reason for any lisbon referendum?

conchubhar1

what from the lisbon referendum requires ireland to have a referendum?

and

should lisbon fail - can all the ''good'' points from lisbon not be implemented?

ie - human rights charter

more effecient eu (president has no real power - it is an eternal eu thing extenending its office time, will be okay?)

more power for the parliament... it is already there and is voted for by all in the eu

should a vote occur in the council on increasing the laws passed in the parliament will it not

a - pass

b - be accepted by the european court and the people of europe

Scofflaw

Unfortunately, we don't know which bit of Lisbon triggers the referendum requirement, or whether any bit actually does, since we don't know what the Attorney-General's advice to the government was. It's entirely possible that they were just playing it safe in holding a referendum.

As to implementing bits of Lisbon - no, that's not possible, except by creating a new treaty. Reopening negotiations, unfortunately, is reopening negotiations, so there's little chance that we could just keep the "good" points, even if there were universal agreement on what they are.

If you were going to keep one piece of Lisbon, it should be Article 48, which would allow for amendment of the treaties the same way we amend our Constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

okay thanks

but the making of the eu more effecient and the human rights charter and the allowing of a country to leave the union should all be implemented (from day one imo) but if this treaty fails they cant be implemented at all???

seems unlikely and downright idiotic

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

okay thanks

but the making of the eu more effecient and the human rights charter and the allowing of a country to leave the union should all be implemented (from day one imo) but if this treaty fails they cant be implemented at all???

seems unlikely and downright idiotic

The EU only exists by virtue of its treaties, and only to the extent that they allow it to. It's not like a country, which has an existence independent of the law - the EU exists only by virtue of law, and only exists in law. As such, it can only do what its founding treaties permit it to do. It can't operate by fiat or force majeure - it has to get things written into its treaties before it can do them.

That, in turn, means negotiation between the 27 countries - and that, in turn, is why there's never a plan B, because getting 27 countries to agree plan A is difficult enough.

The UK, for example, would disagree that the Charter is one of the 'good bits'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately, we don't know which bit of Lisbon triggers the referendum requirement, or whether any bit actually does, since we don't know what the Attorney-General's advice to the government was. It's entirely possible that they were just playing it safe in holding a referendum.

Wait, so nobody knows why we need a referendum ?
Then why not push it through the courts regardless.

conchubhar1

good points

which also helps me lean towards believing big ''government'' can't work in the e.u, its not like the u.s.

conchubhar1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Wait, so nobody knows why we need a referendum ?
Then why not push it through the courts regardless.

i hope, you are joking.

i think it is obvious why that should not be done.

Iwasfrozen

conchubhar1 wrote:

i think it is obvious why that should not be done.

Why so that liars and scaremongers like Libertas and Mary Ellen Synon can get their shot in ?
The treaty of Lisbon is far too complicated for Joe Bloggs to understand, every other country in Europe isn't voting, why should we ?

conchubhar1

that wont happen in lisbon 2

ah - yes. that worked so well for the yes side in lisbon1 keep up the insults on voters intelligence and it will get rejected again

because we are ireland. our view on democracy and what is needed is different than the other states.

law?!?

Scofflaw

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why so that liars and scaremongers like Libertas and Mary Ellen Synon can get their shot in ?
The treaty of Lisbon is far too complicated for Joe Bloggs to understand, every other country in Europe isn't voting, why should we ?

It's not really relevant what other countries do - our Constitution says that sovereignty stems from the people, and belongs to the people, so that the people must be asked to ratify any agreement that impacts that sovereignty. If the treaty is complex, then it is the job of the government to make it comprehensible. If the government is not trusted to do so, then it must arrange that a trustworthy third party do so - and despite all the knocking that goes on online, I would have little hesitation trusting most people in this country to be able to tell who is trustworthy and who isn't. Libertas lied their way through the referendum campaign, as did SF - neither of them were rewarded for those lies at the ballot box. If the people are opposed, the government must persuade them (with one hand tied behind its back by the McKenna judgement, and the other by the Coughlan judgement).

