Question about the Lisbon treaty, can anyone explain?

DaSilva

Please correct me if you see any mistakes in the following. The following are my own assumptions.

Currently Ireland is the only member state that is required by law to have a referendum on treaties such as the Lisbon treaty.

One or two other countries populations (or reliable polls of) expressed a wish to vote no given the chance.

The Dáil and Seanad both passed the treaty initially and this time, this would indicate if the population were not required to vote on it, it would have passed.

If the Lisbon treaty passed, and somehow a similar situation arose where all other EU countries chose to agree to ratify a new treaty, it would no longer matter that Ireland voted no.

I'm worried about this. If I'm correct on the above assumptions (which if are wrong I would love someone to explain) then this is a major sticking point for me on the Lisbon treaty.

I'm not pro or anti EU, I have no political party, I didn't vote on the first referendum and there is even the slim chance I may not vote this time. If the above is true however, I am forced to vote no.

meglome

At the end of the day DaSilva it's none of our business how the other EU countries handle these things. More than that we have no right or permission from them to interfere in how they run their affairs. All of these country's voted in governments who's stated policy was to ratify the Lisbon treaty. So the people of these country gave de facto permission to their governments to do this.

Ireland is the exception in the EU with these referenda. But no matter what we will still need to vote on EU treaty's even after a Yes vote to Lisbon, it won't make any difference. That right cannot be taken away from us nor is anyone trying.

ei.sdraob

meglome wrote: »

Ireland is the exception in the EU with these referenda.

was it @PopeBuckfastTheSomething that a had a key post here on that point? i cant seem to find it now

@DaSilva

the people of these countries (like ours) have democratically elected a government to represent them (representative democracy) and make decisions while the people go about their daily business, if the government makes a truly unpopular decision/s (like is happening here in Ireland with NAMA) then this government runs a serious risk of being overthrown (in ireland the greens are preventing FF from collapsing) or revolution

this same principle operates here in Ireland, for example no one voted in Cowen in directly, the people have voted in FF and Greens and they in turn chose a "leader"

Now when it comes to important matters, the Irish Constitution demands a referendum to be held, this is a form of direct democracy

thats whats happening here

please do also note that referendums are illegal in some countries, and we have to respect that, the same way as other countries respect our neutrality and abortion laws

I sure hope that makes things clear

BlitzKrieg

If the Lisbon treaty passed, and somehow a similar situation arose where all other EU countries chose to agree to ratify a new treaty, it would no longer matter that Ireland voted no.

thats not true.

The reasoning on why countries have referendums on EU treaties or not has nothing to do with EU law but with the national law of each member state as per article 48 of both lisbon and nice where the phrase *by each member states constitutional requirement* is said numerous times. THe constitutional requirement in Ireland is in any international treaty where the irish state gives away, pools or messes with its national soverignity (the crotty judgement seems to open to interpetation going by some of the debates) then a referendum is required by law.

Lisbon changes nothing in this area.

meglome

ei.sdraob wrote: »

was it @PopeBuckfastTheSomething that a had a key post here on that point? i cant seem to find it now

He did indeed

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61263296&postcount=1

Mr. Incognito

The reason we have to have a referendum is that Crotty took the Irish government to court that anything to usurp the constitution had to be voted on by the Irish people.

To be honest, we elect politicians to look out for our interests. With all the blatant misinformation and lies that were part of the No campaign last time I'm actually AGAINST having referendums. My personal opinion is that the government should just ratify it and have done with it but no, some tool decided to bring a court case and now we have this flawed system. People don't inform themselves and stupidity that has nothing to do with this Treaty gets thrown in like abortion and a European Army.

To be honest every Joe Soap is entitled to his opinion but we should leave the complications of Legislation to the elected Legislature and leave them accountable at the polls for their decisions.

BlitzKrieg

while I would agree on the misinformation etc being a serious flaw in the referendum aspect I would disagree on the removal of a referendum alltogether, while yes its the fault of the people who fail to inform themselves, and those who purposely misinform are guilty, its alo the fault of the government for not retooling the referendum system to suit the issue at hand.

It might have been ok if there were only 1-2 referendums, but there have been 5 treaties now and seven referendums, some serious consideration must be considered to retooling the system to consider the approval of something that is made up of so many aspects and prone to misinformation.

Arguble the referendum commission and the post vote poll are two such elements that should be taken further (despite the unproven calls of bias.)


