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.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely yes.

Then, as I've said before, your issue is with representative democracy as a system, rather than with the Lisbon Treaty.

P. Breathnach

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?

I never said that you should be guided by politicians; I suggested getting guidance from people you can trust.

ixtlan

KINGVictor wrote: »

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.

Just to respond. I didn't entirely mean to lump you in with all no voters, and I'm careful not to call you a no-voter but rather a no-debater.

All I wanted to point out was that you seem to want an EU-wide debate on referenda from which you hope that other states might introduce them. However I assume you don't want a real debate? You do not want Ireland sitting in a room with 26 other states arguing for no referenda? Would you be horrified at a press conference afterwards where the other states said they believed Ireland should ratify treaties through parliamentary majority? And said it was up to Ireland (as the EU has no role in such a decision). Would you point to this as another example of the "EU" bullying Ireland, and now trying to tell us how to even approve of treaties.

My point, if I can clarify it even more... is that to even bring the EU into a discussion like this is dangerous. How states ratify is up to them. If you say the EU should talk about this or discuss it or debate it, then we are getting into real federal Europe territory. I can just picture the anti-EU blocs being up in arms at any hint that the EU was getting involved in this manner.

So, the irony is for a person supporting the no-side (I assume partially due to sovereignty concerns) to be suporting an EU discussion with potential federal reprocussions.

If I can put words in your mouth, I know you don't look at it this way. You are thinking that we talk from a position of... well we do this... you should do it too... but we are of course not even going to discuss the possibility we might change to your way... That's not a debate or a discussion. That's dogma... a demand.... We would not like anyone else to "discuss" with us in this manner.

Ix

KINGVictor

ixtlan wrote: »

Just to respond. I didn't entirely mean to lump you in with all no voters, and I'm careful not to call you a no-voter but rather a no-debater.

All I wanted to point out was that you seem to want an EU-wide debate on referenda from which you hope that other states might introduce them. However I assume you don't want a real debate? You do not want Ireland sitting in a room with 26 other states arguing for no referenda? Would you be horrified at a press conference afterwards where the other states said they believed Ireland should ratify treaties through parliamentary majority? And said it was up to Ireland (as the EU has no role in such a decision). Would you point to this as another example of the "EU" bullying Ireland, and now trying to tell us how to even approve of treaties.

My point, if I can clarify it even more... is that to even bring the EU into a discussion like this is dangerous. How states ratify is up to them. If you say the EU should talk about this or discuss it or debate it, then we are getting into real federal Europe territory. I can just picture the anti-EU blocs being up in arms at any hint that the EU was getting involved in this manner.

So, the irony is for a person supporting the no-side (I assume partially due to sovereignty concerns) to be suporting an EU discussion with potential federal reprocussions.

If I can put words in your mouth, I know you don't look at it this way. You are thinking that we talk from a position of... well we do this... you should do it too... but we are of course not even going to discuss the possibility we might change to your way... That's not a debate or a discussion. That's dogma... a demand.... We would not like anyone else to "discuss" with us in this manner.

Ix

Yes...You would be right that I oppose the EU because of its inclination towards Federalism...you would also be right to say I was suggesting the idea that the EU can come up with a framework to make member nations ratify treaties via referenda.
You made a valid point ...that there could be some opposition from several quarters about such a suggestion..no doubt.

My issue here is that this would not be a strange territory for the EU and how it operates.The EU has consistently made/implemented arbitrary policies and citizens have dealt with them.


A few examples:

1.Making it mandatory that member nations accept same sex unions.

2.Immigration-the EU freedom of Movement Directive 2006 expressly states that non - EU family members of EU citizens must be legally resident in another EU country for minimum of 6 months before such a union could be recognised...The Irish immigration -INIs dealt with applicants based on this directive until the Metock case http://ecjwatch.com/2008/08/12/irish-immigration-laws-contrary-to-ec-law-metock-case/
that created chaos ,as such Inis had to reverse numerous decisions they had made based on the directive.farcical IMOH..

