Will changes be made to the Lisbon treaty before being voted on again?

axer

As per the title, Will changes be made to the treaty before being voted on again?

Would they dare ask to vote on the exact text again? If yes, will they invalidate a vote that is under the turn out the last time?

WooPeeA

The changes will not be made. No doubt about it. Negotiations took over 3 years till all member states accepted the final text. Why should anyone consider any change after signing the final text and approving them in national Senates later?

I think if there will be any new referendum about the Treaty the question will probably be "Do you want to reject the Treaty and leave the EU"...

For today, unfortunately, from the Brussels' perspective I don't see any other realistic option if 26 member states will approve the Treaty..........

tolosenc

All other member states have either ratified it, or are nearing the completion of the process of doing so. It'll hardly be reworked to suit the non-issues so many Irish voters were concerned about.

The most sensible option would be to push the treaty through the oireachteas, and then ask te people to reject it and force us to leave the union.

ixtlan

Well, we may vote on the same treaty but I am sure there will be a lot of clarifications and protocols/declarations.

This should be possible because our campaign went the same way all previous campaigns did. We did not argue over whether proposals were good or bad, right or wrong for the country and Europe. We argued over whether this clause meant A or meant B.

Logically it therefore follows that all the government and EU have to do is find a way to prove to the public that their interpretation of the treaty is the correct one, and they do not necessarily need to change the body of the text.

For examples....

Abortion. Most people believed (including the bishops) that the EU would not interfere with Irish law on this matter. A few percent did not believe (probably enough to swing the last vote). If the EU leaders and courts make a statement that this is an Irish zone of control, maybe it's enough to convince a few more people.

Neutrality. Many people were concerned about this area. I disagree, but I can see their argument. They are concerned about militarisation of the EU. For some of these people there cannot be a solution within Lisbon, but for some (maybe the majority of those who voted no for this reason) a statement/protocol that pledges that the treaty means... no mandatory increases in Irish military spending and no requirement for military involvement from Ireland under any circumstances may convince them.

You see where I am going with this. Every political choice will always to some extent involve a debate about what the eventual outcome to that choice will be. However we take that to an insane extreme, with no agreement between the yes and no sides as to even a basic understanding of the meaning of the treaties. I would add though that historically the meaning and outcome of treaties have been shown to concur with what the politicians thought.

ix

is_that_so

I, for one, see the abortion element as being the most problematic in terms of guarantees. There is a case due to go to the European Court of Justice which may reignite enthusiasm for yet another run at an abortion referendum, especially if it goes against us. This could almost certainly be used to extract concessions in a new campaign, to get such a referendum or used as a focus of a campaign for another No.

European court to hear women's challenge to ban on abortion

THE EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three Irish women to the Government’s ban on abortion on the basis that their rights were denied by being forced to terminate their pregnancies outside the State.

The women claim the restrictive nature of Irish law on abortion jeopardised their health and their wellbeing. Their complaint centres around four articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, including protection from “inhuman or degrading treatment” and freedom from discrimination.

Full story

Morgans

obl wrote: »

All other member states have either ratified it, or are nearing the completion of the process of doing so. It'll hardly be reworked to suit the non-issues so many Irish voters were concerned about.

Are you completely blind to the fact that Lisbon treaty regardless how long the negotiations took needed to be ratified by all EU member states. Even if you think that the causes of the irish voters were non-issues.

Why would you think it would be ratified without changes?

I have found more deluded Yes voters (I voted Yes) than No voters since the referendum.

axer

I wonder will the government look into the reasons for a yes vote if it wins the next time and will a smaller turnout lead to a third referendum.

Morgans

The amount of Yes voters who still condescendingly state that we all need to respect the other states democratic right to ratify the Lisbon treaty in whatever way they see fit, ( its their right not going to the public) are the first willing to ignore the Irish democratic right to reject it.

Of course, none of the Yes voters would be man/woman enough to say that behind their bluff rhetoric about respecting other nations right to ratify the treaty is the idea/hope that Ireland will be forced into a corner once the otehr 26 nations have ratified the treaty.

is_that_so

Morgans wrote: »

The amount of Yes voters who still condescendingly state that we all need to respect the other states democratic right to ratify the Lisbon treaty in whatever way they see fit, ( its their right not going to the public) are the first willing to ignore the Irish democratic right to reject it.

Of course, none of the Yes voters would be man/woman enough to say that behind their bluff rhetoric about respecting other nations right to ratify the treaty is the idea/hope that Ireland will be forced into a corner once the otehr 26 nations have ratified the treaty.

Pretty sure this has been covered in great detail already in this forum, not only with respect to our attitude to other countries, but also in relation to our own "reruns".

Morgans

is_that_so wrote: »

Pretty sure this has been covered in great detail already in this forum, not only with respect to our attitude to other countries, but also in relation to our own "reruns".

And yet the condescending illogical attitude continues.

is_that_so

Morgans wrote: »

And yet the condescending illogical attitude continues.

In the end we all have to move on and find solutions.

