Irish referendum irrelevant?

major bill

Seems the czechs are doing all they can to delay signing.

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/

View

major bill wrote: »

Seems the czechs are doing all they can to delay signing.

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/

Fair enough. That means all you No voters can vote Yes, let the Czech President block it, and then watch the Czechs - rather than us - take all the flak.

caseyann

View wrote: »

Fair enough. That means all you No voters can vote Yes, let the Czech President block it, and then watch the Czechs - rather than us - take all the flak.

See that is disturbing that you think by voting No there is flak to be taken :eek:

ei.sdraob

caseyann wrote: »

See that is disturbing that you think by voting No there is flak to be taken :eek:

you missed the obvious dig at the no side

wheres your sense of humor this afternoon

prinz

major bill wrote: »

Seems the czechs one czech is doing all he can to delay signing.

http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/

FYP.

Given that it's written by a euroseptic... smells funny to me.

caseyann

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you missed the obvious dig at the no side

wheres your sense of humor this afternoon

I got that :P
I am no side and i think View really believes it

ParkRunner

So when would the Lisbon Treaty come into force if the vote is yes?

major bill

EF wrote: »

So when would the Lisbon Treaty come into force if the vote is yes?

if the paper is to be believed your looking at another year minimum!

ei.sdraob

EF wrote: »

So when would the Lisbon Treaty come into force if the vote is yes?

once all countries ratify it

RandomName2

The idea is to give long enough for the British to get a vote.

That is, provided that Klaus doesn't get pushed out a window.

Damn - nobody here is going to get the historical reference!

---

-Quick, quick, push it through before some public get's a vote!
-Sir, Ireland constitutionally has to get a vote.
-Nuts! Well,if they reject it, we can just get them to vote again, like last time. And we all know how much they value their celtic tiger lifestyles. Let's just threaten to destroy their economy, and see how fast they sing.

ParkRunner

Seems like the democractic thing to do anyway, give the English people a vote!

RandomName2

EF wrote: »

Seems like the democractic thing to do anyway, give the English people a vote!

Ah, you see it's their own fault (apparently).

They elected a government that promised to give a referendum, but backed out because it realised that the public couldn't be trusted (after all, their being elected was testament to the public's poor judgement). Given that there are a number of european publics that are or leaning towards euroskepticism, the most important thing is for them to have as little influence over the direction of the EU as possible. Particularly since you could hardly run a campaign in the UK or France based solely on the grounds that they could become an isolated economic backwater if they misbehaved (which is why the EU Constitution was shelved).

Kev_ps3

EF wrote: »

Seems like the democractic thing to do anyway, give the English people a vote!

Give the people of Europe a vote - are you crazy:eek:

The Volt

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Give the people of Europe a vote - are you crazy:eek:

A vote on something we shouldn't have a vote on in the first place.

marco_polo

EF wrote: »

Seems like the democractic thing to do anyway, give the English people a vote!

It does? I would have thought the democratic thing to do would be to sign the bill that both Houses of the Czech parliament have ratified already (by the required constitutional majorities), and that the Courts have deemed to be constitutional.

http://www.radio.cz/en/article/116071

The Government is not best pleased:

Czech government statement on the ratification process for the Treaty of Lisbon
The Committee for the EU today discussed at government level the ratification process for the Treaty of Lisbon within the EU and in particular within the Czech Republic.


In this regard the government stresses that it is still ready to play an active part in this process and thus to continue to meet the joint commitment of all member states from the June European Council to complete ratification of the Treaty by the end of this year.

The parliamentary part of ratification was completed in May 2009, when the Senate expressed its agreement to the Treaty of Lisbon following that given by the Chamber of Deputies; in both cases this was past by a constitutional majority.
In an attempt to leave room for the proposal, notified some time earlier, by a group of senators for a further constitutional review of the Treaty, the Czech President has decided for the moment not to append his signature to the ratification document. The Czech Republic, together with Poland, Ireland and Germany, is thus one of the last countries in the European Union to complete the ratification process.

On the basis of a proposal by the Senate, the Treaty of Lisbon was the subject of a review last year by the Constitutional Court, and was not found to be in contravention of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. On 1st September 2009 a group of senators approached the Constitutional Court with a further submission which does not concern the Treaty of Lisbon as such, but the so-called "Lisbon Amendments to the Rules of Procedure".

