EU treaty of Lisbon possibly to be vetoed by Ireland

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is why they try as hard as they can to avoid referenda?

The EU treaties are garbage, if they were really supported by the people, then all of europe would vote on them, piece by piece. That would be democracy.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Whoha
How easy is it to change German Basic Law?

Takes a 2/3 majority of the parliament.

[Will9]

Compared to the the US Constitution which is 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress (there is another method using a Constitutional Convention, but it has never been used) plus ratifcation in 3/4 of the state's legislatures (or in special state conventions; state conventions only used once.) Although only 33 amendments have been passed in Congress, meaning that only 6 have failed ratification in the states.

[Ecthy]

Just to be complete, it's 2/3 majority in both chambers in Germany as well. Move on.

[Panag]

the EU should move on without ireland , and they should cancel the money they give them also , to much farm subsidies , and then they say thanks

if only the EU would move faster on an economical course , they should be able to do way more then the rest of the world in a united europa

[Hercules]

Originally posted by Panag
to much farm subsidies , and

if only the EU would move faster on an economical course ,

Most parts of Europe benefit more than Ireland does: Olives Sunflower. Grapes, I think

[Panag]

Originally posted by Hercules


Most parts of Europe benefit more than Ireland does: Olives Sunflower. Grapes, I think

they can do so much more !

look at defense for example , the EU has 2.8 times more money on it then the US , yet they cant even do 0.4 of what uncle sam does , ....

the same on the economical level , invest gives returns , and they just dont do it enough , ....

[Harovan]

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

Let's look at it a bit closer, in 2 variants.

First variant, the people vote NO in the first place. The government does not accept this result and puts the same question up another time one year later. This time, the people vote YES and the treaty is ratified.

Second variant, the people vote YES in the first place. The government got what it wants, and there will be no second referendum (even when the public opinion has moved the other way a year later).

Even a staunch supporter of "parliamentary democracy" (is that something like "managed democracy" in Russia?) should notice, that this is somewhat rigged.

Your argument, that the "no side" can always drum up support for a second referendum, is also moot. In this, like in many other cases, the "no side" consists of largely activist organizations (such like ATTAC) who simply lack the money for endless runs, while the government has unlimited money from the taxpayer (and hence, from the no-side as well).

Do you believe, democracy should be a matter of money?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Harovan
Let's look at it a bit closer, in 2 variants.

First variant, the people vote NO in the first place. The government does not accept this result and puts the same question up another time one year later. This time, the people vote YES and the treaty is ratified.

Second variant, the people vote YES in the first place. The government got what it wants, and there will be no second referendum (even when the public opinion has moved the other way a year later).

It all depends on the circumstances. My basic point is not that Ireland should repeat the vote right now (I'd find that absurd since nothing has changed so far), but that in general it is as absurd to say in a democracy you can decide on an issue once, and then never again, regardless how majorities might develop on the matter (and in this basic point there is a similarity between popular votes in a referendum IMO and regular elections, because it's the same core problem).

If there will be ever another try after a "yes" I don't know, but I personally would not complain then. For example if they include an option to leave the EU completely in the Lisbon treaty then there has to be some procedure for this.

Your argument, that the "no side" can always drum up support for a second referendum, is also moot. In this, like in many other cases, the "no side" consists of largely activist organizations (such like ATTAC) who simply lack the money for endless runs, while the government has unlimited money from the taxpayer (and hence, from the no-side as well).

Do you believe, democracy should be a matter of money?

The referendum in Ireland, as well as others before show that it's hardly a question of (gov-)money. Otherwise I can't see how the no-side could drive such a thing home like they just did, because a gov has always access to more money, regardless if it's the first or the second or whatever try.

We had other cases where there was a second no vote in various decisions, for example in Norway about EWG membership, though the interval was over ten years IIRC and in Switzerland about the EWR (with less then ten years between the two votes). Denmark had a no to Maastricht because they didn't want the Euro, then one year later a yes after they were given the option to stay out of the currency and some years later another no the Euro issue alone, which didn't seem to hurt the no-side (financially) as well. And if a gov can spend unlimited amounts in praxis on a campaign is actually doubtful, since there's usually a budget, and a gov taking all tax money for a certain pet-issue would IMO hardly survive long, esp. if you think the majority of people actually would be pro-no.

[Harovan]

I would approve a new voting ten years after the issue, or if really significant changes were made (beyond cosmetic ones).

But for this treaty, after it already got denied in the Netherlands and France (still called "constitution") then, it was already impertinent to bring it up again (renamed "treaty") and to ratify it without a new referendum.

As for money, believe me the government will always have the longer breath than some non-profit dudes.