FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Ireland's no vote to the Lisbon Treaty





bogger
As you all may have heard, Ireland voted no to the lisbon treaty recently

Economist Article on the matter

Charlie McCreevy, the Irish European Commisioner has been taking flak recently because of his admittance that he hadn't read the treaty "no sane man" would, to paraphrase him.

Will the 4% of Europe that voted on behalf of the silenced 96% be ignored, and forced to try again, a là the Nice treaty? I'd put my money on it
ThePolemistis
bogger wrote:
As you all may have heard, Ireland voted no to the lisbon treaty recently

Economist Article on the matter

Charlie McCreevy, the Irish European Commisioner has been taking flak recently because of his admittance that he hadn't read the treaty "no sane man" would, to paraphrase him.

Will the 4% of Europe that voted on behalf of the silenced 96% be ignored, and forced to try again, a là the Nice treaty? I'd put my money on it


The EU is about control. The sovereignty of European nations will eventually be handed over to Brussels. It should be considered treason. IMHO, it is a threat greater than terrorism.

Yes, Ireland voted against it. It was funny how the head of EU Borosso was essentially saying about Ireland voted no, that "the EU respects Irelands vote, but the EU will press on with the reforms anyways" (that was the indication he was giving anyways).

Don't worry, I think Ireland would be back at the polls voting for the same treaty 2 years later Smile... the EU is a dictatorship, it should be dismantled and back to a simple Free Trade agreement like it was.
bogger
I fail to see what's wrong with a dictatorship, they get things done a lot faster ya know.

And the EU has done more good for europe than incompetent local politicians, bureaucracy can be bad, but it can also be very beneficial
Bikerman
bogger wrote:
I fail to see what's wrong with a dictatorship, they get things done a lot faster ya know.
Yes this is often said. The example is normally Mussolini making the trains run on time. The problem is that he didn't...

Yes, dictatorships can get things done faster, I agree. I don't agree that this is more efficient however. Dictatorships inevitably serve the interest of the dictator. Where the dictator is a tyrant that is very bad news. Where the dictator is benevolent - it is still bad news. The benevolent dictatorship does what it thinks is right for the people. The problems with this are
a)people generally know better what is right for them than governments do.
b)power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely. I can't think of any benevolent dictators in history...can you?
Quote:
And the EU has done more good for europe than incompetent local politicians, bureaucracy can be bad, but it can also be very beneficial
The EU is not a dictatorship - despite the rhetoric of its opponents. It is a pooling of sovereignty on some issues which can be best dealt with on a global/regional scale.
farsheed
I wonder why they did'nt vote to that?
bogger
Bikerman wrote:
Yes, dictatorships can get things done faster, I agree. I don't agree that this is more efficient however. Dictatorships inevitably serve the interest of the dictator. Where the dictator is a tyrant that is very bad news. Where the dictator is benevolent - it is still bad news. The benevolent dictatorship does what it thinks is right for the people. The problems with this are
a)people generally know better what is right for them than governments do.
b)power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely. I can't think of any benevolent dictators in history...can you?


I was using an extreme example, my point that democracy is too reliant on the notion of people voting for the better option after a well thought out objective discussion on the matter. People are idiots, make the country better by removing their vote. 1 man would only be a good leader if it was the correct man, there are other options than 1 man, of course, but this isn't important.

Bikerman wrote:
The EU is not a dictatorship - despite the rhetoric of its opponents. It is a pooling of sovereignty on some issues which can be best dealt with on a global/regional scale.

I agree, I didn't say it was a dictatorship, I was it was a bureaucracy....

@farsheed...
Ignorance was the main reason
Bikerman
bogger wrote:
I was using an extreme example, my point that democracy is too reliant on the notion of people voting for the better option after a well thought out objective discussion on the matter. People are idiots, make the country better by removing their vote. 1 man would only be a good leader if it was the correct man, there are other options than 1 man, of course, but this isn't important.
LOL...who decides on the '1 man'? I don't agree that people are idiots so I don't agree that the vote should be removed.
Churchill wrote:
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
Haelyn
Ireland will simply look the fool, when everyone else approves of it. They will have another vote, and be forced to accept. Anyways - how can a vote for a EU leader be a bad thing? You'd think people would approve -- better then being chosen by bureaucrats?
bogger
Haelyn wrote:
Ireland will simply look the fool, when everyone else approves of it. They will have another vote, and be forced to accept. Anyways - how can a vote for a EU leader be a bad thing? You'd think people would approve -- better then being chosen by bureaucrats?

