Should the rest of Europe get to vote on this treaty?

Max Power1

humanji wrote: »

Are they the majority in Europe?

Now you're just being pedantic.

Although I had used the UK, (as it is one of the more anti-eu countries) given that a very similar document was rejected in Holland and France in the last 5 years - yes, i do think it would be voted down. As has been mentioned by myself already, it doesnt matter as several member states dont allow referenda on foreign policy. (which is quite un-democratic imho)

marco_polo

thecornerboy wrote: »

This is satire right?

You're saying that holding an opinion that other nation states should hold a referendum on an issue of great importance to them is "telling other countries that their way is wrong".

What planet do you Yes-EU loons come from.

No but wasting your vote in your own referendum because of that opinion sure is.

Max Power1

thecornerboy wrote: »

This is satire right?

You're saying that holding an opinion that other nation states should hold a referendum on an issue of great importance to them is "telling other countries that their way is wrong".

What planet do you Yes-EU loons come from.

I'd imagine its the same planet where a yes vote results in automatic economic recovery starting next monday, and a no vote results in major job losses and Ireland being kicked out of the EU. :rolleyes:

Mark200

wylo wrote: »

I dont even think the majority of people in other countries even care to be honest. Even though theres talk of UK wanting a referendum etc, theres absolutely no mention of the voting in any of its news channels today.

Sky News mentioned it several times in the half hour I was watching it before I left this morning. They also had Declan Ganley (:rolleyes:) and a Yes supporter on for a few minutes last night to talk about it.

Max Power1 wrote: »

of course - it should have been put to an EU-wide referendum. All these Yes pushers that are pro EU integration - theres a perfect situation to get interacting with the whole of Europe, lets all have a referendum the same day.

Why does this not happen you ask? Well the treaty hasnt a hope of being passed!

If every country has to ratify it independently by a vote/referendum, then even the most simple of treaties would have a lot of trouble passing. Even if you had a treaty offering a million Euro of newly found money to every single citizen with no strings attached, you're bound to get at least one or two countries that'll vote no regardless. It'd be like picking 27 members of the public randomly off the street, you're unlikely to get them all to agree on any issue, regardless of what it is. It's different when you have Governments taking control of passing legislation because they actually know what they're voting on and have more understanding than the majority of the people who would be asked to vote on it.

thecornerboy wrote: »

This is satire right?

You're saying that holding an opinion that other nation states should hold a referendum on an issue of great importance to them is "telling other countries that their way is wrong".

What planet do you Yes-EU loons come from.

I don't see any connection between holding that opinion and wanting a Yes vote for the Lisbon treaty.

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

I'd imagine its the same planet where a yes vote results in automatic economic recovery starting next monday, and a no vote results in major job losses and Ireland being kicked out of the EU. :rolleyes:

Yes if you straw man what they're saying you can indeed make it appear ridiculous

marco_polo

Essentially what we have is.

1) Direct democracy is the only legitimate form of democracy that can accurately reflect the will of the people on a particular issue.

2) I am voting no to the Lisbon treaty, not because of what it is in it, but because nobody else got a vote.

I just cannot square that circle.

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes if you straw man what they're saying you can indeed make it appear ridiculous

Well its hardly misrepresentng what the yes pushers are saying? "Yes to jobs" "Yes to recovery" etc is plain as day

And yes it is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as that fact that people fall for this BS

Rb

Saying that the rest of Europe should hold a referendum, as opposed to their own democratically decided way of ratifying it, is horribly undemocractic and shows absolutely no respect for those who value said democracy in their respective country.

Yet, you only hear No voters pushing for it. You couldn't make it up.

thecornerboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes if you straw man what they're saying you can indeed make it appear ridiculous

To be fair, that's the picture being painted by the YES side, not just some of them but by every group who seems to want to vote YES.

The ECB are going to turn into Mafia loan sharks overnight if we vote No, 250,000 job ads are magically going to appear in tomorrows' newspapers, we're going to be kicked out of the EU if we vote no or we'll be on the wrong side of a 2-tier EU, multinationals will flee (notwithstanding strong evidence multinationals will do better out of Ireland in the long term with a no vote to Lisbon) Ireland tomorrow if there's a no Vote, our babies will be born with 6 toes, we'll get 17 minutes less daylight per day. Okay, the last 2 may not be true.

