The Lisbon Treaty

[Phoenix]

So I assume some of you have already heard; the Irish voted Yes on Lisbon, and now the only impediments for its implementation are the Czechs and the Polish, and if it goes on long enough, the British.

Now, I was reading the comments after the vote, and I was a bit surprised to see that the merits and failings of the Treaty weren't discussed so much as what many perceive is a growing "anti-democracy" attitude in the EU, and even verbal attacks on Ireland and the Irish, claiming they are traitors, Nazis, idiots, etc for not voting No a second time.

Do you think there are legitimate concerns over the Treaty, or is it just ultra-nationalism and isolationism? What do you think of the Treaty?

Treaty of Lisbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ventux]

I can see why some would prefer to stay out of that. Hasn't the EU been suffering economically, with certain countries having to bail out others?

 

[Phoenix]

Well, it's suffering economically in the sense that almost every country suffered economically during the recession, but isn't what you described the point of the EU? European cooperation, no?

 

[Ventux]

Well, it's suffering economically in the sense that almost every country suffered economically during the recession

Some countries did more than others, but since they all share the same currency, they all had to carry the burden.

but isn't what you described the point of the EU? European cooperation, no?

I suppose, but I can understand that some don't want to be part of it because of that.

 

[Phoenix]

But then, why join? There's benefits for all, of course, but some countries can clearly contribute more, and do. Why complain now? It clearly wasn't the cause of the recession, after all.

Some countries did more than others, but since they all share the same currency, they all had to carry the burden.

Well, not all of them. The UK, for example, still uses the pound.

 

[Ventux]

But then, why join? There's benefits for all, of course, but some countries can clearly contribute more, and do. Why complain now? It clearly wasn't the cause of the recession, after all.

They don't want further entanglements? The idea of having a stronger president of the European Council and parliament probably raised red flags for some people.

Well, not all of them. The UK, for example, still uses the pound.

Most of them use the euro, though. I guess it's more of a currency problem than the EU itself, but I bet it's used as a reason.

 

[Phoenix]

They don't want further entanglements? The idea of having a stronger president of the European Council and parliament probably raised red flags for some people.

Why would it? It's not as if their sovereignty is being threatened.

 

[Ventux]

Why would it? It's not as if their sovereignty is being threatened.

Diminishing, maybe?
I don't think so, personally, but it seems to me they might. More power to a centralized "government" equals less power to others, in the minds of a lot of people.

 

[Phoenix]

As far as I understand it, they just moved come of the power from the Commission to the Council, and established a President, plus are changing some of the decisions from unanimity to majority (since it's being difficult with 27 states). But the sovereignty isn't being touched at all. If it was, do you really think the 27 governments that have approved it would've done so?

 

[Ventux]

As far as I understand it, they just moved come of the power from the Commission to the Council, and established a President, plus are changing some of the decisions from unanimity to majority (since it's being difficult with 27 states). But the sovereignty isn't being touched at all. If it was, do you really think the 27 governments that have approved it would've done so?

More power to a centralized "government" equals less power to others, in the minds of a lot of people.

The sovereignty may not be necessarily affected, but the paranoia is there. I don't agree with them, but I can understand why there is opposition to the change, baseless or not.
It's just like with health insurance reform in the United States, there are some who genuinely oppose it because they do not want the federal government to have more power, even if it would help them, even if it would not in any way infringe on their rights.

 

[Phoenix]

So you would say that there aren't legitimate concerns over it and it's just stupid paranoia, right?

 

[Ventux]

I guess so, heh.
They could point out some supposed faults of the EU, but that would be a supplementary argument.

 

[Square Ninja]

world war II was fought over alliances and agreements

believe it or not, not all of the wounds have healed yet

 

[Phoenix]

It just seems that, at least from the comments that I read, didn't really know what's in the treaty and were just scared to death of European integration.

But, if what you say is true, why should they? It's not like this generation was alive for WW2. We might have heard old war stories from parents and grandparents, but this extent of paranoia shouldn't exist.