How do we look the fool?
We'll have another vote, and if concrete reasons to vote yes aren't forthcoming, I'll vote no again, as a no vote maintains the status quo.

You say everyone else approves of it? France and Holland would vote no for it, as they both see it being exactly the same as the Constitution...
Bikerman
I think it is fairly certain that the UK would vote against the treaty if given a referrendum (as promised by both main parties). We will not be given such a choice, of course, because we don't live in a true democracy. This, however, is nothing new.
Haelyn
Ireland will look foolish because it will happen anyways - whether you vote yes or no.

Your government will bow to the Central Authority of the European Union, just like all the other ones will. The 'will' of the people will hardly be listened to.
bogger
Haelyn wrote:
Ireland will look foolish because it will happen anyways - whether you vote yes or no.

Your government will bow to the Central Authority of the European Union, just like all the other ones will. The 'will' of the people will hardly be listened to.


It's constitutionally required we have a referendum, and from my own surveying of my compatriots, a change of mind is decidedly low. I really must express my amazement at the scorn being heaped upon Ireland by people who pretend that their own country wouldn't vote no if given the choice
Bondings
@bogger, what are the reasons that you voted no?
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The EU is not a dictatorship - despite the rhetoric of its opponents. It is a pooling of sovereignty on some issues which can be best dealt with on a global/regional scale.


I was wondering whether one could use the United States as an example in this thread. It has a fantastic history along these lines. It even had a revolution to enforce Union (almost along dictatorial lines) and seems to have thrived afterwards as a true democracy adding one State after another, buying the odd one or two? Smile Think it is one of the World's greatest union miracles in democracy. What Europe has been unable to get together in centuries, the United States achieved in less than a century. And now with 50 states speaking as one! Still cannot believe how they do it! Imagine, 50 countries speaking with one voice. People in the rest of the world do not think about the United States in separate units, but as one country. We never hear about New Mexico wanting to start its own Republic or Alaska deciding to go on its own or Hawai to become independent. Or Utah starting its own colony? This is truly amazing stuff.
bogger
Bondings wrote:
@bogger, what are the reasons that you voted no?


The only main reason I voted no is because I knew it would spark so much more interesting debate in the world than had I voted yes. I knew that a yes vote was impossible, so I just went with the flow and voted no.

In my view, there were no reasons to vote no, I'm a europhile ensaddened by the inability of the E.U. to operate to its full potential due to rules based on a 15 member union being used for a 27 member union.

There never was a proper discussion in Ireland though, it was mostly the No campaigners coming up with lies:
Abortion if you vote yes etc. ad nauseum
ThePolemistis
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The EU is not a dictatorship - despite the rhetoric of its opponents. It is a pooling of sovereignty on some issues which can be best dealt with on a global/regional scale.


I was wondering whether one could use the United States as an example in this thread. It has a fantastic history along these lines. It even had a revolution to enforce Union (almost along dictatorial lines) and seems to have thrived afterwards as a true democracy adding one State after another, buying the odd one or two? Smile Think it is one of the World's greatest union miracles in democracy. What Europe has been unable to get together in centuries, the United States achieved in less than a century. And now with 50 states speaking as one! Still cannot believe how they do it! Imagine, 50 countries speaking with one voice. People in the rest of the world do not think about the United States in separate units, but as one country. We never hear about New Mexico wanting to start its own Republic or Alaska deciding to go on its own or Hawai to become independent. Or Utah starting its own colony? This is truly amazing stuff.


What America has achieved is certainly impressive, but not spectactular.
The reason why the United States is "united" is because they had one language and very similar culture. So thats why the states wanted to join part of the United States.
Canada is an entirely different story, as it had more than one language (french and english), and the "viva la quebec libre" chants are still distantly audible. hence theire need for seperation.

