QuoteI like it...
"Justice for Dustin...Vote No!"
Well said Calcio. the eastern block will look after the eastern block. I know the eurovision is a pretty novel way of demonstrating this but look at how we really have been excluded by the eastern block in that in recent years. being as we are on the western edge of europe we will be the most Isolated by this treaty
I like it...
"Justice for Dustin...Vote No!"
Now where did I leave that Black Marker and poster boardsOriginally Posted by DaveyCakes
If we're going to say that the Constitution being rejected in Holland and France is "this treaty being rejected twice", what about the 18 other countries that have ratified the constitution?
Don't let France bully us! Vote Yes!
[/mypost]
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
How many were subject to a referendum? They were all ratified by national parliaments where the result was guaranteed.
National parliaments are elected and mandated to represent their citizens' wishes. The Irish parliament are doing so by enforcing the constitutional requirement for a referendum on this treaty. The multitude of other EU countries did so by their own decisions.
Using your appointed powers to perform what most people in your jurisdiction want you to is what your earlier link referred to as the sinister sounding majoritarianism, or what the rest of us call democracy.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
On this occasion I agree with mypost, for reasons I've already stated -- this treaty is in the best interest of politicians, not countries or people. Of course politicians are going to ratify it.
adam
What's the best interests of politicians? Upping salaries? To take an arbitrary opposition party from across Europe that are supporting the Lisbon Treaty, what would Fine Gael politicians be getting out of this?
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
Power Gavan. The politician's lifeblood. I reckon I've posted the exact same thing now about a half dozen times in this thread, that's about enough for me.
adam
But aren't most anti-treaty people saying that this will reduce our voting power, and as such, our politician's voting power? Besides, in a democratic system, politicians can only retain power, and probably more importantly their salaries, by meeting their constituents wants and expectations.
Voting for the treaty, according to the No campaign, would be a double blow for politicians, reducing their power and condemning themselves to losing it entirely when the EU are aborting our babies and taxing our children's shoes?
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
There were four referenda on the Constitutional Treaty; Spain, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands. We don't hear too much about upholding the democratically expressed will of the people of Spain and Luxembourg though!
Luxembourg are one of the countries we can look down upon whilst still playing the "we're a small island nation" card.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
What does that even mean? It's like complaining about the poor deal FG voters get. That constitution was rejected according to current EU treaties. That should be the end of it.
You can't spell failure without FAI
The only countries that rejected the Constitution were France and Holland. That sort of majoritarian elitism is bad, and protected against in the Lisbon Treaty which ensures that at least four countries have to back a proposal for it to pass. Those federalist No campaigners want France to make all our decisions for us!
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
Yes, and equally, those imperialist Yes campaigners want disguise to accustom counter-revolution.
A more flexible voting system would be good, but the current system exists for a reason, and it's not the EU's place to undermine it by rerunning votes until it gets the desired result.
You can't spell failure without FAI
To be honest, having read the Lisbon Treaty, I think it shouldn't even go to a referendum. From reading the Crotty v An Taoiseach case in 1987 where it was first held that, where there was a major transfer of power to the EU in a treaty going outside the areas in which we were already party to, a referendum would be required to ratify it. However, a large part of that judgment which is often disregarded set out the other areas of the 1986 Single European Act (SEA) which would NOT have required a referendum (as follows):
"(1) Changes which are proposed in the decision-making process of the Council in six instances from unanimity to a qualified majority were asserted to be an unauthorised surrender of sovereignty.
(2) The power given to the Council by unanimous decision at the request of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the European Court) to attach to it a court of first instance with an appeal from the latter on questions of law to the European Court was said to be an unauthorised surrender of the judicial power.
(3) It is submitted that Article 20 dealing with cooperation in economic and monetary policy, Article 21 dealing with social policy, Article 23 dealing with economic and social cohesion, Article 24 dealing with research and technological development, and Article 25 dealing with the environment, all add new objectives to the Treaty of Rome which make them additions to the original Treaty which are outside the existing constitutional authorisation.
(4) It is submitted that powers granted to the Council by Articles 18 and 21 of the SEA would enable it by a qualified majority to direct the approximation of laws concerning the provision of services and concerning the working environment, health and safety of workers which amount to new powers outside the existing constitutional authorisation and which could encroach on existing guarantees of fundamental rights under the Constitution. "
It was held that the only issue that required a referendum in the Crotty case was the fact that the Ecomonic Community was branching out into a Political Community by having a new role in foreign policy.
There is nothing anywhere near as significant as that in the Lisbon Treaty which moves outside of existing EU policies and in my view, the changes proposed are more in line with the changes in the SEA pasted above which were held NOT to require a referendum.
To those who argue that its anti-democratic to ratify Lisbon through parliament, we elect politicians to enact all sorts of legislation, provided its constitutional, why not this?
The whole problem with this treaty is the title given to its predecessor (the Constitutional Treaty). It was never actually a constitution but due to the vanity of Valery Giscaird D'Estaing, its chief architect, he wanted to make his treaty sound more significant than it actually was.
(Apologies for probably boring the pants off everyone else on this thread!)
Sweet mother of God - an informed, considered opinion. What the hell are you doing here?
You can't spell failure without FAI
Sorry, I meant 'vote yes or else we're all very bad Europeans' or something...
That's the result of a Yes vote.
Not true. Abortion & divorce were argued generally on facts. Immigration a little bit less so. The problem with Nice and Lisbon is that most people don't think it will have any effect on them so allow politicians to argue amongst themselves using the usual huff and bluff tactics.
I voted too lazy in the above poll.
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks