People of Ireland stick it to the EU

[Fluffz]

So the question remains whether it's a good thing that such important things like these should be left to the politicians, elected by their own people, who are knowledgeable of the contents and probably more fit than anyone to make a proper decision, or to the people themselves, who don't know squat when it comes to complicated things like these and will always vote popularly, but not necessarily for the greater good.

Thats why we dont have a vote in Austria at all, even tho it is illegal to change our constitutuin without such a vote. They just threw 10 Experts at the people claiming it wasnt illegal and thats it.

[Noah]

I'm very disappointed in the Irish!

After years of EU subsidies flowing into Ireland making them one of the biggest net receivers of 'EU aid' and turning them from a relatively poor country into one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, I would have thought they owed something to the EU.

It seems that 3 years ago people in France and the Netherlands, and now in Ireland, voted no to the constitution for reasons that weren't even about the treaty itself. Their arguments against the treaty (ie. "I am against the government, and the government is in favour, so I vote no" - "The euro robbed me of my identity and made life much more expensive" - "I don't want to lose my sovereignty to become part of a 'super state'") were sophisms and not properly substantiated at all. If you would ask any person to name two 'significant' changes that the treaty would have led to I will guarantee you 90% will not be able to answer that question.

So the question remains whether it's a good thing that such important things like these should be left to the politicians, elected by their own people, who are knowledgeable of the contents and probably more fit than anyone to make a proper decision, or to the people themselves, who don't know squat when it comes to complicated things like these and will always vote popularly, but not necessarily for the greater good.

"The euro robbed me of my identity and made life much more expensive"
"I don't want to lose my sovereignty to become part of a 'super state'"

Those two reasons are more valid than what you think. Many has strong feelings both for and against EU, not always because they know every detail of how EU, but because they have a strong sense of nationalism.

In most cases, the average political voter doesn't know everything about what he/she is voting on, but they are voting based on what they know and what they feel is right for them and their local community. This isn't only in international politics, but in national and even local politics. Do you know *everything* about the politics of your country, or do you just feel that you know enough to be able to take a stand? Remember that this is relative, one person would need to know alot about politics to to feel they know enough, and another person could know alot less to get the feeling that they know enough to vote. As long as you don't know everything, you are drawing a line somewhere on what you think you need to know. Who is to say that they are drawing the line at the correct point?

When political parties gets too many issues to decide on you end up having to vote on parties doing the opposite of what you want on certain issues. For each new big issue being integrated in party politics, the chance will rise that you are forced to make compromises on issues you care about. Here in Norway we have around 8 different big political parties, I already have a problem voting for one of them because I disagree with everyone on something that is important to me. If half of them would put us into EU, I would only have 4 parties remaining to vote on. If the party I'm most of favor for right now would vote us into EU, I'd be forced to vote on another party that would say no. Maybe even some parties would have to split in two, because it's guaranteed that everyone within the same party doesn't feel the same way about EU.

The aid given to Ireland was given as aid, not as political commitments for the future. If you know anything of the Irish civil war you know that they feel strong about their country and political issues around their country. Now that IRA and the unrest finally is behind them, they have to accept new politics because they were given money to build up?

[Pressure Drop]

I'm very disappointed in the Irish!

After years of EU subsidies flowing into Ireland making them one of the biggest net receivers of 'EU aid' and turning them from a relatively poor country into one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, I would have thought they owed something to the EU.

It seems that 3 years ago people in France and the Netherlands, and now in Ireland, voted no to the constitution for reasons that weren't even about the treaty itself. Their arguments against the treaty (ie. "I am against the government, and the government is in favour, so I vote no" - "The euro robbed me of my identity and made life much more expensive" - "I don't want to lose my sovereignty to become part of a 'super state'") were sophisms and not properly substantiated at all. If you would ask any person to name two 'significant' changes that the treaty would have led to I will guarantee you 90% will not be able to answer that question.

So the question remains whether it's a good thing that such important things like these should be left to the politicians, elected by their own people, who are knowledgeable of the contents and probably more fit than anyone to make a proper decision, or to the people themselves, who don't know squat when it comes to complicated things like these and will always vote popularly, but not necessarily for the greater good.

i agree with this

it’s not a case of biting the hand that fed them and turning their backs to Europe.

one of the things being said here was that people didn't even really know what they were voting for. In general people don’t care that much about politics when they’ve got it easy and given a simple yes/no they can be easily swayed if they even bother to vote.

