Lisbon Treaty

[triskelion]

They could just kick Ireland out

 

The same way they kicked France and the Netherlands out when they voted 'No' on the EU Constitution last time ?

 

From comments today the No vote is not expressing anti-EU sentiment (as it might in the UK). It appears to be anti the remote and 'elitist' EU bureaucracy and pro greater democratic involvement, openess and accountability as promised when the Constitution was originally being mooted.

 

Emphasis is being placed by the leaders of the No campaign on the need for the politicians and the public servants to begin to listen much more carefully to the electorate. Touch of the same needed in the IOM?

 

They continue to say that the No vote is 'pro EU' but anti a Treaty/Constitution that would centralise more controls in Brussels.

But the treaty gives greater accountability because it vastly increases the power of the European Parliament: ie, they would be able to actually stop legislation.

 

Yes somethings would be centralised, but this is not inherently bad. For example, a single EU foreign policy chief will make negotiations with the US/China/India much more fruitful as the EU is something more akin to an equal partner than, say, Ireland or Belgium are.

 

Regardless of what 'emphasis' is being used by the leaders of the No campaign, people will have found their own reasons to vote the way they did, and if anything this serves predominantly to show what an utterly terrible way of making decisions referenda are. I realise the choice itself is rather clear cut (either you ratify or you don't), but as it is, we have very little information on why people voted the way they did. As a result, the debate simply becomes a polarised shouting match. The interviews I've seen show a great variety of reasons why people voted Yes or No.

 

On on BBC feature: (Vote: Reason)

No vote: Ireland being oppressed by the EU

No vote: People in other countries wanted a no vote

No vote: Perceived loss of sovereignty

 

Yes vote: Should either support Europe or get out

Yes vote: Not a major issue; would improve the existing set-up

Yes vote: Put off by No campaign scare tactics

 

Non-voter: Put off by the convoluted campaigns of both sides

 

I think the biggest problem is that people take absolutely no interest in European affairs until something big like this comes along, which results in a kind of mass hysteria with lots of shouting.

[manshimajin]

I think the biggest problem is that people take absolutely no interest in European affairs until something big like this comes along, which results in a kind of mass hysteria with lots of shouting.

 

I don't think this is as true about Ireland as it may be about the UK. Irish people tend to be more actively pro-European and more interested and better informed about EU matters than I have observed in the UK. Also in Ireland the MEPs are well known. Not sure UK electors could say who their MEPs are?

 

Maybe the real reason for the referendum turning out No is that both the Irish and European politicians assumed that there would be a Yes vote and did not work hard enough in a time of economic trouble to convince the electorate to vote in favour.

 

Your comments about referenda are interesting - the other side of the coin is that we still have a system of political representation designed in the Middle Ages to take account of communication problems at that time. Politicians seem to be the last grouping to recognise that communication technology has changed radically in the last 200 years and exponentially in the last 20.

[bluemonday]

Politicians seem to be the last grouping to recognise that communication technology has changed radically in the last 200 years and exponentially in the last 20.

An excellent point. But then they might have to take more notice of the views of those who elected them. How tiresome....

[Mutley]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7776961.stm

 

Curious as to who exactly is "willing to hold a second referendum". I doubt it was the majority who voted No the last time. Could it be the fools in the Irish Govt who are bowing to pressure from their EU puppet masters? Will it be best out of three if it is a Yes vote this time?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7776961.stm

 

Curious as to who exactly is "willing to hold a second referendum". I doubt it was the majority who voted No the last time. Could it be the fools in the Irish Govt who are bowing to pressure from their EU puppet masters? Will it be best out of three if it is a Yes vote this time?

 

Why are they fools? The Irish Government are in favour are they not?

 

I have only read through this thread today, I would prefer a referendum as it is more democractic than government making the decision, but I am very surprised by the number of people who believe that UK citizens SHOULD have had a referendum. I don't understand why though simply for this issue.

[manshimajin]

I have only read through this thread today, I would prefer a referendum as it is more democractic than government making the decision, but I am very surprised by the number of people who believe that UK citizens SHOULD have had a referendum. I don't understand why though simply for this issue.

The problem with EU related referenda in Ireland is that because

• it is one of the few countries that hold them in relation to constittional change and
  
• because it is so small
  

if the citizens reject an EU Treaty they have to go back again and get it right. I am not sure that this form of repeat referendum is more democratic.

 

It was fascinating to hear a group of EU politicians saying that the Irish 'No' vote would not mean that the Lisbon Treaty was dead (which was the legal position) but that Ireland would 'have to consider its future in Europe'. EU related referenda are democratic if you get the answer right!

