Why politicians hate referendums
It was a long Friday the 13th.
The last broadcast on the Irish "No" out of the way, we wearily made our way back home from Dublin Castle, though Temple Bar, the area of Dublin filled with clubs and bars.
A group of young men, pints in hand, tattoos on their necks, having a quick fag outside a Chinese restaurant wanted to shout "No, to Lisbon!" into our camera. Too late, the day was done.
One of them asked, "Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we'd voted 'Yes'?"
This is, of course, why many politicians hate referendums. People will vote on many issues, some nothing to do with the issue at hand, some pure fantasy.
Ireland's worries?
This means it is almost impossible to answer the question posed by some who want to press ahead with Lisbon. Politicians who argue that ratification should continue say a second vote is possible. They say, "We have to find out what worries the Irish had, and deal with them." This is too rational by half.
The Irish were worried by many things? There were many things, some true, some not, some specific, some very general.
Referendums may be a bad way of dealing with complex legal treaties, but this vote was about the European Union. No-one can argue that this was a protest against the Irish government - Brian Cowen's poll ratings were sky high when he recently became Irish prime minister.
Some voted about specific issues, like abortion and taxation. Some voted against the general drift of the European Union. But many I spoke to didn't understand the treaty.
Unsexy debates
Some argue that means Lisbon is awful, by definition. On Friday I took part in a BBC Radio 5Live discussion with the editor of the Irish Sun, who argued it was difficult to understand, and therefore nonsense and so people were right to vote against it.
I think this line of logic is hard to sustain. Most treaties, most diplomatic agreements, and indeed most proposed laws have to be written in complex legal language. They are, by their very nature, difficult for even specialists to understand. If you can't boil it down to a simple headline, then it is very difficult for busy people with busy lives to engage in the arguments.
Purely in a sprit of fantasy politics, I make the suggestion of offering a string of referendums before negotiations on single issues. Are you in favour of an EU foreign minister? EU embassies? Fewer commissioners? A change to the voting system? A president for the European Council?
These may not be the sexiest debates to have over a pint, but you can discuss them sensibly. Then a government would know where its red lines were.
It will die
But back to reality. Foreign ministers will meet in Luxembourg today and start talking about "What next?". So they will first ask "What does Ireland want?"
If the answer is, "Not a second referendum", then there will be more talk about a two-speed Europe. I read a fair amount of stuff in newspapers about going ahead as a group of 26 without Ireland. They may be right if a way can be found of carrying on with most countries operating under Lisbon rules, with Ireland trailing behind.
But none of my sources think this is either sensible or possible. You can opt out of the euro - you can't opt out of a voting system, or the number of commissioners.
My hunch (and it is an informed guess, I won't eat my hat or beat myself up if I turn out to be wrong ) hasn't changed: Lisbon may not be dead, but it will die.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~23~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"I make the suggestion of offering a string of referendums before negotiations on single issues. Are you in favour of an EU foreign minister? EU embassies? Fewer commissioners? A change to the voting system? A president for the European Council?"
That sounds a fantastic idea. What politicians at any level back a policy such as this?
Complain about this comment
People in politics hate referendum [sorry for the spelling]....
Because they want things to be Rubber stamp...
When not happening they are un-happy.
Complain about this comment
It was Winston Churchill who remarked that democracy as a system of government is far from perfect but it's the best system we'eve got.
The problem is our confusion of Referenda (decision making by the entire electorate) with plebiscites (conning the electorate into ratifying what's already been done as did the Bonapartes and Hitler).
Hitler refused to let the Austrians have a referendum ahead of his takeover in 1938 but rushed to hold one a few weeks later to "ratify" what he had done by force.
Referenda are profoundly democratic and should be encouraged at the earliest possible stages of law-making. Plebiscites are profoundly undemocratic as they leave the population with no real choice.
That's why te EU holds Referenda thinking that they are plebiscites and gets dreadfully upset when the sovereign people say 'No'.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Lisbon may not be dead, but it will die."
I don't think Lisbon will die: it's a nice, vibrant city.
But if you mean that a EU superstate concept is dead, you're probably wrong.
I'm sure that those who benefit from it most we'll do their level best to resurrect it.
The miracle may occur in another nice, vibrant (although not cheap anymore) city: Prague.
As early as next January.
P.S. "26 countries"?
You wanted to say 25 and half of a small island off Lebanon's shore, right?
Unless of course Flamandia and Wallonia join Brussels (in its schemes) as independent states in the meantime. ;-)
Complain about this comment
If people didn't understand the treaty, then that is because the politicians have failed to explain it.
If the treaty is complex, that is because that is how it has been written.