That's the government's job - that it's difficult is not an excuse. We vote on these treaties because we the people are sovereign, and that's not a situation I would contemplate changing.

In any case, the issue is no longer open - overturning the result of a referendum through the Dáil would be an appalling precedent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

sorry was sinn féins whole campaign that we can get a better deal and if you dont know what the treaty is about vote no?

has the first not come to light and is the second not the logical thing to do, beside reading the treaty which is taxing and does not end up with understanding all of the time

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

sorry was sinn féins whole campaign that we can get a better deal and if you dont know what the treaty is about vote no?

has the first not come to light and is the second not the logical thing to do, beside reading the treaty which is taxing and does not end up with understanding all of the time

That was the thrust of their campaign - and a good strong message it was, too - but there was little evidence of an alternative being presented. Unfortunately, much as its the government's job to explain the Treaty, it's the citizen's job to try to understand it - again, not easy, but them's the breaks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

so your ''Libertas lied their way through the referendum campaign, as did SF - neither of them were rewarded for those lies at the ballot box.'' is a lie or a mistake

so ''lied'' and ''as did sinn féin''

can you back that up - we all know libertas lied however sinn féin did not.....


they did present an alternative - renegotiation. voting no would keep it as it was aswel.

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so your ''Libertas lied their way through the referendum campaign, as did SF - neither of them were rewarded for those lies at the ballot box.'' is a lie or a mistake

so ''lied'' and ''as did sinn féin''

can you back that up - we all know libertas lied however sinn féin did not.....

Well, see here, for example. There are lies in there, and there a very much larger number of half-truths.

One could also point out, of course, that Sinn Fein always oppose EU treaties. Their claim that they're "pro-EU but anti-Lisbon" is therefore, in itself, a larger lie.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they did present an alternative - renegotiation. voting no would keep it as it was aswel.

Saying "it should be renegotiated" without saying in what way is useless.


cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

they presented a very large and substantial list of substantial items to the government after lisbon was rejected

but of course, you would ignore that



anyway - these are off the point - i just felt the need to bring you up on that point

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they presented a very large and substantial list of substantial items to the government after lisbon was rejected

but of course, you would ignore that

No, you're correct in that - and I suppose that was tactically the right thing to do. However, it's also a tactic that can be applied to any negotiated result, no matter whether you have either a sensible alternative in mind, an acceptable alternative, or even any real objections.

If you think about it, in fact, the arguments "it can be renegotiated" and "if you don't know, vote No" are just as vacuous as the worst government arguments. It doesn't matter what's in the Treaty - those arguments could equally well be used whether the Treaty involved enslavement to aliens, or the end of world poverty.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anyway - these are off the point - i just felt the need to bring you up on that point

Fair enough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

yes, everything done by a political party must be a tactic
god forbid there were some good point in that proposal

yes, true it could be used in many cases. but in the case of lisbon, it was sound advice........

for lisbon2 it will not be a good stance to take

Tony EH

conchubhar1 wrote: »

okay thanks

but the making of the eu more effecient and the human rights charter and the allowing of a country to leave the union should all be implemented (from day one imo) but if this treaty fails they cant be implemented at all???

seems unlikely and downright idiotic

That's not the case. Sure, half of the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to be from the European Constitution document that was voted down by the French and the Dutch.

If Lisbon is rejected in this form, there is nothing to say that whatever elements within it cannot be ratified in another large reform document (like the Lisbon Reforms) or piece meal as in the "Charter of Human Rights." In fact, any element can be taken from Lisbon and ratified in the singular, if it doesn't have cross-over with other elements within the document. For example the Human rights element can be ratified without the common defence policy.

Personally, I think that people would prefer contextual elements to be up for ratification in the singular, rather than this kind of lucky bag mix, al la Lisbon.