Morgans

Which is fine, as long as people are open and state why they are in fact respecting other countries democratic process of ratifying the treaty.

Rather than hiding behind it as an easy excuse for painting Ireland into a corner. Seems that the murmurings from the Poles and the Czechs disappointed many, even though it was all part of their democratic process.

The same people who shout "respect the democracies" seemingly are the ones who say that Lisbon should be passed regardless of the Irish vote. It was mentioned here on this thread, so please excuse me for commenting.

oscarBravo

ixtlan wrote: »

Abortion. Most people believed (including the bishops) that the EU would not interfere with Irish law on this matter. A few percent did not believe (probably enough to swing the last vote). If the EU leaders and courts make a statement that this is an Irish zone of control, maybe it's enough to convince a few more people.

I doubt it. If an actual protocol written into the Treaty itself doesn't convince people, then those people don't want to be convinced.

Morgans wrote: »

The same people who shout "respect the democracies" seemingly are the ones who say that Lisbon should be passed regardless of the Irish vote.

If 26 countries ratify and one doesn't, then there are three things that can happen: either the whole process of reform is scrapped, or 26 countries renegotiate the treaty to suit the as-yet unclear objections of the 27th, or 26 countries carry on without the 27th.

Morgans

Unless fundamental laws relating to the EU, such as unanimous ratification of treaties, are ignored, then Lisbon as it stands now is dead. Yet, you wouldnt think so from many. It is still seen as a viable option. The carry on regardless is not what the EU is built on unfortunately.

If clarifications are made, or if some elements are changed to appease Ireland, or whoever else decides not to ratify the treaty, then well and good, an amended Lisbon treaty may well be voted on.

So the Yes side are convinced that there should be no concern regarding the milatarisation of the EU, but the Yes side arent the problem. It might need to be spelled out to the fools who voted No, but clarification on issues regarding military spending of the EU, enhanced Co-operation or the EUs (well France and Germanys) hopes regarding harmonised tax bases would go a long way to swinging a yes votes, which we all seem to desire.

WooPeeA

oscarBravo wrote: »

If 26 countries ratify and one doesn't, then there are three things that can happen: either the whole process of reform is scrapped, or 26 countries renegotiate the treaty to suit the as-yet unclear objections of the 27th, or 26 countries carry on without the 27th.

The biggest problem is that the Irish government accepted the final text and has been an active part of negotiations. So in the eyes of other 26 states, the 27th one is not reliable. I don't think that asking for another 3 years of negotiations would be a good idea..

WooPeeA

Morgans wrote: »

Unless fundamental laws relating to the EU, such as unanimous ratification of treaties, are ignored, then Lisbon as it stands now is dead.

No it isn't dead now. Ireland didn't say final "No", referendum is just one of the 4 processes that must be passed to accept or deny the Treaty. They still have a time to find some solution, also there's still no signature of the President.

ixtlan

Morgans wrote: »

Unless fundamental laws relating to the EU, such as unanimous ratification of treaties, are ignored, then Lisbon as it stands now is dead. Yet, you wouldnt think so from many. It is still seen as a viable option. The carry on regardless is not what the EU is built on unfortunately.

You are correct that unless all the countries ratify Lisbon is dead. However if we continue to push the "no means no" view to the extreme then eventually very bad things will happen. It will take a long time... years... maybe a decade.... but the nightmare scenario is that if Lisbon is not ratified, and the EU limps along... and another treaty is agreed by the states to supercede Lisbon and we reject that too while all other countries agree, then Ireland will have to step back while the others proceed. It is true that we cannot be forced to step back, we would have to agree, but life inside such an EU would not be good for Irish politicians.

Morgans wrote: »

If clarifications are made, or if some elements are changed to appease Ireland, or whoever else decides not to ratify the treaty, then well and good, an amended Lisbon treaty may well be voted on.

Note though that clarifications will not be an amended treaty. I think they should be enough, but the no side will likely all pretty much still demand a no vote.

Morgans wrote: »

So the Yes side are convinced that there should be no concern regarding the milatarisation of the EU, but the Yes side arent the problem. It might need to be spelled out to the fools who voted No, but clarification on issues regarding military spending of the EU, enhanced Co-operation or the EUs (well France and Germanys) hopes regarding harmonised tax bases would go a long way to swinging a yes votes, which we all seem to desire.

I don't think the no voters are fools, but I do think many were ill-informed and un-informed. On the yes side many were un-informed but perhaps not ill-informed, however I don't think it's unfair of me to not worry about that as much? Indeed a point I have made before is that the un-informed yes voters usually did that because they trusted their representatives to do the right thing, and since we live in a representative democracy that's not an unreasonable thing to do. Voting against the representatives advice is an unreasonable thing to do unless you are really sure that they are wrong.

The military concerns are in my opinion the most valid arguments which the no side put forward, but here I still think that the no voters don't really understand what was involved. If they are convinced that no one will force us to increase military spending, or send troops into EU-led battles then some will be satisfied. Indeed it is ironic that (according to a recent prime time documentary) the French white paper on defense, talked up by the no side as the EU army proposal, needs to be put into perspective as a measure aimed to allow the French to drastically reduce their own military expenditure.