America also has never suffered from war on its own territory at least since 1816, 9/11 was the first time a foreign "force" to attack America on her national territory. This creates unity unlike situtaion in Europe where you have had wars upon wars, and thus the drawing of new borders.

But even still, everything is not that perfect in America. I mean 60 years back, around the civil rights movement, didn't the blacks want a country of their own in America (the southern part)? Certainly this was the view of Malcolm X, and his followers, albeit not in Malcolm X's later life (as he favoured integration over segregation).
LumberJack
I agree with the Irish who voted down Lisbon ( much <3 to Eire ). The moment that Investors realize that governments using the Euro are in danger of "going bankrupt" (in theory), the moment the Euro will be dropped. 10 years from now, it will be worth less than the US and Canadian dollar, maybe sooner.

With the abandonment of the Euro, I don't see why the European Union is really necessary. Really, all the Euro governments really wanted was to borrow at German market rates, which they are able to with the Euro. I am not sure about any other real benefit about it other than someone else controlling your monetary policy.

(Side note, the Irish Economy isn't looking too shabby right now!)
Bondings
LumberJack wrote:
I agree with the Irish who voted down Lisbon ( much <3 to Eire ). The moment that Investors realize that governments using the Euro are in danger of "going bankrupt" (in theory), the moment the Euro will be dropped. 10 years from now, it will be worth less than the US and Canadian dollar, maybe sooner.

Why would governments using the Euro go bankrupt? Besides they didn't vote against the Euro, they already have it. About the Euro being less worth than the US dollar, it used to be that way and the ECB actually wants a bit lower Euro. But this isn't going to happen soon, since the dollar is so weak.
LumberJack wrote:
With the abandonment of the Euro, I don't see why the European Union is really necessary. Really, all the Euro governments really wanted was to borrow at German market rates, which they are able to with the Euro. I am not sure about any other real benefit about it other than someone else controlling your monetary policy.

(Side note, the Irish Economy isn't looking too shabby right now!)

Do you have any idea what the European Union really is and what it does? It's more or less a free trade zone, no frontiers for travellers, takes care of standards, safety regulations and the like. A lot of those things are way better done on a global level. The monetary policy is decided by every member (at least what I know from it) and most of the time the same policy is good for most countries.
bogger
Bondings wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
I agree with the Irish who voted down Lisbon ( much <3 to Eire ). The moment that Investors realize that governments using the Euro are in danger of "going bankrupt" (in theory), the moment the Euro will be dropped. 10 years from now, it will be worth less than the US and Canadian dollar, maybe sooner.

Why would governments using the Euro go bankrupt? Besides they didn't vote against the Euro, they already have it. About the Euro being less worth than the US dollar, it used to be that way and the ECB actually wants a bit lower Euro. But this isn't going to happen soon, since the dollar is so weak.


I'm just going to ignore lumberjack's comments as uninformed and nationalistic (only ever so slightly)

@Bondings There are many ways for a country to go bankrupt while using the euro. What I think you meant to say was "What realistic way is there for a government using the Euro to go bankrupt any time soon, which a country without the Euro doesn't have to worry about to the same extent".

A country with a currency which is worth less gains. If a currency is worth less than another, then exports become cheaper, thus more in demand, and imports become more expensive, thus making it easier for local businesses to sell goods in the home market. (global example, Boeing vs Airbus, Airbus is being shafted by a strong euro (google it if you want proof)

The only reason the USA isn't gaining from this as much as it could, is because of a poor economic policy under the current administration

The only reason countries don't devalue their currencies regularly is because investors won't buy government bonds, or invest in the country to the same level if a country is considered to be at risk of a devaluation
LumberJack
Bondings wrote:

Why would governments using the Euro go bankrupt? Besides they didn't vote against the Euro, they already have it. About the Euro being less worth than the US dollar, it used to be that way and the ECB actually wants a bit lower Euro. But this isn't going to happen soon, since the dollar is so weak.


My post wasn't to clear, I guess I trailed off with problems with the Euro, rather than the EU.