The American Constitution, to pick an example, is beautifully simple. A child can understand it.
The simple fact is, the Euro Constitution was simple. People understood it, and didn't like it. So our leaders in Brussels rewrote it in an incomprehensible treaty which they claimed was different, even though it wasn't. And then they asked us to like it. And we didn't.
Good for the Irish. They understood what they were doing.
Complain about this comment
I take issue with the assertion that "Most treaties, most diplomatic agreements, and indeed most proposed laws have to be written in complex legal language. They are, by their very nature, difficult for even specialists to understand."
They "have" to be written that way? For those in the late 1700s responsible for drafting and putting to the people agreements between States, writing in such a way that the people might be able to understand wasn't a challenge. In fact, to do so was often an unspoken necessity.
After all, how difficult is it for the ordinary citizen to understand the meaning behind "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."?
How difficult? Not very.
Experts may be needed to extrapolate further on the "hidden" meaning of such legal jargon, but the basic intent, and legal force, of the provision is easily understood.
Where those "federalists" responsible for drafting and campaigning on behalf of EU treaties go wrong is in their ignorance of prior examples - especially because they're probably loathe to admit that America is one.
If former Colonials in the 1780s were able to construct a Constitution for a union of States fiercely concerned over their own independence and power, and translate complex ideas about Government into language a layman, an ordinary citizen, could understand and which would endure, is not the same thing possible in Europe over 220 years later?
Complain about this comment
Politicians probably hate State Elections too.
We, "the People" in any democratic State are so fickle that we decide general and by-election results by voting on single topics, multiple topics, complex issues and even whether one candidate is better than another when they all agree on the same issue. We, "the People" may not be as clever as our politicians in understanding what is good for us but that is what makes democracy so strong - "the People" have choice and a voice.
Politicians must not be allowed to have it both ways when it comes to individual state or continental governance.
If democracy is to flourish then allowing "the people" regular opportunities to vote is essential and this must include referenda where their is even a modest change to the way people are governed and laws made and enacted.
The alternative is tyranny!
Complain about this comment
It's true that many people vote on rumour and a general lack of understanding, but then who is to blame for that? There is a general fear of the Europolitical steamroller, unaccountable and not listening to the electorate.
When the original UK referendum was held it was to join a European Community. I voted against, not because I was against a community but because I predicted it would be a move towards a Union. Wehn I voiced my opinion at the time I was ridiculed and told that view was nonsense. I now keep my progression of British Passports - One before Europe, One with European Community written on it and now my current one with European Union.
I look forward to a future one with something far worse.
Europe was supposed to prevent wars. Take away the democratic process and it will lead to civil war.
Complain about this comment
It does indeed appear a large share of the Irish electorate seems to have voted no (or indeed yes) due to not being aware of its contents. I think we may also accept that democracy is best served through decision-making which is well-informed. If subsequent polling were to reveal that a plurality of those voting on Thursday felt they did not have enough information to make up their minds the case for a second referendum obviously becomes stronger.
Taking into consideration the multitude of different reasons to vote yes or no in this referendum, it is not at all clear what direction the Irish population wants the EU to take. This question has also been left unanswered in France and The Netherlands.
The fact of the matter is that the Irish people did not ask for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It followed as a result of a constitutional requirement. Next time a referendum is organised, I propose to run a concurrent eurobarometer-style survey, which would include questions on voters views of topical EU issues etc., but the most important question is whether they would consider themselves competent to decide on the treaty's future. Surely if a majority of the voters find -themselves- unable to comprehend the matter before them, the referendum serves no purpose.
Complain about this comment
On Saturday, I was travelling from Brighton to London by train and some company worker had displayed the 1st page of the Times with the a gleeful headline about the sinking of Lisbon, and even added in handwriting some of his/her own comments like "Victory for Civil Liberties and Freedom". The ironic part is that the same train broke down midway between Brighton and London and we stood for 1/2 hour on the tracks with the train driver making up excuses for the delay. And I was kept wondering that such things have never happened to me on French or German railways... where the train companies are much more accountable than in the UK to the public they are meant to serve. No wonder the train employees are against Lisbon :-)
Complain about this comment
While I am delighted that the Irish have rejected the Lisbon Treaty, I am dismayed that Gordon Brown is set to ratify it on behalf of the British people. The people have given him no mandate to do it. The only good thing about the Lisbon Treaty is that it would give member states the option of leaving the EU ( I have read it). Now, wouldn't that be great!!.
Complain about this comment
Ding-dong, the witch is dead....
All we have to do now is await the next Mickeymouse scheme from Brussels under a completely different name but very familiar format.
