nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why are YOU voting no ?

[Deleted User]

I'd like to hear reasoned arguments for voting no to the upcoming lisbon referendum.
I'd like no voters who have their minds made up to tell me why.

So far I've seen them mention corporate tax rates-that ones been debunked by the referendum commission.
So what else is there to frighten me towards voting no.

I'm a reasonable person so don't try to hoodwink me with anything as obviously wrong as the tax issues.
What you present here I'd like to see hold water.

So pretend you are on my door step and convince me and others here.
I'm floating and won't decide untill probably referendum day itself.
I will examine replies as openly and as honestly as anyone on the doorstep thats genuinely curious.

The level of your convincing will depend entirely on the veracity of your argument.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sink

gurramok wrote: »

Is this true?

Can anyone clarify this 'equation'?

This part is not exactly true.

wonz wrote: »

if you are talkign about having a veto if you were in the EU once the Lisbon treaty has been ratified then NO, you would not have a veto. No one has a veto. Research qualified majority voting.

Referendum Commission wrote:

Areas to which Qualified Majority Voting applies

At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in civil matters and sport.

Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously – they include decisions on defence and taxation. This means that any Member State may veto a proposed change in these areas.

We also have opt-outs for police & justice but we can't stop other countries from going ahead without us.

This part is true

wonz wrote: »

Briefly, it would take four countries to block a new law that is trying to be passed. They tell you this...but what you are not told is that it takes four countries PLUS 35% of the total european population (that is 171 million). the equation is:

LAW BLOCK = 4 countries + 35% pop (total population of 4 countries must be 171 miilion minimum)

So, if say Ireland, Sweden, Greece and Portugal wanted to block a law if wouldn't matter because their combined populations and not more than 35% of the total.

turgon wrote: »

Regardless of population. Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands and Belgium would be able to stop it. I think. Its a bit ambiguas.

No they wouldn't it requires at least 4 countries 'and' 35% of the population.

The reason the 4 country rule is their is to stop 3 big countries ganging up on everyone else.

turgon

sink wrote: »

No they wouldn't it requires at least 4 countries 'and' 35% of the population.

The reason the 4 country rule is their is to stop 3 big countries ganging up on everyone else.

Thank you sink. Another reason to vote no.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Thank you sink. Another reason to vote no.

Well it would be pretty unfair if Luxembourg, Malta, Cyrus and Estonia could block legislation together when they only represent 0.7% of the population. Where as Germany, France and the UK representing 42% of the population could not.

gurramok

The 35% of the population factor dont look good at all. So basically, 3 small countries will need a big country ally if they do not agree with the following(lifted from lisbontreaty2008.ie)

"At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in civil matters."

"It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport"

Out of the lot, the farmers here unless they get the likes of France as an ally won't have a hope of blocking decisions from the EU level they don't like?

sink

gurramok wrote: »

The 35% of the population factor dont look good at all. So basically, 3 small countries will need a big country ally if they do not agree with the following(lifted from lisbontreaty2008.ie)

"At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in civil matters."

"It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport"

Out of the lot, the farmers here unless they get the likes of France as an ally won't have a hope of blocking decisions from the EU level they don't like?

Well they almost always do get support from France and Poland and any other state with a large agricultural base. It is very rare that Ireland stands alone on any issue in the EU.

Scofflaw

Actually, there was an interesting thread on politics.ie in amongst the rabid monkey stuff, where someone calculated out all the millions of possible voting combinations of countries (67 million?), and came out with the following result:

We lose ability to get policies passed (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
Our vote is less decisive (-36%)

His whole set of results (he has it calculated out for all the member states) suggests (amazingly) that they sat down and thought about it quite a lot, because the changes are mostly in the direction of getting more legislation passed, but the differences in influence are far smaller than the "headline stats" used by the No side.

The whole thread is here. You may want to start at the end and work back to avoid the usual politics.ie drivel.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Good point about and EU of nations vs and EU of citizens. Personally I go for the previous, because there are really not 100% such things as EU citizens. The people in different countries are vastly different to each other and in an EU of Citizens people like the Irish (with different culture and as an island someway different economy) could be forced to accept bad things.

