EU Treaties, Referenda & Representative Ratification

PopeBuckfastXVI

For the purposes of this post, Representative Ratification means ratification by means of a representative body, such as a parliament.

So I've heard it mentioned in this Forum that other countries are doing something abnormal by not holding referenda on the Lisbon Treaty, and that somehow Representative Ratification is historically illegitimate. It's been claimed that the voting pattern for Lisbon sets some sort of precedent.

Lets have a look at the history:

Treaty of Paris
0/6 Referenda, 6/6 Representative Ratification

Treaties of Rome
0/6 Referenda, 6/6 Representative

Single European Act
2/12 Referenda, 10/12 Representative

Maastricht Treaty
3/12 Referenda, 9/12 Representative (First time there was a 2nd Referendum, Denmark)

Amsterdam Treaty
2/15 Referenda, 13/15 Representative

Nice Treaty
1/15 Referenda, 14/15 Representative (Second time there was a 2nd Referendum, Ireland)

Constitution
10/27 Referenda (Planned or Held), 17/27 Representative (First time a treaty was rejected by more than one country, France; Netherlands)

Lisbon
1/27 Referenda, 26/27 Representative (Third time there will be a 2nd Refernedum, Ireland)

So this leaves us over all EU Treaties with the following number of possible Referenda:
6 + 6 + 12 + 12 + 15 + 15 + 27 + 27 = 120

And all Referenda either planned or held:
0 + 0 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 10 + 1 = 19

So in the history of the EU we have had (or planned) Referenda 15.8% of the time we could have.

I think this should hopefully prove that Representative Ratification of Treaties (84.2%) is by far and away the normal practice in the EU, and hopefully put to bed the idea that not having Referenda across Europe for Lisbon is somehow abnormal, or a precedent.

Sources:
http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm
Wikipedia
http://crossborder.practicallaw.com/3-100-9183

turgon

Just a point - the ratification of any EU Treaty has nothing to do with the EU itself, its a matter solely for the member state ratifying. So while the knee jerk reaction of many is to get the EU to force referenda on people the fact is that that is not the way the EU works.

And also, voting No to Lisbon will not change this practice. If you are aggrieved your country does not hold referenda for EU Treaties you should contact your appropriate representative.

KINGVictor

turgon wrote: »

Just a point - the ratification of any EU Treaty has nothing to do with the EU itself, its a matter solely for the member state ratifying. So while the knee jerk reaction of many is to get the EU to force referenda on people the fact is that that is not the way the EU works.

And also, voting No to Lisbon will not change this practice. If you are aggrieved your country does not hold referenda for EU Treaties you should contact your appropriate representative.

I don't think anyone can disputes those facts....
but It wont be nonsensical to propose that the EU could create a framework where major treaties/constitution that concern issues of the union are ratified via referenda in each member nation.It would create an avenue for debate and eventually a buy-in.I agree it could be cumbersome and painstaking but so it also brings clarity to the whole process.

Sam Vimes

KINGVictor wrote: »

I don't think anyone can disputes those facts....
but It wont be nonsensical to propose that the EU could create a framework where major treaties/constitution that concern issues of the union are ratified via referenda in each member nation.It would create an avenue for debate and eventually a buy-in.I agree it could be cumbersome and painstaking but so it also brings clarity to the whole process.

The EU has no power to create such a framework. The process of ratification is a sole competence of the member states

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

I don't think anyone can disputes those facts....
but It wont be nonsensical to propose that the EU could create a framework where major treaties/constitution that concern issues of the union are ratified via referenda in each member nation.It would create an avenue for debate and eventually a buy-in.I agree it could be cumbersome and painstaking but so it also brings clarity to the whole process.

On the contrary, it would be a major overstepping of its bounds by the EU.

Turn it around: suppose the EU were to try to introduce a framework whereby all member states were required to ratify treaties without referenda - a more sensible approach, since that's the norm anyway. How would you feel about that?

I'd tell them to get bent. And I'm one of the minority that don't think we should bother with referenda.

KINGVictor

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The EU has no power to create such a framework. The process of ratification is a sole competence of the member states

I recognise that fact...I am nmerely suggesting it can be looked into.
If the EU can show the political will to make directives that decide how many hours employees can work in a week/Immigration directives that we have to abide by etc ..I am sure they can collectively come to an agreement.

oscarBravo

KINGVictor wrote: »

I recognise that fact...I am nmerely suggesting it can be looked into.

It can't.

If the EU can show the political will to make directives that decide how many hours employees can work in a week/Immigration directives that we have to abide by etc ..I am sure they can collectively come to an agreement.

The ratification of treaties by its members is not an EU competence. End of story.

ixtlan

KINGVictor wrote: »

I recognise that fact...I am nmerely suggesting it can be looked into.
If the EU can show the political will to make directives that decide how many hours employees can work in a week/Immigration directives that we have to abide by etc ..I am sure they can collectively come to an agreement.

