Can someone please clarify the following points about the Lisbon treaty from Libertas

gizmo555

ionix5891 wrote: »

there has been a distinct lack of policies outlined by Libertas,

It does seem more than a little ridiculous that a party established on a pan-European platform of EU reform still has this message on its website one week before campaigning ends in the European Parliament election:

"The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks."

http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies

ionix5891

ot: you might want to edit that link, no need to give the extra juice in google :pac:

back on topic: what a surprise

View

gizmo555 wrote: »

It does seem more than a little ridiculous that a party established on a pan-European platform of EU reform still has this message on its website one week before campaigning ends in the European Parliament election:

"The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks."

http://www.libertas.eu/en/policies

They intend to publish it after the election probably. That way it'll more accurately express the will of the electorate. At the moment, based on the latest opinion poll, their policies consists of 36% of FG policies, 23% of Labour's and 20% of FF's etc. etc.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Apologies for Off Topic..

I would have thought that parties should espouse policies, and the people should vote for those parties who's policies they support.

This means that the government (as an entity) always reflects public opinion, even (especially?) if the party which forms it changes.

A party is free to change it's policies if it smells the turning of public opinion of course.

We don't elect a bunch of randomers and then go to them and tell them what to do, a bunch of parties come before us with stated intentions and we approve or reject those intentions at the voting booth.

To me, that's the essence of representative democracy.

Well this has been the current set-up until now, because it tends to work. But, as one irate Czech I know said, what happens when all the parties sing off the same hymn sheet in relation to something which is opposed by the public, or don't mention it in their policies at all? (in this instance, the radar systems that are being built in the CR - which the people can have no say over - the fact that I, or the Czech politicans feel it is a good idea is ntot the point. They are clearly abusing their position if they are rnot representing the public).

What Scofflaw was saying was that politicians are fundamentally better qualified to make decisions affecting the body politic than the body politic itself, which is prone to certain whims. I would challenge anybody to equate Biffo with a Philosopher King, mind you.

Moreover, such 'whims' affect politicans as much as the public - politicans are, of course, not divorced from the public, which they are a part of. Their qualifications, by in large, are as teachers, accountants, or lawyers. Their whims, like the public in general, are held in check by constitutional law.

The reason for representative democracy is practicality. However, the more it becomes representative, and the less it becomes directed by the public, the more it tends towards dictatorship.

Okay, a quick analogy;

You hire a lawyer for your business. This is very useful as you simply don't have the time to go through the legal number-crunching involved. One day however, you find that the lawyer has signed a contract for your business on your behalf, feeling that it was in your best interests. This, of course, would be illegal.

ionix5891

i see we are still picking on the definition of democracy itself instead of addressing real concerns and outlining policies

how very 'Libertas' of you (wheres the damned trademark symbol)

P. Breathnach

I'm inclined to agree with what RandomName2 says about representative democracy, including the point that it isn't perfect. I think, however that the suggestion that

the more it becomes representative, and the less it becomes directed by the public, the more it tends towards dictatorship

is a bit severe.

One problem with direct democracy is that people often want things that are irreconcilable, like lower taxes, no government borrowing, and more public provision. In order not to stymie everything, that challenge is remitted to representatives who we trust in order to balance our wishes and work out an acceptable solution.

A second problem with direct democracy, and one that is much closer to the question in this thread, is that many issues in modern political and administrative life are necessarily complex, more complex than the average voter can readily comprehend. So if they are asked to vote on them, they have recourse in a different way to politicians (not all of them elected to any position): they listen to arguments and exhortations, and vote accordingly. It seems to me that many who advocated no to Lisbon were unreasonable in their interpretations of its implications, and some were downright dishonest. I think Libertas managed to do a bit of each.

I never again want to see a referendum on complex questions. Our constitution generally deals with basic principles, not with fine detail. That's how it should be, and that's the only sort of issue that a constitutional referendum should deal with. Let our elected representatives deal with the detail, limited only by (a) the principles set down in the constitution and (b) their usual hope that they will satisfy the electorate and be returned at the next election.

ionix5891

P. Breathnach wrote: »

A second problem with direct democracy, and one that is much closer to the question in this thread, is that many issues in modern political and administrative life are necessarily complex, more complex than the average voter can readily comprehend. So if they are asked to vote on them, they have recourse in a different way to politicians (not all of them elected to any position): they listen to arguments and exhortations, and vote accordingly. It seems to me that many who advocated no to Lisbon were unreasonable in their interpretations of its implications, and some were downright dishonest. I think Libertas managed to do a bit of each..