EU president? Check.
EU foreign Minister? Check?
EU seat at the UN? Check
Loses of National Vetos? Check.
It's not a treaty, honest.
Constitution? Nooo, as if!
This is an, er, "Understanding..."
Hmm....
Complain about this comment
People can (and should) vote on simple, clear, universal principles. Any treaty is deemed to be incomprehensible legal lingo which the general public will shy away from. What really speaks loud about the Irish referendum, louder than the 53% of voters against Lisbon, is the 55% of those entitled to vote who didn't even bother to step in the booths. The message to the politicians is clear: stop handing to the people the responsibility of your own inability to write down a legible document which can be understood and agreed/disagreed upon. A "constitution" passed to the people should be a simple set of principles ranging from human rights to political ideals, not hundreds of pages of technical stuff.
Complain about this comment
When you ask People to vote on something, the outcome must be clear. I must say this was not the case with the Lisbon treaty. The Irish People knew very well that this was a "toy vote", because the consequences of voting "yes" or "no" were not clearly written in the vote. Tycoons and various interest groups with strong media outlets have taken advantage of this weakness to invent all kinds of scare-stories about the consequences of a "yes" vote. And they won. The blame is on the politicians, not on the interest groups. You can't blame the wolf for eating the sheep, nor the sheep for being eaten by the wolf. It's the shepherd's fault.
Complain about this comment
All very strange.
No one wants to leave the Union, cant be all that bad?
Unfortunately it has become a convenient scapegoat for anything going wrong in peoples lives. That, and a media which delights in negativity, and avoids real analysis[present company excepted of course], produces the "NO".
Best way forward, keep ratifying.
Not compulsory to stay in.
Interesting to see if the Irish[or anyone else] are stupid enough to take an offer to leave.
Perhaps they could have a referendum on it.
Complain about this comment
The rejection of the Lisbon treaty by the Irish, and the subsequent reaction of professional European politicians, has thrown up a fundamental issue which is of much greater importance than the Lisbon treaty: should the long-term fates of the people of Europe be decided by sporadically elected and notoriously short-lived governments or should the people themselves be given the opportunity to vote on fundamental constitutional issues ?
Just as one avoids a dog turd on the street and stares straight ahead as if it did not exist, so do professional politicians go out of their way to avoid discussions on direct democracy. Indeed their reactions to the idea of a referendum are often akin to those of the Devil when confronted with holy water. They throw up their hands and shriek in horror at the idea of the people bothering their little heads with issues that they will (thank God ?) never understand. Then, once they have calmed down they resort to the usual politician's subterfuges when faced with a difficult issue: the Red Herring and the Smoke Screen. The red herring in the case of the Lisbon treaty problem is the mantra “The Irish Voters Are To Blame”. It attempts to distract from the fact that the key issue is no longer the Lisbon treaty: it is the way decisions on constitutions are taken in Europe. To the discomfiture of the professional politicians, demographic surveys in various European countries, and those referenda which have been conducted, show a widespread disquiet in the European population about the way decisions are being made about their futures and, oh horrors, the people want referenda. The smoke screen which is used to back up the red herring and which is being unconsciously (or consciously ?) promulgated by the European press and media consists of statements to the effect that “France (or Germany, or Spain, or.....) will go ahead and ratify the treaty. This implies that the people of France (or Germany, or Spain, or....) want to ratify the treaty. In fact, the bodies which want to ratify the treaty are the governments which happen to be in power this week and which will have disappeared into the dustbin of history while the European people are still having to live out the consequences of their decisions.
Following the Irish referendum direct democracy has become – to use an overworked phrase – the elephant in the European political room. The politicians and the press are doing their damnedest to ignore it.
Whilst the Lisbon treaty is, in my opinion, now a secondary issue it documents the disingenuousness and cynicism of its drafters in a language which the person on the street can clearly understand within minutes. Just glance at Article 8B on the Citizens Initiative which states that “Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties”. What meaningless rubbish ! It “....allows...” one million citizens to “...invite...” the EU Commission to consider a proposal but only if they are “...nationals of a significant number of Member States.....”. In fact, as things stand there is nothing to prevent one citizen or a million citizens from “inviting” the EU Commission or any other body to consider anything, irrespective of whether they are nationals of what the Commission arrogantly considers to be “....a significant number of Member States....”. The EU Commission is in no way obliged to respond to the invitation. In fact, the experience of the last few years has shown that the EU Commission is highly resistant to peoples' democracy and one may rest assured that they will continue to obstruct it with all their might if the Lisbon treaty is implemented. For me, this paragraph alone clearly documented the drafters' contempt for the people they are supposed to be serving.
