Counting down - Yes or No to the Lisbon Treaty

[Giz]

Only a few hours to go until the Irish get their second vote, looking like this time they will vote "yes".

If the Irish do vote "yes" then only the Czech Republic (or possibly maybe but not too likely the Tories) will be left in opposition...


Amusing quote:

"Prime Minister Brian Cowen - who has warned that another rejection would marginalise Ireland in Europe - was cautiously optimistic.

"The people's decision is sovereign and of course that will be the case but I'm hopeful that in the context of today... we'll have a good outcome," he said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8288181.stm


(I guess the people are only sovereign if they vote the right way)

 

[Uzzy]

The peoples decision is sovereign when they actually get one, too. Otherwise it's up to our Political Lords and Masters to move us all closer to a Federal Europe.

 

[Skeptic]

We are only having this second referendum because the peasants Irish didn't vote the correct way the first time.

If they get it wrong again, there will be a third referendum... and a fourth... and a fifth... until they vote the way their true lords and masters, the bureaucrats in Brussels, want them to vote, namely, "yes".

Then, of course, there will be no more referendums, and the "yes" result will stand forever, because, you know, "the people have spoken".

 

[Undesired Walrus]

We are only having this second referendum because the peasants Irish didn't vote the correct way the first time.

If they get it wrong again, there will be a third referendum... and a fourth... and a fifth...

There wouldn't be. The EU wouldn't survive another 'No' vote.

 

[Uzzy]

Seems like it's approved. Oh well.

The EU would probably be a very good institution, if it was actually democratic.

 

[DC]

Seems like it's approved. Oh well.

The EU would probably be a very good institution, if it was actually democratic.

very true

 

[INRM]

Personally, if Ireland doesn't want to be a part of the E.U. they should be allowed to have out. If the Czech Republic wants out, they should have out.

This is not reasonable that if they vote no, they'll just keep having referendum after referendum until they vote yes. That's not democratic at all. That's just an illusion of democracy.

This all seems to be the desire to move the E.U. towards a Federalized Europe, in which The E.U. has the role of the sovereign nation and the nations of the E.U. are essentially the states.


Uzzy,

The EU would probably be a very good institution, if it was actually democratic.

To the best of my knowledge, even the creation of the E.U. was not exactly done in the most democratic fashion.


INRM

 

[Giz]

Ah well. I was hoping for a no but know the people have spoken (again).

Puts Cameron in a tricky position:


From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8285828.stm
---------
If the treaty is rejected in Dublin the Conservative course is simple: they will go into the general election promising to hold their own vote on British ratification.

But if it is accepted by the Irish, things become trickier. A "yes" vote could mean the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by all member states by the time of the British general election.

If that were the case, the Conservative policy is not to let "matters rest there".

David Cameron has said: "If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum.

"We will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a 'no'.

"Now, if those circumstances change, if the Germans ratify, if the Poles ratify, if the Czechs ratify, if the Irish vote yes to the treaty, then a new set of circumstances [apply] and I will address those at the time."
-------------

It will be interesting to see how this pans out!

 

[catsmate]

The rejection of the previous referendum on ratification of the Lisbon treaty had SFA to do with the EU. It was rejected for to main reasons:
1. a well funded and active campaign, reliant heavily on lies and distortions, to oppose the treaty, in contrast to a lacklustre pro-ratification campaign

2. domestic political issues and an unpopular government

Support for the EU remains very high in Ireland, amongst the highest in Europe.

 

[Debaser]

There wouldn't be. The EU wouldn't survive another 'No' vote.

Whoa there big fella! Thats a mighty strong claim for what is/was supposed to be a 'tidying up exercise'.




Do you think we can now look forward to President Blair? Or does President of Europe rank below Messiah?

Lord, and I always thought Presidents Thatcher and Kinnock were the best arguments for keeping a monarchy.

 

[ddt]

We are only having this second referendum because the peasants Irish didn't vote the correct way the first time.

If they get it wrong again, there will be a third referendum... and a fourth... and a fifth... until they vote the way their true lords and masters, the bureaucrats in Brussels, want them to vote, namely, "yes".

Then, of course, there will be no more referendums, and the "yes" result will stand forever, because, you know, "the people have spoken".

Or to put it in Bertolt Brecht's (translated) words:

Some party hack decreed that the people
had lost the government's confidence
and could only regain it with redoubled effort.
If that is the case, would it not be be simpler,
If the government simply dissolved the people
And elected another?

Written after the workers' rebellion of 1953 in the GDR.

But oh well, the Irish have voted in favour so the point is moot. My government in its infinite wisdom decided not to have a second referendum after the people had rejected the "Constitution" the first time.

Seems like it's approved. Oh well.

The EU would probably be a very good institution, if it was actually democratic.

Basically my point for voting against the "Constitution" a couple of years ago. The democratic improvements w.r.t. the previous treaties were marginal. I don't have the impression that the Lisbon Treaty is any better in that.

very true

Said the Swiss who, through the EFTA, is bound to various EU decisions but has no voice in it.

 

[DC]

....


Said the Swiss who, through the EFTA, is bound to various EU decisions but has no voice in it.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Lord, and I always thought Presidents Thatcher and Kinnock were the best arguments for keeping a monarchy.

Under a Republic, the President would have as much power as the Irish or Israeli President have (Little to none). The role and power of the PM would remain essentially the same, and we wouldn't be appointing Humans to royalty simply because of an accident of birth.

Cameron was having a hard time on Marr today. There didn't seem to be a clear explanation of what the hell he would do about the referendum if the treaty was ratified before then.

 

[Debaser]

Under a Republic, the President would have as much power as the Irish or Israeli President have (Little to none). The role and power of the PM would remain essentially the same, and we wouldn't be appointing Humans to royalty simply because of an accident of birth.

Fantastic, another sinecure for a failed (but high profile) politician then.

Three cheers for President Mandelson.




(I have heard the argument that since the position would be essentially ceremonial it would be open to anyone, e.g. we could in theory have a President Beckham (D or V), however this completely ignores the fact that this is Britain. Anything that can be done to allow ex-politicos, their friends or relatives to make a buck will be done. With the best of intentions it will be carved up by the three parties, shared out on a rota basis, like a super-Lord Mayor).