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 voting no?

Ellie The Mess

Yes, I know, there are probably about a million other threads on this subject but, indeed, I do feel the need to start a new one because, well, I started getting a little bit confused after, having read the 100th page on other threads, nobody had really told me what the reasons for a no vote were yet.

So I'm asking you, people of Ireland, why should an Irish person go and vote no in October even when the protocol is passed?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

i am going to vote yes because for four reasons but mainly the first.

one. because i am in favor of the treaty and the eu.
two. because the smartest people i know are in favor of it.
three. the dumbest hippies i know are against it.
four. i hate declan ganley with a passion.

that's not an insult to anyone on boards.ie but it's definately the case.. arts dropouts and bogmen ra wannabes seem to be madly against the lisbon treaty but people who have a wider perspective on the implications are all for it.

BlitzKrieg

but it's definately the case.. arts dropouts and bogmen ra wannabes seem to be madly against the lisbon treaty but people who have a wider perspective on the implications are all for it.

as true or false as that may be, its not worth saying it because it just riles people up and makes them less willing to discuss the issues with you and brings in accusations of elitism etc.

P. Breathnach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

as true or false as that may be, its not worth saying it because it just riles people up and makes them less willing to discuss the issues with you and brings in accusations of elitism etc.

They are riled up already; most are unwilling to engage in discussion; accusations are already being made. It's depressing.

BlitzKrieg

well throwing a petrol can on top of that wont help things. Just saying.

especially one that can be quoted out of context again and again by sh*stirrers rather then argueing facts.

FutureTaoiseach

Mario007 wrote:

so you're saying your 'no' vote has more impact than my 'yes' vote, well thats not how democracy works. each vote is the same, and you should get used to it.
i would like to ask on this point, with regards to the eu president, the 'no' campaign says he needs to be voted on directly, so are you for imposing your direct democracy on other nations? and what if, say Luxembourg, rejects the candidate, while ireland was highly in favour of him, would you accept on nation saying no to the candidate? or would you impose your will upon them?

The point is that the member states of the EU are not a single demos, in the context of democracy. They are 27 separate demos. Consent by all should be necessary before an EU treaty transferring sovereignty to EU institutions can come into force. Now I know that the legal position is that all member states have to ratify in order for an EU treaty to come into force - and legally that has happened. But morally it has no. The French and Dutch govts were legally-entitled to ratify through their respect parliaments, but by asking their peoples via referenda on the EU Constitution, they have let the genie out of the bottle. Their peoples voted no to this blueprint, which was then reincarnated as the Lisbon Treaty, bar as few bells and whistles like the EU flag and anthem being official, and the content of the Treaty being dispersed between amendments of 2 treaties (the Treaty on the Functioning the Union (formerly the TEC treaty/Rome) and the Treaty on the European Union - arguably a ruse intended to mask the worst kept secret in town - that this is 95% of the rejected EU Constitution tarted up as the Lisbon Treaty in order to foist provisions on the French and Dutch peoples that they rejected.

If the political-class of France and Holland were so sure that the concerns of their respect peoples had been addressed to their satisfaction, they would have put Lisbon to a referendum. Had they done so, and had their respective peoples voted yes, then my view of the legitimacy of this Treaty before Lisbon I would have been much improved. As it stands, Lisbon II is essentially a question to the Irish people as to whether they wish to foist on other nations, a transfer of sovereignty they rejected by direct popular-vote, just because their representative-politicians want them to. But we know well from successive referendum here in Ireland how unrepresentative politicians can be on individual issues where they disagree with the public. In 1995, half the electorate rejected divorce, but few in Dail Eireann did so. Since 1987, at least 30% of the voting electorate has rejected every EU treaty put in front of them - yet again - who is representing their views on the EU in Dail Eireann? You can make the argument that the electorate were voting on other issues rather than the EU were it a no vote in one referendum. But 30% of the voting electorate have been saying no to every EU/EEC treaty since 1987 - the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon. In that context, it strains credulity to argue these people who always vote no are merely motivated by ignorance of the issues. It seems clear to me that this is largely a sovereigntist vote, that wishes to retain what little control Ireland has over its own affairs. And that is an entirely legitimate motivation for rejecting Lisbon and any EU treaty that the electorate feel undermines that goal. Indeed it is clear since Amsterdam that the % who feel that way is closer to 40% as of the Nice II referendum. There is something disturbing about a political-class that is so out of touch an unrepresentative of its electorate generally. The party-whip system has much to do with this, as does the prospect of patronage in Brussels. As in 1800, it seems (nearly) every politician has his price. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw wrote:

I'll ask you the same question I've asked several others (without ever receiving a straight answer) - what percentage change would be required between consecutive treaties before you'd consider them different treaties? How would you measure such change?

It depends. If the French and Dutch peoples had been asked to vote on Lisbon in a referendum - even with it being 95% the same as the rejected EU Constitution - and supported it - then the 95% point would die in my eyes because the decision to proceed with Lisbon would no longer be a defiance of a referendum result that had not been overturned. In the absence of Franco-Dutch referenda, I would want to see major changes in the constitutional provisions of Lisbon with respect to EU competences, the balance of power between the institutions and the balance of power between the national and European political-spheres. The problem is not merely that it's only a 5% change, but that the relevant 5% is almost entirely symbolic, relating to names-changes e.g. the EU Foreign Minister will be called the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy instead, and removal of the references to the European flag and anthem. In terms of the constitutional implications of the EU Constitution in terms of decisionmaking, there is almost no difference between the Constitution and Lisbon. That demonstrates subterfuge and bad faith on the part of national and European politicians that sticks in my craw and sits ill with my democratic-instincts. In a democracy, the politicians should serve the people - not try to bully them into submission as is happening with Lisbon II. Speaking personally, the problem for me is not so much that the other member states haven't had a referendum on Lisbon (though that does disturb me). It is more that 2 nations have said no to 95% of its provisions, are not being asked have they changed their minds, yet we are being asked to foist those same provisions on them. It smacks of coercion. For my own part, the minimum I would require to move to he yes column would be an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which expands the jurisdiction of the ECJ into many areas of human rights policy that I think are the business of the state.

TriceMarie

It really annoys me how people do not have nearly half enough information on the whole thing.
People don't really know what they're voting for,espically those that know nothing about politics,and that's highly unfair!:mad:

Can someone who actually has correct knowledge please give me information on this:
I have heard that if the treaty is passed,out army wont remain netural..
Is this correct?

FutureTaoiseach

TriceMarie wrote: »

It really annoys me how people do not have nearly half enough information on the whole thing.
People don't really know what they're voting for,espically those that know nothing about politics,and that's highly unfair!:mad:

Can someone who actually has correct knowledge please give me information on this:
I have heard that if the treaty is passed,out army wont remain netural..
Is this correct?

I believe so. Article 28A of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon signs us up to a mutual-defence pact. It requires that our defence policy be "consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". So effectively, we will be part of NATO under Lisbon:

Article 28a(7) wrote:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

TriceMarie

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I believe so. Article 28A of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon signs us up to a mutual-defence pact. It requires that our defence policy be "consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". So effectively, we will be part of NATO under Lisbon:

OH DEAR NO!!:eek::(

[Deleted User]

TriceMarie wrote: »

OH DEAR NO!!:eek::(

what's the problem here?

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So effectively, we will be part of NATO under Lisbon:

I have to say, that's one of the cheekiest, most bare-faced lies I've ever seen put forward on this forum.

And that's saying something.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have to say, that's one of the cheekiest, most bare-faced lies I've ever seen put forward on this forum.

And that's saying something.

How else can this passage be interpreted:

Article 28A (as amended by Lisbon) wrote:

cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

How else can this passage be interpreted:

What are our commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

molloyjh

I just love how FT sees that it is his right to determine whether Lisbon has been "morally ratified" by the other Member States. That he has the right to insist on how the other Member States do things. That he feels he can impose his beliefs on others.