The most ludicrous comment there is when some one claims everyone in the EU has been asked their opinion "through the magic of representative democracy". What a load of crap!!!!

In fairness they do talk a load of bull**** over at P.ie. More than half the comments are irrelevant.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats Bull.You may aswell start picketing outside McDonalds..Blood on the hands of it's customers given the franchise income enhances the profits of a U.S corporation.

Great debating strategy there, just build up your own alice in wonderland scenarios and knock them down, impressive. But for the interests of clarifying things for you (not that you don't know i'm sure). Mc Donalds does not dictate american foreign policy so that straw man is particulary stupid.

Lets all disconnect the internet aswell..lest we allow one penny to go to the US war effort.

Yawn, really there is a difference between your elected representative subverting their duty as your representative and an internet provider. But sure if you think it's the same who am I to stop you.

Lets start a party and get elected on that basis ie to remove all "blood" from our hands.We'll start campaigning in Co Kildare (home of Intel) and send all those jobs to the dole because well that corporation is at the heart of a war mongering country so we have blood on our hands./

What a good idea :rolleyes:

In other words,what you are alluding to is Alice in wonderland stuff.

I guess the question is do you think that Brian Cowan and co. will vote against an EU military action (not involving irish troops) but yet is still wrong and representative of us as EU citizens? The treaty provides more loopholes to avoid this moral responsibility and I simply don't trust him/FF to have the backbone to stand up on this issue. All you have to do is look at the US troops in Shannon really.

Like I said it's quirky that we are voting on a document that mentions military things relevant to other EU countries and not us.

As eu citizens that document does apply to us. The increased military capabilities part is an obligation on Ireland individually for a start. So to claim that the military 'stuff' is somehow irrelevant is just ignorance.

If you don't like our military-fine-take it up with the 90% of the Dáil that disagree with you.

Since when did I say I didn't like our military? (note: just because I don't like an external command to increase capabilities doesn't mean I want our army disbanded). At least read someones posts when you try to put words in their mouth.

If you dislike individual and collective EU countries military spending-tough-.

Only as part of an integrated EU force - an institution which lacks the accountability to merit such a resource.

You've no say in that

Isn't that part of the treaty we're voting on

Last I looked-every state in the EU put's it's MP's up to a vote from the people regularally so thats nonsense.

Wouldn't it be great if the EU Commission's political leader, President of Europe and foreign minister were too?

Again thats a fallacy.All those governments/parties have been reelected in the full knowledge that they were going to be re negotiating the constitution and can be turfed out by the same electorate if they are not happy.

Tell me were the major alternative parties in those elections saying they would not attempt to renegotiate the constitution?
Also, I doubt they were informed that it was going to be snuck in as a treaty and that they would not be allowed vote on it this time since they didn't give the correct answer the first time.

sink

ismise69 wrote: »

i can give you 4,109,086 reasons to vote no!
every citizen of this country,

Please don't include me in that.

ismise69 wrote: »

do we really want to lose the only 20% say in what happens in this country to one EU house or "european superpower" as they are calling it.
if this "treaty" goes through, the EU will have 100% say on what rules, laws and taxes etc that this county(who faught for its independence for over 200 years + dont get me wrong. im not RA head) as above,
we have a 20% say...

I'd like to know how you came up with those figures. For one thing the EU has no say over our Direct Taxation, Defence and Abortion without another referendum. We maintain a veto over indirect taxation, and foreign policy. We can opt out of any police and judicial criminal matters. So long as we stay within the rules it has no control over budgets, healthcare, infrastructure and many other areas.

ismise69 wrote: »

if YES on this referendum, and the lisbon treaty passes, ireland will no longer have an EU commisioner. instead we will have electorates , who will only put forward "suggestions", and the senate will have the final say,

The system remains basically the same, the wording has changed from 'nominate' to 'suggest' but in both cases all commissioners have to be voted for by the European council.

ismise69 wrote: »

also, foreign companies, with foreign employees move to ireland, and do the jobs that we are doing at the moment for a fraction of the price (EU will also set the minimum wage)

They can provide services to the Irish market but they can't move the whole company here. And that's the way it is now and it will not change under the EU. The EU can set a minimum wage EU wide but Ireland can still set the wage higher than that if we want.

ismise69 wrote: »

so thats my 2 cents... any information you need further to the Lisbon Treaty can be found here...
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87518
or
http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?p=86
or
http://www.nationalplatform.org/wordpress/?p=13
all are very informative links..

