Should the rest of Europe get to vote on this treaty?

waitinforatrain

After putting a lot of effort into studying the facts behind the treaty and wading through the blatant lies, do you think that it's fair for Ireland to be deciding such an important treaty alone? Are there calls in other countries (besides UK) for a referendum?

mickoneill30

waitinforatrain wrote: »

do you think that it's fair for Ireland to be deciding such an important treaty alone?

We're not. Every country has their own ways of ratifying this treaty.
Do you think it's fair to tell other countries that their way is wrong?

My name is URL

I'd imagine that most people would want to have a say on it

That won't matter to the people here though, because they only want the integration of governments.. they don't seem to care about the people's wishes

faux democracy ftl

mickoneill30

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd imagine that most people would want to have a say on it

That won't matter to the people here though, because they only want the integration of governments.. they don't seem to care about the people's wishes

The people voted for their own governments as far as I'm aware.

xardoxify

Referendums are illegal in Germany and in the UK the result of a referendum is not constitutionaly binding so no government now or in the future has to act on its result, a UK referendum would be nothing more than an expensive opinion poll.

marco_polo

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd imagine that most people would want to have a say on it

That won't matter to the people here though, because they only want the integration of governments. they don't seem to care about the people's wishes

faux democracy ftl

Nobody here is opposed to any country having a referendum on the Treaty, so let us kill that straw man right there.. It is simply that is is not for us to dictate either way.

The same people who are protesting at us being 'forced to vote' again, are showing a distinctly high level of hypocracy on this issue.

The Germans were so outraged they elected the same Government again.

marco_polo

xardoxify wrote: »

Referendums are illegal in Germany and in the UK the result of a referendum is not constitutionaly binding so no government now or in the future has to act on its result, a UK referendum would be nothing more than an expensive opinion poll.

In addition they are not binding in the Netherlands, and referendums on Foreign policy are not legal in Italy either.

Biggins

mickoneill30 wrote: »

...Do you think it's fair to tell other countries that their way is wrong?

O' you mean like China, Zimbabwe, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, and on and on and on...

We can bring them up and mention them when something is unjust and/or wrong but hell, speak up and try and give our European partners a voice and vote too and let them have an say?
O' no, that would be wrong! :rolleyes:

My name is URL

marco_polo wrote: »

Nobody here is opposed to any country having a referendum on the Treaty, so let us kill that straw man right there.. It is simply that is is not for us to dictate either way.

The same people who are protesting at us being 'forced to vote' again, are showing a distinctly high level of hypocracy on this issue.

We can't dictate that they should have a say, but we are in a position to acknowledge the unfair nature of how this Treaty is been introduced, and use our vote to hammer that point home

Sure the people elect their MEPs, so what does that mean..? That accountability rests with them regardless of them having no say in the matters which their elected representatives are involved with.

It's always been one of my main reasons for voting No.. more power to the people, not the fatcats making decisions on their behalf

mickoneill30

Biggins wrote: »

O' you mean like China, Zimbabwe, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, North Korea, and on and on and on...

We can bring them up and mention them when something is unjust and/or wrong but hell, speak up and try and give our European partners a voice and vote too and let them have an say?
O' no, that would be wrong! :rolleyes:

WTF? We should be telling countries in Europe how to run their governments? That sounds more undemocratic to me.

Is that anyway similar to the problems in the countries you've listed above.

meglome

Before I got involved in the Lisbon 2 debate on boards.ie I would have said yes it's a very good idea for all EU country's to have a referendum on it. Now on the other hand I know it's a terrible idea and would cause the EU to basically collapse.

Remember if Johnny from Blanch was getting a legal contract for something more than say 20 pages he'd get a solicitor to look at it and evaluate it. But the Lisbon treaty is hundreds of pages and Johnny is expected to understand and vote on the contents. What often happens is Johnny will listen to Micko down the road who hasn't read it either but is positive it will do bad things. And this is without the nutjobs like Cóir crawling out of the woodwork.