For a start the No campaigners where spreading misinformation , playing on different issues irrelevant to the treaty and hyping up the loss of Irelands military neutrality – I’m not even sure what the truth is here, I mean Ireland has a piss poor military as it’s a small country and I thought it had already lost it’s military neutrality to the EU or Nato or something .

The yes campaign has been criticised for not making it clear enough what exactly the people were voting for.

But ultimately the fact of the matter is only like 40% of people voted, the yes campaign wanted a higher turn out as a higher turn out would have most likely resulted in passing this referendum. The result 56% - 44 % isn’t exactly a land slide either

But as Nycle said in a lot of countries when anything put to the people in terms of a referendum to do with the EU they are often swayed by the idea that voting no is an act of defiance and the nationalist no campaigners who bang on about giving power, control of your countries decisions to other countries etc etc … when the fact is those decisions are often for the greater good and have been successful in the past.

[Doc Flabby]

If you would ask any person to name two 'significant' changes that the treaty would have led to I will guarantee you 90% will not be able to answer that question.

which is the problem, I have no idea what the treaty is about either. If polititions can't explain what a treaty means, and its concequences are to the population in a referendum, they are likely to lose. People don't tend to vote for stuff they don't understand. Saying "it won't make any difference" won't cut it either, otherwise, if it makes no difference, whats the point of signing it, and why are we having this referendum?

Ireland fought in the past to free itself from a large (British) empire to become an independant state.

I'm guessing the irony of becoming yet again part of a larger (less British) empire, with little control over your own affairs again is not lost on the irish.

The larger countries pretty much set the agenda in the EU. The smaller states have less say and power.

I think the vote was lost though due to poor campaining, and an unwillingless to reveal what the theaty means.

The yes campaine was pretty much: "trust us" this is good.
The no campaigne spelled out why it was bad.

I still feel that the public at large is being decieved (at least in Britain) about what the objective of the EU is. It is of cource to become the United States of Europe. I'm quite happy to go along with this, I think its a good idea, but i wish the politions here would be honest about it, becasue at the moment, the lack of transparacny makes me more concerned than the idea. Plus the people at the top are unelected, which is a problem in itself.

[Fluffz]

The larger countries pretty much set the agenda in the EU. The smaller states have less say and power.

But that is the democratic idea that already works so well for individual countries. The problem is once again the different cultures in Europe. While Britain, Germany or France might want to participate in wars Austria and Ireland do not. This new contract would leave us no choice.

But this is economy, creating an even more powerfull union must be our goal, at what price ever. Especially since the price we pay here is not individual freedome or culture but nationalism and patriotism which serves the same purpose as the EU in the first place.

[Galleleo]

I am Dutch, not European. Cooperation, fine. Stronger Economy, fine. Even having 1 currency is handy sometimes (on the other hand, it takes away that real vacation feeling, when you have all different coins and stuff). But I do not want no United States of Europe. Especially smaller countries will be on the shitty side for this. Its impossible for the European Union to know what goes on in all these different cultures, so it comes down to the people in the European parliament, but those from France and Germany and England will always outscream and outvote people from Austria, Belgium etc. etc.

I have already said before (not here I think) that if the EU would ever become like 1 big country, I am moving to Canada or maybe Switzerland or whatever. This treaty is already an improvement from the constitution we voted no too. But I am not so much worried about just this treaty, but on the longer term, first its this treaty, then its this, and then its that, and soon we wont be having no European Championships anymore because we will just be 1 frikken country with Blair as its president.

[D1st0rt]

Ok first I'm going to address some things in general, then specific to this case.

So the question remains whether it's a good thing that such important things like these should be left to the politicians, elected by their own people, who are knowledgeable of the contents and probably more fit than anyone to make a proper decision, or to the people themselves, who don't know squat when it comes to complicated things like these and will always vote popularly, but not necessarily for the greater good.

Having a small elite decide all policy by themselves has its pros and cons. They are more likely to make better decisions, but when they inevitably make a bad ones they are also predisposed to sticking with it and running their organization into the ground because they still feel it was a good move and will pan out in the long run. One of the main benefits of a representative democracy is that if people are tanking your organization you have the option to replace them with other people.

What I find interesting about the Lisbon Treaty is that the same legislature in spirit failed 2 popular votes previous, and the ONLY popular vote this time. A key argument of Lisbon Treaty supporters is that a couple hundred thousand Irish citizens vetoed legislation that 495 million europeans support. First of all, damn straight and good for them. Don't give someone a veto if you don't want them to use it, it's not just ceremonial. They are acting in what they feel are their best interests. The hostile attitudes toward them only serve to validate their "no, I don't want to get swept under the rug" vote. As for owing something to the EU, can you really get mad at someone for voting for what that they feel will put their country in the best possible position for the future? Really? Also, you can't say everyone else supports it if they didn't vote on it (a lot of Germans, who can't vote on it, were thanking the Irish).

