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

Scofflaw · 19-08-2009 07:29PM

rumour wrote: »

I haven't the time nor inclination to indulge your demands. The motivation has gone.

Surely even you will concede saving us both time that I am not incorrect in saying that the Lisbon Treaty should have been abondoned once we voted no.

Er, no, that's not a given at all. There's no requirement to have done so, and there's plenty of precedent for not doing so, both from Ireland (Nice) and Denmark (Maastricht). There's no question whatsoever that the government has the legal right to rerun a referendum, twice a week if desired.

What's your objection to renegotiation after refusal, exactly?

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 07:39PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

That post reflects the ideology behind Lisbon that I have observed from some years in this debate. Namely, an ideological opposition to the concept of the nation state.

I have no ideological opposition to the concept of the nation-state. Equally, I don't have a teary-eyed romantic view that the nation-state is infallibly ordained as the perfect and incorruptible form of governance. Nation-states have spent centuries at war with each other for jingoistic nationalist reasons.

Nation-states are fine, as far as they go. They have their drawbacks. If some pooling of sovereignty helps alleviate those drawbacks, I'm all for it.

Was this what 1916 was for? I think not.

If 1916 was for a permanent entrenchment of a single form of governance, with no consideration ever to be given to the possibility of political evolution - then I don't particularly care what it was for.

rumour wrote: »

I haven't the time nor inclination to indulge your demands. The motivation has gone.

In other words, you don't have an answer. You made something up, and you can't back it up, and you're indulging in this affected ennui to try to cover it up.

Surely even you will concede saving us both time that I am not incorrect in saying that the Lisbon Treaty should have been abondoned once we voted no.

Why would I concede anything of the kind? You just made it up.

The Volt · 19-08-2009 07:39PM

Voltwad wrote: »

I'll be voting yes. Couple of things I'd like to hear other people's take on though.

One side argues the Lisbon Treaty protects worker's rights while the other says it doesn't. Would anyone here agree that most of the rights workers have today in Ireland have come from being in European Legislation rather than from our own Governments down the years? I personally feel that the best way to protect worker's rights is indeed to proceed with Lisbon and continue to work with the EU and other unions across the continent rather than leave it down to the powers that be. The best thing for workers would be the introduction of this social chapter surely? Add to this that John Monks, General Secretary of ETUC actually recommended a yes vote to all of the trade union officials as well. He did of course say he had a few issues with it, overall he was satisfied but nothing is perfect. Of course the 'no' campaigners picked these problems he had with it out of his report, highlighted these and ignored the fact that he supported it overall.
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2009/07/10/address-by-john-monks-general-secretary-etuc/

Secondly, I don't accept that the treaty's repeat is undemocratic given that the no side used so many lies and twisting of words the last time. All this bull about babies being conscripted etc sickened me. I feel that the actions of both sides and the lack of willingness of the majority to educate themselves with even the basic points of the treaty combined with the fearmongering of the no side and the laziness of the government threw the idea of a democratic vote out the window.

The 'no' side is campaigned by extremists on the right (Your Declan Ganleys of this world) as well as extremists on the left (Sinn Fein, Joe Higgins etc). These people wouldn't spit on each other if their counterpart was on fire yet they'll team up to tear the EU down. Compromise is key in advancing in politics yet these kind of people only want what they want at any cost, screw everyone else. I can't fathom how people who actually believe in things like democracy and policies of their respective parties that support the treaty actually follow these 'politicians' in European matters.

Any thoughts anyone?

FutureTaoiseach · 19-08-2009 07:42PM

Coltwad wrote:

The 'no' side is campaigned by extremists on the right (Your Declan Ganleys of this world) as well as extremists on the left (Sinn Fein, Joe Higgins etc). These people wouldn't spit on each other if their counterpart was on fire yet they'll team up to tear the EU down. Compromise is key in advancing in politics yet these kind of people only want what they want at any cost, screw everyone else. I can't fathom how people who actually believe in things like democracy and policies of their respective parties that support the treaty actually follow these 'politicians' in European matters.

Just as the yes-parties are unrepresentative of their supporters (many of whom are no voters), so too are the no campaign-leaders unrepresentative of no voters. But that doesn't mean concerns they bring up are contaminated by the ideological-bent of no campaign leaders. Anthony Coughlan's predictions on an influx of cheap labour after Nice turned out to be true, making it the first time the no side were proven correct. And I say that as someone who voted yes on both occasions.