I can see clearly why binding referenda are banned in some country's.

mickoneill30

meglome wrote: »

What often happens is Johnny will listen to Micko down the road who hasn't read it either but is positive it will do bad things.

I'm not happy with your choice of names there. :P

humanji

Personally, I don't like the idea of us voting for the thing. Yes, we can go on and on about how it's our democratic right or how we'll be abused by "fat cats". But considering how many people don't understand the thing and point blank refuse to find out about it (yet still feel they must vote No because they hate Europe, or vote Yes because Daddy is too etc).

I'd like a happy medium though. Something where the people can voice their concerns and these concerns would have to be addressed before the elected representatives ratify or refuse to ratify anything.

marco_polo

My name is URL wrote: »

We can't dictate that they should have a say, but we are in a position to acknowledge the unfair nature of how this Treaty is been introduced, and use our vote to hammer that point home

Sure the people elect their MEPs, so what does that mean..? That accountability rests with them regardless of them having no say in the matters which their elected representatives are involved with.

It's always been one of my main reasons for voting No.. more power to the people, not the fatcats making decisions on their behalf

And what about if we vote No, a new treaty is negotiated some years down the line and the majority of countries ratify by parliament again, as they have always done? Shall we vote no again untill they get it right?

The fact is the exact same amount of referenda were held for the Nice Treaty as for Lisbon.

Interesting aside Denmark will be holding a referendm on the Euro in 2010, so clearly this is considered an issue of much greater national importance that a relatively benign reform treaty.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,602897,00.html


Same story with Sweeden, no referendum on Nice but one on the Euro the year after.

jhegarty

xardoxify wrote: »

Referendums are illegal in Germany.

Interesting , I must admit I didn't know that.

wylo

I dont even think the majority of people in other countries even care to be honest. Even though theres talk of UK wanting a referendum etc, theres absolutely no mention of the voting in any of its news channels today.

Its more easy to find info on David Letterman being blackmailed than it is to find foreign reports on todays referendum.

Its not like this forum or even the rest of the country has been exactly bombarded with foriegners trying to campaign.

ixtlan

wylo wrote: »

Even though theres talk of UK wanting a referendum etc, theres absolutely no mention of the voting in any of its news channels today.

Indeed. Although it's likely people in the UK would vote no, it's also the case that very very few of them know how the EU works. Also, even though they would vote no and appear to be Euroskeptic, it's unlikely to be a general election issue. It will be interesting to see.

In Germany obviously it was not a general election issue...

Ix.

jhegarty

The issue with the UK is that it wasn't a election issue last time because both parties promised a vote on the European constitution.

Of course when it became Lisbon the government said there was no need for a vote.

ixtlan

jhegarty wrote: »

Of course when it became Lisbon the government said there was no need for a vote.

Strictly speaking of course they were legally correct that there was no need for a vote once the constitutional language was removed. Whether it was ethically/politically the correct decision is debatable.

The problem remains for the UK that people will vote no just because it is the EU without understanding what it is about. I was in the UK last week and someone I met said I hope you vote no to Lisbon... but then had absolutely no idea why I should vote no or what Lisbon was about. EU=bad... that was the basis.

Given a referendum the UK might even vote to withdraw from the EU, regardless of whether it was in their best interests or not. I have no easy answer for this. Should they get a vote? It's up to them to make it an election issue. I suspect that if Cameron was elected he would not guarantee to put future treaties to a vote...

Ix.

ei.sdraob

jhegarty wrote: »

Interesting , I must admit I didn't know that.

yea due to a certain fella called Adolf who used referendums to gain more power

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Stimmzettel-Anschluss.jpg


and they are also not allowed in Italy on foreign matters, due to another fella called Mussolini

Max Power1

of course - it should have been put to an EU-wide referendum. All these Yes pushers that are pro EU integration - theres a perfect situation to get interacting with the whole of Europe, lets all have a referendum the same day.

Why does this not happen you ask? Well the treaty hasnt a hope of being passed!

marco_polo

Max Power1 wrote: »

of course - it should have been put to an EU-wide referendum. All these Yes pushers that are pro EU integration - theres a perfect situation to get interacting with the whole of Europe, lets all have a referendum the same day.

