EU referendum in prospect?

Scofflaw

Just when I thought the fun was over:

PRESIDENT SARKOZY’S decision to back German proposals for EU economic governance and a bailout/rescue mechanism, both requiring treaty changes, has placed Ireland in a deeply uncomfortable position. The prospect of a Lisbon III referendum looms.

Instead of confining itself next week to the uncontroversial tightening of member-state economic supervision under existing treaty provisions, the EU summit will now be asked to back a German timetable to draft treaty changes allowing the suspension of voting rights to states in breach of deficit rules, and to establish a permanent bailout/rescue fund akin to the current temporary one. “We have to move forward because in 2013 the rescue funds for the euro will end, so we need a more lasting rescue mechanism,” Chancellor Merkel told a press conference in Deauville. That probably means a referendum in Ireland in 2012.

Article here.

Essentially, the proposal is to move the ability to block sanctions against non-performing eurozone members from something that requires a minority to something that requires a majority, making it harder for the member states to refuse to sanction a non-performing fellow member state.

The assumption, of course, is that Ireland would need a referendum to ratify such a change. That's something that actually depends on the Supreme Court, since it depends on whether the measure has any legal impact on Irish sovereignty, but it would be a brave government that decided to refuse such a vote. Since the possible sanctions include loss of voting rights, it's highly probable that the Treaty change would legally impact our sovereignty.

And before anyone starts babbling about Article 48, this has nothing to do with Article 48.

Whatever the legal impact on Irish sovereignty, the popular notion of sovereignty is clearly going to form the core of the debate - whether we're willing to vote to make it easier to have sanctions levelled against our government by the EU Commission for failure to live up to our agreements.

In some senses, this can't be quite as much fun as Lisbon, though, because it should be a relatively tightly bounded change, making it a fairly straight fight about sovereignty. Since sovereignty is at the root of most of the No side arguments, they should be able to acquit themselves cleanly this time round, instead of focussing on bizarre interpretations of half-quoted articles about public services. The government, on the other hand, will at least have a fairly narrow message to get across, but will be in the position of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Fun for everyone!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Denerick

Spare us the referendum headaches, please.

Whats the anti campaign going to be this time? 'EU Superstate requires one million Irishmen to serve in army'. Minimum wage down to 4 cents an hour? Corporation tax to be raised to 89%?

sensibleken

Ah christ not again!

I do not see how suspension of voting rights will prevent or assist a country from balancing their buget. If it is that simple, which it rarely is in EU debates, it seems like a straight selling of democracy and sovreignity for a bailout. Not worth it in my opinion.

rumour

sensibleken wrote: »

it seems like a straight selling of democracy and sovreignity for a bailout. Not worth it in my opinion.

Frankly I believe we did that the last time, but as it transpires we are so incompetenet that we've only made things worse. The commissioner and the ECB now will direct us what to do.
And we'll go round in circles with I told you so and no you're talking nonsense. All irrelevant.

Ireland had their chance. Sarkozy and Merkel are much more confident and public about deciding and declaring what EU policy should be.

Is that the result of Lisbon?

sensibleken

rumour wrote: »

Frankly I believe we did that the last time, but as it transpires we are so incompetenet that we've only made things worse. The commissioner and the ECB now will direct us what to do.
And we'll go round in circles with I told you so and no you're talking nonsense. All irrelevant.

Ireland had their chance. Sarkozy and Merkel are much more confident and public about deciding and declaring what EU policy should be.

Is that the result of Lisbon?

well no because if it was the result of lisbon then we wouldnt need a new referendum to address it.

this stems from us making a bollox of our economy under the stabilisation and growth pact

thats said, i really dont want to get into a lisbon debate. my head still hurts from last time

rumour

My fault, I wasn't clear. Do you think Sarkozy and Merkel's new found confidence to openly be seen to influence the direction of european policy generally is a result of Lisbon?
Lately they have been much more vocal than in the past. Now I know the economic crisis has caused this to happen but politicians are cute and will generally not go outside their comfort zones. These new utterances suggest that comfort zone has been extended. Does that comfort arise from the provisions of Lisbon.