But then, the vast majority of European people would have liked a chance to vote on Lisbon in the first place.

conchubhar1

i have no doubt that should those elements and certain other single elements of lisbon are put to the people or to the govts they would pass

there are some great aspects to it - but on the whole there is some iffy issues als

would be hard to find anyone to reject or dismiss the human rights charter or 95% of laws for the parliment (?) something to that effect anyway

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i have no doubt that should those elements and certain other single elements of lisbon are put to the people or to the govts they would pass

there are some great aspects to it - but on the whole there is some iffy issues als

would be hard to find anyone to reject or dismiss the human rights charter or 95% of laws for the parliment (?) something to that effect anyway

You'd think so, but once again I commend your soul to politics.ie, where you'll find plenty of people opposed to exactly those things.

regretfully,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

people rejecting:

a human rights charter?

more power to the only elected institution of the eu?

Tony EH

There are some people who are against the Human Rights Charter based on fears of more immigration.

For instance, The Immigration Control Platform are against the charter (or parts thereof), or at least its inclusion in the Lisbon reforms.

Although, before damning the ICP, it would be better to actually seek out what they are saying on the matter.

But the short answer is that, yes there are some against the Human Rights Charter.

conchubhar1

are they on mainly racist terms and fear of immigrants?

or do they have tangible reasons to be against it?

Tony EH

Few (if any) organisations are anti immigration based on race and if they are, they quickly expose themselves.



But anyway, from what I gather the ICP is arguing their point more from an economic principle and that large influxes of cheap foreign labour is a destabilising influence on the host country in the long run.

To be honest, I can't speak for the ICP. I know little about them. I think you can hear what some of their folk have to say on YouTube. Do a search for Immirgration Contol Platform.

conchubhar1

okay, not based on any particular race but i mean they are anti immigrant becuase they are ultra nationalist or along those lines

anyway, i will check them up. okay

Tony EH

No, I don't believe they are ultra nationalist. Although, as soon as immigration is mentioned, one is either a nazi or a hippie.

I think they are simply campaigning for a coherent Irish immigration policy, but clearly believe that the previous approach to immigration has been disastrous.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

But then, the vast majority of European people would have liked a chance to vote on Lisbon in the first place.

I don't suppose you have a link to a plebiscite, or even an opinion poll, that bears out this unlikely assertion?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Some of the point of mixing up the 'good' with the 'bad' (though I don't know what that bad is?) is to get the thing through with sweeteners, if you catch my drift. Sometimes some things aren't popular, but are necessary, income tax hikes etc. If you try to get people to vote for those things on their own then people will vote them down, but you can put everything in a mixed bag with some things people want, such as more rights, or cheaper fuel taxes or something.

That way it's more of a compromise, and you can say, look I know there's things you don't like here, but they're necessary, and as part of the compromise deal hopefully the good will outweigh the bad in your eyes.

Of course, again, I don't see the 'bad' in Lisbon myself, I'm talking in terms of someone who does.

And also, for better or for worse, if Lisbon is implemented then amendments will no longer have to be part of a large mixed bag treaty, as we know.

the_dark_side

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't suppose you have a link to a plebiscite, or even an opinion poll, that bears out this unlikely assertion?

Charlie McCreevy seems to think so... and sure he'd hear all the craic over in Europe before we would :pac:

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

oscarBravo

the_dark_side wrote: »

Charlie McCreevy seems to think so... and sure he'd hear all the craic over in Europe before we would :pac:

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

Quite a stretch to draw that conclusion from what McCreevy said.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't suppose you have a link to a plebiscite, or even an opinion poll, that bears out this unlikely assertion?

Yawn......
:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Yawn......
:rolleyes:

I'll take that as "no, I just made it up", so.

cooperguy

conchubhar1 wrote: »

sorry was sinn féins whole campaign that we can get a better deal and if you dont know what the treaty is about vote no?

has the first not come to light and is the second not the logical thing to do, beside reading the treaty which is taxing and does not end up with understanding all of the time

I wouldnt agree with the second. I know way too many people who said "I didnt understand the treaty so I voted no" without putting in any effort to try and understand the treaty! It is a big complex document and they just expected to be inspired as to what it was about. There are plenty of places online that will give you information on what its about.

Scofflaw wrote:

In any case, the issue is no longer open - overturning the result of a referendum through the Dáil would be an appalling precedent.

That really would be a horrible precedent!

