A different angle on this "Ireland's 3 million ruining it for 490 million" argument..

hatrickpatrick

(I voted yes, for the record, but I had deep misgivings about it all the same)

I just thought I'd point out that the Lisbon Treaty, by nature, was deliberately designed to be a version of the original constitution, modified just enough that it could be forced through the French and Dutch Parliaments without referenda. I believe an EU official actually admitted that the text of the treaty was deliberately written so as it could not be read coherently in an attempt to "bounce" it over the heads of the EU's population.

Ireland has not "ruined it" for 490m people. Judging from opinion polls in other countries, Ireland has just delivered a verdict which many other countries would also have delivered if they had been given the chance.

We haven't just been anti democratic by letting one State over ride the rest of the EU. We've been the only pro democratic state in the EU by supporting the vast majority of EU citizens who were denied the chance to reject a treaty they almost certainly wanted to reject.

We haven't defeated the majority. We've spoken for them.

Dave!

So, what else should the citizens of countries vote on? Is it all international treaties or just some? How about extradition treaties?

Or should national bills be voted on by the people too? Perhaps they should vote on the finance bills. I'd say you'd get about 90% of people opposing any increase in tax. Let's do an opinion poll and find out!

Should they vote on infrastructure plans?

Maybe the government can set up a scheme (electronic voting of course ) whereby the people vote on every proposal put before government, y'know, to ensure democracy.

Zube

Our whole Constitution is in rag order, a cross-party commission recommended umpteen changes back in 1996. The most efficient thing to do would be to make all the changes, and then put the new document up for a referendum, but it's never going to happen because with so many changes, everyone and their granny will have some objection, large or small, to some tiny part of the changes, and all of them will band together and vote "no".

The same thing has just happened to the Lisbon treaty, and would happen in virtually any European country to any sufficiently complicated law.

turgon

Dave! wrote: »

So, what else should the citizens of countries vote on? Is it all international treaties or just some? How about extradition treaties?

Or should national bills be voted on by the people too? Perhaps they should vote on the finance bills. I'd say you'd get about 90% of people opposing any increase in tax. Let's do an opinion poll and find out!

Should they vote on infrastructure plans?

Maybe the government can set up a scheme (electronic voting of course ) whereby the people vote on every proposal put before government, y'know, to ensure democracy.

Ive heard this sooooo many times Im just sick of it. The Lisbon Vote is obviously more important to the people than other laws. It changes the way a governmental super national organization it run, ie: how the people are governed. This is indisputable.

I agree with the OP. However the ideal situation would have been if there were referenda in each state, then we would know the full result. But the excuse above just seems to be the way Yes side justify their undemocratic thinking.

BlitzKrieg

how is this a different angle?

This is the only angle I have read on this board?

ircoha

In fact it is the excess 110,000 Nos over the Yeses that did it so talking of 3m is being generous:)

Zube

turgon wrote: »

However the ideal situation would have been if there were referenda in each state, then we would know the full result.

Referenda are outlawed in Germany because Hitler and the Nazis made such good use of them.

Really! Look it up.

Clare_Guy

Dave! wrote: »

So, what else should the citizens of countries vote on? Is it all international treaties or just some? How about extradition treaties?

Or should national bills be voted on by the people too? Perhaps they should vote on the finance bills. I'd say you'd get about 90% of people opposing any increase in tax. Let's do an opinion poll and find out!

Should they vote on infrastructure plans?

Maybe the government can set up a scheme (electronic voting of course ) whereby the people vote on every proposal put before government, y'know, to ensure democracy.

Typical... OP is not talking about having referenda about every minor policy!!!

The Lisbon Treaty, according to wikipaedia, "(also known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty designed to streamline how the European Union (EU) works by amending the Treaty on European Union (TEU, Maastricht) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome), the latter being renamed Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in the process.

Prominent changes in the Treaty of Lisbon would include reduced chances of stalemate in the EU Council through more qualified majority voting, a more significant European Parliament through extended codecision with the EU Council, scrapping of the pillar system, and the creation of a President of the European Council and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs for greater coherence and continuity in EU policies If ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights (human rights provisions) legally binding."

in other words, a major piece of legislation which makes profound changes to the running of the EU.

