Lisbon Treaty

[pineapple stu]

True. That is why we watch, read or listen to any form of media.
How naive!

[mypost]

Thats what happens when less than 1% tries to force the other 99%.

Everyone knew that was going to be the case when the joke was signed last year. Everyone knew that only one country was going to hold a referendum and the electorate there, would effectively, have the final say on whether it stood or fell. They are the rules of ratification, whether you agreed or disagreed with it. It fell, that's it.

Yesterday, Hibernian axed 600 jobs and moved them to India. 1% of the company's payroll wanted to do so, so like it or not, the other 99% have to accept and deal with that situation. You may find the comparison "laughable", but that's the reality.

[OneRedArmy]

Yesterday, Hibernian axed 600 jobs and moved them to India. 1% of the company's payroll wanted to do so, so like it or not, the other 99% have to accept and deal with that situation. You may find the comparison "laughable", but that's the reality.
Since when did businesses become democracies?:confused:

[jebus]

See the second half of my post.

'it could be because of all the foreign criminals, don't know if thats true or not', that well thought out part of your post?

[pete]

Referendums are very bad ways to enact any sort of law. I think Switzerland have a lot of them for local cantons so have all sorts of bizarre laws - maybe someone can point out if this is incorrect). Nice & Maastricht would not have passed if needed to run referendum in all states. Effectively you just need 1% of the voters in 1 of 27 states to stop everyone else. The EU would probably still have 13 states.

It seems vast majority of states don't need Referendums for most Treaties but I think they need to come up with some other way of making changes that bypasses Referendums.

[John83]

It seems vast majority of states don't need Referendums for most Treaties but I think they need to come up with some other way of making changes that bypasses Referendums.
Sure. Just pass one last treaty which clearly delineates where the EU has power and a rough outline of the internal structures which can be internally tweeked. Instead, we get treaty after treaty slightly expanding the role of the EU together with an obscene amount of trivial crap which should never see the ballot box.

[OneRedArmy]

Referendums are very bad ways to enact any sort of law. I think Switzerland have a lot of them for local cantons so have all sorts of bizarre laws - maybe someone can point out if this is incorrect). Nice & Maastricht would not have passed if needed to run referendum in all states. Effectively you just need 1% of the voters in 1 of 27 states to stop everyone else. The EU would probably still have 13 states.

It seems vast majority of states don't need Referendums for most Treaties but I think they need to come up with some other way of making changes that bypasses Referendums.You can thank Raymond Crotty for that. Previous to his Supreme Court action in 1987 it was always assumed the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution gave the Oireachtas wide powers to deal within the scope of the EU. The Supreme Court decided (on a 3v2 split decision no less!!!!) that elements of the then Single European Act were at variance with the Constitution (though not the QMV interestingly) and that it should be put to the people. This established a precedent and every Treaty since has been put to referendum.

I don't work in the field of law but I understand this was an extremely controversial decision and is widely challenged in legal fields and a belief that the decision to put everything to do with Europe to referendum is viewed as ridiculously conservative (instead of assessing each Treaty in the context of the Constitution and making a decision as to whether it is actually inconsistent).

[mypost]

Referendums are very bad ways to enact any sort of law.

It seems vast majority of states don't need Referendums for most Treaties but I think they need to come up with some other way of making changes that bypasses Referendums.

The YES side would have no problem with refs, if the result went their way.

Refs. should be held in every state, and we see how many pfo's there would be. There's already been 3 on this alone. And there's a strong chance of 4, as any agreement concocted by Brussels on this, has to make it past our electorate, before coming into effect.

Can't uderstand how the USA can be run perfectly fine in the House of Representatives and Senate with 50 states, yet the EU can't run itself with barely half the amount. :confused:

[jebus]

The YES side would have no problem with refs, if the result went their way

I've never thought allowing a bunch of ill informed people decide the course of a country or a continent is a good idea

[GavinZac]

Can't uderstand how the USA can be run perfectly fine in the House of Representatives and Senate with 50 states, yet the EU can't run itself with barely half the amount. :confused:
You want a federated single sovereign nation, do you?