Peace out!

All those links are completely dis credible, so much of what they say is bull****.

ismise69 wrote: »

1.
A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty means that the make-up of the EU Commission will be irrevocably changed to include only 66% of member states as appointees within the governing body. These appointees will be rotated every 5 years but effectively this means that Ireland can potentially be excluded from highly important decisions on our own governance. The people of Ireland elected a government for the country, other governments do not know the importance of certain decisions for Ireland in terms of business and trade. It does not make sense for Ireland to dispose of its own ability to make or influence decisions that affect our future.

This is going to happen in 2009 anyway, under the terms agreed in the Nice treaty. The Lisbon treaty delays it till 2014. It sounds like you don't know what the commission does so here I've explained it to you.

sink wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty adds specifics to the changes in the commission which the Nice treaty already agreed to. It also delays these changes due to come into force in 2009 till 2014. It lowers the number of commissioners from 27 to 18 so each commissioner has a proper role to fill and no bogus roles are created just to give each member a permanent seat. The number of commissioners will be fixed so future expansion of the Union will not result in more commissioners. Each county will have a commissioner for every 10 out of 15 years. The commission is supposed to work on behalf of the Union as a whole and not to represent the specific interests of individual states. Each commissioner speaks for their policy area (e.g. Finance, Justice, Policing) and they meet to discuss the requirements of the EU and to frame new legislation to suit the needs of the whole EU. In addition the commissioners oversee the implementation of policy in each of their areas.

ismise69 wrote: »

2.
Citizen's initiative - our token acknowledgement of democracy. Citizen's initiative is a clause in the treaty whereby a minimum of 1,000,000 people of voting age must get together and make a proposal to the EU on a matter that they feel deserves attention. Now with the exception of human rights there is very little that links all EU countries in a common vision, most countries want the best for themselves, not others. The chances of every single adult of voting age within Ireland getting together to bring matter before the EU is frankly highly imaginative but that is effectively what must happen if the Irish people are unhappy about something and we have no commission representation. Ask yourself how realistic this is.

There are almost no EU wide issues that Ireland is isolated on. Anything that only affects Ireland or that is more effective at be being implemented at national level will be legislated trough our national parliaments through the principle of subsidiary.

ismise69 wrote: »

3.
Tax harmonisation is something that is greatly favoured by the treaty. However, there is a caveat for certain tax categories that may be vetoed by the national government. In simple terms this means that things such as corporation tax may fall foul to harmonisation thereby removing Ireland's competitive advantage to attract international companies and taxes such as VRT can be vetoed and still controlled at the national level resulting in even worse conditions for the Irish people. The majority of "yes" campaign posters out there at the moment are spattered with "vote yes for jobs", if corporation tax is harmonised then it is very likely that jobs will suffer massively in the Irish market. We live in a time whereby many international companies are already pulling out in favour of cheaper labour markets, those that stay behind do so only for the tax breaks - remove the tax incentive and then the floodgates of the recession that we have been tentatively staving off for the last while will truly be opened. Ireland will then have the impossible task of having to crush its labour force into cheaper salaries, made impossible by the civil service and national pay deals that will bring the country to a standstill if revoked, and tackle the insurmountable problem with the cost of living in order to claw itself back into the market.

Direct tax is not under the remit of the EU. The American chamber of commerce which represents large American multinational corporations in Ireland such as Microsoft, Intel and Google supports the treaty. Do you think they would if there was even the smallest chance of the EU raising our taxes. I trust them more than you.

