Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

Why? It's just a title... and an invite to 'Europeans' to join the discussion... and some of you found it

Just debating the meaning of that thread title is all.

Sure, then it appeared an invite to discuss.

But the title meaning was loaded, as it were!

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Just debating the meaning of that thread title is all.

Sure, then it appeared an invite to discuss.

But the title meaning was loaded, as it were!

it was not loaded, it was just a title... it's easy looking back AFTER the discussion and say 'hmm what did you mean by this?' when at the time it was just reminding people what's going on and getting a feel for what's going on across the continent.

No need to read too much into it

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

But she explained in the very first post that she was voting no, and that it was just to get a idea of how the people of Europe felt. Asking me "How would you like me to vote for you?" isn't the exact same as saying "I'm gonna vote whichever way this poll goes".

I was just commenting on the thread title and the implication about voting for you. Never claimed that it was implied that Helen would vote according to the poll on the pit! Rather, that she would vote while other Europeans didn't have a vote. When they did - not in a referendum, but when they voted in their parliamentary elections. That was the implication I was arguing against.

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Okay, I'll give you an example of why I think a referendum on particular issue would be a good thing. Say I just turned 18 - legal voting age - a few months ago, and I've never voted in a general election. I'm in no way democratically represented by the government. Yet, if they make the decision on Lisbon, their choice will impact on me for a lot longer than it does on them.

I know you'll say that it's just how democracy works, but I think that something that changes the core of how the EU works could be seen as an exceptional case.

I strongly believe - even more so now - that in matters of EU constitutional laws to ask the citizens a vote on it it's way too complex.

Indeed, much of the Lisbon Treaty were amendments to the other constitutional treaties of the EU, and that's why people lamented that the points of the Treaty were not expressed properly, etc etc.

You can have different type of referenda on EU issues [do you want to become a member in a closer EU outlining few key points of the differences] but the legal practicalities should be left to experts.

Too much can be manipulated by other interests via the media.

Besides, not all citizens can become legal experts even in a few months.

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

I strongly believe - even more so now - that in matters of EU constitutional laws to ask the citizens a vote on it it's way too complex.

Indeed, much of the Lisbon Treaty were amendments to the other constitutional treaties of the EU, and that's why people lamented that the points of the Treaty were not expressed properly, etc etc.

You can have different type of referenda on EU issues [do you want to become a member in a closer EU outlining few key points of the differences] but the legal practicalities should be left to experts.

Too much can be manipulated by other interests via the media.

Besides, not all citizens can become legal experts even in a few months.

The Lisbon Treaty wasn't even legible to legal experts - an Irish judge, a leading Irish businessman, and the EU's Internal Market Commissioner couldn't understand it. So I'm not sure I trust anyone with the legal practicalities. But even if you were to leave the legal stuffs to the "experts", why not put as much as possible to the people?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

You can have different type of referenda on EU issues [do you want to become a member in a closer EU outlining few key points of the differences] but the legal practicalities should be left to experts.

Too much can be manipulated by other interests via the media.

.

but they can't be manipulated by 'experts'? all we need to do is look at the American government in the run up to the war in Iraq... without changing the discussion TO the Iraqi war and the lies... that's simply ONE example of how a government can behave for their OWN interests and how it can effect the people negatively... and also how legal practicalities can be manipulated.

Heineken Helen

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty wasn't even legible to legal experts - an Irish judge, a leading Irish businessman, and the EU's Internal Market Commissioner couldn't understand it. So I'm not sure I trust anyone with the legal practicalities. But even if you were to leave the legal stuffs to the "experts", why not put as much as possible to the people?

SEVERAL leading Irish businessmen said there is NO WAY they'd sign a document like that because the wording is complete nonsense and open to interpretation on all sides.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Heineken Helen wrote:

SEVERAL leading Irish businessmen said there is NO WAY they'd sign a document like that because the wording is complete nonsense and open to interpretation on all sides.

I think what lgt and nobody aren't really getting is that, while we have some problems with the issues in the treaty, a lot of our gripes are with the treaty itself, and how vague and incomprehensible it is. And not just incomprehensible to the "people" - to the very people who definitely should understand it.

Heineken Helen

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I think what lgt and nobody aren't really getting is that, while we have some problems with the issues in the treaty, a lot of our gripes are with the treaty itself, and how vague and incomprehensible it is. And not just incomprehensible to the "people" - to the very people who definitely should understand it.

