Whats wrong with all countries having an equal say irrespective of populationOriginally Posted by holidaysong
The current system is undemocratic. It would allow say Cyprus to veto legislation that the other 26 countries representing hundreds of millions of people want passed.
The new system still ensures that smaller countries get more votes per head of population & it also ensures need a minimum percentage of countries to get votes passed which ensures big countries can't force through on their own.
So if it allows Cyprus to veto legislation, how is it undemocratic?
The proposed system is undemocratic. It requires merely majority voting. "If you're in the minority well, fk you".
I think that's a part of the problem with this treaty. A lot of the previous ones contained a big ticket item. Nice allowed the 12 new countries to join, Maastricht brought in the euro. Both issues you could hold an opinion on. From what I can tell, this treaty does little other than redistribute the voting weights in Europe so it's difficult to get excited about it.
You may not be aware but the definition of democracy is basically majority rule.So if it allows Cyprus to veto legislation, how is it undemocratic?
The proposed system is undemocratic. It requires merely majority voting. "If you're in the minority well, fk you".
Vetos will still remain but just removed for some areas.
The definition of democracy is your voice gets heard. Only happening for 3 million people regarding this constitution.You may not be aware but the definition of democracy is basically majority rule.
Other countries have their own rules. Who are we to tell them they must have a Referedum?The definition of democracy is your voice gets heard. Only happening for 3 million people regarding this constitution.
I asked google a question todayThe proposed system is undemocratic. It requires merely majority voting. "If you're in the minority well, fk you".
Define: Democracy
Here's what came up.
[SIZE=-1]majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group [/SIZE]
Under the original constitution, approximately half of the EU states were scheduled to hold referendums. Most never got the opportunity.
Because how many countries voted no?
I was going to vote no up until about a week ago, informed myself a bit using this thread and also bits and pieces here and there.
Surprised to see the vote so close, i would have taught the ''Yes'' camp would have been much higher considering all the main political parties are pushing for this.
IMO anyway if anyone informed themselves to even the jist of the treaty they would see it's good for Ireland and Europe as a whole, so with that i'd conclude that anyone who's too lazy to inform themselves are also the crowd who are too lazy to register or even vote on the day, so i'd say at the ballot itself there will be much more pushing for a ''Yes''.
There's the right way, the wrong way.... and the Max Power way!! :-D
People who haven't read the document are lazy? The actual document is both long and difficult - the clause "46) Articles 27 A to 27 E, on enhanced cooperation, shall be replaced by Article 10 in accordance with point 22 above." will give you a taste if you haven't tried it yourself. There's little to be gained for the average punter to actually read it. Instead, you've read a summary. Whose summary? Was their a bias to it?
Among the Yes camp will be those who unconditionally do whatever their political party tells them (a condition for which I enthusiastically endorse euthanasia), which strikes me as a fairly intellectually lazy group too. Truth is, the vast majority of people voting in this referendum will not have read the treaty. I'll warrant that over half of them won't have even read a summary.
You can't spell failure without FAI
How many other countries would have voted no? The Brits for starters....
You fail to say why it's good for Ireland.
We have to pass this??
Last edited by mypost; 15/05/2008 at 5:35 PM.
We have to vote on it, yes. Most substantial pieces of legislation are pretty convoluted, amendments doubly so.We have to pass this??
You can't spell failure without FAI
If you read the consolidated text you'll find it much easier. Reading the edits to a document you haven't read is always going to be difficult.
I hardly meant i read the whole document itself
I was referring to http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/index.html
There's the right way, the wrong way.... and the Max Power way!! :-D
I actually have read it (them technically), though it's been a while. At any rate, the consolidated text has only been made available this month. I've been pretty ****ed off at that actually. I haven't had time to read it yet.
Ah, yes, the Referendum commission. As much as I can't to read a summary by such an intellectual heavyweight as the Ombudsman ("I will be an ombudswoman"), I will actually read the damned thing myself first.I hardly meant i read the whole document itself
I was referring to http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/index.html
At any rate, well done on reading that much. Few enough will.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Cool,
I'll let you fill me in on what's in it so. I won't be at the game this Friday.
I'm unlikely to read it by Friday, John. Maybe the Treaty on European Union, but definitely not the other one.
EDIT: Will/won't. So much room for confusion.
The Government appointed commission? Since Nice 1, the remite of the supposed independent information released to the public is severly restricted.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks