Ireland the only country to have Referendum on new EU treaty?

LostinBlanch

So it looks like we're going to be the only country in the EU to hold a referendum on the new EU treaty according to Harry McGee and Ann Cahill in The Examiner.

The populations of France and Netherlands (or other states) don't look like having any direct say in this as the Commission has pulled a fast one emphasising "reforming" treaties rather than putting them to a popular vote.

What do you lot think about this?

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=35615-qqqx=1.asp
Irish referendum looms over EU treaty

By Harry McGee and Ann Cahill, Brussels
IRELAND could be the only EU country to hold a referendum to ratify the Reform Treaty that may emerge from this week’s crucial meeting of European political leaders.

Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern said last night he did not foresee any difficulties in relation to a referendum with its coalition partner, the Green Party; notwithstanding it opposing both Nice referendums.

As the European Council summit continued late last night, Mr Ahern said that it was uncertain if agreement could be reached tonight or if talks would spill over into tomorrow.

This switch of emphasis — treaties being reformed rather than being replaced by a new constitution — is likely to allow countries like France and the Netherlands to avoid holding referendums, as they argue the changes will no longer be constitutional.

Britain will also demand that the document that emerges will not force it to hold a referendum — incoming Prime Minister Gordon Brown does not want a damaging plebiscite on Britain’s relationship with the EU on his hands during the first six months of his premiership.

But last night in Brussels, Foreign Minister Ahern confirmed that it would be highly likely that there will be a referendum in Ireland.

“As of now we don’t have anything really to say if there will be a referendum or not. If we do get a reform treaty in the guise of what we think will come out hopefully, we would have to take the Attorney General’s advice.

“I think it would be highly likely we would have to have a referendum.”

Asked about the attitude of his coalition partners to that, he said: “The Greens are part of Government and obviously they would have to accept the advice of the Attorney General.”

The 27 member states are trying to hammer out a replacement for the draft constitution, following the setbacks of referendum defeats in France and Holland.

Germany, which currently holds the presidency, has put forward proposals for reform of the existing EU treaties rather than one all-encompassing constitution.

The new draft prepared by German Chancellor Angela Merkel suggests removing some of the most controversial proposals from the failed constitution. References to symbols suggesting European sovereignty — like the EU flag — have been dropped, as has the European anthem, Beethoven’s Ode to Joy. And in addition, all references to a ‘constitution’ have been ditched.

Indeed, anything that suggests a federal EU or a EU super-state, has been dropped following negative reaction to the concept in many countries.

What does the EU want with the likes of a foreign minister?
Personally I don't want this german driven EU super state either.
It's fine the way it is as an economic super area with an emu and other business related commonalities and laws.

An army is a step too far obviously imho too.Thats nato's job.
I'll be scrutinising the document before the vote if there is a vote.
If it doesn't come across to me as just a simplification of the running of the EU for it's increased membership,then I'll be voting no.

sovtek

Surely Ahern isn't afraid of a referendum. If "we" vote the wrong way they'll just have another one until we do it right.
I suspect this is Merkel's main agenda to get the neo-liberal aspects of the Constitution into law even though most people aren't going for it.
So much for being a beacon of democracy for the dirty masses.

philologos

Is there anywhere on the internet that shows all the changes this Reform Treaty is proposing? Because I can't find any by googling around.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Surely Ahern isn't afraid of a referendum. If "we" vote the wrong way they'll just have another one until we do it right.

Ah the Nice referendum again... that old chessnut.
So people aren't allowed to change their minds in a democracy now?
Whats the point in having any election if that be so?
Get over it.

philologos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Treaty - Found it on wikipedia if anyone is interested.

Mick86

Tristrame wrote:

What does the EU want with the likes of a foreign minister?

Same reason Ireland wants one. Or anyone else for that matter.

Tristrame wrote:

Personally I don't want this german driven EU super state either.