Why does this not happen you ask? Well the treaty hasnt a hope of being passed!

A Europe wide referendum sounds a bit too federalist for my liking.

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

of course - it should have been put to an EU-wide referendum. All these Yes pushers that are pro EU integration - theres a perfect situation to get interacting with the whole of Europe, lets all have a referendum the same day.

Why does this not happen you ask? Well the treaty hasnt a hope of being passed!

Or maybe they realise there's no point in asking the people because the majority don't give a f*ck, as they have elected people to take care of these things for them.

Max Power1

humanji wrote: »

Or maybe they realise there's no point in asking the people because the majority don't give a f*ck, as they have elected people to take care of these things for them.

I would beg to differ. Im sure a lot of EU skeptics in say the UK for example would be quite pleased to have the chance to vote on Lisbon.

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

of course - it should have been put to an EU-wide referendum. All these Yes pushers that are pro EU integration - theres a perfect situation to get interacting with the whole of Europe, lets all have a referendum the same day.

Why does this not happen you ask? Well the treaty hasnt a hope of being passed!

So you have no idea why some country's have banned binding referenda? You haven't been watching this campaign then?

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

I would beg to differ. Im sure a lot of EU skeptics in say the UK for example would be quite pleased to have the chance to vote on Lisbon.

The UK could easily be foolish enough to leave the EU, but that wouldn't make it a good idea in real life. The EU has been good for all the EU nations but that doesn't take away nationalistic stupidity.

Max Power1

meglome wrote: »

So you have no idea why some country's have banned binding referenda? You haven't been watching this campaign then?

Indeed I have.

It was a hypothetical question.

hatrickpatrick

Well I believe in direct democracy so in my political view a vote in parliament and a referendum should be the same thing...

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

I would beg to differ. Im sure a lot of EU skeptics in say the UK for example would be quite pleased to have the chance to vote on Lisbon.

Are they the majority in Europe?

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I believe in direct democracy so in my political view a vote in parliament and a referendum should be the same thing...

But not too much Direct democracy because that would be undemocratic.

thecornerboy

mickoneill30 wrote: »

We're not. Every country has their own ways of ratifying this treaty.
Do you think it's fair to tell other countries that their way is wrong?

This is satire right?

You're saying that holding an opinion that other nation states should hold a referendum on an issue of great importance to them is "telling other countries that their way is wrong".

What planet do you Yes-EU loons come from.

Max Power1

humanji wrote: »

Are they the majority in Europe?

Now you're just being pedantic.

Although I had used the UK, (as it is one of the more anti-eu countries) given that a very similar document was rejected in Holland and France in the last 5 years - yes, i do think it would be voted down. As has been mentioned by myself already, it doesnt matter as several member states dont allow referenda on foreign policy. (which is quite un-democratic imho)

marco_polo

thecornerboy wrote: »

This is satire right?

You're saying that holding an opinion that other nation states should hold a referendum on an issue of great importance to them is "telling other countries that their way is wrong".

What planet do you Yes-EU loons come from.

No but wasting your vote in your own referendum because of that opinion sure is.

Max Power1

thecornerboy wrote: »

This is satire right?

You're saying that holding an opinion that other nation states should hold a referendum on an issue of great importance to them is "telling other countries that their way is wrong".

What planet do you Yes-EU loons come from.

I'd imagine its the same planet where a yes vote results in automatic economic recovery starting next monday, and a no vote results in major job losses and Ireland being kicked out of the EU. :rolleyes:

Mark200

wylo wrote: »

I dont even think the majority of people in other countries even care to be honest. Even though theres talk of UK wanting a referendum etc, theres absolutely no mention of the voting in any of its news channels today.

Sky News mentioned it several times in the half hour I was watching it before I left this morning. They also had Declan Ganley (:rolleyes:) and a Yes supporter on for a few minutes last night to talk about it.

