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

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

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.

If we didn't have a constitutional requirement for a referendum, hardly anyone would bat an eyelid. It'd be exacly the same as when any tiny amount of legislation is passed in Europe. The people have better things to be doing with their time. And as I said, there's nothing in the treaty that directly effects most people, so why would they want to campaign against it when it'd involve so much effort?

Instead, the people elect other people to sort these things out for them. It makes much more sense than having to vote on every single issue there could be with anything at all. The other countries have had a long time to sort out their constitution. They haven't done anything, so I'm guessing the majority don't care.

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.

I've given you a list of positive valid points for voting Yes. The reason you don't get to hear them more often is because the Yes campaign is stuck fending off the stupidity of Coir and Ganely and the likes. And when their points are proven wrong, they just shout them out louder. Any valid reason for voting no is completely buried under so much pap, that there's never a chance for them to be addressed, in the same way as there's little time to go back over the positive points.

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

taken case by case basis by whom?

By the governments who are lobbied by their people. If you don't like the laws that the people you vote in are making, vote them out

Max Power1 wrote: »

This treaty increases the EU's military expenditure,

It says they should "progressively improve their military capabilities" which means that one country is not allowed save a bit of cash by dropping their army secure in the knowledge that their EU buddies will help them out. The guarantee:

SECTION C: SECURITY AND DEFENCE wrote:

The Union's action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the obligations of any Member State.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

Max Power1 wrote: »

reduces the amount of unanimous votes and increases the amount of QMV.

This is true. I think QMV is better, more efficient and more democratic. Think of it this way: the fishermen want the fisheries policy changed but if Span keeps vetoing the change nothing will happen. QMV is better for fishermen

Irish and Proud

waitinforatrain wrote: »

After putting a lot of effort into studying the facts behind the treaty and wading through the blatant lies, do you think that it's fair for Ireland to be deciding such an important treaty alone? Are there calls in other countries (besides UK) for a referendum?

This treaty affects 500m people in the EU, yet 3m get to vote on it - it's disgusting, especially when the French and Dutch voted no, and when the British people clearly want a referendum.

I just don't feel we have a right to put something through that affects 500m. We have the power to block the EU politicians' attempt to disenfranchise the EU people - with such power comes great responsibility and we should use it for the good of the people. As far as I'm concerned, there is no argument against the above point.

Regards!

Rb

Irish and Proud wrote: »

This treaty affects 500m people in the EU, yet 3m get to vote on it - it's disgusting, especially when the French and Dutch voted no, and when the British people clearly want a referendum.

I just don't feel we have a right to put something through that affects 500m. We have the power to block the EU politicians' attempt to disenfranchise the EU people - with such power comes great responsibility and we should use it for the good of the people. As far as I'm concerned, there is no argument against the above point.

Regards!

Lol, of course you feel there's no arguing against your opinion, despite the fact that reality leads one quite to the contrary.

marco_polo

marco_polo wrote: »

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.

Irish and Proud wrote: »

This treaty affects 500m people in the EU, yet 3m get to vote on it - it's disgusting, especially when the French and Dutch voted no, and when the British people clearly want a referendum.

I just don't feel we have a right to put something through that affects 500m. We have the power to block the EU politicians' attempt to disenfranchise the EU people - with such power comes great responsibility and we should use it for the good of the people. As far as I'm concerned, there is no argument against the above point.

Regards!

It is like these two posts were made for each other.

prinz

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I just don't feel we have a right to put something through that affects 500m.

And yet here are the same no camp supporters hopping up and down complaining that Eastern Europeans got polling cards.... if we're so sure they'd vote no, what's the problem?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055695264

Amhran Nua

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 French want a referendum on it.

Most people in France want to have a say on whether the country should adopt the new common treaty of the European Union (EU), according to a poll by CSA published in L’Humanité. 59 per cent of respondents want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, while 33 per cent think parliament should decide on its ratification.

