only when presented with the word abortion and asked how important an issue it had been to them did it register. Others may not find that leading, but I do - especially when it ended up being one of the pointless things that the government grabbed hold of and brough to the EU for guarantees.

They were asked if abortion was an issue for them and they answered it. That's not leading. What would the government have to gain from getting erroneous reasons for the no vote? They're trying to get a yes vote and fixing a load of issues that aren't actually issues isn't going to achieve that

dub_skav wrote: »

I mean it was never mentioned as a reason for a possible rerun of the referendum. Ignorance has and always will be a powerful vote getter in Ireland, we were not informed this time would be any different.

I don't recall them publishing any list of things that might have led to another referendum before the first one tbh.

dub_skav wrote: »

This we just fundamentally disagree on

Say you were signing a very important contract with a business partner, one that would make or break your business and the contract had 500 clauses. You come in one morning and you find the contract returned unsigned with a note explaining why.

The note gives five reasons, three of which are valid objections to certain clauses and two of which he has simply misunderstood and he would probably accept if they were explained properly.

Would you rewrite the contract with the three contentious clauses removed and attempt to explain his error with the other two or would you say "he's made his decision" and throw the contract in the bin, even though it's very important to you, he only objects to a tiny portion of it that can be renegotiated and the misunderstandings can be easily clarified?

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think it was that people had directly said they changed their minds, it was more that once more education was made available and the unfounded fears had been settled, there was no valid reason not to change your mind. Unfortunately people are still holding onto their old invalid reasons while coming up with some more, such as the incredibly ill informed idea that being asked to vote again is undemocratic

Well anyone that voted no because they didn't know, as was the phrase, and are calling a re-run un-democratic are crazy. Those though that had made their mind on the treaty and having voted, tbh I can understand that annoyance. It's not un-democratic though you could argue that by re-visiting the same treaty (other than the commission issue) in less than a year may result in people deciding not to vote because, "What's the point. They'll keep running it until I vote YES." If that was the case I would definitely understand people bitchin bout it being slightly underhanded.

An Fear Aniar

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The French and the Dutch got the constitution renegotiated after their people rejected it and gave valid reasons. Why couldn't Cowen have done the same?

But they dare not try another referendum in either of these countries, just as Labour in the UK dare not grant the referendum they promised in their election manifesto.

If this thing is forced through by politicians over the heads of the people it will do irreversible damage to the credibility of the EU as an institution and shore up resentment in the decades ahead. The only way to salvage this thing is to stage a European-wide referendum of the people.

To say that national governments can ratify this Constitution because they were democratically elected is simply not good enough, when, as was the case in most countries, there were only two or three only parties that could feasibly form a government and they all made it their policy to ratify.

Democratic deficit? Mais oui!

.

marco_polo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Suppose the survey came back saying that 85% of no voters opposed the Charter of Human Rights. Or any other part of the treaty.

What could Fianna Fail have done about it?

Nothing.

Perhaps they could have got a Declaration/Guarantees on the matter like the UK, Czech Republic and Poland did?

Stark

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps they could have got a Declaration/Guarantees on the matter like the UK, Czech Republic and Poland did?

Or like Ireland did for that matter...

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well anyone that voted no because they didn't know, as was the phrase, and are calling a re-run un-democratic are crazy. Those though that had made their mind on the treaty and having voted, tbh I can understand that annoyance. It's not un-democratic though you could argue that by re-visiting the same treaty (other than the commission issue) in less than a year may result in people deciding not to vote because, "What's the point. They'll keep running it until I vote YES." If that was the case I would definitely understand people bitchin bout it being slightly underhanded.

Right, so you acknowledge that people who voted no because they didn't know have no right to call a re-run undemocratic. The thing is that not knowing was by far the biggest reason given so re-running it is not undemocratic. The people who were decided were very much in the minority and the people who were decided on issues that were actually in the treaty were a smaller group again. People who are of the "what's the point" mentality should have it pointed out to them that the biggest reason last time was not knowing and so running it again is perfectly reasonable.

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The only way to salvage this thing is to stage a European-wide referendum of the people.

The EU has no power to do that, the ratification process is entirely a national competence.

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

But they dare not try another referendum in either of these countries, just as Labour in the UK dare not grant the referendum they promised in their election manifesto.

Judging from the massive amounts of misinformation, lies and mudslinging that has gone on over this treaty it probably would be voted down. But that doesn't mean the treaty is bad, it means that people have been turned against it.

In a representative democracy we elect people who are supposed to know what's good for the country, who are supposed to understand these types of things and who are supposed to represent our interests in the EU and in the world. The average Joe doesn't have the time, inclination or expertise to pick his way through a complicated 300 page legal document and completely understand its ramifications. I don't think this treaty should be put to a referendum, I think it should be left to the people who are trained to understand these things. There are things that should be put to referendums like divorce and abortion but I don't international treaties are one of them.

