EU treaty of Lisbon possibly to be vetoed by Ireland

[tinyp3nis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

[Harovan]

Originally posted by BeBro
Care to dig out some numbers that back up a view that voters of all EU members would make the same decision like the Irish?

He probably can't, because numbers about public EU acceptance aren't exactly eagerly published. I don't want to state, that all would be against, I don't have numbers either. However, isn't it strange, that when ever people are allowed to vote about it (Denmark, Netherlands, France and now Ireland), the answer is usually "No"? Four isn't a big enough sample to extrapolate for a community of 27, but it's a clear sign.

Denmark was a good example, how dear the eurocrats hold the will of their people. "We let you repeat the voting, until the result suits us", nice democracy. We'll see the same on federal state level in Hesse soon, just wait.

[BeBMan]

The argument that repeating a vote is somehow undemocratic is brought up every time, but it's quite silly.

First why would it be undemocratic to repeat a democratic vote? We hold elections all the time, and noone claims we should go with one government only and never vote again.

Second, if there's another referendum, the same people have to decide again. The result will either be the same, or not, but in both ways it's a democratic decision.

A referendum cannot mean that a certain issue cannot ever be brought up again. Democracy is a constant competition about getting majorities, and they can (and do often enough) change.

[Harovan]

Sorry, but your argument is equally silly. If the result suits the will of the government, the voting will never be repeated, ever. So much about "constant competition". Or can we please repeat the voting about the ISAF and OEF missions, until the majoirity is against?

For us, this question is hypothetical anyway. The German people will never be allowed to vote directly.

I won't comment on your try to compare normal constitutional recurring elections with repeating a referendum because the result is not to the government's liking.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Harovan
Sorry, but your argument is equally silly. If the result suits the will of the government, the voting will never be repeated, ever. So much about "constant competition".

The referendum in Ireland happened not because the gov wanted it, but because it is a requirement of their constitution, and the no-side seemed to be much more in favour of holding it than the gov. What would keep the no-side from drumming up support for a later referendum?

[Harovan]

Oh and by the way, of course the American constitution is of a higher quality than the German Basic Law. The Grundgesetz doesn't exist even sixty years and has been changed more than fifty times. The American constitution is about four times older, but has only 27 amendments. Both are democratic constitutions and hence, comparable.

If I have two cars and one is eight times more under repair than the other, the question about quality is an easy one.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by BeBro
The referendum in Ireland happened not because the gov wanted it, but because it is a requirement of their constitution, and the no-side seemed to be much more in favour of holding it than the gov. What would keep the no-side from drumming up support for a later referendum?

I was talking about the repetition of the Danish referendum, not the Irish. Do you believe, the Danish would have been also repeated, if the Danes had voted "Yes" in the first time?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Harovan


I was talking about the repetition of the Danish referendum, not the Irish. Do you believe, the Danish would have been also repeated, if the Danes had voted "Yes" in the first time?

It's not a question of belief for me, but of political mechanisms that are either in place or not. As I understand it, the sceptic side has two major directions, one that doesn't like the Lisbon thing in it's current form, and the other that doesn't like the EU at all. Both would actually be in a better position when accepting Lisbon, since it offers a lot more direct participation of European citizens via 'Bürgerinitiative' in all member countries (so for Ger as well) and also the option to leave the EU completely, which currently isn't possible.

[Harovan]

I'm not against a united Europe, but I am against the present EU. It has become too big too fast, and I believe it is irreparably damaged.

Let's start over, cut it back to customs union and EEC. Then start over with core Europe. France, Germany, Benelux for a start. The rest can of course stay in the free trade zone. Keep it lean and simple, give it a constitution that actually can be read and understood by the majority. Let all of course be legitimized by referenda, which isn't hard because the people aren't actually against a united Europe, they're just against the bureaucratic moloch of Brussels. As time goes by, and laws mature, let other countries join at their desire by adopting the law. If they don't want, they can stay in the free trade zone. If they want (and have asked their people), they're more than welcome.

The present EU-27 will never work, at least not within my lifetime.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by BeBro
...it offers a lot more direct participation of European citizens via 'Bürgerinitiative' in all member countries (so for Ger as well) and also the option to leave the EU completely, which currently isn't possible.

I may be wrong, but to my knowledge this demands at least one million participants from a "big enough number" of member countries (whatever that means). A million Germans couldn't do it.

Nah, that's more like a "Nebelkerze".

[BeBMan]

Getting a million supporters amongst far over 400 million guys doesn't strike me as too hard, esp. when you look at criticism towards the EU. It's certainly not the pov of people in only one country that the EU is for example too bureaucratic.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Harovan
Oh and by the way, of course the American constitution is of a higher quality than the German Basic Law. The Grundgesetz doesn't exist even sixty years and has been changed more than fifty times. The American constitution is about four times older, but has only 27 amendments. Both are democratic constitutions and hence, comparable.

If I have two cars and one is eight times more under repair than the other, the question about quality is an easy one.

How easy is it to change German Basic Law?

[Cort Haus]

Teh Irish

Once again, Sir Ralph speaks with wisdom and clarity on this subject.

Comparing the bureaucracy's insistence on repeating referenda until they get the answer they want with regular recurring elections is bizzare, and I find it scary that anyone can do that while still claiming to believe in democracy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Excellent job by the Irish.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Comparing the bureaucracy's insistence on repeating referenda until they get the answer they want with regular recurring elections is bizzare, and I find it scary that anyone can do that while still claiming to believe in democracy.

Yeah, sure, anyone who disagrees on the matter has a prob with democracy. Way to go, doesn't even need arguments.