From what I understand, a membership country cannot unilaterally print Euro's if their monetary situation called for it. It means that for countries like France or Italy, they would have to find other sources of supporting their expensive welfare systems. It has been relatively economically good time for the EU so far, it will be interesting to see how they are able to handle monetary policy for everybody in much tougher times.

Bondings wrote:

Do you have any idea what the European Union really is and what it does? It's more or less a free trade zone, no frontiers for travellers, takes care of standards, safety regulations and the like. A lot of those things are way better done on a global level. The monetary policy is decided by every member (at least what I know from it) and most of the time the same policy is good for most countries.


I agree with you here, but one could argue that free trade agreements maybe able to substitute this as well.

Bogger wrote:

I'm just going to ignore lumberjack's comments as uninformed and nationalistic (only ever so slightly)


I can be quite nationalistic Smile
loonix
Bikerman wrote:
We will not be given such a choice, of course, because we don't live in a true democracy.


How right you are!
bogger
loonix wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
We will not be given such a choice, of course, because we don't live in a true democracy.


How right you are!


Well "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is technically a Constitutional monarchy, so no, you don't live in a true democracy. I fail to see why you consider that even worth mentioning....
Bikerman
bogger wrote:
loonix wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
We will not be given such a choice, of course, because we don't live in a true democracy.


How right you are!


Well "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is technically a Constitutional monarchy, so no, you don't live in a true democracy. I fail to see why you consider that even worth mentioning....
Ermm...Contitutional monarchies/republics and democracies are not exclusive terms - you can have both. If you want the standard definition - the UK is a parliamentary democracy that is also a contitutional monarchy. The reason I mention it is because I think the word democracy is over-used in the context of western countries. The word is not really useful anymore, despite being frequently trumpeted as an ideal to be imposed on other countries. A more accurate term for most Western governmental systems would be polyarchies.
bogger
Bikerman wrote:
Contitutional monarchies/republics and democracies are not exclusive terms - you can have both. If you want the standard definition - the UK is a parliamentary democracy that is also a contitutional monarchy. The reason I mention it is because I think the word democracy is over-used in the context of western countries. The word is not really useful anymore, despite being frequently trumpeted as an ideal to be imposed on other countries. A more accurate term for most Western governmental systems would be polyarchies.


Right, seems we're having an argument, let's start by defining the terms.

Code:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=democracy Says:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

http://www.answers.com/constitutional%20monarchy?ff=1 Says:
A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation.

http://www.answers.com/polyarchy
A government by many persons, of whatever order or class.


So, that's done and dusted.

Emm, So, you are indeed correct about their non exclusivity, I stand corrected.

Democracy vs Polyarchy
Democracy seems to imply where a unanimous decision is taken, while polyarchy seems to be a majority rule thing, so the UK is a polyarchy, and the EU is a true democracy, but that doesn't make sense really, does it?

Democracies are in fact based upon the majority making decisions on behalf of the minority, so what is polyarchy?
Bikerman
OK. Here's were it gets tricky.
Democracies can be of several types - representative is the most common (the original type was called 'Athenian' and that is where the electorate gets a say on everything). Representative is where you elect a rep who takes decisions for you. The argument is that Athenian democracy can only work for small communities and once you get above a certain size (I think the Greeks said it was about 50,000) then you need representatives, since there are too many people to vote on every issue.
Now, the US/UK etc are called representative democracies but I think the word 'democracy' has become so weak that it has lost its original meaning. Thus I think polyarchy is a better term.

A polyarchy* is where the electorate (not always 'everyone') selects from a small choice of potential ruling elites and then takes no further role in decision making.

William I Robinson describes it thus:
Quote:
...when U.S. policymakers use the term democracy, they mean polyarchy - a system in which a small group rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites. Polyarchy then may be thought of as "low intensity democracy" or "consensual domination".

To see the difference clearly, simply think about any big issue recently, and consider whether your vote or opinion was canvassed before the decision was made. Consider if you had a chance to express your opposition or support for any such decision via your vote. Consider if you could even hold the decision makers to account after the event.
(I'm not just talking about war here, consider ANY important issue - taxation, crime, immigration etc).
Consider if you can vote for anyone who represents your views really closely, or do you have to select from a small number of potential candidates, none of whom represent your views very well, and simply pick the one you can live with the best.

