Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

[television]

See here. It's getting quite tiring repeating myself..

Your not the only one who getting tired of you repeating yourself.

Nobody's changing any rules. 26 (or maybe it will be 25) sovereign states are perfectly entitled to agree any treaty between themselves. The rules for enhanced cooperation allow them to leave Ireland behind.

IS that enhanced cooperation under the terms of the treaty of Lisbon you speak about??. I suggest that you do not fully understand enhanced cooperation. Yes they are entitled to aggree a treaty between themsleves now, but it will not be the Lisbon treaty. And can you deal with the issue of unanimity as democrataclly aggreed opon by all 27 countries??? Why have this condition if it is unworkable??????

The amount of misguided idealistic navel-gazing about democracy that goes on among some on the No side is truly staggering.

The very essence of democracy is reflection, questioning, debate, open discussion and yes even naval gazing. Democracy is by its nature idealistic. the untimate aim of an ehanced europe is a great sence of Idealsim, i.e for the role europe can play in tackling climate change, fighting global poverty, and bringing the principals of social justice and democracy around the world.

The EU is an oasis of democracy and stability in a dangerous and uncertain world. No, they don't have referenda in every state on every bloody treaty.No it's not perfectly democratic. So what? .

So your dismissing the anti democratic tendencies within the european project with a simple "so what". Even if we need to be pragmatic sometimes in a democracy. Is it not pragmatic to suggest that a sizable majority of citizens accross Europe have serious doubts about the Lisbon treaty. An indeed if there were referenda accroos Europe they would be defeated in the vast amount of these countries?

The sort of perfect democracy that some have in mind would be a recipe for deadlock and stagnation, endless negotiations leading nowhere. A form of democracy that would soon become discredited because it couldn't deliver solutions and address the problems of the day. That's just the kind of weak and ineffective democracy the political extremes of the left and right would love. .

Democracies are not perfect no one is arguing they can be. They must however stick to some basic principals if they are to continue to have legitimacy among ordinary people. Dismiss the application of these principals as naval gazing, but if you do dont call your self a democrat.

Democracy failed in Russia and we got Putin (it could actually have been worse), democracy failed in Europe between the World Wars and we got Fascism. Don't think what has happened before couldn't happen again.

What will make democracy fail in europe above all in the future is dismissing citizens concerns as "naval gazing" and then bulldosing on with a process that has queastionable democratic legitamacy all in the name of a more democratic europe.

Dismiss those who have democratic concerns as navalgazing. Dismiss thoso who faught for the right for citizens to engage in debate, to say no to a grand political projects such as nazism. Dismiss these easily and you will lead to another hitler in europe quicker than you think. But by the sound of it maybe thats something you want.

 

[room305]

A unanimous decision is not undemocratic if that was the rules set up by all 27 demoocratically elected governments during the negotiations re Lisbon. Then it is very much democratic.

Isn't it funny then that you chide the other member states such as Britain and France for being undemocratic by not holding referenda to ratify the Lisbon treaty, despite this complying with the rules of their democratically elected parliaments?

 

[television]

I Think it is fine that other countries ratify the treaty in what ever way their democratic structures allow for. I am not questioning this. I was talking in respect of political pragmatism and making the suggestion, quite fairly I think, that if their were referanda in these countries(as france has done with nice) they would be rected by a majority. Most pro Lisbon parties and governments would aggree with this I think (behind closed doors) of course.

 

[Nemesis]

Your not the only one who getting tired of you repeating yourself.

I'm also rather tired of reading your spelling mistakes. You could at least make some effort and put what you intend to post through a spelling checker as a basic courtesy to other posters. It doesn't require that much effort.

IS that enhanced cooperation under the terms of the treaty of Lisbon you speak about??. I suggest that you do not fully understand enhanced cooperation. Yes they are entitled to aggree a treaty between themsleves now, but it will not be the Lisbon treaty. And can you deal with the issue of unanimity as democrataclly aggreed opon by all 27 countries??? Why have this condition if it is unworkable??????

Enhanced cooperation under the terms of the Treaty of Nice. And no it won't be called the Treaty of Lisbon, it could be called the Treaty of Ljubljana but essentially contain the same content.

Democracies are not perfect no one is arguing they can be. They must however stick to some basic principals if they are to continue to have legitimacy among ordinary people. Dismiss the application of these principals as naval gazing, but if you do dont call your self a democrat.

Basic principles yeah. Free and fair elections, a free press, I don't see any of these things lacking among our EU neighbours. What I'm dismissing is the idea that it's not democracy if it doesn't have referenda.

Dismiss those who have democratic concerns as navalgazing. Dismiss thoso who faught for the right for citizens to engage in debate, to say no to a grand political projects such as nazism. Dismiss these easily and you will lead to another hitler in europe quicker than you think. But by the sound of it maybe thats something you want.

