William Hague dismantles Yes position post referendum.

[hiding behind a poster]

The Tories have made clear they will withdraw the UK signature from the Treaty if it isn't ratified in all member states including Ireland when they get into office.

This raises an interesting question for the No people. If they accept Hague's assertion that the British Parliament is democratically entitled to withdraw its first verdict on the Lisbon Treaty, and then deliver a completely different verdict, then what's undemocratic about asking the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

[hiding behind a poster]

6) Under Nice we lose our commissioner next year - "On that point it is worth noting that the current treaties require unanimous agreement for any new arrangement on the number of EU commissioners. So talk of Ireland automatically losing a commissioner unless Lisbon goes through is wildly misplaced."

Does that mean Cowen has veto on whether we lose a commisioner?

What happened was that under Nice, a mechanism would have to be unanimously agreed by all the member states about how to reduce the size of the Commission post-2009. That agreement was reached, the 18/27 agreement, and interestingly the smaller states were noticeably more enthusiastic about this agreement than the larger states - most likely because it gives real influence for 10/15 years, rather than little or no influence for 15/15. Why is that? Because there aren't 27 worthwhile portfolios.

So anyway, the agreement has been reached, and the only reason it hasn't been signed into law is because it can't be until the existed Commission concludes. But for us to now welch on an agreement that we were in the vanguard of creating would do no good to our future credibility in any negotiations.

[hiding behind a poster]

We should pull out of the EU, make national service mandatory and wait for the EU to invade, overthrow our government and impose a puppet regime....

We don't need a puppet regime. We've got a bunch of clowns in government as it is.

[Clanrickard]

The Tories have made clear they will withdraw the UK signature from the Treaty if it isn't ratified in all member states including Ireland when they get into office.

This raises an interesting question for the No people. If they accept Hague's assertion that the British Parliament is democratically entitled to withdraw its first verdict on the Lisbon Treaty, and then deliver a completely different verdict, then what's undemocratic about asking the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

Because we are still the same people after the referendum. A parliament changes so there'd be a different one after the election. Anyhting passed by parliamnet can be overidden by a new one. Also he is saying it will be rejected if the Lisbon treaty is not in force in other owrds we haven't passed it and is therfore dead.

[evercloserunion]

The Tories have made clear they will withdraw the UK signature from the Treaty if it isn't ratified in all member states including Ireland when they get into office.

This raises an interesting question for the No people. If they accept Hague's assertion that the British Parliament is democratically entitled to withdraw its first verdict on the Lisbon Treaty, and then deliver a completely different verdict, then what's undemocratic about asking the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

Because we are still the same people after the referendum. A parliament changes so there'd be a different one after the election. Anyhting passed by parliamnet can be overidden by a new one. Also he is saying it will be rejected if the Lisbon treaty is not in force in other owrds we haven't passed it and is therfore dead.

The parliament is supposed to be representative of the people, and the people are the same. Why do the British people have the right to change their minds but not us? And why is it acceptable for a people to change their minds by voting for a new parliament with different policies, but not for a people to change their mind by voting differently in a referendum?

Another question; if the current UK government decided to withdraw their ratification of the Treaty for whatever reason would you think it unacceptable and undemocratic?

[hiding behind a poster]

The Tories have made clear they will withdraw the UK signature from the Treaty if it isn't ratified in all member states including Ireland when they get into office.

This raises an interesting question for the No people. If they accept Hague's assertion that the British Parliament is democratically entitled to withdraw its first verdict on the Lisbon Treaty, and then deliver a completely different verdict, then what's undemocratic about asking the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

Because we are still the same people after the referendum. A parliament changes so there'd be a different one after the election.

But parliament represents the people. So if the people change their minds in electing a different parliament, who's to say they won't do the same in a referendum?

Anything passed by parliamnet can be overidden by a new one.

But once the people say something once in a referendum, they the people cannot subsequently override that? You seem to have a very selective view of democracy, given that you're suggesting parliament can change previous democratic decisions, but the people can't.

Also he is saying it will be rejected if the Lisbon treaty is not in force in other words we haven't passed it and is therfore dead.

