[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoon
Title: Wrong answer, Irish (click to view)
Date: June 17, 2008
Voters in the Republic of Ireland decisively voted down the so-called Lisbon Treaty last week, a EU bill that would have dramatically restructured the European Union system of governance. Critics have called it an aim to centralize more power in the hands of the EU bureaucracy and executive at the expense of local autonomy.

The Euro people say all this is highly necessary for the future of a strong EU, but time and time again the proposal gets shot down. A few years ago a similar reform package was shot down by French, and then Dutch voters, which led to the package being retooled as a "treaty" that didn't need voter assent. But the Irish put it to a vote anyway, and that ruined everything, because unanimous consent from all member states is needed for this kind of thing.

But the Eurocrats won't take no for an answer. "One way or another, we will bring the Irish back on board," said the leader of the EU's social democratic caucus. The steamroller plows forward.

[Arctic_Menace]

The fact that so many people in Europe are dissenting this, don't you think that maybe they should, I dunno...STOP FORCING IT ON PEOPLE?!?!

[thealmightynarf]

Arctic_Menace wrote:

The fact that so many people in Europe are dissenting this, don't you think that maybe they should, I dunno...STOP FORCING IT ON PEOPLE?!?!

It's generally not in the best interest of an autocratic bureaucracy to listen to the will of the people when they're trying to seize more power for themselves.

[JovanW]

It would be voted down in virtually every country in the EU if it was put to a vote. Sarkozy has even admitted that that's the case in France. Therefore, their answer is parliamentary ratification not a popular referedum. The Irish government, which would have liked to avoid a vote, couldn't. The Treaty required changes to the Irish Constitution and, therefore, the Constitution required a referendum.

[FuManchu]

It's particularly hilarious because several European leaders have condemned the Irish vote on the basis that it's undemocratic to have a few million Irish decide the fate of 500 million Europeans.

Only in the Twilight Eurozone is it possible to call the one country that bothered to hold a referendum 'undemocratic'. It was, of course, the epitome of democracy to have every other country in Europe simply pass the Treaty without a popular mandate.

[PopcornDave]

I'm beginning to think that Bob Geldolf may be right. If Hitler had forced ratification of Germany taking over Europe, he might not have even had to fire a single shot.

I thought things were brewing for a revolution in the US, but how long before Europe wakes up and throws out it's own bums?

[Jarem]

But EU must move in some direction... And the problem is that simple saying "no" will not lead to anything.
Besides, when I read about voting on BBC website, to many "NO" voters are saying that they casted their votes for "no" because they didn't understanded the document.
Not very responsible behaviour in my opinion.

[Moth]

PopcornDave wrote:

I thought things were brewing for a revolution in the US

We're doing quite nicely, thank you. =]

[jpj1421]

Maybe, just maybe, the average uninformed voter doesn't understand the complexity of an international treaty. Isn't this why we in republics elect qualified individuals who understand this nonsense and decide whether its for the best or not? In theory, anyway. Heh. Not that it matters much to me over here in the States.

[thealmightynarf]

jpj1421 wrote:

Maybe, just maybe, the average uninformed voter doesn't understand the complexity of an international treaty. Isn't this why we in republics elect qualified individuals who understand this nonsense and decide whether its for the best or not? In theory, anyway. Heh. Not that it matters much to me over here in the States.

For your average everyday treaty, sure. However, for one that goes so far that the country's actual constitution actually needs to be amended (too which extent I'm not sure) for the purpose of, as far as I understand it, taking political power away from the individual countries and as such from the voters of said countries and giving it to a foreign power... well, that's the sort of decision that really shouldn't be left to politicians... especially considering that at least one country knowingly went directly against the will of it's people to try to enforce it.

[Biron]

Jarem wrote:

Besides, when I read about voting on BBC website, to many "NO" voters are saying that they casted their votes for "no" because they didn't understanded the document.
Not very responsible behaviour in my opinion.

As opposed to voting yes because they couldn't understand the document? If a treaty is so complex that a large number of the people can not understand it, perhaps it's time to rework the wording of the treaty? Not everyone is a lawyer, after all.

[karasoth]

Jarem wrote:

But EU must move in some direction... And the problem is that simple saying "no" will not lead to anything.
Besides, when I read about voting on BBC website, to many "NO" voters are saying that they casted their votes for "no" because they didn't understanded the document.
Not very responsible behaviour in my opinion.

Opinion noted, but opinion is wrong.

Lets first put the silly farce of calling it a "Treaty" while the wording was redone slightly this is the exact same EU constitution as before so the Irish were voting on (effectively) a new Constitution.

Since this is a Constitution lets take a look at some Constitutions

The Canadian Constitution http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html, United States Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html, and since Ireland was Involved The Irish Constitution http://acts.oireachtas.ie/zza1y1922.1.html

In all three Constitutions while their are some grey areas which can be confusing to those not gifted in Scholarships and governments 90% of the language is readable, understandable, and says what it says in a plain and common Language.

The EU constitution and the "Treaty" that it was hiding as...It said things in Language that lawyers had a great deal of difficulty understanding.

But something else about constitutions. They tend to say things like Power comes from the people, or power comes from the crown... not so much here the EU just under the EU constitution has power... and also under the EU constitution has the power to just decide to give itself more power.

The EU constitution was a terrible terrible document. The Treaty does nothing to fix what is very broken about it. The Eurocrats should have re-wrote the bloody thing and then presented something that peoples and governments across Europe could have supported. But instead they decided "Lets trick them" and they plan to try to trick people again and again until this terrible document becomes law

We should cheer the Irish, The Dutch, and the French for stopping this assault on the principles of how government should be done

[kenmore]

thealmightynarf wrote:

Arctic_Menace wrote:

The fact that so many people in Europe are dissenting this, don't you think that maybe they should, I dunno...STOP FORCING IT ON PEOPLE?!?!

It's generally not in the best interest of an autocratic bureaucracy to listen to the will of the people when they're trying to seize more power for themselves.

Sounds like the autocratic tories in Ottawa.. dont it?

[RUEZ]

kenmore wrote:

thealmightynarf wrote:

Arctic_Menace wrote:

The fact that so many people in Europe are dissenting this, don't you think that maybe they should, I dunno...STOP FORCING IT ON PEOPLE?!?!

It's generally not in the best interest of an autocratic bureaucracy to listen to the will of the people when they're trying to seize more power for themselves.

Sounds like the autocratic tories in Ottawa.. dont it?

The master debater strikes again.

[Jarem]

karasoth wrote:

Opinion noted, but opinion is wrong.

Um, sorry, what opinion? That people not understanding what they are voting about, and still casting votes, are not responsible?

karasoth wrote:

The EU constitution was a terrible terrible document. The Treaty does nothing to fix what is very broken about it. The Eurocrats should have re-wrote the bloody thing and then presented something that peoples and governments across Europe could have supported.

Are you really thinking that people of all 27 countries of UE would agree on any kind of treaty, that changes anything about their states?
I'm not.
If the French cannot reform their own country, how do you expect all 27 states to do it together?

karasoth wrote:

We should cheer the Irish, The Dutch, and the French for stopping this assault on the principles of how government should be done

I would cheer them if they had some alternative way. Only saying "no" does not help.