And as for extremism, as far as I am concerned, there's something pretty extreme about foisting this on nations whose peoples voted no, simply by reheating 95% of the provisions of the EU Constitution into a rather disgusting meal called the Lisbon treaty. The electorate has consistently shown in the referendum-process since 1937 that sometimes they are on different sides of the fence from their elected representatives. Very few of us are programmed to agree with our politicians 100% of the time. Were that not the case, we wouldn't need elections.

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 07:46PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And as for extremism, as far as I am concerned, there's something pretty extreme about foisting this on nations whose peoples voted no, simply by reheating 95% of the provisions of the EU Constitution into a rather disgusting meal called the Lisbon treaty.

Is it your view that, once a treaty is defeated in a referendum, that not one provision of that treaty should ever again be included in a future treaty?

If not, what percentage of provisions would need to be excluded before the new treaty had validity? Who decides this percentage, and who decides which provisions are kept and which discarded?

These are questions I've repeatedly asked, and haven't received straight answers to.

ei.sdraob · 19-08-2009 07:53PM

Voltwad wrote: »

Any thoughts anyone?

i think workers rights deserves a whole thread of its own

FutureTaoiseach · 19-08-2009 08:55PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it your view that, once a treaty is defeated in a referendum, that not one provision of that treaty should ever again be included in a future treaty?

No, but it is by view that it should go to referenda in all the member states that have not already held them.

If not, what percentage of provisions would need to be excluded before the new treaty had validity? Who decides this percentage, and who decides which provisions are kept and which discarded?

These are questions I've repeatedly asked, and haven't received straight answers to.

I've answered that question above. Validity is conferred on a treaty affecting national sovereignty - in my eyes - by the will of people as expressed in a referendum.

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 09:02PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No, but it is by view that it should go to referenda in all the member states that have not already held them.

Does that mean that no treaty containing any of the provisions of Lisbon should ever again be put to the Irish electorate?

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 09:08PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I've answered that question above. Validity is conferred on a treaty affecting national sovereignty - in my eyes - by the will of people as expressed in a referendum.

So, therefore, no existing EU treaty is valid, as no treaty to date has been ratified by a referendum in every EU member state?

It's superficially clever to claim to be supportive of the EU, if only they'd comply with one teeny-weeny completely unfeasible demand.

FutureTaoiseach · 19-08-2009 09:17PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, therefore, no existing EU treaty is valid, as no treaty to date has been ratified by a referendum in every EU member state?

It's superficially clever to claim to be supportive of the EU, if only they'd comply with one teeny-weeny completely unfeasible demand.

As explained before, I am referring to the ratification of any treaties that are not already ratified. I admitted having 2 standards on this question before, because the SEA and Maastricht were primarily about the Single Market and commercial policy, whereas since then, the EU has moved decisively to gain power over sensitive domestic issues such as Justice and Home Affairs and aspects of foreign and security policy - notably with respect to Lisbon. So we are in a new situation, in which popular-will becomes a more important element in terms of conferring legitimacy on the process of further European integration.

Does that mean that no treaty containing any of the provisions of Lisbon should ever again be put to the Irish electorate?

No. Nor did I ever say it should. The important thing is that the Irish people have the final say on any transfer of sovereignty to Brussels and the Eurocrats.

oscarBravo · 19-08-2009 09:24PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

As explained before, I am referring to the ratification of any treaties that are not already ratified. I admitted having 2 standards on this question before, because the SEA and Maastricht were primarily about the Single Market and commercial policy...

So Nice has no validity, since it wasn't ratified by a referendum in every member state?

No. Nor did I ever say it should. The important thing is that the Irish people have the final say on any transfer of sovereignty to Brussels and the Eurocrats.

Ah, the futility of consistency.

You are at the forefront of those who bang on and on and on about Lisbon containing "95%" of the provisions of the Constitution. Now what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how many provisions remain the same between treaties, as long as the treaty is ratified by referendum?

Just so I'm absolutely clear: you have no problem with the exact same treaty being presented for ratification twice, as long as it's ratified by referendum?

Oh yeah, and as long as it's ratified by referendum in countries that have never ratified a treaty by referendum, and can't practically do so. Because they're all sovereign states. But they have to do things our way, or they're not proper democracies.

