C'mon Ireland, you know you want to...

[LittleGrizzly]

Well as i see it, it would be an anti EU party that would eventually propse a vote to exit the eu treaty...

That being said... as the treaty was never properly ratified there is no treaty to repeal... so its a bit hard to know....

TBH once the treaty has gone through i very much doubt it would be repealed anywhere barring major circumstances... so imo the anti eu camp are right to try anything and everything to stop a vote and then make sure its rejected... once its passed it aint coming down...

[Louis VI the Fat]

TBH once the treaty has gone through i very much doubt it would be repealed anywhere barring major circumstances... so imo the anti eu camp are right to try anything and everything to stop a vote and then make sure its rejected... once its passed it aint coming down...

Actually, the Lisbon treaty was the first EU treaty to give countries an easy way out of the EU, should they ever so desire.

It's funny how they don't insist on another vote when the voters get it 'right' though, isn't it?

The Irish did get it 'right' the last time. In 1992, Ireland voted 'yes' to the Maastricht Treaty. And they got it 'right' the time before that. Etcetera.

However, the pro EU camp never uses this as an argument against any future referendums. Ireland can have as many EU referendums as it likes. They can have one every week if they want. Only the anti EU camp wants to silence all opposition by demanding that Ireland can never have another EU referendum again.

We were given the opportunity to say no? Really?

The German constitution does not provide for a referendum. The German people express their democratic wish through other means. This does not mean that Germany isn't a rock-solid democracy by even the highest standards.

[LittleGrizzly]

Actually, the Lisbon treaty was the first EU treaty to give countries an easy way out of the EU, should they ever so desire.

But no goverment in power seems like they would be willing to do that, and without a willing goverment you won't pull out, and there aren't scheduled referendums asking if they want to stay in the eu.... for example in the uk in current political climate your only option would be voting UKIP, who will never win an election, so you could never get out once your in basically... barring as i said major circumstance change, of course if a goverment was willing im sure it would be easy, but with major political parties all being pro eu (in uk) you wouldn't have a choice...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

how about in Germany ?

Depends. Do you prefer communists or fascists?

The German constitution does not provide for a referendum. The German people express their democratic wish through other means. This does not mean that Germany isn't a rock-solid democracy by even the highest standards.

Section II, Article 20, Line 2. Point on the matter. The lack of a referendum may not be unconstitutional, but the Treaty itself?

The government should ask the people. They should care. Merkel doesn't - and she certainly won't receive my vote.

[LittleGrizzly]

Depends. Do you prefer communists or fascists

well im a red at heart so commies i guess.... these are very minor parties in germany i assume ?

and i though facist parties were banned in germany after the last one ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

well im a red at heart so commies i guess.... these are very minor parties in germany i assume ?

One is, one isn't. Die Linke (The Left) manages to maintain fifty-three seats in the Bundestag. They're not "really" communist, but since they're essentially a successor party of this...

and i though facist parties were banned in germany after the last one ?

No, only Neo-Nazi parties are banned. Fascists are alright, according to the courts. That'd be these guys.

EDIT: I quite like him as a politician, and I'm probably going to vote for Die Republikaner, because I can't stomach voting for a fascist party and I despise the European Union too much to vote for the FDP.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Section II, Article 20, Line 2. Point on the matter. The lack of a referendum may not be unconstitutional, but the Treaty itself?

The government should ask the people. They should care. Merkel doesn't - and she certainly won't receive my vote.

the German Federal constitution has no provision for referendums. The constitution will have to be amended to allow for a referendum.

Alas, Section II, Article 20, Line 2 does not provide for a referendum at the federal level. At the provincial level, referendums are provided for.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

the German Federal constitution has no provision for referendums. The constitution will have to be amended to allow for a referendum.

It is rather ironic that the provision that was supposed to save us from a totalitarian transition has led us to accept one without choice.

Alas, Section II, Article 20, Line 2 does not provide for a referendum at the federal level.