Max Power1 wrote: »

of course - it should have been put to an EU-wide referendum. All these Yes pushers that are pro EU integration - theres a perfect situation to get interacting with the whole of Europe, lets all have a referendum the same day.

Why does this not happen you ask? Well the treaty hasnt a hope of being passed!

If every country has to ratify it independently by a vote/referendum, then even the most simple of treaties would have a lot of trouble passing. Even if you had a treaty offering a million Euro of newly found money to every single citizen with no strings attached, you're bound to get at least one or two countries that'll vote no regardless. It'd be like picking 27 members of the public randomly off the street, you're unlikely to get them all to agree on any issue, regardless of what it is. It's different when you have Governments taking control of passing legislation because they actually know what they're voting on and have more understanding than the majority of the people who would be asked to vote on it.

thecornerboy wrote: »

This is satire right?

You're saying that holding an opinion that other nation states should hold a referendum on an issue of great importance to them is "telling other countries that their way is wrong".

What planet do you Yes-EU loons come from.

I don't see any connection between holding that opinion and wanting a Yes vote for the Lisbon treaty.

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

I'd imagine its the same planet where a yes vote results in automatic economic recovery starting next monday, and a no vote results in major job losses and Ireland being kicked out of the EU. :rolleyes:

Yes if you straw man what they're saying you can indeed make it appear ridiculous

marco_polo

Essentially what we have is.

1) Direct democracy is the only legitimate form of democracy that can accurately reflect the will of the people on a particular issue.

2) I am voting no to the Lisbon treaty, not because of what it is in it, but because nobody else got a vote.

I just cannot square that circle.

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes if you straw man what they're saying you can indeed make it appear ridiculous

Well its hardly misrepresentng what the yes pushers are saying? "Yes to jobs" "Yes to recovery" etc is plain as day

And yes it is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as that fact that people fall for this BS

Rb

Saying that the rest of Europe should hold a referendum, as opposed to their own democratically decided way of ratifying it, is horribly undemocractic and shows absolutely no respect for those who value said democracy in their respective country.

Yet, you only hear No voters pushing for it. You couldn't make it up.

thecornerboy

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes if you straw man what they're saying you can indeed make it appear ridiculous

To be fair, that's the picture being painted by the YES side, not just some of them but by every group who seems to want to vote YES.

The ECB are going to turn into Mafia loan sharks overnight if we vote No, 250,000 job ads are magically going to appear in tomorrows' newspapers, we're going to be kicked out of the EU if we vote no or we'll be on the wrong side of a 2-tier EU, multinationals will flee (notwithstanding strong evidence multinationals will do better out of Ireland in the long term with a no vote to Lisbon) Ireland tomorrow if there's a no Vote, our babies will be born with 6 toes, we'll get 17 minutes less daylight per day. Okay, the last 2 may not be true.

No reasons, no analysis that would lead to any of these conclusions is ever offered. I've asked, maybe 20 people, some of them political party people, if they could give me 1 good reason why we should vote Yes. Not one has given a proper answer, most waffle something and include Coir and Declan Ganley in the answer.

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

Now you're just being pedantic.

Although I had used the UK, (as it is one of the more anti-eu countries) given that a very similar document was rejected in Holland and France in the last 5 years - yes, i do think it would be voted down. As has been mentioned by myself already, it doesnt matter as several member states dont allow referenda on foreign policy. (which is quite un-democratic imho)

I'm sorry if I seem pedantic, but it's a valid point that the majority of people in Europe don't know or care about the treaty. It really is irrelevant to our day to day life. If everyone could make a genuine effort to inform themselves on the exact contents of the treaty, then there would be a point in having a Europe wide vote. But because so many people don't bother and simply listen to whoever shouts loudest, then the results will always be skewed.

People have been tricked into thinking this is a life changing event. The world will keep on turning no matter what the result. Wait till the results come out and you'll see a high percentage of people not voting.