On an aside,the thought of another referendum makes me cringe. The answer would probably be no and we would be asked to do it again. In fact we would probably be asked to change our constitution to make sure we don't have referendums again. Worse push comes to shove we'd accept for some more free money...cringe.

sensibleken

rumour wrote: »

My fault, I wasn't clear. Do you think Sarkozy and Merkel's new found confidence to openly be seen to influence the direction of european policy generally is a result of Lisbon?
Lately they have been much more vocal than in the past. Now I know the economic crisis has caused this to happen but politicians are cute and will generally not go outside their comfort zones. These new utterances suggest that comfort zone has been extended. Does that comfort arise from the provisions of Lisbon.

On an aside,the thought of another referendum makes me cringe. The answer would probably be no and we would be asked to do it again. In fact we would probably be asked to change our constitution to make sure we don't have referendums again. Worse push comes to shove we'd accept for some more free money...cringe.

I dont think so, but this is only an opinion. I think it is more to do that these are due to the financial crisis and especially in the aftermath of greece.

I think their comfort zones are increased because it was their wallet that paid for greece. I can't remember if such an action or voting rights would require unanimity or qualified majority voting in the council to pass. But consider that its portugal, greece, spain, italy, Ireland, hungary and a few other countries that would be impacted by such an action I dont think it has much of a chance of passing.

If it is that simple...which it rarely is. the default position on anything from europe is always hysteria

I dont know if it would go to referendum. There is a perception that any EU treaty needs an amendment to our constitution but thats not the case. Ill wait and see if this goes any further and what the supreme court says

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

These new utterances suggest that comfort zone has been extended. Does that comfort arise from the provisions of Lisbon.

Which specific articles of the Lisbon Treaty do you believe gave rise to this extended comfort zone?

OS119

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which specific articles of the Lisbon Treaty do you believe gave rise to this extended comfort zone?

i think Sensibleken is refering to the political sphere, rather than strict legalese... and given the need of the PIIGS+ for a continuing nod from France and Germany in order to keep being able to borrow on the open market*, its difficult to see that this view doesn't hold a significant grain of truth.

*by which i mean that lenders are unlikely to be so sanguine about lending to PIIGS+ states without a nod from Germany and France that they'd pick up the tap if it goes wrong...

oscarBravo

OS119 wrote: »

i think Sensibleken is refering to the political sphere, rather than strict legalese... and given the need of the PIIGS+ for a continuing nod from France and Germany in order to keep being able to borrow on the open market*, its difficult to see that this view doesn't hold a significant grain of truth.

*by which i mean that lenders are unlikely to be so sanguine about lending to PIIGS+ states without a nod from Germany and France that they'd pick up the tap if it goes wrong...

The Lisbon Treaty consists of strict legalese, so I'd like to know which of its provisions have extended Sarkozy's and Merkel's comfort zones.

Is any of what you've said materially affected by the changes implemented in the Lisbon Treaty?

OS119

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty consists of strict legalese, so I'd like to know which of its provisions have extended Sarkozy's and Merkel's comfort zones.

Is any of what you've said materially affected by the changes implemented in the Lisbon Treaty?

the PIIGS+ need for German and French guarrentees extend Merkel and Sarkozy's comfort zones. economic and political power have always lead European law and the development of the EU - the PIIGS+ can either accept the Franco-German view or they can live within their means by next spring.

legal battles only take place when both sides can accept the consequences of both winning and losing - in this situation, only one side can accept those consequences.

and its not the PIIGS+...

oscarBravo

OS119 wrote: »

the PIIGS+ need for German and French guarrentees extend Merkel and Sarkozy's comfort zones.

...as distinct from the Lisbon Treaty, which was my point.

rumour

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which specific articles of the Lisbon Treaty do you believe gave rise to this extended comfort zone?

That was/is more or less my question??

oscarBravo

The answer is, "it didn't". If you believe it did, you should explain how.

rumour

oscarBravo wrote: »

The answer is, "it didn't". If you believe it did, you should explain how.