Ix

Morgans

ixtlan wrote: »

Indeed it is ironic that (according to a recent prime time documentary) the French white paper on defense, talked up by the no side as the EU army proposal, needs to be put into perspective as a measure aimed to allow the French to drastically reduce their own military expenditure.

With the possibility of the EU shouldering some of the load. It was unfortunate that no Irish politican could rebut the allegation that they had sought that white paper's publication to be delayed.

It would not be an amended treaty, but it is tantamount to one. A better deal perhaps, and justification for voting No.

The idea that a less palatable option would be presented to the irish public as result of a No vote is ludicrous.

oscarBravo

Morgans wrote: »

The idea that a less palatable option would be presented to the irish public as result of a No vote is ludicrous.

What makes you so sure?

Let's take that hypothesis to the extreme: if it's impossible that a refusal to ratify a treaty could lead to a less palatable option being presented next time, then the only logical vote is "no" - because each time a treaty is rejected, a better one will take its place. By that means, we could continue to re-negotiate until we took the process to its logical conclusion, where Ireland has complete control over all EU institutions and processes.

Can anyone see where this might break down in practice?

Morgans

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you so sure?

Let's take that hypothesis to the extreme: if it's impossible that a refusal to ratify a treaty could lead to a less palatable option being presented next time, then the only logical vote is "no" - because each time a treaty is rejected, a better one will take its place. By that means, we could continue to re-negotiate until we took the process to its logical conclusion, where Ireland has complete control over all EU institutions and processes.

Can anyone see where this might break down in practice?

And the point of putting a less palatable referendum to a vote would be????

The option is eitehr give Ireland some dispensation with regard to Lisbon, or not hold a second referendum.

Even on an expense point of view, holding a less palatable second referendum makes no sense. POlitically, Cowan failing a second referendum....

Seriously ludicrous suggestion OscarBravo.

oscarBravo

Morgans wrote: »

The option is eitehr give Ireland some dispensation with regard to Lisbon, or not hold a second referendum.

OK - let's suppose after all the consultation process is over, the official Irish position on Lisbon is "no means no" - the treaty is dead, all the rest of you can bugger off.

What do you suppose the EU's next move is?

Morgans

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - let's suppose after all the consultation process is over, the official Irish position on Lisbon is "no means no" - the treaty is dead, all the rest of you can bugger off.

What do you suppose the EU's next move is?

I dont think it will ever come to that but to answer your question directly I'm guessing

Either

A) do we respect the unanimous nature of treaty ratification on which the EU has been developed over 50 years and negotiate a new treaty that the member states can ratify with popular support

or

do we remove the idea that all treaties have to be unanimously agreed upon by member states and set up a differnt type of union.

carveone

ixtlan wrote: »

... and another treaty is agreed by the states to supercede Lisbon and we reject that too while all other countries agree, then Ireland will have to step back while the others proceed.

Thanks for that - just what I was thinking! The thing is, I'd be of the opinion that the EU could go back to the drawing board endless times and Ireland would reject each treaty each time. I'm not sure how Nice II got through - pre-Libertas I suppose. I just cannot for the life of me understand how this got to a referendum in the first place. OK, I understand the reasons given, I just think that the Crotty case simply didn't apply here. And if there was any doubt, the President had every right to put it to the Supreme Court for a test of constitutionality (I'd say another thread went down this avenue so I'll go do a search now!).

It is true that we cannot be forced to step back, we would have to agree, but life inside such an EU would not be good for Irish politicians.

I'm sure it's quite uncomfortable now.

The military concerns are in my opinion the most valid arguments which the no side put forward,

After David Norris said he would vote No based on military concerns, I made more of an effort to find out what possible concerns there could be in Lisbon and was unable to find much beyond: helping other nations in times of crisis and agreeing to increase military capacity. Scofflaw and yourself clarified this numerous times by showing that our military does this anyway (Funniliy enough I saw no evidence of anyone, political or otherwise, suggesting that our military sit around drinking tea. That would be result in the public getting pretty hostile)

Besides, any better deal would result in SF being right for once. Bleugh.

POlitically, Cowan failing a second referendum....

Frankly, his career is on the line anyway. He should give the assurances, make guarantees to the majority of the naysayers on military and local concerns and then say that if a No vote occurred again he would resign and call a general election.

JohnJimbo

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK - let's suppose after all the consultation process is over, the official Irish position on Lisbon is "no means no" - the treaty is dead, all the rest of you can bugger off.

What do you suppose the EU's next move is?

Who gives a dam. I am not "all in this togeather".

Pull out of the EU would be the best option. (never going to happen, the big boys have been globalists for the last 100 years, the big boys and the Offaly people).

Maybe the government grants to certain people would be cut, that would remove some people from this forum, i that not right Oscar?

djpbarry

JohnJimbo wrote: »

Pull out of the EU would be the best option.

