If Irelands votes no....

mike65

....will our EU masters

a) tell us to vote again

b) redraft the treaty and try again

c) plough on regardless

I suspect c.

Pity there is no option to have a pole.

Mike.

Moriarty

Well, all states need to ratify the treaty for it to come into force, so it'll be impossible for our "eu masters" to continue as if we had voted yes. How do you define "plough on regardless" exactly?

In answer to the broader question, I honestly don't know how things would go.

turgon

mike65 wrote: »

a) tell us to vote again
b) redraft the treaty and try again
c) plough on regardless

In the case of c i would imagine there would be political unhappiness, which could cause anything from riots to Fianna Fail being raped in the local elections. And the European Union would lose all democratic cred. So I would imagine it will not happen. But who knows?

With a or b I could not imagine the European Power brokers having the cop on to realize what regular Europeans actually want. In my opinion, they are far to caught up in their "Europeon Project" and are willing to trounce the values they claim to be founded* on (ie not having Euro wide referendums) when it suits them.

Article 1.3 reform treaty wrote:

The Union is founded upon the values of respect for democracy

Where does only 1% of the population being allowed to vote fit into this?

IRLConor

I suspect that some or all of the treaty would be redrafted and offered up again. How and when that would be done is anyone's guess.

Moriarty

turgon wrote: »

Where does only 1% of the population being allowed to vote fit into this?

Allowing the idiots in the national partliaments to have sole control over when to call votes

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

I could not imagine the European Power brokers having the cop on to realize what regular Europeans actually want.

So then, what do regular Europeans actually want? Please bear in mind that regular Europeans voted for the "European Power brokers".

turgon wrote: »

Where does only 1% of the population being allowed to vote fit into this?

That's the choice of the various national governments, not the EU.

turgon

IRLConor wrote: »

So then, what do regular Europeans actually want? Please bear in mind that regular Europeans voted for the "European Power brokers".

I personally think thats a poor argument. For example political parties voting Yes to the Lisbon treaty occupy over 96% of the Dail. Do you think the majority among the people is equal? Just because we vote for them doesn't mean we agree with every last thought in their minds.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

I personally think thats a poor argument. For example political parties voting Yes to the Lisbon treaty occupy over 96% of the Dail. Do you think the majority among the people is equal? Just because we vote for them doesn't mean we agree with every last thought in their minds.

Well, the No vote is usually about 18% of the total electorate in EU referendums, so it's not badly out of whack. Only 90% of the Dáil actually consists of parties voting Yes, and 16% of our MEPs are advocating a No.

If you think about it, if 51% of every TDs voters were in favour of a Yes, then 100% of TDs should vote Yes. You'd have to break down the figures on the voting record of Yes/No voters to get anything meaningful here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

I personally think thats a poor argument. For example political parties voting Yes to the Lisbon treaty occupy over 96% of the Dail. Do you think the majority among the people is equal? Just because we vote for them doesn't mean we agree with every last thought in their minds.

I think Scofflaw answered this better than I could.

The implication of your post earlier was that you knew what "regular Europeans actually want", which was kind of the point of my question. What do they want in your opinion, how do you know and what in $DEITY's name is a "regular European" anyway?

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, the No vote is usually about 18% of the total electorate in EU referendums
If you think about it, if 51% of every TDs voters were in favour of a Yes, then 100% of TDs should vote Yes.

Ok, well I dont know where you are getting 18%

• Nice One: 64% against
• Nice Two: 37% against

And if 51% of every TD's electorate thinks Yes then it will be Yes in June and that is obviously the way it should be.

My opinion is that the people running Europe (ie the Eu commission, council of ministers) are trying to create a USE. I believe this because the sovereignty of states is being gradually eroded by EU Treaties. I know you may debate this, but in fairness thins such as Common defense Pacts are hardly giving states independence form each other.

Now from what ive heard this USE not what people really want. In fact I haven't heard of many in favor of it. I think there is a political elite in control (commission and euro civil servants) who are in control despite not being elected. And as such they're a bit distant from what people like my want and not held accountable.

Plus French and Dutch voters clearly voted no to further cementing the Eu together back in 2004. But if you have a reasonable counter argument I will accept that.

Admit idly "regular" Europeans is a bit of a ridiculous statement!

partholon

mike65 wrote: »

....will our EU masters

a) tell us to vote again

b) redraft the treaty and try again

c) plough on regardless

I suspect c.

Pity there is no option to have a pole.