Going to be a tad selfish here, I posed a question to solicit opinions. It is the politics forum concerning the European Union, have i done something wrong?. What I believe is irrelevant, largely becuase I haven't formed a belief on this issue yet,that however won't stop me questioning, (actions usually speak louder than words).
Your answer with all due respect is a bit dictatorial which I find most uninformative and as for what I should and should not do, that will remain again respectfully, within my control.

K-9

rumour wrote: »

My fault, I wasn't clear. Do you think Sarkozy and Merkel's new found confidence to openly be seen to influence the direction of european policy generally is a result of Lisbon?
Lately they have been much more vocal than in the past. Now I know the economic crisis has caused this to happen but politicians are cute and will generally not go outside their comfort zones. These new utterances suggest that comfort zone has been extended. Does that comfort arise from the provisions of Lisbon.

On an aside,the thought of another referendum makes me cringe. The answer would probably be no and we would be asked to do it again. In fact we would probably be asked to change our constitution to make sure we don't have referendums again. Worse push comes to shove we'd accept for some more free money...cringe.

Tbh, it had nothing to do with Lisbon.

Go back to the Euro and Greek crisis earlier in the year and there is your answer. Merkel dillied and dallied for too long and I think she realises how serious it is now.

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

Going to be a tad selfish here, I posed a question to solicit opinions. It is the politics forum concerning the European Union, have i done something wrong?. What I believe is irrelevant, largely becuase I haven't formed a belief on this issue yet,that however won't stop me questioning, (actions usually speak louder than words).
Your answer with all due respect is a bit dictatorial which I find most uninformative and as for what I should and should not do, that will remain again respectfully, within my control.

It came across as a loaded question, like a Fox News analyst asking "is Obama a Kenyan muslim?"

OK, so you don't have an opinion, but you clearly feel there's a basis for the question. What makes you think there's a possibility that Lisbon is responsible for the extension of their comfort zones? What prompted the question?

rumour

oscarBravo wrote: »

It came across as a loaded question, like a Fox News analyst asking "is Obama a Kenyan muslim?"

Well..I consider that fallout from the last referendum. I have been critical of Lisbon true, but that does not mean I have not moved on nor does it mean I will be neutered on having a cautious look at political developments. Politics does not always deliver rational outcomes so a healthy degree of scrutiny I believe is merited. I do not mean to load questions; I try to make them as agenda free as possible to solicit an unbiased and open opinion. I concede I haven't mastered that yet.

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so you don't have an opinion, but you clearly feel there's a basis for the question.

Merkel some months ago stated we are at war with the markets, to some extent she is right. Take for example the valid perspective that we have nationalised banks in Ireland (true is Germany and Britain) however in Irelands case it is also valid that we have privatised the state. This has happened because of legal entities such as banks & funds have no nationality. For nation states this is a threat.( i don't want to discuss Ireland as we had to leave the room along time ago in disgrace). At the same time the whole dynamics of voter sentiment is changing, fear is taking a hold all across Europe. Sarkosy is pampering to the right (deportations), Merkel declares multiculturalism is a failed experiment. Xenophobia it appears needs to be catered for by the leaders of Europe’s main countries. However nation states are effectively powerless against the power of the markets when it comes to currency. USA and Europe had no option but to turn on the printing presses thus making France and Germany poorer. Notwithstanding this ongoing threat there is the pension nightmare that is confronting France and Germany, they have been well warned about it but have let a decade of growth pass and refused to act. Now look at the trouble that is transpiring in France. There are not many options open, force the populace to accept austerity (possibly has to happen in any event), impose trade barriers and instigate protectionism, this must be done while maintaining financial stability, or accept that you will loose your wealth and all the social advantages that go with it (a recipe for social chaos). Now they have financial clout (and they do still command loyalty and sacrifice) and being politicians they know which way the wind is blowing, they need a common institution to fight as a unit and they have an enemy. The EU is that institution and France and Germany are at the helm. They have what’s left of the financial clout hence political power within the euro zone. Personally I hope it works, if you live in Western Europe it’s in your interest. Against that backdrop does Lisbon facilitate? I would have thought it does (excluding the irrational debate in Ireland) as its intention was to consolidate decision making in Brussels (very simplistic I know). I have wandered into some opinions here but hopefully you can conclude that sat beside all the variables above natural curiosity would lead one to question how all this interacts with the recent provisions of Lisbon. Hence I don't have a developed opinion but I am curious.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you think there's a possibility that Lisbon is responsible for the extension of their comfort zones?