3. The EU funds embryonic stem-cell research even when it is a touchy subject and no consensus has been reached .

Amongst other examples...


And yet we haven't seen heads roll.If the EU decides to consider the idea that the EU public/populace/electorate could have a direct say on whether to ratify treaties...it might lead to some opposition but it would not be a problem...especially considering how the EU institutionally deals with opposition....

http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/eu-parliament-blocks-whistleblowers-bid-for-key-budget-post/


Essentially my point is that ... a lot of EU citizens feel detached from the EU as an institution and this can be proved from the consistent low voter turnout at EU parliamentary elections...(electing those that should be their representatives at Brussels)....

http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/15/eu-vote-low-turnout-expected-among-young-voters/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,619104,00.html

There is nothing that suggests federalism about making the EU citizens decide whether they agree with the EU or not...rather I think it imbibes the very fabric of democracy to let the people decide who/what/how they would like to be governed and within what modalities.


N.B...You have every right to infer to my post as dogma...that is your prerogative....but I object to you saying dont discuss with "us"...this is a forum and everyone should make discussions/posts based on the merits of individual points and not on some form of Group/consortium basis.

marco_polo

KINGVictor wrote: »

Yes...You would be right that I oppose the EU because of its inclination towards Federalism...you would also be right to say I was suggesting the idea that the EU can come up with a framework to make member nations ratify treaties via referenda.
You made a valid point ...that there could be some opposition from several quarters about such a suggestion..no doubt.

What you are proposing make the EU more like a Fereration than what it currently is, is a union of soverign states that ratify membership treaties in order to agree the rules of the union. Make member nations have a referendum?

My issue here is that this would not be a strange territory for the EU and how it operates.The EU has consistently made/implemented arbitrary policies and citizens have dealt with them.

Only in the areas when the member states have granted it competancies.

A few examples:

1.Making it mandatory that member nations accept same sex unions.

Good thing.

2.Immigration-the EU freedom of Movement Directive 2006 expressly states that non - EU family members of EU citizens must be legally resident in another EU country for minimum of 6 months before such a union could be recognised...The Irish immigration -INIs dealt with applicants based on this directive until the Metock case http://ecjwatch.com/2008/08/12/irish-immigration-laws-contrary-to-ec-law-metock-case/
that created chaos ,as such Inis had to reverse numerous decisions they had made based on the directive.farcical IMOH..

Wrong the Metock confirmed supremacy of EU rules governing free movement of persons, we were contravening european law that we had signed up to, no issue there. The six month restriction was Irish law not part of the directive.

3. The EU funds embryonic stem-cell research even when it is a touchy subject and no consensus has been reached .

Amongst other examples...

Good thing. It is more a touchy subject in Ireland than elsewhere.

And yet we haven't seen heads roll.If the EU decides to consider the idea that the EU public/populace/electorate could have a direct say on whether to ratify treaties...it might lead to some opposition but it would not be a problem...especially considering how the EU institutionally deals with opposition....


http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/eu-parliament-blocks-whistleblowers-bid-for-key-budget-post/


Essentially my point is that ... a lot of EU citizens feel detached from the EU as an institution and this can be proved from the consistent low voter turnout at EU parliamentary elections...(electing those that should be their representatives at Brussels)....

http://www.euronews.net/2009/05/15/eu-vote-low-turnout-expected-among-young-voters/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,619104,00.html

There is nothing that suggests federalism about making the EU citizens decide whether they agree with the EU or not...rather I think it imbibes the very fabric of democracy to let the people decide who/what/how they would like to be governed and within what modalities.


N.B...You have every right to infer to my post as dogma...that is your prerogative....but I object to you saying dont discuss with "us"...this is a forum and everyone should make discussions/posts based on the merits of individual points and not on some form of Group/consortium basis.