[Deleted User]

johnnyq wrote: »

Great debating strategy there, just build up your own alice in wonderland scenarios and knock them down, impressive. But for the interests of clarifying things for you (not that you don't know i'm sure). Mc Donalds does not dictate american foreign policy so that straw man is particulary stupid.

au contraire it's quite apt.I'm simply making the point that your point about giving money to the war effort is ridiculous as buying a McDonalds does exactly that if you examine the purchase on a micro level.
The franchiser is a US tax payer.

Yawn, really there is a difference between your elected representative subverting their duty as your representative and an internet provider. But sure if you think it's the same who am I to stop you.

Here you are abandoning your own logic when it comes back to bite you like the McDonalds example and the internet.

What a good idea :rolleyes:

Again you abandon your own logic when it doesn't suit you.

I guess the question is do you think that Brian Cowan and co. will vote against an EU military action (not involving irish troops) but yet is still wrong and representative of us as EU citizens? The treaty provides more loopholes to avoid this moral responsibility and I simply don't trust him/FF to have the backbone to stand up on this issue. All you have to do is look at the US troops in Shannon really.

So rejecting the Treaty rids us of US troops in Shannon too? Thats a new one.

As eu citizens that document does apply to us. The increased military capabilities part is an obligation on Ireland individually for a start. So to claim that the military 'stuff' is somehow irrelevant is just ignorance.

Really?
You accuse me of ignorance when we have no obligation to increase military spending as we are explicitly excepted from the common defence.

Honestly have you any idea how foolish what you are saying there is.
I suspect not or if you do,your soap boxing devoid of factuality and engaging with facts seems deliberate.

Since when did I say I didn't like our military? (note: just because I don't like an external command to increase capabilities doesn't mean I want our army disbanded). At least read someones posts when you try to put words in their mouth.

Well you could actually read mine.I said "if" so that was a question.
But whilst I'm here I may aswell repeat that we are exempted from the common defence provisions of the treaty.

Only as part of an integrated EU force - an institution which lacks the accountability to merit such a resource.

Again you've no say in what other countries prefer.

Isn't that part of the treaty we're voting on :)

It is but it doesn't apply to Ireland.

Wouldn't it be great if the EU Commission's political leader, President of Europe and foreign minister were too?

I'd actually prefer it the way it is going to be ie that the final say is with elected representatives ie our governments and our elected parliaments including the EU parliament.

Tell me were the major alternative parties in those elections saying they would not attempt to renegotiate the constitution?
Also, I doubt they were informed that it was going to be snuck in as a treaty and that they would not be allowed vote on it this time since they didn't give the correct answer the first time.

Again all those parliaments have to face reelection based on their record in office.
That will be the ultimate arbitrator of what people agree with or don't agree with.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

au contraire it's quite apt.I'm simply making the point that your point about giving money to the war effort is ridiculous as buying a McDonalds does exactly that if you examine the purchase on a micro level.
The franchiser is a US tax payer.
Again you abandon your own logic when it doesn't suit you.

You are reading what you want to see. My point was
"Ireland is part of the EU so any atrocity committed under the EU flag affects Ireland."
And then you go into a tyrade about McDonalds and because these companies are american we are investing the war effort through the taxes they pay. (btw, technically they need to be profitable in Ireland for any tax to be paid, no guarantee of that

)
So basically you're saying that if we trade with china we are supporting communism and to an extent you are correct. But that -as I have made clear repeatedly by now- is not my point. This is all about weak irish political moral leadership on preventing EU warfare.

Unfortunately for you I not abandoning my logic, i'm just clarifying your wilful misinterpretation of it.

You accuse me of ignorance when we have no obligation to increase military spending as we are explicitly excepted from the common defence.

Yay a substantive point!! Hurrah
From what I have read (and was informed by Scofflaw) your conclusion that we are exempt from the military spending is false. You'd need to back your conclusion up with at least some claim to this effect from an informed source. I haven't seen any political parties even deny this just avoid it. Enlighten me...

johnnyq wrote:

I guess the question is do you think that Brian Cowan and co. will vote against an EU military action (not involving irish troops) but yet is still wrong and representative of us as EU citizens? The treaty provides more loopholes to avoid this moral responsibility and I simply don't trust him/FF to have the backbone to stand up on this issue. All you have to do is look at the US troops in Shannon really.

blackbriar wrote:

So rejecting the Treaty rids us of US troops in Shannon too? Thats a new one.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

blackbriar wrote:

Honestly have you any idea how foolish what you are saying there is.
I suspect not or if you do,your soap boxing devoid of factuality and engaging with facts seems deliberate.