I thought this would be easy to answer but it is not and again is one of the reasons I asked the question in the first place. Consider the deep lack of understanding as to the actual provisions of Lisbon here in Ireland. Do you really think Hans or Jacques knows any better? Frankly at the minute I believe Joe Public in France or Germany has a pretty negative opinion of Lisbon, the French rejected it and weren’t asked again, the Germans we not asked at all.
The perceived powerlessness of national governments in the face of financial institutions demands political action. This is where political opportunism jumps in. A solution is ready and waiting, the EU. Resurrect unpopular EU legislation (Lisbon) and present it as the solution. This is the 'comfort zone' I am referring to. Lisbon is not responsible per say for the comfort zone rather political opportunism. I do think it worthwhile to watch this for example that little weasel Sarkozy, having grasped it's potential, is already planning the alterations. Fear is a great thing for politicians. Obviously I don't think much of him given deporting roma is his tool for pandering to the masses. Vulgar.

oscarBravo wrote: »

What prompted the question?

Hopefully I have explained. So maybe yes it is loaded but on the other hand most people won't add it all together and proffer an opinion. So I adopt accordingly.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

My fault, I wasn't clear. Do you think Sarkozy and Merkel's new found confidence to openly be seen to influence the direction of european policy generally is a result of Lisbon?
Lately they have been much more vocal than in the past. Now I know the economic crisis has caused this to happen but politicians are cute and will generally not go outside their comfort zones. These new utterances suggest that comfort zone has been extended. Does that comfort arise from the provisions of Lisbon.

No, I don't think so - the Franco-German axis is traditionally the motor of the EU, so France and Germany being seen to influence the policy direction of the EU is neither new nor particularly noteworthy in itself. It's certainly not something that needs an explanation like Lisbon, nor is it easy to see how Lisbon would have increased politicians' comfort zones.

rumour wrote: »

On an aside,the thought of another referendum makes me cringe. The answer would probably be no and we would be asked to do it again. In fact we would probably be asked to change our constitution to make sure we don't have referendums again. Worse push comes to shove we'd accept for some more free money...cringe.

In fact, following on from your point there, I'd say that if anything the whole Lisbon experience is the point most strongly against this initiative. The battlelines are still drawn from last time, and last time demonstrated a very strong 'treaty fatigue' - most obviously in Ireland, but really all across Europe. It's surprising that anyone would want to reopen the can of worms at this point, less than a year after Lisbon went into effect. I can't imagine that anyone is stupid enough to think that an Irish Yes to such an initiative is even possible, never mind easy.

The German position here is unsurprising - they're largely the pockets into which we're dipping for our daily bread, along with the Greeks and other delinquents. There's been a good deal of irritation amongst the German electorate at the feeling that we're relying on them to bail us out - reflected in things like the statement from two German MEPs that Ireland should increase its taxes.

Further, this is hardly a Franco-German initiative as such - it's actually a counter-proposal to Commission and ECB calls for automatic sanctions. The head of the ECB is reportedly unhappy with the idea of any political control over the sanctions process, so in a sense this is a compromise position:

EU finance ministers agreed on Monday to toughen the bloc's budget regulations after the agreement struck in France between Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, which toughened up old rules but diluted the power of plans originally put forward by the European Commission and the ECB.

Merkel accepting French demands to give politicians more control over imposing penalties, in exchange for Sarkozy backing German calls to amend EU treaties to strip persistent deficit sinners of voting rights and push for an orderly default mechanism.

Under the proposals drawn up by the task force, rule breakers would only face sanctions six months after being warned, ignoring the ECB's persistent calls for semi-automatic punishments.

That means it would still take a political decision by a qualified majority of euro zone governments to start disciplinary action against a state with an excessive deficit, and a majority could still block any planned financial penalty.

