Constitutionally Challenged ?

Ronin247

Can a "yes" vote be challenged under our constitution because a "yes" vote would be final whereas a "no" vote wasn't thus meaning that a different weight is given to each answer?
I know there was a constitutional challenge launched on different issues which was defeated for various reasons but it seems unfair to me that one vote would carry more weight.

It is strange that a document which is supposed to increase democracy can be pushed forward in such an undemocratic manner.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Feel free to challenge it. I'd be very interested in the outcome of such a case.

ixtlan

A yes vote is not really "final". We can seek changes in any future treaty, and if we really cannot live with any new EU rules, we can always withdraw.

Ix

humanji

Ronin247 wrote: »

Can a "yes" vote be challenged under our constitution because a "yes" vote would be final whereas a "no" vote wasn't thus meaning that a different weight is given to each answer?
I know there was a constitutional challenge launched on different issues which was defeated for various reasons but it seems unfair to me that one vote would carry more weight.

It is strange that a document which is supposed to increase democracy can be pushed forward in such an undemocratic manner.

A referendom isn't undemocratic. And I can't see a Yes vote being challenged because it is the will of the people. "But," I hear you cry, "the people already voted No! That was the will of the people." Well, it was. But things can change. If the peoples will changes, then so can the referendom result. If not, it'll stay the same.

The government having another vote isn't undemocratic, it's just unfair. But that's what happens when you let people like that in government.

Daftendirekt

If we elect a government who wants to de-ratify Lisbon, there's nothing to stop them from either

A) Pushing to have the parts they don't like changed.

Holding another referendum to remove the amendment to our Constitution that allows Lisbon to be ratified, hence undoing the result of this referendum.

jhegarty

Daftendirekt wrote: »

If we elect a government who wants to de-ratify Lisbon, there's nothing to stop them from either

How does one de-ratify a treaty ?

humanji

jhegarty wrote: »

How does one de-ratify a treaty ?

With some cheese and a hammer.

jhegarty

humanji wrote: »

With some cheese and a hammer.

lol, excellent !

prinz

jhegarty wrote: »

How does one de-ratify a treaty ?

You hold another referendum and revert the changes being proposed now. Simple. Of course we could go the whole way and withdraw totally from the E.U., but at present there is no procedures for how a withdrawal can be handled relatively easily. Guess what, the easy exit plan is contained within the Lisbon Treaty :eek:. Now there's a pickle.

turgon

Im sure if you try and elect Sinn Fein they may initiate a referendum on getting the Lisbon treaty de-ratified as such. However they wouldn't want that because they are "pro-EU"

MrMatisse

prinz wrote: »

You hold another referendum and revert the changes being proposed now. Simple. Of course we could go the whole way and withdraw totally from the E.U., but at present there is no procedures for how a withdrawal can be handled relatively easily. Guess what, the easy exit plan is contained within the Lisbon Treaty :eek:. Now there's a pickle.

Ive always found it funny that people say there are no procedures to withdraw from the eu at the moment so this is a plus.

How about we just say im off, honestly what are they going to do.
Invade us?

Although with the mutual defence pact they all have now that could be a big problem:D

PopeBuckfastXVI

Lisbon adds formal procedures for securing free trade to the EU after leaving.

Obviously right now you can tear up the treaties and walk out.

marco_polo

All our constitution states it that we agree to be bound by the current laws of the EU. The opposite to that is to no longer agree to be bound by those laws.

Certainly we could undo the changes to our constitution but the club we would then be consenting to membership of no longer exists. And we would have to negotiate some other form of arrangeement.

No more than we can go back to the EEC or the EC or the pre Nice EU or the League of Nations, we cannot go back to a pre Lisbon EU.

Big Deal.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

All our constitution states it that we agree to be bound by the current laws of the EU. The opposite to that is to no longer agree to be bound by those laws.

Certainly we could undo the changes to our constitution but the club we would then be consenting to membership of no longer exists. And we would have to negotiate some other form of arrangeement.

No more than we can go back to the EEC or the EC or the pre Nice EU or the League of Nations, we cannot go back to a pre Lisbon EU.

Big Deal.

Well, to be technically correct, we can go forward to a pre Lisbon EU, if we make future amendments to the treaties which have the effect of reversing the Lisbon changes.

prinz

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Ive always found it funny that people say there are no procedures to withdraw from the eu at the moment so this is a plus.