Would it indeed :rolleyes:.

JohnJimbo

djpbarry wrote: »

Would it indeed :rolleyes:.

Yeah, it would.

This place is totalitarian enough without the brussels fellas getting even more power.

And on a side issue, I have been speaking to a number of FF councillors lately.
They are finally awakening up to the EU scam, not from any altruistic point of course, they merely realise that their jobs will be going in the next ten years.

Expect to see a lot more lower establishment people speaking out in the next year, they can suddently see a day when the gravy will stop flowing and they are not happy.

nacho libre

It would be an even more difficult sell for those advocating a yes vote next time, were the three women successful in their case before the ECJ.
The no side would have a field day over it.

ixtlan

carveone wrote: »

After David Norris said he would vote No based on military concerns, I made more of an effort to find out what possible concerns there could be in Lisbon and was unable to find much beyond: helping other nations in times of crisis and agreeing to increase military capacity. Scofflaw and yourself clarified this numerous times by showing that our military does this anyway (Funniliy enough I saw no evidence of anyone, political or otherwise, suggesting that our military sit around drinking tea. That would be result in the public getting pretty hostile)

Just to expand. Personally I think Lisbon will have no effect on Ireland's neutrality. Also there is no agreement to expand military capacity. The requirement is to improve military capability. This allows the French to cut their military spending, as long as they remain well-trained and efficient and keep up with improvements. Likewise with Ireland. We want to improve. If there is better body armour available we want our troops to have it on UN missions? Surely we do.

Some people however are of the opinion that the EU should have no military aspects whatsoever, and that no country anywhere in the world should be able to deploy troops outside it's border without UN approval. I disagree with this view for many reasons, but I respect those that sincerely hold it. Lisbon does not commit us to anything, but.... it does make us a potential participant (at least in discussions) in a military alliance. While we cannot send troops without UN approval, the EU could with our approval send their troops without UN backing.

I think we should be at this table arguing for or against action. I would rather not leave such decisions to NATO or even the UN security council. Others will argue that it's better to let others have such discussions. That regardless of what they decide and do, we will then have clean hands. I would argue that the world does not have clean hands after our non-involvement in the genocide in Rwanda.

Ix.

ixtlan

nacho libre wrote: »

It would be an even more difficult sell for those advocating a yes vote next time, were the three women successful in their case before the ECJ.
The no side would have a field day over it.

My understanding from the news reports was that a positive result for the women would not require Ireland to change the constitution and introduce abortion, only to pass legislation to clarify under what circumstances abortion was allowed (as it is allowed under the constitution).

You are right though that subtleties like this will be missed entirely and groups like Coir would be proclaiming the end of civilization.

It would be good if this could be ruled on quickly but I assume our national political issues cannot interfere with the timetable of the court.

ix.

Hitman Actual

JohnJimbo wrote: »

Yeah, it would.

This place is totalitarian enough without the brussels fellas getting even more power.

And on a side issue, I have been speaking to a number of FF councillors lately.
They are finally awakening up to the EU scam, not from any altruistic point of course, they merely realise that their jobs will be going in the next ten years.

Expect to see a lot more lower establishment people speaking out in the next year, they can suddently see a day when the gravy will stop flowing and they are not happy.

You seem really certain that we would be better off out of the EU... maybe you could add something to this thread, and give some sound logical arguments as to why we would be better off, considering no one else in 700-odd posts has been able to.

carveone

ixtlan wrote: »

Also there is no agreement to expand military capacity. The requirement is to improve military capability. This allows the French to cut their military spending, as long as they remain well-trained and efficient and keep up with improvements.

The distinction that allows countries to cut spending was one I wasn't fully aware of and gives the lie to those who insist(ed) that Lisbon would result in a mandatory increase in military spending.

There was a certain amount of concern voiced about the EDA; some were reading the references in the Lisbon treaty as tantamount to creation of a European army (followed by endless silliness about conscription). Presumably the difference between consistency, cooperation and harmonisation and "EU army" was too subtle for some.

Some people however are of the opinion that the EU should have no military aspects whatsoever, and that no country anywhere in the world should be able to deploy troops outside it's border without UN approval.

That approval being a infinite amount of time coming judging from previous events. I'm not sure that people understand that the world is a dangerous place and, as resources become scarcer, becoming more dangerous. For those who do understand this, they expect the US to intervene whenever necessary. I felt that during the Bosnian war, people were expecting and waiting for the US to take action (I freely admit I do not know the national makeup of the UNPROFOR forces so I'm on unsteady ground here!).

I disagree with this view for many reasons, but I respect those that sincerely hold it.

It's such a tough issue to take a stance on. I mean, being a pacifist is nice and all but wishing for peace does not make it so. I grew up in Zambia and was there during the Rhodesian War which ended in '79. There was incursions into Zambia, which was a peaceful country. We were a family which of course wished to live and work in peace; we were still bloody glad to have the armed guard outside our house.
It's part of the human condition - we'll beat the crap out each other at a moments notice unless there's someone to stop it. I'm wandering off topic I think...

