Equality for EU citizens means we should Vote No

Galliard

EU citizens should have an equal say on the Lisbon treaty. We know that the British government pledged to have a referendum in its election manifesto and now refuses to have one. In several other countries governments have refused to allow a vote because they know they cannot control the result. Zimbabwe tactics in the heart of Europe.

We are all EU citizens but only the Irish EU citizens have a vote on Lisbon. Let's support our fellow citizens - vote No to No say, and make it clear that we want everyone in the EU to have the chance for their voice to be heard. It is our future and we share it with them.

One EU many voices. Let them all be heard.

Moriarty

Why aren't we seeing mass protests across europe? Going on what many campaigning for a no vote are saying you'd expect to see riots and mass unrest. The French are never one to shy away from making their feelings known for instance and yet there's nothing but a deafening silence from the continent.

Surely some supporters of the no campaign aren't attempting to dictate how other countries should be run purely for their own political interests at home?

Many campaigning for a no vote have known all along that they have little to attack the treaty itself on so they've decided to fling as much mud as possible at the treaty and the EU to further their base euro-sceptic beliefs. Then we hear squeals from no campaigners about Dirty Politics from the EU Political Elite - the irony of it all.

Our referendum is not about the political machinations of other EU countries, it's about what's best for our country and the EU of which we are a member. The only issues which are relevant are those surrounding the changes proposed by the lisbon treaty.

Galliard

You believe people should have to riot in order to have a vote?

This treaty is the blueprint for our common future. Treat all EU citizens equally by allowing all our voices to be heard.

There are times when we have to do the right thing. This is one of those times.

PeakOutput

Galliard wrote: »

You believe people should have to riot in order to have a vote?

This treaty is the blueprint for our common future. Treat all EU citizens equally by allowing all our voices to be heard.

There are times when we have to do the right thing. This is one of those times.

they already had their vote when they elected their respective governments

if they dont like how they are now running their country they can change them its not our place to tell an elected government how to run their country

i agree with moriarty its a seperate issue to the referendum

Galliard

One treaty that will govern us all

One citizenship we all share

One person one vote

Scofflaw

What about respecting other countries' national methods of treaty ratification?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Galliard

This is a treaty about citizens.

One citizen one vote.

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

This is a treaty about citizens.

One citizen one vote.

So an EU-wide referendum, then.


cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

Scofflaw wrote: »

So an EU-wide referendum, then.


cordially,
Scofflaw

I think that would be the best way.

turgon

PeakOutput wrote: »

they already had their vote when they elected their respective governments

Ok PeatOutput, let me put it this way, of the TD's we the Irish people voted in, more than 95% are for the treaty. Now do you really think 95% of the people are totally for the treaty? I think not. The public representatives don't exactly mimic their people, the often have different views to us.

I dont know about an EU wide referendum - maybe only for the 2002 15. The rest have joined recently so they need not. I still think its bad for though.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Ok PeatOutput, let me put it this way, of the TD's we the Irish people voted in, more than 95% are for the treaty. Now do you really think 95% of the people are totally for the treaty? I think not. The public representatives don't exactly mimic their people, the often have different views to us.

I dont know about an EU wide referendum - maybe only for the 2002 15. The rest have joined recently so they need not. I still think its bad for though.

It's been pointed out elsewhere, but if more people in any given constituency - or even the majority of a given TD's voters - support Lisbon than oppose it, the duty of the TD is to support Lisbon. Similarly, the duty of an SF TD will be to oppose the Treaty, since the majority of any SF TD's voters can be taken to oppose the Treaty.

In theory, it would be perfectly possible for 50.01% of voters in each constituency to support the Treaty, and for that to quite correctly produce 100% of TD's in favour.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Galliard

One Union one citizenship might be headed that way someday where you have a single Union vote. Meanwhile we have a mixture. We can make use of the mixture creatively. Use our vote to give everyone a say.

Treat every EU citizen like an Irish EU citizen. Ask their opinion on Lisbon.

One treaty - one citizenship

One citizen - one vote

Democratically,
Galliard.

turgon

Galliard wrote: »

Democratically,
Galliard.

A Scofflaw wanabee in the making!!!!

Galliard

What a thought!