Yeah, television, I'm dismissing those who opposed Nazism and I want another Hitler
great line of argument you've got there...

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This thread is about what happens next. It is now looking very, very likely that the Irish No vote will be ignored and Lisbon will proceed. We will be given a last "take it or lump it " chance, but enormous damage has been done.

TV, you may be right and you can don your oxygen mask and climb up on that high moral ground and rail forever against big bad anti democratic eurocrats, but can't you see, a week after the No vote, that this was a seriously naive blunder by Ireland inc.?

Put another way, did you foresee such a strong reaction from our European partners? I did. The Irish Times did. Bertie did. My guess is that Sinn Fein did as well and are enjoying Ireland's isolation (after all that's what their name aspires to, how bizzarre that their fellow wallowers are British fascist imperialists).

But I suspect many No voters are taken aback by the negative reaction. This is totally unlike the reaction to Nice. Many of the No voters, especially those who said they didn't understand what they were voting for, will be shocked by the international reaction and by a true awareness of the stakes into making a realpolitik Yes vote next time. The fact is it was unfair (on Ireland) to ask the people to vote on this but unfortunately that seems to be what Dev wanted.

 

[starlite68]

Many of the No voters, especially those who said they didn't understand what they were voting for, will be shocked by the international reaction and by a true awareness of the stakes into making a realpolitik Yes vote next time. The fact is it was unfair (on Ireland) to ask the people to vote on this but unfortunately that seems to be what Dev wanted.

there probably were many people who voted no because they did not understand what they were voting for...but the government only has itself to blame for that. as for people being shocked by international reaction! i dont think irish people are that easiley shocked.

 

[television]

Yeah, television, I'm dismissing those who opposed Nazism and I want another Hitler

great line of argument you've got there...

In the NAZI era you may have been one of those who aggreed with the enabling act. All those who had problems with it would have been accused of naval gazing about democratic principals. You cant have it both ways. accusing people who have reasoned arguments against the treaty to be engaging in democratic naval gazing and then give a lecture about the NAZIs.

Basic principles yeah. Free and fair elections, a free press, I don't see any of these things lacking among our EU neighbours. What I'm dismissing is the idea that it's not democracy if it doesn't have referenda.

These are more than basic principals they are sacrosanct to democracy. But there is more than you list. There is sticking by agreements made with other sovereign governments. There is respecting the democratic will of the people (even if the political class believe the people to be misguided or stupid).

Referendum are not needed according for other countries to ratify the treaty. This is fine that is their democratic decision. It should be respected. Again, 27 governments signed a treaty that stated all 27 must ratify the treaty for it to come into force. These are 27 sovereign countries. They all agreed to the principal of unanimity. Now they have turned their backs on this principal. There is something democratically suspect about this. If you cannot see this that so be it.

 

[BillK]

Room 305,

During the last general Election here in the UK, the Labour party had, as part of their manifesto, the pledge that we would have a referendum on any proposed constitution for the EU.

The Government has reneged on that manifesto pledge on the grounds that the Lisbon Treaty is not a constitutional treaty.

Everyone else involved in drawing up the treaty, including Giscard d'Estaing says that everything that was in the proposal which was rejected by the French and Dutch is in the Lisbon Treaty.

Democratic?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

i dont think irish people are that easiley shocked.

Proud words but typical of the naivete of the No camp (except the terrorists who are anything but naive).

 

[television]

That this was a seriously naive blunder by Ireland inc.?.

WIll comment on the rest of this post tomorrow. One thing however. Ireland is a parlimentary democracy. It is not an incorporated company.

 

[Nemesis]

In the NAZI era you may have been one of those who aggreed with the enabling act. All those who had problems with it would have been accused of naval gazing about democratic principals.

How you arrive at the idea that I would be "one of those who aggreed with the enabling act" I'll never know. I think it's both offensive and verging on the hysterical to come out with a claim like that.

You cant have it both ways. accusing people who have reasoned arguments against the treaty to be engaging in democratic naval gazing and then give a lecture about the NAZIs.

I'm not talking about all people who have arguments against the treaty. I'm referring specifically to those that harp on and on about the lack of referenda in the other 26 states and casually refer to them as being somehow undemocratic because of it. The fact is that these states are acting lawfully and respecting their own constitutional arrangements. I am also taking issue with the idea that 26 governments are acting undemocratically by concluding a new agreement amongst themselves if the Lisbon treaty were to collapse. They are entitled to sign any treaty they wish even if its contents are broadly similar to the Lisbon treaty.

And by the way, it was you who made explicit reference to NAZIs

These are 27 sovereign countries. They all agreed to the principal of unanimity. Now they have turned their backs on this principal. There is something democratically suspect about this. If you cannot see this that so be it.