That's the difference..It is particularly relevant to this particular discussion, if you think about it carefully.....

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyarchy
MRaftery
A good book to read related to this topic is Peter Obornes The rise of the political class.

I think our (the UKs) representative system would work much better and fairer plus engage more people if we had a fair and proportional electoral system. People normally counter the argument by saying First past the post creates strong governments...but is that in peoples best interests?
RedRackham
EU democracy is an absolute disgrace and the world is watching this corrupt fiasco. The Irish no vote means absolutely nothing because the unelected political elite in Europe will ensure that Ireland vote again, and again if necessary until they get the result they want, there is no such thing as EU democracy. Gordon Brown publicly criticises Mugabe for ignoring the electorate, while completely ignoring his own electorate. The UK would by now have had a referendum on the EU constitution / Lisbon Treaty (same thing) if this stinking government thought for one moment that the majority would vote yes, they may be corrupt, but they ain't stupid.

The Federal States of Europe is Shirac and Schroeder's dream, with France and Germany at it's center, a nightmare scenario.
TomGrey
A reasonable place to see more direct democracy is Switzerland -- where tax increases and many other laws (like allowing women to vote, or not) need to be passed in a referendum. Most of which fail.

Switzerland has one of the highest average standards of living in Europe. They also have cantons which have significant local power.

Who knows the name of the Swiss president? Who cares -- it rotates and there isn't much gov't power available.

The elites, the rich, powerful, fame-hungry (including most academics and journalists and entertainers), are usually in favor of gov't by the elites, for the elites, in the name of the people.

All EU countries should have referendums on all treaties, and they shouldn't come into force unless passed -- and if the "yes" argument isn't good enough, it shouldn't pass.

Singapore had pretty benevolent dictatorship after WW II; pretty tough on those who spit on the ground and other icky things, tho.
TomGrey
Oh, the stable EURO is one of the good things from the EU -- Slovakia is looking forward to joining the Euro zone in January, 2009. It makes price comparisons so much easier, and thus trade transaction costs lower.

But the potential problem of out of control <b>fiscal</b> policy, not monetary policy, is still real. Italy could become a test case for fiscal mismanagement creating Euro problems, but it hasn't been too bad yet -- not as bad as the US over-lending for over-priced houses.

(Although, had there been a vote on whether Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac would make the sub-prime mortgage loans that allowed US home ownership to increase from 65% to about 70%, direct democracy probably would have voted in favor. Representatives are supposed to know better, and act on the knowledge. They just often don't.)
Stubru Freak
Few people actually know what the EU is about. It has done a lot of good things, including making poor countries like Ireland get as rich as the others.

Ireland hasn't voted on behalf of the rest of the European Union. They just voted no as a vote against their government. A lot of countries with governments that do still have the support of a majority of the people would vote yes.

I think any country voting no should just be removed from the EU. It isn't fair that 4% of the population control the future of the other 96%.
bogger
Stubru Freak wrote:
Ireland hasn't voted on behalf of the rest of the European Union. They just voted no as a vote against their government. A lot of countries with governments that do still have the support of a majority of the people would vote yes.

I think any country voting no should just be removed from the EU. It isn't fair that 4% of the population control the future of the other 96%.


No, I'm fairly sure we voted no because we can do better than this....
We also voted no because the thing wasn't explained properly.

removing us from the EU is impossible, the lisbon treaty would actually introduce that (another reason to vote no).

And em, I'm fairly sure that other countries have voted no? Don't talk from such a high horse, it insults my intelligence
Stubru Freak
bogger wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
Ireland hasn't voted on behalf of the rest of the European Union. They just voted no as a vote against their government. A lot of countries with governments that do still have the support of a majority of the people would vote yes.

I think any country voting no should just be removed from the EU. It isn't fair that 4% of the population control the future of the other 96%.


No, I'm fairly sure we voted no because we can do better than this....
We also voted no because the thing wasn't explained properly.

removing us from the EU is impossible, the lisbon treaty would actually introduce that (another reason to vote no).

And em, I'm fairly sure that other countries have voted no? Don't talk from such a high horse, it insults my intelligence


That may also be a reason you voted no. In any case a lot of people didn't really vote against the treaty, which is a common problem with referenda.