I write as one who has experienced the British system of sporadically elected government and the Swiss system of sporadically elected government coupled with the safety mechanism of direct democracy. Only last week the Swiss voted on two issues and the results once again showed, in my mind, that the people are quite capable of understanding complex political issues if (a) they live in a referendum tradition which forces proponents and opponents to explain their positions in plain language and (b) the issues are broken down into understandable sub-issues, each of which is voted on. The results also showed how surprisingly acute the people are in recognising politicians' shenanigans and forked tongues in the runup to a vote.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if Veritas could do us one last favour and arrange for a delivery of thousands of dictionaries, each with the definition of the word NO underlined, to Mr Barroso and his chums as he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
Complain about this comment
@13
Please quote the exact line in the Lisbon Treaty or the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe where it reads that the EU will have a single seat at the UN.
Let's have a debate on the facts shall we?
Complain about this comment
The French and the Italian Constiutions (to name a few I quickly found on the web) amount to 30 pages maximum, with short and concise articles about general principles. Why is are the EUrocrats unable to produce such a document and ask *all* people of Europe (not the Irish only) to agree on it and build a more complex set of laws based on those principles as a clear consequence of such a vote?
Complain about this comment
In reply to #7, (RealSlimSlavin), the United States Constitution is indeed a more legible document. It is such a simple document because the United States are a much simpler entity from a legal point of view.
The American Founding Fathers established a clear distinction between states' rights and tasks reserved for the federal level. They also established a much stronger body for judicial review.
The EU on the other hand is not a federation, it brings together states with varying legal traditions and its decision making is more complicated because the states retain much greater sovereignty than American states do. The rulebook that governs the EU is also big and complicated because it was not established with a clear final goal in mind.
Complain about this comment
I am for referenda, but in this case, it was badly planned. It's been surrealistic 500 million people were pending on what less than their 1 per cent was to say. Too much pressure and responsabilty on the Irish!
In addition, like it happened in 2005 in France and Netherlands, domestic issues were at stake. We shoudn't forget Ireland is especially affected by the credit crunch, a ex PM going to court, growing unemployment and the country has received many immigrants from Eastern Europe in the last few years.
So my suggestion is to hold a referendum in a European scale: all 27 EU countries voting the same day (it could coincide, for instance, with the European elections for the Parliament).
If the entire European electorate voted the same day, we could have a more accurate picture on what's going on in the continent, and the final result would be more representative.
On the other hand, I have my doubts over submitting to referendum a complex legal text, as Mark said. It's like to vote for the national budget every year. Pragmatism, no enlightened despotism.
In conclusion: referendum to the whole European electorate, after a campaign where our politicians have explained to the people all the Treaty details.
Complain about this comment
I just posted a comment but all the inverted commas in my comment have been replaced by question marks, making the comment difficult or impossible to interpret.
Complain about this comment
In reply to #20 (lacerniagigante), I would love to have a short basic legal document that outlined the rules and principles of the EU. Have a look at part I of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. That's as short as it's ever going to be if you don't want the EU to be a) a 'super state' or b) powerless.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell 16 Jun 08, 01:00 am:
"Purely in a sprit of fantasy politics, I make the suggestion of offering a string of referendums before negotiations on single issues."
greypolyglot 13 Jun 2008, 8:57 pm:
"Personally I'd invite everyone to vote time and time again on each item starting with the least contentious ..... "
So, coincidence or did you read my comment, Mark?
Complain about this comment
Just as I expected: Mark Mardell's explanation of the "No" vote is that the voters are stupid ignoramuses. Had it been a "Yes" vote, he would have hailed them for their wisdom,
Complain about this comment
My sincere -if forlorn - hope is that this NO vote will make EU leaders step back and "pause for reflection", as they did in 2005 after the French and Dutch NO to the Constitution.
However, this time they really should do it properly. Rather than huddle behind closed doors and cook up a slightly revised text that they think will get the Irish "yes" in the next referendum they should launch a detailed and intensive public debate on all major media channels in all 27 EU countries to find out what sort of a European Union the people (as distinct from the politicians) really want.
On that basis, they should then draw up a new, short, clear and simple text that will be the core of (or even the whole of) the next EU Treaty.
Complain about this comment
Mark
You can't pull the "you shouldn't expect to understand these things".
The PROs have been hoist by their own petard -- every time the public have said "but we didn't agree to that, we thought it was a trade agreement" time and time the PROs have trotted out the line to the UK
"of couse, you must have realised that it was going to be a political union, every treaty since day one made that clear"
Well it wasn't clear (as it happens I think this PRO line is a blatant lie, but anyway).
