Well the vote is next Friday. Polls suggest the yes side will win this time.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0926/breaking9.htm
QuoteCanvassing for Lisbon continues
CHARLIE TAYLOR
Politicians of all persuasions are out canvassing today on what is the final weekend before voters go to the polls on Friday to decide on the Lisbon referendum.
The Green Party today claimed that the No side was becoming increasingly desperate after some campaigners suggested the Lisbon Treaty would do nothing to aid environmental protection.
Earlier this week, environmentalist, many of them former Green Party members, accused John Gormley of making “spurious claims” that the Lisbon Treaty enhances environmental protection.
However, speaking this morning, the party's European Affairs spokeswoman Senator Deirdre de Burca stated that the No side had not put forward a shred of evidence as to how the Treaty would affect the environment and said "had only their opions to back them up"
“The Lisbon Treaty will have a positive impact on environmental protection and it will empower the EU in the fight against climate change. Anybody that denies this is being dishonest," said Ms de Burca.
“The Lisbon Treaty strengthens the legal base of the EU in relation to environmental matters through Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 191 of the TFEU dealing with Climate Change, and Article 194 which gives the EU a new competence in the area of energy and prioritises energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources,” she added.
Elsewhere, Labour Party MEP Proinsias De Rossa warned voters against listening to the ‘Unholy Alliance’ of No campaigners, who claim toknow more about protecting workers’ rights than the trade union movements of every EU Member State.
“Separating the facts from their codology is not simple but the reality is that far from posing any threat to workers, the Lisbon Treaty protects and promotes their rights and has been recognised as such by every national affiliate of the European Trade Union Confederation, representing 60 million workers across Europe," said Mr De Rossa.
That the ‘unholy alliance’ is opposing the incorporation of these significant advances for the people of Europe for their own dubious reasons and creating fear amongst those already fearful for their future is shameful," he added.
Pro-Lisbon campaigners have been buoyed by the latest Irish Times /TNS mrbi poll which showed that support for the Treaty is holding steady.
The latest poll shows that 48 per cent are likely to vote Yes, an increase of two points since the last Irish Times poll in early September, while 33 per cent say they would vote No, an increase of four points. The number of people in the Don’t Know category has dropped by six points to 19 per cent.
However, No campaigners, led by Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams today reiterated their belief that the Treaty would be detrimental to Ireland.
Canvassing in Tallaght this morning, Mr Adams has said that a better deal was still possible despite the claims to the contrary from the government and their supporters on the yes side.
“The government and their supporters on the ‘Yes’ side are telling you that a better deal is not possible. I don’t agree. There would not be a Good Friday Agreement if that approach had been adopted," he said.
“Just as a better deal was possible in the Peace Process, a better deal is possible in Europe. A deal based on democracy, equality and prosperity. A deal that replaces the outdated and discredited Lisbon Treaty with a new deal for the new and challenging times in which we find ourselves," he added.
The campaigns from both sides have been irritating. I'm looking forward to it being finally over.
The yes side have two very patronising ads shown together (separated by one or two other ads) in all the cinemas for the last couple of months.
First one here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQu8jxO3RRs
Second one here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7birfgb_0k&NR=1
The no side have the worst posters. Many of their ones are hysterical scaremongering. Particularly bad are anything that comes from Cóir. They're a new right wing Catholic lobby group campaigning for a no vote.
Apparently forced euthanasia and abortions will be legalized if we vote yes. Also the minimum wage will be reduced to €1.84. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjasonomahony.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Fcoir1-199x300.jpg&hash=7dbc1608acf897f2a181251aea2de7b102e4ff01)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcedarlounge.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F09%2Fcoir-poster.jpg&hash=d7836ea735b99aa1a2ee29631d4ac0f43dc7e017)
Here's the Euthanasia/Abortion poster:
If the Irish actually vote in favor of the treaty + assurances now, the only person that could still stop the treaty is Vaclav Klaus. I wonder if he will make a big show out of it.
Quote from: Zanza on September 26, 2009, 02:05:07 PM
If the Irish actually vote in favor of the treaty + assurances now, the only person that could still stop the treaty is Vaclav Klaus. I wonder if he will make a big show out of it.
He's a politician. Why wouldn't he?
Quote from: Zanza on September 26, 2009, 02:05:07 PM
If the Irish actually vote in favor of the treaty + assurances now, the only person that could still stop the treaty is Vaclav Klaus. I wonder if he will make a big show out of it.