Treat it as a Christmas present from your Granny. It's not what you want, you're never going to use it but you just have to accept it.:D

Tristrame wrote:

An army is a step too far obviously imho too.Thats nato's job.

NATO's membership includes non-EU states.

Mick86

Mick86 wrote:

Same reason Ireland wants one. Or anyone else for that matter.

The EU is not a country.

Treat it as a Christmas present from your Granny. It's not what you want, you're never going to use it but you just have to accept it.:D

Only if after I read the treaty,I dislike it and it passes a referendum.

NATO's membership includes non-EU states.

So?
Do you think I do not know that? I don't see the need for a Super state army aka an EU army or rapid reaction force.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Treaty - Found it on wikipedia if anyone is interested.

Thats not the outcome of the negotiations which were only concluded at 4am this morning.
If you read that wikipedia article,that becomes obvious.
It is however handy as an outline of the issues.
I'm sure the real thing will be put up there soon enough.

Hagar

LostinBlanch wrote:

So it looks like we're going to be the only country in the EU to hold a referendum on the new EU treaty according to Harry McGee and Ann Cahill in The Examiner.

The populations of France and Netherlands (or other states) don't look like having any direct say in this as the Commission has pulled a fast one emphasising "reforming" treaties rather than putting them to a popular vote.

What do you lot think about this?

I think we better give the Government the answer they want first time around or they will keep having referenda until they get the answer that they want, just like last time.

Judt

Well, we always hold a referendum so that's no big surprise.

As to the issues on hand, I think that most of it is the EU attempting to function now that it has 27 member states as opposed to 15.

As for the voting on Nice, the people could have voted "No" again if that was the strongly held position. I think there was more at play that time than simply "Vote again until we get the answer we want." That's a simplistic and silly assertion.

LostinBlanch

Well whatever about having another referendum on this if we don't vote the way our political masters tell us, I can see a lot of emotional (and other) blackmail being put our way. Most of the other parliaments will probably have passed it by then to get a semblance of some kind of momentum in favour of this.

Then we'll be told that we as a small country can't stop the will of the majority. Despite nobody actually knowing what the will of the majority actually is as it's unlikely they will have voted on this. Cue some "off the record" statement from some commission hack saying that if Ireland votes no then they should be thrown out of the EU. More racking up the pressure on people. And all this before it's actually made clear about Romania and Bulgaria coming into the EU. It's going to be a fun year! :rolleyes:

Judt

LostinBlanch wrote:

Well whatever about having another referendum on this if we don't vote the way our political masters tell us, I can see a lot of emotional (and other) blackmail being put our way. Most of the other parliaments will probably have passed it by then to get a semblance of some kind of momentum in favour of this.

Then we'll be told that we as a small country can't stop the will of the majority. Despite nobody actually knowing what the will of the majority actually is as it's unlikely they will have voted on this. Cue some "off the record" statement from some commission hack saying that if Ireland votes no then they should be thrown out of the EU. More racking up the pressure on people. And all this before it's actually made clear about Romania and Bulgaria coming into the EU. It's going to be a fun year! :rolleyes:

Umm, I don't think there's too much emotional blackmail being used against the electorate on the issue of the EU. Ireland just happens to be a very pro-EU nation... For whatever reason... Maybe it's all that advertising they get every time you drive on the new roads, ride on the new trains... etc.

bonkey

Hagar wrote:

I think we better give the Government the answer they want first time around or they will keep having referenda until they get the answer that they want, just like last time.

I salute your attitude.

The one real democratic power the people of Ireland have, and you believe its worth sacrificing it rather than standing up on principle.

If the people don't want to ratify a treaty, then they should have the balls to say so. If it gets presented to them again, they should have the balls to say no a second time, and a third and a fourth, until the government's position is clearly untenable.

Tell me...if the government presented a referendum in the morning to change the constitution to get rid of future referenda and the need for elections...would you advocate the same "give them what they want" strategy then?

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Ah the Nice referendum again... that old chessnut.
So people aren't allowed to change their minds in a democracy now?
Whats the point in having any election if that be so?
Get over it.