[SMorgan]

I've never thought allowing a bunch of ill informed people decide the course of a country or a continent is a good idea

Totally agree. That's why there should have been a referendum in each EU country.

1,500,000 people decided Ireland's position on the Lisbon Treaty.

3,500 - 4,000 will decide the position of the other 26 Counties.

[OneRedArmy]

Totally agree. That's why there should have been a referendum in each EU country.

1,500,000 people decided Ireland's position on the Lisbon Treaty.

3,500 - 4,000 will decide the position of the other 26 Counties.Why not get rid of Governments and let the people decide on everything, kind of like Ask the Audience in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire on a larger scale.......

I see none of the No side have chosen to pick up on Crotty vs An Taoiseach as mentioned above. Hear no evil, see no evil....

Its clear. from various polls (not just Red C) that a sizeable percentage of the population were ill informed about Lisbon and voted on that basis.

Coupled with the legal question as to whether Lisbon is actually amending the Constitution, this brings into question whether we could see a challenge to the Supreme Court as to the necessity for the referendum.

So to the yes side, put your necks on the block and confirm that the vast majority of people knew what they were voting on.

If they didn't, then the only course of action is either a mass re-education programme (done properly this time) followed by a re-vote OR a Supreme Court challenge taking the vote out of the peoples hands.

Bear in mind we have recent precedent in this area. The 24th amendment (Nice I - failed) and the 26th amendment (Nice II) had no material differences. The neutrality clause was, in legal terms, practically irrelevant, but gave the Government something to take back to the people and organise a proper campaign.

[pineapple stu]

'it could be because of all the foreign criminals, don't know if thats true or not', that well thought out part of your post?
I was speculating as to the meaning of the original post, as per your post I quoted initially. Would have thought that was clear enough. :rolleyes:

[mypost]

Why not get rid of Governments and let the people decide on everything, kind of like Ask the Audience in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire on a larger scale

We already do. They're called elections. :rolleyes:

There is outrage across the UK, following Brown's failure to honour his party's election manifesto, and give his people the chance to kick the treaty in the bin, so they'll kick him out in 12 months.


I see none of the No side have chosen to pick up on Crotty vs An Taoiseach as mentioned above.

Pick up on what?? :confused: Like I said, if the result here went the other way, there'd be none of this. The No side would be told to put up and shut up. And while we're on the subject, god bless Crotty.


Its clear. from various polls (not just Red C) that a sizeable percentage of the population were ill informed about Lisbon and voted on that basis.

It's also clear that the Yes side bought the government's "good for Ireland" waffle, without quibble.


Coupled with the legal question as to whether Lisbon is actually amending the Constitution, this brings into question whether we could see a challenge to the Supreme Court as to the necessity for the referendum. If they didn't, then the only course of action is either a mass re-education programme (done properly this time) followed by a re-vote OR a Supreme Court challenge taking the vote out of the peoples hands.

:rolleyes:

What are the chances??

[OneRedArmy]

So you don't disagree that a significant amount of the population voted, both Yes and No, based on poor information.

Thats all I wanted to know.

Well done on ignoring the rest of the points btw.

[jebus]

I was speculating as to the meaning of the original post, as per your post I quoted initially. Would have thought that was clear enough. :rolleyes:

What wasn't clear was why you stated it in the first place if you didn't want to make that same point yourself however.

[Macy]

I see none of the No side have chosen to pick up on Crotty vs An Taoiseach Why not get rid of Governments and let the people decide on everything, kind of like Ask the Audience in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire on a larger scale.......
I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but it's one of the side effects of being a consititutional republic.


Its clear. from various polls (not just Red C) that a sizeable percentage of the population were ill informed about Lisbon and voted on that basis.
Yes, the referendum commission were terrible at explaining it, or rather maybe it was simply unexplainable? One of the big factors in the No vote on the basis of not understanding it, in my opinion, was that press conference when they were stumped on several questions. Was it 5 minutes he was looking for an answer and in the end he had to say he'd come back later? This from the people who were supposed to be explaining it.