There's a big argument in the Tories about Lisbon. They don't know whether or not they should have a retroactive referendum on it or not.
Why the change of heart?
Quote from: Faeelin on September 26, 2009, 02:35:24 PM
Why the change of heart?
The yes side have been better at countering the scaremongering from the no side this time.
The yes side had a terrible campaign the first time. They really only began campaigning about a month before the referendum and their posters were terrible. A lot of them had pictures of whoever the local candidate was for whichever party put it up, with a small bit of text saying 'Vote Yes to Lisbon' whereas the no side had effective slogans with no pictures. They were also more widespread and were up a lot longer. Also some the main politicians on the yes side admitted they either hadn't read the Treaty at all or only parts of it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 26, 2009, 02:24:53 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 26, 2009, 02:05:07 PM
If the Irish actually vote in favor of the treaty + assurances now, the only person that could still stop the treaty is Vaclav Klaus. I wonder if he will make a big show out of it.
There's a big argument in the Tories about Lisbon. They don't know whether or not they should have a retroactive referendum on it or not.
Yes?
Quote from: Faeelin on September 26, 2009, 03:09:00 PM
Yes?
If that happens then the UK will retroactively not ratify the treaty and everything's a clusterfuck. Which is why you should never vote Tory.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 26, 2009, 03:16:19 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 26, 2009, 03:09:00 PM
Yes?
If that happens then the UK will retroactively not ratify the treaty and everything's a clusterfuck. Which is why you should never vote Tory.
It'll be much more fun for Languish if that happens so you should vote Tory just for that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 26, 2009, 03:16:19 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 26, 2009, 03:09:00 PM
Yes?
If that happens then the UK will retroactively not ratify the treaty and everything's a clusterfuck. Which is why you should never vote Tory.
If that happens then the UK will retroactively not ratify the treaty and everything's a clusterfuck. Which is why you should
always vote Tory.
I'm disappointed that the Irish have been treated like shit again, and yet do not seem to care. A "no" should be a "no", not an "OK, this does not really matter, we'll all carry on as if nothing has happened and we'll give them a couple of empty promises so that they will go away and ratify the treaty they have just rejected."
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've heard about the suck of the Irish but this is ridiculous.
What I just hate is the Eurosceptics saying "They voted teh nooooo that means nooooo!!".
They're just not understanding democracy; the timing is a bit sharp but still, its the way the system works.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 05:04:48 PM
I'm disappointed that the Irish have been treated like shit again, and yet do not seem to care. A "no" should be a "no", not an "OK, this does not really matter, we'll all carry on as if nothing has happened and we'll give them a couple of empty promises so that they will go away and ratify the treaty they have just rejected."
Why do you think the assurances are "empty"? They are a legally binding part of the Lisbon Treaty.
Quote from: Warspite on September 27, 2009, 06:20:10 AM
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 <_<
International treaties shouldn't be a matter of referendums anyway.
Metternich and Talleyrand are turning in their graves :(
Quote from: Sahib on September 27, 2009, 10:42:09 AM
International treaties shouldn't be a matter of referendums anyway.
Metternich and Talleyrand are turning in their graves :(
Politics is not for the plebs.
Quote from: Zanza on September 27, 2009, 08:02:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:02:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2009, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:02:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 06:06:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2009, 06:55:34 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 06:06:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:32:54 PM
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.
Inclined to agree, almost in entirity, with Agelastus. I hope the referendum is rejected.
Quote from: Lettow77 on September 27, 2009, 11:11:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:32:54 PMI do not understand why voters do not get more insulted over how they are treated like sheep.
Open your eyes SHEEPLE!!
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:02:18 PMLegally 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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:32:54 PM
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.
6,000,000 is an extreme exagerration, but that -would- be preferable.
Quote from: Sahib on September 27, 2009, 10:42:09 AM
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. :D
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:32:54 PM
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 01:58:46 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:32:54 PM
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. :rolleyes:
They weren't deprived of a right to marry.
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2009, 10:49:01 PM
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.
:lmfao:
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.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 27, 2009, 11:18:35 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:32:54 PMI do not understand why voters do not get more insulted over how they are treated like sheep.
Open your eyes SHEEPLE!!
:huh:
Quote from: Zanza on September 28, 2009, 12:02:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 28, 2009, 12:18:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 01:58:46 AM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 07:01:31 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 28, 2009, 12:18:18 AM
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'.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 28, 2009, 07:09:15 AM
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. :)
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 06:54:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 07:07:22 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 28, 2009, 06:50:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 01:58:46 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:32:54 PM
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. :rolleyes:
They weren't deprived of a right to marry.
