the future of 495 million people in one man's hand

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

Who exactly do you have in mind that will ensure that "all member states should be made have a referendum"?

Unless you have a really big army there with you, no one is going to "make" the other member states violate their constitutions to keep you happy.

You're beginning to see the game: did you think we were creating this new European Army to deal with external threats?

USE

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Is Czech Rep. the only country where Lisbon ratification needs someone's signature? No.

Yes, we can say that Czech is the only country left.

Poland's President will sign the treaty in the evening of this Sunday.

Is there any information when the ratification will be fully finished in Ireland?

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

Evidently so. Here our observations diverge rather strongly, and more or less in line with our political opinions.

Let's break it down into two statements:

1. No proponents regularly (repetitively, even) claimed that it was undemocratic that other states didn't hold referendums, whatever their constitutions might dictate.

2. No proponents are now claiming that the reason we must respect Klaus' right to hold up Lisbon is because that's part of the constitution of the Czech Republic, and therefore to be respected.

I'm assuming you don't have any problem with (2), so presumably you're claiming that (1) is false? Even though we probably have mountains of evidence that it happened?

See, for example, the thread entitled "Should the rest of Europe get to vote on this Treaty?"

cordially,
Scofflaw

For the love of...
It is not Klaus Vaclav that's holding up Lisbon, it's the Czech Courts!
Stop arguing based on a lie.

Hydrosylator

View wrote: »

Who exactly do you have in mind that will ensure that "all member states should be made have a referendum"?

Unless you have a really big army there with you, no one is going to "make" the other member states violate their constitutions to keep you happy.

I meant that it should be part of the process that a referendum be necessary. When I said "made" I meant the aforementioned policy being put in place, rather than force being used.

I apologise for my ambiguity to yourself and any users who have autism or asbergers, and take everything literally.

Hydrosylator

USE wrote: »

Yes, we can say that Czech is the only country left.

Poland's President will sign the treaty in the evening of this Sunday.

Is there any information when the ratification will be fully finished in Ireland?

It's the only one left. Correct. That is the only factor which makes Czech Rep unique in this context. Our own president can hold back government decisions by several years if they wish to. Mary wouldn't do that though, she's all right.

cornbb

The Eurosceptic Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, wants a new two-sentence footnote to be added to the EU's Lisbon Treaty before signing it, Sweden says.

The new condition came up during a phone conversation between Mr Klaus and Swedish PM Fredrik Reinfeldt, current holder of the EU presidency.

Mr Reinfeldt said the requested footnote was linked to the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Poland and the Czech Republic are the only EU states yet to ratify Lisbon.

The treaty has a reference to the charter - which covers a wide range of EU citizens' rights - and the charter will become legally binding once Lisbon enters into force, although the UK has an opt-out from it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8297757.stm

Lovely stuff :rolleyes: at least the eyes of Europe are no longer on the Irish tantrum...

Sam Vimes

cornbb wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8297757.stm

Lovely stuff :rolleyes: at least the eyes of Europe are no longer on the Irish tantrum...

Oh god, I hope that footnote is taken as a separate entity to the treaty because if it's a part of it we'll have to do the whole thing again :eek:

Hydrosylator

cornbb wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8297757.stm

Lovely stuff :rolleyes: at least the eyes of Europe are no longer on the Irish tantrum...

Now that, I don't support.

Stark

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh god, I hope that footnote is taken as a separate entity to the treaty because if it's a part of it we'll have to do the whole thing again :eek:

Hopefully they'll have a Czech specific opt-out that doesn't require other countries to re-ratify.

View

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I meant that it should be part of the process that a referendum be necessary. When I said "made" I meant the aforementioned policy being put in place, rather than force being used.

I apologise for my ambiguity to yourself and any users who have autism or asbergers, and take everything literally.

Typical No poster - when your claim is pointed out as illogical, you fall back on personal abuse as a substitute for a good argument.

Other member states are not going to change their constitutions to keep you happy. In fact if you want a common system for ratifying EU Treaties then it will be Ireland that will need to change its system. In most of the other member states, sovereignity is explicitly exercised by their parliaments. Off hand, it is very hard to see how you'd propose to persuade them to change this, given the abysmal standard of "debate" that characterises referenda here.

Scofflaw

Hydrosylator wrote: »

For the love of...
It is not Klaus Vaclav that's holding up Lisbon, it's the Czech Courts!
Stop arguing based on a lie.

He's now holding it up based on the court challenge - prior to which he was holding it up to see what we did, prior to which he was holding it up...etc....and now he wants a new footnote.

By the way, the current court challenge, which is generally accepted as having no validity, was issued by senators allied to Klaus.

It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck - he's stalling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hydrosylator

View wrote: »

Typical No poster - when your claim is pointed out as illogical, you fall back on personal abuse as a substitute for a good argument.