However, it is telling that the focus has been on the people that didn't understand, with the aim of it being enough to swing a yes, rather than addressing the very real concerns and issues of people who voted no. Those will have to be addressed too if there is to be a second run off.



Coupled with the legal question as to whether Lisbon is actually amending the Constitution, this brings into question whether we could see a challenge to the Supreme Court as to the necessity for the referendum.

So to the yes side, put your necks on the block and confirm that the vast majority of people knew what they were voting on.

If they didn't, then the only course of action is either a mass re-education programme (done properly this time) followed by a re-vote OR a Supreme Court challenge taking the vote out of the peoples hands.

Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Could probably have pulled it off before the people had voted it down. Doing so now would be political suicide. Even if you do believe it is for the greater good, FF simply don't do things for the greater good.


Bear in mind we have recent precedent in this area. The 24th amendment (Nice I - failed) and the 26th amendment (Nice II) had no material differences. The neutrality clause was, in legal terms, practically irrelevant, but gave the Government something to take back to the people and organise a proper campaign.
Legislate to address workers/ union concerns about the opening up of markets without enhanced Trade Union rights. Get clear protocols on neutrality, tax, conscription (if it genuinely was reason, which I don't believe for a moment), abortion etc. Doesn't matter if there's no legal basis or whether they were already in the treaty, it's the only way that I can see it being possible to run again.

[OneRedArmy]

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment, but it's one of the side effects of being a consititutional republic..........only where the Constitution is actually being amended.

Nice is a good example. The only thing that changed between the 1st and 2nd referenda was how seriously the Govt to the campaign which increased turnout. The neutrality clause had no material impact on that Treaty.

On that basis, you have to question whether this is really democracy as intended by those drafting the Constitution.

[pete]

Can't uderstand how the USA can be run perfectly fine in the House of Representatives and Senate with 50 states, yet the EU can't run itself with barely half the amount. :confused:

They almost never have Referendums. Look at the problems they have with right to bear arms. Do you think they have any chance of removing that no matter how many thousands killed every year?

I would go so far as to say Constitutions are a bad thing as you get locked into the mindset of a set of individuals at a particular time in history. It is always difficult to get people to voe for change as if in doubt with vote for status quo. The divorce Referendum scrapped through here with predictions of doom but now no word about.

[Newryrep]

They almost never have Referendums. Look at the problems they have with right to bear arms. Do you think they have any chance of removing that no matter how many thousands killed every year?

I would go so far as to say Constitutions are a bad thing as you get locked into the mindset of a set of individuals at a particular time in history. It is always difficult to get people to voe for change as if in doubt with vote for status quo. The divorce Referendum scrapped through here with predictions of doom but now no word about.

The american constitution being a case in point. some amercian high school student done a paper on the right to bear arms - putting forward the idea that when it was written, it envisaged people carry muskets, not armour piercing high velocity automatic meapons/rocket lauchers.

On the Referendum, I recall David Ervine say after a public meeting on the GFA he attended 'it takes 2 seconds to shout Sell out/Lundy etc but 10-15 minutes to explain why it isnt

[Macy]

.........only where the Constitution is actually being amended.
Yes, but they (the political establishment) never seem to challenge it. Case in point is the Civil Partnerships - they water down the legislation for fear of a possible constitutional challenge, that may or may not be successful!


On the Referendum, I recall David Ervine say after a public meeting on the GFA he attended 'it takes 2 seconds to shout Sell out/Lundy etc but 10-15 minutes to explain why it isnt
If there were politicians of his calibre supporting a Yes vote, i'd guess this thread would be a lot shorter. But that was the job of the people supporting a yes vote to explain why people should vote yes.

[Newryrep]

If there were politicians of his calibre supporting a Yes vote, i'd guess this thread would be a lot shorter. But that was the job of the people supporting a yes vote to explain why people should vote yes.

I think it is a given that the Yes campaign was a joke which started too late

[OneRedArmy]

Yes, but they (the political establishment) never seem to challenge it. Case in point is the Civil Partnerships - they water down the legislation for fear of a possible constitutional challenge, that may or may not be successful!