:cry:
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2009, 08:12:12 AM
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.
Actually, Renaissance Poland worked pretty well, thank you very much. It all went to hell in a handbasket around the mid-17th century, but in Renaissance it wasn't different from, say, the English Parliament in the Elisabethan era.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 08:45:49 AM
Actually, Renaissance Poland worked pretty well, thank you very much. It all went to hell in a handbasket around the mid-17th century, but in Renaissance it wasn't different from, say, the English Parliament in the Elisabethan era.
Age of Enlightenment Poland then.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2009, 08:46:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 08:45:49 AM
Actually, Renaissance Poland worked pretty well, thank you very much. It all went to hell in a handbasket around the mid-17th century, but in Renaissance it wasn't different from, say, the English Parliament in the Elisabethan era.
Age of Enlightenment Poland then.
I'd say Baroque would be more correct. By the time Age of Enlightenment reached Poland (about mid-18th century), there were attempts to reform and modernize the state again, but they were too late.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 08:50:45 AM
I'd say Baroque would be more correct. By the time Age of Enlightenment reached Poland (about mid-18th century), there were attempts to reform and modernize the state again, but they were too late.
In any case a system that requires double unanimity will simply not get anything done.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2009, 08:01:56 AM
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.
If they took the referendum seriously, they would not return within a few months with a treaty with marginal and paper differences.
And this is not just the Irish case. Given the vast majority of the Constitution Treaty is in the "streamlined" articles of the Lisbon Treaty, one has to say that they don't really give a damn about the expressed opinion of the French or Dutch public either.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2009, 08:01:56 AM
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.
Please see below -
QuoteA 1987 decision of the Supreme Court established that ratification by Ireland of any significant amendment to the Treaties of the European Union requires an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland.[3] All Constitutional amendments require approval by referendum.
Please do not confuse the concept of basic foreign policy with EU treaties. Yes, there is an element of foreign policy in them (one cannot deny that it is an agreement between countries.) However, EU treaties have direct effects on the domestic law of member countries. The Irish are merely the most honest about this in that respect, and I have a great deal of respect for their supreme court, and the politicians who accepted this ruling, as a result.
If you actually understood where most policy initiatives in the EU come from, and had also taken note that the reason several countries do not hold referendums (even when, in at least one case, explicitly promised) is because they know that their citizens would vote against their (parliament's) wishes, then you would not make such a silly comment.
Quote from: Valmy on September 28, 2009, 08:06:24 AM
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.
Please give me an example of where the USA has negotiated and accepted an international treaty that affects both its' sovereignty and its domestic law - has the USA conceded certain sovereign powers to the UN, NAFTA or the OAS, for example? Those would be the closest analogous situations, as far as I am aware.
If you haven't, then I submit you have no clue as to whether a referendum would be called on an issue of such gravity. Even if their wasn't a federal one, I am certain that individual states would hold them to ascertain their citizens opinion of such a radical change in their country. I can easily see California holding one, for example. And although I am not an expert on politics in America, I do know that there are examples in your system where states send their representatives with instructions to vote in certain ways.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 08:50:45 AM
I'd say Baroque would be more correct. By the time Age of Enlightenment reached Poland (about mid-18th century), there were attempts to reform and modernize the state again, but they were too late.
Actually I read somewhere, can't remember exactly, but I was searching info on the connections between the Wars of the French Revolution and the partition of Poland, that Poland's neighbors didn't obliterate Poland because it was weak and divided. Rather the opposite, they were perfectly happy to leave Poland be as long as the country was too divided to get anything done. But when it seemed that the reforms could succeed... well, a Poland united under a real central authority would be dangerous.
A real gem from Paradox.
If you thought that Turtledove is whacko, then you must read how IG Farben created the European Union:
http://www.eu-facts.org/en/ireland/index.html
Read the PDF newspaper linked there.
When Enlightenment reached Europe, they decided that Poland had no place in an enlightened world. It's interesting that Poland didn't return until the Dark Ages were underway, isn't it?
The existance of Poland is detrimental to the world.
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2009, 11:04:37 AM
A real gem from Paradox.
If you thought that Turtledove is whacko, then you must read how IG Farben created the European Union:
http://www.eu-facts.org/en/ireland/index.html
Read the PDF newspaper linked there.
'The Irish people would exchange their centuries-long independence...'
