Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

Not saying size - just highlighting the fact that one country cannot stop the process for the majority of other countries, if they so wish to go ahead.

So what next? If another small country disagrees on something else in a year's time, will they have their own set of provisions? Until eventually, you've got 20 different EUs on the go?

nobody

lgt wrote:

It is NOT more democratic. A referendum or a vote through representative democracy are equally democratic.

Ireland is NOT more democratic than the other EU member states because of this referendum!

This is quite an arrogant claim to make.

And to impose the will of a minority is not democratic, at all.

You voted. The other countries can then decide what to do amongst themselves.

are you talking out of my head, or do I talk out of yours?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Only mentioned it in the post, to highlight the issue of a minority imposing the will to a majority.

which is what you and Rhinocerus imply, by saying that Europe should respect the Irish vote by not moving further along with integration, because it would be disregarding Ireland.

How hard is it to understand that what you, and most european leaders are now suggesting, IS ILLEGAL!

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

BUT... THAT'S NOT WHAT WE VOTED ON!

We did NOT vote for a two tier europe... we were asked if this treaty was good for europe, we decided it wasn't, and now they're going to go ahead? Stop changing the wording of what we were asked in the polls... cos it WASN'T whether europe should go ahead without us or not. We voted to ratify the treaty... we rejected it... it did not get unanimity which it needed... therefore it is dead! Legally BRAIN DEAD.

You voted against further integration [better decision-making procedures, etc.]

You said it wasn't good for Europe.

Europe can now decide to go ahead. Why shouldn't it??

The Lisbon Treaty is legally dead.

Politically it will still be alive. Other countries have still to have their say.

When all countries have voted [or their votes do not count??!] Europe [the Commission, the Council, i.e. the European government, the EU parliament] decide how to progress.

This most likely entail a two-speed Europe, which is already here, btw.

Britain and Norway are not in the eurozone - most evident example.

Why stop the party for the others??

This is what I truly don't get.

Ireland said no. The others should also say no?? And ignore their own aspirations??

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

How hard is it to understand that what you, and most european leaders are now suggesting, IS ILLEGAL!

It won't be the same Treaty Helen, therefore it will not be ILLEGAL.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

So what next? If another small country disagrees on something else in a year's time, will they have their own set of provisions? Until eventually, you've got 20 different EUs on the go?

In the present scenario, where Lisbon is not valid, is a country - any country, big or small - they can veto any decision.

With qualified majority voting, which Lisbon advocated, any country can get together with other countries who support the same issue and make sure it goes through with MAJORITY VOTING.

Again, in a group of 27 this is more democratic.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

It won't be the same Treaty Helen, therefore it will not be ILLEGAL.

ah yes, that's true... it will have a different name

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

well it looks like that's one thing we're not going to agree on... we've always had referendums... I think it's just fair to ask the people to decide if we want to change the constitution or not. You're used to not being consulted or trusting your politicians to decide for you. We're both used to a different system and think ours is the best...we're just going to have to let that one go.

i don't think one is better than the other. i think they are equally democratic. and there are referendums in germany.

maybe I am not so sceptical because germany is a federal state itself with 16 (3 of them only cities) different state parliaments. there is conflict, but it works.

and unlike the UK and US we don't have a two party system (not really sure about Ireland) so I'm used to coalitions, consensus, compromises and refraising of laws several times so that everyone can agree...

m.

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

In the present scenario, where Lisbon is not valid, is a country - any country, big or small - they can veto any decision.

With qualified majority voting, which Lisbon advocated, any country can get together with other countries who support the same issue and make sure it goes through with MAJORITY VOTING.

Again, in a group of 27 this is more democratic.

Apparently, vetoes don't count for much anyway. Instead of yes or no, the vote should have been yes or not just yet.

I don't see how a group of countries on the other side of Europe over-riding Ireland's sovereignty is a good thing. Maybe that's just me.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

so what, you think we should have said 'well this is what we think but you lot just do what's good for you'. I feel like I'm banging my head off a brick wall. It's not my fault we had a veto... but that's what we voted on... that the Lisbon treaty will not go ahead... not just in Ireland... we were voting on a European treaty, not an Irish one.

Yes, you voted on a EU treaty.

But you cannot impose the will of one country on the rest of Europe.

The Lisbon Treaty is legally dead as it was posited on the approval of ALL member states. But POLITICALLY IT IS NOT.

If 26 out of 27 have approved it though, and there is a political will another treaty will emerge. Ireland can again decide to go along or not.

Europe will not impose further integration upon Ireland, but Ireland wants to impose no further integration for the rest of Europe, even if the rest of Europe wants it???

Collin

lgt wrote:

Only mentioned it in the post, to highlight the issue of a minority imposing the will to a majority.

which is what you and Rhinocerus imply, by saying that Europe should respect the Irish vote by not moving further along with integration, because it would be disregarding Ireland.

Ireland is not imposing its will on a majority!

The EU gave every member VETO power.

Your problem is with the EU, not the Irish.

nobody

lgt wrote:

In the present scenario, where Lisbon is not valid, is a country - any country, big or small - they can veto any decision.

