Bypassing Democracy

by liz c Sun Apr 13, 2008 19:01

this is a personal capacity post, not written by the CAEUC so hope that's ok guys and any errors are mine.

by DM - Labour Party Sun Apr 13, 2008 19:33

"A referendum is the closest thing we have to voicing a direct opinion and this will be the last one we'll have on the EU if we vote yes."

Look, I have a lot of respect for people on the NO side of the referendum and I don't like certain members of the YES side demonising them, but please stop spreading the lie that this is the last time we'll get to vote on the treaty. The article in question clearly states that this treaty can only be amended within the constitutional requirements of each member state, and our constitution states that we have to have a referendum.
Certain members of the NO side are tarnishing the entire NO campaign when they fight the campaign on disinformation

by Don Sun Apr 13, 2008 23:40

When Is she addressing Dublin Castle? Is it open to the public?

by liz c - CAEUC Mon Apr 14, 2008 00:46

Angela Merkel is speaking at 3pm on mon. 14th April in St patrick's hall, dublin castle. it's open to the public. you can check the National Forum On Europe site for an email address to reserve space at it. If too late for that it's worth showing up anyway, there should be space. It's also possible to get 'observer status' at the Forum by booking.

In terms of future referendums the Lisbon treaty is 'self-amending'. As far as I know this means that future amendments can be made without the need for further referendums. Also, given that Ireland is the only country being allowed a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty despite a majority of the populations, between 63 % and 76%, polled in Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Spain wanting a referendum it seems fair to say that EU heads are avoiding risking giving the people a say in case they vote No, democracy being a messy business with unpredictable outcomes. Sarkozy has already been quoted as saying the French would vote No if given a referendum. As Ireland is the only country where the population is getting to vote on this treaty, we are voting for the whole of the EU. How democratic is that?

for poll results see http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/10/18/afx4....html

by Don Mon Apr 14, 2008 01:17

Some of your "facts" are incorrect. There is nothing in the treaty to suggest a EU state cant a referendum. Its up the states themselves. We have to have referdendums cause thats how we run things. Other countries dont have those privleges, because they dont seem to want them. If the Brits wanted a referendum, they should have voted for the Tories.

Anyway, thanks for the info.

by mary - none org Mon Apr 14, 2008 01:35

No No No ,

You are wrong.

Our constitution is stronger than most European countries and gives us greater protection than other European states and has held out as a defence against monopoly over Europe policy.
Ireland will vote on Lisbon because we have a very strong democracy and we can help to reinforce democracy in Europe like Holand and France tried to do when they rejected this same thing in the European Referendum.

Lisbon is trying to destroy the chance of each country to have a proper say in things. So vote No.

by Don Mon Apr 14, 2008 08:38

Explain how the treaty is attacking democracy? I've been to many Lisbon debates, I have yet seen or heard a no person explaining this one. Stop trying to scare people from voting.

by EuroSceptic Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:33

well if you read the previous comments, one said this:

"the Lisbon treaty is 'self-amending'. As far as I know this means that future amendments can be made without the need for further referendums"

In other words, an unanswerable unelected group can change the treaty in the future without consulting the populace and giving them a say. Seems rather "undemocratic" to me. Also, not letting most countries vote on Lisbon in the first place is pretty obviously undemocratic.

Is a big federation of states democratic? Look at how big business rules in the US and where that has ended up. Which is it to be sir? The token big business puppet on the left or the token big business puppet on the right? Is that the kind of europe we want??

by liz c - CAEUC Mon Apr 14, 2008 14:06

article 48 and 308 are self-amending. In response to DM from the Labour party what you are talking about is the section of Article 48 that says :

'The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.'

The problem is that when questioned on this Bertie said constitutional requirements mean either a referendum or ratification by the Oireachtais which means that a referendum is not guaranteed. The politicians can decide without putting future amendments to the people.

This treaty is supposed to be unreadable in the hope that people will not understand it, the assumption being that they would reject it .This is being done in a particularly patronising way. Referendums are seen as threats not expressions of democracy. The EU heads are very explicit about this.

Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

"The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007

"They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. '
Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007

"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments... A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK... Now we have got to resolve the political issues and to broach them without fear. We have got to debate them without taboos: budgetary policy, trade policy, monetary policy, industrial policy, taxation, all policies, any policies. "
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007

"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew u the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2000

These quotes can be found on caeuc.org and Libertas.org sites

by DM - Labour Party Mon Apr 14, 2008 14:17

well if that's currently the case and we can do this by Oireachtas ratifciation then we don't even have to have a referendum now. The treaty does not change our constitutional requirements

by A.M. Mon Apr 14, 2008 18:08

A vote for the Lisbon Treaty is a vote for the Fourth Reich.