I guess the Irish aren't very good with history either. They seem bound and determined to ensure that everyone that thinks of them as the ignorant, hateful clods that they are reputed to be.
Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 11:37:16 AM
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2009, 11:04:37 AM
A real gem from Paradox.
If you thought that Turtledove is whacko, then you must read how IG Farben created the European Union:
http://www.eu-facts.org/en/ireland/index.html
Read the PDF newspaper linked there.
'The Irish people would exchange their centuries-long independence...'
I guess the Irish aren't very good with history either. They seem bound and determined to ensure that everyone that thinks of them as the ignorant, hateful clods that they are reputed to be.
:huh:
Where does it say that?
It is a very nutty site but I'm fairly sure the writer isn't Irish and probably not even living in Ireland. Some of the stuff he wrote doesn't seem like something an Irish person would write.
This for instance:
Quotethe people
of Ireland to exert their democratic
right is the result of a
century-long battle of the Irish
people for freedom and independence
I looked up the domain. It appears to be owned by someone in The Netherlands.
We do have our fair share of conspiracy nuts but this referendum seems to have attracted ones from around the World. I've had a couple of crazy English and American guys come up to me on the street telling me to vote no in order to stop the evil EU. :lol:
The idea of a 'centuries long struggle for independance' in Ireland always makes me chuckle.
:mellow:
Quote from: Cerr on October 01, 2009, 04:32:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 01, 2009, 11:37:16 AM
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2009, 11:04:37 AM
A real gem from Paradox.
If you thought that Turtledove is whacko, then you must read how IG Farben created the European Union:
http://www.eu-facts.org/en/ireland/index.html
Read the PDF newspaper linked there.
'The Irish people would exchange their centuries-long independence...'
I guess the Irish aren't very good with history either. They seem bound and determined to ensure that everyone that thinks of them as the ignorant, hateful clods that they are reputed to be.
:huh:
Where does it say that?
That newspaper pdf thing. Page 2, claim 7.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1002/breaking1.htm
QuoteA premlinary national exit poll by Fine Gael suggests the Yes side, with 52 per cent, have just swung a victory over the No side, who are on 48 per cent.
That's pretty tight.
I voted a couple of hours ago anyway.
Counting begins tomorrow at 9. They should know the outcome by 11 or so if it's not close, if it is close then probably sometime in the afternoon.
Doesn't matter. Either way, the vote will be contested with violence.
The Irish are animals.
Tony will be President of Europe. :D
Yes side win by a large margin.
Quote from: Cerr on October 03, 2009, 05:42:27 AM
Yes side win by a large margin.
A great victory for democracy! :swiss:
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2009, 09:26:20 PM
The Irish are animals.
No they most certainly are not! :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:21:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2009, 09:26:20 PM
The Irish are animals.
No they most certainly are not! :mad:
Multicellular, eukaryotic motile heterotrophs? It seems to me that they meet all the requirements.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:21:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2009, 09:26:20 PM
The Irish are animals.
No they most certainly are not! :mad:
Multicellular, eukaryotic motile heterotrophs? It seems to me that they meet all the requirements.
You don't understand animals and you never will.
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:21:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2009, 09:26:20 PM
The Irish are animals.
No they most certainly are not! :mad:
Multicellular, eukaryotic motile heterotrophs? It seems to me that they meet all the requirements.
You don't understand animals and you never will.
Of course I do. I understand everything. That's my nature.
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2009, 07:31:39 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:29:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 03, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 07:21:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 02, 2009, 09:26:20 PM
The Irish are animals.
No they most certainly are not! :mad:
Multicellular, eukaryotic motile heterotrophs? It seems to me that they meet all the requirements.
You don't understand animals and you never will.
Of course I do. I understand everything. That's my nature.
You know what my nature is? Calling.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 02, 2009, 10:37:15 PM
Tony will be President of Europe. :D
Jesus, no, Britain's relations with the Union are already bad enough as things stand now, the last thing we need is Gordo crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war!!!
The Independent on Sunday page 3 has a great (awful) picture of Blair with the header "STOP HIM
:lol:
Blair, President of Europe is a vile thought.
Quotehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6259211/The-result-in-Ireland-shows-that-Europes-usurpers-have-succeeded.html
QuoteThe result in Ireland shows that Europe's usurpers have succeeded
The deed is done. Ireland has been coerced at a moment of acute distress into accepting an EU treaty that emasculates the Irish Supreme Court and that voters have already rejected once.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 6:02PM BST 04 Oct 2009
Eurosceptics always feared that the mechanisms of monetary union would force recalcitrant states to knuckle down in the end. This has occurred exactly as they predicted. Only a fool can believe that the Irish people have genuinely embraced the European Constitution (now Lisbon) as a "positive good". They acquiesced with their backs against the wall.