I cant find the link but in one of the parallel threads we did some numbers and for direct democracy to work we the people need to have a referenda on several national/eu issues every week, and then one can imagine a referendum on something like the national budget

Arent Libertas the ones screaming "Not again" with the new upcoming Lisbon referendum, so its a bit hypocratic to be pushing "direct" democracy (with Ganley on top)

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well this has been the current set-up until now, because it tends to work. But, as one irate Czech I know said, what happens when all the parties sing off the same hymn sheet in relation to something which is opposed by the public, or don't mention it in their policies at all?

Simple. People who feel strongly enough about it can go set up a new political party complete with a different set of policies (not just soundbites). If the electorate wants to vote for the party with the different policies they are free to do so. If not, then the party clearly doesn't have a mandate from the electorate to do so.

RandomName2 wrote: »

They are clearly abusing their position if they are rnot representing the public.

No, they are not. The parties advocate policies. Voters vote for them. The presumption is that voters are intelligent enough to vote for parties whose policies they agree with. There is no obligation on parties to "represent" voters that don't agree with them.

RandomName2

The problem with the second referendum, which the 'yes' side seem to be ignoring is this:

1. If you vote 'No' the Lisbon Treaty will not be defeated
2. If you vote 'No' Ireland might be forced out of the EU.

I find it hard to find anyting less democratic that actually has a vote attached to it. Perhaps the Austrian Anschluss - vote 'no' and you will be invaded.

RandomName2

View wrote: »

Simple. People who feel strongly enough about it can go set up a new political party complete with a different set of policies (not just soundbites). If the electorate wants to vote for the party with the different policies they are free to do so. If not, then the party clearly doesn't have a mandate from the electorate to do so.



No, they are not. The parties advocate policies. Voters vote for them. The presumption is that voters are intelligent enough to vote for parties whose policies they agree with. There is no obligation on parties to "represent" voters that don't agree with them.

Demonstrably this is not the case. Now, the reasons why a party might not be founded that would represent a general consensus is a more problematic subject, but in terms of representation, the government is meant to represent the majority of the electorate. If it does not, then this is not democratic. Actually representation of majority opinion is one of the fundamental failings of democracy (dictatorship of the majority). It is the reason we have seperate states (so that there is a common ground for consensus, and so that minority groups are not left out of the political process - a problem that is evident in Iraq at the moment)

Besides which I already said that such 'policies' are a compromise in the first place. It does not make them inherently good.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

The problem with the second referendum, which the 'yes' side seem to be ignoring is this:

1. If you vote 'No' the Lisbon Treaty will not be defeated
2. If you vote 'No' Ireland might be forced out of the EU.

I find it hard to find anyting less democratic that actually has a vote attached to it.

I fail to see what's undemocratic about it. Are you suggesting that a vote is only democratic if there is no possibility of a negative consequence attached to any of its outcomes?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I fail to see what's undemocratic about it. Are you suggesting that a vote is only democratic if there is no possibility of a negative consequence attached to any of its outcomes?

I don't see how you don't understand the implications.

The ratification of Lisbon across Europe has already been decided. The irish vote doesn't actually matter as to whether or not Lisbon is enacted in Europe, as we will (a) be forced to vote until we say yes (b) be forced out of the EU and then allowed to possibly rejoin once Lisbon has been enacted.

The 'yes' vote is in many ways as meaningless as the 'no' as the Irish electorate are in no way respected in this regard. You might say this is good and propper that such a small, pathetic nation has no real say on the future of Europe. I would just disagree.

oscarBravo

You're rather cleverly conflating an Irish vote on a purely internal issue - whether or not to change the constitution - with the idea of "EU democracy". You're setting it up in this way to make it look like the EU is asking us to vote on an EU treaty, and then planning to ignore our vote on it. That's not how it works.

The EU is an organisation that consists of member states. Those member states, as represented by their governments, have agreed in principle that a reform treaty is required. What is required to implement that treaty is that each of the member states ratify it.

In our case, that ratification apparently requires a constitutional amendment, which in turn requires a referendum. The direct consequence of a "no" vote in the next referendum would be identical to the direct consequence of the "no" vote in the previous one: our constitution will not be amended, and Ireland will not ratify the treaty.

The indirect consequences of a failure to ratify have yet to be decided, but will probably have negative consequences for our relationship with the other member states.

So, we - as the electorate of this sovereign state - have a choice, and the choice we make will have consequences. It is our responsibility to consider those choices when making our decision, and the consequences of the decision will be ours to bear either way.

You can call it "undemocratic", but you have to redefine "democracy" in order to do so. Which is fair enough - everyone seems to have their own pet definition of the word these days.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

You might say this is good and propper that such a small, pathetic nation has no real say on the future of Europe. I would just disagree.

I wouldn't say any such thing. Ireland had a substantial influence in the drafting of the Lisbon treaty. If we ratify Lisbon, we will have had a strong say in the future of Europe.