So many people shout "respect our sovereignty, our democracy and our decision" yet refuse to respect other Member States democratic methods. The same people shout about democracy, while also saying we shouldn't have another referendum or that if we do it shouldn't count. The same people shout about not abusing migrant labour, but then go on to talk about looking after our own first.

Am I the only one finding it all very tiring?

Riskymove

molloyjh wrote: »

I just love how FT sees that it is his right to determine whether Lisbon has been "morally ratified" by the other Member States. That he has the right to insist on how the other Member States do things. That he feels he can impose his beliefs on others.

So many people shout "respect our sovereignty, our democracy and our decision" yet refuse to respect other Member States democratic methods. The same people shout about democracy, while also saying we shouldn't have another referendum or that if we do it shouldn't count. The same people shout about not abusing migrant labour, but then go on to talk about looking after our own first.

Am I the only one finding it all very tiring?

Given the amount of mis-interpretation, confusion, voting for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty etc is it any surprise other states do not hold referendum

the Governments of these states are elected to represent the people in such decisions. If people were really so against it then anti-treaty parties will get support/be elected

FutureTaoiseach

molloyjh wrote: »

I just love how FT sees that it is his right to determine whether Lisbon has been "morally ratified" by the other Member States. That he has the right to insist on how the other Member States do things. That he feels he can impose his beliefs on others.

So many people shout "respect our sovereignty, our democracy and our decision" yet refuse to respect other Member States democratic methods. The same people shout about democracy, while also saying we shouldn't have another referendum or that if we do it shouldn't count. The same people shout about not abusing migrant labour, but then go on to talk about looking after our own first.

Am I the only one finding it all very tiring?

We are talking about a treaty increase the powers of supranational institutions. As such, how and if it comes into force is our business, because these institutions will have power over our lives.

Deleted User wrote: »

i am going to vote yes because for four reasons but mainly the first.

one. because i am in favor of the treaty and the eu.
two. because the smartest people i know are in favor of it.
three. the dumbest hippies i know are against it.
four. i hate declan ganley with a passion.

that's not an insult to anyone on boards.ie but it's definately the case.. arts dropouts and bogmen ra wannabes seem to be madly against the lisbon treaty but people who have a wider perspective on the implications are all for it.

Oh wow, and they say that people vote "no" out of ignorance.

Well done.

Scofflaw

TriceMarie wrote: »

It really annoys me how people do not have nearly half enough information on the whole thing.
People don't really know what they're voting for,espically those that know nothing about politics,and that's highly unfair!:mad:

Can someone who actually has correct knowledge please give me information on this:
I have heard that if the treaty is passed,out army wont remain netural..
Is this correct?

That's a claim that's been made about every EU treaty - admittedly, not usually in such a grossly inaccurate way as this:

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

I believe so. Article 28A of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon signs us up to a mutual-defence pact. It requires that our defence policy be "consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation". So effectively, we will be part of NATO under Lisbon:

Since we have no NATO commitments, FutureTaoiseach has latched onto something that's irrelevant to us.

However, he has at least identified the Article that's probably of most direct interest to the question, even if he has misinterpreted it by apparently reading only part of a sentence:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation

We can read through that end to end as follows, which is what you need to do, rather than extracting a couple of words:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

On its own, this would make us no longer neutral, because it would commit us to an open-ended arrangement very similar to a mutual defence treaty (although mutual defence treaties are usually explicit about mutual defence).

However, it's followed immediately in the Article by this:

This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation

This is a huge rider to the commitment given. It makes two essential exemptions - that the commitment to mutual assistance given first shall not "prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States". This is a phrase that was introduced at Maastricht, and is sometimes called "the Irish clause", because it was inserted at the insistence of the Irish government. It appears, along with the NATO exemption, in Article 17 of Maastricht:

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

Note that if we follow FutureTaoiseach's interpretation, then we apparently joined NATO at Maastricht.