The EU can never have the power to dictate ratification policy to individual Governments, one nobody would have it, and two, if it had such rules it would be a fundamentally different type of Organisation.

ixtlan

KINGVictor wrote: »

Yes...You would be right that I oppose the EU because of its inclination towards Federalism...you would also be right to say I was suggesting the idea that the EU can come up with a framework to make member nations ratify treaties via referenda.
You made a valid point ...that there could be some opposition from several quarters about such a suggestion..no doubt.

What if it came up with a framework to make (your word) member states ratify treaties without referenda, which would be more likely as it it the normal route everywhere else?

KINGVictor wrote: »

Essentially my point is that ... a lot of EU citizens feel detached from the EU as an institution and this can be proved from the consistent low voter turnout at EU parliamentary elections...(electing those that should be their representatives at Brussels)....

This is certainly true, but it's part of a general malaise with all democratic elections. More EU elections/referenda are not going to magically increase turnout. If people will not vote in a national election? Even here... we seem to think 53% for Lisbon1 was good!

KINGVictor wrote: »

There is nothing that suggests federalism about making the EU citizens decide whether they agree with the EU or not...rather I think it imbibes the very fabric of democracy to let the people decide who/what/how they would like to be governed and within what modalities.

If the EU discusses it under an EU umbrella then it is dangerous as it suggests that the "EU" is seeking a particular outcome. If each state wishes to discuss it internally then it's fine. That is where a push for more national referenda needs to come from. If the electorates don't make this an issue in each state, then so be it.

The other issues/areas you mention are a concern for some people sure, but it's an entirely different territory to start even talking about procedures for states to ratify treaties.

KINGVictor wrote: »

N.B...You have every right to infer to my post as dogma...that is your prerogative....but I object to you saying dont discuss with "us"...this is a forum and everyone should make discussions/posts based on the merits of individual points and not on some form of Group/consortium basis.

Actually I was not referring to your post as dogma. Sorry if this was not clear. I meant that if a debate/discussion/forum at EU level was entered into on the basis that we wanted all states to use our system of ratification then that would be dogma/ a demand, and not a discussion. A debate/discussion would suggest that a possible outcome would be Ireland chosing not to use referenda. You are debating, so it's not dogma, but if the other states were debating in this way how would anti-EU blocks react? In my post "discuss with us" meant discuss with Ireland the state by the other EU states by telling us we should not have referenda. We (Ireland) would not like that.

Ix

KINGVictor

marco_polo wrote: »

What you are proposing make the EU more like a Fereration than what it currently is, is a union of soverign states that ratify membership treaties in order to agree the rules of the union. Make member nations have a referendum?




Only in the areas when the member states have granted it competancies.


Good thing.



Wrong the Metock confirmed supremacy of EU rules governing free movement of persons, we were contravening european law that we had signed up to, no issue there. The six month restriction was Irish law not part of the directive.



Good thing. It is more a touchy subject in Ireland than elsewhere.



The EU can never have the power to dictate ratification policy to individual Governments, one nobody would have it, and two, if it had such rules it would be a fundamentally different type of Organisation.

1.Your first point is irrelevant to the discussion because my suggestion is making the EU populace have a say in the ratification of treaties.

2.I was merely pointing out that we can conveniently assume that the trend of consistent low turn-out at the EU parliamentary elections is indicative of apathy towards the current state of affairs at Brussels.

3.I never said ...(same sex unions or embryonic cell reaserch) weren't good things but you would also agree that they are contentious and cause a lot of divisions.You would also be aware that ethunasia is favoured by sections of the European society and others strongly object to it...would you also have no problems if the EU decides to make legislations in support of it because it is a good thing to some people.

And your statement about Ireland's embroynic cell research views are not entirely true....as indicated below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm

http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/funding-stem-cell-research-divides-eu/article-156896


4.It was not Ireland that made such laws...when the directive was issued in 2006....all countries mandated that a non eu spouse can only get a resident permit if he/she enters the country legally via a visa/entry permit...which sounds very logical. The metock case now concludes that as long as any non eu national can find his/her way into the country via any means ...he/she is entitled to stay in the country.