Mind you, if we fail to ratify, we will also have had a strong say in the future of Europe. I personally would rather that our influence remained constructive.

ionix5891

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can call it "undemocratic", but you have to redefine "democracy" in order to do so. Which is fair enough - everyone seems to have their own pet definition of the word these days.

He already had a go at trying to redefine "democracy" in this thread

in the unlikely event that other (independent) states who compromise the EU (a collection of states, not a federal superpower like the US) decide to take a course than lets favorable to Ireland (and wont hurt them) theres damn all we can do about it, imposing our beliefs sure wouldn't fly with rest of EU members (even our neighbors in UK wouldn't like the Irish dictating them what to do)

you have to use their own language I learned as well taught out posts from members don't seem to make dint

how is imposing Declan Ganleys will on 500 million people democratic? ha there (great i now lowered myself a notch to their level, lets roll up the sleeves)

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't see how you don't understand the implications.

The ratification of Lisbon across Europe has already been decided. The irish vote doesn't actually matter as to whether or not Lisbon is enacted in Europe, as we will (a) be forced to vote until we say yes (b) be forced out of the EU and then allowed to possibly rejoin once Lisbon has been enacted.

The 'yes' vote is in many ways as meaningless as the 'no' as the Irish electorate are in no way respected in this regard. You might say this is good and propper that such a small, pathetic nation has no real say on the future of Europe. I would just disagree.

I hate to say it, but that's pure mouth-noise. We're having a second referendum, yes, but hysterically equating that with being "forced to vote until we say yes" is patent nonsense. If you're going to vote No at this second referendum, get on with it - and if the result is a second No, the whole process will be well and truly derailed. There's plenty of precedent for a second referendum - both our own (Nice 2) and others (Denmark) - but the question being asked again really isn't the same as being herded to the polling pens and made to vote Yes.

The business about Ireland being disregarded is likewise rubbish, as oB has pointed out. We have had a very large influence already on this process, having been the country that oversaw the final negotiation of the Constitution, and having also had a large influence on the drafting of Lisbon.

What's annoying about these claims is that they're not even honest - they're being made in the hopes of making people vote against their own best interests on the basis of "well, we'll show them".

regards,
Scofflaw

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're rather cleverly conflating an Irish vote on a purely internal issue - whether or not to change the constitution - with the idea of "EU democracy". You're setting it up in this way to make it look like the EU is asking us to vote on an EU treaty, and then planning to ignore our vote on it. That's not how it works.

That's pretty much how it worked when the French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution. They got the Lisbon Treaty instead - which is essentially the Constitution minus a few symbolic bells and whistles like an official European flag and anthem.

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's pretty much how it worked when the French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution. They got the Lisbon Treaty instead - which is essentially the Constitution minus a few symbolic bells and whistles like an official European flag and anthem.

Yes, they got a different treaty. Evidently, it's not different enough for you. How different does it have to be before it's acceptable to you, and by what metric do you measure that difference?


I could have sworn I've asked you those questions before.

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's pretty much how it worked when the French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution.

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that's needed Gizmo...

Was a constitution implemented?

RandomName2

Lol :P back to the same old, same old.

EU Constitution is an entirely different document.
1. It's name was different
2. Required a referendum in each member state
3. Proviso about use of the EU flag
4. Polish vote wan't staggered.

As I said, entirely different.

And the Irish vote ain't hollow apparently :rolleyes:. The only thing is we can't vote no. Of course it is just a constitutional quirk that we got to vote in the first place. Millions of tax-payers money was funelled into a yes campaign which didn't work. So we vote again. The government's options are very good in this regard, indefinate reruns of the referendum, kicked out of EU, special proviso in relation to Ireland, etc.

The actual idea of changing the Lisbon Treaty in form is not considered as it took EU leaders so long for them to write it up. Of course, it is probably not a good idea for such an overarching document, which covers so many areas to have been established in the first place. Nice at least had only 2 or 3 issues at stake.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lol :P back to the same old, same old.

Indeed...

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, they got a different treaty. Evidently, it's not different enough for you. How different does it have to be before it's acceptable to you, and by what metric do you measure that difference?


I could have sworn I've asked you those questions before.

The metric I use to determine that it's essentially the same is the numerous opinions and statements by a large number of EU heads of state, heads of government and government ministers that the Constitution and Lisbon are to all intents and purposes the same. I could have sworn I referred you to all these on the record opinions before.

These people are all solidly in favour of Lisbon, so they can hardly be accused of bias against it. They were also centrally involved in negotiating both Lisbon and the Constitution, so they are very well qualified to comment on the matter.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

Simple question, yes or no answer is all that's needed Gizmo...

Was a constitution implemented?