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll take that as "no, I just made it up", so.

And I'll take your bullshit "...unlikely assertion" in the same way.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

And I'll take your bullshit "...unlikely assertion" in the same way.

Fair enough, because as it happens, 93% of the EU's population would vote "yes" to Lisbon if they did have a vote.



...seeing as we're just making stuff up.

Tony EH

Please youself.

But, if you think that people would rather have their voice taken away in such matters...

Then

a. You're lying

b. Being deliberately naive

c. Disingenuous

d. Intellectually dishonest

e. Stupid


But I think that you know damn well, that given the choice, people would rather have their say on matters such as Lisbon.

oscarBravo

I suspect that the majority of the people of Europe don't particularly care about the Lisbon Treaty.* I know it's currently fashionable to present it as a blueprint for the destruction of civilisation as we know it, and to portray the average European as a poor helpless serf downtrodden under the jackboot of their fascist governments - but I doubt your average European sees him- or herself in that light.


* Of course, I have know way of knowing whether or not this is true, but at least I have the honesty to present it as a suspicion, rather than a fact that I then get all shirty at being asked to back up.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Please youself.

But, if you think that people would rather have their voice taken away in such matters...

Then

a. You're lying

b. Being deliberately naive

c. Disingenuous

d. Intellectually dishonest

e. Stupid


But I think that you know damn well, that given the choice, people would rather have their say on matters such as Lisbon.

If one is going to assert that, one might need to explain how it is that people don't vote. Let's see - we had a 53% turnout for the referendum, and a 58% turnout for the European elections. Roughly similar.

If that holds true across the EU, it's pretty easy to assert that the majority of people wouldn't bother turning out for referendums on Lisbon, any more than they turn out for European elections.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suspect that the majority of the people of Europe don't particularly care about the Lisbon Treaty.* I know it's currently fashionable to present it as a blueprint for the destruction of civilisation as we know it, and to portray the average European as a poor helpless serf downtrodden under the jackboot of their fascist governments - but I doubt your average European sees him- or herself in that light.


* Of course, I have know way of knowing whether or not this is true, but at least I have the honesty to present it as a suspicion, rather than a fact that I then get all shirty at being asked to back up.

It's not that people "care" about the Lisbon reforms per se. But they most definitely care about their abillity to vote on such matters.

But, of course, you KNOW that that is what I am talking about Oscarbravo, no matter how you try and dress it up in deliberate ignorance.

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

If one is going to assert that, one might need to explain how it is that people don't vote. Let's see - we had a 53% turnout for the referendum, and a 58% turnout for the European elections. Roughly similar.

If that holds true across the EU, it's pretty easy to assert that the majority of people wouldn't bother turning out for referendums on Lisbon, any more than they turn out for European elections.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm sure there are many reasons why people don't turn up to vote. Sure, there will be some people who'll not give a hoot about having a vote. There will be people who'll have the right to vote for their whole lives and never exercise that...

...but, when asked, the vast majority of people will say that they would rather have the opportunity to have their say, than not have it.

Honestly, after all that Europe has gone through in the 20th Century, I cannot believe that there are people here trying desperately to have a stance against that. It's absurd.

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm sure there are many reasons why people don't turn up to vote. Sure, there will be some people who'll not give a hoot about having a vote. There will be people who'll have the right to vote for their whole lives and never exercise that...

...but, when asked, the vast majority of people will say that they would rather have the opportunity to have their say, than not have it.

Sure - everybody says they'd like to vote, but come the day they get their hair done instead.

Tony EH wrote: »

Honestly, after all that Europe has gone through in the 20th Century, I cannot believe that there are people here trying desperately to have a stance against that. It's absurd.

I don't have a stance against it, I just think that you're holding it as an article of faith, rather than basing it on any evidence. As far as we do have evidence, I'd say most people aren't too pushed - and as with most things where they aren't too pushed, they're content to leave the decision to their elected representatives.

