NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems like governments of EU countries are afraid of their own citizens.
It sure seems strange for such "super democratic" organization to try to avoid the opinion of their own citizens (only Ireland and only because they HAVE TO (if they did not have to, you can bet they would not organise a referendum)).
Treaty would affect lives of ordinary citizens in many ways, but they simply cannot voice their opinions. And when countries joined NATO how many referendums held place? (I mean years 1999 and 2004)

Citizens in EU are like fifth wheel of cart, needed only before elections, than to be discarded (their opinions).


From Wikipedia about ratification of Treaty of Lisbon

Under a timetable envisioned by Germany and agreed by the June 2007 summit, all member states will use the mandate agreed at the June 2007 summit as the basis for negotiations on a new Treaty, which should be finished by the end of the year and ratified in all member states the end of 2008, entering into force on 1 January 2009 ahead of the next European elections. Most states are likely to try to avoid having a referendum on the treaty – with only Ireland obliged to (due to its constitution) – and will aim to ratify it by their national parliaments. In Denmark, there were calls to hold a referendum on the treaty.[32][33] A neutral commission decided against a referendum being held. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced on 2007-12-11 that he would not submit the treaty to a referendum,[34] which MPs confirmed on the same day.[35] In Scotland the Scottish Government has suggested it may hold a consultative referendum on the treaty; it is unclear whether such a referendum is intended to have any legal effect however, as foreign policy falls outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The small town of Crigglestone, West Yorkshire, will hold a local referendum on the issue under the Local Government Act, which will be funded by the Wakefield-based Conservative parliamentary candidate Alex Story.[36]

In the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom considerations over whether to hold referendums were made. In all cases, the governments decided to ratify the treaty through parliament. In the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the parliament could force a referendum against the government's decision; however, this is considered unlikely, as anti-referendum parties hold majorities.[37][38] The Czech Republic voted on 30 October 2007 to ratify the treaty through the parliamentary route, and not via a referendum; the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia and three rebel MPs from the ruling Civic Democratic Party were the only ones to vote in favour of a referendum.[39]

In Portugal, Prime Minister José Sócrates pledged to hold a referendum on the European Constitution and faces calls to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty, as well; however, all parties except the Left Bloc are hesitant to do so, fearing a knock-on effect causing other states to hold a referendum, as well. Sócrates, while avoiding making a clear statement on the issue in 2007, had stated he would announce his decision after the formal signing of the treaty on 13 December 2007.[40] He stated on 2008-01-09 to the national parliament that the treaty would be ratified without a referendum.[41]

Hungary was the first member state of the EU which ratified the Treaty of Lisbon. The National Assembly of Hungary (Országgyűlés) ratificated the Treaty on 17 December 2007. 325 MPs of the total 386 voted with yes to ratify the reform treaty, 5 voted against.[42] +Slovenia, Malta etc.

I have to vote on this thing at some point in the future, someone tell me what it's about.

I have to vote on this thing at some point in the future, someone tell me what it's about.

No idea... I've heard so many totally different things, sometimes from within the same party, it left me utterly confused.
I'll have to go read it, but I don't know where I'll find the time for that.

No referendum? WOW!!

No idea... I've heard so many totally different things, sometimes from within the same party, it left me utterly confused.
I'll have to go read it, but I don't know where I'll find the time for that.

I looked at the wiki article, but all I learned is that this treaty is really an ammendment to a bunch of other treaties. So to properly understand it, I'm going to have to read up on those other treaties, and this one.


Man, this is going to be Nice all over again, when it comes time to vote, nobody will have a clue what's going on.

I have to vote on this thing at some point in the future, someone tell me what it's about.

