The EU is in turmoil over Ireland's recent rejection of the Lisbon treaty. This is the revamped treaty that followed the rejection of the previous treaty by France and the Netherlands. It seems every time the people get a say in the matter, the EU goes down to humiliating defeat. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but does this make the EU 0 for 3 on referendums?
mad i dont know if this is the case for irland but in australia refernums are usually rejected. This is because you need a majority of people in a majority of states rather than just a true popular majority. this is why so much that would be better in the consitution is in statutes insted because both pollies and the people at large know there is little point in having a referendum because they simply dont pass
Well, this was a simple majority and it failed to pass. This is significant because the Lisbon treaty must be passed by all 27 members of the EU or it doesn't go into affect.
i did have to wonder when i herd about it on the radio, why bother at all if it has to be done by referedum The chances of getting a majority in each of 27 countries to agree that the earth is round is astronomical. Its way to easy to run a scare campaine against changing the constitution for any reason. Look at what the no side were runing in the republican debate. Idiot things like "we would have to leave the commonwealth if we became a republic" but the uneducated masses lap it up
Not all the EU countries require a referendum. Ireland may be the only one that does, I'm not really sure. But, in any case, the whole treaty is scuttled as of now.
mad you didnt read your own artical did youPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! there have to be AT LEAST three because the last treatie was dumped by france and the nethlandsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That was a different treaty. I don't know if this version will be subjected to a referendum in France and the Netherlands this time around. I'd bet they'll try to avoid that so as to avoid the chance of a defeat.
I havent seen such a downplay in media in long time, there hasent been hardly any coverage about that, not before and not after. News here in Finland has been the same old and even in politics only Timo Soini did mention that something like...its unbelievable how here in politics nobody talks the most important voting in EUs history and hardly any debating on that issue, just that same old.... COMMENTARY: Fear and loathing in the House of Parliament COMMENTARY: Fear and loathing in the House of Parliament print this By Miska Rantanen Strange things can be heard in the marble-lined hallways of the House of Parliament in Helsinki. The atmosphere, which is usually so congenial, has suddenly turned sour in a period of about six months. There may be suspicion in the air, and possibly even slight paranoia, as Members of Parliament ponder who has blown the whistle on whom, and to what media, or who has received money, how much, and why. The change began early in the year, when Helsingin Sanomat published a story on sexual harassment in Parliament. Although the story spawned reprimands from the Council for Mass Media in Finland, the case left its mark on everyday life in the building. Suddenly there seemed to be eyes that see and ears that hear all over the place. Just as the groping scandal and its aftershocks began to fade away, came the text message saga that sank Foreign Minister Ilkka Kanerva (Nat. Coalition Party). The media and the public at large were again given the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of politicians and to ponder the differences in the public and private roles of high-level decision makers. The most recent nail in the coffin has been the campaign funding mess, whose penetrating roots have surprised all sides. Questionable sources of election campaign funding have become a cornucopia for journalists, providing a never-ending source of material. Politicians have done their best to help in this with evasions and half-truths, for which they have been immediately caught. The guidebook of crisis communications has been left to gather dust with everyone, except Timo Kalli (Centre), who has been left alone after admitting to having screwed up. The campaign funding mess has not only pitted parties against each other: all groups have skeletons of some kind in their closets, and the affair is inflaming relations within the parties. Discord has emerged especially in the groups of the Centre Party and the Left Alliance. Fairly large sacks of euros have been distributed, but the distribution has been far from equal. There are questions in both camps about who decided on who would get the money and how much. In the Centre Party, fingers are pointed at Party Secretary Jarmo Korhonen who, according to the latest information, has cleared out his room at party headquarters and vanished. The Centre Party Congress next weekend will offer first-class political entertainment when the Party Secretary, Members of Parliament, and the rank-and-file all meet. In the Left Alliance, umbrage has been taken by young activists, as the support from Ohjelmatyö ry benefited older and more established names. When [the leftist newspaper] Kansan Uutiset sought to assure its readers in its editorial last Tuesday that the coordination of the election subsidies through the association will withstand the light of day, Left Alliance party executive member Mirka Mulkonen, 33, the chairwoman of the party’s local organisation in Turku, wrote dismissively in her blog: “Yeah, right. How damn stupid do you think we are?” Nobody knows how long the controversy surrounding the election money will continue. No immediate relief is in store as long as there are new revelations coming out. Members of Parliament can expect an unpleasant and tense summer holiday. Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 7.6.2008 Nice example how the elite steers the media and how the politicians play along, our congress vote for yes, 125 - 39 and with hardly any debate and no news coverage. Funny thing is that EU minister of european affairs (or something like that) comments that "now Ireland hasnt any other choice than set a new vote for it. ! . Keep them voting until they say yes, lol. No voting in other countrys, yes, we have well steered democracy... Ireland rejects EU reform treaty Voters in the Irish Republic have rejected the European Union's Lisbon treaty in a vote by 53.4% to 46.6%. The poll is a major blow to leaders in the 27-nation EU, which requires all its members to ratify the treaty. Only Ireland has held a public vote. The European Commission says nations should continue to ratify the treaty, designed to streamline decision-making. Irish PM Brian Cowen said he respected the vote but it had caused a "difficult situation" that had "no quick fix". Leaders of the No campaign said the vote was a "great result for Ireland". An earlier, more wide-ranging EU draft constitution failed after French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005. 'Uncharted territory' The Irish No campaign won by 862,415 votes to 752,451. Turnout was 53.1%. Mr Cowen said: "The government accepts and respects the verdict of the Irish people." He said he would work with other EU leaders to try to find an "agreed way forward" but that the bloc was in "uncharted territory". Ireland has no wish to halt the progress" of the EU, he said. A referendum was mandatory in Ireland as the country would need to change its constitution to accommodate the treaty. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he had spoken to Mr Cowen and agreed with him that this was not a vote against the EU. "Ireland remains committed to a strong Europe," he said. "Ratifications should continue to take their course." France and Germany quickly issued a joint statement expressing regret over the Irish result. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK would press on with ratification, saying: "It's right that we continue with our own process." Spain has said a solution will be found but Czech President Vaclav Klaus said ratification could not now continue. Mr Barroso said EU leaders would have to decide at a summit next week how to proceed. He called for the EU to continue focusing on issues of interest to people like jobs and inflation, energy security and climate change. But BBC Europe editor, Mark Mardell, says this is a multiple crisis for the EU - a crisis of rule change, of legitimacy and of morale. In the end, he says, the Lisbon treaty could be declared dead: some parts of it would be implemented without a treaty, others abandoned, others put in a new treaty when Croatia joins the EU in a couple of years time. Declan Ganley of the anti-treaty lobby group Libertas said: "It is a great day for Irish democracy." He added: "This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people." The No campaign was a broad coalition ranging from Libertas to Sinn Fein, the only party in parliament to oppose the treaty. Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, said: "People feel secure at the heart of Europe, but they want to ensure there's maximum democratic power." Confusion Correspondents say many voters did not understand the treaty despite a high-profile campaign led by Mr Cowen, which had the support of most of the country's main parties. Mr Cowen accused the No camp of "misrepresentation", saying voters had voiced concern about "issues that clearly weren't in the treaty at all", the Irish Times reported. The treaty, which is designed to help the EU cope with its expansion into eastern Europe, provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post. The treaty was due to come into force on 1 January 2009. Fourteen countries out of the 27 have completed ratification so far. Just over three million Irish voters are registered - in a European Union of 490 million people. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453560.stm
That's why the governments are trying to force it through. Lets face it, if 27 countries had a referendum what would be the chances of them all saying yes? It's a quirk of the constitution that a 75% yes vote isn't enough to make a change. Just one country has had a referendum, and every anti-european lobbyist in Europe has been helping the no vote, plus other pressure groups such as the Catholic Church. The EC will regroup and force it through regardless. Wait and see.
Thank God for the Irish and thank God for sovereignty. The EU's repeated attempts to pass a treaty which has CONSISTENTLY BEEN REBUFFED by the populace betrays its true nature as a despotic system. Its attempts to go behind the voting public and pass measures without public refrendum is even more serious. The EU is by nature a despotic system. I strongly warn Europeans against its pitfalls.
I know it is hard to understand for MAW for an American, but that is democracy at work. There was an idea, a new law proposal and people voted it down. Now they can try a newer version of that idea. The problem is if a minority can oppose and stop passing a new law, but that is again an inherent characteristic of democracy and depends on just how small/big the minority is...
Well, then, why the requirement for approval by all 27 nations? If the US were considering giving up its sovereignty by becoming part of some North American Union, I'd want to have a say in it (a referendum). I think every nation should have a referendum before giving up its sovereignty to some pan-European super state. It's quite telling that the EU treaties have lost every referendum vote! Of course they did. It was their only chance. Why is this process so undemocratic? Is it because they know the people don't want to give up their sovereignty? I'm sure they'll try. It sort of reminds me of the old equal rights ammendment in the US. It came very near passing but then couldn't get the last few votes it needed to pass. Just like the EU, they kept re-voting trying to get the result they wanted. Then, some states that had voted to approve the ERA recinded their "yes" vote and changed it to "no". The pro-ERA people then claimed you couldn't take back your "yes" vote. Of course, the counter argument was, why then can we take back a "no" vote; but not a "yes" vote?
Oddly enough, you wouldn't even vote on it. As long as it didn't run contrary to the US constitution it would only require a 2/3 vote in the senate (ratification process for treaties). As for "giving up sovereignty" I'm sure that would require a constitutional amendment: something equally as daunting. 2/3 vote in both houses + a majority vote in the legislatures of 3/4 of all the states. An alternative process can approve such a measure by a 2/3 vote in a special national convention (reps elected based upon a vote of national approval or disapproval on such a measure) and a majority vote in 3/4 of the states in special conventions (members elected based upon a statewide vote of approval or disapproval for such a measure). The latter half has never been used, but equates roughly to a referendum. Both are equally quixotic and serve as the biggest reason as to why there are only 27 amendments in more than 225 years of existence. ~String
The special convention route was basically what was used to create our present system at the constitutional convention. Of course, they were only supposed to be modifying the articles of confederation. I wouldn't trust modern politicians at a new constitutional convention. They could throw out the entire existing constitution! Are we currently blessed with any statesmen the likes of Madison or Jefferson? I don't think so. A new constitutional convention would be an unmitigated disaster. That may well be the route taken should we ever decide to convert to a "North American Union".
Lucky for us, a convention is vanishingly difficult to have and if we did have one, you're right, it would be a horrific disaster. Though, with the extremes in American politics, you're sure to have a big compromise a la the original convention. It's in the compromise in these things that a truly lasting entity is created. ~String
actually compromise is why we dont have a true consitutional protection for the aborigional people In spite of what people think about the most famous referedum in australia it ONLY gave the federal parliment the right to make laws that are only targeted at aborigionals (previously the provence of the states) and it alowed the ABS to take sensors of aborigional populations. Thats all it did, people thought it would give aborigionals the right to vote but that was done by statute alot latter. These compromises are what make referendum usless. no one ever gets what they need and you get a slopy nothing insted which benfits NO one
What you say here goes for the EC too. The rules which were set up when there were six members don't really work very well when there are 27. Should we try to redraw them, or just ignore the gaping flaws?