That regardless of what they decide and do, we will then have clean hands. I would argue that the world does not have clean hands after our non-involvement in the genocide in Rwanda.

+1 to that. I've always felt sympathy for the poor sod, General Dallaire, who sat in the middle of that hell, trying to get someone, anyone to do something. I mean, the UN wouldn't even act to help when their own perished (the Belgian soldiers who were hacked to death; Dallaire could actually see them but could not help with his underequipped forces). "Never again" they keep saying. What a crock.

cabinteelytom

How did the massacres in Rwanda end?
(Brief recap, cogged from http://www.hmd.org.uk. The massacres began on 6th April 1994, and are conventionally regarded as 'ending' on 17th July 1994, when Tutsi forces [the people who were being massacred] in the form of the RPF invading from , I think Uganda, reached the capital Kigali.)

Would the RPF have had an easier task if the international community had forces already deployed in Rwanda?
Could the international community have actually got forces from Europe or America on the ground faster than the RPF did?

Rwanda is often cited as a case where a more 'interventionist' Blair/Bush policy could have saved a lot of lives from the malevolent bent on murder. Sounds great until you consider that today, for instance, those Blair/Bush troops are so over-stretched from their previous interventions that they could not act in the event of a Rwanda II.

There is also the argument, rarely heard, that the foreign interventions before the massacres had made the carnage worse- France and Zaire had trained and equipped (possibly with the best will in the world, I don't actually know in detail) the [Hutu] army, the FAR, which proceded to encourage and protect the Interahamwe militia.
Maybe the better strategy in the event of communal conflict/civil war in former Yugoslavia or Africa is to permit arms to the weaker side until a stalement is established.

turgon

cabinteelytom wrote: »

Maybe the better strategy in the event of communal conflict/civil war in former Yugoslavia or Africa is to permit arms to the weaker side until a stalement is established.

So your strategy in attempting to stop the conflict would be to inject weapons into it? I suppose it never occured to you the deaths this would entail, nor the residue left over. You appear to think that once the war is over these supplied arms would magically vaporize into air. On the contrary they would be used to sell on the black market of by power-hungry militias.

WooPeeA wrote: »

I think if there will be any new referendum about the Treaty the question will probably be "Do you want to reject the Treaty and leave the EU"...

So let me get this straight. No matter what sort of treaty the EU throws at us, you would have them threating us with expulsion if we didn't accept it. So basically you envisage an EU where you either do as your told or just get out.

Wait a second ... thats not democracy!!!

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

So let me get this straight. No matter what sort of treaty the EU throws at us, you would have them threating us with expulsion if we didn't accept it. So basically you envisage an EU where you either do as your told or just get out.

Wait a second ... thats not democracy!!!

Well, no - nor is the idea that a single country can block a treaty desired by the rest. Vetoes are in all cases inherently undemocratic, since they run entirely counter to the idea that the minority agrees to be bound by the decision of the majority, which is the essence of democracy. Instead, they are far more similar to warlordism, where everyone accepts that you get consensus or fight.

All of this is because the arrangements that create the EU are anything but democratic - they are, instead, the result of bargaining between sovereign countries, with no-one agreeing to be bound by majority rule. Oddly enough, this is what many of those currently holding forth on 'democracy' actually mean by the term - intergovernmentalism with vetoes.

So, while the question of whether we would want to belong to an EU that said "my way or the highway" is certainly an open one, it has nothing to do with democracy as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boggle

So, while the question of whether we would want to belong to an EU that said "my way or the highway" is certainly an open one, it has nothing to do with democracy as such.

On the contrary, if this is such a democratic union (and this question has been asked many times) then why has nobody in any other member state consulted the people about this treaty directly? Saying that its part of their democratic process is fine but if we are to truly integrate with them then their democratic process becomes our democratic process and I'm not overly comfortable with that.

Where we are at the minute is that ANY change can be brought in, the other govts only have to rubber stamp it (free villa each for the lads!!) and the only country which actually has to consult its people will be told do it or get out - thus risking economic disaster. This bull really has to be addressed sooner rather than later imo or it will face catastrophic failure when the popular opinion swing violently anti-eu...

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

So, while the question of whether we would want to belong to an EU that said "my way or the highway" is certainly an open one, it has nothing to do with democracy as such.

On the contrary, if this is such a democratic union (and this question has been asked many times) then why has nobody in any other member state consulted the people about this treaty directly? Saying that its part of their democratic process is fine but if we are to truly integrate with them then their democratic process becomes our democratic process and I'm not overly comfortable with that.

Where we are at the minute is that ANY change can be brought in, the other govts only have to rubber stamp it (free villa each for the lads!!) and the only country which actually has to consult its people will be told do it or get out - thus risking economic disaster. This bull really has to be addressed sooner rather than later imo or it will face catastrophic failure when the popular opinion swing violently anti-eu...

Well, at the risk of repeating myself almost immediately, this is because the EU as an institution is not created democratically. It is created by intergovernmental deal-making, as all international treaties and institutions (the UN, the WHO, NATO, etc etc) are.