And what's the point in having a vote if one side can keep rejecting the outcome and making people vote again until they make the 'right decision'
That's not democracy.

Did the no to nice campaign get the opportunity to call another referendum after the second one passed? That would have been fair right? the best 2 out of 3...?

Akrasia

Judt wrote:

As for the voting on Nice, the people could have voted "No" again if that was the strongly held position. I think there was more at play that time than simply "Vote again until we get the answer we want." That's a simplistic and silly assertion.

Why? That's what happened. The treaty that was put to the people again was almost identical to the first one.

In the case of the proposed constitution, it's even more insidious. They're trying to railroad the same rejected treaty through by denying citizens the right to vote wherever they can get away with it (and you can be sure, It it wasn't for our constitution, the FF government would deny us our right to decide too)

This french led attack on free and unhindered competition in the E.U. is complete bs. Certainly reason enough for me to vote against it.

fly_agaric

Tristrame wrote:

What does the EU want with the likes of a foreign minister?

Persumably the same thing any other big power like the US, China, India, Russia expects of the foriegn minister?

Unfortunately the EU cannot agree on many issues of foriegn policy largely because part(s) of it currently have much of their foriegn policy set for them by the US govt so the position would be a lame duck.

Tristrame wrote:

An army is a step too far obviously imho too.Thats nato's job.

In other words it's the US military's job. Don't you think it is about time the EU countries grew up a bit and started to manage their own security themselves (regardless of how displeased the US might be)?

Akrasia wrote:

Why? That's what happened.

You omitted to mention that the turnout was a good deal higher for the 2nd referendum, wasn't it? Maybe all those extra people who turned out the second time to vote yes were just government sheeple-people? Perhaps the true will of "the people" is represented by those swayed by posters of scary soldiers in NBC suits fighting for the EU's army?:)

dathi1

You omitted to mention that the turnout was a good deal higher for the 2nd referendum.

I think that was something to do with the "vote for Nice.. Vote for Jobs" and "mass immigration from new eastern member states is scaremongering" tactics. The workers in Irish Ferries and other race to the bottom companies obeyed Siptu, Ibec, Bertie et al and believed them en masse

Judt

Akrasia wrote:

Why? That's what happened. The treaty that was put to the people again was almost identical to the first one.

In the case of the proposed constitution, it's even more insidious. They're trying to railroad the same rejected treaty through by denying citizens the right to vote wherever they can get away with it (and you can be sure, It it wasn't for our constitution, the FF government would deny us our right to decide too)

So you didn't answer my question: If that were the strongly held view, why didn't the Irish people vote "No" again? We've had to rerun general elections more than twice in quick succession because they've done that.

dathi1

dathi1 wrote:

I think that was something to do with the "vote for Nice.. Vote for Jobs" and "mass immigration from new eastern member states is scaremongering" tactics. The workers in Irish Ferries and other race to the bottom companies obeyed Siptu, Ibec, Bertie et al and believed them en masse

Thats another attitude I find hilarious.
You'd swear the Irish electorate were moonies or something.

People aren't moonies, they decide things-thats democracy.

fly_agaric

dathi1 wrote:

I think that was something to do with the "vote for Nice.. Vote for Jobs" and "mass immigration from new eastern member states is scaremongering" tactics. The workers in Irish Ferries and other race to the bottom companies obeyed Siptu, Ibec, Bertie et al and believed them en masse

As I said, the government sheeple idea.:)

You seem to suggest that the no vote was due to a "they'll steal our jobs" fear about migrants from the new EU member states.
I really don't remember any anti-Nice people pandering to anti-immigration sentiment in that way. T'would have been a bit of departure for them given the lets-all-heal-the-world attitude many on the left have towards immigration.

I do remember fears about an EU army (loss of our precious neutrality), an undemocratic EU superstate + increasing the power of transnational corporations being stoked by the anti-Nice campaigners.

