As have I, but have you read the referred acts with the proposed modifications in mind?
As every single American will tell you, I was quoting the US Constitution.
Yes of course I have. It’s entirely unintelligible otherwise.
I disagree: it’s very intelligible - leastwise I had no problems reading it - and that makes it dangerous.
But anyway, you have done your research, and thus you will make an informed decision; many people appear to not have done their research and are thus not making informed decisions.
I know that. I still don’t see what you meant by it but it doesn’t really matter.
Very early days. The result will be announced later today but early tallies do not look good for the government and the Treaty
Politicians are starting to sound paniced and angry on the radio.
And if everyone votes No, they will be back in a couple of years asking everyone to vote Yes again. :rolleyes:
Now it’s over, do you mind telling us which way you voted and why?
It’s official.
53.4% to 46.6% against.
I disagree. There’s quite a number of material changes which go beyond merely technical issues like rephrasing the existing treaties. Being a law student who focussed on European Union law during studies, I’d point out the treaty merges the European Union and the European Community, but since nobody, not even lawyers, really understands the difference between the two of them, that’s not that big a thing with regards to results, although legally it’s quite a leap.
But there are other things in the treaty which truly do make a difference.
The role of the European Parliament in lawmaking was strengthened; the new treaty aims at making the Parliament a legislative body with rights equal to the rights of the Council; now, the Council is the primary legislator in the Union/Community, with the Parliament having only very limited influence in many areas.
The current system of rotating presidencies in the Council of heads of state will be replaced by a full-time president elected for two and a half years, which might bring more consistency in EU politics, although the system of rotation in the other councils will continue.
The new treaty transfers some more powers from the Member States to the Union. It tries to compensate this by strengthening the power of national parliaments to protest against a pending bill of EU legislation, but there will not be a veto power.
The new treaty strengthens the protection of fundamental rights in the Union by making the Fundamental Rights Charter fully binding (albeit with exceptions for UK and Poland).
The treaty has to say quite a lot about the common foreign policy and the common defence policy, which I personally disagree with.
In fact, the Lisbon Treaty is not very different from the Constitutional treaty which was rejected in the referendums in France and the Netherlands several years ago. While I myself am very much pro-EU, I dislike the way Europe’s leaders are trying to hide the rejected treaty under the disguise of a seemingly less ambitious project, which they’re trying to sell to voters as mere technical issues. What really doesn’t appeal to me is the way governments are trying to get this through without referendums, even in countries which traditionally hold referendums for these issues.
Just out of curiosity , why would they sound angry or be angry , and what are the possible reprecussions.
Declan
I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement :- I was aware that those treaty amendments produced the material changes you listed. (I didn’t say it explictly in my post, but as it happens I think those material changes are largely a good thing). When I quoted the Treaty text, I was suggesting the difficulty involved in getting it approved or disapproved by general plebiscite. I’m the only person I know who’s actually read the thing.
Quartz, I voted yes. As noted above, I think the amendments the treaty makes are largely beneficial. One could perhaps suggest a better treaty, but in a community of 27 nations, there will always be compromises.
I see your point, and I also see the difficulty in getting people to shape a sound, reasonably-based opinion on a matter as complex and abstract as this one. Yet, I don’t like the way the Lisbon Treaty is being rushed through ratification. Materially, it’s not very different from the Constitutional Treaty of 2004, which was rejected. Europe’s leaders rephrased it, omitted some expecially controversial issues which made the reformed EU look like a state (anthem, flag, motto, etc.), and try to get around as much as possible without referendums. It all comes down to the old “People don’t know what’s good for them, we can’t have them decide on this” argument which, IMO, is at odds with the principles of democracy.
The changes Lisbon would have brought might be a good thing, but I have some problems with the essentially un-democratic way which is used to ratify a treaty which is claimed to make the Union more democratic. When the Constitutional Treaty failed, there was much talk that the reason why so many people disagreed with it was the fact that they felt ignored in the process of its drafting. Now they’re making the same mistake again.
Another thing I dislike is the way people who reject the treaty are flatly criticized as anti-Europeans. The alternatives from which to choose are not “EU” or “no EU;” they are “EU in the refomed version of Lisbon” or “EU in the current version of the treaties as amended by Nice.” I agree that the current state of affairs as it was left after the refoms of Nice are not ideal, especially since they were drafted in a Union of 15 states which might not fit today’s needs in a Union of 27. But the EU will continue to work, with or without Lisbon, and it will continue to do its job well.
If all of the EU put the Treaty to the people like Ireland and just went with a straight up a 1 person 1 vote system [i.e. not Country by Country & not ratifying it in their Parliment-equivalent ] would the EU Treaty pass an EU-wide vote?
I have no idea I am really asking.
I largely agree with your points. But nevertheless, I was presented with a ballot paper on Thursday and had to vote. I’m comfortable with my decision.
Difficult to say. Several of the members with the largest populations are largely pro-EU - Italy, Spain, and Germany come to mind. France is a different case; it’s traditionally rather pro-EU, but it rejected the constitutional treaty, so there might be difficulties there. There’s a strong anti-EU movement in the UK, but since the Lisbon draft provides for clauses granting the UK exemption from controversial issues, there might be a majority in favor of the treaty in Britain as well*. There’s also a number of small and middle-sized nations which are traditionally very much pro-EU, such as the Netherlands or Luxemburg.
I’d say that in a one person, one vote Union-wide referendum, there would be a majority voting yes, unless the nations which reject the treaty reject it by a very clear margin, which I don’t think they would.
*) That’s actually a common feature in EU reform treaties. That way, they convinced the peoples of Denmark and Ireland to ratify the treaties of Maastricht (in the case of Denmark, in 1992) and of Nice (in the case of Ireland, in 2001), after they had initially rejected these treaties in a first referendum.
Fair does. Unlike many I heard on TV, you did your research and you made a reasoned decision.
It should be noted that although the country voted No Ireland is and has been a pro-EU country.
Text borrowed from boards.ie as Sand sys it much better than I could :
What will likely happen is the other EU states will press on with ratification so only Ireland has failed to ratify. The matter than gets raised to the EU courts and a compromise deal hammered out where the rest of the EU progress with Lisbon, and Ireland agrees to sit out any negotiation or voting which the Lisbon treaty has effect but on the other hand isnt bound by the decisions reached. An EU of two groups occurs, Ireland and everyone else who ratified the treaty. Everyones a winner - the wish of the Irish people is respected, and the rest of the EU continue on their own seperate path.
Re-running the referendum has been ruled out, but its not impossible the UK fails to ratify the treat as Brown is already dying on his arse having learned this PM lark isnt all its cracked up to be. A quick populist “On your Bike Pierre and Fritz!!” move might win over tabloids.
If that happens, then its likely the dispute between the Euro-Lite states ( The UK and friends, presumably Ireland) withdraw to a second tier free market association with the EU [or withdraw entirely], and the EU states seeking deeper integration continue on with their own plans freed from having to compromise with UK euro-skeptism.
Sarkozy is due to come to Ireland on July 11th to persuade us to do the right thing.