Also, a full European vote may be democratic, but is it really fair? I mean, after the treaty was ratified in Germany they re-elected the same people to government. So that to me is an indication of a majority Yes vote for Germany (if they were against it, surely they'd vote in someone else?). And since there's plenty more people in Germany than Ireland, and saying that there would be a slight majority of say 51% who would vote yes, then even if everyone in Ireland voted No, we'd be out-voted by Germany, completely. How would that be fair if they were only voting because Lisbon directly benefits them? Hell, that's the whole reason the QMV is to be upgraded. It's to sp unfair voting like that.

And I'm sure we're all sick of it being pointed out by now, but Hitler is a perfect example of this system being abused.

Max Power1

marco_polo wrote: »

Essentially what we have is.


2) I am voting no to the Lisbon treaty, not because of what it is in it, but because nobody else got a vote.

I just cannot square that circle.

well actually, as I have already explained here I have good reason to vote NO, and the fact that there isnt an EU wide referendum isnt one of them

hatrickpatrick

marco_polo wrote: »

But not too much Direct democracy because that would be undemocratic.

How so? The will of the people.

Everyone here knows I'm an old fashioned liberal. The government should have no say on any matters which only affect the people involved in them, in my view. As long as something is consensual between all parties involved it should be allowed. That's the one rule I believe democracy shouldn't be allowed to touch. Everything else should be up for decision by the people, and only by the people.

It's my opinion. I'm not saying it's right or anything, but the thread asked us for our opinions so I'm giving them. Signing away national sovereignty affects everyone in a given country, therefore everyone should have a vote on it.

Max Power1

humanji wrote: »

Also, a full European vote may be democratic, but is it really fair? I mean, after the treaty was ratified in Germany they re-elected the same people to government. So that to me is an indication of a majority Yes vote for Germany (if they were against it, surely they'd vote in someone else?). And since there's plenty more people in Germany than Ireland, and saying that there would be a slight majority of say 51% who would vote yes, then even if everyone in Ireland voted No, we'd be out-voted by Germany, completely. How would that be fair if they were only voting because Lisbon directly benefits them? Hell, that's the whole reason the QMV is to be upgraded. It's to sp unfair voting like that.

And I'm sure we're all sick of it being pointed out by now, but Hitler is a perfect example of this system being abused.

So what you are saying, is that a referendum in 1 (tiny)country is fairer than an EU wide referendum?

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

Well its hardly misrepresentng what the yes pushers are saying? "Yes to jobs" "Yes to recovery" etc is plain as day

And yes it is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as that fact that people fall for this BS

The problem here is you've assumed that recovery starts on Monday and that if yes means jobs then no means massive job losses. Both are straw men.

Put simply a yes vote creates confidence for the whole of Europe and shows Ireland to be pro-EU and willing to play ball with its neighbours where a no vote creates uncertainty about the future of the EU and Ireland's place in it because it makes it seem that we see the EU as an organisation that does not share our goals and is not acting in the interests of the Irish state.

Confidence fuels recovery and uncertainty fuels recessions but no one's saying that recovery starts Monday or that there will be massive job losses because of a no vote, just that it will make it more difficult

humanji

thecornerboy wrote: »

To be fair, that's the picture being painted by the YES side, not just some of them but by every group who seems to want to vote YES.

The ECB are going to turn into Mafia loan sharks overnight if we vote No, 250,000 job ads are magically going to appear in tomorrows' newspapers, we're going to be kicked out of the EU if we vote no or we'll be on the wrong side of a 2-tier EU, multinationals will flee (notwithstanding strong evidence multinationals will do better out of Ireland in the long term with a no vote to Lisbon) Ireland tomorrow if there's a no Vote, our babies will be born with 6 toes, we'll get 17 minutes less daylight per day. Okay, the last 2 may not be true.

No reasons, no analysis that would lead to any of these conclusions is ever offered. I've asked, maybe 20 people, some of them political party people, if they could give me 1 good reason why we should vote Yes. Not one has given a proper answer, most waffle something and include Coir and Declan Ganley in the answer.

I know it's wasted on you as you're simply not goingt o change your mind, but here are actual, genuine reasons to vote yes, and unlike the no reason, these really do involve the Lisbon Treaty.