Other member states are not going to change their constitutions to keep you happy. In fact if you want a common system for ratifying EU Treaties then it will be Ireland that will need to change its system. In most of the other member states, sovereignity is explicitly exercised by their parliaments. Off hand, it is very hard to see how you'd propose to persuade them to change this, given the abysmal standard of "debate" that characterises referenda here.

Not really, I was rebutting my point being deliberately misinterpreted, or at least that's the way it looked.
Which member states would need a constitutional change to enable a referendum? I ask because I genuinely know of no reason why that would be so.

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

He's now holding it up based on the court challenge - prior to which he was holding it up to see what we did, prior to which he was holding it up...etc....and now he wants a new footnote.

By the way, the current court challenge, which is generally accepted as having no validity, was issued by senators allied to Klaus.

It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck - he's stalling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yep, now he's at it. And as you can see above, I don't support what he's doing now. That said, I've called him a prick in this thread from the word go, and haven't given support to any of his actions.

I still don't know any Yes or No voters who support him.

Scofflaw

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Yep, now he's at it. And as you can see above, I don't support what he's doing now. That said, I've called him a prick in this thread from the word go, and haven't given support to any of his actions.

I still don't know any Yes or No voters who support him.

Which wasn't quite the point I was making, but that's a trivial point anyway. I'd say he's been stalling all along, personally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which wasn't quite the point I was making, but that's a trivial point anyway. I'd say he's been stalling all along, personally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Quite possibly.

Noreen1

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not blaming anyone for anything, except No proponents for using the argument that one has to respect other countries' constitutional arrangements, which was an argument that was regularly waved away by No proponents. Now that another country's constitutional arrangements might deliver a No, suddenly they have to be respected.

You're welcome to defend that position, and I'm sure you won't lack for supporters, either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For the record, it was my opinion before the referendum that I would like the entire European electorate to be permitted to decide whether they thought Lisbon should be ratified.
By the same token, I believe the wishes of the Irish electorate should have been respected after Lisbon 1. It is arguable that our Government tried to address the concerns of the people by obtaining guarantees - what is beyond dispute, however, is the speed at which our beloved Taoiseach scuttled off to Brussels to "reassure" our European partners.
Whereas I have some respect for the attempts made by the EU to address the concerns of Irish voters, as presented by our Government, I remain convinced that Messrs. Cowen and Co. showed no respect whatsoever for the people who should matter most - the Irish Electorate.

There is nothing sudden about my respect for anyones constitution, or rights, including the rights of those who voted "Yes", and it is becoming increasingly offensive to those who voted "No" to have certain "Yes" voters continuously make allegations about those who voted "No". Not every single "No" proponent had the same reasons for voting the way they did.
Ergo, allegations about the "No" proponents that suggest they all think alike are insulting.

Noreen

View

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Which member states would need a constitutional change to enable a referendum? I ask because I genuinely know of no reason why that would be so.

Off the top of my head, Germany, Italy and apparently also (following a court ruling) the Netherlands. There may be more - I haven't checked each constitution. After all, if Parliament is Sovereign then referenda are an infringment on that sovereignity.

K-9

View wrote: »

Off the top of my head, Germany, Italy and apparently also (following a court ruling) the Netherlands. There may be more - I haven't checked each constitution. After all, if Parliament is Sovereign then referenda are an infringment on that sovereignity.

Yep, I think Germany does not allow Referenda at a Federal level and Italy doesn't allow them on International Treaties.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

For the record, it was my opinion before the referendum that I would like the entire European electorate to be permitted to decide whether they thought Lisbon should be ratified.

Would this be on an overall EU Population criteria or each state passing it?

Each state having a Referenda is unfair as it means Malta has more power than Germany. The No Campaign would ignore the big countries and concentrate on the small countries as they would carry far more weight.

Scofflaw

Noreen1 wrote: »

For the record, it was my opinion before the referendum that I would like the entire European electorate to be permitted to decide whether they thought Lisbon should be ratified.
By the same token, I believe the wishes of the Irish electorate should have been respected after Lisbon 1. It is arguable that our Government tried to address the concerns of the people by obtaining guarantees - what is beyond dispute, however, is the speed at which our beloved Taoiseach scuttled off to Brussels to "reassure" our European partners.
Whereas I have some respect for the attempts made by the EU to address the concerns of Irish voters, as presented by our Government, I remain convinced that Messrs. Cowen and Co. showed no respect whatsoever for the people who should matter most - the Irish Electorate.

There is nothing sudden about my respect for anyones constitution, or rights, including the rights of those who voted "Yes", and it is becoming increasingly offensive to those who voted "No" to have certain "Yes" voters continuously make allegations about those who voted "No". Not every single "No" proponent had the same reasons for voting the way they did.
Ergo, allegations about the "No" proponents that suggest they all think alike are insulting.

