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

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

darkman2

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PopeBuckfastXVI

alan4cult wrote: »

A summary can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union
See table on right and look how the votes tighten up for large countries.

Thanks found that, but that's it measured against Nice, not against Lisbon.

Also have a look at the above 'edit', it seems Penrose is a non-runner for a lot of countries, Ireland included.

Iwasfrozen

@alan4cult: Some countries have a higher voting weight becuase they have a larger population.
we have 4.5million people, Germany has 82million.
Why shouldn't Germany get a voting weight that is higher than ours ?

alan4cult

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

@alan4cult: Some countries have a higher voting weight becuase they have a larger population.
we have 4.5million people, Germany has 82million.
Why shouldn't Germany get a voting weight that is higher than ours ?

I agree completely that the voting should be in proportion to the population. I'm just not happy with the system they use at the moment.

oscarBravo

alan4cult wrote: »

I agree completely that the voting should be in proportion to the population. I'm just not happy with the system they use at the moment.

What makes you think any alternative will be acceptable to all 27 member states?

RedPlanet

Originally Posted by tmdsurvey
I am voting No to the Lisbon Treaty (re-visited). The Government in power should learn to respect the vote of the people first time around.

skearon wrote: »

It did and carried out extensive reseach to understand the people's vote.

That's not true at all.
They did draw up a report from the Office of the Taoiseach, however their "consultations" regarding the NO result, excluded the main NO campaign organisations AND they ruled out town-hall type open-door sessions. The public had no access and could make no representations.

BlitzKrieg

, excluded the main NO campaign organisations AND they ruled out town-hall type open-door sessions.

source?

alan4cult

oscarBravo wrote: »

What makes you think any alternative will be acceptable to all 27 member states?

Nothing makes me think that all member states will accept it. I'm not asking them to accept. I'm simply stating that I don't like the current system and that is my personal reason for having voted no and for voting no in October.

oscarBravo

alan4cult wrote: »

I'm not talking about a "new" Treaty. I'm just looking for amendments.

alan4cult wrote: »

Nothing makes me think that all member states will accept it. I'm not asking them to accept.

You don't like the voting system proposed in Lisbon, but you're not expecting anything better to be agreed.

I'm confused.

I'm simply stating that I don't like the current system and that is my personal reason for having voted no and for voting no in October.

You don't like the current (i.e. post-Nice) or the proposed (i.e. post-Lisbon) system, or both?

Sam Vimes

Just to put my mind at ease I'd like something cleared up. People keep saying that article 48 is self amending and the European council can change things from unanimity to QMV or take competences or generally make decisions from then on without our approval and I often hear the emotive statement "we'll never have a referendum again".

Reading article 48, it says:
"1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures."

Then in the ordinary revision procedure it says:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

and in the simplified revision procedure it says:
"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

Are the people who keep saying that it overrules our constitution and we won't have any more referendums just retarded, are they being deliberately misled by people who quote parts of the article but leave those two sentences out or are they actually right and am I misreading it? I'd be straight over to the no side if they were right.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to put my mind at ease I'd like something cleared up. People keep saying that article 48 is self amending and the European council can change things from unanimity to QMV or take competences or generally make decisions from then on without our approval and I often hear the emotive statement "we'll never have a referendum again".

Reading article 48, it says:
"1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures."

Then in the ordinary revision procedure it says:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

and in the simplified revision procedure it says:
"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

Are the people who keep saying that it overrules our constitution and we won't have any more referendums just retarded, are they being deliberately misled by people who quote parts of the article but leave those two sentences out or are they actually right and am I misreading it? I'd be straight over to the no side if they were right.

You are right.

The people who say we'll not need any more referenda are a mix of the following:

A. People who are lying, and know that that's not what Article 48 means.
B. People who have read it and not understood it.
C. People who haven't read it and believe people from A and B.

solice

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to put my mind at ease I'd like something cleared up. People keep saying that article 48 is self amending and the European council can change things from unanimity to QMV or take competences or generally make decisions from then on without our approval and I often hear the emotive statement "we'll never have a referendum again".

Reading article 48, it says:
"1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures."

Then in the ordinary revision procedure it says:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

and in the simplified revision procedure it says:
"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

Are the people who keep saying that it overrules our constitution and we won't have any more referendums just retarded, are they being deliberately misled by people who quote parts of the article but leave those two sentences out or are they actually right and am I misreading it? I'd be straight over to the no side if they were right.

Following on from that I have a question - what is the difference between them?

The ordinary revision procedure:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

The simplified revision procedure:
"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

Is the fact that the word "all" is missing from the simplified version significant?

alan4cult

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't like the voting system proposed in Lisbon, but you're not expecting anything better to be agreed.

I'm confused. You don't like the current (i.e. post-Nice) or the proposed (i.e. post-Lisbon) system, or both?

Sorry for the confusion!

I don't completely agree with the current system (i.e. From Nice) but I prefer it to the Lisbon proposals (mainly due to lost vetos in some areas).

Since I wasn't able to Vote in Nice due to my age I'm making decisions based on what currently stands.

alan4cult

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You are right.

The people who say we'll not need any more referenda are a mix of the following:

A. People who are lying, and know that that's not what Article 48 means.
B. People who have read it and not understood it.
C. People who haven't read it and believe people from A and B.