No reasons, no analysis that would lead to any of these conclusions is ever offered. I've asked, maybe 20 people, some of them political party people, if they could give me 1 good reason why we should vote Yes. Not one has given a proper answer, most waffle something and include Coir and Declan Ganley in the answer.

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

Now you're just being pedantic.

Although I had used the UK, (as it is one of the more anti-eu countries) given that a very similar document was rejected in Holland and France in the last 5 years - yes, i do think it would be voted down. As has been mentioned by myself already, it doesnt matter as several member states dont allow referenda on foreign policy. (which is quite un-democratic imho)

I'm sorry if I seem pedantic, but it's a valid point that the majority of people in Europe don't know or care about the treaty. It really is irrelevant to our day to day life. If everyone could make a genuine effort to inform themselves on the exact contents of the treaty, then there would be a point in having a Europe wide vote. But because so many people don't bother and simply listen to whoever shouts loudest, then the results will always be skewed.

People have been tricked into thinking this is a life changing event. The world will keep on turning no matter what the result. Wait till the results come out and you'll see a high percentage of people not voting.

Also, a full European vote may be democratic, but is it really fair? I mean, after the treaty was ratified in Germany they re-elected the same people to government. So that to me is an indication of a majority Yes vote for Germany (if they were against it, surely they'd vote in someone else?). And since there's plenty more people in Germany than Ireland, and saying that there would be a slight majority of say 51% who would vote yes, then even if everyone in Ireland voted No, we'd be out-voted by Germany, completely. How would that be fair if they were only voting because Lisbon directly benefits them? Hell, that's the whole reason the QMV is to be upgraded. It's to sp unfair voting like that.

And I'm sure we're all sick of it being pointed out by now, but Hitler is a perfect example of this system being abused.

Max Power1

marco_polo wrote: »

Essentially what we have is.


2) I am voting no to the Lisbon treaty, not because of what it is in it, but because nobody else got a vote.

I just cannot square that circle.

well actually, as I have already explained here I have good reason to vote NO, and the fact that there isnt an EU wide referendum isnt one of them

hatrickpatrick

marco_polo wrote: »

But not too much Direct democracy because that would be undemocratic.

How so? The will of the people.

Everyone here knows I'm an old fashioned liberal. The government should have no say on any matters which only affect the people involved in them, in my view. As long as something is consensual between all parties involved it should be allowed. That's the one rule I believe democracy shouldn't be allowed to touch. Everything else should be up for decision by the people, and only by the people.

It's my opinion. I'm not saying it's right or anything, but the thread asked us for our opinions so I'm giving them. Signing away national sovereignty affects everyone in a given country, therefore everyone should have a vote on it.

Max Power1

humanji wrote: »

Also, a full European vote may be democratic, but is it really fair? I mean, after the treaty was ratified in Germany they re-elected the same people to government. So that to me is an indication of a majority Yes vote for Germany (if they were against it, surely they'd vote in someone else?). And since there's plenty more people in Germany than Ireland, and saying that there would be a slight majority of say 51% who would vote yes, then even if everyone in Ireland voted No, we'd be out-voted by Germany, completely. How would that be fair if they were only voting because Lisbon directly benefits them? Hell, that's the whole reason the QMV is to be upgraded. It's to sp unfair voting like that.

And I'm sure we're all sick of it being pointed out by now, but Hitler is a perfect example of this system being abused.

So what you are saying, is that a referendum in 1 (tiny)country is fairer than an EU wide referendum?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

Well its hardly misrepresentng what the yes pushers are saying? "Yes to jobs" "Yes to recovery" etc is plain as day

And yes it is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as that fact that people fall for this BS

The problem here is you've assumed that recovery starts on Monday and that if yes means jobs then no means massive job losses. Both are straw men.

Put simply a yes vote creates confidence for the whole of Europe and shows Ireland to be pro-EU and willing to play ball with its neighbours where a no vote creates uncertainty about the future of the EU and Ireland's place in it because it makes it seem that we see the EU as an organisation that does not share our goals and is not acting in the interests of the Irish state.

Confidence fuels recovery and uncertainty fuels recessions but no one's saying that recovery starts Monday or that there will be massive job losses because of a no vote, just that it will make it more difficult

humanji

thecornerboy wrote: »

To be fair, that's the picture being painted by the YES side, not just some of them but by every group who seems to want to vote YES.