I think the people on the no side got the more committed anti-EU protest vote out for the first referendum - many people who might be positive towards the EU but just not that politically motivated didn't bother to vote. ho-hum - another boring referendum on another EU tome full of legal waffle! It didn't seem important then, but it became so after the 1st referendum was lost.

Judt

increasing the power of transnational corporations being stoked by the anti-Nice campaigners.

The same EU that has gone on to fine companies like Microsoft millions a day for ripping off consumers?

Hagar

Judt wrote:

I think there was more at play that time than simply "Vote again until we get the answer we want." That's a simplistic and silly assertion.

Not simplistic or silly at all. Who gave the Government the right to force a second referendum on the people? Were they not legally bound to abide by the first vote?

Judt

Hagar wrote:

Not simplistic or silly at all. Who gave the Government the right to force a second referendum on the people? Were they not legally bound to abide by the first vote?

They changed the treaty... Doesn't matter if they just changed a semi-colon, it was a different document. But everybody knew it was the same one. Nobody went into that referendum with closed eyes. So, the suggestion here is that holding a vote is a bit like chinese water torture to the average silly Irish voter, who can't vote "No" again if that's not their states position.

I think the problem with Nice 1 was that nobody bothered to explain what it was all about, and the scare mongering about "NATO? No Thanks!" wasn't countered for the crap that it was.

Hagar

It's not a case of people didn't vote no again the second time, the turnnout for the second referendum was bigger, people who didn't bother their arse to vote yes the first time were persuaded to come out and vote yes the second time. Hence the different result.

Judt

Hagar wrote:

It's not a case of people didn't vote no again the second time, the turnnout for the second referendum was bigger, people who didn't bother their arse to vote yes the first time were persuaded to come out and vote yes the second time. Hence the different result.

Isn't that a victory for democracy? The few motivated I'll-crawl-over-broken-glass-to-vote types don't run the country?

The Nice 1 was all about voter apathy and not understanding. That was arrogance on behalf of those pushing it in not explaining it, but I don't think - by your own view of it even - that you can say that the Irish government "went back until they got the result they wanted." That's implying that there was a public "No" position and they wanted to force people into saying "Yes", 1984 style. Instead, it was low voter turnout and no explanation of the treaty. I didn't vote Nice 1 myself. Now, as you can tell, I'm for it.

sovtek

Judt wrote:

Instead, it was low voter turnout and no explanation of the treaty. I didn't vote Nice 1 myself. Now, as you can tell, I'm for it.

Other than low voter turnout what was different about Nice 2.

bonkey

Hagar wrote:

Who gave the Government the right to force a second referendum on the people?

The law.

Were they not legally bound to abide by the first vote?

Yes, and they did. They did not alter the constitution as a result of the first vote. That is all the law required them to do. There is no provision in law to prevent any government from re-introducing an effectively-unchanged bill within any given timeframe.

As I pointed out at the time, one could see how seriously people really had a problem with the tactic being used given how strongly they campaigned for such a provision to be brought into law after the referendum.

How strongly did they compaign? Not at all.

Coming up to the second vote, those who voted No and who could recognise that the minority vote had carried the day objected to the re-run because they were fairly confident they'd lose. They erected straw-men arguments about how it was unfair that the public be given a second opportunity to vote because they were pretty confident that they were, in fact, in the minority.

Once the vote was carried, did these people who argued so strongly that they were being oppressed/cheated/denied-democracy continue to campaign that the system was unfair? Did they organise themselves into a voting block for the next general election, ensuring that any party who offered to champion such a limitation would gain their support?

No. They didn't. They just gave up. Nice had passed, and that was what was important, not the law that allowed the government to do it. Now another EU-centric referendum raises its head, and what do we see? A sudden resurgence in the "repeat until we do what we're told" straw-manning.

If there had been a movement to change the law between then and now, on the grounds that it was unfair, unjust or undemocratic, then there might be some validity to the complaint. As it is, its just a handy "trot it out when its needed" way of complaining about the reality that the majority of the nation is actually as anti-EU as some would like.