So are you saying then that those who have read it and understood vote yes?

oscarBravo

alan4cult wrote: »

So are you saying then that those who have read it and understood vote yes?

People who have read it and understood it don't vote "no" on the fallacious basis of never having another referendum again.

BlitzKrieg

So are you saying then that those who have read it and understood vote yes?

No

those who have read it and understood do not say:

article 48 is self amending and the European council can change things from unanimity to QMV or take competences or generally make decisions from then on without our approval

"we'll never have a referendum again".

There are other areas people debate over and wish to vote no for.

oscarBravo

alan4cult wrote: »

I don't completely agree with the current system (i.e. From Nice) but I prefer it to the Lisbon proposals (mainly due to lost vetos in some areas).

Since I wasn't able to Vote in Nice due to my age I'm making decisions based on what currently stands.

But that presumes that, if the Lisbon treaty is scrapped, the current post-Nice QMV arrangements will remain in perpetuity. That's simply not realistic - if the 27 member states agreed on a revised form of QMV, it's because there's a strong impetus for revision, and the proposed revision is what was arrived at by consensus and negotiation.

So unless you're voting against Lisbon in the belief that there will never again be another EU treaty, or that no future treaty will include revisions to QMV, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve.

alan4cult

oscarBravo wrote: »

People who have read it and understood it don't vote "no" on the fallacious basis of never having another referendum again.

Apologies, I thought you were referring to the treaty as a whole.

alan4cult

oscarBravo wrote: »

But that presumes that, if the Lisbon treaty is scrapped, the current post-Nice QMV arrangements will remain in perpetuity. That's simply not realistic - if the 27 member states agreed on a revised form of QMV, it's because there's a strong impetus for revision, and the proposed revision is what was arrived at by consensus and negotiation.

So unless you're voting against Lisbon in the belief that there will never again be another EU treaty, or that no future treaty will include revisions to QMV, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve.

I'm voting against in the hope that there will be a future treaty and in the hope that the future treaty will present a voting system that I agree with.

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

They did draw up a report from the Office of the Taoiseach, however their "consultations" regarding the NO result, excluded the main NO campaign organisations AND they ruled out town-hall type open-door sessions.

Which “NO campaign organisations” are you referring to? From what I remember, pretty much any organisation that was in the public eye during the referendum campaign was invited to make representations. Hell, even Coir were allowed in to (quite literally) shout their nonsense all over the place.

djpbarry

alan4cult wrote: »

I don't completely agree with the current system (i.e. From Nice) but I prefer it to the Lisbon proposals (mainly due to lost vetos in some areas).

Which vetoes are you particularly concerned about losing?

Max Power1

NO

(In capitals, maybe thats why they didnt hear us last time?)

devereaux17

Y-E-S

Spiritoftheseventies

N-O-Y-B

Sam Vimes

Max Power1 wrote: »

NO

(In capitals, maybe thats why they didnt hear us last time?)

They heard us alright. They heard that we voted no because of taxation, abortion and neutrality, then they had a look through the treaty, realised that there was nothing about those areas in it and said "Eh, could you actually read the thing before making a decision and get back to us? Ta"

Kidchameleon

Questions Two for you guys/gals:

1. If we vote no again, will the government run another referendum?

2. Considering the recent local and European elections, which turned out to be more of a vote against the current government, will the Oct 2 vote be another "anti biffo" vote? Would it not be in Cowans best interests to get out, could swing a sizeable percentage towards "yes".

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You are right.

The people who say we'll not need any more referenda are a mix of the following:

A. People who are lying, and know that that's not what Article 48 means.
B. People who have read it and not understood it.
C. People who haven't read it and believe people from A and B.

Well that's pretty clear cut

It really ticks me off that these people are still out spouting this crap all over the media. This seems to me to be the most prolific lie since christianity

Sam Vimes

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Questions Two for you guys/gals:

1. If we vote no again, will the government run another referendum?

It was said by a minister the other day (can't remember who) that it wouldn't

Kidchameleon wrote: »

2. Considering the recent local and European elections, which turned out to be more of a vote against the current government, will the Oct 2 vote be another "anti biffo" vote? Would it not be in Cowans best interests to get out, could swing a sizeable percentage towards "yes".

It would be in the interests of the treaty but not Cowen

That's another thing that ticks me off. The number of people that can't tell the difference between a European referendum and a general election. It's like they think the only reason to vote yes is as a favour to Cowen

PopeBuckfastXVI

solice wrote: »

Following on from that I have a question - what is the difference between them?

The ordinary revision procedure:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

The simplified revision procedure:
"That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

Is the fact that the word "all" is missing from the simplified version significant?

Does the simplified procedure allow some sort of enhanced cooperation like the Euro, whereby some member states wouldn't be involved?

Pure guess on my part...

alan4cult

djpbarry wrote: »

Which vetoes are you particularly concerned about losing?

None in particular, just conecerned over the very fact we are losing some.

alan4cult

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It was said by a minister the other day (can't remember who) that it wouldn't

It would be in the interests of the treaty but not Cowen

That's another thing that ticks me off. The number of people that can't tell the difference between a European referendum and a general election. It's like they think the only reason to vote yes is as a favour to Cowen

Well put it this way. We give the "wrong" answer to Lisbon we must vote again. IMO, we should get to vote in the General Election again because with the current government we clearly got that wrong as well.