The Irish economy contracted by 11.6pc in the 12 months to June. Nominal GDP shrank by nearer 13pc, which is what matters for debt dynamics. It is not for outsiders to judge those such as radio star Eamon Dunphy for switching sides to save "jobs and livelihoods". The country is in deep depression.
The reason why this crisis is so grave is intimately tied to euro membership, even if this is not obvious to Irish voters. They appear to have believed the great lie – repeated by Ryanair's Michael O'Leary – that Europe saved their country from Iceland's fate. It did no such such thing.
Iceland's economy contracted by 6.5pc to June (less than Germany) and is already turning the corner. Exports are surging. Unemployment fell in August to 7.7pc. Such is the magic of a floating currency. The plunging krone acted as a shock absorber. Icelandic society remains in tact.
The euro did indeed shield Ireland from the storm, but it is not the storm that does the damage – any more than 1929 crash caused the Depression. The country no longer has the means in EMU to counter debt deflation, as will become painfully clear over the next two years. It has become a laboratory for the roll-back of the modern welfare state.
There is something demented about this Lisbon drive. The EU has already pushed the integration of Europe's states beyond viable limits. It obsesses over institutional machinery even as it ignores the social crisis of youth unemployment at 39pc in Spain, 31pc in Lithuania, 28pc in Latvia, 26pc in Ireland and Slovakia, 25pc in Italy and Hungary, 24pc in France.
It cannot run Europe's fisheries, farms, aid projects, and budget with a minimum of competence. Yet it presses for more and is willing to sell its political soul to get its way. "The EU seems blind to a central insight of liberal democratic thought – that the means of reaching public decisions are just as important as the ends," says Oxford professor Larry Siedentop.
The means were to ignore the verdict of the French and Dutch people when they voted no to the original text in 2005, with half Europe waiting do exactly the same had Brussels not called off the kill for the sake of decency.
Common sense called for a halt then. But no, they tried to slip it through by parliamentary majorities in the House of Commons, Holland's Tweede Kamer, Denmark's Folketing, and France's Chambre, with the specific and sole of purpose of denying citizens the chance to express their will, confirming what we long suspected – that the EU's authoritarian habits are spreading to our national legislatures. Dublin alone was left grapple with its voters, obliged to do so by its Supreme Court. And when they too said no last year, the political classes refused to accept the verdict yet again.
It is worth remembering how this Lisbon monster came to life. It was supposed to be the answer to the Danish and Swedish no votes to EMU, the Irish no to Nice, and anti-EU riots that set Gothenburg in flames.
Henceforth, there would be no more stitch-ups. The Laeken Declaration in 2001 acknowledged that the EU was seen by the peoples as "a threat to their identity", that "deals are all too often cut out of their sight", that there was no appetite for "a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life." It spoke of returning powers to the member states. A convention – modelled on Philadelphia – would draw up an EU constitution to restore "democratic legitimacy".
What then happened? The EU insiders hijacked the process. Dissident utterings were silenced in the working groups. A praesidium under super-elitist Valéry Giscard d'Estaing employed Commission lawyers to draft the wording. The final text called for an EU president, foreign minister, justice department, a supreme court with jurisdiction over all areas of EU policy for the first time, and fresh powers to enter yet more nooks and crannies – in other words, the apparatus of an aspirant state. And this how it remains in Lisbon disguise.
"The convention failed: it was a self-selected group of the European political elite," said Gisela Stuart, Britain's member on the praesidium. The experience was enough to turn her into fervent opponent of Lisbon.
The methods being used to force this treaty through after electorates have already spoken cross a line that may not be crossed. The European Project has become the enemy.
This is the treaty that Gordon Brown was too ashamed to sign in public with fellow EU leaders in Lisbon. Yet sign he did.
The question for David Cameron is whether he will continue this practice, or take a stand before any more pages are ripped out of our own Magna Carta. Go on, David, sock the usurpers between the eyes.
I don't really need to tell you whether or not I agree with this or not, do I?
Gisela Stuart, incidentally, was born in Bavaria as Gisela Gschaider. She was elected to parliament in the Labour 1997 landslide. In other words, she is not the "typical British Eurosceptic".
