Lisbon 2: Referendum in Ireland on the 2nd of October

[Martinus]

International treaties shouldn't be a matter of referendums anyway.
Metternich and Talleyrand are turning in their graves 

Hehe yeah. Imagine if the Treaty of Vien or the Treaty of Versailles were subject to a referendum.

[Martinus]

At the least a referendum should kill an issue until a new generation of voters has grown up (say, 20-25 years.)

This is nonsense. Democracy doesn't work that way anywhere. Tell that to gays in California who were deprived of a right to marry, because 51% of the voters thought so. 

[Razgovory]

At the least a referendum should kill an issue until a new generation of voters has grown up (say, 20-25 years.)

This is nonsense. Democracy doesn't work that way anywhere. Tell that to gays in California who were deprived of a right to marry, because 51% of the voters thought so. 

They weren't deprived of a right to marry.

[Agelastus]

Nonsense.  Issues get revoted on all the time. Anyway I fail to see how allowing one tiny part of the EU to spoil it for everybody as being particularly democratic.  If they wanted it to be democratic they would have an EU wide referrendum.

I don't really see how you could say the EU ignored the referendums they have been struggling with the whole referendum issue for awhile now.

Since I remember the immediate response to a Danish "no" on a previous treaty was "it doesn't matter, we'll all carry on, the Danes will have to solve their own problem", then I don't see how anyone can think the EU is treating these referenda seriously. The French and Dutch reject the constition in a referendum, so what follows is "we'll just put all the key bits in a new treaty, call it Lisbon, and pretend its' too innocuous to justify a referendum so we can just vote it through our parliaments." Anyone who thinks the EU is conducting a democratic operation is living in La-La land.

And as long as the EU is still a family of nations that requires universal consensus on major issues, then yes, one part of the EU saying no should "spoil it" (or, as I would put it "save it") for others. The EU isn't a single state yet.

[Agelastus]

I do not understand why voters do not get more insulted over how they are treated like sheep.

Open your eyes SHEEPLE!!

[Agelastus]

If you do that, you yourself are at fault really. If there are red lines that countries don't want to cross, they should not cross. That's why new treaties always require unanimity.

I agree - the politicians who let their self-proclaimed "red lines" go are at fault. It does not change the point that EU "assurances" on any issue where the majority of member states have already accepted it are so much empty air. They know that all they have to do is introduce something even more unnacceptable to a particular country in the next treaty and let the bargaining begin.

[Agelastus]

oh my, so a people can't change its mind for an entire generation? madness.

Fine, maybe not a generation. Maybe, say, ten years.

But if the idea of a binding referendum is that it should only be valid until someone can organise a new one in a few months then what on earth is the point of holding one at all? They are of no more value than the weekly opinion polls if they are treated like this, and cost a heck of a lot more.

[Agelastus]

This is nonsense. Democracy doesn't work that way anywhere. Tell that to gays in California who were deprived of a right to marry, because 51% of the voters thought so. 

I have sympathy for them (not being able to form "civil partnerships"), but they live in a Democracy that respects referendums (unlike the EU.) I note that the referendum was specifically not made retro-active as well, so at least a modicum of sense prevailed there.

However, if you go to the trouble of holding a very expensive referendum, then it should kill an issue for a certain length of time. When the Australians held their referendum on becoming a Republic, I recall that all sides said that they would not hold another for at least ten years when the result was known.

I believe it is quite likely they will hold another one next year, after a reasonable length of time has passed. You might disagree with me that a referendum should be binding for any period of time, but that's your prerogative.

[Alatriste]

oh my, so a people can't change its mind for an entire generation? madness.

Fine, maybe not a generation. Maybe, say, ten years.

But if the idea of a binding referendum is that it should only be valid until someone can organise a new in a few months then what on earth is the point of holding one at all? They are of no more value than the weekly opinion polls if they are treated like this, and cost a heck of a lot more.

Trouble is, the referendum is not binding, but consultive... as far as I know, no European state includes in its legal system binding referenda for foreign policy.

Besides, you hold the people in low esteem, it would seem.  "They", the evil Brussels bureau-crazy, could organize referenda on compulsive euthanasia in Logan's Run style each year and we would always answer 'No'.

[Agelastus]

Trouble is, the referendum is not binding, but consultive... as far as I know, no European state includes in its legal system binding referenda for foreign policy.

Besides, you hold the people in low esteem, it would seem.  "They", the evil Brussels bureau-crazy, could organize referenda on compulsive euthanasia in Logan's Run style each year and we would always answer 'No'.

So you are of the "never-end-um" school? Keep putting the question until people give in out of fatigue?

As for holding "the people" in low esteem, I guess you might think that. On the other hand, since I am harping on about my belief that referendums should decide an issue for a significant period of time, you could say that I am holding "the people" in high esteem, as I am saying that their will should be sovereign.

And your euthanasia example is just plain silly.

[Razgovory]

I do not understand why voters do not get more insulted over how they are treated like sheep.

Open your eyes SHEEPLE!!

Bircher term.

[Valmy]

Since I remember the immediate response to a Danish "no" on a previous treaty was "it doesn't matter, we'll all carry on, the Danes will have to solve their own problem", then I don't see how anyone can think the EU is treating these referenda seriously. The French and Dutch reject the constition in a referendum, so what follows is "we'll just put all the key bits in a new treaty, call it Lisbon, and pretend its' too innocuous to justify a referendum so we can just vote it through our parliaments." Anyone who thinks the EU is conducting a democratic operation is living in La-La land.

Of course what are other countries going to do having their foreign initiatives blocked by other countries?  That is pretty much what we in the US say when a country decides not to do what we want them to do.

But obviously they are taking the referendums seriously or they would not be launching yes campaigns and working to overcome them.  Perhaps they are not quite ready to completely overhaul treaties agreed to by all the members yet but they probably will eventually.

The last part just baffles me.  Allowing parliament to vote on foreign policy instead of having it decided by a referendum means it is undemocratic and anybody who thinks otherwise is living in La-La land?  Well why the fuck don't you just have a plebescite on everything and forget those parliamentary elections things?  I cannot believe you would spout insane shit like that and then accuse ME of living in la-la land.

[Valmy]

I have sympathy for them (not being able to form "civil partnerships"), but they live in a Democracy that respects referendums (unlike the EU.)

No we do not.  We have never had a referendum on international treaties before.  We elect people who negotiate those things and our representatives vote on them.  According to you that is anti-democratic.

[Valmy]

Also you are being a bit dishonest by demanding the EU members do the impossible.  You are asking 25 countries to come together and have them all agree to a treaty...and then if one of the member states have a referendum that votes it down to change it entirely even though the referendums do not specify what they even need to change in the first place.

How are they supposed to completely overhaul something they worked very hard to get 25 countries to agree to without even knowing what the problem is?  I am not even sure what exactly you want them to do.  Just getting 25 countries to agree to something is bad enough, the system you propose would make Renaissance Poland look like a well oiled political machine.

[Faeelin]

At the least a referendum should kill an issue until a new generation of voters has grown up (say, 20-25 years.)

This is nonsense. Democracy doesn't work that way anywhere. Tell that to gays in California who were deprived of a right to marry, because 51% of the voters thought so. 

They weren't deprived of a right to marry.