lisbon in other countries

conchubhar1

has it been fully ratified by all other parliments?

sceptre

Yes. Ratified by 26 from 27, though it's missing presidential assent in the Czech Republic. 23 of the 27 countries have deposited it with the Italian government, which is the final step.

Full list of dates from each country here if you want to track it's ratification progress so far.

conchubhar1

thats what i thought

will the czech ratify it if the lisbon 2 gets through?
ie, is that his only quam with lisbon?

conchubhar1

sceptre wrote: »

23 of the 27 countries have deposited it with the Italian government, which is the final step.

which countries havent deposited it? and why?

why the italian govt?




thanks

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

thats what i thought

will the czech ratify it if the lisbon 2 gets through?
ie, is that his only quam with lisbon?

It's a bit of a gray area, but if Klaus decided to not sign the Treaty, it would be referred back to the Czech constitutional court. There, it could be ratified without his compliance. But there's no precedence for any of this, so it's impossible to say what would happen.

But I think political pressure would make him sign it anyway.

conchubhar1

is he now president of something in europe?

if he believes it shouldnt be signed, he should give it to the people to decide or not sign it

lostexpectation

on sky news conservative spokesman said if the treaty is not ratified by everyone by the time they get into government they'll immediately call for a referendum on renegotiation

unlikely, it would suit them most not to have to tackle it.

conchubhar1

when is the next general election in the uk (planned or if browns gov collapses - speculation -)

is it before the referendum here?

Hitman Actual

The Czech's have the 6-month chair of the presidency of the EU, but the presidency doesn't give a country (or any single person) any real authority. For all the talk by eurosceptics about the power that an EU president would have (i.e. through Lisbon), it really is a relatively empty role.

wrote:

if he believes it shouldnt be signed, he should give it to the people to decide or not sign it

Well, it's been approved by both houses of parliament in the Czech Republic, so he really has to sign it. Not signing it would be about as undemocratic an act as you could get.

lostexpectation

no next year

conchubhar1

ok, thanks all


undemocratic well that depends on your outlook, not giving a vote to the people is undemocratic on such a pivotal piece of legislation (yes they are elected governments but most people dont agree with their leaders on every issue - and on such a huge item as this a vote should be mandatory)

lostexpectation

of course will have to wait for another acession treaty to put our mysterious guarantees into law, that was supposed to be 2010 but thats up in the air now with disputes between serbia and croatia

conchubhar1

true

not to mad on the way we get garuntees, not actual changes to the text (rock solid changes)

gizmo555

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Well, it's been approved by both houses of parliament in the Czech Republic, so he really has to sign it. Not signing it would be about as undemocratic an act as you could get.

Sorry, I'm a bit puzzled by this. Why is it undemocratic when President Klaus declines to sign in exercise of the constitutional powers conferred on him by the Czech people when they elected him, but not undemocratic when President Sarkozy declines to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

conchubhar1

excelent point ^

molloyjh

I think the point is that their Parliament is more representative of the people. Given that it's a large number of people elected by the same electorate as opposed to just one person, it should more accurately represent the views of the Czech people as a whole. When it was put to a vote by those people it passed, and no it is being stopped by a single individual.

That being said I do take your point and he has every right to do it by their system. It's a Czech matter and just as they should respect how we do things, we should respect how they do things.

gizmo555

molloyjh wrote: »

I think the point is that their Parliament is more representative of the people. Given that it's a large number of people elected by the same electorate as opposed to just one person, it should more accurately represent the views of the Czech people as a whole. When it was put to a vote by those people it passed, and no it is being stopped by a single individual.

That being said I do take your point and he has every right to do it by their system. It's a Czech matter and just as they should respect how we do things, we should respect how they do things.

It is not in the least bit undemocratic - it is the exercise of a legitimate constitutional power by a democratically elected president. I'm amused at the double standards being applied here to Klaus and Sarkozy, another "single individual".

molloyjh

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is not in the least bit undemocratic - it is the exercise of a legitimate constitutional power by a democratically elected president. I'm amused at the double standards being applied here to Klaus and Sarkozy, another "single individual".

Sarkozy didn't go against anyone though so its not double standards. Klaus went against the Parliament. All I was doing was explaining the logic, and it is logical. The Parliament ARE more representative of the people as a whole and he went against them.