This coming from the man who managed to conclude that my reference to the track record on Shannon was that I was claiming that voting no removes the troops. Right......keep trying

blackbriar wrote:

If you don't like our military-fine-take it up with the 90% of the Dáil that disagree with you.

johnnyq wrote:

Since when did I say I didn't like our military? At least read someones posts when you try to put words in their mouth.

blackbriar wrote:

Well you could actually read mine.I said "if" so that was a question.

Some question! A bit rich when in the same statement you already conclude that 90% of the dail disagree with me!!!! Hard to misinterpret that one.

Keep digging the hole there blackbriar, I would give you a shovel but it looks like you don't need it!

Please note: this is not an invitation for you to claim that i said that if we vote no to lisbon that shovels will be gotten rid of

:pac::D

black briar wrote:

Again all those parliaments have to face reelection based on their record in office. That will be the ultimate arbitrator of what people agree with or don't agree with.

As much consolation as removing a junta after they have created devastation. How about preventing such situations in the first place by putting the treaty to a direct vote and not sneaking it in behind peoples backs. You'd sware it was too much to ask.:(

Moriarty

ismise69- read the politics charter before you post in this forum again. Reproducing other peoples work without linking to it, posting without giving your own opinion, posting videos without an explanation of whats in the video and why you agree with it and not engaging in the debate but just mindlessly spamming a thread are all against the charter.

Feel free to post again once you don't do the above ^.

Rock Climber

Back in the day that I was able to read this forum more frequently,I usually read posts before I replied to them..
Thats not much to ask of the No brigade on here.

@JohnnyQ

nd then you go into a tyrade about McDonalds and because these companies are american we are investing the war effort through the taxes they pay. (btw, technically they need to be profitable in Ireland for any tax to be paid, no guarantee of that )

Macca's in Ireland pay a US corporation that pays US taxes.
So the point was where you wanted to end your logic that when you are connected or doing business with something ..where you draw the line.
You seem to be using the logic only as far as it suits you and have been caught out!
Thats nothing personal I would say.

Enlighten me...

It seems you were already.Remember the triple lock? No army in Ireland is committed to anything in terms of defense of the EU or otherwise with out those three things and let me remind you that one of them is a UNSC resolution.
In the 35 years of membership to my knowledge we haven't been to war yet..but hey you're entitled to bizare imaginings I suppose.
This whole Neutrality mullarkey is a whole non sequitor similar in style and ferfour to the youth defence rantings on abortion.

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

From what I have read (and was informed by Scofflaw) your conclusion that we are exempt from the military spending is false.

Well, I presume that the EU now has some people involved in military administration if only to co-ordinate policy. So that is some EU money, but likely very minimal.

The requirements for actual military spending are a lot more vague. I think the term is "progressively improve military capabilities". You can imagine that this was inserted by countries with a lot of jobs in defence industries.

I cannot really see any significant pressure being applied to spend much more money on defense. I would say that we would be asked to try to co-ordinate telecomms equipment, and maybe weapons so that we fit better into the EU battlegroups.

As I keep saying, you do have a point if you are concerned about militarisation of the EU... but at the same time we still maintain full control of everything military related. Since we don't want to disarm the army I can't see the problem with working more closely with countries that are likely in the future to be our allies in future UN missions.

Ix.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote:

From what I have read (and was informed by Scofflaw) your conclusion that we are exempt from the military spending is false.

That is somewhat misleading, since I have pointed out that there is no commitment to specific military spending.

cordially,
Scofflaw

grenache

What i would like to know is why does the EU even need a 'President', or a 'Foreign Minister'??.....when every single member state already has a head of state and a foreign minister. If the EU wants to abide by its original ideals of co-operation and mutual respect, it should have no need for either. It looks like just another step towards a Federal Europe.

