Responsibility

akkadian

Ireland, whether inadvertently or not seems to be setting up precedents.
An example would be the smoking ban. Ireland was the 1st country in Europe to set up a smoking ban AFAIK. And generally people are happy with the ban. Actually it's ultimately turning out to be a colossal waste of energy, but that's not the point.
The point is that in far reaching places, this 'novel' social change has effects. I believe Ireland should take itself out of these experimental approaches. Why? #1 As I said, it can set precedents. In a little village in Laos, somebody's whole social life literally resolves around being able to smoke in peace indoors. Luckily, the ban hasn't fully swept SE Asia yet but if it does, Ireland IMO has to take responsibility for this.
#2 Secondly, it paints a picture that Ireland can be asked to take the blame for everything:
'Smoking ban, yeah sure let's bring that in'
'Being asked to vote for the other 99% of the EU on Lisbon 2'
yeah, I agree with that, let's bring that in.'
It's wrong. People in this country have got carried away with this crap.

Rb

What have we taken the blame for?

I think you'll find that everybody who isn't addicted to nicotine is glad we now have the smoking ban, so I would consider that a success. Even when I was a smoker I appreciated the cleaner air indoors. Recently I went into a bar in Cyprus where there was no ventilation and there were people smoking liberally, it was so disgusting I turned around and walked straight back out. I don't care about people in Laos and their love of smoking.

ei.sdraob

There already was precedent in this country in form of Nice


and there was precendent in EU

in form of Denmark voting twice in referendum and getting legal guarantees


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Agreement


to anyone screaming "how is this democratic"

they need to be pointed at a history book


/

Scofflaw

I'm not sure what this thread is about. Every member state votes on the ratification of EU treaties according to their own constitutional requirements. That means that when the Dutch parliament votes on an EU treaty, it decides for "all of Europe". When the Maltese parliament voted on Lisbon, it too "decided for all of Europe".

It happens that our constitutional requirement is for a referendum, as per the Crotty case. We decided on accession by referendum, and since then we've decided on the SEA, Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Nice by referendum - while the rest of Europe has decided whatever way their constitutions dictate. So the Irish voter is put under the same spotlight as the Maltese parliamentary representative - so? That's how we do things.

What are you arguing for - that we should stop having referendums? That we should vote No because we're scared of making a decision "for all of Europe"? That's what we've done for 20 years now, and what every country does, just in different ways.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

OP I really have little idea what you're on about. Who's saying we to blame for anything? (well other than you)

I think Scofflaw's point is a good one.

We keep hearing about the EU, like in some way we are not the EU. We are the EU, just like every other country in the EU is the EU.