No, it's just realpolitik becoming more brutally apparent, but it was always there and everyone knew it. There's give and take. Big states have to make compromises with small states if they want them to participate and small states have to reciprocate. But everyone knows that big states have more influence and clout. If a small state digs in and makes unreasonable demands then it could push the whole system to breaking point. No one really wants this to happen because it could fundamentally alter the character of the EU which up to now has operated on the basis of unanimity on most issues. Small states know that they maximise their influence by ensuring it never comes to this. Ireland may have set off a political bomb which finally forces the big states to assert their full power overtly. This would be a real tragedy for the EU and particularly for small states as a precedent would be set whereby small states could be left behind. However you could hardly blame them when one small state holds everyone else to ransom even when its principal concerns on taxation, abortion, neutrality etc. have been dealt with.

 

[television]

How you arrive at the idea that I would be "one of those who agreed with the enabling act" I'll never know. I think it's both offensive and verging on the hysterical to come out with a claim like that.

You accuse me of a hysterical reaction. However you berate the "no side" for naval gazing about democracy. See on the one hand you talk about that a weak Europe will lead to the conditions where dictatorships may develop in the future and then you bemoan the democratic concerns those on the no side have as "democratic naval gazing". Without reflection, questioning, etc we are more likely to have the kind of conditions where fascism will flourish.
In fact your previous post is verging on a kind of indignant hysteria itself, e.g.

The amount of misguided idealistic navel-gazing about democracy that goes on among some on the No side is truly staggering.

I'm not talking about all people who have arguments against the treaty. I'm referring specifically to those that harp on and on about the lack of referenda in the other 26 states and casually refer to them as being somehow undemocratic because of it.

Again you seem to be a fan of political pragmatism, of understanding the real politick of a situation. Would you agree that the real politick is that European governments are not having referenda because they understand that the people of Europe would reject the Lisbon treaty? Their is a fine line between realpolitick and ignoring democracy to engage in grand elitist plans for explansion.

The fact is that these states are acting lawfully and respecting their own constitutional arrangements. I am also taking issue with the idea that 26 governments are acting undemocratically by concluding a new agreement amongst themselves if the Lisbon treaty were to collapse. They are entitled to sign any treaty they wish even if its contents are broadly similar to the Lisbon treaty.

They may be entitled to do this. But what does it say about the European project. What does it say about Europe’s claims that it respects sovereign countries. What does it say about its ability to stick to agreements it makes? They are not acting undemocratically by concluding a new agreement per say, they are acting undemocratically by ignoring the previous agreement they made simply because it does not fit into its grand plan.

And by the way, it was you who made explicit reference to NAZIs

You mentioned fascism after WW1. I assume you were referring to Hitler, Mussolini etc.

No, it's just realpolitik becoming more brutally apparent, but it was always there and everyone knew it. There's give and take. Big states have to make compromises with small states if they want them to participate and small states have to reciprocate.

Very convenient that. Did the citizens of Ireland know this realpolitik? Did they know that their vote meant nothing? It was simply a rubber stamping exercise? These compromises are necessary yes, but they should come during the negotiations about the treaty. This is when the give and take you speak of is necessary. There can be no give and take or realpolitik regarding the democratic will and decision of a soverign country. This is an absolute if democracy.

But everyone knows that big states have more influence and clout. If a small state digs in and makes unreasonable demands then it could push the whole system to breakin point.

Irish people hoping the rest of the EU respects democratic decision of a sovereign country is not an unreasonable demand. It is not digging in, and even if it was people in a democratic country have every right to "dig in" it is called exercising their democratic will. Why have a process of full ratification of 27 members? The reason is that 27 individual sovereign countries get into this process in a democratic and open manner. It actually strengthens Europe. Ignore this condition and it takes away the moral authority of an enlarged Europe where all regardless of size are affirmed and democratically validated.

No one really wants this to happen because it could fundamentally alter the character of the EU which up to now has operated on the basis of unanimity on most issues. Small states know that they maximise their influence by ensuring it never comes to this. Ireland may have set off a political bomb which finally forces the big states to assert their full power overtly.

Again this is a process of sovereign countries respecting each other and respecting the democratic wishes if people. The political time bomb that was set off was the democratic will of a sovereign people (I know I am using this phrase a lot). If these larger state assert their power overtly as you say (and I agree with this analysis) then this makes a mockery of some very basic democratic principals which these larger countries play lip service too. However, ultimately the assertion of this power weakens the moral authority and democratic credentials of the kind of Europe those of us on the no side (but who believe in Europe) want to see.

This would be a real tragedy for the EU and particularly for small states as a precedent would be set whereby small states could be left behind.

A precedent is set where the democratic will of small states is not respected.

However you could hardly blame them when one small state holds everyone else to ransom even when its principal concerns on taxation, abortion, neutrality etc. have been dealt with.