Of course removing a country from the EU would be possible. If all other countries (or most of the countries) sign a treaty to form a new Europe, and just let the current European Union die silently, that's hard to stop.

Ireland was the first country to vote no, and this has broken the fragile agreement between the other countries, which was so carefully negotiated.

So yes, I believe the other countries should just go on without Ireland. I'd bet Ireland would be more than happy to accept the treaty if that means they can stay in the European Union. They want the privileges, but don't want to give anything back.
bogger
Stubru Freak wrote:
Of course removing a country from the EU would be possible. If all other countries (or most of the countries) sign a treaty to form a new Europe, and just let the current European Union die silently, that's hard to stop.


Stubru Freak wrote:
Ireland was the first country to vote no, and this has broken the fragile agreement between the other countries, which was so carefully negotiated.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/01/dutch.poll/index.html

Stubru Freak wrote:
So yes, I believe the other countries should just go on without Ireland. I'd bet Ireland would be more than happy to accept the treaty if that means they can stay in the European Union. They want the privileges, but don't want to give anything back.


you're an idiot, sorry.
TomGrey
Quote:
I'm fairly sure that other countries have voted no?


Unfortunately, NO -- no other country has allowed a referendum. Since the last countries that allowed the people to vote, Denmark and France, had people voting NO against the then proposed EU Constitution.

Most countries, like Slovakia, had their parliaments vote for both.

The Lisbon Treaty is mostly the rejected EU Constitution, trying be shoved down the throats of the people by the elites -- so that the EU elites could ignore the people who rejected the elite power grab the first time.

4% of the people shouldn't decide? Silly boy, it's call REPRESENTATIVE democracy because folk vote a representative (less than 1/10 of 1% of the people), and those representatives DO decide.

In 100% of the countries where the people were allowed to choose to accept or reject the treaty, the treaty has been rejected. In the UK, the Labor Party promised a referendum, but was lying (big surprise!).

The EU has become a corrupt and bureaucratic monster, and the weaker its central powers, the better for the normal people.

I'm about 80% sure that Belgium, if allowed a referendum, would vote no -- but Brussels would vote yes. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before Flanders declares its independence. Who needs Belgium to protect Flanders from France or Germany, when the EU would do so? Non-war resolutions to problems is the good thing from the EU.

Along with trade, capital movement, people movement, and EURO zone.
But not regulations on cheese...
bogger
TomGrey wrote:
Quote:
I'm fairly sure that other countries have voted no?


Unfortunately, NO -- no other country has allowed a referendum. Since the last countries that allowed the people to vote, Denmark and France, had people voting NO against the then proposed EU Constitution.

Most countries, like Slovakia, had their parliaments vote for both.

The Lisbon Treaty is mostly the rejected EU Constitution, trying be shoved down the throats of the people by the elites -- so that the EU elites could ignore the people who rejected the elite power grab the first time.


Sorry, I was being witty, I know we were the only country that were allowed to vote on the treaty, but only because we were constitutionally required to, unlike other countries, who weren't willing.

Seeing as the 2 things are the same, for most reasons, I'd consider france and holland as having voted no. Denmark did not vote on either treaty or the constitution, fix fact, please.

TomGrey wrote:
4% of the people shouldn't decide? Silly boy, it's call REPRESENTATIVE democracy because folk vote a representative (less than 1/10 of 1% of the people), and those representatives DO decide.

Quoted for truth
Stubru Freak
bogger wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
Of course removing a country from the EU would be possible. If all other countries (or most of the countries) sign a treaty to form a new Europe, and just let the current European Union die silently, that's hard to stop.


Stubru Freak wrote:
Ireland was the first country to vote no, and this has broken the fragile agreement between the other countries, which was so carefully negotiated.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/01/dutch.poll/index.html


As you said later on, that's their vote for the European constitution, not the Lisbon Treaty. You could say that it's almost the same, but still it isn't the same. After rejecting the constitution, the member states negotiated about the Lisbon Treaty, and got a new agreement.