FutureTaoiseach · 19-08-2009 09:33PM

oscarBravo wrote:

You are at the forefront of those who bang on and on and on about Lisbon containing "95%" of the provisions of the Constitution. Now what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how many provisions remain the same between treaties, as long as the treaty is ratified by referendum?

You are misinterpreting what I said. Just to clarify: You asked should no treaty that contains provisions from a previously rejected one be put before the Irish people. I acknowledge that people have a right to change their minds, but here is the rub: Any nation which votes in a referendum to reject those provisions, should not have them imposed on them without a referendum. That is my underlying point. And since you mention Nice, in the light of what happened since then, notably demographically, I would not have voted for it had I then known what I now know. My outlook on these questions is ultimately derived from popular-sovereignty.

As for Nice, did you not read what I said? I was referring to what should happen with respect to treaties not already ratified. Nice has already been ratified in all member states. And the successful referenda on Enlargement on the basis of treaties including Nice in 10 Eastern European countries and our yes vote in Ireland certainly confers more legitimacy on it than Lisbon. There are degrees of legitimacy and illegitimacy, and Nice has more legitimacy than Lisbon but would have had more had all member states put it to the vote and had it passed in that manner. Lisbon/EU Constitution has been rejected by 3 nations and supported by 2. But as there is no such thing as a "European demos", a rejection by one means it can't come into force. I believe the Franco-Dutch question will continue to dog the yes campaign in this referendum just as I believe it did last time.

Scofflaw · 19-08-2009 10:07PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You are misinterpreting what I said. Just to clarify: You asked should no treaty that contains provisions from a previously rejected one be put before the Irish people. I acknowledge that people have a right to change their minds, but here is the rub: Any nation which votes in a referendum to reject those provisions, should not have them imposed on them without a referendum. That is my underlying point. And since you mention Nice, in the light of what happened since then, notably demographically, I would not have voted for it had I then known what I now know. My outlook on these questions is ultimately derived from popular-sovereignty.

Actually, your outlook on these matters appears rather more to derive from your views on immigration, which you presume to be the views of the majority.

Also, of course, you seem to have missed Oscar's point. If Lisbon is not exactly the same as the Constitution, then the Constitution is not being "forced on countries that rejected it by referendum". We all agree that Lisbon isn't exactly the same as the Constitution, but your claim relies on it being substantially so (despite needing it also to have been change significantly enough to "bypass" referendums). Oscar is quite reasonably enquiring where you draw the line on similar provisions being included.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

As for Nice, did you not read what I said? I was referring to what should happen with respect to treaties not already ratified. Nice has already been ratified in all member states. And the successful referenda on Enlargement on the basis of treaties including Nice in 10 Eastern European countries and our yes vote in Ireland certainly confers more legitimacy on it than Lisbon. There are degrees of legitimacy and illegitimacy, and Nice has more legitimacy than Lisbon but would have had more had all member states put it to the vote and had it passed in that manner. Lisbon/EU Constitution has been rejected by 3 nations and supported by 2. But as there is no such thing as a "European demos", a rejection by one means it can't come into force. I believe the Franco-Dutch question will continue to dog the yes campaign in this referendum just as I believe it did last time.

In other words, you wish to discount the fact that more people voted for the Constitution than against it by proclaiming the illegitimacy of considering those numbers.

We are in the realms of very special pleading here.

amused,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach · 19-08-2009 10:12PM

You can no more claim that the support of a majority in Spain and Luxembourg, by outnumbering the no votes in Ireland, France and Holland, constitutes a majority of Europeans in favour of Lisbon, no more than you could argue that the votes of Mayo in the last GE constituted the will of the majority of the Irish people at the time. But even if it did, I reject the majoritarian principle of treating EU citizens as a single constituency/demos, to decide the powers of the EU institutions on the basis of simple majorities.

On the contrary, I believe there are 27 separate demos in the EU, and that none of them should lose sovereignty except by their own free will. Otherwise, we are disavowing the principle of self-determination, which is part of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. We should also bear in mind all that was sacrificed to secure Irish independence in the first place. If we give it away, then the sacrifices of the patriot dead will have been for nothing.