Several of the EU’s 27 member nations have already ratified the Lisbon Treaty. The document’s provisions call for the creation of new posts, such as a foreign policy chief, and a High Representative who will answer to EU governments and serve as vice-president of the European Commission.
Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, EU leaders would also choose a president of the European Council for a two and a half year renewable term. This will effectively eliminate the current six-month rotating presidency among member nations. The Lisbon Treaty also provides for the creation of a mutual defence clause, in case one of the member states is attacked.

If all countries ratify the treaty—whether through a referendum or a parliamentary vote—the body of law will become effective in January 2009. Ireland, due to its internal regulations, is the only country that must hold a nationwide vote on the Lisbon Treaty, while other governments can decide whether they want to do the same.

On Jan. 16, the National Assembly—the lower house of the French legislature—voted in favour of constitutional revisions that will allow French lawmakers to ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum. The measure was adopted in a 304-77 vote, with 100 abstentions, mostly from the opposition Socialist Party (PS).

The French Communist Party (PCF) denounced the decision to ratify the Lisbon Treaty via the legislature as a "coup d’etat".

The original project for a European Constitution was practically abandoned in 2005, after voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed document in two plebiscites.

Europe is not united on this issue.

Diom

NO WAY!

Let Foreigners dictate to us what us God Fearing Irish should be doing! I don;t think so.

Padraig Pearse would be spinning in his grave.

prinz

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The French want a referendum on it.
Europe is not united on this issue.

A pool of 960 people and no margin of error included. Fool proof poll I see. It may interest you that Lisbon is actually a non-issue in France and has been for a long, long time.

thecornerboy

Rb wrote: »

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,

For....loike...democracy 'n' stuff.

when the electorate appear as though they either don't care about the treaty or that they're happy to go along with it?

When will they get a chance to decide this? Has anyone asked them?

Answers: They won't and no.

Saying that they should run a referendum on Lisbon is basically saying "You're doing it wrong" to them

To WHO? The whole population? "Please decide your involvement in major international treaties in referendums" is not, in any way, shape or form telling anybody in anyway that "you're doing it wrong". What absolute rubbish.

since they've ratified in accordance with their countries laws and without protest from the electorate. How is that respectful?

There's no opposition anywhere in Europe to the Lisbon Treaty? Think about the logical conclusions of what you're saying.

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.

There were no referendums, the one actual no vote was trampled over, dismissed and the small population of that country was inundated with threats and warnings before voting again. Nobody else voted, if other populations voted on it there would be a hell of a lot of no votes by state out there. Look at what the Dutch and French did the last time. This is the precise reason there are no referendums, they know the populations wouldn't accept it. So it comes in through the backdoor, piecemeal. Although the Lisbon is a big step in itself.

Well, considering we don't have any legitimate issues with the text,

What does this mean. We rejected the Treaty the last time.

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.

You're speaking for yourself. Many people have legitimate issues with it.

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

It's an example. The bottom line is we don't know because nobody except the 4m people in Ireland gets to vote on it.

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

Ireland rejecting it seems to be a pretty damn big protest against it. I'd be willing to bet every cent and every possession, I'd bet a kidney there would be at least 2 other rejections of it if people were given the right to vote in other EU states.

More people voted for the Constitution than against it, overall, those who voted against it had their issues addressed and now everyone is happy.

:rolleyes: Everybody is happy? About 45% people here will reject it again. The guarantees we have been given are worth precisely nothing.

Where are all these people who don't want this treaty in Europe?

The majority of people in Ireland rejected Lisbon. Look at France, Netherlands, if David Cameron keeps his promise Britain will probably reject it too.

prinz

thecornerboy wrote: »

For.... Look at France, Netherlands, if David Cameron keeps his promise Britain will probably reject it too.