This strengthens the role of parliament in decision-making on certain EU questions. A second submission against the Treaty of Lisbon has not yet been made to the Constitutional Court, although it has been repeatedly advised by the senators. The two proposals are not materially linked and thus there is nothing to prevent the proposal on the Treaty of Lisbon being submitted without further unnecessary delay.

Although the government considers the original finding of the Constitutional Court to be sufficient, it does not call into question the right of senators to subject the Treaty to a thorough legal and political review, as provided for in the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. In this regard the government nevertheless wishes to point out that any continuing deferral of the end of the ratification process would have a negative impact on the position and influence of the Czech Republic within the EU.

During its presidency of the EU Council the Czech Republic demonstrated its ability to be an active and responsible member state. It has convinced its European partners that it is a country which is able to constructively influence the direction of the entire European Union.

The government therefore believes that it will succeed in the near future in dispelling all remaining doubts about the conformity of the Treaty of Lisbon with the Czech Constitution, so that the ratification process can be successfully completed. The government is convinced that thanks to the reform of institutions and policies which the Treaty of Lisbon will bring about, the Union will operate more efficiently and that as a result its member states, including the Czech Republic, will be better able to meet new challenges.

RandomName2

Voltwad wrote: »

A vote on something we shouldn't have a vote on in the first place.

I don't think there should be Dail elections either. Sure it's almost always FF anyway. No reason not to make it permanent. They have done a reasonable job over the last 80 years. And besides which the public don't have any idea about anything, ever.

The Volt

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't think there should be Dail elections either. Sure it's almost always FF anyway. No reason not to make it permanent. They have done a reasonable job over the last 80 years. And besides which the public don't have any idea about anything, ever.

Completely different circumstances. General elections and complex referenda cannot be two eggs in the same proverbial basket.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

The idea is to give long enough for the British to get a vote.

That is, provided that Klaus doesn't get pushed out a window.

Damn - nobody here is going to get the historical reference!

---

-Quick, quick, push it through before some public get's a vote!
-Sir, Ireland constitutionally has to get a vote.
-Nuts! Well,if they reject it, we can just get them to vote again, like last time. And we all know how much they value their celtic tiger lifestyles. Let's just threaten to destroy their economy, and see how fast they sing.

The ancient Czech practice of defenestration does have a lot to be said for it.

roosh

Lets not go relying on the Czechs, lets send a clear message ourselves and instead of getting left behind, lets lead the way

K-9

EF wrote: »

Seems like the democractic thing to do anyway, give the English people a vote!

I wish they would too, but if everybody is being honest, they should have 3 options:

Lisbon,
Leave the old EEC,
Leave EEA.

I think it would come down to the last 2.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

lets send a clear message ourselves and instead of getting left behind, lets lead the way

what message would that be?

and lead the way towards what?

:rolleyes:

RandomName2

Voltwad wrote: »

Completely different circumstances. General elections and complex referenda cannot be two eggs in the same proverbial basket.

Voting on those who write bills, and vote on their ratification, and create budgets concerning public funds (and we elect them on the basis of what law and budgetary decisions they are supposed to make)

Compared to: voting on what competencies these law-makers and budgetary figures should have?

Wait - actually I would prefer just to have the latter option rather than be limited to the former.

RandomName2

Vote Yes to Europe. Not the EU?

Question: as Lisbon rewrites the EU, will it be just known as E from now on?

ECSC-EEC-EC-EU-E? :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

The idea is to give long enough for the British to get a vote.

That is, provided that Klaus doesn't get pushed out a window.

Damn - nobody here is going to get the historical reference!

How very Bohemian of you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Min

It was on RTE radio 1 on Sunday morning on the world report program.

David Cameron from the conservatives in the UK and President Klaus of the Czech republic had talks about the Lisbon treaty.
Cameron wants Klaus to delay the signing of the treaty if Ireland votes yes. The thing is while the president has to sign the treaty there is no legal time limit once it has been given the go ahead, it gives him the option of stalling so the UK can have a referendum.

It will be interesting to see their debate......

the_dark_side

This was just in todays paper
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

The idea is to give long enough for the British to get a vote.

That is, provided that Klaus doesn't get pushed out a window.