Whether the EU itself is democratic in operation depends on what actually goes into the treaties - because once created, the EU is separate from the governments that created it - but has absolutely nothing to do with how the treaties were negotiated or ratified, any more than the democracy of our constitution and country depend on their creation through armed revolt, assassination, and civil war.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boggle

Well, at the risk of repeating myself almost immediately, this is because the EU as an institution is not created democratically. It is created by intergovernmental deal-making, as all international treaties and institutions (the UN, the WHO, NATO, etc etc) are.

Exactly the point. is it not time to initiate a serious consultation process with the public in order to give the Eu the popular consent to maintain, reduce or, possibly even, enhance its control over individual member states?
Quite simply, if the populace of each member state is unhappy that european instruction must be carried into law, then that practice should cease - if, on the other hand they can put together a compelling proposal to the people, then and only then should the EU continue its progression towards a superstate.

Whether the EU itself is democratic in operation depends on what actually goes into the treaties - because once created, the EU is separate from the governments that created it - but has absolutely nothing to do with how the treaties were negotiated or ratified, any more than the democracy of our constitution and country depend on their creation through armed revolt, assassination, and civil war.

Constitutions which are written on the back of an armed revolt are slightly different in that they typically are a reaction to certain circumstances and should (usually at least) represent the will of the people who partook in the revolt. Assuming it takes a hugely significant portion of a regions (countries) people then its origins are loosely based on what they want.

The EU started as a common market and, when polled on entry, I would at least imagine that not everyone anticipated fully what it would become. Fortunately for us, we must be consulted every time this entity morphs whereas other sates do not get that option.

Again, in order to legitamise the course the EU is running, would you not agree that public approval should be sought?? At least then it could become what it wants to be with the full support of the people and not by stealth with the constant risk of revolt...

(That was a fair rant but please indulge me as I'd be interested in your opinion on this as you appear pretty up-to-speed with the process...)

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

Exactly the point. is it not time to initiate a serious consultation process with the public in order to give the Eu the popular consent to maintain, reduce or, possibly even, enhance its control over individual member states?

Hmm. I'd certainly be in favour of public input into the treaties.

Boggle wrote: »

Quite simply, if the populace of each member state is unhappy that european instruction must be carried into law, then that practice should cease - if, on the other hand they can put together a compelling proposal to the people, then and only then should the EU continue its progression towards a superstate.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. It's the reason for the primacy of EU law in the first place. I'll happily get behind greater democratic input to and control over legislation, as well as proper subsidiarity mechanisms (two reasons I was in favour of Lisbon), but if individual countries can opt out of legislation, then the EU immediately becomes meaningless.

Boggle wrote: »

Constitutions which are written on the back of an armed revolt are slightly different in that they typically are a reaction to certain circumstances and should (usually at least) represent the will of the people who partook in the revolt. Assuming it takes a hugely significant portion of a regions (countries) people then its origins are loosely based on what they want.

Indeed - but most armed revolts are minority affairs. We can safely say that the majority of the population doesn't usually participate in any way that would result in them having a noticeable input to the process of framing constitutions.

Boggle wrote: »

The EU started as a common market and, when polled on entry, I would at least imagine that not everyone anticipated fully what it would become. Fortunately for us, we must be consulted every time this entity morphs whereas other sates do not get that option.

Other states do get that option, but handle it differently.

Boggle wrote: »

Again, in order to legitamise the course the EU is running, would you not agree that public approval should be sought?? At least then it could become what it wants to be with the full support of the people and not by stealth with the constant risk of revolt...

(That was a fair rant but please indulge me as I'd be interested in your opinion on this as you appear pretty up-to-speed with the process...)

I favour any path that increases democratic input to the EU. However, first, a lot of the "obvious" moves don't do anything useful (such as electing Commissioners), and second, one has to accept that the democratisation of the EU is a slow process - the member states are only very slowly and gingerly getting comfortable with sharing their sovereignty through the EU, like an encounter group of armed psychopaths.

Democratising that shared sovereignty is something that has gone along side by side, step by step with the increases in the sovereignty pool, which seems right to me. Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy - complete democratisation now - but what you're trying to push along is a completely unnatural and unstable fusion in the first place. Obviously that argument itself can be used to cover resistance to democratisation for the sake of such resistance, but that does not make it untrue.

There's also a slight increase in governmental discomfort engendered by the sudden rapid increase in size, which has led to a large influx of countries without any serious democratic tradition, either direct or representative - something not envisaged at the founding of the EU, because it simply didn't seem possible - but, realistically, there was no other option.

In a sense, Ireland's requirement that EU treaties be put to popular vote is slightly too much democracy for the EU to handle - at this stage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy - complete democratisation now...

Speak for yourself. :P

Boggle

Have to make this quick...

but if individual countries can opt out of legislation, then the EU immediately becomes meaningless.

Might have been a little unclear on this but what I meant is that the people of each country should be part of this process. The question they should be asked is whether they support the eu project as it is now?
Lay out a road map fopr transparacy purposes and work towards that agenda with the full and uniified support of the people.