The point of the rider is that any obligations we sign up to under the mutual assistance Article cannot prejudice our defence/security policy - which is neutrality. The phrase likewise covers those other member states with a policy of neutrality - Finland, Austria, Sweden

The second rider doesn't apply to us, but to NATO members. NATO is a mutual defence treaty, and for those EU members that are members of NATO (23 of them, I think), NATO obligations take precedence over the mutual assistance obligations they commit to.

This is an article from 2003, during the negotiations for the EU Constitution, which outlines the process by which this commitment came to be:

According to Associated Press, Austria and Sweden are ready to accept the Italian Presidency's modified proposal for a mutual EU defence policy clause in the European Constitution. Finland and Ireland, the EU's two other neutral states, have yet to respond to the Italian compromise.

The four neutral states rejected the previous proposal which would have obliged all Member States to help any other member in case of an attack. The mutual defence clause in the original proposal said that if any member is "the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance". However, the four states said their neutral status could be threatened, arguing that "Formal binding security guarantees would be inconsistent with our security policy or constitutional requirements".

The new Italian proposal would maintain the stipulation that EU states shall have an obligation to a partner under attack. However, an additional sentence would indicate that this stipulation "does not affect the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States".

Various other claims are made about neutrality and Lisbon - the other major one is that the creation of a European Defence Agency (EDA) has been described as the creation of an "EU Pentagon". However, the EDA already exists, and we are already members - it's essentially a joint procurement agency, to which we have signed up in the hopes of buying military equipment more cheaply. It's voluntary, so if it becomes something more, we can leave.

A little long-winded, but hopefully helpful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

We are talking about a treaty increase the powers of supranational institutions. As such, how and if it comes into force is our business, because these institutions will have power over our lives.

But you don't have the right to determine how a Spaniard comes to accept the treaty or reject it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

But you don't have the right to determine how a Spaniard comes to accept the treaty or reject it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nothing is agreed until everyone agrees, as far as I am concerned. Do the Spanish people have a right to give away their sovereignty to Brussels? Yes. Do they have a right to give away Irish sovereignty to Brussels? No. If the Spanish care about this so much, they can form some other body with likeminded states and give their sovereignty to that. But the principle within the EU is - nothing is agreed unless everyone agrees. That is the legal-position, but has been partly subverted by the imposition by the Franco-Dutch parliaments to impose 95% of a rejected EU Constitution on their citizens. As far as I can see, we are being inducted into a conspiracy to subvert France-Dutch democracy by voting yes. When someone asks you to join a conspiracy, what it entails, including in other member states, is your business.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But the principle within the EU is - nothing is agreed unless everyone agrees. That is the legal-position, but has been partly subverted by the imposition by the Franco-Dutch parliaments to impose 95% of a rejected EU Constitution on their citizens.

Only if you interpret the phrase "everyone agrees" as "every citizen of every member state agrees", which is clearly nonsensical. You could stretch it as far as "a majority of the electorate in each member state agrees", but only if you're determined to impose the Irish method of ratifying EU treaties on the other member states.

The straightforward, and correct, interpretation of "everyone agrees" is "every member state agrees", in accordance with their respective constitutional arrangements.

As far as I can see, we are being inducted into a conspiracy to subvert France-Dutch democracy by voting yes. When someone asks you to join a conspiracy, what it entails, including in other member states, is your business.

On the contrary, the only conspiracy to subvert the democracy of other EU member states is the insistence by certain individuals here that the member states' respective constitutional arrangements be set aside and referenda imposed on them. Imposed how, and by whom, remains - as always - a mystery.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Nothing is agreed until everyone agrees, as far as I am concerned. Do the Spanish people have a right to give away their sovereignty to Brussels? Yes. Do they have a right to give away Irish sovereignty to Brussels? No. If the Spanish care about this so much, they can form some other body with likeminded states and give their sovereignty to that. But the principle within the EU is - nothing is agreed unless everyone agrees. That is the legal-position, but has been partly subverted by the imposition by the Franco-Dutch parliaments to impose 95% of a rejected EU Constitution on their citizens. As far as I can see, we are being inducted into a conspiracy to subvert France-Dutch democracy by voting yes. When someone asks you to join a conspiracy, what it entails, including in other member states, is your business.