 

[Square Ninja]

It just seems that, at least from the comments that I read, didn't really know what's in the treaty and were just scared to death of European integration.

But, if what you say is true, why should they? It's not like this generation was alive for WW2. We might have heard old war stories from parents and grandparents, but this extent of paranoia shouldn't exist.

You'd be surprised.

 

[Firo]

Treaty weren't discussed so much as what many perceive is a growing "anti-democracy" attitude in the EU, and even verbal ttacks on Ireland and the Irish, claiming they are traitors, Nazis, idiots, etc for not voting No a second time.

I say. Fuck them.

 

[Mr. Wilhelm]

I have nothing against the treaty. The problem is that when a country vote No, they're forced to revote until they say yes. It's not my view of democracy. It's nice to point out the criticism that grew for them not voting No a second time, but the criticism they got for voting No the first time are just ridiculous. And how do you think more than 20% of them changed heir opinions just one year latter? Thanks to a fair election where both side were allowed to easilly say why voting Yes, and why voting No, or because those who were for Voting No were nearly stopped from saying their message? Yeah, very fair election.

France voted No the first time too. Surprise, when we saw peoples refused it, they used the assembly to make it go. In fact nearly all the country used their President/Assembly/Government to give a Yes to the treaty. They were all too scarred to ask people, justified when you see what happened in France despite 80% of the politics and 90% of TV/Media time claiming to say Yes.

Good treaty? Yes. Democratic Europe? The day where the leaders will dare asking peoples their opinions, I'll consider calling it democratic.

 

[Phoenix]

I have nothing against the treaty. The problem is that when a country vote No, they're forced to revote until they say yes. It's not my view of democracy. It's nice to point out the criticism that grew for them not voting No a second time, but the criticism they got for voting No the first time are just ridiculous. And how do you think more than 20% of them changed heir opinions just one year latter? Thanks to a fair election where both side were allowed to easilly say why voting Yes, and why voting No, or because those who were for Voting No were nearly stopped from saying their message? Yeah, very fair election.

That's disingenuous. Pretty much everyone knew that a second No would've spelled the death of the treaty. There wouldn't have been a third try.

The issues the Irish were concerned with were taxation, abortion and neutrality. These issues had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. They voted No in protest because they felt the government hadn't done a good job of explaining the Treaty to them.

France voted No the first time too. Surprise, when we saw peoples refused it, they used the assembly to make it go. In fact nearly all the country used their President/Assembly/Government to give a Yes to the treaty. They were all too scarred to ask people, justified when you see what happened in France despite 80% of the politics and 90% of TV/Media time claiming to say Yes.

When's the last time your government has passed a referendum on whether to declare war or not? Or a referendum on whether or not a Supreme Court decision should be upheld?

The reason governments don't put it to a vote is because they know voters didn't actually read the Treaty, and are just going to go "EU IS HITLER, VOTE NO".

Good treaty? Yes. Democratic Europe? The day where the leaders will dare asking peoples their opinions, I'll consider calling it democratic.

But it isn't like you live in Switzerland; you don't live in a direct democracy. You live in a representative democracy. You pick people to make decisions for you.

Relatedly, you actually think 1 country killing a Treaty after 26 countries ratified it is actually democratic?

You'd be surprised.

Not saying you're wrong, simply surprised how xenophobia is kept alive by something you didn't even live through.

 

[Mr. Wilhelm]

That's disingenuous. Pretty much everyone knew that a second No would've spelled the death of the treaty.

Probably. Too bad everyone knew before the vote what were the results though, since the treaty has never been seriously threatened by this second vote.

The issues the Irish were concerned with where taxation, abortion and neutrality. These issues had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. They voted No in protest because they felt the government hadn't done a good job of explaining the Treaty to them.

Doesn't change the unfairness of the vote. Who care why they voted no? Fact is everything has been done to manipulate their vote at the extreme the second time (although this is pretty much everywhere). In one year, pretty much nothing changed to justify them voting yes.