Scofflaw · 19-08-2009 10:45PM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You can no more claim that the support of a majority in Spain and Luxembourg, by outnumbering the no votes in Ireland, France and Holland, constitutes a majority of Europeans in favour of Lisbon, no more than you could argue that the votes of Mayo in the last GE constituted the will of the majority of the Irish people at the time. But even if it did, I reject the majoritarian principle of treating EU citizens as a single constituency/demos, to decide the powers of the EU institutions on the basis of simple majorities.

Despite proclaiming the referendum - a simple majority of the whole country - as the most democratic kind of vote? A little consistency would be nice!

On the contrary, I believe there are 27 separate demos in the EU, and that none of them should lose sovereignty except by their own free will. Otherwise, we are disavowing the principle of self-determination, which is part of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. We should also bear in mind all that was sacrificed to secure Irish independence in the first place. If we give it away, then the sacrifices of the patriot dead will have been for nothing.

How handy it is that the dead can neither speak nor hold new opinions.

amused,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick · 19-08-2009 11:02PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Despite proclaiming the referendum - a simple majority of the whole country - as the most democratic kind of vote? A little consistency would be nice!

It's quite obvious that he's arguing that each nation's opinion should be taken individually rather than a simple majority of EU citizens as a whole - because if you take a simple majority of the EU itself, you're implying a superstate, which is exactly what we don't want and which the YES side denies is being sought.

How handy it is that the dead can neither speak nor hold new opinions.

amused,
Scofflaw

I've asked you this before and you didn't give a definitive answer.
Do you favour independence or not?
That is, you claim that the EU does not create a federal US. of Europe or remove national sovereignty from Ireland. But if it did[/i[, would you still support it? Do you value our national sovereignty or not? Because what I'm getting from your posts is not that the Lisbon treaty preserves the individuality of nation states, but that whether it does or not is irrelevant, as you don't care about our independence from other nations.

A yes or no, if you don't mind...

Scofflaw · 20-08-2009 12:00AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's quite obvious that he's arguing that each nation's opinion should be taken individually rather than a simple majority of EU citizens as a whole - because if you take a simple majority of the EU itself, you're implying a superstate, which is exactly what we don't want and which the YES side denies is being sought.

I'm amused by the inconsistencies in his views. I don't really care whether there's a "European demos" or not - a question that affects every person in Europe seems to me to be one perfectly capable of being settled by asking each person to vote, and accepting the majority verdict. What difference would a "European demos" make?

To be honest, when I see the term, I suspect that a verbal sleight is taking place - people are unable to justify the use of nation by nation voting in a matter supposedly settled by the citizens for the benefit of the citizens, so they resort to this arcane concept. I say 'arcane', but I should really say "inapplicable". The demos of Athens was a few tens of thousands of people, of a similar social background and living within a few square miles. Even Dublin South-East is hardly a demos by those terms of reference, and there is certainly no such thing as an Irish demos - the claim that I am somehow mystically akin to a Donegal fishermen and a Limerick Traveller by virtue of simple geography is equally simple rubbish.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've asked you this before and you didn't give a definitive answer.
Do you favour independence or not?
That is, you claim that the EU does not create a federal US. of Europe or remove national sovereignty from Ireland. But if it did[/i[, would you still support it? Do you value our national sovereignty or not? Because what I'm getting from your posts is not that the Lisbon treaty preserves the individuality of nation states, but that whether it does or not is irrelevant, as you don't care about our independence from other nations.

A yes or no, if you don't mind...

I have answered that question before, but perhaps not to you. I would strongly oppose a federal Europe, unless it was a federation so loose as to be practically meaningless, or unless it offered more subsidiarity than Ireland's centralised State does.

Offered the opportunity, say, to have meaningful political control of Dublin in Dublin hands within a European federation that set a basic minimum of laws centrally...that I would find really rather tempting, at least partly because I don't believe (as per my mini-rant above) in any such thing as a 'national demos'.

What I don't have, and it appears I am expected to have, is some mystical attachment to Ireland as a nation-state. If truth be known, I would prefer a political landscape made up of a far far larger number of far smaller entities. The nation-state is very much an artificial construct - a Procrustean bed for local culture and autonomy. A European federal state in its image would be an abomination.

Is that sufficiently definitive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach · 20-08-2009 12:45AM

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm amused by the inconsistencies in his views. I don't really care whether there's a "European demos" or not - a question that affects every person in Europe seems to me to be one perfectly capable of being settled by asking each person to vote, and accepting the majority verdict. What difference would a "European demos" make?