Dyr

The irish people rejected nice the first time around, you can try and spin that or make excuses to ignore that rejection but results are supposedly what counts in a democracy. Our politicians didnt like the result and under pressure from their eu counterparts ran the referendum again until they got the result they wanted. And, as far as I remember they used our tax money to run the pro treaty campaign. A fine example of how irish democracy works when the people reject what the political parties want. Keep tossing the coin until your side comes up then declare that you're the winner:rolleyes:

bonkey

Bambi wrote:

The irish people rejected nice the first time around, you can try and spin that or make excuses to ignore that rejection but results are supposedly what counts in a democracy.

Results are what count.

The treaty was rejected, and the constitution was therefore not updated.

Our politicians didnt like the result and under pressure from their eu counterparts ran the referendum again until they got the result they wanted.

Now who's spinning?

They didn't run it "until they got the result they wanted". They ran it one additional time. There is nothing to suggest that there would have been a third time had the public said no a second time.

There is, however, evidence to suggest that voter apathy as well as government laziness in communicating clearly the issues led to a low turnout which was in turn what led to the No result.

And, as far as I remember they used our tax money to run the pro treaty campaign.

They used your tax money to inform the public what the issues were and why they believed you should vote one way rather than the other. Though you may dislike it, thats part of their job.

A fine example of how irish democracy works when the people reject what the political parties want.

The rejection was honoured. You can continue spinning things, but at no time did the government fail to keep the constitution in line with the wishes of the public as expressed in a referendum.

Keep tossing the coin until your side comes up then declare that you're the winner:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: indeed.

That is simply not what happened. The notion that there would be additional referenda after the second is a straw-man. It is a work of fiction dreamt up to hold on to the illusion that something was done wrong.

The government broke no law. At most, they could be argued to have "gamed" the system within the boundaries of the law, but even then there has been a total lack of interest in making sure such gaming could not be done again in the future.

Why would that be? I put it to you that the opponents of Nice know that there is more mileage to be gained complaining about a straw-man situation then there is to be gained in fixing something thats not really a problem at all. Rather than try and have this so-called loophole closed since Nice was accepted, it will serve the Euro-skeptics better to have it left in place so that they can do as you are now doing - complain bitterly to try and provoke sympathy and gain support.

Dublin's Finest

So what was the negative effect of Nice then?

Do we have an EU army superseding Irish neutrality?
Do we have a super state?

The answer to both is No.

There seems to be an assumption here that the new Reform Treaty forces across the board changes upon members - this is not the case.

In fact, the very reason that negotiations went on until 4am was to accomodate the various national interests of members through a series of opt-outs, protocols and declarations.

For example, Ireland has the option to opt-out on matters relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Also, the reference to "free and unhindered competition" is embedded lower in the Treaty.

liberty 2007

Judt wrote:

Well, we always hold a referendum so that's no big surprise.

As to the issues on hand, I think that most of it is the EU attempting to function now that it has 27 member states as opposed to 15.

As for the voting on Nice, the people could have voted "No" again if that was the strongly held position. I think there was more at play that time than simply "Vote again until we get the answer we want." That's a simplistic and silly assertion.

Hello all, just joined this thing, not sure how to use, but here goes.
The problem with holding the second Nice referendum was'nt so much that it was held, but the resources that were behind the yes camp and denied to the no camp. The government spent no money therefore, were not obliged to provide funds to the no camp (under the McKenna judgement). Instead, the political parties funded the yes camp, along with their media allies and industry. By demonising the leaders of the no camp they managed to swing the 10% they needed. There was and never is a level playing field.

liberty 2007

Judt wrote:

Well, we always hold a referendum so that's no big surprise.

As to the issues on hand, I think that most of it is the EU attempting to function now that it has 27 member states as opposed to 15.

