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

[Sheilbh]

This whole episode is a good argument against referendums - the first time round, most of the No voters in Ireland had believed the outrageous lies spread by the campaign - including, in addition to the ones above, that the ratification of Lisbon meant conscription into an EU army.

I agree.  I don't like direct democracy

[Sahib]

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

[Warspite]

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

Politics is not for the plebs.

[Agelastus]

Why do you think the assurances are "empty"? They are a legally binding part of the Lisbon Treaty.

Legally binding assurances in an EU treaty are only "binding" until the next round of negotiations, at which point your exceptions go back on the table. Then you have to fight for them again, and quite often end up giving them up to secure guarantees against parts of the "next stage of the project".

Once you're in the machine, the only way out is just that...getting out. No government with a fairly Eurosceptic population has had the moral courage to put that question to its people.

And the Lisbon treaty is a farce, given how much of it is simply a rehash of the Constitution that two normally fairly Europhile countries rejected. If you want democracy as in "implementing the will of the people" do not look at Europe. To a True European, any rejection is a blip to be ignored in the interests of the greater project envisioned by the bureaucracy.

Not that I am condoning the stupid scaremongering of the no campaign in Ireland. The EU is scary enough without resorting to blatant falsehoods.

[Sheilbh]

Legally binding assurances in an EU treaty are only "binding" until the next round of negotiations, at which point your exceptions go back on the table. Then you have to fight for them again, and quite often end up giving them up to secure guarantees against parts of the "next stage of the project".

Isn't that true of all political deals outside of the Vatican?

[Agelastus]

Legally binding assurances in an EU treaty are only "binding" until the next round of negotiations, at which point your exceptions go back on the table. Then you have to fight for them again, and quite often end up giving them up to secure guarantees against parts of the "next stage of the project".

Isn't that true of all political deals outside of the Vatican?

It is. But Zanza asked why I thought the assurances were "empty" and I told him why I thought that - and I note that you, who I believe to be a pro-EU board member, effectively agree with me on this one issue.

[Sheilbh]

It is. But Zanza asked why I thought the assurances were "empty" and I told him why I thought that - and I note that you, who I believe to be a pro-EU board member, effectively agree with me on this one issue.

Yes.  I don't think it's a killer that the EU, largely governed by treaty, agrees things at each treaty not through inalienable eternal rights of certain member states.  And you accept that the EU is no different from any other political body.

[Agelastus]

It is. But Zanza asked why I thought the assurances were "empty" and I told him why I thought that - and I note that you, who I believe to be a pro-EU board member, effectively agree with me on this one issue.

Yes.  I don't think it's a killer that the EU, largely governed by treaty, agrees things at each treaty not through inalienable eternal rights of certain member states.  And you accept that the EU is no different from any other political body.

Yes, the EU is just like any other political body. Which is why the short-termism of voters in relation to it dismays me so much. It's like a constant drip, drip, drip with most voters only remembering the last drip, not all that has gone before.

Moreover, the way the EU ignores the result of any referendum it does not like is about as anti-democratic as you can get. At the least a referendum should kill an issue until a new generation of voters has grown up (say, 20-25 years.) Not put it off until you can create a couple of empty assurances and put essentially the same treaty back before the same voters. I do not understand why voters do not get more insulted over how they are treated like sheep.

[Valmy]

Moreover, the way the EU ignores the result of any referendum it does not like is about as anti-democratic as you can get.

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.

[Lettow77]

 Inclined to agree, almost in entirity, with Agelastus. I hope the referendum is rejected.

[Valmy]

Inclined to agree, almost in entirity, with Agelastus. I hope the referendum is rejected.

The dude who wants to see the world broken up into 6,000,000 countries agrees?  Shocking.

[DisturbedPervert]

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

Open your eyes SHEEPLE!!

[Zanza]

Legally binding assurances in an EU treaty are only "binding" until the next round of negotiations, at which point your exceptions go back on the table. Then you have to fight for them again, and quite often end up giving them up to secure guarantees against parts of the "next stage of the project".

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.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Moreover, the way the EU ignores the result of any referendum it does not like is about as anti-democratic as you can get. At the least a referendum should kill an issue until a new generation of voters has grown up (say, 20-25 years.) Not put it off until you can create a couple of empty assurances and put essentially the same treaty back before the same voters. I do not understand why voters do not get more insulted over how they are treated like sheep.

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

[Lettow77]

6,000,000 is an extreme exagerration, but that -would- be preferable.