 

The counter argument is that a small minority should not stop the will of a large majority. But this is a bit of a thin argument when it is said that EU Treaties must have the support of ALL member states.

 

No doubt the Ireland will get it right on Lisbon as it did on Nice.

[pongo]

This is how it should work: the govt gets elected to get on with the business of deciding what to do. Every few years there is an election. If the people do not like what has been decided then they can vote the govt out of office next time.

 

Govts hold referenda when they do not want to take responsibility for their decisions. But the process of holding refernda is, off itself, anti democratic since there is never a referendum on what should be put to the public, how the question should be worded etc.

 

Either all decisions should be held by referenda, or none. Anything in between makes no logical sense.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

This is how it should work: the govt gets elected to get on with the business of deciding what to do. Every few years there is an election. If the people do not like what has been decided then they can vote the govt out of office next time.

 

Govts hold referenda when they do not want to take responsibility for their decisions. But the process of holding refernda is, off itself, anti democratic since there is never a referendum on what should be put to the public, how the question should be worded etc.

 

Either all decisions should be held by referenda, or none. Anything in between makes no logical sense.

 

Couldn't agree more. I appreciate that people think that liberal democracy or something akin to the Soviet Union is about as much choice you get in political systems but if you vote and participate and vote in the UK then shut up and lump it. You only have yourself to blame. I see a referendum as being more democratic, however, as although a question has been chosen by the government to put to the public, at least that decision is made by the public. Shame the public are kept so much in the dark about things like the EU.

[pongo]

Couldn't agree more

 

... and then you do.

 

But no need to explain

[manshimajin]

Couldn't agree more. I appreciate that people think that liberal democracy or something akin to the Soviet Union is about as much choice you get in political systems but if you vote and participate and vote in the UK then shut up and lump it. You only have yourself to blame.

I would feel a bit more supportive if the UK replaced its 'first past the post' electoral system with proportional representation. It is hardly a shining exampe of democracy when a party that gets less than half the votes ends up with a stonking majority of the seats in Parliament (and this applies to both Labour and the Conservatives). Of course the only people who can make this change are the politicians. And they wish to maintain a political system from the era of travel by horse. God bless them!

 

I am also used to the Australian system which requires you as a citizen to use your vote.

 

In the Irish case the Irish Constituion requires any change to the Constitution to be agreed by the citizens of the country rather than leving it to politicians only - so it is not just a case of politicians avoiding hard decisions but of them complying with the law of the State. As I have mentioned before my impression is that people in the RoI are generally much more aware and interested in political matters than people are in the UK. No doubt due to population size and community involvement.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Couldn't agree more. I appreciate that people think that liberal democracy or something akin to the Soviet Union is about as much choice you get in political systems but if you vote and participate and vote in the UK then shut up and lump it. You only have yourself to blame.

I would feel a bit more supportive if the UK replaced its 'first past the post' electoral system with proportional representation. It is hardly a shining exampe of democracy when a party that gets less than half the votes ends up with a stonking majority of the seats in Parliament (and this applies to both Labour and the Conservatives).

 

Well yes, it would be a more democratic system. But what would make it a shining example? Direct democracy or consensus democracy seems to me to be the only acceptable system, though it has its problems.

 

My only issue with improving the electoral system is that it might make people think that voting matters. Though I suppose this illusion will not last too long. But it is laughable how Britain can call itself a democracy when it has such an electoral system.

[manshimajin]

My only issue with improving the electoral system is that it might make people think that voting matters. Though I suppose this illusion will not last too long. But it is laughable how Britain can call itself a democracy when it has such an electoral system.

Well of course the alternative is to dissolve the 'representative' system to recognise that technology has now advanced over the horizon from where it was when the present system was developed (ie we have moved from the horse transport age to communication age). In a really democratic society do we need 'representatives' or can we represent ourselves and vote on issues without delegating that action to intermediaries? The technology is there now so maybe we'll get there in 100 years time?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My only issue with improving the electoral system is that it might make people think that voting matters. Though I suppose this illusion will not last too long. But it is laughable how Britain can call itself a democracy when it has such an electoral system.

Well of course the alternative is to dissolve the 'representative' system to recognise that technology has now advanced over the horizon from where it was when the present system was developed (ie we have moved from the horse transport age to communication age). In a really democratic society do we need 'representatives' or can we represent ourselves and vote on issues without delegating that action to intermediaries? The technology is there now so maybe we'll get there in 100 years time?

 

I think we can represent ourselves and should.