Mike.

thought b looks the most likey i can see c happening too as when denmark voted against the euro they were left to themselves for years, theyre only really taking about readdressing it again now. so if we vote no i can see the core pooling together more and more of their soverignty under the enhanced co operation rules. probably with much comment from our leaders talking about being "left out" which in the end wont have any real effect on us . just like in denmark.

as to the "POLE" im pretty sure youd have to aske her permission before you could "have" her

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

Ok, well I dont know where you are getting 18%

• Nice One: 64% against
• Nice Two: 37% against

Out of what percentage of the electorate, in each case? In other words, what was the turnout?

Plus French and Dutch voters clearly voted no to further cementing the Eu together back in 2004.

What about those who voted in favour of it?

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Ok, well I dont know where you are getting 18%

• Nice One: 64% against
• Nice Two: 37% against

18% of the electorate (at that time roughly 2,867,300, where the No vote was roughly 530,000). The figures you there are the percentages of the vote on the day.

turgon wrote: »

And if 51% of every TD's electorate thinks Yes then it will be Yes in June and that is obviously the way it should be.

My opinion is that the people running Europe (ie the Eu commission, council of ministers) are trying to create a USE. I believe this because the sovereignty of states is being gradually eroded by EU Treaties. I know you may debate this, but in fairness thins such as Common defense Pacts are hardly giving states independence form each other.

Now from what ive heard this USE not what people really want. In fact I haven't heard of many in favor of it. I think there is a political elite in control (commission and euro civil servants) who are in control despite not being elected. And as such they're a bit distant from what people like my want and not held accountable.

The problem I have there is that the people you've fingered as the villains (the "people running Europe") are the same people as the governments of the "independent, sovereign states".

Becoming part of any group necessarily involves giving up a certain amount of independence. If you go on holiday with friends in order to get a better deal, you can't decide to go at a different time from them.

So, you need to distinguish between that, and giving up independence because you are forced to. In the holiday analogy, that is the equivalent of your boss telling you that you can only go on holiday at a particular time.

Quite a lot of people appear to be under the impression that Ireland is 'forced' to give up independence to the EU. That is, frankly, not possible, since the EU only exists by virtue of the desire of the member states, including Ireland, to pool sovereignty in order to achieve better results than is possible as 'ourselves alone'. We can leave at any time. For those reasons, the idea that the EU is some kind of equivalent to the US federal state is a non-runner.

Further, in our case, because sovereignty in Ireland is explicitly vested in the people, we 'the people' have been asked in every single instance whether that's alright. Thus far, we have, with appropriate safeguards, said yes.

turgon wrote: »

Plus French and Dutch voters clearly voted no to further cementing the Eu together back in 2004. But if you have a reasonable counter argument I will accept that.

Actually, the French and the Dutch, like voters here, voted for a very wide variety of reasons. People here are voting No to give the government a kick in the teeth (so much so that Bertie is stepping down), or because of VRT, or water charges, or half a hundred other reasons that don't have any actual bearing on the Treaty they're voting on.

So to say that the French and Dutch "voters clearly voted no to further cementing the Eu together" is not plausible at all, since it is not at all clear that that's why they voted as they did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Alright lets forget about this 18% of the electorate. If some people arent going to be bothered voting and involving themselves in our democracy then I see no reason to include them in stats. You could just as easily say that the yes votes accounted for only 33% of the electorate (in nice 2). So lets forget about that.

Now going on about reasons why they voted No (vrt etc) is equally implausible. Some guy could have just gotten engaged and in his ultimate optimism gone and voted Yes. Trying to discern the reasons people voted is far from relevant. All that matters is the overall result.

Now before I continue I am going so set the record straight (cause you seem to think Im some sort of EU hater!). I really think the EU is brilliant, in fact one of the best ideas in European History. Peace and economic security are all great. If Ireland was planning to pull out id be protesting to stay in.

I just feel the EU has reached the peak of it success. Shengen area - Great. Euro - even greater!!!! But heading into closer political ties - no thank you. The leaders of the EU aren't 100% accountable. Commission - non elected. Council of Ministers - not accountable for EU issues alone (ie will not be judged on EU issues alone). Parliament is great and all but not that powerful.

So they are kinda given free reign to do most things. I dont know if im making myself that clear

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Alright lets forget about this 18% of the electorate. If some people arent going to be bothered voting and involving themselves in our democracy then I see no reason to include them in stats. You could just as easily say that the yes votes accounted for only 33% of the electorate (in nice 2). So lets forget about that.

Now going on about reasons why they voted No (vrt etc) is equally implausible. Some guy could have just gotten engaged and in his ultimate optimism gone and voted Yes. Trying to discern the reasons people voted is far from relevant. All that matters is the overall result.

Now before I continue I am going so set the record straight (cause you seem to think Im some sort of EU hater!). I really think the EU is brilliant, in fact one of the best ideas in European History. Peace and economic security are all great. If Ireland was planning to pull out id be protesting to stay in.

