Cowen determined to sacrifice economy for Lisbon

[supamolli]

Well morally, if you want to tell the people what happened in France, the least you can do is to tell them what actually happened.

The French voted for Sarkozy as President knowing exactly how he was going to ratify Lisbon. And he won easily.
So with a full democratic mandate, he did exactly as he promised.

Moral, legal and democratic.

How much of Sarkozy's election manifesto was dedicated to the Lisbon Treaty? I thought he campaigned on national identity, security, radical economic reforms, curbing union powers, dropping social charges from those wanting to work longer than the 35-hour week and cutting taxes.

In fact, the election was almost entirely focused on domestic issues.

Also, what about the Dutch?

[FutureTaoiseach]

Well morally, if you want to tell the people what happened in France, the least you can do is to tell them what actually happened.

The French voted for Sarkozy as President knowing exactly how he was going to ratify Lisbon. And he won easily.
So with a full democratic mandate, he did exactly as he promised.

Moral, legal and democratic.

That is a flat lie. The EU Constitution was not reborn as the Lisbon Treaty until December 2007. He promised a "mini-treaty", but did not specify what it would contain. Hardly a mandate.

[ibis]

How much of Sarkozy's election manifesto was dedicated to the Lisbon Treaty? I thought he campaigned on national identity, security, radical economic reforms, curbing union powers, dropping social charges from those wanting to work longer than the 35-hour week and cutting taxes.

In fact, the election was almost entirely focused on domestic issues.

The idea behind representative democracy is that people delegate to their representatives the decisions they aren't particularly concerned about. Lisbon, it appears, fits into that category.

Also, what about the Dutch?

They renegotiated to get their concerns addressed. Bit like us, really.

[FutureTaoiseach]

They renegotiated to get their concerns addressed. Bit like us, really.

Is that why PM Balkanende went as far as warning the Dutch parliament he would order the Queen to veto a referendum if the parliament went over his head and legislated for it again? Does this sound like a man who was confident his countrymen's concerns on the EU Constitution had been adequately addressed? Plz. Tell that to the 63% of Dutch polled who continue to say no to Lisbon.

Our concerns addressed? News to me.

[supamolli]

The idea behind representative democracy is that people delegate to their representatives the decisions they aren't particularly concerned about. Lisbon, it appears, fits into that category.



They renegotiated to get their concerns addressed. Bit like us, really.

So concerned that one minute they feel a referendum is required and the next that the power can be delegated.

There is delegation and there is arbitrary power. This, to me, strays much closer to the latter.

[ibis]

So concerned that one minute they feel a referendum is required and the next that the power can be delegated.

There is delegation and there is arbitrary power. This, to me, strays much closer to the latter.

There is no requirement in Dutch law for a referendum, though.

[ibis]

Is that why PM Balkanende went as far as warning the Dutch parliament he would order the Queen to veto a referendum if the parliament went over his head and legislated for it again? Does this sound like a man who was confident his countrymen's concerns on the EU Constitution had been adequately addressed? Plz. Tell that to the 63% of Dutch polled who continue to say no to Lisbon.

Our concerns addressed? News to me.

Your concerns may not have been addressed. Whether other people's have been awaits the test of the vote.

[Almanac]

My point relates to the claims of various No-siders that they're democrats and the Yes people aren't. Yet when one puts forward a perfectly reasonable idea - that every European should vote on the Treaty at the same time in a Europe-wide referendum, we suddenly see a quick backtrack accompanied by squeals that that's not "the way it's done". All of which goes to show that the people claiming it aren't democrats.

I think a Europe wide vote would be a great idea.

After all, if we're going to stand on "the way it's done", then we have to accept that the Treaty isn't dead until the two-year limit has passed without unanimous ratification, that the government is legally entitled to run a second referendum, and that other countries don't use referendums, cry as one might.

The first point is fair enough. But whether the Government is legally entitled to run a second referendum is not the crux of the matter. It may be legal; this does not make it right. It's legal for a man to cheat on his wife too.

A lot of other countries did use referendums in 2005 but then those fine people came up with the idea of circumnavigating the need for national referendums by not calling the same set of proposals a constitution and instead presenting them as a series of amendments.

In democracies though sovereignty lies with the people and only the people should be authorised to cede it. The ceding of sovereignty without the people's consent and at least in some cases against their will should be of concern to democrats everywhere.

[ibis]

I think a Europe wide vote would be a great idea.

It's good that you, at least, have the courage of your convictions.

The first point is fair enough. But whether the Government is legally entitled to run a second referendum is not the crux of the matter. It may be legal; this does not make it right. It's legal for a man to cheat on his wife too.

Actually, there are legal penalties attached to that, since they can be used as the grounds for divorce. What you mean, I think, is that it's not criminal.

However, the question of legality is easily determined, whereas the question of right is not. I would hold quite happily to the view that a second referendum must either yield a No, in which case holding it has made no difference, or a Yes, in which case the majority would have been denied their vote by the refusal to hold a second referendum.

A lot of other countries did use referendums in 2005 but then those fine people came up with the idea of circumnavigating the need for national referendums by not calling the same set of proposals a constitution and instead presenting them as a series of amendments.

Well, yes, some did - a total of 9* out of the 27 either held, or intended to hold, a referendum. Out of all of those, can you tell me which ones had any legal requirement to hold a referendum? What's that? Only us and Denmark? Why, yes, it is so. Can you tell me how many member states have ever held referendums on other EU treaties? What's that? Only Ireland, Denmark, and France - again?

This endless drumbeating about how Lisbon was designed to avoid referendums is rubbish, pure and simple. You don't need to "design" a treaty to avoid referendums, for the very simple reason that only two EU states actually have any legal requirement for one in the first place - and iLisbon doesn't avoid ours anyway.

In democracies though sovereignty lies with the people and only the people should be authorised to cede it. The ceding of sovereignty without the people's consent and at least in some cases against their will should be of concern to democrats everywhere.

You're missing a step. In most democracies, the elected representatives have been delegated the power to pool or cede sovereignty if they regard it as being in the interest of the nation to do so. We may be wiser, in that we don't, but that's our way - their ways are theirs.

Nor, of course, will voting on Lisbon make any difference whatsoever to how the other member states ratify treaties. Well - it might make them nervous enough to swear off the idea entirely, but it has no predestined outcome. We're not voting on changing other countries' constitutions here, after all.

*[EDIT]actually 10 - thanks vid.[/EDIT]

[vid]

Actually ten countries were scheduled to have referendums on the EU Constitutution. Spain,Portugal,Ireland, Denmark,UK, France,Netherlands,Luxembourg,Poland and Czech Republic.True there was no obligation to hold referendum on Lisbon, but a precident was set with the constitutution and it was a very cynicial political exercise to implement the same reforms in the guise of the Lisbon treaty.
"After the French and Dutch voted No to the constitution, its contents were minced up and squeezed into a new sausage skin, to make it unrecognisable and allow national governments to say it was a different text that did not need to be put to a vote. The key change was that the constitution set out to replace all previous treaties, and set out the EU legal base from scratch. Lisbon leaves the previous treaties in place, and offers changes by amending individual clauses in them. Thus Lisbon only makes sense with copies of the existing treaties on your lap"
Charlie McCreevy, teller of painful truths | Charlemagne's notebook | Economist.com
"