Invariably we have a situation where failed and potential asylum seekers can marry EU nationals in this country and get a 5 year resident permit.It doesnt end there...they dont have to married for long ..(after 2 years ..they can get divorced) and the non EU national can stay permanently.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/nonirish-using-fake-marriages-in-bid-to-secure-legal-residency-1074793.html


http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2655328

The Irish legitimately complained to the EU about how the directive is being abused by some parties and the overall effect it is having on its National Immigration .There is abundant evidence to suggest that failed asylum seekers are making payments to Eastern europeans to stay in Ireland and the EU responded by saying we would have to deal with it.

The EU has said there are no intentions to make amendments to the Directive-even when Ireland and Denmark Governments requested such.

http://europeanjournal.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/12/n-spite-of-denmark-and-ireland-requests-the-european-commission-has-no-intention-to-revise-the-free-movement-directive.html

That is federalism in practice.

View

KINGVictor wrote: »

1.Your first point is irrelevant to the discussion because my suggestion is making the EU populace have a say in the ratification of treaties.

Viewed from the perspective of either "the EU is a union of member states" (i.e quasi-Confederation) or "the EU is a quasi-Federation", you are essentially suggesting overriding the sovereign right of the other member states to ratify the treaties in whatever method they so choose.

Why on earth should the democratic and legal practice of the other member states be ignored just to keep you happy?

PopeBuckfastXVI

I think if you are prepared to enter into this sort of dialogue you have to prepared to accept the alternate outcome, where you are asked to conform to the most common method, parliamentary ratification.

I also think there's very few people in this country that would be willing to accept that request, if it came from outside the state, therefore I think it's not a dialogue we want to begin or join if someone else does.

marco_polo

KINGVictor wrote: »

1.Your first point is irrelevant to the discussion because my suggestion is making the EU populace have a say in the ratification of treaties.

2.I was merely pointing out that we can conveniently assume that the trend of consistent low turn-out at the EU parliamentary elections is indicative of apathy towards the current state of affairs at Brussels.

3.I never said ...(same sex unions or embryonic cell reaserch) weren't good things but you would also agree that they are contentious and cause a lot of divisions.You would also be aware that ethunasia is favoured by sections of the European society and others strongly object to it...would you also have no problems if the EU decides to make legislations in support of it because it is a good thing to some people.

This smells of scaremongering now. Is Euthanasia the new poster boy of the No campaign? Could you outline how that might happen under either current EU rules or in a post Lisbon EU?

And your statement about Ireland's embroynic cell research views are not entirely true....as indicated below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5209106.stm




http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/funding-stem-cell-research-divides-eu/article-156896

According to one of those links that only 9% are opposed to it in any circumstances with a large minority in favour only with tighter restirictions. Besides which I think things are bad enough without letting public opinion direct science research policies.

4.It was not Ireland that made such laws...when the directive was issued in 2006....all countries mandated that a non eu spouse can only get a resident permit if he/she enters the country legally via a visa/entry permit...which sounds very logical. The metock case now concludes that as long as any non eu national can find his/her way into the country via any means ...he/she is entitled to stay in the country.

Invariably we have a situation where failed and potential asylum seekers can marry EU nationals in this country and get a 5 year resident permit.It doesnt end there...they dont have to married for long ..(after 2 years ..they can get divorced) and the non EU national can stay permanently.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/nonirish-using-fake-marriages-in-bid-to-secure-legal-residency-1074793.html


http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2655328

The Irish legitimately complained to the EU about how the directive is being abused by some parties and the overall effect it is having on its National Immigration .There is abundant evidence to suggest that failed asylum seekers are making payments to Eastern europeans to stay in Ireland and the EU responded by saying we would have to deal with it.