Simple answer is yes - it will effectively be, if Lisbon comes into effect.

ionix5891

RandomName2 wrote: »

Millions of tax-payers money was funelled into a yes campaign which didn't work.

[citation needed]


btw where did the money spend by libertas come from? you sure as hell wont find a paper trail

RandomName2

Ironically, if you actually did have one-man-one-vote the EU Constitution would probably have been implemented due to the 10million Spanish votes. The fact that the French and Dutch votes were subsequently ignored - and yes they were ignored - is evidence enough of the dictatorial nature of Brussels. The Irish vote is not the preference of the Irish government.

Just square that a second.

The Irish government, like the other EU governments would rather we didn't vote at all on this. WTF And you say I am pedantic when trying to define democracy.

RandomName2

ionix5891 wrote: »

[citation needed]


btw where did the money spend by libertas come from? you sure as hell wont find a paper trail

When you see a Fianna Fail poster saying 'Vote Yes for Europe' do you think Biffo will have personally paid for it?

ionix5891

RandomName2 wrote: »

When you see a Fianna Fail poster saying 'Vote Yes for Europe' do you think Biffo will have personally paid for it?

please please do show where the money came from, especially for libertas posters

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

[The EU Constitution] Required a referendum in each member state

Factually inaccurate.

The only thing is we can't vote no.

Factually inaccurate.

RandomName2 wrote: »

...that the French and Dutch votes were subsequently ignored...

The Constitution was not ratified by the French and Dutch governments, so this is factually inaccurate.

Are you a member of Libertas? If not, you should join up, you'd fit right in.

gizmo555 wrote: »

The metric I use to determine that it's essentially the same is the numerous opinions and statements by a large number of EU heads of state, heads of government and government ministers that the Constitution and Lisbon are to all intents and purposes the same. I could have sworn I referred you to all these on the record opinions before.

You may well have. It doesn't answer the questions I asked.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lol :P back to the same old, same old.

EU Constitution is an entirely different document.
1. It's name was different
2. Required a referendum in each member state
3. Proviso about use of the EU flag
4. Polish vote wan't staggered.

As I said, entirely different.

And the Irish vote ain't hollow apparently :rolleyes:. The only thing is we can't vote no. Of course it is just a constitutional quirk that we got to vote in the first place. Millions of tax-payers money was funelled into a yes campaign which didn't work. So we vote again. The government's options are very good in this regard, indefinate reruns of the referendum, kicked out of EU, special proviso in relation to Ireland, etc.

The actual idea of changing the Lisbon Treaty in form is not considered as it took EU leaders so long for them to write it up. Of course, it is probably not a good idea for such an overarching document, which covers so many areas to have been established in the first place. Nice at least had only 2 or 3 issues at stake.

Crikey - where to start? First, the EU Constitution didn't "require a referendum in each member state" - that was a political exercise (and one that went very wrong, as these things do). Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Romania, and Slovenia all ratified the EUC by their normal parliamentary routes. Virtually none of the member states ever require referendums on treaties - that's the way their constitutions work. The only regular users of referendums on EU treaties are us, the Danes, and the French. Even in the latter case, the decision is political, not legal.

I appreciate that Libertas want to force a uniform ratification mechanism on all of Europe, but it hasn't happened yet!

Second, no "millions in taxpayers' money" were spent on the first referendum - it is illegal to do so. Even totting up the spending by the parties you're barely looking at over a million - which was outmatched by Libertas' spending. FF in particular spent very little, because it seems to have assumed FG and Labour would carry the day while depleting their local election warchests.

Third, while indefinite reruns of the referendum are certainly legally possible, there's no point to them if they keep returning No, and they're politically very costly - for something FF have made it clear they actually care less about than they do the local elections (FF started gearing up for the locals a year ago - they started gearing up for Lisbon about 6 weeks in advance).

Nice was a far more important document than Lisbon in terms of the changes it made - and Maastricht was even more profound. Lisbon largely refines Nice, and adds very little indeed to the EU's competences. Most of its provisions are minor but high-profile - the ones with profound effect are probably the democratic and subsidiarity provisions. Unfortunately, the provisions are easily misrepresented, and a good deal of effort is being put into misrepresenting them.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

When you see a Fianna Fail poster saying 'Vote Yes for Europe' do you think Biffo will have personally paid for it?

You're a great man for presenting only two options! Here, there is a third option - it was paid for out of party funds. That's where baby political posters come from, you know.

regards,
Scofflaw

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

You may well have. It doesn't answer the questions I asked.

OK - let me rephrase my answer.

oscarBravo wrote:

How different does it have to be before it's acceptable to you and by what metric do you measure that difference?

Different enough that the previously mentioned European politicians don't feel able to go on the record saying the two are in all essentials identical.