Before you go on about this though it is worth pointing out that Klaus was not elected by the Czech people directly. He was elected by the Parliament, who were elected by the people. Therefore the Parliament is more-so the voice of the people than Klaus, therefore it could easily be argued that he is being undemocratic. Would you agree?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Look he's acting within his role, according to the Czech Constitution.

Can we all wind our necks in a little and stop throwing about the 'this is democratic, but that isn't' nonsense.

Representative, Constitutional Democracy is still Democratic.

How the Czechs manage that is their business, and it's not the place of anyone on this forum to accuse them of being 'undemocratic' when everyone involved acts according to their constitution.

conchubhar1

the french people rejected the constitution
he did not go against anyone

both these cant be true - one has to be false. my money is on the second

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the french people rejected the constitution
he did not go against anyone

both these cant be true - one has to be false. my money is on the second

*sigh*

Lisbon is not the Constitution....

conchubhar1

i know

but

either way it legaly replaces the other treaties and therefore changes how the eu works

that needs or should have a referendum!

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i know

but

either way it legaly replaces the other treaties and therefore changes how the eu works

that needs or should have a referendum!

In Ireland we are constitutionally bound to have one. It doesn't *need* it anywhere else, that is obvious by the fact it didn't have one. That it *should have* one is merely your opinion.

Germany is prohibited from holding referenda, by law, for one thing...

conchubhar1

yes i know ireland has - so lucky we have two (ah great leaders)

it is my opinion - but if they are certain they are fufiling what people want why won't they hold referenda?

in a democracy it is needed - on an issue like this which changes the eu.

germany is a special case - can't go against their laws, obviously.

gizmo555

molloyjh wrote: »

Klaus went against the Parliament. All I was doing was explaining the logic, and it is logical. The Parliament ARE more representative of the people as a whole and he went against them.

Before you go on about this though it is worth pointing out that Klaus was not elected by the Czech people directly. He was elected by the Parliament, who were elected by the people. Therefore the Parliament is more-so the voice of the people than Klaus, therefore it could easily be argued that he is being undemocratic. Would you agree?

No, I would not. Is President Obama Sarkozy a more "democratic" head of government than our Taoiseach because Mr Cowen was "only" elected by a vote of the Dáil and not directly by the people? Representative democracy comes in many different flavours.

The logic of the Czech constitution is that it must have been envisaged that the President wouldn't necessarily always agree with Parliament, otherwise there would have been no point in giving the presidency this power.

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, I would not. Is President Obama a more "democratic" head of government than our Taoiseach because Mr Cowen was "only" elected by a vote of the Dáil and not directly by the people? Representative democracy comes in many different flavours.

The logic of the Czech constitution is that it must have been envisaged that the President wouldn't necessarily always agree with Parliament, otherwise there would have been no point in giving the presidency this power.

Actually Obama was also indirectly elected, by the electoral college...

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes i know ireland has - so lucky we have two (ah great leaders)

it is my opinion - but if they are certain they are fufiling what people want why won't they hold referenda?

in a democracy it is needed - on an issue like this which changes the eu.

germany is a special case - can't go against their laws, obviously.

Again, it's obviously not needed, by the fact that it didn't happen.

You think it *should* happen in every country, but with respect, that's not your responsibility or business. It's up to the electorates in each country, to modify or not modify their constitution to require referenda on EU treaties.

I dare say most electorates just don't care enough about EU treaties to want a vote on it, and may see it as something of an imposition if they are forced to.

conchubhar1

much like when you vote for a td - in a specific party you know who their leader is
and in a way you vote the taoiseach in power

except in america when you vote for an elector you know they have stated to vote for a specific candidate - so more direct

conchubhar1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Again, it's obviously not needed, by the fact that it didn't happen.

You think it *should* happen in every country, but with respect, that's not your responsibility or business. It's up to the electorates in each country, to modify or not modify their constitution to require referenda on EU treaties.