The initial point, that the Spanish have the right to "give away their sovereignty" (which for the moment I won't take you up on), is correct. Not only do they have that right, but, being sovereign, they have the right to determine how they will reach that decision.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Deleted User wrote: »

i am going to vote yes because for four reasons but mainly the first.

one. because i am in favor of the treaty and the eu.
two. because the smartest people i know are in favor of it.
three. the dumbest hippies i know are against it.
four. i hate declan ganley with a passion.

that's not an insult to anyone on boards.ie but it's definately the case.. arts dropouts and bogmen ra wannabes seem to be madly against the lisbon treaty but people who have a wider perspective on the implications are all for it.

I am going to vote No because of a few reasons but mainly for the first
one. see above

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

The initial point, that the Spanish have the right to "give away their sovereignty" (which for the moment I won't take you up on), is correct. Not only do they have that right, but, being sovereign, they have the right to determine how they will reach that decision.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The underlying point I am making is that if a nation chooses not to transfer its sovereignty to supranational EU institutions, it should not be forced to - even if its politicians say otherwise. The French and Dutch govts let the genie out of the bottle when they held the referenda on the EU Constitution. Had they not done so, the Treaty wouldn't be tainted as essentially the same one rejected by the French and Dutch peoples. It is my firm conviction that where a referendum is held in a country and the elite refuse to go along with the wishes of the people - and the spirit of the decision - that direct popular democracy supersedes representative-democracy.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The underlying point I am making is that if a nation chooses not to transfer its sovereignty to supranational EU institutions, it should not be forced to - even if its politicians say otherwise. The French and Dutch govts let the genie out of the bottle when they held the referenda on the EU Constitution. Had they not done so, the Treaty wouldn't be tainted as essentially the same one rejected by the French and Dutch peoples. It is my firm conviction that where a referendum is held in a country and the elite refuse to go along with the wishes of the people - and the spirit of the decision - that direct popular democracy supersedes representative-democracy.

If you're referring to the democratically elected governments of countries as "the elites", please stop doing so. This is not the Conspiracy Theories forum.

I wouldn't argue that a direct democratic vote supersedes a representative democratic vote. I don't, however, see the relevance, since the other EU member states haven't had referendums on Lisbon, and the question of whether the Constitution and Lisbon are essentially identical is one that is a matter of opinion - I can think of at least one major mechanism in Lisbon that isn't in the Constitution, and that, for me at least, forms a very strong plus point for Lisbon. Let's see whether you know what it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The underlying point I am making is that if a nation chooses not to transfer its sovereignty to supranational EU institutions, it should not be forced to - even if its politicians say otherwise. The French and Dutch govts let the genie out of the bottle when they held the referenda on the EU Constitution. Had they not done so, the Treaty wouldn't be tainted as essentially the same one rejected by the French and Dutch peoples. It is my firm conviction that where a referendum is held in a country and the elite refuse to go along with the wishes of the people - and the spirit of the decision - that direct popular democracy supersedes representative-democracy.

How do you then respond to the point many have raised that the French have since had a presidential election where the winner stated that he would ratify the new Lisbon treaty without a referendum? That election was also an exercise in direct popular democracy, which is more recent and more directly relevant to Lisbon.

At the risk of sounding elitist, sometimes politicans have to lead. Zarkozy suggested what he thought the best route forward was, and the people in France appear to have accepted that. There have been no mass protests in France, and no general strikes.

I don't know whether Lisbon came up in the last Dutch general election, but that was held in 2006, the year after they rejected the Constitution, and yet again the public there voted in a massive pro-Lisbon majority as has been shown by their ratification.