I just feel the EU has reached the peak of it success. Shengen area - Great. Euro - even greater!!!! But heading into closer political ties - no thank you. The leaders of the EU aren't 100% accountable. Commission - non elected. Council of Ministers - not accountable for EU issues alone (ie will not be judged on EU issues alone). Parliament is great and all but not that powerful.

So they are kinda given free reign to do most things. I dont know if im making myself that clear

Clear enough that you're drawing attention to one of my major reasons for voting Yes, which is the major extension of the power of the Parliament to accept/reject legislation (called 'co-decision'). In the long run, I think that, coupled with the reduction in the Commission, is a big step in the right (democratic) direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB

If Ireland votes no, there's no way we'll be asked again. Ultimately it will make Europe look long and hard about its future and why its so unpopular, and fundamentally they'll realise the best way to get support for Europe is to bloody talk about Europe, not hide and duck and do things in the background.

That said, I think it'll pass, quite easily too.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Clear enough that you're drawing attention to one of my major reasons for voting Yes, which is the major extension of the power of the Parliament to accept/reject legislation (called 'co-decision'). In the long run, I think that, coupled with the reduction in the Commission, is a big step in the right (democratic) direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah I agree, but why didnt the Eu give us democracy in the first place? Now to get democracy we also have to further the EU project, which unfortunately I don't want to further, which Is why I vote no.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Yeah I agree, but why didnt the Eu give us democracy in the first place? Now to get democracy we also have to further the EU project, which unfortunately I don't want to further, which Is why I vote no.

Well, each Treaty has both extended the scope of the EU, and increased the democratic accountability of it - that's the theory, anyway, and it's not too far from the practice, although the exact amounts of each vary. This Treaty, I would say, represents the slightest extension of the scope of the EU (no new exclusive competences, a fairly short list of QMV areas) for the maximum extension of democracy (big extension of co-decision, formal objection mechanism for national parliaments, citizens' initiative) of all the treaties I've seen (this is the fifth).

I sometimes wonder if that's why this one is being so bitterly opposed - both because it's the last planned treaty for the while, and because it would increase the legitimacy of the EU by reducing the 'democratic deficit'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

I sometimes wonder if that's why this one is being so bitterly opposed - both because it's the last planned treaty for the while, and because it would increase the legitimacy of the EU by reducing the 'democratic deficit'.

Well this wouldn't be ht reason I would be voting no - but I never thought of it this way! What you are saying is that EU-skeptics (ex sinn fein) are afraid this will make the EU better and thus their grounds of opposition weaker. Interesting theory.

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Well this wouldn't be ht reason I would be voting no - but I never thought of it this way! What you are saying is that EU-skeptics (ex sinn fein) are afraid this will make the EU better and thus their grounds of opposition weaker. Interesting theory.

I'd argue that they are against it because there is a decent number of people (just under a fifth of the electorate perhaps? not that big a number anyway) who are Euro-sceptic by default and they are very much playing to that crowd. Sinn Fein as usual are playing to a particular part of the electorate, and most likely will do it quite effectively since they are pretty well entrenched there. The problem is that when most of their arguments are examined, they aren't true or are distortions of the truth but if you're Euro-sceptic by default almost any reason will do. (I'm over-simplifying here)

Some of the "Yes" claims about a no vote meaning that we'd be kicked out of Europe or that it would cripple Foreign Direct Investment are equally fanciful, but again they're playing to the other side who just want any reason to vote yes.

Both extremes are just playing to their sides at the moment, the issue is that a very substantial number of people fall into neither camp and who are genuinely confused by the very conflicting messages being spread by both camps.

partholon

ya dont think the answer might be in the name of the party?

mike65

I'd like to see a NO vote as a way of testing to see if the democratic deficit is real or imagined.

Mike.

oscarBravo

Meaning what?

mike65

What you you think I mean? Self explanatory I would have thought.

Mike.

oscarBravo

Obviously not, or I wouldn't have to ask. Humour me.

mike65

Would the views of (for the sake of argument) 50.01% of 50 % of the voting population of a state of 4.2 million which has taken far more from the EU then it has given back be taken at all seriously?

Mike.

oscarBravo

I'm still not certain what you mean. If Ireland votes no, Lisbon can't be ratified. What happens next is anyone's guess.

dresden8

Minor changes, throw us a bone over something small and then make us vote the right way again.

We've been here before, don't you people not learn from experience? Are you all insane?

oscarBravo

Are you here to engage in discussion or to call people names?

dresden8

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

- John Dryden

Should have explained the quote properly.

mike65

dresden8, that really did not need explaining, unless one is a pedant/overly literal.