Agelastus, let's start by remembering that when the decision to hold a second referendum - _after_ the treaty was amended in several points concerning Ireland, by the way - Irish economy was still the 'Celtic Tiger', and actually none of the recent economic unpleasantness had happened. "Coerced in a moment of acute distress" my ass...
Second, let's we remember too that French and Dutch voter voting 'No' weren't all them against the Treay. Many, specially in France, actually wanted a far more unitary treaty...
Bah, I'm sick (influenza, probably) and too tired to write the scanting answer the article deserves. I will just mention two points:
- for people like her 'The European Project' has always been the enemy, that she's Labour makes no difference whatsoever. Tony Blair has never been an Euroenthusiast, and Gordon Brown even less.
- People maintaining that you just have to ask the voters twice to get your way should really be choosing a salute and a color for their shirts (I heard Hugo Boss is great for these things, incidentally...), polishing their jackboots and singing 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me', because they consider the citizens a bunch of brainless cows with no ideas and no reasoning capacity at all. Defenders of Democracy? Hah!
Quote from: Alatriste on October 05, 2009, 02:02:30 PM
Agelastus, let's start by remembering that when the decision to hold a second referendum - _after_ the treaty was amended in several points concerning Ireland, by the way - Irish economy was still the 'Celtic Tiger', and actually none of the recent economic unpleasantness had happened. "Coerced in a moment of acute distress" my ass...
If you seriously believe that Ireland would stand up to Europe and NOT hold a second referendum regardless of the economic situation, you might have a point.
The economic argument of the article is the weakest part of it, of course. The man has an oversimplistic faith in floating currencies as the solution to all ills.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 05, 2009, 02:02:30 PMSecond, let's we remember too that French and Dutch voter voting 'No' weren't all them against the Treay. Many, specially in France, actually wanted a far more unitary treaty...
And yet, even after the alleged "further integrationists" who voted against the Constitution had had their fright and would presumably be relied on to support Lisbon as the lesser of two evils, the French government still did not care to risk a referendum on Lisbon.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 05, 2009, 02:02:30 PM
Bah, I'm sick (influenza, probably) and too tired to write the scanting answer the article deserves. I will just mention two points:
I think you mean "scathing". Incidentally, I hope you recover soon, and that it is not Swine Flu.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 05, 2009, 02:02:30 PM
- for people like her 'The European Project' has always been the enemy, that she's Labour makes no difference whatsoever. Tony Blair has never been an Euroenthusiast, and Gordon Brown even less.
:lol:
Not being a euroenthusiast is a lot different from being a eurosceptic in UK politics. After all, Gordon Brown conveniently decided not to hold a referendum in the UK on Lisbon (despite the similarity of the critical articles to the Constitution, on which a referendum had been promised for years) in order to ensure its ratification to please his European partners. Somehow, I don't see her being selected for this "praesidium" if she had been a confirmed anti-European then. You are clutching at straws trying to discredit her there.
Heck, I don't even know if she is a Euro-sceptic now. I suspect not given her background. But she's against Lisbon, which puts her at least temporarily in the same camp as me.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 05, 2009, 02:02:30 PM
- People maintaining that you just have to ask the voters twice to get your way should really be choosing a salute and a color for their shirts (I heard Hugo Boss is great for these things, incidentally...), polishing their jackboots and singing 'Tomorrow Belongs to Me', because they consider the citizens a bunch of brainless cows with no ideas and no reasoning capacity at all. Defenders of Democracy? Hah!
:lmfao:
You do realise you have just described the majority of those in love with the European Project, don't you? They're the ones who insist an electorate has to be asked twice within a year or two on essentially the same treaty!
I'm the one who says the result of a referendum should be respected for a reasonable period of time (say 10 years.)
Let's be fair, gentlemen. Absolutely everyone is full to the brim of contempt for the electorate. The only thing more contemptible than your average politician is your average voter.
I love how everybody rushes to interpret the elections based on whatever fantasy they are living in. The Pro-Euro Union people insist the failure in the first referendum was based on fear mongering and lies spread by the no campaign. Now that the referendum has been successful the Euro skeptics are rushing to spin it to where the Irish were forced by the authoritarian gauntlet of the EU to vote themselves into slavery.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2009, 06:10:00 PM
I love how everybody rushes to interpret the elections based on whatever fantasy they are living in.
What else are they supposed to do?