It's basically the same document as the 'European Constitution' that the French and the Dutch rejected via referenda a couple of years ago, they've just changed the name and rearranged the order of the clauses so that they could try to pretend it's a different deal. The only clauses dropped during the changes were the ones establishing the EU's flag and anthem as "official", and as both of those symbols have been in use for years even without any legal backing that omission is purely a cosmetic gesture (and somebody in the German government has suggested reinstating those clauses, too, anyway).
Angela Merkel admits that it's the same agreement, Sarkozy agrees, Valerie Giscard d'Estaing -- who led the team that drafted the constitution -- agrees, the government of Portugal agrees, Bertie Ahern agrees, about the only people still trying to insist that it's a lot weaker than the former document are the British government and that's because they promised a referendum on the Constitution (in their manifesto at the last General Election) and know that if they held one now on the Treaty they'd lose... and they really don't want to create a precdent for the people voting against them...
Okay, and so on to (some of) what it does...

It gives the EU its own 'legal identity', which (amongst other things) would allow the EU's central leadership to sign treaties that would then be binding on all the member-nations.
The role of 'President of the EU' would go from being just the rotating chairmanship of the Council of Ministers to being a full-time job in its own right, although I don't recall what powers would actually be involved.
The EU's central govenment would get its own Foreign Minister (camouflaged under the title of 'Special Representative', when last I heard), with a diplomatic service that would start to replace the separate national ones, and the right to establish a "European" foreign policy that the member-nations would have to support.
The range of fields in which EU legislation could over-ride national laws would be extended even further, and decisions in significantly more fields would be subject to 'qualified majority' voting instead of requiring unanimity in the Council of Ministers (so that it would be even easier for the larger nations to over-ride the wishes of the smaller ones).
Oh, and one clause would give the Council of Ministers the power to make any further changes they considered necessary in the interest of unification henceforth without ever needing to get those decisions ratifiied by their national parliaments -- or, in referenda, by their peoples -- again.

As you can probably guess, I'm against it.

No referendum? WOW!!
Well, we never had a treaty on Maastrict, Amsterdam, Rome or Nice, so it's not as if its without precedent. Nobody wants a referendum on the Lisbon treaty either. The 'referendum' crowd want to the the treaty rejected, and the 'ratify' crowd obviously want it ratified. If there was consistant support for ratfication in the polls, the referendum crowd would be much more muted than they are now.

Man, this is going to be Nice all over again, when it comes time to vote, nobody will have a clue what's going on.
One of the reasons why referenda are a shite way of deciding anything anyway.

Well, we never had a treaty on Maastrict, Amsterdam, Rome or Nice, so it's not as if its without precedent. Nobody wants a referendum on the Lisbon treaty either. The 'referendum' crowd want to the the treaty rejected, and the 'ratify' crowd obviously want it ratified. If there was consistant support for ratfication in the polls, the referendum crowd would be much more muted than they are now.

Maybe that should tell the ratifiers something eh?

I have to vote on this thing at some point in the future

Don't bet on it

One of the reasons why referenda are a shite way of deciding anything anyway.

If its informative then its the best way to do something. The problem is, the treaty is encompassing way to much for it to be understood.

One of the reasons why referenda are a shite way of deciding anything anyway.
How's that then?
Don't bet on it

Why not? I'm Irish and we have to have a referendum if we're going to ratify it, and we have to ratify it if it's going to go though.

If its informative then its the best way to do something. The problem is, the treaty is encompassing way to much for it to be understood.
If there's a political culture where people are used to and frequently partake in referenda, it's a good idea. The Uk doesn't have this, so I don't see having a politically charged referendum as a good idea, especially on a 300 page treaty.

How's that then?
Well, we haven't had one in the UK since the seventies. We just don't have a political culture where we look at proposed legislation objectively and vote upon it. Any refrendum would be decided by the press, not by the electorate. I'd like a system of direct democracy, but this isn't the place for it.

Maybe that should tell the ratifiers something eh?
What? Since when did polls dictate what government does and doesn't do?

The EU's central govenment would get its own Foreign Minister (camouflaged under the title of 'Special Representative', when last I heard),

I correct myself on this point: 'High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy'...

I'm Irish and we have to have a referendum if we're going to ratify it, and we have to ratify it if it's going to go though.
And if you don't ratify it then you'll be told to go back and vote again (just as the Danes were told to do over the Maastricht treaty), as many times as necessary, until you give them the 'right' answer...

