Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

We should get rid of referendum as a way of changing our constitution.
Britain has a long tradition of democracy, without a written constitution.
It would be nice to hear an articulate debate, from politicians that we pay a fortune to make decisions for us, rather than having the usual suspects ( from both sides of the debate) hijacking every possible referendum for personal face time in the media.
If the politicians make the wrong decision, let the voters hammer them in the polls.
It would be nice to see them take a stance on issues, rather than sit on their hands and squirm at tough decisions.
 
rob30 said:
We should get rid of referendum as a way of changing our constitution.
Click to expand...

Why?

rob30 said:
Britain has a long tradition of democracy, without a written constitution. It would be nice to hear an articulate debate, from politicians that we pay a fortune to make decisions for us, rather than having the usual suspects ( from both sides of the debate) hijacking every possible referendum for personal face time in the media.
Click to expand...

And the British public were promised a referendum on Lisbon by these very politicians.

rob30 said:
If the politicians make the wrong decision, let the voters hammer them in the polls. It would be nice to see them take a stance on issues, rather than sit on their hands and squirm at tough decisions.
Click to expand...

By then it may be too late. With regards to the Lisbon treaty, the politicians certianly didn't sit on their hands and squirm.

It seems that the politicians are the only ones with an appetite for Lisbon (across Europe). The public by and large do not. Certainly not here, France, the Netherlands or the UK.
 
I don't agree with giving our politicians the choice to vote on our behalf. I think its vital we keep our freedom and to continue have a voice on matters that will impact on us. The majority of the citizens within the EU wanted to have a say in the ratification process but they were denied it.
 
rob30 said:
Britain has a long tradition of democracy, without a written constitution.
.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that the civil rights enjoyed by individuals in the UK are much weaker than here. If you don't believe this, look at their tax system which is riddled with unjust provisions that would not stand up in our courts system, for example the distinction between gift and inheritance taxes, which allow that a gift (even of millions of £) is tax-exempt if the person receiving the gift survives for 7 years afterwards but becomes taxable if they die within those 7 years. So for example the survivors of someone who dies in a road accident are often lumbered with big tax bills on their bereavement, simply because they have been bereaved.
 
Harchibald said:
All but 6 of our elected TDs were for Yes. IBEC, most trade unions, the farmers etc. were for Yes. I think that entitled the Yes side to more air time than No. Imagine that Ganly was the only person in the whole country for No. RTE would still work on the principle that he should get as much air time as all the rest put together.
Click to expand...
I believe this to be inaccurate. Indeed, when the Irish Daily Mail ran an article, during the referendum campaign, entitled 'Radio Lisbon', which accused RTE of bias in favour of the Yes side, RTE replied by letter confirming and justifying said bias.
ubiquitous said:
Pat Rabbitte stated emphatically on Friday's Today with Pat Kenny show that the RTE "50/50 stopwatch coverage" was NOT based on any statutory obligation. He said also that no other broadcaster operated this policy.
Click to expand...
Pat is correct that there is no obligation on the media to provide balanced coverage - this was abundantly evident during the campaign - however any suggestion that RTE did provide 50/50 coverage, which by their own admission they did not, is either misinformed or disingenuous. It seems that Pat had an epiphany over the weekend as, in his article in the Sunday Independent, he says that "it's sobering to reflect that the people of Ireland, indeed the people of Europe, may not adhere to the EU."
 
i agree with eileen alana, the public should always have the final say in maters that consern the public.the politicians will always try to make us vote for whatever makes their life easier...the are selfserving by nature.
 
We will always have the freedom to do this and we can thank the Supreme Court ruling in 1987 which stipulated that significant changes to the EU treaties require an amendment to the Irish Constitution, carried out by way of a refendum, before being ratified by the State.
 
The provisions contained in the annual Budget and Finance Act are subject to the provisions of the Constitution. It is only right and proper that the Constitution may only be amended by popular vote, otherwise governments can govern by decree and you will end up with people's rights being infringed in particular ways as happens in the UK - see my recent post above the re the UK tax system.
 
The surrender of sovereignty is not comparable with the framing of a budget. There is talk on AAM in relation to 'Representative Democracy' to the effect that our representatives can, and should, do what they will. We elect representatives, based on a given manifesto, to run OUR country and to make both operational and strategic decisions; they work for us. Although we invest in them the power to make decisions on our behalf that does not license them to surrender that power to, or pool that power with, others, without consulting us, the people, directly for sanction.
 
I voted yes for the treaty but having examined the various reactions around Europe I am beginning to think that I was wrong and that the right decision was reached. The undemocratic soundings coming out of Germany and France about practically ignoring the Irish vote run the real risk of damaging the EU's future more than the Irish 'No' Vote.