Yes, you are correct. However, it does practically make the entire Lisbon Treaty unconstitutional.

Don't be daft EMFM, no one was stopping you from getting elected to Chancellor

Who knows, perhaps I'll consider running.

[KukriKhan]

It's probably splitting hairs, but I'm curious: Wasn't the reason for the referendum in Ireland for the people to decide whether to amend their own constitution, which would inturn allow adoption of Lisbon - not a "yea" or 'Nay" on Lisbon itself?

If I got that right (and I'm not sure I have) that method of ratifying the treaty seems doomed from the start.

"Would you rather: 1) give up all sovreignity over your own affairs, in favour of Brussels dictating? Or

2) Keep everything the way it is now?"

Who in their right mind would pick #1? The maybe 5% one-worlders, perhaps, is my best guess. If Ireland's leadership wants to get this thing passed, their gonna have to figure our a better way of framing the question.

My (now worth 27 Trln ZD's).

[LittleGrizzly]

Who in their right mind would pick #1? The maybe 5% one-worlders, perhaps, is my best guess.

The vote was fairly close so obviously quite a few people

I have never got the whole why would you want to be ruled by Brussels comment.... As if somehow londoners or dubliners are much better equipped

It's probably splitting hairs, but I'm curious: Wasn't the reason for the referendum in Ireland for the people to decide whether to amend their own constitution, which would inturn allow adoption of Lisbon - not a "yea" or 'Nay" on Lisbon itself?

I thought it was on the lisbon treaty itself, which is why the thing is being reworked, if they had said no oto a europoean constitution because it wasn't thier own the rest of the eu could have just gone ahead as ireland obviousoly didnt want in.... though im not sure....

Would you rather: 1) give up all sovreignity over your own affairs, in favour of Brussels dictating?

This annoy's me, plenty of people have said it so its not a go at you kurki

Does Washington dictate to all of america ? or is it simply where the political houses are housed ?

Brussels doesn't decide the direction of the eu, the eu does that through eu parliment and european leaders, obviously you give up a portion of control to be part of this union, i suppose you could call the choice this... direct control over your little power or shared control over a far greater power...

That being said you probably lose some control by not being a member, think usa to britian, were greatly affected by your huge power but have no influence over it, or we could have a small influence on it but lose some control over our own power....

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's probably splitting hairs, but I'm curious: Wasn't the reason for the referendum in Ireland for the people to decide whether to amend their own constitution, which would inturn allow adoption of Lisbon - not a "yea" or 'Nay" on Lisbon itself?

If I got that right (and I'm not sure I have) that method of ratifying the treaty seems doomed from the start.

"Would you rather: 1) give up all sovreignity over your own affairs, in favour of Brussels dictating? Or

2) Keep everything the way it is now?"

Who in their right mind would pick #1? The maybe 5% one-worlders, perhaps, is my best guess. If Ireland's leadership wants to get this thing passed, their gonna have to figure our a better way of framing the question.

My (now worth 27 Trln ZD's).

You are right that 'Lisbon', and all other treaties, can only gain effect after they have been ratified by each EU member. This means two things:

1) The EU can not proscribe anything. Each country can and must decide through its own, and its own alone, democratic process whether the Treaty will be accepted. There is no dictate.
2) The Treaty must be ratified by all. 26 to 1 means the treaty is off. So in daily speech, it is said that a 'no' vote is a no to the Treaty and its follow-ups.

Doomed from the start, then? Possibly. But there is no other way for a democratic union of 27 democratic states. The EU takes painstaking care not to intrude on the democratic prerogatives of its member states. Not because the 'EU' wants to, but because the EU does not wield any meaningful power itself. The EU is a collection of 27 independent states, each one jealously guarding its own position and interests.