Couldn't be bothered going through it step by step because it's all wrong. o and David Cameron is weaseling his way out of that promise already.

thecornerboy

prinz wrote: »

And yet here are the same no camp supporters hopping up and down complaining that Eastern Europeans got polling cards.... if we're so sure they'd vote no, what's the problem?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055695264

:rolleyes:

Er complaining that people who are not legally entitled to vote in this state are being giving polling cards should be a major issue for everybody, the yes and no sides.

prinz

thecornerboy wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Er complaining that people who are not legally entitled to vote in this state are being giving polling cards should be a major issue for everybody, the yes and no sides.

Yes it should. However it should not be used as "proof" that people are deliberately conspiring to pervert the course of the referendum. Read the thread. Appararently all non-citizens would vote yes of course :rolleyes: at the same time apparently all of their fellow citizens would vote no.

thecornerboy

prinz wrote: »

Couldn't be bothered going through it step by step because it's all wrong.

Pick one thing that's wrong then. I'm just stating the obvious.

Unfortunately many of the Yes side seem to belong to the Church of the EU and voting Yes on Lisbon is a religious experience for them. Common sense and stating the obvious is heresy. Ie proposing individual member states should hold some form of plebiscite when attempting to ratify major international treaties is anti-democratic and disrespectful and less democratic than having a simple parliamentary majority do the same thing.

thecornerboy

prinz wrote: »

Yes it should. However it should not be used as "proof" that people are deliberately conspiring to pervert the course of the referendum.

I'm not saying it is. Read back a bit. I'm responding to your point about the No side complaining, that's completely irrelevant and proof of absolutely nothing. Anybody in their right mind should be concerned about thousands being given polling cards erroneously.

Read the thread. Appararently all non-citizens would vote yes of course :rolleyes: at the same time apparently all of their fellow citizens would vote no.

Again nobody is claiming this. The point is that other member states holding votes on Lisbon would see alot more No votes, not just Ireland's.

prinz

thecornerboy wrote: »

Common sense and stating the obvious is heresy.

thecornerboy wrote: »

The guarantees we have been given are worth precisely nothing.

How about you back up your stating of the obvious with proof of this?

Or proof that people would vote no to Lisbon? Anything to support that? Or anything to show that the majority population in any country is against the ratification of Lisbon? Or the majority of the population of any country is unhappy with their democratic process?

thecornerboy wrote: »

Look at France, Netherlands,

Nothing to do with Lisbon

thecornerboy wrote: »

....if David Cameron keeps his promise Britain will probably reject it too.

You didn't get David's latest memo then :rolleyes:

prinz

thecornerboy wrote: »

Again nobody is claiming this..

Yes, people are claiming exactly that. My point was not that people shouldn't be concerned about a major cockup like the one that happened, my point was that the same posters bemoaning the fact that the people in Eastern Europe didn't get a vote and if they did it would be no, posting on a separate thread saying Eastern Europeans got a polling card and of course they'd vote yes boo hoo. Do you see the hypocrisy?

thecornerboy

prinz wrote: »

How about you back up your stating of the obvious with proof of this?

I can't prove the future.

Or proof that people would vote no to Lisbon?

We already have!

Again, in the absence of any other referendums or a crystal ball I am unable to. I can point to previous votes on similar treaties, in France and Netherlands.

Anything to support that? Or anything to show that the majority population in any country is against the ratification of Lisbon?

Ireland's 2008 no vote. France and Netherlands coming in around 60% against the last EU referendum.

Or the majority of the population of any country is unhappy with their democratic process?

In the absence of any referendums we cannot know this for certain but there is strong evidence to show majorities in some member states are against Lisbon (btw being opposed to Lisbon is not the same being unhappy with the democratic process in itself) and again we can point to Irish, French and Dutch votes related EU treaties in recent years.