One can endlessly argue, as we have been doing, whether a government has the right to do something which might be interpreted as counter to a previous referendum, but when there have been elections where the public had an opportunity to change policy surely such an argument has less merit?

Other countries can ratify Lisbon without referenda. Their electorates have had the opportunity to bring to power anti-EU representatives and have not. In Ireland the government can run another referendum. The public could have put that in doubt by electing a majority of anti-Lisbon candidates in the local and MEP votes. They did not.

This is supposed to be how representative domocracies work. The governments do what they think best in the interests of the country, and what is legal. If you don't like that you change the government and make changing the law part of the election debate.

Ix

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Had they not done so, the Treaty wouldn't be tainted as essentially the same one rejected by the French and Dutch peoples.

If the Constitution and Lisbon are "essentially the same", what percentage change would be required before you would consider them sufficiently different to void this argument, and how would you measure such change?

sink

ixtlan wrote: »

I don't know whether Lisbon came up in the last Dutch general election, but that was held in 2006, the year after they rejected the Constitution, and yet again the public there voted in a massive pro-Lisbon majority as has been shown by their ratification.

In addition binding referenda are illegal in the Netherlands and as such the vote on the European Constitution was meant to be non-binding and purely symbolic. However after the no vote it became politically untenable to ratify the constitution. A Dutch court ruled that as even non-binding referenda are apparently binding they are in fact also illegal under Dutch law.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

the only conspiracy to subvert the democracy of other EU member states is the insistence by certain individuals here that the member states' respective constitutional arrangements be set aside and referenda imposed on them. Imposed how, and by whom, remains - as always - a mystery.

Oh! How didn't I see it! The people of the other 26 member states don't want a referendum. How could we possibly have the cheek to override the people and their constitution and force them to vote, when they clearly do not want to - obviously the case because if they wanted a referendum they would have voted for communists or neo-nazis in their parliaments.

Hold on! By that logic the Irish don't want a referendum either (Sinn Fein and Socialists being almost non-existent). Ah nuts! If only our constitution could be swell like those in Europe we wouldn't be in this mess now.

We can not override the constitutions of other member states; but the governments of those states are allowed to change the constitutions of their states without consulting the people? God - I keep being stupid - if the people didn't want their constitutions to be changed by Lisbon they would have voted neo-nazi.

Don't you just hate how the Unionists in the US Civil War forced their undemocratic views of emancipation onto the slaves (who clearly did not like the idea)?

P.S. The argument of the French presidential election does have some validity (even though Le Pen was the only candidate who was anti-Lisbon, Royal did promise a referendum). It clearly is the case that issues concerning running the country were more important for the French than the availability of a vote on a theoretical treaty, as it would have been for me.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh! How didn't I see it! The people of the other 26 member states don't want a referendum. How could we possibly have the cheek to override the people and their constitution and force them to vote, when they clearly do not want to...

No, you still don't see it.

How could we possibly have the cheek to override the people and their constitution whether we think they want it or not.

If they want to change their constitutions, they have both the right and the duty to put in motion the necessary procedures to do so. If their constitutions allow for referenda and the people want one, they have both the right and the duty to put in motion the necessary procedures to hold one.

What the other member states don't have any right to do is to tell us whether or not we should modify our constitutional arrangements for the ratification of treaties - and we have no right to tell them to modify theirs.

I'm surprised how much difficulty you're having grasping the simple fact of sovereignty.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

P.S. The argument of the French presidential election does have some validity (even though Le Pen was the only candidate who was anti-Lisbon, Royal did promise a referendum). It clearly is the case that issues concerning running the country were more important for the French than the availability of a vote on a theoretical treaty, as it would have been for me.

And issues that the public don't feel are that important are exactly the issues that the public delegates to its representatives.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that there is any sense of outrage in Europe at the oft-paraded "denial" of referendums. There was supposed to be a series of public demonstrations all round Europe last year in favour of referendums. They were unbelievably sad - the largest was maybe 30 people, but most of them didn't even make double digits.

cordially,
Scofflaw