Personnally I would like to see a pre-vote campaign deconstruction where the commission would take apart officially both campaigns and confirm the facts and this would be a big thing, on the tv the night before and in the papers. And also the option that every polling card contains the main issues of each campaign and the voter can tick what influenced their vote, so when it is a no vote we will have a more definite position on what needs to be done.

DaSilva

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

If the Lisbon treaty passed, and somehow a similar situation arose where all other EU countries chose to agree to ratify a new treaty, it would no longer matter that Ireland voted no.

thats not true.

The reasoning on why countries have referendums on EU treaties or not has nothing to do with EU law but with the national law of each member state as per article 48 of both lisbon and nice where the phrase *by each member states constitutional requirement* is said numerous times. THe constitutional requirement in Ireland is in any international treaty where the irish state gives away, pools or messes with its national soverignity (the crotty judgement seems to open to interpetation going by some of the debates) then a referendum is required by law.

Lisbon changes nothing in this area.

I think I understand what you are saying, so let me make sure.

Imagine it's 2015, the Lisbon treaty has been ratified a long time now. A new treaty has been drawn up and it affects national soverignity, and therefore Ireland by its own law is required to hold a referendum. All other EU states have passed the treaty except Ireland which rejects it. Due to majority voting (I forget the exact term) from the Lisbon treaty, this new treaty is ratified by the EU, yet rejected by Ireland, what happens?

By the way, no thanks to the rest of you who only came here to peddle the badly reasoned voting opinions, there is plenty of other threads where you can waffle in. I asked a straight forward question, not your opinion on the question.

[Edit]Coming off somewhat demanding in the end there, apologies I know nobody here is required to follow my demands, just found almost all of the replies way off anything I asked about, and then replies to those replies even further out.

BlitzKrieg

DaSilva wrote: »

I think I understand what you are saying, so let me make sure.

Imagine it's 2015, the Lisbon treaty has been ratified a long time now. A new treaty has been drawn up and it affects national soverignity, and therefore Ireland by its own law is required to hold a referendum. All other EU states have passed the treaty except Ireland which rejects it. Due to majority voting (I forget the exact term) from the Lisbon treaty, this new treaty is ratified by the EU, yet rejected by Ireland, what happens

QMV (the term you are looking for) does not apply. This is not those on Council ratifying or the European parliament. This is individual member states ratifying via their own process. QMV apples to the legaslation process within the EU, the ratification of the treaties is not done through the same process, its essentially done above it as it is done directly between the member states.


The worse case scenario is the one we are in at the moment. If after two years and there is only one member state who has not ratified, the issue is brought back to the European Council who discuss the problem and offer a solution.

that solution still cannot bypass the constitutional requirement, its meant to allow them to come to some comprimise like they have. They propose a gaurantee or future protocol to settle the unratified state's fears. In lisbon's case it was aboriton, neutrality and the commissioner, despite 2 of those 3 issues not having anything to do with Lisbon in the first place, hence why they are only gaurantee's rather then outright changes, because there is nothing to change. Take for example aboriton, we already have a protocol on abortion, there is no point getting a second that says the exact same thing.

meglome

DaSilva wrote: »

By the way, no thanks to the rest of you who only came here to peddle the badly reasoned voting opinions, there is plenty of other threads where you can waffle in. I asked a straight forward question, not your opinion on the question.

[Edit]Coming off somewhat demanding in the end there, apologies I know nobody here is required to follow my demands, just found almost all of the replies way off anything I asked about, and then replies to those replies even further out.

Currently Ireland is the only member state that is required by law to have a referendum on treaties such as the Lisbon treaty.

One or two other countries populations (or reliable polls of) expressed a wish to vote no given the chance.

The Dáil and Seanad both passed the treaty initially and this time, this would indicate if the population were not required to vote on it, it would have passed.

If the Lisbon treaty passed, and somehow a similar situation arose where all other EU countries chose to agree to ratify a new treaty, it would no longer matter that Ireland voted no.

You posted 4 bullets points of text, I think people responded to all of them. No need to be nasty about it.

DaSilva

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

QMV (the term you are looking for) does not apply. This is not those on Council ratifying or the European parliament. This is individual member states ratifying via their own process. QMV apples to the legaslation process within the EU, the ratification of the treaties is not done through the same process, its essentially done above it as it is done directly between the member states.