Damn - nobody here is going to get the historical reference!

It's been too long since we've seen a decent defenestration...

Elmo

Regardless of what the other European states are doing our "Referendui" are a complete waste of tax payer money, especially when the wrong side win which seems to be the NO side, can't imagine another ref with a YES vote, can you?

Scofflaw

the_dark_side wrote: »

This was just in todays paper
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/

In fact, it was in the paper a week ago, judging by the date on the blog. Unsurprisingly, there's an existing thread (now merged), with an almost identical title.

moderately,
Scofflaw

the_dark_side

Yip, I read it today... I spotted it while lighting the fire... If this latest revelation is true, where does it leave us? After going to all the trouble of reading the damn thing and everything

PopeBuckfastXVI

the_dark_side wrote: »

Yip, I read it today... I spotted it while lighting the fire... If this latest revelation is true, where does it leave us? After going to all the trouble of reading the damn thing and everything

It's for the Czechs to run their country. It leaves us in the exact same position as a week ago: preparing to decide Ireland's stance on the Lisbon treaty.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's for the Czechs to run their country. It leaves us in the exact same position as a week ago: preparing to decide Ireland's stance on the Lisbon treaty.

Damn right. After all who are we to tell other countries how to run themselves.

prinz

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's for the Czechs to run their country. It leaves us in the exact same position as a week ago: preparing to decide Ireland's stance on the Lisbon treaty.

It could be argued that the Czechs have agreed to Lisbon through the upper and lower houses of parliament there, just a quirk of Czech national law that means the president has to sign off on it. So it's less of a case of the Czechs deciding, and more of one man using his personal opinion to dictate to the entire EU. Of course that's their system and they're entitled to it, but part of the reason the EU exists was to stop that kind of thing.

hatrickpatrick

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah, you see it's their own fault (apparently).

They elected a government that promised to give a referendum, but backed out because it realised that the public couldn't be trusted (after all, their being elected was testament to the public's poor judgement).

Let's see how that sits with the people who worship representative democracy and claim that once you hand over the governance of your country for five years you have no right to any input at all on it until the next election. This government promised a referendum and is now refusing to give one.

Shouldn't this be completely banned and illegal if representative democracy is to work? Shouldn't it be absolutely mandatory that lies during election campaigns are simply not allowed?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Shouldn't it be absolutely mandatory that lies during election campaigns are simply not allowed?

Now there would be a seismic shift in the very nature of representative democracy...

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now there would be a seismic shift in the very nature of representative democracy...

And would it be a bad thing? It would actually put the democracy back into the phrase "representative democracy". you know - the people vote for the policies they want and the government put them into action. Unlike the present system of "The people vote for the policies they want and have a 10% chance of the government actually pursuing them instead of their own agenda", which isn't really very democratic at all...

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And would it be a bad thing?

Not per se, no. But it's idealistic enough to be impractical.

Mozart1986

prinz wrote: »

FYP.

Given that it's written by a euroseptic... smells funny to me.

You smell funny. Must be that stuff comin' out your mouth. The Czechs are MASSIVELY pro-American. They would vote NO quicker than we would, had they a referendum.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not per se, no. But it's idealistic enough to be impractical.

So you freely admit then that representative democracy is not at all democratic? The people should get what they vote for, surely that's the whole point... It would just mean that political parties couldn't make promises they can't keep. I fail to see how that's impractical.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you freely admit then that representative democracy is not at all democratic?

No, I don't. Representative democracy is a flawed way to run a country. Direct democracy is also a flawed way to run a country, as we can clearly see with this referendum campaign.

The people should get what they vote for, surely that's the whole point... It would just mean that political parties couldn't make promises they can't keep. I fail to see how that's impractical.

It's impractical because it fails to take into account the fact that circumstances may change between an election campaign and the time that policies come to be implemented. It gives the campaigner a stark choice between implementing policies that are disastrously flawed, simply because they were campaign promises, or not being able to promise anything at all, for fear of the repercussions should circumstances change.

marco_polo

Mozart1986 wrote: »

You smell funny. Must be that stuff comin' out your mouth. The Czechs are MASSIVELY pro-American. They would vote NO quicker than we would, had they a referendum.

