Next EU Treaty - how will you vote?

[culloty82]

Judging by Sarkozy yesterday and Merkel today, we can expect a new EU treaty regarding the eurozone from next Friday's summit - but are there any proposals that we could actually vote Yes to? Certainly, no-one wants to see the euro collapse, but allowing greater external control over national budgets and possibly ceding control over taxation would be a step too far even for supporters of the EU.

[BonnieShels]

Big fat no. And our govt. Need to start copping on and realising that we should accept no more of this crap.

[mypost]

We won't get to vote in the first place. Lisbon is the bible we live under now, and it's self-amending, so basically they can do what they like.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Hard to see any EU/Euro related referendum getting passed in this country at this stage. There's a solid 20-25% who'll vote no regardless of what's proposed in whatever economic climate for reasons that go from far left to far right. That means a government sponsoring such an amendement requiring a supermajority of the votes hypothetically 'up for grabs'.

They'd have to impress the pants off me to get a yes vote and I'm traditionally favourably disposed in such matters.

[mypost]

As said before, you won't be consulted, so it's effectively a non-issue.

[Lionel Ritchie]

As said before, you won't be consulted, so it's effectively a non-issue.

I'll quote you on that then. Oh look I just have.

[bennocelt]

Agree with mypost, we had our chance in the Lisbon treaty, the politicians arent silly (well the Germans) in that they wont put this too the people. Sarzkozy going on about a uniform tax system again!!!

[culloty82]

I'm in much the same position as Lionel - I've always been pro-EU before now, voted Yes to Lisbon twice because it was mostly administrative and didn't affect our interests, but the reforms they're sugesting now come dangerous close to nation-state territory, where we'd be the Wyoming. It would have be a radically different EU before I'd vote Yes to anything being proposed.

[bennocelt]

I'm in much the same position as Lionel - I've always been pro-EU before now, voted Yes to Lisbon twice because it was mostly administrative and didn't affect our interests, but the reforms they're sugesting now come dangerous close to nation-state territory, where we'd be the Wyoming. It would have be a radically different EU before I'd vote Yes to anything being proposed.

But the fact we wont get to vote on the amendments does affect us then? I was aware from the Lisbon treaty that future amendments to the treaty didnt require any referendum - or was i wrong (we will see I guess)

[mypost]

There have been amendments made since Lisbon was passed here, none of which required a referendum, and so there wasn't one.

My understanding is that there is a proviso for holding one here, but it is merely "optional" rather than "compulsory", and because it's "optional" it won't be allowed to happen. Look at the reaction when Greece proposed a ref over the bailout. They were allowed to riot and strike alright, but actually make decisions on their future, that was going too far in Brussels' eyes. So the threats poured in, and were followed by the inevitable climbdown by the Greek PM.

That's how that lot operate. Threats and warnings should the public threaten to interfere in their way of doing business. They won't allow a referendum here, and they don't have to. Lisbon gives them that authority. After all, we need to be at the "heart of Europe", even though we're not allowed negotiate the new treaty, and "Europe has been good to us". We just have to accept it, whether we like it or not.

[Macy]

How can anyone decide before they bloody see the actual referendum, and associated treaty? And also how it's framed. If it's Yes to stay in the euro and eu, and no, leave the euro and the eu?

If it's setting the parameters and then giving the Government the room to work within that, I'm not sure how I'd vote. My inclination would be vote no, but there is some logic to the argument that we could've done with that oversight for the last 15 years ago, when our own muppets McCreevey, Cowen, Harney and Ahern were fecking blowing it.

As for getting your knickers in a knot about handing over external control of our budgets - did people miss the whole handing over economic sovereignty that the last Government did?

Finally, I don't think anyone is suggesting we won't need a referendum. Maybe the Government will try, but if they did it will certainly be in the supreme court - either through council of state referral or by someone challenging it. For what it's worth, I think they'll fudge the need for treaty change in the short term, and use other mechanisms for a few years. Then the referendum will be basically about continuing how we are.

If we do have a referendum, can we add "not needing referendums on treaty change" to conscription for an eu army, and abortion for all, to the lies the no side spouted on Lisbon 1 and 2?

[bennocelt]

Well we will see then!

[Lim till i die]

If we do have a referendum, can we add "not needing referendums on treaty change" to conscription for an eu army, and abortion for all, to the lies the no side spouted on Lisbon 1 and 2?

Neither side held the monopoly on lying during the Lisbon debates tbf:






I shall be voting No, no matter what it's about or how they frame it. If there's a government im again' it for the forseeable.

[Macy]

Neither side held the monopoly on lying during the Lisbon debates tbf:

Can we not just agree to shoot (the remaining) messenger?

[thebooboys]

People saying a referendum is not required are correct technically but Crotty Judgement of 1987 sets a precedent somewhat. The government would be advised to hold one or face legal challenge through High Court & Supreme Court. Politically speaking it would be political suicide to try and railroad this. If Lab/FG try to railroad this through I foresee government collapse, backbenchers fearing for seats won't have it.