With qualified majority voting, which Lisbon advocated, any country can get together with other countries who support the same issue and make sure it goes through with MAJORITY VOTING.

Again, in a group of 27 this is more democratic.

exactly, maybe the irish find supporters. and there will be a new majority for a different kind of treaty. everything is open at the moment. and nothing will be imposed on anybody.

you voted against the treaty. it's dead. something new can surface (with the help of the irish) and we'll see what happens...

the whole situation is so far a way from some absolutist dictatorship as anyone could ever imagine...

m.

lgt

nobody wrote:

are you talking out of my head, or do I talk out of yours?

hehehe

lgt

Collin wrote:

Ireland is not imposing its will on a majority!

The EU gave every member VETO power.

Your problem is with the EU, not the Irish.

It is if - as Helen and Rhino - imply that the EU should not go along with further integration, as they claim we are dismissing their vote.

No one said the Irish is a problem.

There is now a crisis because of the vote of the Irish referendum.

The Irish must also live with the consequences of their vote, which may be the status quo while the other member states chose an "ever closer union."

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Apparently, vetoes don't count for much anyway. Instead of yes or no, the vote should have been yes or not just yet.

I don't see how a group of countries on the other side of Europe over-riding Ireland's sovereignty is a good thing. Maybe that's just me.

Vetos count for a lot because just one can kill any policy initiative, as the Irish referendum just proves.

Which country is overriding Ireland's sovereignty???

Are you referring to:

- the EU commission

- the EU parliament

- the Council of Ministers

- the ECJ

Ireland have representatives in all of those.

lgt

nobody wrote:

i don't think one is better than the other. i think they are equally democratic. and there are referendums in germany.

maybe I am not so sceptical because germany is a federal state itself with 16 (3 of them only cities) different state parliaments. there is conflict, but it works.

and unlike the UK and US we don't have a two party system (not really sure about Ireland) so I'm used to coalitions, consensus, compromises and refraising of laws several times so that everyone can agree...

m.

Also - correct me, if I'm wrong - but I believe referendum in Germany on a FEDERAL level is illegal. [Possible on Lander and local levels, though.]

So the whole basis that the EU treaty should be voted by referenda is a moot point. {as if that would prove the democracy test of the treaty]

Collin

The EU gave every state veto power.

Ireland had to have a referendum otherwise the Treaty would have been illegal if it entered into force.

The Irish voted democratically. The vote was no, therefore, by EU policy and their own EU law the treaty cannot be entered into force.

Please explain to me how that equals Ireland imposing its minority will upon others?

It doesn't, simply because the EU gave every country veto power. And that was probably a democratic decision to which all members agreed (so if there is something in the treaty their country could say no).

What is happening right now is EU policy working out just fine like they intended it to work, however, now they don't like the result and they want to go round Ireland.

It's not hard to grasp at all. Your frustration should be directed towards the EU for giving every country veto power. Not towards the Irish voters.

If the EU decides to implement this treaty anyway it just shows it's unfair and stinking lying nature.

nobody

the veto is respected. the treaty won't be implemented.
what gives you the right to demand that other european countries can't come to another settlement and found what might be called the super-duper-group of europe, which is a more integrated body of european states that everbody is allowed to join.
even if it is close to the thing the lisbon treaty was planning. you won't have to be enslaved by it if you don't want to.

m.

Collin

nobody wrote:

the veto is respected. the treaty won't be implemented.
what gives you the right to demand that other european countries can't come to another settlement and found what might be called the super-duper-group of europe, which is a more integrated body of european states that everbody is allowed to join.
even if it is close to the thing the lisbon treaty was planning. you won't have to be enslaved by it if you don't want to.

m.

Well, they can't do that within the EU. If they want to start another European body next to the EU and call it the super-duper-group of Europe, go ahead.

lgt

Collin wrote:

The EU gave every state veto power.

Ireland had to have a referendum otherwise the Treaty would have been illegal if it entered into force.

The Irish voted democratically. The vote was no, therefore, by EU policy and their own EU law the treaty cannot be entered into force.

Please explain to me how that equals Ireland imposing its minority will upon others?

It doesn't, simply because the EU gave every country veto power. And that was probably a democratic decision to which all members agreed (so if there is something in the treaty their country could say no).

What is happening right now is EU policy working out just fine like they intended it to work, however, now they don't like the result and they want to go round Ireland.

It's not hard to grasp at all. Your frustration should be directed towards the EU for giving every country veto power. Not towards the Irish voters.

If the EU decides to implement this treaty anyway it just shows it's unfair and stinking lying nature.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

The Irish expressed their vote and veto the Treaty. Fine.

No argument, or frustration - or whatever else you're assuming I'm feeling.

HOWEVER

What would be imposing the will of a minority is if for Ireland to protest [as Helen and Rhino have expressed of being brushed aside and ignored] if the rest of Europe wants to go ahead with further integration.

Why would the EU be "unfair and stinking lying nature" if the other countries want to go ahead?

Are the will of the people of the other 26 country to be ignored?