Seems like it would have had at least a reasonable chance of being passed last year. Presumeably 1,341 Czechs are a better gauge than your opinion?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/lisbon_treaty_backed_in_czech_republic/

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's for the Czechs to run their country. It leaves us in the exact same position as a week ago: preparing to decide Ireland's stance on the Lisbon treaty.

Did we decide that a few months ago?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Elmo wrote: »

Did we decide that a few months ago?

Hmm you could be right, how about 'preparing to confirm or change Ireland's stance on the Lisbon treaty'?

The main point was that regardless of other countries, or other peoples, views, we should give our own.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I don't. Representative democracy is a flawed way to run a country. Direct democracy is also a flawed way to run a country, as we can clearly see with this referendum campaign. It's impractical because it fails to take into account the fact that circumstances may change between an election campaign and the time that policies come to be implemented. It gives the campaigner a stark choice between implementing policies that are disastrously flawed, simply because they were campaign promises, or not being able to promise anything at all, for fear of the repercussions should circumstances change.

And what circumstantial change per se has resulted in an excuse not to hold a referendum where one was promised? Do you really believe they ever intended to?

Elmo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hmm you could be right, how about 'preparing to confirm or change Ireland's stance on the Lisbon treaty'?

The main point was that regardless of other countries, or other peoples, views, we should give our own.

And if we say NO do we do it again and have money spent on asking why people vote NO?

Why didn't they do this to the French or the Dutch? It is total undemocratic to bring the same treaty to the people without as much effort up into re-negotiating the treaty, regardless of the superficial "guarantees".

Lisbon will be changed in about a year, the governments of Europe know that their will be another Irish ref in 2012 for another treaty. Why rush this one through? Lets look at the next one, lets inform ourselves now, lets openly negotiate with all of the people of Europe.

This is a ridiculous vote from anyones stand point. Weather your a federalist or weather you think governments should take responsibility for their own mistakes.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And what circumstantial change per se has resulted in an excuse not to hold a referendum where one was promised? Do you really believe they ever intended to?

I was arguing the general case, not the specific. I hope I never have to try to explain why an Irish (let alone a Czech) government failed to live up to an election promise.

Politicians promise things, and don't deliver them. That's the nature of politicians. If you want to make that illegal, you'll have to make it illegal for politicians to promise things.

It would make for calmer elections, I'll grant you that.

Scofflaw

Elmo wrote: »

And if we say NO do we do it again and have money spent on asking why people vote NO?

Why didn't they do this to the French or the Dutch? It is total undemocratic to bring the same treaty to the people without as much effort up into re-negotiating the treaty, regardless of the superficial "guarantees".

Lisbon will be changed in about a year, the governments of Europe know that their will be another Irish ref in 2012 for another treaty. Why rush this one through? Lets look at the next one, lets inform ourselves now, lets openly negotiate with all of the people of Europe.

I confess to cynicism in the face of this noble ideal. The thing is, you see, that it's really quite possible to get involved in European consultations - you can even do it online. It was also possible to get involved in the process that led through the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty. Yet, outside the circles of the despised 'elites', who bothered?

cynically,
Scofflaw

Elmo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I confess to cynicism in the face of this noble ideal. The thing is, you see, that it's really quite possible to get involved in European consultations - you can even do it online. It was also possible to get involved in the process that led through the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty. Yet, outside the circles of the despised 'elites', who bothered?

cynically,
Scofflaw

People go out and vote, they take an interest in these so called "elites" they vote for them they ask them to take care of Europe. And then you suggest that it is better that these so called "elites" send people like Peter Mandelson and Charlie McCreevy off to be commissioners god only knows who the Italians want to get rid off.

I am sorry but we are interest. Perhaps the "elites" who know best start to act interest in people rather than money.

utick

so the brits may get a 2nd chance at democracy just like ireland, sure why not just ask every coubntry to vote twice to seen as 2 votes is more democratic than 1

Elmo

utick wrote: »

so the brits may get a 2nd chance at democracy just like ireland, sure why not just ask every coubntry to vote twice to seen as 2 votes is more democratic than 1

Let them say NO first before giving them a second go.

utick

Elmo wrote: »

Let them say NO first before giving them a second go.

well didnt there elected representitves already vote in favour of it? if ireland is allowed to change its mind on the treaty so should other countries