Ambidextrously,
Galliard.

IRLConor

Galliard wrote: »

You believe people should have to riot in order to have a vote?

No, but the French go on strike if someone farts upwind of them so the fact that they're not protesting is a reasonably clear sign that they're not quite as bothered as you think.

Surely we should treat the citizens of the other member states as grown-ups and let them deal with their politicians themselves?

Scofflawily,
IRLConor

Galliard

You don't think much of the French?

Time for some Solidarnosc.

For our EU brothers and sisters, Say No to No say.

IRLConor

Galliard wrote: »

You don't think much of the French?

The French have much to be admired for, but their approach to handling disputes is not one of them. I like the French quite a bit but I'm not blind to their faults.

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

The French have much to be admired for, but their approach to handling disputes is not one of them. I like the French quite a bit but I'm not blind to their faults.

True. The French revolt, and the Dutch assassinate when upset. Neither appears to be happening.

blithely,
Scofflaw

Galliard

!

Laconically,
Galliard

thebman

Galliard wrote: »

You don't think much of the French?

Time for some Solidarnosc.

For our EU brothers and sisters, Say No to No say.

That's a load of crap. We should vote no because other countries didn't get to vote?

That makes no sense, vote on the contents of the treaty and disregard what other countries are doing when it comes to voting on the treaty.

crap all over them whatever other way you like but it's illogical to vote no to the treaty because the French won't get to vote on it.

Its up to the French to get to vote on the treaty if they want to, all we can do is say we support it. Personally I think all countries should get to vote on this but I won't automatically vote no because of it, it just doesn't make sense to. I'll read what the treaty is about and make my mind up based on what the treaty is about.

How it is logical to vote no to a treaty in protest that other countries didn't get to vote on the treaty? If anything it shows other governments that you can't trust people to vote on an issue because they could vote against it in protest of something that is completely irrelevant to what they are voting on.

Galliard

brim4brim is happy to attribute bad motives to his fellow EU citizens too - he assumes they might vote against the treaty for the 'wrong' reasons, so he will deny them the right to vote, just in case. Internment?

Gobán Saor

Originally Posted by Scofflaw.....
So an EU-wide referendum, then.

sink wrote: »

I think that would be the best way.

The problem with that is we are dealing with sovereign states which are proposing (under Lisbon) to pool some of their sovereignty and transfer it to the EU. Each country is (and must be) free to do this in accordance with its own laws and constitution. Ireland's way is via referendum to amend our constitution. An EU wide referendum cannot alter our constitution (unless, of course, we first amend our constitution to allow for this.) Nor is it for any other country to tell us how we go about altering our constitutional arrangements.

Similarly, it's not for us to tell other countries how they should alter their constitutional arrangements. If they can and wish to do so by legislation, by parliamentary ratification or by a simple decision of an elected Government, then that's a matter for them. If necessary their courts can pronounce on its validity in accordance with their laws and their constitution.

Why should we presume to tell them how to order their affairs? We wouldn't accept it from others; why should we seek to impose it on others?

humanji

Galliard wrote:

brim4brim is happy to attribute bad motives to his fellow EU citizens too - he assumes they might vote against the treaty for the 'wrong' reasons, so he will deny them the right to vote, just in case. Internment?

Do you honestly think everyone in the EU who isn't Irish are so pathetic and useless that they need us to do everything for them? They can take care of themselves, and in a lot of cases are doing better than ourselves. They've made their choice. If them want change then they are well capable of doing it themselves.

sink

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Why should we presume to tell them how to order their affairs? We wouldn't accept it from others; why should we seek to impose it on others?

You should read some of my other posts and you will see that I agree with you. The EU wide referenda was just a flight of fancy, I realise there is no legal basis to hold one. And we would need to hold another referendum to give significant powers to the EU to allow them to modify our constitution, which I don't think would be a good idea.

Galliard

They are not just pooling sovereignty between countries - this is the bit you keep avoiding: they are now pooling citizenship between everyone by having this 'additional' EU citizenship.

They say they will treat all citizens equally, but we can see they do not mean that here.

So we can take the power into our own hands.

One citizen one vote.

A lesson in democracy from the grass roots.