No procedures to do it in a relatively easy fashion. Please don't be picky with your quotes. It can be done but would be a messy job legally.

Really-Stressed wrote: »

How about we just say im off, honestly what are they going to do.

We have signed up to major international Treaties and agreements, do you think nothing would happen if we just opted out in the morning? Same as any contract there would be serious ramifications. I should just tell the bank I'm not paying my mortgage anymore... I should just tell the ESB I am not paying for electricity anymore.......

On a very simple and basic level, the front of my passport has EUROPEAN UNION across the top of it. If we leave the Union I could foresee all passports such as mine being rendered immediately invalid for travel outside of this country. How long do you think it would take to sort that mess out?

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well, to be technically correct, we can go forward to a pre Lisbon EU, if we make future amendments to the treaties which have the effect of reversing the Lisbon changes.

This is more confusing than Back to the Future 2

Indeed your are correct sir. Being in the Software Business I think in terms of rollbacks.

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

No procedures to do it in a relatively easy fashion. Please don't be picky with your quotes. It can be done but would be a messy job legally.

and without killing all the business in this country overnight

suppose thats exactly what the communists, socialists and sinn fein want to accomplish anwyays

/

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

This is more confusing than Back to the Future 2

Indeed your are correct sir. Being in the Software Business I think in terms of rollbacks.

Snap... but I also think about patches

Furious-Dave

prinz wrote: »

How long do you think it would take to sort that mess out?

And how much of the tax payers money would have to be spent making new passports? Tax payers money that should be put to good uses like...putting me through college

hatrickpatrick

Once again in this thread people assume that by rejecting Lisbon we'd be happy to withdraw from the EU. I for one am absolutely disgusted by that assumption. It's like saying "We don't agree with the proposed new blasphemy law in Ireland therefore we should just leave the country instead of voting against it!"

...Democracy, anyone? Vote yes to a major change to the nature of the EU or get out of it? doesn't sound very democratic to me...

MrMatisse

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again in this thread people assume that by rejecting Lisbon we'd be happy to withdraw from the EU. I for one am absolutely disgusted by that assumption. It's like saying "We don't agree with the proposed new blasphemy law in Ireland therefore we should just leave the country instead of voting against it!"

...Democracy, anyone? Vote yes to a major change to the nature of the EU or get out of it? doesn't sound very democratic to me...

+1

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again in this thread people assume that by rejecting Lisbon we'd be happy to withdraw from the EU. I for one am absolutely disgusted by that assumption. It's like saying "We don't agree with the proposed new blasphemy law in Ireland therefore we should just leave the country instead of voting against it!"

...Democracy, anyone? Vote yes to a major change to the nature of the EU or get out of it? doesn't sound very democratic to me...

Actually, what's being postulated is that if we do ratify Lisbon and for some reason we felt a national imperative to remove ourselves from the changes contained therein, without waiting to negotiate the reversal of the changes, a mechanism will exist to give us the option of leaving while allowing us to establish trading arrangements with relative ease.

Again, this is in the event we vote yes to Lisbon.

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again in this thread people assume that by rejecting Lisbon we'd be happy to withdraw from the EU. I for one am absolutely disgusted by that assumption. It's like saying "We don't agree with the proposed new blasphemy law in Ireland therefore we should just leave the country instead of voting against it!"

...Democracy, anyone? Vote yes to a major change to the nature of the EU or get out of it? doesn't sound very democratic to me...

Once more a giant Yes strawman is erected. The discussion is about a hypothetical post ratification scenario.

MrMatisse

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and without killing all the business in this country overnight

suppose thats exactly what the communists, socialists and sinn fein want to accomplish anwyays

/

A slight exaggeration perhaps.

The wall street journal would disagree too.

But then again thats owned by Rupert Murdoch well known communist and anti business radical.

prinz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again in this thread people assume that by rejecting Lisbon we'd be happy to withdraw from the EU....

You see this was in reply to comments made such as "if we vote yes, that decision can never be reversed" etc. Point being nothing is final.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...Democracy, anyone? Vote yes to a major change to the nature of the EU or get out of it? doesn't sound very democratic to me...

No one is saying they're the only options. But many people in here barely hide their anti-EU feeling even though they usually preface what they say with 'I'm not anti-EU but...'.