Like Charlie McCreevy who said he hadn't read it and no sane person WOULD :eek: thanks Charlie

Rhinocerous Surprise

Heineken Helen wrote:

Like Charlie McCreevy who said he hadn't read it and no sane person WOULD :eek: thanks Charlie

RTE wrote:

The outcome of last week's referendum sparked a stormy debate in the European Parliament, where the leader of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz, demanded that Charlie McCreevy be removed as Internal Market Commissioner.

He said Mr McCreevy contributed to a No vote with comments about how one would have to be insane to have read the Treaty.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0618/eulisbon.html?rss

Specifics

lgt wrote:

Just debating the meaning of that thread title is all.

Sure, then it appeared an invite to discuss.

But the title meaning was loaded, as it were!

As i understand it, before the vote took place, it was universally accepted that everyone had to ratify for the treaty to come into effect, therefore the vote did concern the whole of europe. it's only been since the NO! vote a lot of other, talk, of legal loopholes has been discussed.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty wasn't even legible to legal experts - an Irish judge, a leading Irish businessman, and the EU's Internal Market Commissioner couldn't understand it. So I'm not sure I trust anyone with the legal practicalities. But even if you were to leave the legal stuffs to the "experts", why not put as much as possible to the people?

Depends on what issue the people are asked to express an vote, I guess.

I tend to trust informed and authoritative, as unbiased as possible, information and their proponents.

I steer clear of demagoguery.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

but they can't be manipulated by 'experts'? all we need to do is look at the American government in the run up to the war in Iraq... without changing the discussion TO the Iraqi war and the lies... that's simply ONE example of how a government can behave for their OWN interests and how it can effect the people negatively... and also how legal practicalities can be manipulated.

But the American government was an active player with clear motivations in pursuing that agenda. There were other contrary voices - see Nigergate and the US ambassador, etc etc. But let's avoid this topic here!

I'm talking about independent and unbiased experts, as far as that's possible.

Then one uses their critical rational abilities to sift through the propaganda and manipulation.

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

Depends on what issue the people are asked to express an vote, I guess.

I tend to trust informed and authoritative, as unbiased as possible, information and their proponents.

I steer clear of demagoguery.

Okay, so put yourself into the Irish situation as of one week ago. Our government is telling us to vote yes, without any clear information on why. Leading businessmen are saying the Treaty is untenable. A judge has said even he didn't understand, and Charlie McCreevy has said he hadn't even read it. If you were to go on informed, authoritative opinions, which way would you be voting?

I know a lot of personal bias comes in after that, but if the Irish were going solely on informed opinions available, I'd say there'd be a much bigger no vote.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Okay, so put yourself into the Irish situation as of one week ago. Our government is telling us to vote yes, without any clear information on why. Leading businessmen are saying the Treaty is untenable. A judge has said even he didn't understand, and Charlie McCreevy has said he hadn't even read it. If you were to go on informed, authoritative opinions, which way would you be voting?

I know a lot of personal bias comes in after that, but if the Irish were going solely on informed opinions available, I'd say there'd be a much bigger no vote.

Sorry, don't know who Charlie McCreevy is.

But I would first go to the source - the EU website to understand what the whole treaty is about. [I also posted a link, a while back, I believe]

Then check both the Yes and No campaign; find out the pressure groups behind each campaign and then make up my own mind.

According to the European press I've read - ignoring the rabid right-wing English position, which have a clear agenda - the Treaty was viewed as a good compromise after the failure of the EU constitution [with the French and Dutch no vote]

For instance, as nobody m pointed out, Germany would actually get less seats despite being the most populous state in the Union - so much for fear of the smaller states being ignored. But was this highlighted in the Irish referendum campaign?

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

Sorry, don't know who Charlie McCreevy is.

But I would first go to the source - the EU website to understand what the whole treaty is about. [I also posted a link, a while back, I believe]

Then check both the Yes and No campaign; find out the pressure groups behind each campaign and then make up my own mind.

According to the European press I've read - ignoring the rabid right-wing English position, which have a clear agenda - the Treaty was viewed as a good compromise after the failure of the EU constitution [with the French and Dutch no vote]

For instance, as nobody m pointed out, Germany would actually get less seats despite being the most populous state in the Union - so much for fear of the smaller states being ignored. But was this highlighted in the Irish referendum campaign?