Let all Europeans vote, but on the basis that they are separate nations, but with unanimous approval of all nations required for the ratification of EU constitutional treaties transferring sovereignty to the institutions. There is no inconsistency. The consistent principle is one of national self-determination, upon which this state was founded i.e. nations should decide their own future. It follows from that that if a nation does not wish to transfer sovereignty, it shouldn't be forced to.

Red Sleeping Beauty · 20-08-2009 01:55AM

Voltwad wrote: »

I'll be voting yes. Couple of things I'd like to hear other people's take on though.

One side argues the Lisbon Treaty protects worker's rights while the other says it doesn't. Would anyone here agree that most of the rights workers have today in Ireland have come from being in European Legislation rather than from our own Governments down the years? I personally feel that the best way to protect worker's rights is indeed to proceed with Lisbon and continue to work with the EU and other unions across the continent rather than leave it down to the powers that be. The best thing for workers would be the introduction of this social chapter surely? Add to this that John Monks, General Secretary of ETUC actually recommended a yes vote to all of the trade union officials as well. He did of course say he had a few issues with it, overall he was satisfied but nothing is perfect. Of course the 'no' campaigners picked these problems he had with it out of his report, highlighted these and ignored the fact that he supported it overall.
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2009/07/10/address-by-john-monks-general-secretary-etuc/

Secondly, I don't accept that the treaty's repeat is undemocratic given that the no side used so many lies and twisting of words the last time. All this bull about babies being conscripted etc sickened me. I feel that the actions of both sides and the lack of willingness of the majority to educate themselves with even the basic points of the treaty combined with the fearmongering of the no side and the laziness of the government threw the idea of a democratic vote out the window.

The 'no' side is campaigned by extremists on the right (Your Declan Ganleys of this world) as well as extremists on the left (Sinn Fein, Joe Higgins etc). These people wouldn't spit on each other if their counterpart was on fire yet they'll team up to tear the EU down. Compromise is key in advancing in politics yet these kind of people only want what they want at any cost, screw everyone else. I can't fathom how people who actually believe in things like democracy and policies of their respective parties that support the treaty actually follow these 'politicians' in European matters.

Nor would Fine Gael & Fianna Fail, what's your point ?
Joe Higgins is a democratically elected Member of the European Parliament. Anything "left of Labour" (as they say) is dismissed as extreme. Have a look at who Fianna Fail partners up with in the EU via the Union for Europe of Nations.

marco_polo · 20-08-2009 02:06AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Let all Europeans vote, but on the basis that they are separate nations, but with unanimous approval of all nations required for the ratification of EU constitutional treaties transferring sovereignty to the institutions. There is no inconsistency. The consistent principle is one of national self-determination, upon which this state was founded i.e. nations should decide their own future. It follows from that that if a nation does not wish to transfer sovereignty, it shouldn't be forced to.

What sort of mechanism have you in mind? Wouldn't that first require conferring powers on the union to demand that all future treaties be ratified by popular referendum? Or should Ireland as a country just use our moral authority as the one true democratic nation in all of the EU to demand that all other countries ratify a treaty this way before we sign on the dotted line.

Secondly no nation has been ever been forced to transfer any powers to the EU thus far.

Scofflaw · 20-08-2009 03:37AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Let all Europeans vote, but on the basis that they are separate nations, but with unanimous approval of all nations required for the ratification of EU constitutional treaties transferring sovereignty to the institutions. There is no inconsistency. The consistent principle is one of national self-determination, upon which this state was founded i.e. nations should decide their own future. It follows from that that if a nation does not wish to transfer sovereignty, it shouldn't be forced to.

OK, but national self-determination includes, amongst other things, the right to determine how the nation ratifies international treaties. Unfortunately, you are in a position of insisting that the way the other nations ratified Lisbon is wrong, which doesn't square with your insistence on national self-determination.

I predict this will lead to a claim that the nations you're referring to are "the people as opposed to their governments". Let me pre-emptively point out that the people of those nations elect those government by the rules determined by those nations. Short of declaring the majority of European nations illegitimate (in which case I can't see how you can claim they have a right to self-determination), I don't see how you can remove the paradox of insisting simultaneously on national self-determination and your right to determine how they should ratify treaties.