Mike.

dresden8

mike65 wrote: »

dresden8, that really did not need explaining, unless one is a pedant/overly literal.

Mike.

Needed explaing to OscarBravo. As he is a mod (I think) I took it as a direct challenge to explain myself. Apologies to all those who are overly read.

sink

If Ireland votes no, the EU will be damaged further, people will have even less faith in it then they do now.

The EU is empowered by it's citizens if it's citizens do not trust it, it's task of governing is made infinitely more difficult. At the moment it appears that the majority of EU citizens can see the benefits of the EU and support it's aims. If you look at individual countries, countries which have the greatest support from it's citizens seem to have the greatest impact on the EU. They get to shape the EU's future where as countries which lack supoort only get to say no to other countries proposals rather than making any of their own (compare Germany with the UK).

If there is a no vote nothing immediately drastic will happen such as Ireland being kicked out of the EU or the EU itself collapsing, but there will be a more subtle negative effect. Ireland will no longer be in a position of leading Europe making suggestions and shaping policy and instead it will become more like the UK, saying no and protecting self-interests but not really shaping the future.

The EU itself will also be damaged, it's voice on the world stage and it's ability to act in it's own interests will shrink. It will effect foreign relations issues like energy talks with Russia, giving Russia more bargaining power because the EU will be fractured and weaker. Or other issues like human rights in China, keeping tabs on nuclear weapons, negotiating with the US on data protection and visas, having a real effect on climate change and pressuring despotic regimes like Burma and Sudan will be made more difficult.

Lazyfox

I am new to this Lisbon debate and have no political affiliations. I started checking the net to understand what I am being asked to vote on. I am pro European but unsure of where the EU is heading, but from my history lessons in school I remembered that “Countries have interests not friends”.

In so far as I can work out under this new Lisbon Treaty, Irelands voting strength will drop from 2% to just .8% (it appears we would also lose some vetos - both parties agree this even if they argue about the number ) so this is a further drop in the voting strength which we currently have. What is the incentive for me to vote for this?

Initially when I saw this, I naively thought every countries voting strength had to drop but it seems the larger countries are getting increases in their voting strengths. Germany from 8% to 12%. This makes me nervous.

The argument that it will work more efficiently doesn’t hold much credence, as the EU seems to produce lots of new legislation under the current regime. Is their problem that they have to temper what they are doing to get everyone to agree, if so it seems a good thing to me -its called democracy. The opposite to this is a dictatorship, a very efficient system but not necessarily a nice one to live under.

I don’t for one minute think we will be conscripted into the European army but do believe that ultimately the new army will be funded by the European taxpayer. What percentage of the new EU budget will go on arms and in whose economy will this money be spent? Not Irelands.

I don’t have a brilliant education or a stunning legal mind but common sense dictates that I will not sign an irrevocable contract the small print of which I can not read or understand. Being berated by anyone for my view is unlikely to make me change my mind.

In the campaign so far nobody has given me one logical compelling reason to change the status quo. I don’t agree with Sinn Fein nor do I have any interest in the individuals on the no side but they at least are presenting facts in support of their case. There Yes side appear to me to be running a smear campaign against everyone on the no side, but have offered no rational argument as to why I should vote yes.

I credit the French and Dutch nations with more intelligence than their politicians give them, it appears they voted no for good reasons. I dislike the way the spin-doctors have twisted the outcomes to discredit them. An election result is a result or else we should just do away with democracy. I am deeply suspicious of the arrogance with which the rest of Europe has been deprived of their vote and the gigantic machine now being mounted to shove this thing through.

PS . Is there something about a self amending clause in this treaty as well?

IRLConor

Lazyfox wrote: »

I credit the French and Dutch nations with more intelligence than their politicians give them, it appears they voted no for good reasons. I dislike the way the spin-doctors have twisted the outcomes to discredit them. An election result is a result or else we should just do away with democracy. I am deeply suspicious of the arrogance with which the rest of Europe has been deprived of their vote and the gigantic machine now being mounted to shove this thing through.

As I said in the mega-thread:

IRLConor wrote:

...the notion that the Constitution had been rejected by the people of the EU is not the whole truth. While France and the Netherlands voted no, Luxembourg and Spain both voted yes. In fact, if you count up all of the people that voted on the constitution (~49 million people) the vote was 54% Yes, 46% No.

That's not a case of spin, that's just the hard numbers. If anything, the no side is pointing loudly to the French and Dutch No votes without being honest about the whole story. The numbers are too close to say conclusively what the outcome would have been EU-wide, but the notion that the Constitution was shown a clear no by the people of the EU is just wrong.