As for the voting on Nice, the people could have voted "No" again if that was the strongly held position. I think there was more at play that time than simply "Vote again until we get the answer we want." That's a simplistic and silly assertion.

Hello all, just joined this thing, not sure how to use, but here goes.
The problem with holding the second Nice referendum was'nt so much that it was held, but the resources that were behind the yes camp and denied to the no camp. The government spent no money therefore, were not obliged to provide funds to the no camp (under the McKenna judgement). Instead, the political parties funded the yes camp, along with their media allies and industry. By demonising the leaders of the no camp they managed to swing the 10% they needed. There was and never is a level playing field.

sovtek

Dublin's Finest wrote:

For example, Ireland has the option to opt-out on matters relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Also, the reference to "free and unhindered competition" is embedded lower in the Treaty.

IIRC this was the majority reason for rejecting it in just about every country that did so.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

They didn't run it "until they got the result they wanted". They ran it one additional time. There is nothing to suggest that there would have been a third time had the public said no a second time.

Bertie et al statements at the time suggest they would have rammed it through in some form or another if it didn't pass.

There is, however, evidence to suggest that voter apathy as well as government laziness in communicating clearly the issues led to a low turnout which was in turn what led to the No result.
They used your tax money to inform the public what the issues were and why they believed you should vote one way rather than the other. Though you may dislike it, thats part of their job.

Government laziness or government intransigence. There is no doubt Bertie wanted a yes to Nice and they used our money not to educate on the issues of Nice but to spin on their part.
That is NOT their job.

That is simply not what happened. The notion that there would be additional referenda after the second is a straw-man. It is a work of fiction dreamt up to hold on to the illusion that something was done wrong.

Maybe not a referenda but just as being done with the constitution a back alley way of getting the thing through.

The government broke no law. At most, they could be argued to have "gamed" the system within the boundaries of the law, but even then there has been a total lack of interest in making sure such gaming could not be done again in the future.

I don't recall anyone saying that they broke the law but they definitely didn't respect the democratic will.

Why would that be? I put it to you that the opponents of Nice know that there is more mileage to be gained complaining about a straw-man situation then there is to be gained in fixing something thats not really a problem at all. Rather than try and have this so-called loophole closed since Nice was accepted, it will serve the Euro-skeptics better to have it left in place so that they can do as you are now doing - complain bitterly to try and provoke sympathy and gain support.

Maybe that's the Euro skeptics game, but a majority reason for rejecting it isn't Euro skepticism. I agree with you that effort should have been put toward changing the law that allowed the government to ram it through.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

There is no doubt Bertie wanted a yes to Nice and they used our money not to educate on the issues of Nice but to spin on their part. That is NOT their job.

Just because you opposed the motion doesn't mean that the argument for accepting it was "spin". Furthermore, there are laws which determine how the government can spend money on such issues. This is important because of your comment that :

I don't recall anyone saying that they broke the law but they definitely didn't respect the democratic will.

If the government didn't break the law, then they have nothing to legally answer for. I just want to be clear that when people keep inisting the government did something wrong, they mean "something I don't approve of, but which is not in contravention of any law they are required to uphold".

What does that leave? It leaves answering to the people, who get to express their approval in the form of a general election. They've just come out of an election which showed categorically that the public en masse did not have a major issue with their behaviour last time round.

So exactly what democratic will did they not go with? When the second referendum was run, the result showed that more people were in support of Nice than against it. Thus, their action most certainly was in respect of democratic will, or at least was no more against it than the public are willing to accept.

As for someone suggesting that they broke the law, I would refer you back to Hagar's comment, asking whether or not they were legally bound to accept the first decision, as well as your own comment regarding what their job is.

Their job is defined by the law. How they carry out that job is subject to public approval, but only in the sense that the public get to express meaningfully in the form of an election. By neither standard, is there anything to suggest that the government acted improperly.