Quote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
So yes, I believe the other countries should just go on without Ireland. I'd bet Ireland would be more than happy to accept the treaty if that means they can stay in the European Union. They want the privileges, but don't want to give anything back.


you're an idiot, sorry.


Sorry, but I'm not. You seem to think Ireland represents all of Europe's democracy. The EU as it is, is way too slow, as any single country can block almost anything. A lot of people (even 46% in Ireland) want a better Europe. Don't forget that in the first referendum ever held about the European Constitution, the one in Spain, 73% voted yes. Romania and Luxembourg also voted yes by referendum. So clearly, it's not just the political elite.
Now do you really think all those people don't have the right to form a new European Union, because Ireland doesn't agree?

TomGrey wrote:
Most countries, like Slovakia, had their parliaments vote for both.


That's just how a democracy works in most cases. You vote for someone you trust, so they can vote laws for you. It's just way too expensive to organise a referendum (and, of course, properly inform the people) before every law you want to pass. Let's leave ruling the state to the professionals.

Quote:
The Lisbon Treaty is mostly the rejected EU Constitution, trying be shoved down the throats of the people by the elites -- so that the EU elites could ignore the people who rejected the elite power grab the first time.


If you don't agree with the elites, don't vote for them. It's simple enough.

Quote:
4% of the people shouldn't decide? Silly boy, it's call REPRESENTATIVE democracy because folk vote a representative (less than 1/10 of 1% of the people), and those representatives DO decide.


I don't even get what you mean. 4% is not a majority, and they aren't representative of the rest of the European Union. Or at least I didn't vote for the Irish to represent me. Did you?

Quote:
In 100% of the countries where the people were allowed to choose to accept or reject the treaty, the treaty has been rejected.


A lot of countries don't need a referendum, because the people would vote yes anyway. In my opinion, that also counts as allowing the people to decide. But if you only count the opinions that are the same as yours, it's easy to prove anything.

Quote:
I'm about 80% sure that Belgium, if allowed a referendum, would vote no -- but Brussels would vote yes. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before Flanders declares its independence.


I think they wouldn't. The law has been voted in 9 different parliaments, all with different politicians. The only big party to have voted no seems to be the Vlaams Belang, who get their votes from racists and neo-nazis. Also, there has been no major call for a referendum.
TomGrey
I'm surprised you don't understand:
Quote:

I don't even get what you mean. 4% is not a majority, and they aren't representative of the rest of the European Union. Or at least I didn't vote for the Irish to represent me. Did you?


You vote for a representative, like in all representative, non-direct democracies.
Then the representative, not you, decides.
Elected representatives, the actual people actually deciding, are less than 1/10 of 1% of the EU.

Allowing the representatives to the EU to make decisions is allowing less than 1/10 of 1% of the people, allowing elites, "professional politicians", to make decisions.

In Ireland, only, the people directly voted, rather than the representatives voting. Thus, the only country whose people voted, 100% of itself, voted No.

Despite Belgium elites all voting yes, I still maintain an expensive referendum has a more than 50% chance of returning a 'no' answer, but I'm not living in Belgium. I sure wish they would vote and show it.

The elites almost always favor more power to the elites, and more centralization of power. But also most opposition elites, so either elite you vote for will probably be looking to increase elite power.
bogger
Stubru Freak wrote:
I don't even get what you mean. 4% is not a majority, and they aren't representative of the rest of the European Union. Or at least I didn't vote for the Irish to represent me. Did you?


I did.
LumberJack
I think it is safe to say that the Irish will be having another vote in the future. The EU will try and salvage whatever they can, and if anything, the Irish Yes side I think will be more prepared for any underhandedness that bogger was mentioning in previous posts. When? Not for a while, but it is certainly inevitable.
Related topics
Rate us at ClickHereFree!
Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, The best of the three vote
Pre-Mondial :: 2-2 Israel vs. Ireland...
England defeat by Northern Ireland
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Dems still 2-faced, get butt-hurt when called on their BS
Lineage II or WoW???
More front page news NOT on the front page..
What do you think about the European Union?
Labour lose safe seat...
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Sarkozy's £250,000 shower
Top 10 British Insults
Please vote against ACTA - Europe's equivalent of SOPA
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.