We won't be put in that position again - if it can't be clearly and unambiguously explained then it won't be accepted. Never again are we going to be put inthe position of having facists autocrats turn on us and say "but that is what you agreed to, you should have made sure you understood it before you agreed".
The Labour MPs curretly sitting in parliament received a total of 6.6 million votes between them (out of 26.6million cast). What kind of mandate is that?
Complain about this comment
In the Irish referendum to the nearest thousand 800,000 voted for and 900 000 against. There were 1.5 million don't no's ,not interested or couldn't be bothered.
My own view is that it's Ireland's problem and maybe they should take Norway's route (who rejected joining the EU but for many practical purposes conform to the EU requirements without having any formal say in the legislation. Switzerland is much the same.
Those who like referenda on single issues might look at the experience of the State of California
Incidentally what is taking place in the UK Parliament is NOT the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The government has prerogative powers to agree treaties without reference to Parliament. It is the legislating on the consequences of 'signing' the treaty.
Complain about this comment
This is a deadlock. The EU cannot reach any unanimous agreement on institutional matters. Voters vote “No” but it is not clear what they mean. Abstract ideological discussions between proponents of federal EU, intergovernmental EU and no EU lead nowhere. What is needed is a technical deadlock resolution procedure. My proposal would be as follows:
Hold a pan-EU referendum where EU voters will be asked to respond to with the following questions:
1. Do you wish your state to split from the EU?
2. If not:
2a: Are you in favor of status quo?
2b: If the majority of voters is against status quo, would you be in favor of the Lisbon Treaty?
2c: If the majority of voters is against status quo and against the Lisbon Treaty, would you be in favor of renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty?
The counting procedure will be as follows:
A. If “No” prevails on question 1 in more than [9] states or in states with a total population of more than [150] million, the EU will be automatically dissolved as of [1 January 2010], on terms to be agreed unanimously among all EU states but in any case without any claims for damages or claims for restitution of benefits going prior to [2007].
B. If A. does not apply but “No” prevails on question 1 in certain states, such states will be deemed to abandon their EU membership as of [1 January 2010], on terms to be agreed between the EU and the relevant states but in any case without any claims for damages or claims for restitution of benefits going prior to [2007].
C. If A. does not apply, questions 2a-2c will be counted on an EU-wide basis, excluding states to which B. applies. However, if “No” prevails on each of the questions 2a, 2b and 2c, the EU will be automatically dissolved as of [1 January 2010] and A. will apply.
D. The results of the referendum will be binding. If the legislative, judicial or executive bodies of a state do not respect the results, such state will be deemed to abandon its EU membership as of [1 January 2010] and B. will apply. Each EU voter will be able to vote only once.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think the perenial problem with European referendum's is that the devil plays the best tunes. The No vote will always have the best arguments that appeal to a majority who fear change. Having said that the yes camp never do themselves any favours by recruiting some truly terrible advocates. In the UK for instance we have had europe ministers Keith Vaz and the Dennis Macshane who probably did more to shore up the anti-europe vote than anybody. I'm broadly pro-european myself but I just shudder when I hear some of the sanctimonuous and arrogant arguments advanced by the pro-european side. If we are to have an intelligent and balanced debate then the public need to be talked to not lectured at.
Complain about this comment
For the first time in my life, I am FRIGHTENED when I see how far away from democracy we are and how close to dictatorship and nazism we are getting...
It is obvious that all the leaders in Europe whether in Brussels or in their respective countries, are holding to power through force and by not only ignoring but mocking the intelligence of citizens.
This fear factor can never be a good basis for a future Union.
Maybe the Treaty is not dead but to my view, the free Europe itself is about to die.
Complain about this comment
Number 19
The facts are that the treaty can mean almost anything you want it to mean, and the people who will decide are the Eurocrats.
The Irish were capable of seeing that this was the most audacious power grab in modern times, and rejected it.
Complain about this comment
Number 29
This is not and Irish problem, it is a European problem. If the whole of Europe had been asked to vote, the majority of states, and probably of voters would have rejected it.
I might be wrong, but would be delighted if we could put it to the test.
Complain about this comment
@ 28 Oulematu
Why would every country be forced to accept or reject such package deals?
I feel great sympathy for the idea to break up the treaty into dozens of smaller issues, each to be decided by referendum in all member states. That would really add legitimacy to the EU, if all over Europe we could have a referendum on each issue individually. Including each of the 60 or so areas of policy where we are being asked to give up veto-power.