Well, we haven't had one in the UK since the seventies. We just don't have a political culture where we look at proposed legislation objectively and vote upon it. Any refrendum would be decided by the press, not by the electorate. I'd like a system of direct democracy, but this isn't the place for it.The Scots and the Welsh were given referenda over devolution, the peoples of London and various other cities were given referenda over whether to have directly-elected Mayors, the people of North-Eastern England were given a referendum over whether or not they'd have a Regional Assembly: Considering that this treaty would be of even greater constitutional importance than any of those decisions, holding a referendum on it seems perfectly reasonable to me... and as this treaty is basically the same as the European Constitution, and we were promised a referendum on that (before the Dutch & French votes against stopped it temporarily), we are entitled to one.

Why do we have referenda anyways if people are happy with way how their politicians rule country and their lives? I thought that politicians should not just meet and agree to something behind backs of people, but... Well, maybe average citizen is too "dumb" to understand what is about, so just leave it to politicians. I wonder how EU wants to encourage political activity of citizents :confused:

Could we call this approach of EU "democratic" ?

Why do we have referenda anyways if people are happy with way how their politicians rule country and their lives? I thought that politicians should not just meet and agree to something behind backs of people, but... Well, maybe average citizen is too "dumb" to understand what is about, so just leave it to politicians. I wonder how EU wants to encourage political activity of citizents :confused:

Could we call this approach of EU "democratic" ?
The contents of the Treaty, and the Constitution it was based on, are both public and were drafted in public. They will be ratified by the elected legislatures of each member state and by the public in Ireland. This is no different to every other EU treaty, and I fail to understand what is either undemocratic or 'behind the back of the people' about it.

Why do we have referenda anyways if people are happy with way how their politicians rule country and their lives? Depends on the issue.
I thought that politicians should not just meet and agree to something behind backs of people, but... Well, maybe average citizen is too "dumb" to understand what is about, so just leave it to politicians.The average European is actually quite dumb, as are most average citizens. It's pretty sad, really.
I wonder how EU wants to encourage political activity of citizents :confused:

Could we call this approach of EU "democratic" ?It is democratic, in a way. Unless of course the individual governments that ratify without referenda came to power undemocratically.

Why do we have referenda anyways if people are happy with way how their politicians rule country and their lives? I thought that politicians should not just meet and agree to something behind backs of people, but... Well, maybe average citizen is too "dumb" to understand what is about, so just leave it to politicians. I wonder how EU wants to encourage political activity of citizents :confused:

Could we call this approach of EU "democratic" ?

Who says that people are happy about how the politicians are running the country? If you can say "Why do we have referenda", couldn't you just as easily say "Why do we have elections"?

The contents of the Treaty, and the Constitution it was based on, are both public and were drafted in public. They will be ratified by the elected legislatures of each member state and by the public in Ireland. This is no different to every other EU treaty, and I fail to understand what is either undemocratic or 'behind the back of the people' about it.
Apart from anything else, the facts that we were promised a referendum on the European Constitution and that this document is really just that constitution under a new name means that trying to push it through without a referendum is going "behind the back of the people": They PROMISED, damn'it, and I'm old-fashioned enough to think that governments should be morally obliged to KEEP their promises...

Who says that people are happy about how the politicians are running the country? If you can say "Why do we have referenda", couldn't you just as easily say "Why do we have elections"?


No. Of course not, don't be silly.

What? Since when did polls dictate what government does and doesn't do?

Worked for Bill Clinton :D

No idea... I've heard so many totally different things, sometimes from within the same party, it left me utterly confused.
I'll have to go read it, but I don't know where I'll find the time for that.

You can't, unless you have access to a law library (I don't think most of the information is available online). The 'treaty' is mostly written in the format "Insert [clause] into [page 5, paragraph 7ii] after the word '[word] in [obscure document]", making it almost impossible to read.

Cynics (and realists) might suspect that it's been done deliberately to deter people from finding out what it says.

And if you don't ratify it then you'll be told to go back and vote again (just as the Danes were told to do over the Maastricht treaty), as many times as necessary, until you give them the 'right' answer...

I think we had to vote on Nice twice. We got a good process of elimination thing going on.

"No"
"Eh, try that again"
"Hmmm.......yes?"
"Good job!"