Unfortunately in Ireland it doesn't happen like that because we have repeatedly elected the same crowd of gobsh!tes for the last 80 years, who have robbed us blind, led us off the cliff and screwed us into the ground. We're in the odd situation where if all of our elected representatives are in agreement that something is good it makes us suspicious. But just because Ireland is in that situation doesn't mean the rest of Europe is. Unlike us they don't have a clause in their constitution requiring a referendum over things like this and I don't see mass protests demanding such a clause. They seem to be quite happy for this to be one more of the millions of things that their governments decide on without a referendum. Ireland is very much the exception in international terms for having referendums over such issues and we have no right to tell the rest of the world that they're doing it wrong

An Fear Aniar

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In a representative democracy we elect people who are supposed to know what's good for the country, who are supposed to understand these types of things and who are supposed to represent our interests in the EU and in the world.

In an ideal world this would be sufficient but concentrating power of this magnitude in the hands of a few can lead to greater error and often catastrophe.

No democratic political institution or state (or supranational entity) can last long or operate well without real grassroots support. This is the EU's biggest problem.

Electoral turnout at EU elections is abysmal, and even in Spain, where the referendum was passed, the turnout at 42% was the lowest in any election since the restoration of democracy in 1977(ref Wiki).

The EU Constitution lacks a direct mandate from the people and unless they face up to this problem there are going to be disastrous consequences in the decades ahead, especially as many countries postponed or cancelled their referendums after the results of the French and Dutch plebiscites.

It's a serious problem and pretending it doesn't exist is not the solution.

.

Stark

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Electoral turnout at EU elections is abysmal, and even in Spain, where the referendum was passed, the turnout at 42% was the lowest in any election since the restoration of democracy in 1977(ref Wiki).

Low voter turnout can often reflect contentment with the status quo. It's usually the dissatisfied who make the greatest effort to vote. I'd be willing to bet that the next Irish general election sees a much higher turnout than recent elections anyway.

I remember the pundits for the Lisbon treaty saying that >40% voter turnout would mean a Yes majority for the treaty, <40% would mean a No majority. The reasoning being that people wishing voting No would feel stronger about the issue and make it a point to vote, as opposed to people generally content with the EU who would vote Yes but weren't really pushed about turning out to vote.

Sam Vimes

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

In an ideal world this would be sufficient but concentrating power of this magnitude in the hands of a few can lead to greater error and often catastrophe.

No democratic political institution or state (or supranational entity) can last long or operate well without real grassroots support. This is the EU's biggest problem.

Electoral turnout at EU elections is abysmal, and even in Spain, where the referendum was passed, the turnout at 42% was the lowest in any election since the restoration of democracy in 1977(ref Wiki).

The EU Constitution lacks a direct mandate from the people and unless they face up to this problem there are going to be disastrous consequences in the decades ahead, especially as many countries postponed or cancelled their referendums after the results of the French and Dutch plebiscites.

It's a serious problem and pretending it doesn't exist is not the solution.

.

Your problem seems to be with the entire concept of representative democrary. It works for the vast majority of the countries in the world and I see no reason why it shouldn't work for the EU. People might not get to directly vote on every issue that might effect them but they do vote in the people who vote on the issues for them. If the people of Europe were unhappy with the direction of the EU they'd be voting in euro sceptics en masse. The spectacular failure of Libertas along with the low voter turnout suggests that people are happy enough with the status quo. As stark points out people who are pissed off tend to vote more

And anyway, the ratification of treaties is the business of the countries involved alone. You might think that the rest of Europe should have referendums but, much to the delight of many no voters, we have no more right to tell them they should have a referendum that they have to tell us not to have one

Prawo Jazdy

I'll be voting No on behalf of the people of Europe who have been denied the right to vote on Lisbon.

Stark

Prawo Jazdy wrote: »

I'll be voting No on behalf of the people of Europe who have been denied the right to vote on Lisbon.

And the prize for not reading any other posts in the thread goes to...

Prawo Jazdy

Stark wrote: »

And the prize for not reading any other posts in the thread goes to...

Have you seen the size of this thread? My bollix I am reading all of it! Is my prize nice? Last time I got a prize it was a bronze medal in Judo about 5 years ago.

Feel free to summarise the thread on mybehalf.

Thanking you muchly in advancements.

Run_to_da_hills

Stark wrote: »

And the prize for not reading any other posts in the thread goes to...

Did Britain get denied a chance to vote on Lisbon after an election promise from Gordon Browne? Answer YES.

Britain looks at Ireland with ENVY because we have the opportunity to hold a referendum on this issue.

whatisayis

marco_polo wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that exercising those options even now would require a referendum in any case, as under the Crotty Judgement referenda are only required in relation to changes in foreign policy, not visa and immigration policy which is what the Schengen Aquis covers.