If they betrayed the democratic process, then so too have the public by showing they don't care enough to remember come election time. The government are, thus, no worse than the public who have elected them. In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. Thus, if you want to blame someone, blame the public. Of course, that won't win you any votes in a referendum, but you can't have everything.

I agree with you that effort should have been put toward changing the law that allowed the government to ram it through.

But it wasn't, which only adds to the argument that there wasn't really some betrayal of democracy at play. The vast majority of people complaining want to gain the mileage they can with their complaints that the system is allegedly being gamed, rather than make a case for fixing it.

Even now, rather than hearing people say "the government should be pressured into (at least) making a statement in advance saying they will not re-run the referendum should they not get the desired result", we hear the bleeding-heart, set-my-people-free cry of "whats the point in voting against them, because they'll just game the system if they lose".

To me, that complaint just sounds like a justification for why a democratically-arrived-at decision will be wrong if its not the one the complainers want. If they win, they'll cheer that democracy has triumphed. If they lose, they'll complain that democracy has failed because of some non-democratic influence corrupting the result. And the more they think they'll lose, the louder they cry. At the end of the day, though, the non-democratic influence they complain about is ultimately the voting public.

Judt

liberty 2007 wrote:

Hello all, just joined this thing, not sure how to use, but here goes.
The problem with holding the second Nice referendum was'nt so much that it was held, but the resources that were behind the yes camp and denied to the no camp. The government spent no money therefore, were not obliged to provide funds to the no camp (under the McKenna judgement). Instead, the political parties funded the yes camp, along with their media allies and industry. By demonising the leaders of the no camp they managed to swing the 10% they needed. There was and never is a level playing field.

Ohh, God, yeah, I almost forgot about that neo-nazi! I err, mean, the opposition to the Nice Treaty.

liberty 2007

Judt wrote:

Ohh, God, yeah, I almost forgot about that neo-nazi! I err, mean, the opposition to the Nice Treaty.

Thats the trouble with propaganda, we don't recognise it until it's given it's name.

jawlie

Letter from today's paper;

Sir,

...I took the trouble to read all 400-odd pages of the original EU constitution and, while there were many worrying clauses, only three clauses really mattered:

The first was that the EU will have a single legal identity – in other words it will be a country (or superstate) in its own right. Second, EU laws shall have supremacy over the laws of member states and, finally, that it is for "an unlimited period" – in other words for ever.

Since Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was in charge of the original EU constitution, assures us that all the earlier proposals will be in the new text we can assume that those three clauses have survived. What more do you need to know to convince you that, if you wish to live in an independent country, you have to vote "No"?

Graham Booth MEP (Ukip), Paignton, Devon

seamus

bonkey wrote:

If the government didn't break the law, then they have nothing to legally answer for. I just want to be clear that when people keep inisting the government did something wrong, they mean "something I don't approve of, but which is not in contravention of any law they are required to uphold".

What does that leave? It leaves answering to the people, who get to express their approval in the form of a general election. They've just come out of an election which showed categorically that the public en masse did not have a major issue with their behaviour last time round.

So exactly what democratic will did they not go with? When the second referendum was run, the result showed that more people were in support of Nice than against it. Thus, their action most certainly was in respect of democratic will, or at least was no more against it than the public are willing to accept.

I think this is really key here. No matter how much people complain about it being unfair that referenda are continually put to us only to be shot down, the electorate have thus far failed to act on their disapproval, or at the very least only a minority of the people consider it to be a significant issue. Otherwise the current Government wouldn't have been voted in.

This is the nature of a democracy, which seems to pass most people by (whether or not they get the Government they want) - the people you vote for should be representative of the people you want to see in Government. In this country we've a habit of not considering this at all and voting for the same guy every time or voting against the same guy every time.
If your guy doesn't get in, that's not an indication that everyone else made the wrong choice, it's an indication that most of your peers don't agree with your choice.

bill_ashmount

I'll be putting myself back on the electoral register in the next few days in order to vote on this. I shall be rejecting the treaty , not that I think it matters in the end, it'll get passed either way.