The Scots and the Welsh were given referenda over devolution, the peoples of London and various other cities were given referenda over whether to have directly-elected Mayors, the people of North-Eastern England were given a referendum over whether or not they'd have a Regional Assembly: Considering that this treaty would be of even greater constitutional importance than any of those decisions, holding a referendum on it seems perfectly reasonable to me...
It's exactly because the devolution and directly elected mayors weren't thought to have the same importance that a referendum was given. Neither the Scottish or Welsh independence referenda actually contained any specifics, other than a vague 'do you want it', and the legislation establishing them was drafted after the referendum itself. Kind of like in the same way that legislation changing the EU is created and passed after the referendum joining it.

and as this treaty is basically the same as the European Constitution, and we were promised a referendum on that (before the Dutch & French votes against stopped it temporarily), we are entitled to one.
And I'll vote against that government at the next election, just like I would if they break any other number of promises.

The contents of the Treaty, and the Constitution it was based on, are both public and were drafted in public.

Yes, but in typical EU fashion it has been so overcomplicated, the actual substance is well and truly obfuscated to the average citizen.

Kind of like in the same way that legislation changing the EU is created and passed after the referendum joining it.

Referendum joining the EEC, actually. The European Economic Community - quite different to the European Union. And I'll take the liberty of pointing out that many of the population who were not around in the 70's (eg. myself) had no say in such a referendum. It's as much my future as anyone elses.


And I'll vote against that government at the next election, just like I would if they break any other number of promises.


And what if they "promise" something that you can't possibly resist? And what about everyone else - it's quite clear that in two or three years time the press won't be prattling on about this or any other broken promises on the part of the government. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was Cameron's latest hairstyle people were voting on in the next general.

Apart from anything else, the facts that we were promised a referendum on the European Constitution and that this document is really just that constitution under a new name means that trying to push it through without a referendum is going "behind the back of the people": They PROMISED, damn'it, and I'm old-fashioned enough to think that governments should be morally obliged to KEEP their promises...
That's a different point entirely, and isn't a trump card you can play at any point in a discussion on the EU. Like I said, I'll vote against that government for breaking that promise. Like I said, this legislation has been drafted in public, will be ratified (assuming there isn't a referendum) in public just like every other treaty with every other country. It's no more or less open than anything else.

And if you don't ratify it then you'll be told to go back and vote again (just as the Danes were told to do over the Maastricht treaty), as many times as necessary, until you give them the 'right' answer...
Then why are you so bothered about it?

Then why are you so bothered about it?
Because if more than one country gets to vote against the treaty then it would be harder for the eurocrats to pull that trick again...

I have to vote on this thing at some point in the future, someone tell me what it's about.
Ditto.

No idea... I've heard so many totally different things, sometimes from within the same party, it left me utterly confused.
I'll have to go read it, but I don't know where I'll find the time for that.
Ditto.


Man, this is going to be Nice all over again, when it comes time to vote, nobody will have a clue what's going on.

And soooooo ditto.

Although in fairness to Nice, that was more of a reaction to the govt domestic policies at the time. Ireland was, and still is, one of the most pro-European Union states.

Ditto.


Ditto.



And soooooo ditto.

Although in fairness to Nice, that was more of a reaction to the govt domestic policies at the time. Ireland was, and still is, one of the most pro-European Union states.

We like them cos they gave us lots of money.

Because if more than one country gets to vote against the treaty then it would be harder for the eurocrats to pull that trick again...
Uh huh. So much for wanting a referendum for 'democracy'.

You can't, unless you have access to a law library (I don't think most of the information is available online). The 'treaty' is mostly written in the format "Insert [clause] into [page 5, paragraph 7ii] after the word '[word] in [obscure document]", making it almost impossible to read.

Cynics (and realists) might suspect that it's been done deliberately to deter people from finding out what it says.

Well, no. Ireland (as has been said) has to have a referendum - so the text has to be published.

The Referendum Commission exists "to explain the subject matter of referendum proposals, to promote public awareness of the referendum and to encourage the electorate to vote at the poll." They'll publish enough of it in a synopsis to educate people.