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

They are not just pooling sovereignty between countries - this is the bit you keep avoiding: they are now pooling citizenship between everyone by having this 'additional' EU citizenship.

Which we already have.

Galliard wrote: »

They say they will treat all citizens equally, but we can see they do not mean that here.

The EU have no power over the national ratification mechanisms. They're entirely between the governments and the citizens of the individual countries, and out of the rest of the EU member states, the only other people who usually have a referendum are the Danish.

The claim that this has got anything to do with "the EU" is simply false. If they had the power to prevent referendums as you pretend, and wished to stop referendums, as you pretend, we would not be having a referendum - as we undoubtedly are.

Galliard wrote: »

So we can take the power into our own hands.

One citizen one vote.

A lesson in democracy from the grass roots.

Oh please, spare us the slogans. We have our referendum, other countries have their chosen methods.

regards,
Scofflaw

thebman

Galliard wrote: »

brim4brim is happy to attribute bad motives to his fellow EU citizens too - he assumes they might vote against the treaty for the 'wrong' reasons, so he will deny them the right to vote, just in case. Internment?

That's not what I was saying. I'm saying us voting no in protest shows that voters sometimes vote not on the issue itself but in protest of another issue which is why other governments might not want to give their countries a vote.

If anything, we set a bad example by voting no in protest to other countries not getting a vote IMO because we would not be voting on the contents of the treaty which is what we are actually supposed to be voting on.

If the French government sees that, they is likely to make them think that they choose right by not allowing the French people to vote instead of making them think twice.

I am in favor of a vote for everyone, I just think we should vote on the treaty itself as that is the job we were asked to do. Anything else, just seems like we aren't taking the responsibility seriously in my opinion. If we lead by example and show that when given a complicated treaty, the people can vote responsibly on the actual issue then it would make other countries more likely to allow their people to vote when combined with the pressure of the people in those countries campaigning to be allowed vote.

As been said before, other countries don't exactly seemed to care that they aren't allowed vote. Either that or the censorship is working really well!

Galliard

The treaty is about shared citizenship. I think it is only fair to let our fellow citizens have a direct say in what they feel about this.

They are the EU citizens who will be affected by this - it makes no difference to their governments.

The people who are affected should be heard. Not complicated. Democracy.

oscarBravo

How do you propose to get around the fact that referenda are illegal in Germany?

sink

Galliard wrote: »

The treaty is about shared citizenship. I think it is only fair to let our fellow citizens have a direct say in what they feel about this.

They are the EU citizens who will be affected by this - it makes no difference to their governments.

The people who are affected should be heard. Not complicated. Democracy.

Galliard you've been spreading this nonsence for a few days now and so far nobody has changed their minds. When are you going to give up?

thebman

Galliard wrote: »

The treaty is about shared citizenship. I think it is only fair to let our fellow citizens have a direct say in what they feel about this.

They are the EU citizens who will be affected by this - it makes no difference to their governments.

The people who are affected should be heard. Not complicated. Democracy.

If they really feel bad about it, they'd be protesting themselves.

If they don't want to protest, they can change government in their next election and vote for someone who'll withdraw from the EU.

Galliard

What 'nonsence' is that sink? - explaining why people should have the right to be heard?

At least by trying to stop me being heard you are being consistent.

And as for oscarbravo - they have regular referenda in the German federal states. No problem having them there. We can all add up the totals to see what the German people want.

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

...they have regular referenda in the German federal states. No problem having them there. We can all add up the totals to see what the German people want.

Alternatively, we could respect another member state's process for ratification, the same way we expect them to respect ours.

Galliard

This is about equality among EU citizens. It is not about state governments. You keep avoiding that.

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

This is about equality among EU citizens. It is not about state governments. You keep avoiding that.

I'm not avoiding it, it's a red herring. The EU consists of its member states. You're asking for precisely the type of EU interference in member states' business that its critics consistently claim it's trying to achieve. The irony is utterly fascinating.

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

Because this isn't an area of EU competence.

Honestly, at this stage it has to be taking a herculean effort of will on your part not to understand this.

Galliard

EU citizenship is an area of EU competence.

You don't need Hercules to tell you that. Read the treaty.

It also says decisions will be taken as close as possible to the citizens.

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

EU citizenship is an area of EU competence.