You believe that the majority of people really want referendums, but are being prevented from having them. I don't think that's true, pure and simple, and the evidence that exists suggests that I'm right, and you're wrong. That would never form an argument for taking voting rights away from people, because it's their right not to care very much - to have "no strong opinion" on Lisbon or any other matter. But it does mean that your argument for voting No on behalf of the "silent majority" is an argument from belief, not an argument from evidence. As with most 'arguments from faith', I find it foolish, self-serving and potentially dangerous - what next will the "silent majority" want for which we have no evidence but your beliefs?

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not that people "care" about the Lisbon reforms per se. But they most definitely care about their abillity to vote on such matters.

If you give people the bald choice between being allowed to vote at all, or not to vote at all, of course they'll choose to have a vote. That's a no-brainer, and it's silly to try to raise that as an argument in your favour.

The question is whether people will want to vote on any given issue. If you asked the average European whether he or she would like to have to vote on every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament, I suspect they would rather leave that to their elected representatives - that is, after all, precisely why they elected them.

If you asked as a general question whether the average European feels that they should have a vote on whether or not their government ratifies a given treaty, again I suspect you'll find the answer is that that is a job for elected representatives.

So, unless you have specific evidence to show that the average European is demanding their right to take back the role of ratifying treaties from their respective parliamentary democracies, or even that the average European wants to make an exception in the case of this particular treaty, even though they don't seem to care about treaties in general, perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of refraining from insulting me in lieu of offering a constructive argument.

But, of course, you KNOW that that is what I am talking about Oscarbravo, no matter how you try and dress it up in deliberate ignorance.

I don't know what you're talking about, because you keep moving the goalposts rather than actually back up any of your assertions.

the_dark_side

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fair enough, because as it happens, 93% of the EU's population would vote "yes" to Lisbon if they did have a vote....seeing as we're just making stuff up.

Well according to today's paper, Charlie McCreevy would'nt agree with your point
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

conchubhar1

people would like the ability to vote on all things (treaties or elections)

yes on the whole you wont get more than 60% but unless smething fantastic comes along thats the vote in most places (with a few exceptions, mainly where it is illegal not to vote)


just because they probaly wont vote on it - should not be an argument against giving people a vote

people in this thread, and many in general, have an air of pure cheek. the plebs dont vote, they dont want to - it is fair to assume it is okay to take their vote away, so we do.
in fact we are completly justified, look at the figures - they are ignorant.....

pff

carveone

conchubhar1 wrote: »

what from the lisbon referendum requires ireland to have a referendum?

Back to the OP. I believed that the Attorney General thought that the Lisbon Treaty in some way restricted our freedom to act in certain foreign policy areas. And thus under a 1987 Supreme Court case, a referendum was required.

I'm not sure where the restriction lay frankly, but googling should turn up something. The point, as Scofflaw has mentioned, is moot anyway.

should lisbon fail - can all the ''good'' points from lisbon not be implemented?

Not this time. Maybe in the next Treaty there can be a different bundling. In 6 to 7 years time I suppose (and 6-7 thousand posts on boards). I kinda felt the Lisbon was like a Windows Service Pack (geeky I know) - get the whole thing in in one bundle...

Tony EH

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - everybody says they'd like to vote, but come the day they get their hair done instead.

Everybody?

Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have a stance against it, I just think that you're holding it as an article of faith, rather than basing it on any evidence.

Rubbish, there's decades of history on the struggle for the right to vote. Everybody I've talked to on this subject, be they 'Yes' or 'No', are rightly uneasy about the fact that the actual people of Europe just simply didn't get their chance to have their say on the matter.

Except for a few people here, who frankly I do not believe are being entirely honest about the matter.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as we do have evidence, I'd say most people aren't too pushed - and as with most things where they aren't too pushed, they're content to leave the decision to their elected representatives.

That's not evidence that people are ok about having that right taken away from them. There are many reasons that turnout can be low. Some people just can't make it. Some people are genuinely undecided so decide not to vote and yes some people just don't give a crap. But their tune would soon change if they were told that that right was going to be taken away.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You believe that the majority of people really want referendums, but are being prevented from having them. I don't think that's true, pure and simple, and the evidence that exists suggests that I'm right, and you're wrong.