The ECB are going to turn into Mafia loan sharks overnight if we vote No, 250,000 job ads are magically going to appear in tomorrows' newspapers, we're going to be kicked out of the EU if we vote no or we'll be on the wrong side of a 2-tier EU, multinationals will flee (notwithstanding strong evidence multinationals will do better out of Ireland in the long term with a no vote to Lisbon) Ireland tomorrow if there's a no Vote, our babies will be born with 6 toes, we'll get 17 minutes less daylight per day. Okay, the last 2 may not be true.

No reasons, no analysis that would lead to any of these conclusions is ever offered. I've asked, maybe 20 people, some of them political party people, if they could give me 1 good reason why we should vote Yes. Not one has given a proper answer, most waffle something and include Coir and Declan Ganley in the answer.

I know it's wasted on you as you're simply not goingt o change your mind, but here are actual, genuine reasons to vote yes, and unlike the no reason, these really do involve the Lisbon Treaty.

It's only the No campaign that say there are no reasons to vote Yes. And no matter how many times the reasons are presented, they ignore them and go on about how the Yes side are just scaremongering.

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem here is you've assumed that recovery starts on Monday and that if yes means jobs then no means massive job losses. Both are straw men.

Put simply a yes vote creates confidence for the whole of Europe and shows Ireland to be pro-EU and willing to play ball with its neighbours where a no vote creates uncertainty about the future of the EU and Ireland's place in it because it makes it seem that we see the EU as an organisation that does not share our goals and is not acting in the interests of the Irish state.

Confidence fuels recovery and uncertainty fuels recessions but no one's saying that recovery starts Monday or that there will be massive job losses because of a no vote, just that it will make it more difficult

Instructing the electorate, via billboard, to "vote yes for jobs" implies that the alternate option (no) doesnt offer this solution. Michael OLeary and also the leaders of FF & FG have stated that a no vote will directly result in job losses when the multinationals pull out of ireland as a direct result of a no vote. How did I straw man that, if it is the actual truth????

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that a referendum in 1 (tiny)country is fairer than an EU wide referendum?

Not even close. I'm saying that each country should decide how it wants to go about voting and then each country presents it's answer to the others. This is how it currently works. It's not perfect, but it's better than most other options.

hatrickpatrick

humanji wrote: »

I mean, after the treaty was ratified in Germany they re-elected the same people to government. So that to me is an indication of a majority Yes vote for Germany (if they were against it, surely they'd vote in someone else?).

Therein lies the biggest flaw of representative democracy. Every single party is a mixed bag. Unless you're lucky enough that you agree with all the policies of one particular party, you are forced effectively to vote for some you might fundamentally disagree with.

I mean if the people of Ireland vote yes today, does that mean they vote yes to FF since FF support the treaty? No. Because FF have other policies which people find more important and do not agree with. If I vote no today, does that make me a shinner? No. And I wouldn't vote for SF just for this one treaty.

That's always been my biggest issue with our form of democracy. If we had individual elections for different areas of policy it might solve this problem (so for example, you could have one vote for who should handle the environment (greens), who should handle foreign affairs (Labour/general left wing parties), who should handle justice (FG) etc. Those bracketed parties are my own personal preference of course. That would be far, far more democratic. So we could elect SF and the SWP to take care of this treaty and nothing else. Otherwise it's not democratic at all.

I'm just getting very sick of people saying "If you vote for a pro Lisbon party, you're obviously pro Lisbon". There are other issues. If someone votes for a party it doesn't mean they agree with everything that party does in government.

thecornerboy

Rb wrote: »

Saying that the rest of Europe should hold a referendum, as opposed to their own democratically decided way of ratifying it, is horribly undemocractic and shows absolutely no respect for those who value said democracy in their respective country.

The populations of individual EU states should be given the opportunity to vote on EU treaties in a referendum.

You're saying this opinion is anti-democratic? How is advocating a right to vote generally in each individual state on an issue of national importance "undemocratic"? I don't understand. Please explain.

I don't understand "shows absolutely no respect for those who value said democracy in their respective country". Shows no respect for who exactly and where?



Taking another approach, do you think it's fair that a small country of 4 million people gets to decide the future of Europe? Is that democratic? Should we all just ratify what the EU throws at us, whatever any particular Treaty says? Is that the logical conclusion to all this?