MrMatisse

marco_polo wrote: »

Once more a giant Yes strawman is erected. The discussion is about a hypothetical post ratification scenario.

Its important to discuss the possible consequences of a vote.

MrMatisse

meglome wrote: »

No one is saying they're the only options. But many people in here barely hide their anti-EU feeling even though they usually say 'I'm not anti-EU but...'.

Im not anti EU.

I lived all over it.

Being against one of their proposals does not make you anti eu.

Thats like saying being anti NAMA is being anti Ireland.

Schoolyard logic.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Its important to discuss the possible consequences of a vote.

We were discussing the possible consequences of a yes vote, when hatrickpatrick launched into histrionics at this attack on his right to vote no, and remain within the Union.

ei.sdraob

Really-Stressed wrote: »

A slight exaggeration perhaps.

The wall street journal would disagree too.

But then again thats owned by Rupert Murdoch well known communist and anti business radical.

please point to a wall street article

that shows that irish economy would not be affected by this hypothetical scenario being constructed of us having to withdraw for some reason

/

marco_polo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Its important to discuss the possible consequences of a vote.

You need to read the post I was replying to for the full context.

hatrickpatrick

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We were discussing the possible consequences of a yes vote, when hatrickpatrick launched into histrionics at this attack on his right to vote no, and remain within the Union.

The implication I always read from this type of argument is "If you want to vote no, why don't you just vote yes and propose we leave the EU? It's easier to leave if we vote yes". It's no strawman. Take a quick look around on boards and in this thread and you will see this being implied. Now I am indeed sorry if I interpreted it wrong, but I really am sick of seeing this (a different kind of strawman) being posted "No voters = people who want to leave the EU and should therefore vote yes so we can". I am utterly opposed to this political treaty and utterly in favour of the EU as an economic union and common market. So are most undecided or no voters I know of. So next time you see someone advocating a no vote, don't automatically think "someone who wants Ireland to leave the EU?". It's a massive, massive insult.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The implication I always read from this type of argument is "If you want to vote no, why don't you just vote yes and propose we leave the EU? It's easier to leave if we vote yes". It's no strawman. Take a quick look around on boards and in this thread and you will see this being implied. Now I am indeed sorry if I interpreted it wrong, but I really am sick of seeing this (a different kind of strawman) being posted "No voters = people who want to leave the EU and should therefore vote yes so we can". I am utterly opposed to this political treaty and utterly in favour of the EU as an economic union and common market. So are most undecided or no voters I know of. So next time you see someone advocating a no vote, don't automatically think "someone who wants Ireland to leave the EU?". It's a massive, massive insult.

Well, once again, that wasn't what we were talking about.

However.

Lie down with dogs...

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The implication I always read from this type of argument is "If you want to vote no, why don't you just vote yes and propose we leave the EU? It's easier to leave if we vote yes". It's no strawman. Take a quick look around on boards and in this thread and you will see this being implied. Now I am indeed sorry if I interpreted it wrong, but I really am sick of seeing this (a different kind of strawman) being posted "No voters = people who want to leave the EU and should therefore vote yes so we can". I am utterly opposed to this political treaty and utterly in favour of the EU as an economic union and common market. So are most undecided or no voters I know of. So next time you see someone advocating a no vote, don't automatically think "someone who wants Ireland to leave the EU?". It's a massive, massive insult.

I have seen that said a couple of times at the most in this forum, always clearly aimied at posters who without any doubt anti-EU. But that is not what we are talking about here.

Incidendly the organisation you want us to be a part of (the EC) of hasn't existed since about 1993.

Ronin247

Well I am glad that has been cleared up for me...............

I am very pro European but anti Lisbon,I suspect the larger nations will use it to push themselves on at our expense such as Poland poaching Dell from us with multimillion bribes of our own money(thats my opinion anyway).

I think that access to our fishing rights has more than paid for any money we got for our roads or farming, its just that our own inept politicians,of all ilks, didnt get to squander it all before it did some good.

oscarBravo

Ronin247 wrote: »

I am very pro European but anti Lisbon...

Why?

I think that access to our fishing rights has more than paid for any money we got for our roads or farming...

Not by a country mile.

meglome

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Im not anti EU.

I lived all over it.

Being against one of their proposals does not make you anti eu.

Thats like saying being anti NAMA is being anti Ireland.

Schoolyard logic.

And yet I can't figure out why you're voting No.