What has people worried is the gradual inching forward of the EU project purely on the back of political will. (I'd discriminate a little between public and political will)

Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy

Acually, what I'd argue is the opposite as it would take significant time for what I mentioned to be done properly. I view the big bang you mention as what is currently going on. Constant little changes which in the end amount to a big change over a relatively short period of time.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Sure, we want a "big bang" of democracy - complete democratisation now...

Speak for yourself. :P

Well, apart from enemies of freedom like yourself, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

Have to make this quick...

Might have been a little unclear on this but what I meant is that the people of each country should be part of this process. The question they should be asked is whether they support the eu project as it is now?
Lay out a road map fopr transparacy purposes and work towards that agenda with the full and uniified support of the people.

What has people worried is the gradual inching forward of the EU project purely on the back of political will. (I'd discriminate a little between public and political will)

I don't think the EU itself is unclear about its essential idea, which is whatever measure of political and economic union produces the greatest stability, prosperity, and freedom within its borders.

However, it's impossible to produce a 'roadmap', since the forward movement of the EU does depend entirely on the political will of the member states, and is implemented by the intergovernmental bargaining process of the treaties.

Giving the EU treaties the capability of amendment by single articles, as Lisbon would have done, is a good step away from this process (by virtue of not having to say yea or nay to whole treaties), particularly were it supplemented by the capability to propose amendments by direct petition or through the EP.

Boggle wrote: »

Acually, what I'd argue is the opposite as it would take significant time for what I mentioned to be done properly. I view the big bang you mention as what is currently going on. Constant little changes which in the end amount to a big change over a relatively short period of time.

Hmm. Perhaps you could flesh that out a little when you have more time?

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no - nor is the idea that a single country can block a treaty desired by the rest.

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments. And I think if we were to add up the margins of Yes victories from all 26 states we would find that that number would be nowhere near the 110,000 victory margin for the No side in Ireland.

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

heyjude

ixtlan wrote: »

un-informed yes voters usually did that because they trusted their representatives to do the right thing, and since we live in a representative democracy that's not an unreasonable thing to do. Voting against the representatives advice is an unreasonable thing to do unless you are really sure that they are wrong.

Voting against the representatives advice might be unwise if our representatives were all barristers/lawyers, but looking at our TDs, the most popular former occupations of our TDs are teachers and farmers, with a sprinkling of publicans, businessmen and members of the professions such as doctors,accountants.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

It seems as though everyone is trusting someone else, the TDs are trusting the cabinet, who trust the Taoiseach(who may or may not have read the Treaty) and he presumably trusts the attorney general or the civil servants that advised them during the treaty negotiations, but where does the buck stop ? Trusting someone else is handy in case things turn pear shaped.

cabinteelytom

Would I have given arms to the Ghettos of Europe during 1940 to 45? Reply:Definitely.
Should I have been inhibited by the fear of irresponsible sales to the aftermarket?
Reply: I would hope not.

Is this really the strongest arguement against the 'enable self-defence' principle?

tolosenc

turgon wrote: »

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

Actually, elected politicians represent quite a large number of people, so to do so would be completely taking the Irish vote out of context. I mean in France, it's something like 500 politicians for 60,000,000 people - their votes should count for 120,000... Just respecting democracy here...

heyjude wrote: »

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

Most of them have advisors, like. Well, I hope anyway!

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments. And I think if we were to add up the margins of Yes victories from all 26 states we would find that that number would be nowhere near the 110,000 victory margin for the No side in Ireland.

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

Hmm. Well, you've as much factual data for that claim as any other claim that's been made as to who wants what on Lisbon, I suppose. The recorded figures, though, counting EU Constitution votes as per Lisbon votes, show this:

|Yes| No
Spain|10804464| 2428409
France |12806394 |15450279
Luxembourg |109494| 84221
Holland |2940730 |4705685
Ireland |750000 |860000
Total|27411082|23528594


Difference: 3,882,488 more Yes than No.

So, insofar as there's data, the Yes have it. The traditional move at this point is for you to point out that each country had to ratify it, even though that's not what we're arguing about. You're welcome to improve on my expectations, though!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

heyjude wrote: »

Voting against the representatives advice might be unwise if our representatives were all barristers/lawyers, but looking at our TDs, the most popular former occupations of our TDs are teachers and farmers, with a sprinkling of publicans, businessmen and members of the professions such as doctors,accountants.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

It seems as though everyone is trusting someone else, the TDs are trusting the cabinet, who trust the Taoiseach(who may or may not have read the Treaty) and he presumably trusts the attorney general or the civil servants that advised them during the treaty negotiations, but where does the buck stop ? Trusting someone else is handy in case things turn pear shaped.

Hmm. That suggests that we should elect farmers (or agricultural scientists) as Ministers for Agriculture, a transport engineer as Minister for Transport, etc etc.