Now, I agree that it's unfair that the French and Dutch are not being offered a referendum on Lisbon. The thing to remember though is that it's their democratically elected governments that are denying them the vote, not the EU. The EU gets no say in whether or not a referendum is held in any of the member states.

Lazyfox wrote: »

PS . Is there something about a self amending clause in this treaty as well?

Yes and no. The Treaty makes provision that things can be changed without another Treaty. This doesn't make the Treaty self amending though, all of the nations still need to ratify the change. If the change requires a transfer of sovereignty then we need to have a referendum on it, whether or not there's a treaty effecting the change.

This is actually a very positive step. Up until now all of the changes in the EU have been made by treaty. Since treaties take a long while to draw up and require things like referenda the practice is to bundle as much as possible into them to do it all in one go. With the option to change something without a treaty the changes to the EU should become more focused and this means that when they're brought to a vote they're easier to understand.

Lazyfox

I take on board what you say but at this stage it is only Ireland that has a vote. I have no doubt that if our democratically elected government could get out of having this referendum they would do so and this debate would be purely academic.


I think if I lived in a big population country it would be in my interest to vote yes. This answers the Spanish result but not the Luxembourg one. If I were French or Dutch I would still be livid my vote is being treated with such disdain.


I would be much happier to go with this treaty if all of the rest of Europe had a vote but am still very skeptical since we are the only ones. I believe that if it is thrown out here the next redraft is more likely have to go to vote all over Europe.


I still do not understand the self amending bit or what constitutes sovereignty in it.

Is it not true that it is being pushed through the rest of Europe on the basis of unanimity. Therefore once the Govt here gets agreement to the changes there will be no further referendum on the same basis.

Not withstanding any of the explanations on the thread so far. Where is the compelling reason to vote yes, I still only see some answers to the possible downsides but nothing to actually persuade a yes vote. Why take all the risk of downside for no upside if the Lisbon Treaty goes through?

IRLConor

Lazyfox wrote: »

I still do not understand the self amending bit or what constitutes sovereignty in it.

OK, there are two parts to it.

The first, and most important bit for Irish people in particular is the result of the Crotty case. This Supreme Court case requires (roughly) that any major change to the EU, like transfer of sovereign powers from Ireland to the EU, must be approved by referendum. I'm not quite clear who decides what constitutes a change requiring a referendum but if the government (or whoever) wrongly decided a referendum was not necessary for an issue they could be challenged in court and forced to hold one.

The second part is the "self amending bit" proper. Article 48 is the part of the treaty which is usually pointed at as being the "self amending bit". It covers the methods by which the treaties can be amended. There are two methods by which they can be amended, the "Ordinary revision procedure" and the "Simplified revision procedures":

Ordinary revision procedure:

1. The government of a member state, the European Parliament or the Commission proposes a change to one or more of the treaties.
2. The proposal is submitted to the European Council.
3. The national parliaments are notified of the proposal.
4. The European Council consults the European Parliament and the Commission on the proposal.
5. The European Council votes on whether it should examine the proposal.
6. If the European Council decides that it should examine the proposal it puts together a Convention made up of representatives of the national Parliaments, the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. If money is involved the European Central Bank gets made part of the Convention. The Council has the option to not convene the Convention if the proposal isn't significant enough to warrant it, but the European Parliament has to agree to that.
7. The Convention (or the Council if there's no Convention) examines the proposal and puts together a recommendation.
8. The recommendation gets put in front of a conference of the governments of the member states.
9. If all the member states agree to ratify the recommendation they do so "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" (which in Ireland's case takes into account the Crotty judgement).

Simplified revision procedures:

• The government of a member state, the European Parliament or the Commission proposes a change to one or more of the treaties.
• The European Council consults the European Parliament and the Commission on the proposal.
• If the proposal involves "institutional changes in the monetary area" the European Council consults the European Central Bank.
• The European Council votes on the proposed amendment.
• If the vote is unanimous then the proposed amendment is given to the member states to ratify. Again this is done "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".

Now, the simplified revision procedures cannot be used if the proposal increases the competences conferred on the EU. That is, if any power is to be handed from a member state to the EU, the ordinary revision procedure is to be used.

I've tried to simplify it without losing any of the substance, I hope it still makes sense.

Lazyfox wrote: »

Is it not true that it is being pushed through the rest of Europe on the basis of unanimity. Therefore once the Govt here gets agreement to the changes there will be no further referendum on the same basis.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Lazyfox wrote: »

Not withstanding any of the explanations on the thread so far. Where is the compelling reason to vote yes, I still only see some answers to the possible downsides but nothing to actually persuade a yes vote. Why take all the risk of downside for no upside if the Lisbon Treaty goes through?

There's no "big ticket" yes item, but there are loads of small ones. The big thread in this forum has plenty of them.