This is a very ironic suggestion by a no debater. Many of the arguments from the No side are loss of sovereignty. To suggest that the EU would try to come to an agreement on use of referenda or indeed any involvement at all in this area is to suggest that we move strongly towards a federal Europe.

I know you don't want that, but if the EU was to go into negotiations on that the no-side would pounce on it, because of course to negotiate suggests that 26 states would suggest no referenda and 1 would suggest referenda.

Ix

PopeBuckfastXVI

Actually if we moved down that road, it would be more likely that we would be asked to fall into line with the majority, and not use referenda.

It's a dangerous road to go down, and one I wouldn't support in either direction.

hatrickpatrick

If all of those treaties had had proper democracy (referenda) there's a good chance the people would not have backed them. I have always been in favour of direct democracy over representative democracy on big issues like this and I think McCreevy's remarks about most countries rejecting it with referendums proves my point. The people, not the politicians, should have the absolute final say on everything.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If all of those treaties had had proper democracy (referenda) there's a good chance the people would not have backed them. I have always been in favour of direct democracy over representative democracy on big issues like this and I think McCreevy's remarks about most countries rejecting it with referendums proves my point. The people, not the politicians, should have the absolute final say on everything.

Hi Hatrickpatrick,

If this was put to a vote 99% of people across Europe would approve it.

There, now people can quote me to disprove your point. I've offered a blanket statement with no evidence the same as McCreevy did.

You are perfectly entitled to think that people should have referenda, and in the one country in which you have influence, they do. Neither you, the Irish Government nor the EU are entitled to demand any other country implement any other ratification mechanism than the one they currently use.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The people, not the politicians, should have the absolute final say on everything.

Including Finance, Criminal Justice and Defamation bills?

Furious-Dave

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The people, not the politicians, should have the absolute final say on everything.

I'm not sorry to say this, I am sorry that it's true though, but the people have shown that they are too ignorant and gullible to be let decide on issues such as treaties. Direct democracy should be used a little as possible, as it only causes stupid arguments and slows the political process down.

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If all of those treaties had had proper democracy (referenda) there's a good chance the people would not have backed them. I have always been in favour of direct democracy over representative democracy on big issues like this and I think McCreevy's remarks about most countries rejecting it with referendums proves my point. The people, not the politicians, should have the absolute final say on everything.

As I asked somebody else do you think then that we should continue to vote No to all european treaties until all 26 other countries change their ratification policies to referendum based ones?

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

... The people, not the politicians, should have the absolute final say on everything.

Does that include complex questions that most people are too busy, too uninterested, or too stupid to understand?

I go through life with the (possibly mistaken) belief that I am fairly well-informed and intelligent. If I have a non-trivial health concern, I go to a doctor; if I have a problem with my car, I go to a mechanic. The only issues are choosing a good doctor and a good mechanic, people I can trust.

Sam Vimes

That's exactly the point. We have one group of no voters saying that it should be rejected because the people of Europe aren't being given a say and another group saying it should be rejected because it's too complicated to understand.

It has to be that complicated to serve any useful purpose and that's exactly why it should be decided by people who make a living from making these decisions and not Betty from Mayo who got her opinion from a lie on a poster

Furious-Dave

I have to admit there are posters that I do believe and won't be told otherwise, no way, no how! :mad:

http://jacquelinezenn.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/guinness-for-strength-posters.jpg

http://eimearvb.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/guinness-is-good-for-you.jpg

Scofflaw

I'm just going to add to this the point that, while it's often claimed that our representatives are out of touch with the majority of the electorate on Lisbon, and that because a majority in the referendum voted No, our representatives should support a No position, the truth of the matter is rather less clear cut. Nationally, the turnout was 53%, so nationally, the three groups of the electorate look like this:

Yes|No|Don't Care
25%|28%|47%

From a representative point of view, then, there is no "majority opinion". There are two significant minorities that care one way or the other, and a larger minority that doesn't care.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If all of those treaties had had proper democracy (referenda) there's a good chance the people would not have backed them. I have always been in favour of direct democracy over representative democracy on big issues like this and I think McCreevy's remarks about most countries rejecting it with referendums proves my point. The people, not the politicians, should have the absolute final say on everything.

The only reason we have referenda on EU Treaties is because the Supreme Court decided we needed to have them. When making their judgement, the judges never bothered to ask the elecorate whether they wanted to have referenda on EU Treaties.

In fact, when they voted for Bunreacht na hEireann, the electorate approved Article 29.4.2. of it which specifies that the Oireachtas has the sole role of ratifying international treaties (which would include EU Treaties).

In other words, the electorate voted in favour of an article which meant they would NOT have referenda on international treaties

KINGVictor

ixtlan wrote: »

This is a very ironic suggestion by a no debater. Many of the arguments from the No side are loss of sovereignty. To suggest that the EU would try to come to an agreement on use of referenda or indeed any involvement at all in this area is to suggest that we move strongly towards a federal Europe.

I know you don't want that, but if the EU was to go into negotiations on that the no-side would pounce on it, because of course to negotiate suggests that 26 states would suggest no referenda and 1 would suggest referenda.