It doesn't matter what you think, people have fought very hard for the right to vote. If some don't wish to exercise that, the so be it. They would still have that chance to do so or not. However, the people of Europe DIDN'T GET the chance to not exercise that right, because the political establishment suspected that the treaty prrobably wouldn't have passed, so they circumvented the awkwardness of actually asking the public.

THAT is not a direction I want to see the "democratic" EU going in.

In addition, you and Oscarbravo are simply being so dismissive of peoples right to vote, because it suits your position at present. However, the shoe would be on the other foot, as it were, is say one of the member states governments wished to cast a 'No' vote, but their electorate was shown to be in favor of a 'Yes' vote.

You'd soon be on here screaming blue murder.

conchubhar1

i know its irrelevant - i just have an interest to see why it required a referendum (geeky i know)

lisbon to me is like a mad linux build made over several years by 27 people - and its just complex as ****

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

Everybody?

Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

Rubbish, there's decades of history on the struggle for the right to vote. Everybody I've talked to on this subject, be they 'Yes' or 'No', are rightly uneasy about the fact that the actual people of Europe just simply didn't get their chance to have their say on the matter.

Except for a few people here, who frankly I do not believe are being entirely honest about the matter.



That's not evidence that people are ok about having that right taken away from them. There are many reasons that turnout can be low. Some people just can't make it. Some people are genuinely undecided so decide not to vote and yes some people just don't give a crap. But their tune would soon change if they were told that that right was going to be taken away.



It doesn't matter what you think, people have fought very hard for the right to vote. If some don't wish to exercise that, the so be it. They would still have that chance to do so or not. However, the people of Europe DIDN'T GET the chance to not exercise that right, because the political establishment suspected that the treaty prrobably wouldn't have passed, so they circumvented the awkwardness of actually asking the public.

THAT is not a direction I want to see the "democratic" EU going in.

In addition, you and Oscarbravo are simply being so dismissive of peoples right to vote, because it suits your position at present. However, the shoe would be on the other foot, as it were, is say one of the member states governments wished to cast a 'No' vote, but their electorate was shown to be in favor of a 'Yes' vote.

You'd soon be on here screaming blue murder.

You're extremely certain about what I think for someone who hasn't even addressed the point I'm making. I'm certainly not being dismissive of the right to vote - that's a straw man of your own making, to distract attention from the fact that you have no evidence for your assertion that everyone in Europe wants to have a referendum.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you give people the bald choice between being allowed to vote at all, or not to vote at all, of course they'll choose to have a vote. That's a no-brainer, and it's silly to try to raise that as an argument in your favour.

No it's not. It's been a salient issue for many people who are concerned about the direction that the EU is going in.

Circumventing the people's voice on Lisbon sets a worrying precedent for a lot of people. They are wondering about future treaties and reforms being slipped through without their consent and they are correct too.

On reforming matters such as Lisbon, the express democratic say of the people should be heard.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question is whether people will want to vote on any given issue. If you asked the average European whether he or she would like to have to vote on every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament, I suspect they would rather leave that to their elected representatives - that is, after all, precisely why they elected them.

SOME would. But most people would choose the right to have a say on the matter.

You cannot get away from that, no matter what hoops you try and jump through to suit your present argument.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you asked as a general question whether the average European feels that they should have a vote on whether or not their government ratifies a given treaty, again I suspect you'll find the answer is that that is a job for elected representatives.

OK, I'm calling your contribution out for what it is Oscarbravo. It's bullshit.

I simply do not believe what you are saying.

Tony EH

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i know its irrelevant - i just have an interest to see why it required a referendum (geeky i know)

lisbon to me is like a mad linux build made over several years by 27 people - and its just complex as ****

Because it's written into the Irish Constitution that such matters require a referendum.

carveone

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i know its irrelevant - i just have an interest to see why it required a referendum (geeky i know)

No, I was thinking the exact same thing last night and I too wanted to know what the story was.

lisbon to me is like a mad linux build made over several years by 27 people - and its just complex as ****

And issued as a one massive diff.