I didn't realise that the Crotty judgement was only in relation to foreign policy. What are the changes in the foreign policy area in Lisbon that require it to be passed by referendum in Ireland?

FutureTaoiseach

whatisayis wrote: »

I didn't realise that the Crotty judgement was only in relation to foreign policy. What are the changes in the foreign policy area in Lisbon that require it to be passed by referendum in Ireland?

I disagree with Marco Polo's narrow interpretation of Crotty.

It is true that the Supreme Court found that the reason a referendum was required in the case of the Single European Act was because of the foreign-policy issue. However, it is also true that the Court found that in future, the test for whether a referendum would be required would be whether a treaty changed the 'scope and objectives' of the EU in a way not envisaged by the existing Treaties. Furthermore, one of the judges made clear that just because the extension of QMV to new areas in the SEA (1987) was not unconstitutional, did not mean that all future extensions of QMV would be constitutional. That is an important point to make, because some commentators, in encouraging the govt to attempt ratification without a referendum, have attempted to imply that the Crotty was giving carte-blanche for expansion of QMV, and only requiring referenda where foreign policy (in a narrow interpretation of that term) was concerned.

marco_polo

whatisayis wrote: »

I didn't realise that the Crotty judgement was only in relation to foreign policy. What are the changes in the foreign policy area in Lisbon that require it to be passed by referendum in Ireland?

I am not sure that anyone has establish for certain that the Lisbon treaty or indeed other recent treaties, would have unquestionably needed a referendum under the terms of the Crotty judgement. As the case was mainly centered around foreign policy ( European Political Co-operation) because it was perhaps the first real move away from a purely Economic Union. Given that the EC/EU has long been formed and defence/neutrality is covered by the constitution, it is hard to pick out the direct relevance of the judgement to the current treaty.

All that is certain is that we have a long established tradition of having referenda for major European Treaties, and that is the way it should stay IMO.

There is a small few lines on the main points here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I disagree with Marco Polo's narrow interpretation of Crotty.

It is true that the Supreme Court found that the reason a referendum was required in the case of the Single European Act was because of the foreign-policy issue. However, it is also true that the Court found that in future, the test for whether a referendum would be required would be whether a treaty changed the 'scope and objectives' of the EU in a way not envisaged by the existing Treaties. Furthermore, one of the judges made clear that just because the extension of QMV to new areas in the SEA (1987) was not unconstitutional, did not mean that all future extensions of QMV would be constitutional. That is an important point to make, because some commentators, in encouraging the govt to attempt ratification without a referendum, have attempted to imply that the Crotty was giving carte-blanche for expansion of QMV, and only requiring referenda where foreign policy (in a narrow interpretation of that term) was concerned.

Oh I don't disagree with any of that, and I am not saying that a future case would not possibly add other requirements. But purely in terms of Crotty I am correct that foreign policy is the only confirmed one. No other other grounds have ever been put to the test in court, and as long as we continue to hold referenda probably never will. And I would certainly not be supportive of any ratification attempt without a referendum.

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

Oh I don't disagree with any of that, and I am not saying that a future case would not possibly add other requirements. But purely in terms of Crotty I am correct that foreign policy is the only confirmed one. Noother other grounds have ever been put to the test in court, and as long as we continue to hold referenda probably never will.

Surely changes to 'objectives and scope' is another confirmed one?

An Fear Aniar

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your problem seems to be with the entire concept of representative democrary. It works for the vast majority of the countries in the world and I see no reason why it shouldn't work for the EU.

It won't work unless there is more direct accountability. Compare the EU approach with the US Senate and Congress and the Executive Branch, all of whom are directly elected for those positions.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People might not get to directly vote on every issue that might effect them but they do vote in the people who vote on the issues for them.
If the people of Europe were unhappy with the direction of the EU they'd be voting in euro sceptics en masse.

They vote in first and foremost a national government at election time, EU issues are not really make or break issue during national elections. We should not assume intent, just because one party won power on national issues, as has happened with Sarkozy in France. The only way to find out is a direct referendum.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The spectacular failure of Libertas along with the low voter turnout suggests that people are happy enough with the status quo. As stark points out people who are pissed off tend to vote more

That's often called voter apathy, where people think their vote doesn't make any difference anyway.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And anyway, the ratification of treaties is the business of the countries involved alone. You might think that the rest of Europe should have referendums but, much to the delight of many no voters, we have no more right to tell them they should have a referendum that they have to tell us not to have one

Hee hee... Ireland voted NO but somehow they think they have a right to tell us how we should vote.

And anyway, there were referendums planned in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and the UK. But they've all been cancelled or postponed. If the EU is really a democratic institution, what are they afraid of? It stinks to high heaven.