Nothing to do with Lisbon

Many people disagree.

thecornerboy

prinz wrote: »

Yes, people are claiming exactly that. My point was not that people shouldn't be concerned about a major cockup like the one that happened, my point was that the same posters bemoaning the fact that the people in Eastern Europe didn't get a vote and if they did it would be no, posting on a separate thread saying Eastern Europeans got a polling card and of course they'd vote yes boo hoo. Do you see the hypocrisy?

You're really bending over backwards here. I don't speak for every poster on boards.ie, so you'd really have to ask them, not me.

prinz

thecornerboy wrote: »

I can't prove the future!
Again, in the absence of any other referendums or a crystal ball I am unable to.

Ah ok so this is just all your own opinion based on..........

really stating thr obvious then!

thecornerboy wrote: »

France and Netherlands coming in around 60% against the last EU referendum.

Spain and Luxembourg voted for the Constitution How come that is never mentioned. Or the fact that when you add them all together more people voted for it than voted against it?

thecornerboy wrote: »

In the absence of any referendums we cannot know this for certain but there is strong evidence to show majorities in some member states are against Lisbon.. .

What evidence?

thecornerboy wrote: »

(btw being opposed to Lisbon is not the same being unhappy with the democratic process in itself) and again we can point to Irish, French and Dutch votes related EU treaties in recent years...

Or we could point to Spain, Luxembourg.... but that was the Constitution. We could point to the fact that most of Europe has ratified the Lisbon Treaty and have yet to see any majority of people objecting to that fact.

Rb

I'm not even going to address that garbage thecornerboy, those silly points have been debunked too many times already over the past few months as it is.

thecornerboy

Rb wrote: »

I'm not even going to address that garbage thecornerboy, those silly points have been debunked too many times already over the past few months as it is.

Rb wrote: »

I'm not even going to address that garbage thecornerboy, those silly points have been debunked too many times already over the past few months as it is.

Admitting defeat eh? :cool:

The Yes side has it anyway. There seems to be a large percentage of people who wilted at the polling booth and went with the flow. There'll be a large >60% Yes vote judging by the exit polls.

Just for the record, I think the idea and elements of the EU are fantastic, however I don't support any form of militarism and the militarism aspect is there in quite explicit terms and I know that one of the effects of this Treaty will be the creation of a EU wide slave wage underclass over the next 20 years and unless you wear a big suit and take millions in legitimate payments out of quangos like FÁS, or sit on your fat arse in the top floor of a bank committing fraud all day long, milk your expenses in the Irish or EU parliaments, move money around from A to B and pretending you're doing something constructive or win the Euromillions it will affect you, your wages and your living conditions. In other words, there is a class of people which will benefit from this and a class which lose out badly.

We can come back in 10 years and debate it!

View

thecornerboy wrote: »

Admitting defeat eh? :cool:

The Yes side has it anyway. There seems to be a large percentage of people who wilted at the polling booth and went with the flow. There'll be a large >60% Yes vote judging by the exit polls.

Just for the record, I think the idea and elements of the EU are fantastic, however I don't support any form of militarism and the militarism aspect is there in quite explicit terms and I know that one of the effects of this Treaty will be the creation of a EU wide slave wage underclass over the next 20 years and unless you wear a big suit and take millions in legitimate payments out of quangos like FÁS, or sit on your fat arse in the top floor of a bank committing fraud all day long, milk your expenses in the Irish or EU parliaments, move money around from A to B and pretending you're doing something constructive or win the Euromillions it will affect you, your wages and your living conditions. In other words, there is a class of people which will benefit from this and a class which lose out badly.

We can come back in 10 years and debate it!

In every referenda on the EU, the same old lines get trotted out by the No side. They are, and have been, consistently wrong.

Every Treaty will end neutrality, every one will introduct conscription etc... and yet it never happens.

For instance, in the SEA referendum, the No side claimed if people voted yes, there would be cruise (nuclear) missile all over Ireland. Last time, I checked there are none.

It is a pity. They'd be really handy to have as an anti-crime deterrent in your back garden - you could just blow the thieves away when they stepped over the garden wall.