And it would also be good, to add more validity to the decisions of the EU of the past 30 years, if those referenda included questions on whether current QMV areas should be returned to veto, or retained as QMV.
It would take a few years, but it could be a project that would finally give Europe the legitimacy that the Europhiles so desperately crave. And as an added bonus for them, I can think of few things that would have the potential to create a certain feeling of cohesion between all the populations in all the EU memberstates than such a project.
Of course I fear these are all daydreams, and that the EU will continue its Mugabe-like refusal to accept any poll result that does not favour their position.
Complain about this comment
To Fredcringe at no. 12:
"I am dismayed that Gordon Brown is set to ratify it on behalf of the British people. The people have given him no mandate to do it"
Surely, you must be joking. The moment his party got a majority vote in the general election he got the mandate from the people to do it.
Complain about this comment
INTO THE DARK (Europe is just a symptom.)
Today an ‘unspeakable’ man had breakfast with an unbelievable man. In alliance, these two have left a physical and psychological scar on the planet that will endure. The spectacle of a high-profile meeting between two damaged psyches, with delusions of god-given right to bring terror and destruction to others, in the name of freedom and peace, is a GIANT MARKER for the mess mankind is in.
If these two were your sons, how would you feel? If you were duped into believing them to be good men, how did that happen?
Something is very wrong with the way western mentality has hijacked the administration of the global asylum. The lunatics have now run it long enough to generate a surfeit of clone wannabe leaders. You can see them straining at the leash. They will soon take control bringing more of the same.
We nice folk rail against Mugabe. He has been so obligingly overt in his aberrance. But Bush and Blair run parallel in inflicting their wildly delusional ‘realities’ on others; the only difference is an emphasis on export by ‘our guys’.
If the mass of enfranchised voters continue to vote in terms rosettes, charisma, crude advertising and complex bribery, that deeply indigestible breakfast will lead on to a poisonous lunch and a ‘dark teatime of the soul’ way beyond the imaginings even of Douglas Adams.
The above disaster will not be corrected by religion, schooling, commerce, wealth or ‘leadership’. Only the promotion of INDIVIDUAL life-competence, leading to a quiescence and wholeness of being (so terrifyingly absent in my leading players and in ‘leaders’ generally) has any chance of reducing humanity’s rising angst.
Complain about this comment
How can you possibly write a post about the incomprehensibility of the Lisbon treaty to the voting public, without mentioning that it was specifically designed to be incomprehensible ? They had a comprehensible version, it was called the EU Constitution. It got voted down. So they incomprehensiblified it and had another go, hoping we wouldn't spot the shuffle with the cups. Unfortunately some of them can't keep their mouths shut.
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007
We voters may indeed be pretty dim, but we can undertstand what these two gentlemen are saying.
Complain about this comment
#34 (wopitt)
"The facts are that the treaty can mean almost anything you want it to mean, and the people who will decide are the Eurocrats."
That is a non-argument, if the treaty can mean what you want it to mean, why make it that long? Why the need to explicitly spell out in detail the division of competences in each policy area?
National governments remain the primary actor in European foreign policy, and the idea that the UK could be overruled on an issue such as a permanent seat at the Security Council is miles from the truth.
Complain about this comment
to zzznazme6
Was the general election at which Gordon Brown got a mandate to ratify it, the same general election in which the Labour party manifesto contained a promise to have a referendum on it ?
Complain about this comment
The saddest thing about all of this is that, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Although a Scot, I did a postgraduate degree in Ireland in 1991/2 in a splendidly titled area of multidisciplinary study: European Integration.
I was in Ireland during the Maastricht referendum process and I was a little scandalised by quite how much of the debate centred on the IR£6 billion that the country was expected to get from the Cohesion Fund.
However, my university fees (and those of the rest of us on the programme: about half Irish and about half from the rest of the Europe) were being footed by the European taxpayer via the European Social Fund. So I suppose I was being a little ungrateful when I pointed out, in my capacity as a Scot with an over-developed sense of history, that IR£6 billion was probably roughly the monetary equivalent of the £120,000 promised to Scotland at the time of the Union in 1707.
I have not had the opportunity to follow the debate so closely this time round but it does strike me that the relentless expansion of the EU and the growth of the Celtic Tiger deprived the Yes campaign of a trump card that it played successfully at the time of Maastricht, nearly played successfully at the time of Nice but did not have left to play this time round.
One of the essays I had to submit en route to my degree was on the "democratic deficit" and it does not seem that the deficit has been narrowed in any way since then - indeed, if the response to the Irish NO is not to engage with the one populace that got to express an opinion but to carry on regardless, then it seems that democratic deficit is wider than ever.