Either they decide, or you do - which leads to your next claim, which is that what "the people" of those nations "really want" is to ratify by referendum. Unfortunately for that argument, none of them appears to have made the slightest effort to make the relevant constitutional changes, which rather disposes me to dismiss opinion polls on the subject, since effort is a rather better indicator of what people truly care about than poll answers. There's even a ready-made campaign group, who mustered up lower numbers of demonstrators than I've ever seen before - maybe 80 people across the whole of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick · 20-08-2009 03:52AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm amused by the inconsistencies in his views. I don't really care whether there's a "European demos" or not - a question that affects every person in Europe seems to me to be one perfectly capable of being settled by asking each person to vote, and accepting the majority verdict. What difference would a "European demos" make?

To be honest, when I see the term, I suspect that a verbal sleight is taking place - people are unable to justify the use of nation by nation voting in a matter supposedly settled by the citizens for the benefit of the citizens, so they resort to this arcane concept. I say 'arcane', but I should really say "inapplicable". The demos of Athens was a few tens of thousands of people, of a similar social background and living within a few square miles. Even Dublin South-East is hardly a demos by those terms of reference, and there is certainly no such thing as an Irish demos - the claim that I am somehow mystically akin to a Donegal fishermen and a Limerick Traveller by virtue of simple geography is equally simple rubbish.

I have answered that question before, but perhaps not to you. I would strongly oppose a federal Europe, unless it was a federation so loose as to be practically meaningless, or unless it offered more subsidiarity than Ireland's centralised State does.

Offered the opportunity, say, to have meaningful political control of Dublin in Dublin hands within a European federation that set a basic minimum of laws centrally...that I would find really rather tempting, at least partly because I don't believe (as per my mini-rant above) in any such thing as a 'national demos'.

What I don't have, and it appears I am expected to have, is some mystical attachment to Ireland as a nation-state. If truth be known, I would prefer a political landscape made up of a far far larger number of far smaller entities. The nation-state is very much an artificial construct - a Procrustean bed for local culture and autonomy. A European federal state in its image would be an abomination.

Is that sufficiently definitive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes it is indeed... Interesting actually: When you refer to a "political landscape made up of a far far larger number of far smaller entities", are you talking about local / regional government, such as perhaps abolishing the central government and handing everything over to the county councils?
If not, what do you mean?

(Sorry for the off topic discussion, but this ties in with an interesting debate I was having on another forum about this very subject, constituency sizes, regional government and so forth)

Oh and I suppose my attachment to Ireland as a nation is that Irish people were for so long bullied into accepting the will of foreign powers when the majority of the people in this country wished otherwise. And my view of government is that the ordinary citizens should always have the last say.

nesf · 20-08-2009 04:09AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Let all Europeans vote, but on the basis that they are separate nations, but with unanimous approval of all nations required for the ratification of EU constitutional treaties transferring sovereignty to the institutions. There is no inconsistency. The consistent principle is one of national self-determination, upon which this state was founded i.e. nations should decide their own future. It follows from that that if a nation does not wish to transfer sovereignty, it shouldn't be forced to.

There is inconsistency, referendums are held in the same respect in different EU countries, we would in effect be forcing our particular system on them (I'm thinking especially of Germany here but I imagine it applies to others). As is, each country approves treaties in whatever way they see fit. This is far preferable to a universal system which would have to be a compromise which would be distasteful to many.

The problem with the European demos idea is that it presumes that every country wants to handle this through referenda which isn't the case obviously.

Scofflaw · 20-08-2009 04:20AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes it is indeed... Interesting actually: When you refer to a "political landscape made up of a far far larger number of far smaller entities", are you talking about local / regional government, such as perhaps abolishing the central government and handing everything over to the county councils?
If not, what do you mean?

That's more or less what I mean - although not quite county councils as such - but, yes, local autonomy to as great a degree as possible.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

(Sorry for the off topic discussion, but this ties in with an interesting debate I was having on another forum about this very subject, constituency sizes, regional government and so forth)

Oh and I suppose my attachment to Ireland as a nation is that Irish people were for so long bullied into accepting the will of foreign powers when the majority of the people in this country wished otherwise. And my view of government is that the ordinary citizens should always have the last say.

I have to say I don't personally recall the days in question...also, I suspect most people didn't care then either, but they didn't leave much of a record of not caring, as people usually don't, possibly from lack of motivation.