Gay Mitchell was asked the question by Vincent Browne on TV3's Nightly News a few months back, if he didn't understand such a complicated document, would he approve of it? Browne asked him for a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. Mitchell refused to answer the question. Instead he avoided it by wabbling on about the ''benefits'' Lisbon will have for Ireland.

That hits the nail on the head for me.

sink

The two postion exists already but are not consolidated.

Firstly the 'President' is not the 'President of Europe' as it had been dubbed by the media. It is the position of 'President of the European Council' a position which held currently on rotation by the heads of member states every six months. Bertie held this position during the second half of 2004, it is currently held by the president/prime minister (don't know which he is) of Slovenia, Nicolas Sarkozy is due to hold the position from the 1st of July. The Lisbon treaty will replace the rotation system with the European council voting in the 'President of the European Council' for two and a half years. The new elected President is most likely to be far more visible but without a whole lot more power than the current 'President of the European Council'. The current system causes the president to push his or her national agenda rather than what is best for everyone. It also does not provide consistency as the direction of the European council changes every six months.

The second position is an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two positions 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' (currently held by Javier Solana) with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' (currently held by Benita Ferrero-Waldner),The High representative will chair the council of foreign affairs and will present the foreign policy of the EU to the outside world. They will also be vice president of the commision. Currently foreign countries from outside the EU don't know who to contact with regards to certain issues as the current system of spreading competencies across multiple position is confusing.

ixtlan

grenache wrote: »

What i would like to know is why does the EU even need a 'President', or a 'Foreign Minister'??.....when every single member state already has a head of state and a foreign minister. If the EU wants to abide by its original ideals of co-operation and mutual respect, it should have no need for either. It looks like just another step towards a Federal Europe.

As to why a foreign minister is needed, you should first remember that any foreign policy decisions will need to be unanimous. Then consider all the issues for which a single voice will be far more effective than 27 voices. Let me suggest a few...

To the Burmese government, the 27 states of the EU deplore your actions.
To Gasprom, (Russian oil/gas company)... the 27 states of the EU wish to be treated fairly and receive reliable energy supplies.
To China, the 27 states of the EU believe you have a lot further to go as regards human rights.
To the US, cut your carbon emissions, look at what we 27 states are doing.

Now do you really think that 27 separate countries would be better at making a statement on issues like these? Do you think that those countries listed above would even bother listening to Ireland or Latvia or Portugal? Having a single voice, on those matters that everyone shares a common view, is surely an excellent idea.

Ix.

bedrock#1

Originally Posted by dlofnep
Quote:
The fact that the Governments of Europe are afraid to give their own people a voice on this matter is frightening. Why not demonstrate this "democracy" that they constantly talk about? Ask yourself that.

Originally Posted by Black Briar
Quote:
Most of those governments face a general election every once and a while.If their electorate feel as you do that it's all a giant anti democratic conspiracy,why don't they vote them out?

I thought the role of Government would be to be as informed as possible about a treaty such as this, then take their findings/recommendations or problems with the treaty to their people and let them (the people) make the ultimate decision ....

molloyjh

The role of Government isn't to consult with its people all the time, it is simply to govern and make decisions based on (theoretically anyway) what is best for the majority of its people. Unless stated somewhere in a countries laws/constitution then a Government has every right to negotiate treaties for their nations. Just think of the numbers of various different treaties out there at the moment. If the people had to be consulted on all of them we'd never stop voting! You have everything from EU treaties like Maastricht to Lisbon in the last 20 years, who knows how many UN treaties with respect to security and justice to agriculture, all the environmental treaties, Information Technology treaties, WHO treaties. And thats not to mention the Northern Ireland treaties too. It would be madnessto think that Governments would have to go back to their people with all of these. I mean whats the point in electing representatives if they can't represent us?????

thebman

molloyjh wrote: »

The role of Government isn't to consult with its people all the time, it is simply to govern and make decisions based on (theoretically anyway) what is best for the majority of its people. Unless stated somewhere in a countries laws/constitution then a Government has every right to negotiate treaties for their nations. Just think of the numbers of various different treaties out there at the moment. If the people had to be consulted on all of them we'd never stop voting! You have everything from EU treaties like Maastricht to Lisbon in the last 20 years, who knows how many UN treaties with respect to security and justice to agriculture, all the environmental treaties, Information Technology treaties, WHO treaties. And thats not to mention the Northern Ireland treaties too. It would be madnessto think that Governments would have to go back to their people with all of these. I mean whats the point in electing representatives if they can't represent us?????