Complain about this comment
Number 37
The Labour Party clearly committed to hold a Referendum on a Constitution, and therefore has NO mandate to force it through.
The fact that he claims that the Treaty is not the same as the Constitution and therefore not necessary to hold a referendum fools no-one.
Even the majority of European leaders say that it is the constitution repackaged.
Either he is wrong, or all of them are wrong.
Complain about this comment
@ #33 Frenchlily and #3 gerardmulholland
Introducing references to nazism and Hitler in the debate on the future of the EU is grossly inappropriate and disrespectful towards the victims of the Second World War. Such a comparison is also counterproductive, it does nothing to stimulate a fruitful debate.
Please, do provide your positive vision on International Relations and European politics, in what manner do you propose European countries tackle the challenges that are most relevant today?
I look forward to anything constructive you might have to say.
Complain about this comment
I don't accept someone said to you: "Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we'd voted 'Yes'?". Yes there were various reasons why people said no but the introduction of the death penalty was not one of them. Pathetic.
Yes vote failure reasons:
Yes vote badly communicated to the public which created mass confusion.
No campaign introducing red herrings such as abortion, tax and neutrality.
People in doubt voted No
The previous No to Nice was a backlash against the government at the time however this time this was not the case and I reckon this is a real spanner in the works of the EU machine.
Complain about this comment
BeebLeeMore and Wopitt at 41 and 43:
"Was the general election at which Gordon Brown got a mandate to ratify it, the same general election in which the Labour party manifesto contained a promise to have a referendum on it ?"
"The Labour Party clearly committed to hold a Referendum on a Constitution, and therefore has NO mandate to force it through."
The funny thing about the elections is that the party is by no means bound by their manifestos.
You clearly mean that from ethical point of view they shouldn't do it but, by and large, they have all the mandate they need.
Complain about this comment
@44 badbananaz80
I fully endorse your comment. Looks like there is an orchestrated effort on this Euro blog to frighten people with references to Nazism, Fourth Reich, aso by people like Frenchily, geraldmulholland, need4reality
Complain about this comment
Mark, appealing to the good intentions of European leaders like Angela Merkel as you did on Today this morning, really misses the point.
We know the 'leaders' of Europe are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty and those of us with a generally optimistic outlook on life give them enough credit to assume they believe they are doing the right thing. It would be a little perverse to insist that they are all out deliberately to commit sabotage.
But that doesn't mean they *are* right. And it doesn't give them the right to force Lisbon on their citizens.
Instead of making appeals to belief, sincerity or special knowledge, our leaders ought finally to be recognising the elephant that's been sitting in the corner of every negotiating room throughout this process. Their citizens, for whatever reason, do not want what they are being told they have to accept.
The sooner they recognise that, and set about understanding why that is, and doing something about it - other than simply attempting to repackage and push through their own agenda - the sooner some genuine progress might be made.
Complain about this comment
@44
How about European countries tackle the challenges that are most relevant today in the same way they tackled similar challenges in the past 60 years?
I.e. working together where possible to find common ground, but accepting there are certain areas where countries don't agree with each other, and then going their own way for better or worse?
It went well enough for 6 decades, what is so very different now? We had military crises ranging from the Cold War to Yugoslavia, we had an oil crisis in the 1970's, we had the arrival of a new economic superpower in Japan in the 1970's and 1980's, not too dissimilar from China today.
Somehow everyone seems to assume all the time that the current issues are completely new and unlike anything we've ever seen before. The countries in Europe have faced many problems in the past, and have gotten through them without the need for an overarching EU policy. Granted, not all were handled perfectly, but in my opinion, none were handled so catastrophically wrong (at least in the past 60 years) that it makes a strong enough argument for scrapping the sovereign rights of every country to set its own foreign policy.
Complain about this comment
@47 ignace2
I'm afraid the No campaign has learned a few tricks from the Yes campaign in the Netherlands in 2005. The Dutch government said that 'the lights would go out' and even referred to what happened to Yugoslavia (i.e. civil war) if the Netherlands voted no.
Personally, I don't believe in weird conspiracy theories in either direction, but I do have to say that if I look at Mugabe being unable to accept his defeat in the first round of elections there, and the EU refusing to accept a No from Ireland, I see disconcerting similarities. Am I wrong?
Complain about this comment
"WHY POLITICIANS HATE REFERENDUMS"
... It is very simple;they want to bludgeon and bulldoze over every single dissenting voice.It doesn't help them when people start asking questions.
THAT is why there is no trust in the street; this old trickery of "we-know-best-we-have-the-brains" is just too obvious and too old hat!