According to our own Bertie Aherne, it contains "over 90%" of the European Constitution that was rejected by 55% of french voters and 62% of the dutch voters. The constitution was repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty and the only europeans who get to vote on it are the irish, despite polls showing that over 60% of europeans want a chance to vote on it...

Dave!

Is the treaty going to affect the citizens' day to day lives, do ya think? Would we notice any difference if it were passed?

Compare it to a finance bill, which may reduce the amount of money they take home with income tax increases. It might affect their social lives with levies on alcohol and cigarettes. The new motor tax scheme being brought in will affect alot of people. These are all tangible differences that are made that affect people instantly.

People get the choice to vote on either the Lisbon treaty, or the budget -- which do ya think they'd choose?

PrivateEye

a few thousand made concrete the decision of millions in 2005.

votez non and all that, still saying it :cool:

BMH

PrivateEye wrote: »

a few thousand made concrete the decision of millions in 2005.

votez non and all that, still saying it :cool:

In 2005, more voted for the EU constitution than against, both in terms of population and countries.

Sparks

Zube wrote: »

Referenda are outlawed in Germany because Hitler and the Nazis made such good use of them.
Really! Look it up.

And "I was only following orders" is not a defence, despite the Millgram and Stanford experiments. Just because something is done in a particular way is insufficient proof that that way is the correct way.

lostexpectation

this arguement that we can't dictate to ther other countries is the type of dishonest stuff we've see from the yes side, it was designed to be all or nothing unanimity so particular entitled for 1% of the population to end the treaty.

we're 1 out of 27 not 1% anyway

Duffman

This argument that Ireland is somehow speaking for the majority who were "robbed" of their right to vote in other Member States and that Lisbon should now be declared dead all over Europe as a result is pretty hypocritical as far as I'm concerned.

Ireland and the EU have no business interfering in the constitutional order of other sovereign states. The democratically expressed view of the Irish people has been accepted by European leaders - they said "we accept it", what more do you want? - but this view is only relevant in the Irish context.

To say that the process whereby other democratic and sovereign parliaments ratify treaties according to their own rules and traditions is now somehow illegitimate because of an Irish referendum (required by legal accident) is hypocritical - in fact this view would be more at home in the imaginary federal European superstate that many no voters claimed to have objected to. That's not how the EU works - respect for the laws and sovereignty of each member is a core principle and the idea that the Irish result should be imposed on everyone flies in the face of that.

This thread suggests a different angle, sure, but it's plainly contradictory.

lostexpectation wrote: »

this arguement that we can't dictate to ther other countries is the type of dishonest stuff we've see from the yes side,

It's dishonest to claim that Ireland can't dictate how other sovereign nations organise their constitutional affairs? What?

lostexpectation wrote: »

it was designed to be all or nothing unanimity so particular entitled for 1% of the population to end the treaty.

Yeah, unanimous voting requires that countries actually vote - they can't do this until they've satisfied their national legal requirements. They have a legal right to vote on the issue, just like you had.

bonkey

Duffman wrote: »

They have a legal right to vote on the issue, just like you had.

If you mean that each member nation has a legal right to vote, you are correct.

If you mean the citizens of each member nation have a legal right to vote to determine whether or not their nation should have ratified the treaty, you're wrong. They don't have any such legal right....which is why the other nations didn't need to have referenda.

hatrickpatrick

Whether they have a legal right to vote or not is beside the point - the point is that from what I can see the vast majority of people in Europe are glad the Lisbon treaty didn't go ahead - so anyone who claims we're actually the only people going against what everyone else wants is talking through their ass

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Whether they have a legal right to vote or not is beside the point - the point is that from what I can see the vast majority of people in Europe are glad the Lisbon treaty didn't go ahead - so anyone who claims we're actually the only people going against what everyone else wants is talking through their ass

Actually, anyone who claims to know exactly what the majority across Europe wants is almost bound to be "talking through their ass" unless they can actually cite some factual proof.