What seems to have happened is that the French, who were the main objectors to the idea of automatic sanctions, have been offered an acceptable compromise position - from the perspective of the Germans and French, it looks to me like the deal is one which will allow for pretty easy sanctioning of any other state, while still leaving it extremely difficult to sanction France or Germany, since putting together the qualified majority to kick off the disciplinary process in the first place will be difficult without Franco-German support, while putting together a blocking majority would be correspondingly easier for them.

From our perspective, requiring a blocking majority rather than minority makes it more likely that we would be sanctioned, but is presumably still preferable to the ECB's preferred automatic sanctions being put in place - but since we can assume that the French would remain opposed to such automatic sanctions, the alternative from our perspective is really the status quo, which would obviously be preferable, unless it means that the Germans won't put their hands in their pockets for a continuing European bailout fund.

In brief, it's a Franco-German compromise to tighten up the disciplining of fiscal delinquents, while leaving enough political room to avoid being penalised themselves. As such, it's an unfair deal for us (and most other Member States), but one we might have to take for the Germans to continue bailing us out.

Pity we managed to get ourselves stuck so far up the creek that we needed other people to paddle us out again. The other options are either grafting our way out of this so fast we can afford to torpedo the idea of an EU bailout fund, or the IMF.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

................................

In brief, it's a Franco-German compromise to tighten up the disciplining of fiscal delinquents, while leaving enough political room to avoid being penalised themselves. As such, it's an unfair deal for us (and most other Member States), but one we might have to take for the Germans to continue bailing us out.

Pity we managed to get ourselves stuck so far up the creek that we needed other people to paddle us out again. The other options are either grafting our way out of this so fast we can afford to torpedo the idea of an EU bailout fund, or the IMF.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for the reply most informative. I do think the increasingly xenophobic populace plays its part along with an actual degree of political pragmatism (sadly lacking here) to face a real threat. I have said enough on that in my post to Oscar.

As for Ireland we have placed ourselves in such a terrible place that it will take a generation or more to regain our credibility,let alone worry about such things as our voting rights in europe.

BTW an unverifiable rumour that I cannot reliably report. There is no bailout for Ireland. Our only option is cut the deficit. We it appears have played all our cards.

Now comes a real test of our character.

McDougal

So the Fourth Reich now wants more power to punish those who do not obey the laws of German bankers? Fantastic

Scofflaw

McDougal wrote: »

So the Fourth Reich now wants more power to punish those who do not obey the laws of German bankers? Fantastic

If this is really all you're capable of "contributing", McDougal, don't bother.

moderately,
Scofflaw

McDougal

Scofflaw wrote: »

If this is really all you're capable of "contributing", McDougal, don't bother.

moderately,
Scofflaw

It's about time someone called it for what it is- The dictatorship of Frankfurt.

Scofflaw

McDougal wrote: »

It's about time someone called it for what it is- The dictatorship of Frankfurt.

It's about time you stopped thinking in slogans, or at least refrained from posting in them. It contributes absolutely nothing worthwhile to the debate - it's a waste of other people's time and screen space. You're welcome to contribute your opinion and your point of view, but not if that's the best you can do.

Seriously - up your game or have your access rights removed.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Such a referendum could possibly be interesting. If it were to be only about one particular thing (the sanctions process) then there's a chance the referendum debate would actually be issue-based.

It then depends on general attitudes towards the EU's role in our economy and our government's role in our economy. The past year has deepened my support of the European Project. I see the EU as an organisation with the potential to restrict the gombeenism of Kildare Street and uphold some kind of economic rectitude against the wishes of vote-hungry politicians. As Colm Toibin said, I support the EU, not out of agreement with the Irish political establishment, but because I need protection from it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As such, it's an unfair deal for us (and most other Member States), but one we might have to take for the Germans to continue bailing us out.

Well, unfair if you consider being forced to keep our house in order to be a bad thing. I personally don't.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Such a referendum could possibly be interesting. If it were to be only about one particular thing (the sanctions process) then there's a chance the referendum debate would actually be issue-based.

It then depends on general attitudes towards the EU's role in our economy and our government's role in our economy. The past year has deepened my support of the European Project. I see the EU as an organisation with the potential to restrict the gombeenism of Kildare Street and uphold some kind of economic rectitude against the wishes of vote-hungry politicians. As Colm Toibin said, I support the EU, not out of agreement with the Irish political establishment, but because I need protection from it.