Ix

Another classic example of lumping every No supporter into one category.
The Lisbon treaty and the EU are conceptually very convoluted that would understandably generate numerous point of view...so claiming that my post is ironic is simply not true...
There is currently a debate about how Ireland would face tremendous challenges/villification in the event of another NO vote.The stance of some and myself is that it would be unfair and negate the entire foundations of the bloc if that happened considering that the EU practically mandates that every member nation must ratify a treaty before its passage.
Other member nations have utilized their parliamentary process to pass the treaty...while Ireland under constitutional constraints decided to pass it via a referendum. In my opinion while those other countries have an absolute right to use the parliamentary ratification format...they also chose the easy and less contentious route.France and Holland held referenda for the EU constitution in 2005 but decided against it for Lisbon because they knew the repercusions.

Like I mentioned earlier Mccrevry an Irish EU commissioner stated that 3/4 of memeber nations would have rejected the treaty if they had held a referendum...that is debatable ...but likewise those who claim that 90% of Countries would have ratified the treaty via a referendum....none of the opposing views can lay claim to any satisfactory or reliable statistical base to support their stance....but the only way we could have known for certain was through a EU wide referendum.
No one is suggesting making it mandatory but realistically if for eg 5 or 6 other nations were holding referenda ...it would have put pressure on the others as their citizens would have felt disempowered by not having an opprotunity to vote.I seriously object to those who claim that people are ignorant and cannot make decisions in a logical manner ...I even read a laughable post about checking IQs before allowing people to vote...those comments/suggestions only come after a lose at the polls.

It is also true that you dont see mass uproar/opposition to the EU until issues such as treaty/constitutional votes come up...that is due to the fact that they have far more local pertinent matters to attend to in their day-to day life.
As long as we keep having EU wide parliamentary ratifications there would no accurate manner to judge the temperature of the electorate in relation to their views on the EU and their policies.....
The voting for representatives for European parliament could be used as a valid agruement to negate this but the problem is that there has been a consistent decline in voting patterns in this elections since the late 70's which IMOH shows some form of apathy.

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

Another classic example of lumping every No supporter into one category...

Frankly, that claim is dishonest.

KINGVictor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Frankly, that claim is dishonest.

Can you explain why?..

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

Can you explain why?..

Because what you are jumping on is no more than a matter of language usage, where it is reasonably evident that ixtlan is not trying to state something as being applicable to every individual on the no side, but is predicting what the general pattern might be.

Your post is like a complaint about a report of a football match where it is claimed that a team played badly, and somebody dissents because Johhny Murphy played well.

Playing the victim is an old trick, and not a very good one.

KINGVictor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because what you are jumping on is no more than a matter of language usage, where it is reasonably evident that ixtlan is not trying to state something as being applicable to every individual on the no side, but is predicting what the general pattern might be.

Your post is like a complaint about a report of a football match where it is claimed that a team played badly, and somebody dissents because Johhny Murphy played well.

Playing the victim is an old trick, and not a very good one.

I am sorry you are the one playing with words here..He responded to my post as being ironic for a No debater ...that was clear enough...I dont really concern myself with comparisons like the one you made....that is your opinion...but it would have been helpful to refute them than come up with one liners.

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

From a representative point of view, then, there is no "majority opinion". There are two significant minorities that care one way or the other, and a larger minority that doesn't care.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Well, yes - exactly.

pleased,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

I am sorry you are the one playing with words here..He responded to my post as being ironic for a No debater ...that was clear enough...I dont really concern myself with comparisons like the one you made....that is your opinion...but it would have been helpful to refute them than come up with one liners.

That makes no sense to me. Am I missing anything that I need to know?

KINGVictor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That makes no sense to me. Am I missing anything that I need to know?

Well lets end it there.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Including Finance, Criminal Justice and Defamation bills?

Absolutely yes. And the recent defamation bill is another attack on free speech. Define blasphemy as an offense? Would I be charged if I made a film like the Life of Brian, which was once banned from this country on the grounds of "blasphemy"?

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Does that include complex questions that most people are too busy, too uninterested, or too stupid to understand?

I go through life with the (possibly mistaken) belief that I am fairly well-informed and intelligent. If I have a non-trivial health concern, I go to a doctor; if I have a problem with my car, I go to a mechanic. The only issues are choosing a good doctor and a good mechanic, people I can trust.

But you can't trust ANY Irish politicians at the moment. By that rationale, every anti lisbon voter is screwed. Which party that can form a majority opposed Lisbon at the last elections?

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But you can't trust ANY Irish politicians at the moment. By that rationale, every anti lisbon voter is screwed. Which party that can form a majority opposed Lisbon at the last elections?

If you want to select a party based on the single issue of Lisbon then Sinn Fein is your best bet, since Libertas don't seem to be around any more. Since we don't have a large selection of right wing parties to choose from like the UKIP or BNP your choices are somewhat limited.

And the trustworthyness of our politicians is not really relevant to Lisbon, as if you don't believe them there are many alternative ways of checking the facts instead.