This is actually a big worry for me. The yes side has nothing big and simple to point to and say "this is why you should vote yes". There are lots of small bits and plenty of complicated bits which are good, but none of them fit on an election poster. The no side on the other hand appears (to me at least) to have an easier job since they can spread loads of FUD about tax or abortion and that gets what they want.

mike65

As the day draws nearer it'll be interesting to see if there is a "vote no - its safe as it changes nothing" aspect to the nay-sayers campaign

Mike.

Lazyfox

Thanks IRLConor that is the best explanation of the self amending clause I have received.

Based on what you explained my new fear is the competencies that have been handed over to date and also the new ones they are now ceding.

These will be where the EU will be able to amend at will without reverting back by referendum. If they are vague enough then all sort of things could go through.

The whole thing reminds me of trying to restore an old house, every time you open up something new more problems emerge.

Should they not they just scrap the whole thing and write a new one from scratch?

At this stage I think I will just vote No

Mikes comment is the slogan I would adopt if I was running the no campaign.

oscarBravo

Lazyfox wrote: »

These will be where the EU will be able to amend at will without reverting back by referendum. If they are vague enough then all sort of things could go through.

That's kinda missing the point that any change to the EU treaties must be ratified by all member states, and that if a change has a significant impact on our sovereignty, it must be ratified by referendum in this country.

Should they not they just scrap the whole thing and write a new one from scratch?

Sure, and if we reject that one they'll just tear it up and keep writing new ones. It only takes four years of negotiations to arrive at a treaty that 27 countries can live with, so what's the big deal?

Mikes comment is the slogan I would adopt if I was running the no campaign.

In common with many of the slogans the "no" various campaign have used, it's not exactly true.

nesf

Lazyfox wrote: »

Should they not they just scrap the whole thing and write a new one from scratch?

As someone who is quite cynical about politics in general, I'd say no. You've got 27 countries, all of whom are balancing the needs of their country against the needs of others, e.g. the Irish contingent are going to try and get the best deal they can by trying to secure what's important to us while giving away things that aren't that big a deal for our country. You've got all of them doing this. The EU is quite hetrogenous these days with a strange mix of "socialist democracies" like France, Sweden etc with more "Atlanticist/economically liberal" countries like Ireland, the UK and many of the previously Communist states. From a pragmatic point of view, making them all go back to the table would take years to bring back a treaty to us if they had to do it from scratch and honestly, it'd be even harder to understand than what we're being asked to vote on now. I don't think that getting them to do it up again from scratch will solve any of the problems that come from the treaties being a result of complex inter-governmental negotiations. EU countries just don't see eye to eye on enough issues for us to get a clean, simple document out of them. On the other hand, we elect Governments so that they can deal with political and legal complexities that accompany foreign affairs for us because it really doesn't pay for the average Irish citizen to become well versed enough on the situation to be actually in a position to understand the large treaties they're asked to vote on every so often so I would be inclined to support this treaty simply because every major party is supporting it. That in itself is an encouraging sign that even the opposition and the Government think that this is as good a deal as we can get out of the EU. Though, if you have major issues with the major parties I can see how this wouldn't be a comfort for you.

If you believe that the EU as a project is a good thing because it removes some of parochialism from national politics (like I do) then what's been offered in the Lisbon treaty is not perfect but it's pretty good as moves forward go. We're never going to get offered a treaty that is great in all respects for Ireland, there are just too many other countries negotiating for their own interests for that to happen. If you demand that every aspect of the EU suits you, I don't think you'll ever be happy with it and honestly, I don't think you'll ever be happy with politics in general either. For better or worse, politics comes down to choosing the least bad alternative most of the time and on balance I think there's enough good stuff in this treaty to allay my problems with certain parts of the EU as it stands.

IRLConor

Lazyfox wrote: »

Thanks IRLConor that is the best explanation of the self amending clause I have received.

You're welcome.

Lazyfox wrote: »

Based on what you explained my new fear is the competencies that have been handed over to date and also the new ones they are now ceding.

These will be where the EU will be able to amend at will without reverting back by referendum. If they are vague enough then all sort of things could go through.

You're confusing the transfer of competence and the use of competence.

A referendum only ever covers the transfer of the competence from Ireland to the EU. Whether you vote yes or no to Lisbon, there will be no change in this policy since the Crotty case requires us to have a referendum when a competence is handed to the EU.

Using a competence on the other hand never required a referendum nor will it. As far as I understand it, there are two types of competence, shared competence and exclusive competence. For a shared competence the EU must act according to a principle called "subsidiarity" which means that they leave as much as possible up to the member states and only do the common bits at EU level. For both types of competence the EU must also act according to a principle called "proportionality" which requires them to only do the bare minimum necessary to achieve the objectives set out in the treaty.

