905 wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Audi,

Why is it good enough for you?

That has been my gut feeling for a while and I'm going with that because there are too many clouds over this thing and I believe a project like this should be built up over time and with more knowledge of it and of the EU among other things.

But many of these countries have no tradition of referenda, referenda just aren't a part of their constitutional make-up. Ireland, in fact, is unique in requiring that all constitutional changes require referenda.

In the case of Britain though, it seems like they were shafted badly.

Well, that's because all three major political parties made the pledge in the 2005 General Election that, if elected, they would hold a referendum on the Treaty on the Constitution of Europe. The French and Dutch rejected the Treaty before Labour could fulfil its election pledge. They argue now that it is a "different document" and therefore feel that refusing to have a referendum on Lisbon isn't breaking their promise.

This treaty, however, is between 90-98% of what was in the Constitution, so the Brits were between 90 and 98% shafted. You are right there, 905.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

905 wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Audi,

Why is it good enough for you?

That has been my gut feeling for a while and I'm going with that because there are too many clouds over this thing and I believe a project like this should be built up over time and with more knowledge of it and of the EU among other things.

But many of these countries have no tradition of referenda, referenda just aren't a part of their constitutional make-up. Ireland, in fact, is unique in requiring that all constitutional changes require referenda.

In the case of Britain though, it seems like they were shafted badly.

Well, that's because all three major political parties made the pledge in the 2005 General Election that, if elected, they would hold a referendum on the Treaty on the Constitution of Europe. The French and Dutch rejected the Treaty before Labour could fulfil its election pledge. They argue now that it is a "different document" and therefore feel that refusing to have a referendum on Lisbon isn't breaking their promise.

This treaty, however, is between 90-98% of what was in the Constitution, so the Brits were between 90 and 98% shafted. You are right there, 905.

I'd agree with that. The UK has no constitutional settings for a referendum, either for or against, so it was purely an election promise. It wouldn't have been binding (as per the Dutch one), so they were fools to offer it, but cowards to back down.

They're only shafted if it bothers them. Are they complaining in numbers? Is there a Raymond Crotty or a Patricia McKenna putting his/her house on the line to challenge the decision? I'm all for being a good European but it is first and foremost the responsibility of each country to take responsibility for its own lack of referendum. It's not ours. We are not voting for 490 million people; we are voting for 4 million because the referendum is about changes that the ratification of Lisbon will make to the Irish constitution.

There are a lot of different reasons why people will vote no. I think it is down the them to decide - thats the basis of democracy. We're not obliged to account for our reasons.

Kate P wrote:

They're only shafted if it bothers them. Are they complaining in numbers? Is there a Raymond Crotty or a Patricia McKenna putting his/her house on the line to challenge the decision? I'm all for being a good European but it is first and foremost the responsibility of each country to take responsibility for its own lack of referendum. It's not ours. We are not voting for 490 million people; we are voting for 4 million because the referendum is about changes that the ratification of Lisbon will make to the Irish constitution.

Exactly, Kate P. If they were that vexed about having no vote, they should be more pro-active about ensuring that they do. It seems to be merely a murmur of resentment which is calling for referenda in Europe. No serious campaign seems under way in any of the member states to ensure similar referenda.

Ye're gas lads - "we're voting for ourselves" we are in our backs we're voting on an entity that will affect everyone and which more importantly will affect democracy itself. This yoke goes through and bye bye referenda forever.

Spread the word - democracy is about voting - the more voting the more democracy.

Kate P wrote:

They're only shafted if it bothers them. Are they complaining in numbers? Is there a Raymond Crotty or a Patricia McKenna putting his/her house on the line to challenge the decision? I'm all for being a good European but it is first and foremost the responsibility of each country to take responsibility for its own lack of referendum. It's not ours. We are not voting for 490 million people; we are voting for 4 million because the referendum is about changes that the ratification of Lisbon will make to the Irish constitution.

I have to disagree with you there, we can't assume they're happy because they're not out protesting. I'm sure they're not happy about the Burmese generals but I haven't seen them complain in numbers. I was under the impression that polls showed a majority of people were unhappy with the arrangement, not that I back that up.

If the main Irish parties had announced during the election that they wouldn't be having a referendum on the Treaty, I'm sure Sinn Féin would have done better back then, but not enough to make any difference to the resultant anti-referendum government. That wouldn't have meant that we automatically condoned this position. At the same time, I don't think it falls to us to solve their problems.

But there is only one reason why people have the opportunity to vote. All of the other 'stuff' that you mention is extraneous, almost by the way. We're voting to change the constitution.