What happens, as I'm sure is and has happened in Europe over the last number of years, if a Government is elected with support coming for them on specific issues, which have nothing to do with Lisbon, and then ratifies a EU Treaty which 75% of the voters don't want? Is this democracy at work? We should just "respect" this? To hell with the long term consequences for them and for us, is what you're saying then. Some definition of democracy.

thecornerboy

humanji wrote: »

Not even close. I'm saying that each country should decide how it wants to go about voting and then each country presents it's answer to the others. This is how it currently works. It's not perfect, but it's better than most other options.

It's preferable to a referendum being held in each EU member state? How is that less democratic?

Sam Vimes

The problem with direct democracy though is that the people generally aren't informed, aren't bothered to get informed and are swayed by a smile, a handshake and a lie more than by the truth. Representative democracy is a far better system, with referendums on suitable issues of course like divorce and abortion. This treaty is not a suitable issue as every other country in Europe realised

I hate to Godwin the debate but the Germans realised this after ww2

Max Power1

humanji wrote: »

Not even close. I'm saying that each country should decide how it wants to go about voting and then each country presents it's answer to the others. This is how it currently works. It's not perfect, but it's better than most other options.

Its effectively the same thing

And it would amount to the voters in the EU being denied the chance of a vote on this (where it is not constitutionally denied to them) because their elected representatives vvote on their behalf.

That works well for the EU as it is easier to get treaties ratified but is it truly democracy? I dont think it represents the will of the people. If there was no constitutional requirement for a referendum last year, then the treaty would have been ratified against the will of the people. Thats hardly democratic.

thecornerboy

humanji wrote: »

I know it's wasted on you as you're simply not goingt o change your mind, but here are actual, genuine reasons to vote yes, and unlike the no reason, these really do involve the Lisbon Treaty.

It's only the No campaign that say there are no reasons to vote Yes. And no matter how many times the reasons are presented, they ignore them and go on about how the Yes side are just scaremongering.

There are valid arguments for voting Yes, I'm saying nobody seems to know what they are, the pro Lisbon political, business and social groups only seem to be able to use FUD in their campaigns. Nothing positive at all. If you're promoting something you shouldn't use negative tactics. Sometimes it works, but in the long term people will see through it.

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How so? The will of the people.

Everyone here knows I'm an old fashioned liberal. The government should have no say on any matters which only affect the people involved in them, in my view. As long as something is consensual between all parties involved it should be allowed. That's the one rule I believe democracy shouldn't be allowed to touch. Everything else should be up for decision by the people, and only by the people.

It's my opinion. I'm not saying it's right or anything, but the thread asked us for our opinions so I'm giving them. Signing away national sovereignty affects everyone in a given country, therefore everyone should have a vote on it.

Too much in terms of a second vote on an issue though? The purest proponents of Direct democracy as the one true form of governance, would never express the view that any limit be imposed on the amount of times the people could voice their opinion on an issue.

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with direct democracy though is that the people generally aren't informed, aren't bothered to get informed and are swayed by a smile, a handshake and a lie more than by the truth. Representative democracy is a far better system, with referendums on suitable issues of course like divorce and abortion. This treaty is not a suitable issue as every other country in Europe realised

who decides the "suitable issues" then? The ruling party? Thats hardly fair tbh

Sam Vimes

thecornerboy wrote: »

There are valid arguments for voting Yes, I'm saying nobody seems to know what they are, the pro Lisbon political, business and social groups only seem to be able to use FUD in their campaigns. Nothing positive at all. If you're promoting something you shouldn't use negative tactics. Sometimes it works, but in the long term people will see through it. The only reason I'm voting no is the military aspect to the Treaty. I would vote Yes otherwise.

We don't have to do anything with the military though....
What do you object to exactly?

humanji

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Therein lies the biggest flaw of representative democracy. Every single party is a mixed bag. Unless you're lucky enough that you agree with all the policies of one particular party, you are forced effectively to vote for some you might fundamentally disagree with.

I mean if the people of Ireland vote yes today, does that mean they vote yes to FF since FF support the treaty? No. Because FF have other policies which people find more important and do not agree with. If I vote no today, does that make me a shinner? No. And I wouldn't vote for SF just for this one treaty.

That's always been my biggest issue with our form of democracy. If we had individual elections for different areas of policy it might solve this problem (so for example, you could have one vote for who should handle the environment (greens), who should handle foreign affairs (Labour/general left wing parties), who should handle justice (FG) etc. Those bracketed parties are my own personal preference of course. That would be far, far more democratic. So we could elect SF and the SWP to take care of this treaty and nothing else. Otherwise it's not democratic at all.