Small prize for the person who actually produces some proof.

regards,
Scofflaw

Kama

A joke of it is, until someone produces better numbers, the Irish Lisbon vote is the closest approximation we have to the results of a Europe-wide referendum process, purely by virtue of it being the only one performed.

I'm in no way arguing that we are a representative sample; only that we were the only one taken. Which, to my naive idealistic-democratic mind, was a chief flaw in the exercise as a whole.

limklad

Dave! wrote: »

So, what else should the citizens of countries vote on? Is it all international treaties or just some? How about extradition treaties?

Or should national bills be voted on by the people too? Perhaps they should vote on the finance bills. I'd say you'd get about 90% of people opposing any increase in tax. Let's do an opinion poll and find out!

Should they vote on infrastructure plans?

Maybe the government can set up a scheme (electronic voting of course ) whereby the people vote on every proposal put before government, y'know, to ensure democracy.

Only acts that effects in how we are to be governed formally requires a referendum. EU in this case as they pass laws on us.

Treaties or trade agreements with other countries or organizations do not required formal referendum, unless the government want us to vote on it.

limklad

Zube wrote: »

Referenda are outlawed in Germany because Hitler and the Nazis made such good use of them.

Really! Look it up.

Only at ferderal level.
http://www.democracy-international.org/germany.html

but local Referenda are allowed and used very often approx 200 per year.
http://www.iniref.org/germany.html

They should ban elected members too as Hilter got voted into their version of parliament and leaders of parties, presidents, & PM’s, all should be banned too. :rolleyes:


By banning referendums and giving government direct access to a constitution to edit at their will is only asking for trouble, at least this way there is some time for people to think before voting again as the government has time to governed before you can trust them to edit it.
We need to learn from History, because failure to learn from it will end up repeating past mistakes.

limklad

Why are we worried about the 3 Million versus 490 Million debate. We do not have a say in other countries in their ratification process, only ours.

It is not our fault the Rules of Ratification is what is it. Other EU leaders knew that it will take one country to stop it. That EU leaders Fault and they should take blame and responsibility for it too based on previous agreements for ratification process. It is cowardice on their (Governments) part not allowing their citizens to vote on the Lisbon treaty. Because they knew it could be voted down in their country.


We are just the only ones (lucky or unlucky) who could vote and used as scape goat for its failure.

j1smithy

3 million ruining it for 490 million. more like 110,000 which is multiple times the number of people who will have a say in this across the rest of Europe.

Sure every country has the right to ratify it whatever way they wish, what I don't like are european politicians coming out and insulting our decision. I voted in favour, but the irish electorate chose no. Before saying we spoiled the party perhaps the other countries should be brave enough to call referendums.

In addition, I don't like the way the country is being forced into a corner on this issue. Sure other governments are annoyed with this, but the reason we have this is to do with our constitution and they'd be wiser to remember that we will be voting again on other european treaties in future (assuming we stay in)

lostexpectation

ther other countries don't have the right to ratify a treaty at an eu level if one country doesn't.

it tok 850,000 or so to defeat the bill not 110,000

djpbarry

turgon wrote: »

The Lisbon Vote is obviously more important to the people than other laws. It changes the way a governmental super national organization it run, ie: how the people are governed. This is indisputable.

Is it? You and I might think so, but I'd imagine there are plenty of others who would disagree. People will want to have a say on anything that hits their pocket (e.g. stamp duty, road tax), in particular.

Sparks wrote: »

Just because something is done in a particular way is insufficient proof that that way is the correct way.

I don't think that's the point that was being made; if Germany is to change it's ratification procedure, then that's up to the citizens of Germany.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Whether they have a legal right to vote or not is beside the point - the point is that from what I can see the vast majority of people in Europe are glad the Lisbon treaty didn't go ahead...

Are they? I spend a good deal of time in London and most of the people I have spoken to over there don't have a clue what the Lisbon Treaty is. They may have heard about it on the news, but few have any sort of opinion on it.

limklad wrote: »

By banning referendums and giving government direct access to a constitution to edit at their will is only asking for trouble, at least this way there is some time for people to think before voting again as the government has time to governed before you can trust them to edit it.

See above.