Well, unfair if you consider being forced to keep our house in order to be a bad thing. I personally don't.

That's not the aspect I'd consider unfair - I'd support the automatic sanctions, but not the ability of France and Germany to put their thumb on the scale when it comes to sanctions against them. And that, as far as I can see, is the point of this particular deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Indeed - I read your argument too fast. Sorry for that!

OS119

McDougal wrote: »

So the Fourth Reich now wants more power to punish those who do not obey the laws of German bankers? Fantastic

if you don't want to obey the laws of the German bankers, perhaps it might be better to not ask them for money?

McDougal

OS119 wrote: »

if you don't want to obey the laws of the German bankers, perhaps it might be better to not ask them for money?

Fine by me but Germany is not bailing out anyone but themselves

Corsendonk

McDougal wrote: »

Fine by me but Germany is not bailing out anyone but themselves

They only finished paying for WW1, now WW2 to pay off, plus they had to pay for East Germany.

Anyway the Euro will only truely work when you have a common tax policy within the Euro zone. The elephant in the room.

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just when I thought the fun was over:
Article here.

Essentially, the proposal is to move the ability to block sanctions against non-performing eurozone members from something that requires a minority to something that requires a majority, making it harder for the member states to refuse to sanction a non-performing fellow member state.

The assumption, of course, is that Ireland would need a referendum to ratify such a change. That's something that actually depends on the Supreme Court, since it depends on whether the measure has any legal impact on Irish sovereignty, but it would be a brave government that decided to refuse such a vote. Since the possible sanctions include loss of voting rights, it's highly probable that the Treaty change would legally impact our sovereignty.

And before anyone starts babbling about Article 48, this has nothing to do with Article 48.

Whatever the legal impact on Irish sovereignty, the popular notion of sovereignty is clearly going to form the core of the debate - whether we're willing to vote to make it easier to have sanctions levelled against our government by the EU Commission for failure to live up to our agreements.

In some senses, this can't be quite as much fun as Lisbon, though, because it should be a relatively tightly bounded change, making it a fairly straight fight about sovereignty. Since sovereignty is at the root of most of the No side arguments, they should be able to acquit themselves cleanly this time round, instead of focussing on bizarre interpretations of half-quoted articles about public services. The government, on the other hand, will at least have a fairly narrow message to get across, but will be in the position of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Fun for everyone!

cordially,
Scofflaw

I wont get too excited just yet. I believe this will be ratified by the dail if at all possible and i believe it will be possible as the union created by the Lisbon treaty envisages all the changes on the cards.

The concession of any veto other than on defence is covered by Article 48.7, eurozone rules (almost all of them) can be modified under Article 48.6 as long as no new powers are granted to the union. Emergency powers can be granted under article 352 of the TFEU if the are "necessary" to the functioning of the union. Article 136 of the TFEU allows new eurozone rules to be adopted by QMV. These four mechanisms are protected by the constitutional amendment we voted on this time last year.

Now to actually ratify an amending treaty as long as the "essential scope or objectives" of the union are unchanged the dail can ratify. This is a very vague threshold but i cant see how the beefing up of the eurozone rules could be viewed byt he supreme court as sufficiently radical to require a new constitutional amendment.

A referendum would be very interesting indeed as i just cant see the trade unions and labour supporting it so the political "concensus" on the EU would be over.

The debate would be crystal clear which would be a very big problem for the yes side as it won't be possible to present an impenetratible text to the electorate and tell them that people they can trust are in favour of it and anyone agin it cant be trusted. It will be clear that the hysterical accusations of lies that are the standard yes side response are exactly that. The usual non-denial denials that constitute a rebuttal of no campaign claims will be obviously just that.
The goodie bag of favours to bribe vested interests to back a yes vote is now empty.
The absurdities and fictions peddled by the yes to Lisbon camp will still be fresh in the public memory.
But most important of all is that Lisbon2 happened under essentially perfect conditions for the yes camp i.e. a sinking ship. Now the ship has already sunk.