Pardon my cynicism, but I tend to think that the people who really object to, say, government from another country, are those who believe that they would be in charge were it not for the external government - local elites, in other words, who feel they're not getting their rightful place at the top of the heap. If they can persuade a sufficiently large number of the citizenry that foreign rule is odious, they can successfully install themselves in place of the foreign government, whereupon the citizenry will soon enough discover that they've swapped one set of out of touch elites for another, who lack even the excuse of geographical remoteness, and who tend to have entrenched connections within the country that will be favoured above all others. It was the strongest argument I heard in Scotland against Scottish nationalism - "we'll wind up being run from Edinburgh, and at least the English don't distinguish between one bit of Scotland and another". I suspect that many of those who reject current mechanisms of government similarly see themselves governing, rather than being governed, in the proposed new order.

(A warning: anyone foolish enough to interpret the above as a defence of British rule in Ireland will find themselves banned for a week).

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach · 20-08-2009 05:06AM

marco_polo wrote: »

What sort of mechanism have you in mind? Wouldn't that first require conferring powers on the union to demand that all future treaties be ratified by popular referendum? Or should Ireland as a country just use our moral authority as the one true democratic nation in all of the EU to demand that all other countries ratify a treaty this way before we sign on the dotted line.

Secondly no nation has been ever been forced to transfer any powers to the EU thus far.

I'm asking the other member state governments to hold referenda on this Treaty if they are so sure their people want it. I don't care whether they do it as consultative referenda or by constitutional change. The bottom line is that unless each nation votes for Lisbon by referendum, it shouldn't come into force. Regardless of how those member states' constitutions allow them to ratify international treaties, the referendum genie is now out of the bottle following the Franco-Dutch no votes and the Eurocrats and governments insistence on foisting on those unwilling nations something they do not want. These governments won't give their respective peoples referendums, and President Sarkozy has told us why:

Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of senior MEPs, (source: EUobserver.com, 14 November 2007) wrote:

France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments… A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.

Macha · 20-08-2009 08:59AM

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I'm asking the other member state governments to hold referenda on this Treaty if they are so sure their people want it. I don't care whether they do it as consultative referenda or by constitutional change. The bottom line is that unless each nation votes for Lisbon by referendum, it shouldn't come into force. Regardless of how those member states' constitutions allow them to ratify international treaties, the referendum genie is now out of the bottle following the Franco-Dutch no votes and the Eurocrats and governments insistence on foisting on those unwilling nations something they do not want. These governments won't give their respective peoples referendums, and President Sarkozy has told us why:

See at this stage, you're just repeating yourself. You have totally failed to justify your demand that other member states hold referenda and, on cue, have reverted back to simply stating that you want to happen.

O'Morris · 20-08-2009 09:11AM

Question for yes voters:

Suppose that a majority of the elected politicians in the north were in favour of uniting with the republic but the results of an opinion poll held a few months previously showed that the people might feel differently. Would you have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without consulting the people directly?

The Volt · 20-08-2009 09:21AM

O'Morris wrote: »

Question for yes voters:

Suppose that a majority of the elected politicians in the north were in favour of uniting with the republic but the results of an opinion poll held a few months previously showed that the people might feel differently. Would you have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without consulting the people directly?

As the oul saying goes, If me auntie had balls she'd be me uncle. I don't think there's any way Lisbon can be compared to a 32 county vote.

I stated my reasons already why I'll be voting yes

O'Morris · 20-08-2009 09:32AM

Voltwad wrote: »

I don't think there's any way Lisbon can be compared to a 32 county vote.

Both the vote on Lisbon and a vote on a united Ireland would involve the transfer of sovereignty.

I think the principle of consent should apply in both cases.

The Volt · 20-08-2009 09:35AM

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Nor would Fine Gael & Fianna Fail, what's your point ?
Joe Higgins is a democratically elected Member of the European Parliament. Anything "left of Labour" (as they say) is dismissed as extreme. Have a look at who Fianna Fail partners up with in the EU via the Union for Europe of Nations.

Joe Higgins is one out of 13 democratically elected MEP's, what about the opinion of the other 12? Or do you go along with the views of his party that their views are the only ones that count? It is worth remembering that his party (formally knows as the Millitant Tenancy were ejected from the Labour Party in a democratic vote)

As well as that, the only real difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail is that one has power and one doesn't. They're both parties close to Centre and both came from the same party so again, very different to the extreme left and extreme right working together.

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

Comments