But this is economy, creating an even more powerfull union must be our goal, at what price ever. Especially since the price we pay here is not individual freedome or culture but nationalism and patriotism which serves the same purpose as the EU in the first place.

That may be great for you, but everyone is equal and you can't make that decision for another person, let alone another country.

What it boils down to for me, and why I see this as a victory:
The European Union tried to move towards the United States of Europe in 2005, reducing sovereignty of member states with an unelected President/Foreign Minister and moving from unanimous decisions to weighted majority voting. It failed popular vote, but the political elite in Brussels decided "whatever, screw the people we'll just do it again but this time word it so nobody can understand it and don't let anyone vote." The wording of the treaty is intentionally obtuse, when something like this should be very clear. The United States Constitution is clear and it is still not being followed by the government, I shudder to think of the abuses a bunch of unelected Euros could come up with when they have no fear of retribution. The conduct of several of the other European Leaders to me again, just seems like all the more reason it was a good idea to vote this thing down. That they are even considering a "2-speed Europe" or pushing for a do-over referendum shows how childish they can be and is a mockery of the democracy they claim to be working for.

[Fluffz]

those from France and Germany and England will always outscream and outvote people from Austria, Belgium etc. etc

they dont even have to scream, noone hears our little voice anyway. At least by being part of the EU our ideology is heard. I think of it as an Opportunity to get a saying in the current food, energy, currency and security crysis.

That may be great for you, but everyone is equal and you can't make that decision for another person, let alone another country.

im not sure what you mean. If you think that the EU should not be able to change a countrys laws you are wrong, its democracy on the large scale. Lets look at the example of anonymous bank accounts which do earn us Austrians money BUT at the cost of EU countries that banned these accounts. So if we were ordered to create a law that makes these anonymous bank accounts illegal the EU would gain money. It would be fair and a rich EU means more mony floating into our country.

[Nycle]

The United States Constitution is clear and it is still not being followed by the government, I shudder to think of the abuses a bunch of unelected Euros could come up with when they have no fear of retribution.

How can you possibly compare the United States consitution with the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe or the Lisbon Treaty? Europe is not a single country like the United States and probably never will be. I have yet to see a single sovereign country in which dozens of different cultures and languages can coexist under a single traditional government. One could say the strength of the EU lies in voluntarily uniting disparate cultures and economies to a large degree without the need of merging into a single entity along the ranks of the United States.

If anything, the Lisbon treaty was designed to make the EU more transparent and to reduce the democratic deficit that currently exists, I'm referring in part to the unelected European Commision (comparable to the Ministers of a country) who propose legislation which nowadays consitute more than half of all legislation in EU member states. The unelected part is not even entirely true, the Commision is appointed by the governments of the member states who are directly elected by their peoples and then confirmed by the European parliament, which is also directly elected by EU citizens every 5 years. So I can't seem to grasp what all the fuss surrounding 'unelected Eurocrats' is all about, because the same is true for traditional governments. The people don't get to pick their minister for every department either. The reason that the president of the European Union would not be directly elected by EU citizens is to prevent countries with large populations to outvote countries with a small population, there's nothing wrong with that.

As for the 'loss of sovereignty', European integration per definition means that all countries pool some of their sovereignty in area's where it's beneficial for all member states to handle certain matters internationally rather than nationally in order to achieve greater results for everyone. This has been true for past EU treaties and it's no different for this one.

I think it's worrying that so many people tend to let their views be poised by nationalism, distrust and popularism which are often based on a lack of knowledge and ignorance. If you take a look at this treaty rationally and logically I am confident that any sane person would have to agree it will only lead to a strong and smoother running EU instead of the decision slop it is in now and not to the doomsday or conspiracist scenarios which so many people are trying to convince you of. In these times in which the world is becoming increasingly multipolar, it's a necessity to integrate if you want your voice to be heard on the world stage. This treaty will contribute to that hearing for Europe.