Quote from: citizen k on October 05, 2009, 10:14:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2009, 06:10:00 PM
I love how everybody rushes to interpret the elections based on whatever fantasy they are living in.
What else are they supposed to do?
Good question.
Quote from: Valmy on October 05, 2009, 06:10:00 PM
I love how everybody rushes to interpret the elections based on whatever fantasy they are living in. The Pro-Euro Union people insist the failure in the first referendum was based on fear mongering and lies spread by the no campaign. Now that the referendum has been successful the Euro skeptics are rushing to spin it to where the Irish were forced by the authoritarian gauntlet of the EU to vote themselves into slavery.
That actually sounds like a fair assessment based on the posters from earlier in the thread. In Sweden at least the no-side in these things never let's the truth (or even something close to it) come in the way of their campaigns.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 05:27:00 PM
the result of a referendum should be respected for a reasonable period of time (say 10 years.)
too long, lots changes in 10 years. the reslt of a referendum must and should be instantly challengeable by another referendum (or via other democratic means)
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is very :tinfoil: about the EU and European institutions when you read his other articles.
I wonder what Cameron will do when faced with the realities of actually having to govern the UK. If he actually tries to destroy ten years of institutional reform in the EU, he will be a pariah among European politicians.
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 01:56:32 AM
Treaty of Versailles were subject to a referendum. :D
"Dear Hungarian voter, would you like to be fucked in the ass with a burning hot crowbar? Twice? Mark your choice"
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 06, 2009, 12:21:34 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 05:27:00 PM
the result of a referendum should be respected for a reasonable period of time (say 10 years.)
too long, lots changes in 10 years. the reslt of a referendum must and should be instantly challengeable by another referendum (or via other democratic means)
An attitude which begs the question of why hold a formal referendum? If you're just going to treat it as a temporary blip, then why have you bothered with all the expense of setting one up in the first place? You might just as well have taken the result of an opinion poll from that day and declared it the result and saved yourself the money.
You'd fit in at the European Commission just fine.
Quote from: Zanza on October 06, 2009, 12:38:58 AM
I wonder what Cameron will do when faced with the realities of actually having to govern the UK. If he actually tries to destroy ten years of institutional reform in the EU, he will be a pariah among European politicians.
Since he's left himself a giant and explicit "out" that lets him avoid holding the referendum he has promised, I suspect he will back down.
On the other hand, if he does back out of a referendum, it will certainly lose the Tories more of their traditional supporters. Given even with the unpopularity of Brown the Tories are only on 36%, not in the 40s as history would have you expect, I don't see how this can be a good thing for long term party survival. Moreover, after all these years of promising a referendum, if one is not held I don't see how the Tories can avoid being perceived as liars in the way Labour is seen at the moment.
Squeezed on the left by the Liberals, on the right by UKIP, with the odium most UK politicians are held in to contend with, one has to wonder just which way Cameron will jump when the moment of truth is reached.
Quote from: Threviel on October 05, 2009, 11:12:33 PM
That actually sounds like a fair assessment based on the posters from earlier in the thread. In Sweden at least the no-side in these things never let's the truth (or even something close to it) come in the way of their campaigns.
And the "yes" side automatically tell the truth?
No, they tell their own interpretation of the known facts, which is not the same thing.
For example, a poster earlier in this thread parroted the line that the EU has prevented the European nations from going to war with each other since WWII. A partial truth, at best, given that almost all nations in the EU spent the first 2/3 of that period as members of NATO or the Warsaw Pact, and the remaining 1/3 of that period as members of NATO.
Nations in military alliances tend
not to go to war with each other, obviously enough. And the two blocs thankfully avoided the terminal, final confrontation.
And NATO predates the EU, of course.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 06, 2009, 04:03:24 AM
Nations in military alliances tend not to go to war with each other, obviously enough.
I guess Greeks and Turks would disagree.
Quote from: Martinus on October 06, 2009, 04:51:04 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 06, 2009, 04:03:24 AM
Nations in military alliances tend not to go to war with each other, obviously enough.
I guess Greeks and Turks would disagree.
There's always exceptions to any rule. :P
Besides, as the two sides have been on the brink but have
never actually stepped over the line and declared war on each other, one could argue that NATO has had a restraining effect (although, given when most of the worst crises were, one could make an equally good claim for the Warsaw Pact exercising the restraining effect.)
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 01:27:02 PM
I don't really need to tell you whether or not I agree with this or not, do I?