Noreen

At no point have I claimed that the argument applied to all No proponents. I can't prevent you taking offence where none is offered, but I can point out that I'm not the one offering it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Off the top of my head, Germany, Italy and apparently also (following a court ruling) the Netherlands. There may be more - I haven't checked each constitution. After all, if Parliament is Sovereign then referenda are an infringment on that sovereignity.

Italian Constitution:

Art. 75

A popular referendum shall be held to abrogate, totally or partially, a law or an act having the force of law, when requested by five hundred thousand electors or five regional councils.

A referendum is not permitted in the case of tax, budget, amnesty and pardon laws, in authorization or ratification of international treaties.

All citizens eligible to vote for the Chamber of deputies have the right to participate in referendums.

The proposal subjected to referendum is approved if the majority of those with voting rights have voted and a majority of votes validly cast has been reached.

The law establishes the procedures for conducting a referendum.

Can't get much more definitive than that.

Finland has only consultative referendums:

Section 53 Referendums

(1) The decision to organise a consultative referendum is made by an Act, which shall contain provisions on the time of the referendum and on the choices to be presented to the voters. (2) Provisions concerning the conduct of a referendum are laid down by an Act.

Germany's Basic Law provides only for referendums to change Lander boundaries. There is no provision for federal referendums.

Latvia:

73. The Budget and laws concerning loans, taxes, customs duties, railroad tariffs, military conscription, declaration and commencement of war, peace treaties, declaration of a state of emergency and its termination, mobilisation and demobilisation, as well as agreements with other nations may not be submitted to national referendum.

Lithuania explicitly reserves the ratification of international agreements to the Seimas:

Article 138

The Seimas shall either ratify or denounce international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania which concern:

1. the realignment of the State borders of the Republic of Lithuania;
2. political cooperation with foreign countries, mutual assistance, or treaties related to national defense;
3. the renunciation of the utilisation of, or threatening by, force, as well as peace treaties;
4. the stationing and status of the armed forces of the Republic of Lithuania on the territory of a foreign state;
5. the participation of Lithuania in universal or regional international organisations; and
6. multilateral or long-term economic agreements.

Laws and international treaties may provide for other cases in which the Seimas shall ratify international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania.

International agreements which are ratified by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the constituent part of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania.

Romania:

Article 91: Powers in matters of foreign policy

1. The President shall, in the name of Romania, conclude international treaties negotiated by the Government, and then submit them to the Parliament for ratification, within a reasonable time limit. The other treaties and international agreements shall be concluded, approved, or ratified according to the procedure set up by law.
2. The President shall, on proposal by the Government, accredit and recall diplomatic envoys of Romania, and approve the setting up, closing down or change in rank of diplomatic missions.
3. Diplomatic envoys of other states shall be accredited to the President of Romania.

Other member states also have special provisions relating to the EU, particularly those states whose constitutions post-date the EU.

Getting to a point where every member state approved EU treaties by referendum is probably a lifetime's work, involving as it does in many cases the rewriting of national constitutions. It's not something that will come about as a result of any group of Irish citizens wishing it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Keith186

He should just flip a coin on live TV broadcast all over the EU.
Now that's drama.

Joking aside he is entitled to say no, because the Czech constitution says he has the right to do so.

Getting to a point where one member state approved EU treaties by referendum is probably a long job, involving as it does in many cases the rewriting of a national constitution. It's not something that will come about as a result of any group of 'Yes' campaigners wishing it.

ynotdu

Keith186 wrote: »

He should just flip a coin on live TV broadcast all over the EU.
Now that's drama.

Joking aside he is entitled to say no, because the Czech constitution says he has the right to do so.

Getting to a point where one member state approved EU treaties by referendum is probably a long job, involving as it does in many cases the rewriting of a national constitution. It's not something that will come about as a result of any group of 'Yes' campaigners wishing it.

Almost the entire Czech parliment despise him and he knows it.
should a vote take place he would certainly be ousted.
Lets see how commited he is to NO when it is clear to him HIS neck is on the line!;)

View

Keith186 wrote: »

Getting to a point where one member state approved EU treaties by referendum is probably a long job, involving as it does in many cases the rewriting of a national constitution.

To point out the obvious, our constitution does not require referenda for international treaties (which would include EU ones). Instead it simply says that the Oireachtas will ratify them subject to law (the formulation of which is usually a matter for the Oireachtas).

Given this, it is difficult to see how anyone could maintain that the intent of the electorate in the 1936 or 37 referendum was that we should all have referenda on international and/or EU treaties.

Instead, we should thank the Supreme Court for effectively abdicating its role as a constitutional court in this regard by dumping the task on the average citizen.