I think they should!

Additionally we should get the day off for each of these elections to maximise voter turn out

molloyjh

brim4brim wrote: »

Additionally we should get the day off for each of these elections to maximise voter turn out

Ah well noone said anything about getting a day off....I'm all on for that!

democrates

molloyjh wrote: »

The role of Government isn't to consult with its people all the time, it is simply to govern and make decisions based on (theoretically anyway) what is best for the majority of its people. Unless stated somewhere in a countries laws/constitution then a Government has every right to negotiate treaties for their nations. Just think of the numbers of various different treaties out there at the moment. If the people had to be consulted on all of them we'd never stop voting! You have everything from EU treaties like Maastricht to Lisbon in the last 20 years, who knows how many UN treaties with respect to security and justice to agriculture, all the environmental treaties, Information Technology treaties, WHO treaties. And thats not to mention the Northern Ireland treaties too. It would be madnessto think that Governments would have to go back to their people with all of these. I mean whats the point in electing representatives if they can't represent us?????

Ideally yes, our politicians would represent citizen interests in everything, and not be 'convinced' along another path by private interests be it property developers or corporations who wish government policy to advance their pathalogical obsession with ever more extreme wealth concentration at the expense of the common good.

The problem with representative democracy as implemented, is that citizens have no formal mechanism to intervene. It should be possible to gather N signatures on a petition to trigger a referendum, on anything. N is large enough to avoid everyone having to go out and vote on crackpot schemes.

The citizen petition proposed in Lisbon is no such thing, the million signatures (and other conditions) can only get something put into the suggestion box, it can then be simply ignored.

On pointing out the democratic deficit in the EU, it's been argued that a lot of the decisions are taken by representatives of the member states, but it's clear that all EU member states suffer a democratic deficit, citizens don't even have sufficient voice in their own countries, let alone the EU.

Opposition to EU treaties is to an extent, this chicken coming home to roost. The EU has been designed by national politicians who do not give their own citizens enough direct say at home, it is no surprise that the EU decision making mechanisms have at their core that policy of citizen exclusion.

Lisbon is mooted to be the last EU treaty for a long time. If it were changed to stipulate that citizens will have the option of petitioning for a referendum on anything in their own country, and that EU law and treaties are offered on an opt-in basis, then it would be good to go. That way we have a chance to intervene if our 'representatives' going to the EU deviate from our interests.

A 'No' vote may be the last chance in a generation to gain citizens the option of a direct say in decision-making. If we vote yes, then there's a long and difficult road ahead for advancing democracy, and it may come down to "if you want proper national democracy you must leave the EU", because our improved constitution would be at odds with EU treaties.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote:

Lisbon is mooted to be the last EU treaty for a long time. If it were changed to stipulate that citizens will have the option of petitioning for a referendum on anything in their own country, and that EU law and treaties are offered on an opt-in basis, then it would be good to go. That way we have a chance to intervene if our 'representatives' going to the EU deviate from our interests.

Hmm. Who decides what our interests are there?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

sink

democrates wrote: »

A 'No' vote may be the last chance in a generation to gain citizens the option of a direct say in decision-making. If we vote yes, then there's a long and difficult road ahead for advancing democracy, and it may come down to "if you want proper national democracy you must leave the EU", because our improved constitution would be at odds with EU treaties.

I don't see how voting no will bring about a more direct democracy. The only way that will happen is if a party who supports your reforms is established. Then they would have to stand for election and gain enough votes to form a government. Voting no will cause turmoil in Europe, leave the future in doubt and do nothing to further your aims.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Who decides what our interests are there?

intrigued,
Scofflaw

This may come across as a crazy notion to you Scofflaw, but perhaps citizens should have the option of asserting what is in the best interests of citizens.
No? Just thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

Edit: Apologies, that comes across as cynical, I'm just assuming there you'll disagree no matter what the argument, but whether you do or not I'll assume an open mind and credit you with substantive considered contribution to the debate.