All in all a new treaty along these lines would get blown out of the water if it was put to a public vote which is why i dont think it will

Scofflaw

Now to actually ratify an amending treaty as long as the "essential scope or objectives" of the union are unchanged the dail can ratify. This is a very vague threshold but i cant see how the beefing up of the eurozone rules could be viewed byt he supreme court as sufficiently radical to require a new constitutional amendment.

The more I read of the proposal, the more it looks as if a referendum would not be legally required, although I do think a case could be made, and therefore would be. It would, however, be politically difficult - the only way I can see Dáil ratification being accepted is if the incoming government set such ratification out as part of its manifesto, as Sarkozy did with Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

The more I read of the proposal, the more it looks as if a referendum would not be legally required, although I do think a case could be made, and therefore would be. It would, however, be politically difficult - the only way I can see Dáil ratification being accepted is if the incoming government set such ratification out as part of its manifesto, as Sarkozy did with Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd actually disagree with you on that Scofflaw. Were the Supreme Court to rule that there was no need for a referendum, I'd say the reaction from the overwhelming majority of the electorate to the "non-holding" of a referendum would be a great big sigh of relief.

Apart from the usual Euro-sceptic brigade, most people would probably regard the issue as being about as controversial as the passage of one of the EU accession treaties by the Oireachtas.

K-9

Unfortunately, as wee seen on Lisbon 1 they can generate quite a bit of noise to scare and bamboozle the average citizen.

McDougal

K-9 wrote: »

Unfortunately, as wee seen on Lisbon 1 they can generate quite a bit of noise to scare and bamboozle the average citizen.

You are talking about Fianna Fáil right?

View

K-9 wrote: »

Unfortunately, as wee seen on Lisbon 1 they can generate quite a bit of noise to scare and bamboozle the average citizen.

Agreed. But a decision on whether or not we actually need a referendum rests ultimately with the Supreme Court. If they say, we don't need one thenfor most people that will be the end of the matter.

The alternative, after all, of arguing that we should ignore the Supreme Court's decision is not one that most people will have a lot of sympathy with, as it amount to arguing that we should hold an unnecessary referendum.

K-9

McDougal wrote: »

You are talking about Fianna Fáil right?

Lisbon 1? hardly. Did they even campaign then?

McDougal

K-9 wrote: »

Lisbon 1? hardly. Did they even campaign then?

Yep FF, FG and IBEC had posters everywhere promising jobs and paradise if we voted yes

K-9

McDougal wrote: »

Yep FF, FG and IBEC had posters everywhere promising jobs and paradise if we voted yes

That wasn't Lisbon 1.

sensibleken

McDougal wrote: »

Yep FF, FG and IBEC had posters everywhere promising jobs and paradise if we voted yes

and the no side has posters promising disaster and minimum wage of 1.74. Lets not get into who said what during the last campaign. It was a referendum and we were the voters. It was our responsibility to look at the information and decide for ourselves regardless of what politicians said.

hopefully, if this does go to referendum it will be far easier to sift though the respective bull****

McDougal

sensibleken wrote: »

and the no side has posters promising disaster and minimum wage of 1.74. Lets not get into who said what during the last campaign. It was a referendum and we were the voters. It was our responsibility to look at the information and decide for ourselves regardless of what politicians said.

hopefully, if this does go to referendum it will be far easier to sift though the respective bull****

And the people vote No the first time and Yes the second time to the exact same treaty (abeit with some pointless guarantees)

The propaganda of the state and ruling class was what won the 2nd time round. They through massive resources at it and the whole media rolled in behind to support Cowen, Kenny, Gilmore and the corporations.

sensibleken

McDougal wrote: »

And the people vote No the first time and Yes the second time to the exact same treaty (abeit with some pointless guarantees)

The propaganda of the state and ruling class was what won the 2nd time round. They through massive resources at it and the whole media rolled in behind to support Cowen, Kenny, Gilmore and the corporations.

whatever. this time round maybe we can debate sanely and educate ourselves which was sorely lacking in both referendums.