If there were politicians of his calibre supporting a Yes vote, i'd guess this thread would be a lot shorter. But that was the job of the people supporting a yes vote to explain why people should vote yes.
I don't think you're going to get much disagreement on the competence of the politicians in sucessive Governments, regardless of whether people voted Yes or No on Lisbon. Whilst the Cabinet is different, much of the same Goverment presided over the Nice debacle. It really is humiliating for the Government, but the No side can't fully acknowledge this as it would be seen to be taking away from their message.

Someone referred to the US above. The big difference there is that Constitutional challenges on legislation to the Supreme Court are much more frequent, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (also a larger Supreme Court which provides a bit more confidence in the "right" ruling).

[pineapple stu]

What wasn't clear was why you stated it in the first place if you didn't want to make that same point yourself however.
One of the central concepts in debating is that you don't necessarily have to hold the view that you're debating.

You queried what whoever's post was about, I gave the answer that was most likely what he was thinking, and then gave the main problem with that answer. Do you want me to explain this any more?

[jebus]

One of the central concepts in debating is that you don't necessarily have to hold the view that you're debating.

You queried what whoever's post was about, I gave the answer that was most likely what he was thinking, and then gave the main problem with that answer. Do you want me to explain this any more?

Clear case of liking the sound of your own voice Stu (odd given we all use the same font). I directed the question at the poster as a less than pleasant query, I have known the answer all along, I thought by the tone of my post that would be apparant, and I wanted the poster to back up what I view as a racist statement. Do I need to explain this any more?

[osarusan]

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhgbqlcweycw/


The Irish public love the EU the most, a new poll confirmed today.

Despite rejecting the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum, Ireland appreciates the benefits of EU membership more than any other nation, according to the European Commission’s latest public opinion survey.

The findings, based on work conducted before the referendum vote, are in line with a snap poll of 2,000 Irish voters conducted immediately after the referendum decision.

The snap poll showed that 80% of those voting No were in favour of the EU.

Not exactly connnected to the Lisbon treaty, but does show that 'no' voters are not as anti-europe as they've been made out to be.

[pete]

Not exactly connnected to the Lisbon treaty, but does show that 'no' voters are not as anti-europe as they've been made out to be.

With EU drying up will this viewpoint change?

[John83]

With EU drying up will this viewpoint change?
That one was thrown at the no voters and is clearly false. Given it hasn't changed opinions so far, I don't see it making a huge impact in the near future, short of some big media campaign to whip up a fuss.

[OneRedArmy]

"80% were in favour of the EU"...........thats like asking someone if they like ice cream.

[pineapple stu]

That poll (or at least, the same question with a similar result) was in the Metro today. Text polls should be banned, and anyone who reads anything into them should be deported as far away from Ireland as possible. ;)

[kingdom hoop]

"80% were in favour of the EU"...........thats like asking someone if they like ice cream.

So you're saying 80% of people like a cold, slimy substance prone to running off in unmanageable directions and tending to detach itself from its base if you're not careful?

[jebus]

So you're saying 80% of people like a cold, slimy substance prone to running off in unmanageable directions and tending to detach itself from its base if you're not careful?

And yet there always seems to be so many guys going home alone after a night out....

[kingdom hoop]

And yet there always seems to be so many guys going home alone after a night out....

Title of my new book: The Axis of Headless Evil: Women, Ice-Cream and the EU. :D

[John83]

That poll (or at least, the same question with a similar result) was in the Metro today. Text polls should be banned, and anyone who reads anything into them should be deported as far away from Ireland as possible. ;)
From the article Pete linked to:

according to the European Commission’s latest public opinion survey.

The findings, based on work conducted before the referendum vote, are in line with a snap poll of 2,000 Irish voters conducted immediately after the referendum decision.

The snap poll showed that 80% of those voting No were in favour of the EU.
It doesn't say how either the EC's survey or the snap poll were carried out, but it's not clear that either is a text poll. Anyone know for sure?

[kingdom hoop]

How could the Commission do a text poll?

[holidaysong]

How could the Commission do a text poll?