I dare say most electorates just don't care enough about EU treaties to want a vote on it, and may see it as something of an imposition if they are forced to.

to say smething was not needed by the fact it didnt happen is a very ridiculous argument

no its not my responsibility - but with how our vote was rejected i have become angered at the lack of democracy in the eu

they are not forced to vote in the referendum - it will be no imposistion on them, should it take place they have a choice to vote or not

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually Obama was also indirectly elected, by the electoral college...

pfft that pesky representative system standing in a way of real democracy

btw this representation system of electoral college's gives some very small US states larger representation than huge states like California

sort of similar how Ireland punches above its weight in the EU, in a full representative system, Ireland would be irrelevant in the EU as there isnt many of us

but once again lets not get these pesky facts get in the way

conchubhar1 wrote: »

much like when you vote for a td - in a specific party you know who their leader is
and in a way you vote the taoiseach in power

except in america when you vote for an elector you know they have stated to vote for a specific candidate - so more direct

but the voter in that state next you gets higher weight on his vote, so much for "democracy"

.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

to say smething was not needed by the fact it didnt happen is a very ridiculous argument

no its not my responsibility - but with how our vote was rejected i have become angered at the lack of democracy in the eu

they are not forced to vote in the referendum - it will be no imposistion on them, should it take place they have a choice to vote or not

We're going to start running around in circles here, so I have your points and disagree with them, and vice versa...

conchubhar1

well to say something was not needed by the fact it didnt happen
i think we can both agree that is wrong...

having a second vote here is wrong.... and to use your favourite term . not needed

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well to say something was not needed by the fact it didnt happen
i think we can both agree that is wrong...

having a second vote here is wrong.... and to use your favourite term . not needed

Needed = neccessary = had to happen.

Did not happen = wasn't neccessary = wasn't needed.

Having a second vote is just as wrong as having the first one.

Indeed the second vote is not needed, unless we want to pass Lisbon.

The government have the right to choose to attempt to ratify Lisbon, and if they want to do so then they do need a referendum, under our constitution.

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

to say smething was not needed by the fact it didnt happen is a very ridiculous argument

no its not my responsibility - but with how our vote was rejected i have become angered at the lack of democracy in the eu

they are not forced to vote in the referendum - it will be no imposistion on them, should it take place they have a choice to vote or not

yes it will be an imposition on other countries

who are we to tell them what to do, and in your own words how is that "democratic" ?

and once again some countries like Germany would take offence to being asked to vote in referendum due to one nast historical fact that murdered millions of people :cool:

all this talk of "democracy" from members who have hard time understanding that Ireland would be screwed in a more "democratic" Europe where our votes count less than now, but since the main aim of these people is splitting from the EU and going back to farming spuds lets not get details get in the way
:mad:

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well to say something was not needed by the fact it didnt happen
i think we can both agree that is wrong...

having a second vote here is wrong.... and to use your favourite term . not needed

so a vote here in ireland is not needed

but a few posts earlier you mention that a vote is needed in other coutries

see a contradiction, you dont know what you want and your arguments have been proven to be false :rolleyes:

conchubhar1

people who want a more democratic eu want to split from the eu


and farm spuds


you sir, are ignorant - there was no need for the comment and i am reporting it


that marks the end of my discussion here....

conchubhar1

we dont need a second vote

we had one and it was rejected


absolutly no contradiction

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

people who want a more democratic eu want to split from the eu


and farm spuds


you sir, are a fool and ignorant - there was no need for the comment and i am reporting it


that marks the end of my discussion here....

well thats the ultimate conclusion aint it? back to farming spuds ... great majority of our exports is to the EU, without the EU you will have to pay huge tarrifs to access this market effectively killing whatever little industry we have left

once again you wish to impose irish form of "democracy" on other countries, and dont want a "democratic" vote here in ireland

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we dont need a second vote

we had one and it was rejected

absolutly no contradiction

yesterday pro-europe and pro-lisbon parties overwhelmingly did well in the elections, since this is a representative system you can well assume that majority of people want a referendum, and if you still insist NO then why not have a referendum on whether to have a referendum its only democratic no?

...

molloyjh

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, I would not. Is President Obama Sarkozy a more "democratic" head of government than our Taoiseach because Mr Cowen was "only" elected by a vote of the Dáil and not directly by the people? Representative democracy comes in many different flavours.

The logic of the Czech constitution is that it must have been envisaged that the President wouldn't necessarily always agree with Parliament, otherwise there would have been no point in giving the presidency this power.

Of course you wouldn't. It's not in your interests in this case to do so is it? Would you be happy to give Brian Cowen the power to overrule the Dail? Would you support him if he then chose to and insist its not "undemocratic". Come off it, we both know that if that were to happen you'd be jumping up and down crying foul. After all you are doing so right now by crying foul at the thought of the Irish Government utilising their constitutional right to hold a referendum this year. And yet you talk about double standards.