Cool. Point me to the area of EU law that allows for EU-wide plebiscites.

Galliard

You didn't like the answer about the Germans so you changed tack. You don't like the fact that you are wrong about the competence so you are changing tack again.

I won't play this game of hunt your latest mistake forever.

Very simple idea - one citizen one vote. Right in '68, right in '08.

You don't want that - I do.

PeakOutput

Galliard wrote: »

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

because national methods come before eu ones. our elected government has a choice on how to decide to ratify the treaty and their elected goverments have a choice as well its not a difficult concept to grasp

the people elect the goverments to make choices for them

on a side note as far as i know we hold referenda when we want to change the constitution so the treaty is probably going to have to change something in the constitution so we have a referendum.....the treaty might not affect anything in the other countries constitutions therefore no need to vote......im not positive on that though

edit; galliard you have your vote i have my vote if the other countries citizens want to vote on it they can force their own goverments to allow them to if they dont they wont its not your place to tell them what to do

oscarBravo

Galliard wrote: »

You didn't like the answer about the Germans so you changed tack.

It sort of missed the point that the decision about how Germany ratifies treaties is none of the EU's business, or yours.

You don't like the fact that you are wrong about the competence so you are changing tack again.

Excuse me? You implied that the EU has the authority to hold an EU-wide plebiscite. When has the EU ever done anything on the basis of a simple majority of its population agreeing to it?

Very simple idea - one citizen one vote. Right in '68, right in '08.

You don't want that - I do.

The principle of subsidiarity - you don't want that - I do.

thebman

Galliard wrote: »

This is about equality among EU citizens. It is not about state governments. You keep avoiding that.

If we are all equal as EU citizens why do we all not have a vote on Lisbon?

The laws in each member state aren't the same that's why. Each member state is different and to suggest that they should all hold a vote because you want them to isn't a good enough reason TBH.

Like I said, I'm in favor of them all voting on it, I don't have a problem with it, I'd encourage it in fact but their government don't want to and the people in the other member states aren't complaining about it so obviously the governments in the other member states are representing the majority of people accurately.

I respect that choice by their government and their citizens. When they complain, I'll support them, I'm not going to vote no on the assumption they are upset or care about it. Its none of my business really since I don't live in their countries.

Galliard

brim4brim wrote: »

I respect that choice by their government and their citizens. When they complain, I'll support them, I'm not going to vote no on the assumption they are upset or care about it. Its none of my business really since I don't live in their countries.

Here is the chance to support them that you were waiting for. Let us know how it goes.

IRLConor

PeakOutput wrote: »

on a side note as far as i know we hold referenda when we want to change the constitution so the treaty is probably going to have to change something in the constitution so we have a referendum.....

Correct. Strictly speaking we're not voting on the Lisbon Treaty itself, we're voting for or against the 28th Amendment of the Constitution. The text of the amendment is available here.

The Crotty case established that substantial changes to the treaties governing the EU requires an amendment to our constitution. Since constitutional amendments require a referendum, that places a de facto requirement for an Irish referendum on substantial changes to the treaties.

PeakOutput wrote: »

the treaty might not affect anything in the other countries constitutions therefore no need to vote......im not positive on that though

Some states don't require a referendum to amend their constitution (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain to name but a few). The UK doesn't have a formal written constitution, it's a blend of statutes (amendable by Parliament) and custom. From a quick skim of many of the constitutions of the member states it seems to me that Ireland is rather unusual in requiring that referendum is the only way to amend our constitution.

turgon

What Galliard is trying to say, is that in his opinion every citizen of the European Union deserves to have a say on the treaty. I think he is saying it on principle alone, and he feels that the methods of ratification in other individual countries are thus flawed, and un-democratic.

IRLConor

turgon wrote: »

What Galliard is trying to say, is that in his opinion every citizen of the European Union deserves to have a say on the treaty. I think he is saying it on principle alone, and he feels that the methods of ratification in other individual countries are thus flawed, and un-democratic.

That's all well and good. Many here (myself included) would agree that ratification of the treaty should be done by referendum and that the lack of one in other countries is a flaw in their process.