Text you and ask you do you like the EU.

[kingdom hoop]

Text you and ask you do you like the EU.

:D I see, thanks.



(Though I was more curious as to how they'd get my number and have the right to send me a text without breaking data protection laws.)

[OneRedArmy]

So you're saying 80% of people like a cold, slimy substance prone to running off in unmanageable directions and tending to detach itself from its base if you're not careful?I knew Fianna Fail's poll ratings were up, but thats taking the....

[SMorgan]

Now this is funny!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADbTCSuNSms

[pineapple stu]

It doesn't say how either the EC's survey or the snap poll were carried out, but it's not clear that either is a text poll. Anyone know for sure?
Don't tell me I've inadvertently proven the accuracy of text polls!!

Completely off topic for a quick sec, but the poll in today's Metro was interesting. "Did you do drugs last night? Text your answer to..." Reminded me of Homer going to pick up the speedboat.

[BohsPartisan]

If they didn't, then the only course of action is either a mass re-education programme ]

:eek:

You mean political re-education?

[mypost]

Once one country says No, it creates a snowball effect. Suddenly, the others are not compelled to ratify it. If there are 2, 3 or more countries not ratifying it, it's not going to be a demand of "vote for it or else".

People 1-0 Politicians.

The snowball is underway with the news from Poland and Germany, that their Presidents won't sign the treaty into law, despite it gaining ratification in parliament. In Germany, there are several pending legal challenges opposing it's ratification, while in Poland, the President said he wouldn't sign it, as it would be "pointless".

Add the Czechs to the list, and that makes 4 countries that won't ratify the treaty. Far from being isolated, we now have significant allies opposing the Constitution. Instead of uniting Europe, all it's done is expose divisions within the Union. :)

[jebus]

Instead of uniting Europe, all it's done is expose divisions within the Union. :)

Hurrah for that!! :) Hopefully we can get back to the good old times of Europe in the 1930s :rolleyes:

[Wangball]

Hurrah for that!! :) Hopefully we can get back to the good old times of Europe in the 1930s :rolleyes:

Last time somebody tried to to truly unite Europe under one central government millions of people died......this brings me back to my 4th Reich/Vichy France Theory.....:D

[jebus]

Last time somebody tried to to truly unite Europe under one central government millions of people died.

I've had just about enough of your Edward Heath bashing for one day! :mad::p

[SMorgan]

Cowan has come up with a new reason why some people voted No.

Apparently some people were afraid that if they voted Yes they wouldn't be able to cut turf.

What's that? Reason 731?

Goodness, Lisbon II is going to be great craic!!:(

[dfx-]

Instead of uniting Europe, all it's done is expose divisions within the Union. :)

Let's foster and exploit them while the going is good:rolleyes:

[OneRedArmy]

The snowball is underway with the news from Poland and Germany, that their Presidents won't sign the treaty into law, despite it gaining ratification in parliament. In Germany, there are several pending legal challenges opposing it's ratification, while in Poland, the President said he wouldn't sign it, as it would be "pointless".

Add the Czechs to the list, and that makes 4 countries that won't ratify the treaty. Far from being isolated, we now have significant allies opposing the Constitution. Instead of uniting Europe, all it's done is expose divisions within the Union. :)
Quoting yourself?......clearly you are a politician.

As for "significant allies opposing the Constitution", nothing like a bit of hyperbole.....

[monutdfc]

Cowan has come up with a new reason why some people voted No.

Apparently some people were afraid that if they voted Yes they wouldn't be able to cut turf.

What's that? Reason 731?


One of the main reasons I voted Yes - well, not the turf specifically but the fact that Europe can impose all the proper environmental laws that our national government cannot/will not.

With this and the economy going down the pan Cowen must be wishing that Bertie had hung on another while.

[Macy]

One of the main reasons I voted Yes - well, not the turf specifically but the fact that Europe can impose all the proper environmental laws that our national government cannot/will not.
Well the turf one is one of those mental ones from Europe - stop farmers from drawing it for their own/ domestic use when it's bord na mona that are really decimating the bogs in an unsustainable manner.