.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Surely changes to 'objectives and scope' is another confirmed one?

Could you really argue that lisbon changes the existing treaties in a way not envisaged by the existing Treaties?

I know you will though

Stark

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It won't work unless there is more direct accountability. Compare the EU approach with the US Senate and Congress and the Executive Branch, all of whom are directly elected for those positions.

Lisbon shifts power from the indirectly elected European Council to the directly elected European Parliament as well as having European Council meetings take place in the open rather than behind closed doors.

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

hat's often called voter apathy, where people think their vote doesn't make any difference anyway.

Why didn't they vote for Libertas in that case, who promised to shake up Europe?

FutureTaoiseach

Stark wrote: »

Lisbon shifts power from the indirectly elected European Council to the directly elected European Parliament as well as having European Council meetings take place in the open rather than behind closed doors.



Why didn't they vote for Libertas in that case, who promised to shake up Europe?

The problem on the European Parliament is that it's only one side of the coin that is "co-decision". If it were just about giving the EP a veto on EU legislation, I would be okay with it. The problem is that co-decision also entails expansion of Qualified Majority Voting on the Council of Ministers. As for Libertas, remember they won 5.4% despite only standing in 3 Euro constituencies. 100,000 votes is not bad for their first run. Ganley's decision to leave the stage is premature imho. But other than that I would argue their failure to catch the public imagination is largely because of deeply engrained party-allegiances in this country, which tend to run in families. People also feel that the referendum process allows for those areas where they disagree with their party to be addressed in that mechanism, rather than in elections. That's my reading of it anyway.

marco polo wrote:

Could you really argue that lisbon changes the existing treaties in a way not envisaged by the existing Treaties?

Yes, notably with respect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights being enshrined into EU law "with the same legal value as the Treaties" (Article 6 TEU). The vast codification of human rights law under the jurisdiction of the ECJ is a constitional revolution in my eyes.

An Fear Aniar

Stark wrote: »

Lisbon shifts power from the indirectly elected European Council to the directly elected European Parliament as well as having European Council meetings take place in the open rather than behind closed doors.

I don't care, I've already lost faith in this project, as I think many other Europeans have, certainly the majority of French and Dutch voters:). I'm actually in the lamentable position of hoping that the Tories get elected soon and hold a referendum in the UK so that this daft nonsense can be killed off for once and for all.

Stark wrote: »

Why didn't they vote for Libertas in that case, who promised to shake up Europe?

Who knows? Should we have a re-run to ask them if they really meant it? All will become clear in time.:)

.

j1smithy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I see Cóir already look like being the focal point of the opposition to the treaty with their rather outlandish posters:

http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_1.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_2.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_3.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_4.jpg
http://www.coircampaign.org/images/LeafletsPosters/poster_5.jpg

Posters 2 and 3 I'm guessing will be the most controversial. I must say I'm also looking forward to what the PR department in Ryanair is going to come out with!

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

I really like these, nice design and a good, strong impact.

.

Such a shame what they're spouting isn't actually true though. I mean how are you meant to counter such stupid claims?

I'm wondering what is Cóirs real motive here though? I know they are also known as Youth Defence but abortion isn't an issue in this. I get the feeling is they want us to withdraw totally from Europe to form some sort of ultra conservative state with Catholic teaching at the heart of all our Law, sort of like a Catholic version of Saudi Arabia? The destruction of Lisbon would be the first step in this isolationist strategy.

Am I right or are they simply just a group of people who oppose everything for the sake of opposing, ie a shower of nutters?

j1smithy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Did Britain get denied a chance to vote on Lisbon after an election promise from Gordon Browne? Answer YES.

Britain looks at Ireland with ENVY because we have the opportunity to hold a referendum on this issue.

Thats a problem for the British electorate not for us to judge quite frankly.

Run_to_da_hills

j1smithy wrote: »

Thats a problem for the British electorate not for us to judge quite frankly.

You could say the very same about the rest of Europe (including France and Holland who voted against it ) and they all got walked over by their own governments into this mess because their constitutions could not hold water. These nations now deeply regret it.

We Irish are very fortunate to have one of the most water tight constitutions in the whole of Europe, so much so that we had to put Lisbon to the floor before it could even be attempted to be ratified.

It is a great shame that our own Governments are willing to sacrifice this great constitution against the will of Irish the people.

The following links sum up the critical situation of our constitution with this Lisbon pact.

Worse still Brian Cowen is trying to collaborate the opposition party that this is all a good thing. :eek:

AuRevoir

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_oJfWtyg1AxA/Sp2wIOYFfTI/AAAAAAAAAF8/vzl1GG35z9U/s400/SDC10987.JPG

Look at the Fianna Fáil poster for the Lisbon Yes campaign saying 'Yes for the economy.'

Would they not be the same bunch of muppets that spent the last 12 years wrecking it??