This, btw, is one of the great hidden functions of the EU. National strife, nationalist aggression finds a means of expressing itself within and against the EU. It's a pressure valve, a jousting arena. The EU is a contuining process. This continuing process is the goal itself, instead of reaching any permanent state of integration - if the EU ever it achieves its goals, I want it immediately disbanded, to start the whole process back from the beginning.
To put it differently: when Europeans believe in an almighty kabal of Brussels bureaucrats, they don't believe in almighty Jews. So long as Berlusconi can put up his xenophobe shows in Europe, wave his fist in the air a bit, insult the people above the Alps, the Italians are satisfied - 'boy, did we show them good!!1'. This prevents, 'deflates', any impulse to invade Albania again. Likewise for the Poles, who had the opportunity to take out their frustration over their 20th century in the EU, instead of against internal scapegoats or external enemies.
Sheer bliss.

So yes, let Ireland stall EU integration for another fifty years. Because that's another fifty years of peace in Europe. Another fifty years of nationalist sentiment, of outrage, of paranoia that's blissfully diverted and deflated like a tire with too much air.


As for giving up sovereignity to the EU, let me use the example of NATO. Does a NATO member state 'surrender' its sovereignity, or does it protect and maintain its sovereignity through NATO? Surely, sovereignity over one's defense, the ability to wield independent militair power, are the first means and object of independence? Or...could it be that perhaps because members share a bit of their sovereignity that they are able to maintain it? That cooperation it is the very instrument through which they safeguard their democracy and independence?
Peculiarly, for defensive matters people will accept this mechanism. When it comes to the economy, agriculture, environment or the very stability of our democracies, the argument is strangely never accepted.

[JR-]

The German constitution does not provide for a referendum. The German people express their democratic wish through other means. This does not mean that Germany isn't a rock-solid democracy by even the highest standards.

when the nation state wishes to give away to a third party the authority i grant to it to act in my name then i do indeed expect to ask my consent via a referendum.

[Tribesman]

There are some concessions being offered that may make the Lisbon Treaty more palatable. Until I see what these are, I cannot make much of a comment.

Now then , if there are concessions being offered does that mean that the treaty is being altered in some way which would mean that the countries that have already ratified will have ratified a treaty that no longer exists and will have to (in the interests of democracy) have to re-ratify the new amended amending treaty ?
Will they ever get the message that as the original treaty was rejected , the amending treaty was also rejected and the proposed new amended amending treaty stands a good chance of being rejected if it gets put to the vote , that perhaps its time they realised their treaty is bollox and they should start again ?
Or will they just repeat the same old crap that they have worked really really hard and the people are just being selfish by saying the product on offer from their work is rubbish ?

[InsaneApache]

That's a very good point Tribes.

[Jolt]

I myself wish for the Lisbon Treaty to pass, but I'm outraged by what is a complete lack of democracy practice in terms of approval of the Treaty. That said, I don't think the treaty should pass until every single country does a referendum on such an important matter such is the delegation of key sovereign powers of dozens of nations in Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be honest I think the treaty itself should provide for europe-wide refferendums on important issues and provide for Stat-wide refferendums on its adoption.

Tribes makes a good point, if the treaty is changed it needs to be ratified again by everyone.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now then , if there are concessions being offered does that mean that the treaty is being altered in some way which would mean that the countries that have already ratified will have ratified a treaty that no longer exists and will have to (in the interests of democracy) have to re-ratify the new amended amending treaty ?
Will they ever get the message that as the original treaty was rejected , the amending treaty was also rejected and the proposed new amended amending treaty stands a good chance of being rejected if it gets put to the vote , that perhaps its time they realised their treaty is bollox and they should start again ?
Or will they just repeat the same old crap that they have worked really really hard and the people are just being selfish by saying the product on offer from their work is rubbish ?

I don't take issue with anything you wrote - particularly in the challenge to my poorly worded statement.

However predictable the likely presentation, I'd still like to know what the proposals may be before making my mind up. Though as you point out, the substantive changes I would lke to see would require a new treaty and thus a new round of ratification. I stand by my original argument that a new treaty, put to the consent of the people of Europe, is the only way forward.