When's the last time your government has passed a referendum on whether to declare war or not? Or a referendum on whether or not a Supreme Court decision should be upheld?

Actually in France, some very important treaty on the Europe were voted through referendum. That is until people said no, what pretty much changed nothing. One more wonderful example of how 'representative' democracy makes think to peoples they have powers when they don't.

The reason governments don't put it to a vote is because they know voters didn't actually read the Treaty, and are just going to go "EU IS HITLER, VOTE NO".

This is an extremely biased view. Actually no one of those who asked to vote No take stupid argument like that. You should try to listen what they say and not push everything aside in block. I myself disagree with them, but the fears of peoples and the flaw of this text are reals. Peoples who are against it arent just a bunch of "Lolz, Europe sucKs cuz of the Euro!!!1! Everything's moar expansive since THEN!!".

You're not Switzerland; you don't live in a direct democracy. You live in a representative democracy. You pick people to make decisions for you.

Just because our system is flawed means that we're gotta agree and calls democratic everything those elected do. You seem to consider normal that after french people said massively no, government said Yes anyway, or normal that after the irish voted no, they're given a second vote where medias decided their vote in before. I don't. At least dictatorship makes it clear that what peoples want doesn't matter.

Relatedly, you actually think 1 country killing a Treaty after 26 countries ratified it is actually democratic?

Would this treaty have been done in asking peoples their opinions, I'd say it's not democratic. But a treaty where all governments avoided to ask peoples their opinions, because the knew out of the 400 millions European more than half would have said no? One country stopping it isn't much more anti democratic than what happened.

 

[Phoenix]

Probably. Too bad everyone knew before the vote what were the results though, since the treaty has never been seriously threatened by this second vote.

Not really sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

Doesn't change the unfairness of the vote. Who care why they voted no? Fact is everything has been done to manipulate their vote at the extreme the second time (although this is pretty much everywhere). In one year, pretty much nothing changed to justify them voting yes.

Besides the legally binding assurances that the specific issues they were concerned with aren't being touched by the Treaty? You're half right, the No campaign was using anger, the Yes campaign was using fear. The recession hit Ireland pretty bad, and in this time, they don't really want to alienate the rest of Europe since they depend on the EU.

Actually in France, some very important treaty on the Europe were voted through referendum. That is until people said no, what pretty much changed nothing. One more wonderful example of how 'representative' democracy makes think to peoples they have powers when they don't.

Referendum or opinion poll? There's a difference.

Be that as it may, you're not really addressing my point. The entire country could disagree with a Supreme Court decision, so what? It's not up for opinion.

Also you are aware that, by law, such a minute change to the law didn't require a referendum, right? The only country where it did was Ireland.

This is an extremely biased view. Actually no one of those who asked to vote No take stupid argument like that. You should try to listen what they say and not push everything aside in block. I myself disagree with them, but the fears of peoples and the flaw of this text are reals. Peoples who are against it arent just a bunch of "Lolz, Europe sucKs cuz of the Euro!!!1! Everything's moar expansive since THEN!!".

Oh, that comment was not about Ireland. It's more directed at Britian's eurosceptism. My point is that the reason governments don't put it to a referendum is because there's a large group people that are against an unified Europe for reasons other than smart ones, and the governments don't want to run the risk.

Just because our system is flawed means that we're gotta agree and calls democratic everything those elected do. You seem to consider normal that after french people said massively no, government said Yes anyway, or normal that after the irish voted no, they're given a second vote where medias decided their vote in before. I don't. At least dictatorship makes it clear that what peoples want doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what Treaty you're referring to, just keep in mind it has to be a legally binding referendum and not just an opinion poll.

Again, you must really hate every government apart from Switzerland's, since things like streamlining an organization's enlargement are usually never put to vote. Should slavery have been put to vote? Women's rights? Balls no. Is it undemocratic for a government to illegalize slavery without consulting a referendum?

In regards to direct democracy, no thank you. Switzerland lacks a complete separation of church and state because the majority voted against it. I think I'll keep my representative democracy.