I'm not saying that the Brits are happy - or unhappy but that they are not sufficiently exercised to do something about it other than reflect their dissatisfaction in a poll.

I don't think they should have to be 'sufficiently exercised' (which is a relative concept anyway) for their opinion to be counted. A lazy citizen is still a citizen and their views matter.

Kate P wrote:

But there is only one reason why people have the opportunity to vote. All of the other 'stuff' that you mention is extraneous, almost by the way. We're voting to change the constitution.

I'm not saying that the Brits are happy - or unhappy but that they are not sufficiently exercised to do something about it other than reflect their dissatisfaction in a poll.

Perhaps the Brits will do what we sometimes do here when we are put out, and punish the Government come the next election.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Kate P wrote:

They're only shafted if it bothers them. Are they complaining in numbers? Is there a Raymond Crotty or a Patricia McKenna putting his/her house on the line to challenge the decision? I'm all for being a good European but it is first and foremost the responsibility of each country to take responsibility for its own lack of referendum. It's not ours. We are not voting for 490 million people; we are voting for 4 million because the referendum is about changes that the ratification of Lisbon will make to the Irish constitution.

Exactly, Kate P. If they were that vexed about having no vote, they should be more pro-active about ensuring that they do. It seems to be merely a murmur of resentment which is calling for referenda in Europe. No serious campaign seems under way in any of the member states to ensure similar referenda.

Funnily enough I've just got off the phone from a friend in London. He's reasonably political, but says the Lisbon Treaty and the proposed referendum just isn't on the agenda there at all.

To us, referendums are something we're entitled to, so it's easy for us to think of other EU states as being "denied" a referendum. They don't, though, because they either don't really have national referendums at all (Germany, Austria), don't have them for this kind of thing (Italy, for example, but almost all EU states), or only have them as non-binding political gimmicks (UK, Holland, for example).

The only other state that has referendums in the same way we do is Denmark - but Denmark also has its own rules for when a referendum is required, and it's not required in this case.

The turnout for the EU-wide organised pro-referendum demonstrations at irish embassies over the bank holiday was about 100 people. Nor will there be any campaign after this referendum, by Mary Lou or anyone else on the No side, to promote referendums in the other EU countries.

In short, the whole claim is a tactical stunt - and, yes, Mary Lou is appealing to emotion, not reason.

Not on the agenda there? they don't know what's good for them. Democracy should be imposed on people - it's the American way after all.

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Kate P wrote:

They're only shafted if it bothers them. Are they complaining in numbers? Is there a Raymond Crotty or a Patricia McKenna putting his/her house on the line to challenge the decision? I'm all for being a good European but it is first and foremost the responsibility of each country to take responsibility for its own lack of referendum. It's not ours. We are not voting for 490 million people; we are voting for 4 million because the referendum is about changes that the ratification of Lisbon will make to the Irish constitution.

Exactly, Kate P. If they were that vexed about having no vote, they should be more pro-active about ensuring that they do. It seems to be merely a murmur of resentment which is calling for referenda in Europe. No serious campaign seems under way in any of the member states to ensure similar referenda.

Funnily enough I've just got off the phone from a friend in London. He's reasonably political, but says the Lisbon Treaty and the proposed referendum just isn't on the agenda there at all.

To us, referendums are something we're entitled to, so it's easy for us to think of other EU states as being "denied" a referendum. They don't, though, because they either don't really have national referendums at all (Germany, Austria), don't have them for this kind of thing (Italy, for example, but almost all EU states), or only have them as non-binding political gimmicks (UK, Holland, for example).

The only other state that has referendums in the same way we do is Denmark - but Denmark also has its own rules for when a referendum is required, and it's not required in this case.

The turnout for the EU-wide organised pro-referendum demonstrations at irish embassies over the bank holiday was about 100 people. Nor will there be any campaign after this referendum, by Mary Lou or anyone else on the No side, to promote referendums in the other EU countries.

In short, the whole claim is a tactical stunt.

Do you think (leaving the legal opinion aside) that it warranted a referendum in Ireland Ibis?

cactus flower wrote:

Do you think (leaving the legal opinion aside) that it warranted a referendum in Ireland Ibis?

I'd be appalled if we weren't having a referendum. Referendums are one of the reasons I live here rather than the UK.

To some extent that's why SinnFein/Mary-Lou annoys me. I know Sinn Fein don't give a shit about other countries' referendums. I know they'll do nothing about it once it's over, and never say anything about it except when it suits their turn. They're populists, not democrats.