Where we disagree is on the idea that the Irish people should take that into account in our own referendum. Our referendum is about whether we want the changes brought about by the treaty, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about punishing Bertie/Cowen, opposing Sinn Féin, supporting the citizens of other member states or expressing content/discontent at any other part of the EU project. Trying to claim otherwise is nothing but an attempt to distort the debate.

thebman

Galliard wrote: »

Here is the chance to support them that you were waiting for. Let us know how it goes.

go team! :rolleyes:

Happy now?

Galliard

IRLConor wrote: »

That's all well and good. Many here (myself included) would agree that ratification of the treaty should be done by referendum and that the lack of one in other countries is a flaw in their process.

Where we disagree is on the idea that the Irish people should take that into account in our own referendum. Our referendum is about whether we want the changes brought about by the treaty, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about punishing Bertie/Cowen, opposing Sinn Féin, supporting the citizens of other member states or expressing content/discontent at any other part of the EU project. Trying to claim otherwise is nothing but an attempt to distort the debate.

You cannot follow your own logic then.

One of the things this treaty is about, is the nature of EU citizenship. That change is something our fellow citizens should have a say in. It affects us, sure, but it also affects them.

If you followed your own logic you would see that this is a perfectly valid issue on which to decide your vote.

You seem to have your mind so firmly made up for some other reasons that you cannot even see this. Then of course you add the ritual accusation about distorting the debate. If you cannot follow the debate you are not in a good position to make that accusation.

One citizenship, one Union.

One citizen, one vote.

Democracy in every language.

oscarBravo

But you are distorting the debate.

This is an EU treaty. Like all EU treaties before it, it comes into existence through ratification by the member states. Each member state has its own procedures for ratification, and always has.

By dragging out this red herring about democracy, you're introducing an entirely new concept of ratification by a simple majority of the EU's population, which - to my knowledge - has never even been considered by the member states.

In order to fulfil your wish for an EU-wide plebiscite on the treaty, a mechanism would have to be implemented for it. Such a mechanism could only be implemented by a treaty, which would have to be ratified by all the member states, in accordance with their individual ratification processes.

So please - give the red herring a rest.

turgon

Well I suppose one way to phrase this is

"Galliard is unhappy at the method of ratification pursued by the member states, feels it is undemocratic in nature, and is saying no to the Lisbon Treaty as he does not like the direction it appears to be taking itself, and the way in whcih it is operating".

Now before I get given out to, Lisbon will not change the way the EU will "operate" in this regard, failing to have referenda in every country is not something dealt with in the Treaty.

Also one does feel more than a little skeptical if the very organization that "takes its inspiration from democracy" will not let 99% of its citizens vote on the way it runs.

But I must agree with IRLConor, voting NO for this reason is wrong, because the EU will not understand why we voted no, give it us again accept this time confirm our neutrality in a declaration, and double the amount of posters on the Kinsale road roundabout.

IRLConor

Galliard wrote: »

You cannot follow your own logic then.

One of the things this treaty is about, is the nature of EU citizenship. That change is something our fellow citizens should have a say in. It affects us, sure, but it also affects them.

If you followed your own logic you would see that this is a perfectly valid issue on which to decide your vote.

Of course the nature of citizenship is an issue on which I will decide my vote. It's a tiny and utterly uncontroversial part of the treaty.

I don't care how other countries ratify the treaty. They're all sovereign, democratic states and none of them (IMO) oppress their citizens. My concern for their methods of government end there. They're grown-ups, they can handle it themselves.

If you want other governments to have a referendum on Lisbon, ask them. They'll probably tell you to f*** off and mind your own business though.

Galliard wrote: »

You seem to have your mind so firmly made up for some other reasons that you cannot even see this. Then of course you add the ritual accusation about distorting the debate. If you cannot follow the debate you are not in a good position to make that accusation.

:rolleyes:

Galliard wrote: »

One citizenship, one Union.

One citizen, one vote.

Ein Bürgerschaft, Ein Union. Ein Bürger, Ein Abstimmung!

*Nods to Mike Godwin*

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

Also one does feel more than a little skeptical if the very organization that "takes its inspiration from democracy" will not let 99% of its citizens vote on the way it runs.

It's not a question of not letting its citizen have a vote - it's a question of it not having a say in whether its citizens get to vote.