Here is where I would go from here. The Lisbon treaty is dead so time to forget about it. The French and Dutch rejection of the Constitution and our rejection of this Treaty shows that there are many people in Europe with concerns about the way the EU is going. If I was a politician I would accept this and leave aside all areas of increased co-operation and integration for the moment and concentrate on reforming the workings of the EU itself i.e. the commission and parliment. After all apparently this is what the Treaty's main purpose was. Only when I found a solution to this would I even begin to look at areas like having foreign ministers and presidents, increased military co-operation etc. I don't understand why they tried to put everything through in one complicated treaty when it was obvious that many people were uncomfortable with the pace and amount of change and the French and Dutch had already rejected large parts of it.
 
michaelm said:
I believe this to be inaccurate. Indeed, when the Irish Daily Mail ran an article, during the referendum campaign, entitled 'Radio Lisbon', which accused RTE of bias in favour of the Yes side, RTE replied by letter confirming and justifying said bias.
Click to expand...
That's a useful clarification. It is interesting that other No supporters, like TV, accepted my simplistic thesis and sought to justify it. Clearly it is unjustifiable to give "50/50 stopwatch coverage" when the overwhelming view was for a Yes.

However, I still think that Ganly/Grisly/Trish etc. got far more air time than is warranted.
 
michaelm said:
The surrender of sovereignty is not comparable with the framing of a budget. There is talk on AAM in relation to 'Representative Democracy' to the effect that our representatives can, and should, do what they will. We elect representatives, based on a given manifesto, to run OUR country and to make both operational and strategic decisions; they work for us. Although we invest in them the power to make decisions on our behalf that does not license them to surrender that power to, or pool that power with, others, without consulting us, the people, directly for sanction.
Click to expand...

Very well put. And in theory is the way it should be.

In practice, though, we end up with 'us, the people' being represented by half-of-half the electorate, (not just in this referendum).
Making major constitutional changes is actually left to the largest minority of the electorate, with the majority not voting at all, which essentially defaults to 'I don't know or care about this vote'. A case of who shouts loudest wins out.
This is mainly why I would prefer to leave such decisions to the elected Govts who 'work for us', and can be kicked-out, rather than unelected, well-organised groups with specific agendas who can manipulate the issues and play on peoples fears.
 
redstar said:
Very well put. And in theory is the way it should be.

In practice, though, we end up with 'us, the people' being represented by half-of-half the electorate, (not just in this referendum).
Making major constitutional changes is actually left to the largest minority of the electorate, with the majority not voting at all, which essentially defaults to 'I don't know or care about this vote'. A case of who shouts loudest wins out.
Click to expand...

Change the law to make it compulsory to vote would solve that. Or would we need a referendum to change the law! Vicious circle
 
Sunny said:
I voted yes for the treaty but having examined the various reactions around Europe I am beginning to think that I was wrong and that the right decision was reached. The undemocratic soundings coming out of Germany and France about practically ignoring the Irish vote run the real risk of damaging the EU's future more than the Irish 'No' Vote.
Click to expand...
Sunny, I understand your emotional response but I interpreted this completely the opposite. This is exactly why I voted Yes. It was so damned obvious that Europe's political elite would react very negatively against us. All goodwill has been blown. Talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face.
 
Sunny said:
Here is where I would go from here. The Lisbon treaty is dead so time to forget about it. The French and Dutch rejection of the Constitution and our rejection of this Treaty shows that there are many people in Europe with concerns about the way the EU is going. If I was a politician I would accept this and leave aside all areas of increased co-operation and integration for the moment and concentrate on reforming the workings of the EU itself i.e. the commission and parliment. After all apparently this is what the Treaty's main purpose was. Only when I found a solution to this would I even begin to look at areas like having foreign ministers and presidents, increased military co-operation etc.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what the normally very wise Financial Times editorial recommended on Saturday.

redstar said:
Making major constitutional changes is actually left to the largest minority of the electorate, with the majority not voting at all, which essentially defaults to 'I don't know or care about this vote'. A case of who shouts loudest wins out.
Click to expand...

A majority voted on Thursday. It has been widely lauded, by all sides, as a high turnout.

Sunny said:
Change the law to make it compulsory to vote would solve that.
Click to expand...

Your faith in the state of our electoral register is touching :rolleyes:
 
Harchibald said:
Sunny, I understand your emotional response but I interpreted this completely the opposite. This is exactly why I voted Yes. It was so damned obvious that Europe's political elite would react very negatively against us. All goodwill has been blown. Talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Click to expand...

I understand that but the EU is supposed to be a democracy and has rules in place that says it is all of us together or none of us. Its not perfect but they are the rules. Just because they didn't like the way Ireland voted doesn't give the German foreign minister the right to say that we should take a break from Europe. They weren't exactly threatening France and the Netherlands when they rejected the Constitution which is why we have this treaty in the first place. I just think European leaders need to think before they speak because if they continue to threaten us, other smaller countries are going to be asking themselves 'are they next' if they do something to displease the big boys.

My God, I am turning into a Euro Sceptic..:eek:
 
redstar said:
Very well put. And in theory is the way it should be.


This is mainly why I would prefer to leave such decisions to the elected Govts who 'work for us', and can be kicked-out, rather than unelected, well-organised groups with specific agendas who can manipulate the issues and play on peoples fears.
Click to expand...


the problem with what you say, is that by the time you get them kicked-out,the damage is already done.
 
Sunny, I broadly agree with your analysis, but to get all indignant and try to take the ball off the pitch is madness. We can no more tell France and Germany to stuff their EU than we can tell the US to stuff their Shannon stopovers. Realpolitik it is called, I think.

Sinn Fein - literally Ourselves Alone. We are certainly a lot closer to theat goal now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top