Thanks, I'm still unsure of the answer to my question though. I was under the impression that a new treaty if Lisbon were passed, would not require unanimous agreement of member states.

You say treaty ratification will not use QMV. Is the procedure for treaty ratification changing?

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The worse case scenario is the one we are in at the moment. If after two years and there is only one member state who has not ratified, the issue is brought back to the European Council who discuss the problem and offer a solution.

that solution still cannot bypass the constitutional requirement, its meant to allow them to come to some comprimise like they have. They propose a gaurantee or future protocol to settle the unratified state's fears. In lisbon's case it was aboriton, neutrality and the commissioner, despite 2 of those 3 issues not having anything to do with Lisbon in the first place, hence why they are only gaurantee's rather then outright changes, because there is nothing to change. Take for example aboriton, we already have a protocol on abortion, there is no point getting a second that says the exact same thing.

Again thanks, though I really do understand that the Lisbon treaty will not affect our constitutional requirement to referendum for these things.

meglome wrote: »

You posted 4 bullets points of text, I think people responded to all of them. No need to be nasty about it.

Perhaps you missed my edit, although it is in your quote, but I did apologise for being 'nasty'. I posted a question on whether my 4 bullet points were accurate or not, I think nobody except Blitzkrieg responded to it.

Mario007

DaSilva wrote: »

Thanks, I'm still unsure of the answer to my question though. I was under the impression that a new treaty if Lisbon were passed, would not require unanimous agreement of member states.

You say treaty ratification will not use QMV. Is the procedure for treaty ratification changing?

no when it comes down to ratifying new treaties the article in lisbon is exactly the same as the article in nice. therefore again each country would have to ratify it before it could be implemented in the whole of eu. the QMV applies only in the council, and only to some areas.

Scofflaw

DaSilva wrote: »

Thanks, I'm still unsure of the answer to my question though. I was under the impression that a new treaty if Lisbon were passed, would not require unanimous agreement of member states.

You say treaty ratification will not use QMV. Is the procedure for treaty ratification changing?

The short answer to that is no. Each and every EU member state will continue to determine its own mechanisms for ratifying treaties. Those mechanisms aren't subject to the EU in any way, so there's no way Lisbon could change them.

Further, there is no change in Lisbon which sidesteps or skips the requirement for every member state to ratify before a treaty can come into force. Such a change has been suggested by certain commentators, but it goes against the whole voluntary spirit of EU membership.

So, briefly - no, Lisbon will not mean that future treaties come into force by any form of 'majority'. Every country ratifies, or the treaty fails.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DaSilva

Mario007 wrote: »

no when it comes down to ratifying new treaties the article in lisbon is exactly the same as the article in nice. therefore again each country would have to ratify it before it could be implemented in the whole of eu. the QMV applies only in the council, and only to some areas.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The short answer to that is no. Each and every EU member state will continue to determine its own mechanisms for ratifying treaties. Those mechanisms aren't subject to the EU in any way, so there's no way Lisbon could change them.

Further, there is no change in Lisbon which sidesteps or skips the requirement for every member state to ratify before a treaty can come into force. Such a change has been suggested by certain commentators, but it goes against the whole voluntary spirit of EU membership.

So, briefly - no, Lisbon will not mean that future treaties come into force by any form of 'majority'. Every country ratifies, or the treaty fails.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cool, thanks both of you. Ireland could then effectively prevent ratification of future treaties in this exact same way by voting no despite all other member states being in favour of the treaty? Reassuring.

To be honest I don't think I have any other major problems with the Lisbon in that case.

Mario007

DaSilva wrote: »

Cool, thanks both of you. Ireland could then effectively prevent ratification of future treaties in this exact same way by voting no despite all other member states being in favour of the treaty? Reassuring.

To be honest I don't think I have any other major problems with the Lisbon in that case.

yes you're right. ireland could just block it like this time around.

no problem and glad we could help(sorry if i speak for you too scoff)

P. Breathnach

DaSilva wrote: »

Cool, thanks both of you. Ireland could then effectively prevent ratification of future treaties in this exact same way by voting no despite all other member states being in favour of the treaty? Reassuring...

So Cóir, Joe Higgins, Declan Ganley, People Before Profit, Sinn Féin, Patricia McKenna, and the rest of them can have another day in the sun. And we'll all go through a fairly similar set of arguments yet again.

Plus ça change ...