It's only the No campaign that say there are no reasons to vote Yes. And no matter how many times the reasons are presented, they ignore them and go on about how the Yes side are just scaremongering.

Max Power1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem here is you've assumed that recovery starts on Monday and that if yes means jobs then no means massive job losses. Both are straw men.

Put simply a yes vote creates confidence for the whole of Europe and shows Ireland to be pro-EU and willing to play ball with its neighbours where a no vote creates uncertainty about the future of the EU and Ireland's place in it because it makes it seem that we see the EU as an organisation that does not share our goals and is not acting in the interests of the Irish state.

Confidence fuels recovery and uncertainty fuels recessions but no one's saying that recovery starts Monday or that there will be massive job losses because of a no vote, just that it will make it more difficult

Instructing the electorate, via billboard, to "vote yes for jobs" implies that the alternate option (no) doesnt offer this solution. Michael OLeary and also the leaders of FF & FG have stated that a no vote will directly result in job losses when the multinationals pull out of ireland as a direct result of a no vote. How did I straw man that, if it is the actual truth????

humanji

Max Power1 wrote: »

So what you are saying, is that a referendum in 1 (tiny)country is fairer than an EU wide referendum?

Not even close. I'm saying that each country should decide how it wants to go about voting and then each country presents it's answer to the others. This is how it currently works. It's not perfect, but it's better than most other options.

hatrickpatrick

humanji wrote: »

I mean, after the treaty was ratified in Germany they re-elected the same people to government. So that to me is an indication of a majority Yes vote for Germany (if they were against it, surely they'd vote in someone else?).

Therein lies the biggest flaw of representative democracy. Every single party is a mixed bag. Unless you're lucky enough that you agree with all the policies of one particular party, you are forced effectively to vote for some you might fundamentally disagree with.

I mean if the people of Ireland vote yes today, does that mean they vote yes to FF since FF support the treaty? No. Because FF have other policies which people find more important and do not agree with. If I vote no today, does that make me a shinner? No. And I wouldn't vote for SF just for this one treaty.

That's always been my biggest issue with our form of democracy. If we had individual elections for different areas of policy it might solve this problem (so for example, you could have one vote for who should handle the environment (greens), who should handle foreign affairs (Labour/general left wing parties), who should handle justice (FG) etc. Those bracketed parties are my own personal preference of course. That would be far, far more democratic. So we could elect SF and the SWP to take care of this treaty and nothing else. Otherwise it's not democratic at all.

I'm just getting very sick of people saying "If you vote for a pro Lisbon party, you're obviously pro Lisbon". There are other issues. If someone votes for a party it doesn't mean they agree with everything that party does in government.

thecornerboy

Rb wrote: »

Saying that the rest of Europe should hold a referendum, as opposed to their own democratically decided way of ratifying it, is horribly undemocractic and shows absolutely no respect for those who value said democracy in their respective country.

The populations of individual EU states should be given the opportunity to vote on EU treaties in a referendum.

You're saying this opinion is anti-democratic? How is advocating a right to vote generally in each individual state on an issue of national importance "undemocratic"? I don't understand. Please explain.

I don't understand "shows absolutely no respect for those who value said democracy in their respective country". Shows no respect for who exactly and where?



Taking another approach, do you think it's fair that a small country of 4 million people gets to decide the future of Europe? Is that democratic? Should we all just ratify what the EU throws at us, whatever any particular Treaty says? Is that the logical conclusion to all this?

What happens, as I'm sure is and has happened in Europe over the last number of years, if a Government is elected with support coming for them on specific issues, which have nothing to do with Lisbon, and then ratifies a EU Treaty which 75% of the voters don't want? Is this democracy at work? We should just "respect" this? To hell with the long term consequences for them and for us, is what you're saying then. Some definition of democracy.

thecornerboy

humanji wrote: »

Not even close. I'm saying that each country should decide how it wants to go about voting and then each country presents it's answer to the others. This is how it currently works. It's not perfect, but it's better than most other options.

It's preferable to a referendum being held in each EU member state? How is that less democratic?