Quote :

In short, the whole claim is a tactical stunt - and, yes, Mary Lou is appealing to emotion, not reason.

ibis and I agree on something.

For once. Woo hoo!!!

Well I think ye're all being terribly cynical about the No sides attitude towards other countries and referendums. I'm in favour of a yes vote and I'm sympathetic to their plight, I can easily forsee how others in the No camp would be too. 'Tactical stunt', tuh!

Heck, I am one of those people. The electoral register has conveniently forgotten that I have a vote, so I'm out in the cold on this one too. I suppose that's my fault.

I have three, husband has two.

Despite the fact that I gave the specific details to the guy who came around from the council before the GE I got one in my maiden name and another in my married name (which I NEVER use) at our old address and another at our current address. Were they at different polling stations...

Kate P wrote:

I have three, husband has two.

Despite the fact that I gave the specific details to the guy who came around from the council before the GE I got one in my maiden name and another in my married name (which I NEVER use) at our old address and another at our current address. Were they at different polling stations...

And they wonder why voter turnout is so low!

Quote :

I'd be appalled if we weren't having a referendum. Referendums are one of the reasons I live here rather than the UK.

To some extent that's why SinnFein/Mary-Lou annoys me. I know Sinn Fein don't give a shit about other countries' referendums. I know they'll do nothing about it once it's over, and never say anything about it except when it suits their turn. They're populists, not democrats.

Do you see that there is anything left to have a referendum about after Lisbon - it's pretty all-encompassing and in that light and in the light of the constitution and the Crotty judgment (don't sigh in despair, ibis) is there anything of significance left that we couldn't contemplate...

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

I'd be appalled if we weren't having a referendum. Referendums are one of the reasons I live here rather than the UK.

To some extent that's why SinnFein/Mary-Lou annoys me. I know Sinn Fein don't give a shit about other countries' referendums. I know they'll do nothing about it once it's over, and never say anything about it except when it suits their turn. They're populists, not democrats.

Do you see that there is anything left to have a referendum about after Lisbon - it's pretty all-encompassing and in that light and in the light of the constitution and the Crotty judgment (don't sigh in despair, ibis) is there anything of significance left that we couldn't contemplate...

That kind of depends on what you're asking. Lisbon requires that all amendments are ratified according to the constitutional requirements of the member states, and the Crotty judgement doesn't depend on something being a Treaty, but only on whether it constrains the exercise of the people's sovereignty by the government.

So the mechanisms for referendum are entirely untouched by Lisbon. If there are changes proposed to the EU which would currently require a referendum to ratify, they will still do so afterwards.

If I did not think that was the case, I would vote No.

If, on the other hand, you're asking me whether there's still much for the EU to become, the answer is yes, but I think we'll enter quite a long period of relative boredom in terms of changes. The obvious candidates for entry are in, the others will need a few years. The institutional changes in Lisbon don't even kick in until 2014, and they'll run for at least a term before anyone would be looking to change them, so we're looking at 2019 before anything else happens.

Im willing to put down good money that you're wrong on that Ibis

cactus flower wrote:

Im willing to put down good money that you're wrong on that Ibis

Wrong on which? The "boring" bit or the "no change to our constitutional mechanisms" bit? I'll take your money on the latter, but not on the former...

Luckily we've opened a betting shop in Welcome - it could be looking for a colourful name.

What kind of not boring stuff is going to happen I wonder ..

Quote :

That kind of depends on what you're asking. Lisbon requires that all amendments are ratified according to the constitutional requirements of the member states, and the Crotty judgement doesn't depend on something being a Treaty, but only on whether it constrains the exercise of the people's sovereignty by the government.

So the mechanisms for referendum are entirely untouched by Lisbon. If there are changes proposed to the EU which would currently require a referendum to ratify, they will still do so afterwards.

If I did not think that was the case, I would vote No.

I'm with you on that - but this is what I was wondering about...

Quote :

If, on the other hand, you're asking me whether there's still much for the EU to become, the answer is yes, but I think we'll enter quite a long period of relative boredom in terms of changes. The obvious candidates for entry are in, the others will need a few years. The institutional changes in Lisbon don't even kick in until 2014, and they'll run for at least a term before anyone would be looking to change them, so we're looking at 2019 before anything else happens.

So while we're agreed that the mechanisms for holding a referendum are unchanged, there may or may not be anything much left over to have a referendum about.

What areas are they? What is there that isn't pre-empted by Lisbon?