The bit of the Treaty on European Union which covers this is Article 5. It's a fairly fundamental part of the way the EU works so I'll quote it here:

Treaty On European Union wrote:

Article 5

1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
   
   The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.
   
   The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Lazyfox wrote: »

The whole thing reminds me of trying to restore an old house, every time you open up something new more problems emerge.

Should they not they just scrap the whole thing and write a new one from scratch?

That was what the constitution was supposed to do (or at least, one of the things it was supposed to do).

nhughes100

Does anyone else think that maybe the whole issue of voting percentages, veto's, self amendments etc etc etc should have been carried out before the enlargement to 27 countries took place. It definitely has an Irish feel to it of just get it in and we'll worry about the consequences later. Then the countries which entered the EU would know exactly what they were entering into. Cart before horse and all that.

Additionally I think the yes camp are looking very worried, I saw EU President Barosso interviewed on rte a few weeks ago and he was getting very hot under the collar. Cowan looked like he was going to burst a blood vessel yesterday. Heard numerous people from the yes camp on radio citing how great the EU has been for us - Well if it's been so great why are you changing it? T

he bribe factor doesn't work anymore since we are a net contributor, I remember Albert Reynolds on the radio in 94 telling us to vote since we got 7 pounds back for every pound we put into the EU and why shouldn't people vote no on the basis of un-enforced EU laws like VRT. Laws aren't ala carte and I don't see the EU rushing in to bring Ireland to any court over these breaches.

Where do people get the idea that we are in a position to lead Europe and shape policy etc? Our handful of MEP's dont' do too much shaping that I can see, the last I heard of Gay Mitchell he was going on about how he'd like to see a Dublin mayor with real power.

The EU is a fundamentally flawed idea, it's origin as an open trading community is long since gone. But to get back to the original question, they'll come up with some guff over nuetrality or vetos(now to be known as opt outs) and put it back to the people as many times as necessary until we get a yes vote. I remember the French having a referendum and winning it by .01% or so and the then French foreign minister told the awaiting press that democracy is 50%+1 - only when it's the right answer.

nesf

nhughes100 wrote: »

Additionally I think the yes camp are looking very worried

The single biggest issue for the Yes camp is that the No vote is small and a lot of voters won't bother to vote because they assume the Yes camp don't need their votes. The fact that no major parties supports the No campaign makes this even worse, with the crazy pamphlets that are being put through letterboxes by some groups (not all No groups) making this even more apparent. The combination of the two means that most people who are "yes voters" aren't worked up about it; it's going to be hard to get them to take the time to vote in the referendum. Times when the Yes and No vote are close, in terms of actual population rather than turn out, are the times which motivate people out to make their vote "count", but if people think it's a given that one side is going to win there is a very real possibility that a lot of people won't bother to go out and vote in favour of that side because they think their vote isn't needed. A narrow but healthy margin of victory being there would be a far more comfortable position for the Yes vote to be in. Being a clear frontrunner to the tune of bookies having you 1/4 on etc is not a good position to be in in a two horse race.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

Heard numerous people from the yes camp on radio citing how great the EU has been for us - Well if it's been so great why are you changing it?

I think the idea that if something is good it should never be changed is a bit... strange. Who says it can't be better?

Where do people get the idea that we are in a position to lead Europe and shape policy etc? Our handful of MEP's dont' do too much shaping that I can see...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that Pat Cox was a very popular and influential president of the European Parliament.

The EU is a fundamentally flawed idea, it's origin as an open trading community is long since gone.

This harks back to your original point, which seems to be that change is intrinsically bad. Sometimes change is good. Y'know, progress?

sink

nhughes100 wrote: »

Does anyone else think that maybe the whole issue of voting percentages, veto's, self amendments etc etc etc should have been carried out before the enlargement to 27 countries took place. It definitely has an Irish feel to it of just get it in and we'll worry about the consequences later. Then the countries which entered the EU would know exactly what they were entering into. Cart before horse and all that.

While I see your point and agree with it, it's hardly a reason to not fix it now. If it is broke fix it, to coin a phrase.

nhughes100 wrote: »

The bribe factor doesn't work anymore since we are a net contributor, I remember Albert Reynolds on the radio in 94 telling us to vote since we got 7 pounds back for every pound we put into the EU and why shouldn't people vote no on the basis of un-enforced EU laws like VRT. Laws aren't ala carte and I don't see the EU rushing in to bring Ireland to any court over these breaches.