The EU has said there are no intentions to make amendments to the Directive-even when Ireland and Denmark Governments requested such.

http://europeanjournal.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/12/n-spite-of-denmark-and-ireland-requests-the-european-commission-has-no-intention-to-revise-the-free-movement-directive.html

That is federalism in practice.

Yes it was Irish law, nowhere in the directive does it state anything about a couple having to have lived in a previous EU state, that was a national law introduced by Ireland (similar states did likewise) that turned out to be in breach the directive. We still have the right to kick them out but this must be done on a case by case basis not with a sweeping catch all measure.

Aside from the fact that this is existing EU legislation and not much to do with Lisbon. The freedom of movement of workers between EU states is a non negotiable part of EU/EEA membership. This means that citizens of other EU countries have the exact same rights as Irish citizens. An Irish person has the right to marry a Non-EU national anywhere and reside here and the same applies automatically to other EU citizens. Obviously due to different economic circumstances it so happens that Irish people rarely abuse the system.

Remember that the majority of such marraiges are perfectly legitimate, and it is only right that they be allowed to move here with their non EU spouse. I am in full agreement that something needs to be done about the high level of bogus marraiges, but the answer is not a carte blanche ban of all such unions where they have not previously resided in another EU country. Being broadly in favour of the judgement does not mean being in favour of bogus marraiges.


The Government incidently is also supported by Denmark, Germany, the Czech Republic, the UK and Austria in wanting this law changed in some way, so it is not like we are being trampled on by everyone else.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0926/1222374595413.html

ixtlan

KINGVictor wrote: »

2.I was merely pointing out that we can conveniently assume that the trend of consistent low turn-out at the EU parliamentary elections is indicative of apathy towards the current state of affairs at Brussels.

I don't think we can "conveniently assume" this. All elections have had falling turnouts for decades, local, national and Euro. The trend has been down, even if some years have been an exception. There is apathy towards all politicans. This is not a specific issue for the EU.

Ix

limklad

Furious-Dave wrote: »

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.

Hilter, is that you? Hilter had the same attitude as well as many other dictators and fascism too did not want direct democracy after they got elected and then removed any method from getting them legally removed from office which lead to wars and civil unrest to get them removed from power.
I rest my case.

tolosenc

Didn't Hitler get mandates for his policies by plebiscite?

hatrickpatrick

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

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

No one ever said it was "the norm, we said it should be the norm.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No one ever said it was "the norm, we said it should be the norm.

And other people have pointed out that you don't actually have the right to dictate that. Other countries' methods of ratification may be second-best in your view, but your view isn't important - their view is.

What if someone in Italy says it's ridiculous for the Irish to use referendums?

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Toulousain wrote: »

Didn't Hitler get mandates for his policies by plebiscite?

Which is exactly why modern day Germany has outlawed national referenda.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

And other people have pointed out that you don't actually have the right to dictate that. Other countries' methods of ratification may be second-best in your view, but your view isn't important - their view is.

What if someone in Italy says it's ridiculous for the Irish to use referendums?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Then of course it's their right not to use them. But AFAIK the people of Italy have not in fact been asked for their opinion on whether there should be a referendum on it or not.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then, as I've said before, your issue is with representative democracy as a system, rather than with the Lisbon Treaty.

Yes and no. I favour a system which gives far more power to the citizens, and the Lisbon Treaty goes in the opposite direction, taking the power away from the government and into the hands or a larger organization, which means that the people of Ireland have even less direct control over the laws they live by than they do now.

tolosenc

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then of course it's their right not to use them. But AFAIK the people of Italy have not in fact been asked for their opinion on whether there should be a referendum on it or not.

/facepalm

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then of course it's their right not to use them. But AFAIK the people of Italy have not in fact been asked for their opinion on whether there should be a referendum on it or not.

How do you ask the people of Italy? Oh, by referendum, of course. Let the people of other states have their own arrangements.