[Kolar]

All referendums come down to a no mostly because of lack of information. We had one recently concerning our provincial voting system which would have changed it to a Mixed Member Proportional system. Only 36% were in favor. The same vote went before Scottish voters years before to change their parliamentary system and they did a follow up which found that most voters didn't understand the basics of the new system they voted on. I bet if they did the same follow up here in Ontario you would find the same results. Direct democracy is great in theory but when you're talking about Constitutional reform I personally would rather have elected representatives and lawyers parse the law and logic of it then have them produce some information in plain English that all parties can take to their constituents.

[Dabram]

Wow, lots of fierce nationalists here. I wouldn't have guessed.
I'm very pro-Europe, although the bureaucratic lump that comes with it disgusts me as well. In a way that's a result of how vague the EU is, it's neither an intergouvernmental nor a supranational institution. Instead it has different institutions to make sure neither supranational (European politicians) nor intergouvermental (the 'big' nations) get the upperhand.
However the EU being so difficult to understand and already having so many treaties, is NOT the reason to vote against the constitution/Lisbon treaty, but actually to vote for it!
It would've made things more clearier, finally a treaty that can replace the previous ones (Paris, Maastrict etc).. Only because of the terrible word choice, 'constitution', people just assumed it was a step in the direction of the EU as a replacement of the nation state. This was however not the case. It was about making the institutions clearer and more 'democratic'. Also it gave the heads of European Commission and European Parlimant more prominent public roles (more like a president of the European Union kinda thing, because the EU clearly lacks a FACE/spokesman).

I really don't get why so many are still afraid of the EU. I think most are just angry that they don't understand, and politicans won't/can't explain to them in layman's terms why the EU is good for them. Or maybe some are afraid 'where' the EU is going, with all the new states, is there an end?
I guess to my optimism comes from being quite a cosmopolitan by heart. To me nationalist feelings are dangerous when they are let into politics, it's okay to be proud of your culture etc. in a personal way, but political/economical decisions should be made by rational thinking..

I think people also often forget that the European integration is a wonderful thing, it actually brought peace to a contintent that before was known for warfare, and is still bringing peace as it's including more and more countries. I hope Turkey one day becomes ready to join as well, same for some Northern African countries, it's only good if we get get a bridge with Africa/Middle East as well. It's long term though, first we got a shitload of Eastern European countries who need to get their economies/social institutions up.


ps. FUCk i could also just have said; i agree with Nycle. heh

[Cops]

I think I liked the idea of the referendum because Ontario politics is as such,

The Conservatives fucked up
The NDP fucked up even worse
The Liberals tend to fuck up, but a lot less than the other two

I saw this as a way of opening doors to other parties such as the green party, people don't vote for smaller parties even if they believe in them because elections are usually one douchebag vs another douchebag and it's usually more important to keep someone out. I'd like to see new vibrant parties play a role in my local government, even in my federal government but like I said politics generally is about keeping someone out instead of keeping someone in.

edit: oh yeah i totally derailed this thread. fuck ya

[Doc Flabby]

I really don't get why so many are still afraid of the EU. I think most are just angry that they don't understand, and politicans won't/can't explain to them in layman's terms why the EU is good for them.

I'm not afraid of the EU. I'd like to see closer partnership PROVIDED the EU is made more democratic. Of course having an unelected body controlling the EU also might be why people don't trust it.

Basically why alot of poeple don't like the EU is because polititions are lying to use about the end goal of the EU. IF they just told use it was to create a United States of Europe I think people would be much keener on it.

[Kolar]

I think people also often forget that the European integration is a wonderful thing, it actually brought peace to a contintent that before was known for warfare, and is still bringing peace as it's including more and more countries. I hope Turkey one day becomes ready to join as well, same for some Northern African countries, it's only good if we get get a bridge with Africa/Middle East as well. It's long term though, first we got a shitload of Eastern European countries who need to get their economies/social institutions up.

All of it is great in my opinion. To enter into the EU member states have to bring their standard of living up to a certain level to gain from the advantages of being in the union. This increases the quality of life for the population of those member states and doesn't put undue stress on others when entering, plainly people aren't running for the boarder. I haven't looked at the EU Constitution debate much but nationalism can easily derail issues like this. There is at the same time a threat of the more larger and conservatively lead nations to set the agenda, Sarkozy and Merkel..

Either way I think things worked the way they should. One member state voted no and they had the right to. The EU should go back, revise it and focus on the issues the people shot it down for (if valid at all). If it is going to fall to the people in the end in terms of a referendum then they should have more input on it then a simple x on a piece of paper. As I said direct democracy isn't perfect but presenting the same piece of legislation to the people over and over until they stop caring isn't the way to move forward.

[Pressure Drop]

i'm all for the EU

i've seen it's funding make a real difference