I'm just getting very sick of people saying "If you vote for a pro Lisbon party, you're obviously pro Lisbon". There are other issues. If someone votes for a party it doesn't mean they agree with everything that party does in government.

But that's fairly irrellevant though. That's not how any of the governments in the EU actually work, and the alternative that was given is a direct democractic vote (and remember going by vvoting numbers posted here before with regards the EU Constitution there was moresupport for a Yes vote, yet the Constitution was voted down).

Lord knows represtative democracy isn't perfect. But all forms of governmetn are open to abuse. In you example above, you'd have to end up voting individuals into specific roles because a party can be corrupted. And even then you have to make sure there's no outside forces influencing the individual. There will always be an abuse of power somewhere.

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

who decides the "suitable issues" then? The ruling party? Thats hardly fair tbh

Suitable issues are taken on a case by case basis or written down in law such as the constitution, which we need a referendum to change. Issues that are a matter of opinion too like divorce or abortion. The day to day minutia of the running of an organisation, which this treaty mostly is, should not be put to a referendum, especially with so many lies going around. Whether divorce should be illegal or not is a matter of opinion but whether the EU took €200 billion worth of fish or not is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact that they didn't and anyone who votes based on that lie is corrupting the purpose of democracy.

Rb

thecornerboy wrote: »

The populations of individual EU states should be given the opportunity to vote on EU treaties in a referendum.

You're saying this opinion is anti-democratic? How is advocating a right to vote generally in each individual state on an issue of national importance "undemocratic"? I don't understand. Please explain.

Most have already ratified the treaty and appear to be happy with having done so, so why should they be made fork out time and money to run a referendum, when the electorate appear as though they either don't care about the treaty or that they're happy to go along with it?

thecornerboy wrote:

I don't understand "shows absolutely no respect for those who value said democracy in their respective country". Shows no respect for who exactly and where?

Saying that they should run a referendum on Lisbon is basically saying "You're doing it wrong" to them, since they've ratified in accordance with their countries laws and without protest from the electorate. How is that respectful?

Taking another approach, do you think it's fair that a small country of 4 million people gets to decide the future of Europe? Is that democratic?

The rest of Europe is deciding their own faith, if you haven't noticed the majority of the members have actually ratified this document. If they didn't want it, they didn't have to ratify it.

Should we all just ratify what the EU throws at us, whatever any particular Treaty says? Is that the logical conclusion to all this?

Well, considering we don't have any legitimate issues with the text, I can't see any reason why we shouldn't ratify it. Perhaps if a real issue existed, we might be justified in not ratifying, however that isn't really the case here.

What happens, as I'm sure is and has happened in Europe over the last number of years, if a Government is elected with support coming for them on specific issues, which have nothing to do with Lisbon, and then ratifies a EU Treaty which 75% of the voters don't want? Is this democracy at work? We should just "respect" this? To hell with the long term consequences for them and for us, is what you're saying then. Some definition of democracy.

75% of the voters don't want that? Where do you get your figures?

Thus far, there have been no protests regarding the ratification in other countries. Oh wait, sorry, there have been a few fringe group nutjobs out and about with megaphones apparently, but I don't think 20 crackpots really counts as much of a protest

More people voted for the Constitution than against it, overall, those who voted against it had their issues addressed and now everyone is happy. Where are all these people who don't want this treaty in Europe?

Or are you merely saying this because it seems to satisfy your own belief that there's something wrong with Lisbon, and therefore 75% of people have to be against it?

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Suitable issues are taken on a case by case basis or written down in law such as the constitution, which we need a referendum to change. Issues that are a matter of opinion too like divorce or abortion. The day to day minutia of the running of an organisation, which this treaty mostly is, should not be put to a referendum, especially with so many lies going around. Whether divorce should be illegal or not is a matter of opinion but whether the EU took €200 billion worth of fish or not is not a matter of opinion, it's a fact that they didn't and anyone who votes based on that lie is corrupting the purpose of democracy.

taken case by case basis by whom?

This treaty increases the EU's military expenditure, reduces the amount of unanimous votes and increases the amount of QMV.

Bothe of these facts are contained on the europa.eu official EU website in the lisbon treaty section.