At the end of the day as I said originally, and as PopeBucky (if I may shorten the name) also pointed out, it is not our place to cast judgement on their methods, nor theirs on ours. And this is directed at conchubar too. Each electorate must decide for themselves how they want to proceed, be it referenda or not. Whatever we may feel is totally irrelevant.

conchubhar1

no that is not the alternative

i'm not imposing it, i stated it should happen - if democracy had its day

we had a democratic vote, the issue is resolved here! for the last time

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no that is not the alternative

i'm not imposing it, i stated it should happen - if democracy had its day

we had a democratic vote, the issue is resolved here! for the last time

and yesterday people elected pro europe and pro lisbon politicians to represent them at the local and EU levels, alongside our existing pro EU government elected not too long ago

denying the people a vote is "undemocratic"

if you dont think so please do outline how denying people a vote is a democratic concept

see you tripped up on your own arguments now ...

alot has happened in the last year, we now have alot of people and politicians calling for another general election, this just shows that peoples opinion can change, what do you propose FF stay in power, because the people had their say once? ha!

.

conchubhar1

we had a vote before, lisbon 1

i cant make it more clear


voting pro eu candidates has got to do with the lisbon treaty how?
i dont go along with the anti lisbon means anti eu stuff

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no that is not the alternative

i'm not imposing it, i stated it should happen - if democracy had its day

we had a democratic vote, the issue is resolved here! for the last time

Do you accept the constitutional right of the democratically elected government of the Irish Republic to propse referenda to the people, on any issue which they see fit, as many times as they like?

If you do not accept that right you will have to start a campaign to change the constitution to prevent it.

Until that happens you are only giving your opinion that we *shouldn't* have a second vote, an opinion which you are welcome to, but with which I personally disagree.

gizmo555

molloyjh wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't. It's not in your interests in this case to do so is it? Would you be happy to give Brian Cowen the power to overrule the Dail? Would you support him if he then chose to and insist its not "undemocratic".

A better analogy would be with the power of our president to decline to sign bills into law and to refer them to the Supreme Court.

molloyjh wrote: »

Come off it, we both know that if that were to happen you'd be jumping up and down crying foul. After all you are doing so right now by crying foul at the thought of the Irish Government utilising their constitutional right to hold a referendum this year. And yet you talk about double standards.

I beg your pardon, I'm not crying foul at all. I never said the Irish government wasn't within its rights to hold another referendum and I have no problem with them doing so. I do look forward to exercising my right to vote no again.

molloyjh wrote: »

At the end of the day as I said originally, and as PopeBucky (if I may shorten the name) also pointed out, it is not our place to cast judgement on their methods, nor theirs on ours.

I have trouble reconciling the above comment with this:

molloyjh wrote: »

I think the point is that their Parliament is more representative of the people.

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

voting pro eu candidates has got to do with the lisbon treaty how?

can i make it any more clearer ?

we live in a representative democracy where we vote for politicians to represent us and our views, yesterday we have elected politicians to local and euro levels with strong pro lisbon and pro europe policies, they join the existing pro Lisbon national government

we overwhelmingly voted for people whose policies are pro Lisbon

comprende?

our constitution states a means of holding a referenda as many times as we want (there is no mention of limitations on # of referenda) via the means of direct democracy, do you disagree with our constitution and cornerstone of the state?

jebus :rolleyes:

.

conchubhar1

they are legaly able

but the issue is done - putting it to a second vote is stating ''ah now lads ya got it wrong, go back again and make sure we dont make ya do it a third time till ye get it right''


it was voted no - end of

conchubhar1

we also had a referendum

where we voted no - the eu elections were no fought on the issue of the lisbon ratfication


can i be more explicit?

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we also had a referendum

where we voted no - the eu elections were no fought on the issue of the lisbon ratfication


can i be more explicit?

Libertas and SF did fight the EU elections on the issues of the Lisbon treaty

see the 1 page advert on the Galway advertiser from Declan Ganley as an example

conchubhar1

dont mind libertas

if we are talking democracy and politics they gave no right of mention - more so or equal to the bnp


the referendum was purely on the treaty - it go a ........ NO

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they are legaly able

Thank you, that's all that matters.

conchubhar1

ionix5891 wrote: »

Libertas and SF did fight the EU elections on the issues of the Lisbon treaty

that wasn't even one of sf top aims - very mute point

again referendum = no

that was purely on the lisbon treaty