Ah. There's now a major contradiction between what you say and what Hague said. Note how Hague has said that if Ireland hasn't passed the Lisbon Treaty BY THEN (ie when the Tories come to power) it will be dead. Which means that Hague is leaving open the possibility that Ireland will in fact pass the Lisbon Treaty between now and then - and that the Lisbon Treaty is not, therefore, dead right now. So Hague accepts, both in his analysis of what the Irish people might do, and what Westminster might do, that a verdict given once need not necessarily be the final word on the matter. But you don't accept that - you're saying that while parliament can revisit its decision on something, the people shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to revisit their decision on something.

And that's a very a la carte view of democracy.

[eurosceptic]

Magror14. i will respond as follows.
1) We are the only ones who have said no so far. The Czechs might still say no and the german courts could still rule lisbon unconstitutional. Sabotage is not a fair representation as we were perfectly within our rights to say no as are the czech's and possibly even the germans! We didnt vote no to please the tories, that is certain.
2) Hague is offering a clear alternative. Leave the EU as it is and operate the current treaties. The political elite want lisbon so lose no sleep about wrecking their "hard work".
3) What more could they have done. The yes campaign adopted the most likely strategy to win: Run no campaign and hope no debate on the treaty ensues and people will vote yes because of the past benefits of EU membership. Ever heard "the best campaign is no campaign".
4) If lisbon was too short it would be wide open to interpretation. That i accept fully. But lisbon was deliberately outrageously complex to prevent popular debate and give credence to the notion of "let parliament handle it".
5) We can opt out of the military stuff but the EU military will fight in our name. Plus we now know what will happen if we exercise our veto.
6) We are within our rights to insist on a minus one commission including Ireland. Will involve digging in hard.
7) Not really. Everyone signed up to unanimity with full knowledge. Such arrangements exist in Canada whereby Prince Edward Island has threatened to block Canada becoming a republic.
8) The EU is legislating faster than ever so it can clearly operate on the current 5 treaties. There badly needs to be a europe wide debate on where we are all going.

[geraghd]

The Tories have made clear they will withdraw the UK signature from the Treaty if it isn't ratified in all member states including Ireland when they get into office.

This raises an interesting question for the No people. If they accept Hague's assertion that the British Parliament is democratically entitled to withdraw its first verdict on the Lisbon Treaty, and then deliver a completely different verdict, then what's undemocratic about asking the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

Because we are still the same people after the referendum. A parliament changes so there'd be a different one after the election. Anyhting passed by parliamnet can be overidden by a new one. Also he is saying it will be rejected if the Lisbon treaty is not in force in other owrds we haven't passed it and is therfore dead.

Hmmm. A very strange asseration to make. Do you believe life stands still once a referendum takes place??

[FutureTaoiseach]

The Tories have made clear they will withdraw the UK signature from the Treaty if it isn't ratified in all member states including Ireland when they get into office.

This raises an interesting question for the No people. If they accept Hague's assertion that the British Parliament is democratically entitled to withdraw its first verdict on the Lisbon Treaty, and then deliver a completely different verdict, then what's undemocratic about asking the Irish people to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

I have always made clear that I would accept the result of a referendum from the Irish people on Lisbon - which the yes side are refusing to do by the way by seeking ways around the no vote e.g. Mary O'Rourke/sections of FG calling for parliamentary ratification (in MOR's case with Protocols to assuage Irish concerns) instead of a second referendum. You see HBAP,nly unlike your side, I accept the result of referenda, whereas you people in FG especially only accept it when the people give the 'right answer'.

Having said that, the polling evidence is that the people are if anything even more opposed to this Treaty than they were on June 12th and would reject it by an even bigger margin next time. In that context I see a second vote as pointless and merely wasting time that could and should be spent on more important issues like the health-service, and as such I would prefer the issue is just dropped and another referendum not held. But I strongly believe that where a disagreement exists between the outcome of a direct-democracy exercise on what elected-representatives want, that the former should carry more validity because democracy is supposed to be government by the people, and that is inconsistent with politicians defying the people.

Any attempt by the folks in Leinster House to pull a fast one on the Irish people like happened in France and Holland after they voted no i.e. parliamentary ratification, will be rightly condemned by all right-thinking people for the attack on democracy and defiance of the democratically-expressed will of the people that it is. Indeed it is arguable that it would constitute treason.

[arnaudherve]

Do the Yes proponents here commit to a third referendum, in case of a second resulting in a Yes?

In case of a Yes, will they be here next year accepting the principle of revoting?