Eliot Rosewater

McDougal wrote: »

And the people vote No the first time and Yes the second time to the exact same treaty (abeit with some pointless guarantees)

I voted No the first time, and Yes the second time. The treaty didn't change. My maturity level did.



(That's not intended to be a dig at all No voters, mind; it's only applicable to people who voted No out of some emotional urge to give two fingers to the perceived social establishment.)

McDougal

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I voted No the first time, and Yes the second time. The treaty didn't change. My maturity level did.



(That's not intended to be a dig at all No voters, mind; it's only applicable to people who voted No out of some emotional urge to give two fingers to the perceived social establishment.)

Right well you should be very proud of yourself for copping on and saving the nation:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

...on which note, McDougal earns a lengthy ban from the Politics section.

sensibleken

Getting back to the issue at hand rather than a re-hash of the last referendum.

Ive been always quite an enthusiastic supported of the EU. But these utterances, and thats all they are at the moment, dont sit well with me at all.

They come at a time when both Sarkosy and Merkel are experiencing domestic trouble. Even more worrying last week there was a survey published in the Irish times showing a very strong growth in the far right in germany.

This talk of dis-enfranchising countries that cannot balance their buget is inherintly un-democratic in the most worisome way as it makes votes dependant on wealth. This isnt the 18th century. The fact that they would even say such a thing outload and for it to be taken seriously makes me doubt their democratic credentials and comitments

oscarBravo

sensibleken wrote: »

This talk of dis-enfranchising countries that cannot balance their buget is inherintly un-democratic in the most worisome way as it makes votes dependant on wealth.

If you substitute "won't" for "cannot", does it make any more sense?

sensibleken

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you substitute "won't" for "cannot", does it make any more sense?

Not really. If a state persistently refuses to do its bit, thus putting the Euro at risk, then the best way to look after other states would be expulsion.

Taking away a countries voting rights while passing laws affecting them is undemocratic at the best and tyrannous at the worst. It serves no purpose and is a punishment which does not lead to countries being more able to balance their buget.

It could quite possibly make it harder. What do you do to a state once you've taken away their say? If I took over from a corrupt incompetent government who left us in debt and now dis-enfranchised I would feel perfectly justified in ignoring any legislation from europe that my country did not get a vote on. If you dis-enfranchise people you cant expect them to play ball

oscarBravo

sensibleken wrote: »

Not really. If a state persistently refuses to do its bit, thus putting the Euro at risk, then the best way to look after other states would be expulsion.

Taking away a countries voting rights while passing laws affecting them is undemocratic at the best and tyrannous at the worst. It serves no purpose and is a punishment which does not lead to countries being more able to balance their buget.

It could quite possibly make it harder. What do you do to a state once you've taken away their say? If I took over from a corrupt incompetent government who left us in debt and now dis-enfranchised I would feel perfectly justified in ignoring any legislation from europe that my country did not get a vote on. If you dis-enfranchise people you cant expect them to play ball

Um. I'm unconvinced by an argument that suspending a member's voting rights amounts to tyranny, and that a fairer approach is to kick them out of the club altogether. Your argument seems akin to claiming that it would be undemocratic to deny a felon the right to vote in an election, so therefore it's better to deport felons instead.

Unless I've misunderstood.

sensibleken

oscarBravo wrote: »

Um. I'm unconvinced by an argument that suspending a member's voting rights amounts to tyranny, and that a fairer approach is to kick them out of the club altogether. Your argument seems akin to claiming that it would be undemocratic to deny a felon the right to vote in an election, so therefore it's better to deport felons instead.

Unless I've misunderstood.

I was trying to think of another word but Im afraid I could not. I would put forward an alternative analogy that because someone is poor and behind on their rent then they take their vote away.

Were also talking about something more significant. The dis-enfranchisment of an entire population.

Scofflaw

sensibleken wrote: »

I was trying to think of another word but Im afraid I could not. I would put forward an alternative analogy that because someone is poor and behind on their rent then they take their vote away.

Were also talking about something more significant. The dis-enfranchisment of an entire population.

One could equally well say that the option is to suspend their voting rights during their period of incarceration, whereas your suggestion is to strip them of citizenship.

cordially,
Scofflaw