Cordially etc.

democrates

sink wrote: »

I don't see how voting no will bring about a more direct democracy. The only way that will happen is if a party who supports your reforms is established. Then they would have to stand for election and gain enough votes to form a government. Voting no will cause turmoil in Europe, leave the future in doubt and do nothing to further your aims.

As we've seen with the greens and PD's you don't have to be large enough to form a majority government to influence policy, furthermore you don't even have to be in government to have measures adopted. The greens were in opposition when the plastic bag levy came in, popular support can work.

IMHO such an alternative should have been the main message from Libertas from the start. Instead they've focussed on 'No to Lisbon', falling into the trap of a debate framed by this particular treaty rather than the wider strategic questions, and coming across as mere nay-sayers. Just like a national election, people may agree with criticisms of the encumbents, but unless you propose a better alternative the status quo will pertain.

The primary turmoil ceated by a No vote will be egg on the faces of 'representatives' who exclude citizens, I've no problem with that.

A Yes vote will give you this certainty: citizens will continue to be excluded from decision-making for years to come. We'll have a streamlined decision making process without the direct check of citizens, which offers a streamlined oppertunity for private interests to steer EU law their way, be it Monsanto trying to get GM crops enforced or any number of deleterious profiteering measures.

A No vote at least avoids entrenching that bad certainty, and holds up the possibility of a better alternative. A libertas style operation in each member state can campaign to garner popular support for the idea of citizen inclusion in decision-making, that can happen very fast, if we have the chance and Lisbon adoption hasn't made it far more difficult to achieve.

nesf

democrates wrote: »

This may come across as a crazy notion to you Scofflaw, but perhaps citizens should have the option of asserting what is in the best interests of citizens.

Of citizens in another sovereign country? That's a real can of worms.

Of our own citizens? We have regular elections, would you prefer a move to the Swiss system?

democrates

nesf wrote: »

Of citizens in another sovereign country? That's a real can of worms.

No, and agreed. The status quo is worse for interference in sovereign countries, a small number of people get to decide at EU level what laws will apply to ~500 million citizens across 27 sovereign countries. The alternative is that EU offers opportunities for co-operation on an opt-in basis.

nesf wrote: »

Of our own citizens? We have regular elections, would you prefer a move to the Swiss system?

Our options are not so black and white, what I've proposed is nowhere near as direct a democracy as the Swiss system.

I personally wouldn't be in favour of going that far as we've previously discussed elsewhere, because it can lead to enclaves of extremists. Right now there's a debate in Switzerland over whether citizenship ballots should be open or secret, call me controversial but some of them seem to be a touch xenophobic. A worse risk of going that close to anarchy is what we've seen with that polygamous breakaway sect of Latter Day Saints in the USA, birds of a feather may flock together and I've no doubt that if local laws could override national then we'd have paedophile communities being established.

So no, the common problem with either extreme is a small number of people deciding everything, the wisdom of crowds is a generally the safer bet for sanity and fairness than elite rule.

nesf

democrates wrote: »

Our options are not so black and white, what I've proposed is nowhere near as direct a democracy as the Swiss system.

True, and I agree with you about the problems of taking it too far. The extremes of direct democracy and "representative democracy" aren't very appealing in my opinion. I wasn't attempting to paint the options as black and white, it was poor wording on my part.

The biggest "problem" I have with the idea of a formal mechanism for forcing a referendum is very much open to abuse by special interests. The threat of a referendum could be used against policy that is actually good for a country but very hard to fight for in a referendum, i.e. any legalistic document that's very hard for normal people to read and fully understand. Good policy isn't necessarily policy that is intelligible to the man on the street. You can't run a country based on a bunch of simple bulletin points.

I'd prefer a "suggestion box" idea once that it was public knowledge that said suggestion had been made. At least then there is public evidence and room for much debate for heeding or not heeding a suggestion and it can't just be quietly ignored by politicians.