Stimmt!!

by mary Mon Apr 14, 2008 18:46

Certainly I will.

France and Holland both had votes on this thing when it was called the European Constitution.

They rejected it. They voted against it. They dont want it.

Now it's back. Same document , different name. France and Holland are being told you will now have it forced upon you, that which you democratically rejected previously and there is nothing you can do about it.

If thats not an attack on democracy I dont now what is ?

And the reason why Lisbon treaty is an issue on this thread is because if you had looked at the clip above you will see that Mary Lou is of the opinion that acceptance of the treaty is an endorsement of the EU Policy against the Palestinians. As you will know the EU rejects the Legitimate Hamas Governement elected by the People there, and endorses the Gaza siege, and that it also an attack on democracy IMO.

We dont need more mindless intergration and bureaucracy we need a democracy that can operate independently at home and abroad. Thats what we signed up to when we became a nation state - independence.

by Don Tue Apr 15, 2008 02:08

Stil you failed to make references to the treaty to back up your "antidemocratic" claim. France and Holland didnt get a referendum, cause the government they voted for didnt give it to them. Tuff. Thats thier system of government and s no concern of ours and has nothing to do with content of treaty. Plus, old Bertie wont be deciding if we need a referendum on future treaties, Cowen will. And if he makes a mistake. The courts will let him know. If that systems fails, we have a bigger problem than the Lisbon treaty.

Chancelor Merkel explained today why Germany cannot have referendum. It was very interesting. Thier government system works in a way so so referendum can ever be passed. With good reason too. That is how Hitler came to power.

As I have said, as many others have explained to you, and as you probably know is true, but you just dont want to admit it. Theres nothing in the treaty that is taking any rights to a referendum. Its up to the members states themeselves if they want it. Every EU its the same, "we'll have abortion/conscritpion/single European army/a uper fascist state". Non-sense. Based on nothing. Oh and please stop using libertas as a reference.

by isiah Tue Apr 15, 2008 02:21

Don, here is the one of the reasons why I won't be voting for this treaty. I can't speak for anyone else, but I hope you will bear this issue in mind when you come to cast your vote.

1. The treaty commits each member state to increasing their military spending. This increase and upgrade has to continue, forever, once this treaty is passed. I am disturbed that the arms industry is getting a blank cheque like this. While I understand that some military spending is inevitable, I do not believe that it must be guaranteed by law. If this treaty becomes law in Ireland, and circumstances arose whereby we were in an economic recession, we would STILL be under obligation to buy arms and material for making war.

Even if we clearly could not afford it, we would be committed to doing it. No matter what the economic or political situation.

This is clearly crazy, and you don't have to be a pacifist to find it disturbing. Having said that, anyone who does have any anti-war or pacifist views should certainly reject this treaty.

by mary Tue Apr 15, 2008 09:15

Wow Don,

That sure is a peculiar outlook to have.
You dont care how a particular form of governance comes into practice as it is no reflection on the form of governance itself. So when Ireland rejects this thing you wont have a problem if our lackies in government find a way to by pass the constitution , as they did in the France and Holland and foist it upon a people who have democratically rejected it, out of fears that it is anti-democratic.

And thats because you are right and the majority is wrong and they will learn what is right once it has been forced upon them. The means is no reflection on the end.

Thats sounds a lot like the invasion of Iraq to me. Most people rejected the notion, but the hawks made it happen anyhow as they knew what was good for us. They slapped a veneer of legality across it and rammed it down the world's throat. Now we see who was right and who was wrong , but its too bloody late. isnt it.

What was that you said about Hitler ?

by Don Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:40

" So when Ireland rejects this thing you wont have a problem if our lackies in government find a way to by pass the constitution".

Any evidence that this going to happen? Thats just scaremongering. If the treaty is refected then it should be altered to our liking, then sent through the process again.

by mary Tue Apr 15, 2008 13:06

Yes Don , My point exactly,

If we reject it it should be altered and put in front of us again, and again , and again until we understand it fully and fully agree by majority that it is a good thing for us and for Europe.

But, according to you, France and Holland shouldnt have that chance ?

They rejected it, so the democratic route is bypassed and it is forced on them. We have a chance to give back to those people what you are demanding for us , the chance to have the bloody thing changed into something that we all find acceptable, or at least a clear majority of us.

We are in agreement, Ireland should vote No in order that French and Dutch democracy is not trampled into the ground.

by Paul Tue Apr 15, 2008 20:08

The Lisbon Treaty is so contalminated with so much corrupt rubbitch that the only safe place for it is the dustbin.

It's beyond repair.