Charlie's the EU's Internal Market Commissioner - and he didn't even read the damn Treaty.
The Irish referendum campaign was a total mess - I couldn't honestly tell you if the number of German seats came up because after the first few go-rounds, I just tuned out most of the talk, and focused on researching the Treaty on my own terms.
And I'm not saying there was nothing good in the Treaty - I'm sure some of the reforms would have done the EU a world of good. But there was enough vague wording, and enough worrying implications for Ireland, to make me vote no. If another Treaty came up after being thought over and renegotiated, I'd certainly give a fair chance. But I'm not putting the internal workings of the EU as a higher priority to the internal workings of my own country, and I don't think that's wrong.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Charlie's the EU's Internal Market Commissioner - and he didn't even read the damn Treaty.
The Irish referendum campaign was a total mess - I couldn't honestly tell you if the number of German seats came up because after the first few go-rounds, I just tuned out most of the talk, and focused on researching the Treaty on my own terms.
And I'm not saying there was nothing good in the Treaty - I'm sure some of the reforms would have done the EU a world of good. But there was enough vague wording, and enough worrying implications for Ireland, to make me vote no. If another Treaty came up after being thought over and renegotiated, I'd certainly give a fair chance. But I'm not putting the internal workings of the EU as a higher priority to the internal workings of my own country, and I don't think that's wrong.

Fair enough.

In this situation, it's usually a preference for a nation-state view of international current affairs or supranational. That's what basically it boils down to.

Those who think that in this day and age the nation-state no longer is capable to effectively operate in an ever increasing globalised world and deal with global issues [the international banking system bypasses national bounderies, or climate change] VS. those who cling to national sovereignty and the nation-state as primary actor in the world stage.

P.S. Definitely, that politician is an embarassment and should be ashamed to hold the position of EU Internal Market Commissioner!!! Has he said anything after the result?

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

Fair enough.

In this situation, it's usually a preference for a nation-state view of international current affairs or supranational. That's what basically it boils down to.

Those who think that in this day and age the nation-state no longer is capable to effectively operate in an ever increasing globalised world and deal with global issues [the international banking system bypasses national bounderies, or climate change] VS. those who cling to national sovereignty and the nation-state as primary actor in the world stage.

P.S. Definitely, that politician is an embarassment and should be ashamed to hold the position of EU Internal Market Commissioner!!! Has he said anything after the result?

I'll admit that I'm not very sure where I stand as far as integration in the future goes, but I'm not averse to Ireland being at least involved in discussions. It wasn't globalist vs nationalist for me - it was the fact that it stripped away arguably the most important part of our constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty hadn't involved handing over our right to a referendum, I would have had to think a lot harder about it.

Just wondering... what do you make of Jouyet's comments in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7458839.stm?

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I'll admit that I'm not very sure where I stand as far as integration in the future goes, but I'm not averse to Ireland being at least involved in discussions. It wasn't globalist vs nationalist for me - it was the fact that it stripped away arguably the most important part of our constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty hadn't involved handing over our right to a referendum, I would have had to think a lot harder about it.

Just wondering... what do you make of Jouyet's comments in this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7458839.stm?

I agree that all the remaining EU countries must have their say on this Treaty, so they should proceed with ratification.

Then evaluation on what to do, based on results from the other states and what the Irish government wants to do based on the referendum.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I'll admit that I'm not very sure where I stand as far as integration in the future goes, but I'm not averse to Ireland being at least involved in discussions. It wasn't globalist vs nationalist for me - it was the fact that it stripped away arguably the most important part of our constitution. If the Lisbon Treaty hadn't involved handing over our right to a referendum, I would have had to think a lot harder about it.

Forgot to address this part of your post.

The key issue of supranationalism is the erosion of nation-states rights in favour of a supranational structure.

It is a balancing act and that's where most of the conflict resides.

Lisbon would have required for Ireland to drop the referendum for any constitutional changes? Is that what you mainly objected?

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

I agree that all the remaining EU countries must have their say on this Treaty, so they should proceed with ratification.

Then evaluation on what to do, based on results from the other states and what the Irish government wants to do based on the referendum.

Do you not find it a little worrying that he refuses to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead? You've said yourself, the politics of it will live on, but the Treaty itself is dead. If he had said "We'll get all the ratification out of the way, and see what kind of move we can make from there", I'd be fine. But the exact quote:

"One thing is certain - we won't start drafting a new treaty," he said.

It sounds like he wants the existing treaty to go through, unaltered.