Of course. You're a rabid europhobe. And so is that wanker Evans-Pritchard :)
Quote from: Tamas on October 06, 2009, 01:36:56 AM
"Dear Hungarian voter, would you like to be fucked in the ass with a burning hot crowbar? Twice? Mark your choice"
Hehe. Next time try not to have a Communist Revolution when Red Terror is gripping the hearts of the men deciding your national boundaries.
Quote from: Tamas on October 06, 2009, 01:36:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 28, 2009, 01:56:32 AM
The Treaty of Trianon was subject to a referendum. :D
"Dear Hungarian voter, would you like to be fucked in the ass with a burning hot crowbar? Twice? Mark your choice"
Fixed it for you ;)
Quote from: Zanza on October 06, 2009, 12:30:34 AM
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is very :tinfoil: about the EU and European institutions when you read his other articles.
The Telegraph is very :tinfoil:
So's the British public.
QuoteAn attitude which begs the question of why hold a formal referendum? If you're just going to treat it as a temporary blip, then why have you bothered with all the expense of setting one up in the first place? You might just as well have taken the result of an opinion poll from that day and declared it the result and saved yourself the money.
The Irish have to have a referendum on every treaty.
QuoteOn the other hand, if he does back out of a referendum, it will certainly lose the Tories more of their traditional supporters. Given even with the unpopularity of Brown the Tories are only on 36%, not in the 40s as history would have you expect, I don't see how this can be a good thing for long term party survival.
They've been in the 40s for most of 2008 and 2009 and they'll return their shortly:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
Quote from: Agelastus on October 06, 2009, 03:46:03 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 06, 2009, 12:21:34 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 05, 2009, 05:27:00 PM
the result of a referendum should be respected for a reasonable period of time (say 10 years.)
too long, lots changes in 10 years. the reslt of a referendum must and should be instantly challengeable by another referendum (or via other democratic means)
An attitude which begs the question of why hold a formal referendum? If you're just going to treat it as a temporary blip, then why have you bothered with all the expense of setting one up in the first place? You might just as well have taken the result of an opinion poll from that day and declared it the result and saved yourself the money.
You'd fit in at the European Commission just fine.
and what is a referendum else than an opinion poll taken on a particular day if you get really down to it?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 06, 2009, 12:58:56 PM
and what is a referendum else than an opinion poll taken on a particular day if you get really down to it?
Most referendums are binding in some way. Also, referendums are for everyone, whereas polls use samples of the population to draw trends. Operationally, you have to go looking for people to poll, whereas in a referendum they come to you.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:27:25 AM
Quote from: Zanza on October 06, 2009, 12:30:34 AM
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is very :tinfoil: about the EU and European institutions when you read his other articles.
The Telegraph is very :tinfoil:
So's the British public.
Nothing wrong with a bit of :tinfoil: in a good cause.
Actually, of course, while I can find plenty of rational reasons to dislike the EU (such as their own auditors being unable to sign off their accounts for 13 years) I am perfectly willing to admit that the root of my Euro-scepticism is purely emotional.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:27:25 AM
QuoteAn attitude which begs the question of why hold a formal referendum? If you're just going to treat it as a temporary blip, then why have you bothered with all the expense of setting one up in the first place? You might just as well have taken the result of an opinion poll from that day and declared it the result and saved yourself the money.
The Irish have to have a referendum on every treaty.
Because it affects their constitution...as I mentioned earlier in the thread... :P
Actually, I'll repeat that. I have a great deal of respect for the Irish Supreme Court for the Ruling that led to this situation. I could wish other countries with constitutions affected by these EU treaties were the same.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 06, 2009, 10:27:25 AM
QuoteOn the other hand, if he does back out of a referendum, it will certainly lose the Tories more of their traditional supporters. Given even with the unpopularity of Brown the Tories are only on 36%, not in the 40s as history would have you expect, I don't see how this can be a good thing for long term party survival.
They've been in the 40s for most of 2008 and 2009 and they'll return their shortly:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention
From a purely personal perspective, I am deathly afraid that Brown is hanging on long enough to pull the momentum out from under the Tories. After all, the situation of the Eighties (where it took less Tory votes to win a seat than it did Labour votes) has largely been reversed over the last two decades, as recent election results show. Not to mention the way the Liberal Democrats are squeezing in to Tory support.
Although the latter situation may be reversing, if the local elections are a guide; the Tories really do need to regain some of the seats the Libs have taken over the last three General Elections.
On the other hand, the Libs are still polling a good five points to high for comfort in that respect.
See, I'm a worrier... :)