It is not holding Europe to ransom to exercise democratic will. It is the essence of democracy. I do not believe the concerns you site have been death with as you say but there is also other concerns, The militarisation of Europe, privatisation of public services, the erosion of workers rights, the European constitution having primacy over the Irish constitution, a democratic deficit, European bureaucrats making decisions where their is no accountability. You may argue that Lisbon tried to deal with these concerns. The Irish people were just not convinced of this.

 

[starlite68]

as far as i can see europe is heading in the direction where the big states will hold all the sway,and pay only lip service to the concerns of the small countries..now wonder so many people now feel very disconneced from the EU,

 

[S.L.F]

Democracy failed in Russia and we got Putin (it could actually have been worse), democracy failed in Europe between the World Wars and we got Fascism.

I would have assumed you were talking about Nazis as well.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Did the citizens of Ireland know this realpolitik? Did they know that their vote meant nothing? It was simply a rubber stamping exercise?

This was the big failure of the Yes campaign. Somehow it dare not spell out the truth - No effectively means you want out of the EU. The RC booklet was a waste of space in stating that No means everything stays as it was, we now know that was completely wrong, everything has changed utterly with this No vote.

It seems now that the the vote will be put in these stark terms next spring (In or Out). Interesting thing is the enormous clamour from the No camp, ranging from Murdoch's Sunday Times to the British fascist party not to hold a second vote. What are they afraid of? After all wasn't it a resounding No? They know that second time around the Yes side will not be so coy,it will be gloves off, and they no Yes will win when people get the reality check. Will you respect a Yes vote if it happens next time?

BTW congratulations on your huge improvement in spelling, though unfortunately spellcheckers cannot spot the use of "their" instead of "there" and "site" instead of "cite".

 

[television]

This was the big failure of the Yes campaign. Somehow it dare not spell out the truth - No effectively means you want out of the EU.

A big failure of the yes campaign to suggest that ratifying Lisbon was a rubberstamping exercise? Are you for real? Are you seriously suggesting that the advocates for yes should have claimed this? And if this is the truth then are you prepared to admit that the plan for European expansion is anti democratic. Have you caught the headline on the Tribune this morning? Sounds like you have. The pro Lisbon media are circling the wagons already and making apocalyptic predictions about new referenda to scare the Irish people. Fall for it if you wish.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/22/were-either-in-or-out-you-decide/

When the French voted no to the constitution did people seriously suggest that they wanted out of Europe, or the Danes?

You know what you can do with your spelling lesson? Then again I am giving you a lesson in clear and reasoned argument so I guess its fair.

 

[room305]

Television, you make a number of references to the "democratic concerns" of the Irish people and to the EU respecting the "democratic will" of Ireland. You also state these concerns should be addressed during the negotiation and formation of the treaty.

Can you specify what exactly these concerns are that Europe must respect? If it was decided that the treaty should be renegotiated and you were asked to be on the negotiation panel, can you specify what bits of the treaty you would like removed or amended? I haven't spoke to one person who voted No who could tell me what they wanted changed about the treaty.

 

[lightswitch]

"This was the big failure of the Yes campaign. Somehow it dare not spell out the truth - No effectively means you want out of the EU. The RC booklet was a waste of space in stating that No means everything stays as it was, we now know that was completely wrong, everything has changed utterly with this No vote."

What you would appear to be suggesting is that we simply vote Yes to everything put to us in the Future or we will be out of the EU. I am pro Europe, but not on those terms thanks. We might as well be out now rather than later. When exactly did the EU become a dictatorship?

"They know that second time around the Yes side will not be so coy,it will be gloves off, and they no Yes will win when people get the reality check. Will you respect a Yes vote if it happens next time?"

I would not be so sure of that! If the yes side keep talking down to and bullying the No side then no matter what they put to them may well be rejected again. If the yes side what the vote to go yes next time (if there is one) they would be well advised to go cap in hand to the electorate. They people have voted already and this needs to be respected.

With regard to spelling you might take a look at your use of no where know would be more appropriate!

 

[television]

I am specifically talking here about respecting the democratic will of the Irish people in this referendum. You may not like this. You may see a majority of Irish people as irrational, working class and uneducated who are too stupid to understand the treaty and who were duped by a ragbag collection of the loony left and right into irrationally voting no. I see it as a little more complex than that. I have faith in the good judgement and sense of the Irish people. In a previous discussion I have spoken about which parts of the treaty i think feel allow for the gradual erosion of public services. I have also other concerns as have the majority of people who actually voted no. And instead of allaying these concerns the reaction of Europe to the Irish no vote has affirmed them.

 

[lightswitch]

Television, that is exactly the way the Yes side view the No voters! While they're at it maybe they should bring in a system whereby those that they deem intelligent enough get 2 votes.