Of course, that's not what we do. Our elected representatives' job in government is to oversee the experts who actually draw up policy - the reps are there to make sure our wishes are considered in the drafting, by setting our wants and needs as goals. They are supposed to be expert enough at dealing with people to get the best out of those they oversee, and to ensure that they are not being hoodwinked by their civil servants.

In short, the representative politician's job is to represent the interests of the public in shaping policy and executing it. Specialist knowledge is welcome, but it's fundamentally a people person's job - a management/leadership role. The same goes for foreign policy - the job of the representative politician is to ask policy, legal and drafting experts "does this treaty deliver benefit X?". The job of the experts is to say Yes or No, and then it's up to the politician to decide whether that's acceptable or not, not whether it's true or not.

I sometimes wonder where people get these ideas about government. The quickest way to lose them, of course, is to do a stint in the civil service as an expert. Politicians are generalists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

heyjude wrote: »

Voting against the representatives advice might be unwise if our representatives were all barristers/lawyers, but looking at our TDs, the most popular former occupations of our TDs are teachers and farmers, with a sprinkling of publicans, businessmen and members of the professions such as doctors,accountants.

I'm not sure how much weight I'd apply to their judgement of such a long and complex legal document and expertise in interpreting it, when their background is in teaching history, running a farm or pulling pints. I'd say many members of the public could match our TDs for relevant expertise.

As Scofflaw has pointed out their job is not to be experts in their field, but to manage the experts and set the goals/targets they must meet. TDs are just management, and we should be more concerned with the knowledge levels of the civil servants than the TDs.

heyjude wrote: »

It seems as though everyone is trusting someone else, the TDs are trusting the cabinet, who trust the Taoiseach(who may or may not have read the Treaty) and he presumably trusts the attorney general or the civil servants that advised them during the treaty negotiations, but where does the buck stop ? Trusting someone else is handy in case things turn pear shaped.

This trust "issue" is present in everyone else's everyday life. A bank manager trusts his/her bank officials, the Garda Commissioner trusts the Gardai in general, you would trust a builder if he were building an extension to you home etc. You also neglected to mention that we trust our TDs, given that we elect them, to do certain things. Ultimately the buck stops with us I think as we are the ones who elect the Government and have to carry the can in the long run. However in the more immediate view it is the TDs who shoulder the "responsibility" given that it is them who are up for re-election every GE and not the civil servants.

As for the TDs reading or not reading the Treaty, I have a huge issue with this point. If you were to sit down and go through all the things that a TD has to deal with in a normal day and see how long that stuff takes you may find yourself surprised. As a rule I tend to be very distrustful of politicians and they wouldn't be my favourit profession, however they do have a busy job. They simply don't have the time to go through legal documentation on top of everything else, nor should they. This is the job of their legal advisors. How many people when buying a house read the contract they are signing in great detail? And how many trust their solicitor to do it for them and relate the details back?

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments. And I think if we were to add up the margins of Yes victories from all 26 states we would find that that number would be nowhere near the 110,000 victory margin for the No side in Ireland.

Basically what I am saying s that if you were to count all those people who voted on the treaty - Irish Citizens and European politicians, giving them each one vote (being the age of democracy) the No side would still have a majority, therby still winning.

Is it me or is this a totally irrelevant point? Certainly it is true that if you look at things from that particular point of view the No side won overall, but who and why would anyone look at it from that point of view? It makes absolutely no logical sense. It would be far more logical to go with Scofflaws proportionality outlook, even though that too is flawed by the very nature that it is not strctly the voice of the people. At least his is logical and some way representative of peoples views, no matter how tenuous the link.

turgon wrote: »

The idea that "the rest" somehow want this is a mis truth. Their politicians want it.

Whether they want it or not is an unknown. The idea the rest want it is not a mis-truth, but rather an assumption. Looking at the facts in the case (at least the ones I've seen anyway) it is also probably the best assumption anyone can come up with. That doesn't make it true, but with the severe lack of protest on the continent (or apparent lack, as I haven't seen or heard of any myself) coupled with the ratification in the other member states there is no other assumption that I can logically reach. If there is a fault in my logic that you can see I'll gladly hear it.....

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

I think once you define "the rest" you will come to the conclusion that it does not constitute the other 26 countries; on the contrary it constitutes the majorities in each of the 26 parliaments.

Whether or not this is factually correct, it's a piece of sophistry that utterly misses the point: the EU is an organisation with 27 members, not 500 million members. Unless it's written down in one or more of the treaties that something must be agreed by unanimous consent of a majority of the population of each member state, then your point is utterly irrelevant.

As I type this I can already hear the indignant howls decrying my anti-democratic credentials, but the word "democracy" has become a meaningless buzzword to be thrown around whenever weight of numbers, or even hypothetical numbers, can be used to validate one side or other of an argument.

Countries enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements all the time, and nobody seems to be screaming about a lack of democracy. Irish peacekeepers have traveled the world under UN mandates - why isn't anyone bemoaning the lack of referenda in all the UN member states before such mandates were forthcoming? Did you complain about there not being a UK-wide referendum on the Good Friday Agreement?