The VRT is not breaking any laws as it's not a import tax, it is a tax on newly registered vehicles which is different. It's a technicality and it's wrong imo, but you can't hold the EU to account for a government policy that is not breaking any law. When the Lisbon treaty is ratified if you can gather 1 million signatures, you can get the council to debate this issue and possibly bring in a new law.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Where do people get the idea that we are in a position to lead Europe and shape policy etc? Our handful of MEP's dont' do too much shaping that I can see, the last I heard of Gay Mitchell he was going on about how he'd like to see a Dublin mayor with real power.

You're focusing on our lack of voting power in the European Parliament, but the parliament itself is not that powerful. The council and the commission are far more powerful. Bertie Ahern was one of the drivers in finding an agreement on the constitution, a task Blair or Brown would not have been able to accomplish to the euro sceptical British public. If the Brits where a bit less on the anti-EU side they would be able to mold the EU into a shape that better suits them, at the moment the just follow everyone else and continuously moan along the way.

wonz

if Ireland votes no then I say they'd try to redraft it in some way and try to plough on but, the legal reason for Ireland getting a referendum now would still stand in the future; that means that the Irish constitution empowers the Irish people to vote on any issue which involves HANDING OVER POWER (sovereignty) FROM THE PEOPLE TO SOMEONE ELSE (ie the EU state).

so no matter how they redraft it, re-word, confuse, if legally it means that power is taken away from the people then the people have to vote.

This is the crux of this referendum! handing over your sovereignty to someone else. Why bother fighting and dying to free yourselves from oppressors if then later you're bamboozled into handing it away of your own free will.

They try to scare countries into submission by saying that Ireland will disintegrate, crumble, collapse if they don't say 'yes'. that's what a bully does in the playground. you've got to confront the bully.

and in response to an earlier poster "the europeans voted the power brokers in". there have been a number of referenda that have been refused by the people such as the French and Dutch.

sink

wonz wrote: »

and in response to an earlier poster "the europeans voted the power brokers in". there have been a number of referenda that have been refused by the people such as the French and Dutch.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but Nicolas Sarkozy the newly elected president of France said during his campaign for election that he would not hold a referendum on the new treaty. The majority of the French electorate still voted for him, so you can have your own opinion but it would be wrong in this case.

wonz

Sure, you're entitled too.

But I think it's a bit simplistic to imply that if the French wanted a referendum they would have voted for someone else purely for that issue. Look at the UK, they were virtually promised a referendum by Blair that never materialised yet they were voted in again. People don't vote a government in or not based purely on if they'll give a referendum or not.

In principle I believe that a people should be given the choice to hand over sovereignty or not. Just because a government is voted in for 3 or 4 years doesn't mean that we should just wash our hands for 4 years and just observe and just let them make decisions. the people grant power to government, not the other way around.

ixtlan

wonz wrote: »

In principle I believe that a people should be given the choice to hand over sovereignty or not. Just because a government is voted in for 3 or 4 years doesn't mean that we should just wash our hands for 4 years and just observe and just let them make decisions. the people grant power to government, not the other way around.

I'm sure you sincerely believe this, and in an ideal world this is what we would do... ask the people in each state what they were willing to surrender and what was not negotiable.

However the reality is that normal working people do not have the time to monitor treaty negotiations going on in Europe and send constant updates back to their governments, while at the same time keeping secret those opinions from other governments (hard to get a good deal if the other side knows what you will accept).

So in our imperfect world, people elect their governments and they govern taking the decisions they think best.

Surely you would agree that if every treaty really was put to 27 different electorates it would most likely never be possible to change anything? That is unfortunate but I've convinced that is the case.

In Ireland's case we vote, and that's great for us, but if everyone did it Europe would never again progress.

Also, if Lisbon does lead to some issue that causes major public upset, it can be changed, either through another treaty or through a unanimously agreed ammendment (which might depending on it's impact require another referendum). Can you think of any such major public upset about clauses or issues in treaties in the past which had to be changed? And remember that every treaty debate caused massive scaremongering about the dreadful things that might happen, but never did.

Ix

IRLConor

wonz wrote: »

This is the crux of this referendum! handing over your sovereignty to someone else. Why bother fighting and dying to free yourselves from oppressors if then later you're bamboozled into handing it away of your own free will.

I'm not being bamboozled at all. I just firmly believe that some things are best organised at a supra-national level, the same way that some things are best done at national rather than county level*. There's plenty that needs to go further than the EU, to a world level. Stuff like dealing with climate change for example.

We're a partner in the EU in a way that we never were as part of the UK (we get way more than our fair share of the power). To try and insinuate that we're reverting somehow is not quite fair. Sovereignty is not some sacred cow to be worshipped, it's a tool to be used for the benefit of the people. If trading some of it for a better place in the world, then so be it.

* Essentially the flip side of the EU's subsidiarity principle.