THANK GOD FOR THE IRISH WHO WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS!
Who said politicians are ALWAYS right? For God's sake! ... Their mistakes and crimes are everywhere to be seen in the stark light of day!
Complain about this comment
to virtualreality, #36
My proposal does not force each EU state to accept or reject a package proposal.
Either the voters in a certain state wish to secede from the EU and then they should be given the opportunity to force their government to do so, or they wish to remain in the EU and in such case they and their governments should respect the procedural approach (status quo; Lisbon Treaty; renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty) favored by a majority of EU voters as a whole. I cannot see any other way of reaching an EU-wide consensus on the next steps to be taken as part of the contemplated institutional reform (unless the EU public feels that these issues need not be submitted to a referendum, but that does not seem to be the case because the legitimacy of the contemplated institutional reforms is constantly being challenged precisely on the grounds that the public has not been given a chance to vote on these reforms).
Complain about this comment
The reason politicians don't like referendums is that the people get to speak directly to the laws which goven them bypassing the authority the politicians were granted by them to speak in their behalf. Why the people have the unalienable right to a referendum which the politicians cannot deny or veto, the meaning of the EU treaty itself, the EU constitution, the Lisbon treaty, and the events which swirled around them is best understood by comparing them with what the Declaration of Independence of the united States of America has to say about the justification and purpose of government and where it gets it legitimate power to rule from. This is the first of the three cornerstone documents which sets out the basic plan of the United States. It is written on one page in plain language, its meaning understandable by the average person just like the other two.
"When in the course of human events....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
That all men are created equal has been interpreted as equal under the eyes of the law. That means that Ireland has as much right to deny a form of government which grants unacceptable power without the consent of the Irish who would be governed by Lisbon as any other people including the entire aggregate of the EU do. This is not merely one more treaty, it goes to the heart of how they are to be governed and therefore grants them more justification to assume direct power of decision here than any other kind of treaty. That the EU has been intentionally constructed such that all of its members would be governed by one law spelled out in among other places this treaty is further justification for the referendum. The fact that only one of the members' governments had given its people the right to make this decision for themselves is proof that the EU is no democracy. Already, the leaders of the EU are scheming how to work around the decision made by those who have the exclusive right to grant power, just as they did with the EU Constitution, just as they did with all the other treaties which transformed what was advertised as a trading bloc into a monstrous despotic continent sized super state. That the populations of these nations have universally not rebelled in armed revolution if necessary to throw off this tyranny demonstrates their weak understanding of what democracy is and their lack of value or committment to defend their inalienable rights.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The people of Europe have failed utterly to do this. They prefer to suffer under their tyranny which assumes to itself increasing and limitless power over their lives with the passage of time.
Many of the abuses cited of King George III could equally apply to the abuses of the EU Governing body over its members. But it is not just the despotic king of England who came under attack for his tyrannical abuses, the American Revolutionaries had something to say to and about the British Parliament as well;
"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
Much of the same could be said of the EU Parliament's treatment of its member nations.
Finally, their justification of their act of Revolution in the overthrow of their tyrannical British opressors;
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The member states of the EU are not so disposed. They have not felt the intensity of the arbitrary subjugation the EU despotism in collusion with their own despotic governments have imposed on them. When they do, will they have the courage to act? Personally I doubt it. It is not in their character or nature. They are invariably merely passive grumblers.
Here's the whole text;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
It's signifigance cannot be underestimated. It was the shot heard round the world because it rejected in its entirety the basic rationalization of and justification for the power of some people to rule over others. Too bad the BBC didn't consider these critical documents which set the United States on its course from thirteen remote weak colonies to the dominating world power the likes of which has never been seen in a mere two centuries in their clearly flawed 6 part documentary "America, Age of Empire."
Complain about this comment
@ 52 oulematu
Yes you are forcing a package deal.
The situation, if we follow it by the book is very simple.
The current rules state:
- We abide by the rules of the current Treaty (lets call it Nice for clarity)
- Unless all 27 countries agree to the Lisbon treaty, we stick to the Nice treaty.
Those are the rules everyone accepted a few years ago. I see no reason why Ireland or any other country would accept your proposal. There is no choice available within the current rules that states 'the majority decides which way to go, and if you don't like it you have to leave'.
The only choice available in the current rules is simple:"We all abide by Nice and if we can't all agree on a new text, we stick to Nice". There are no hints in the current rules anywhere about being able to leave or to being able to force anyone else to leave. So why do you insist on such a course which has no basis whatsoever in the current Nice treaty?
I did not make these rules, all the memberstates wrote and or agreed to that set of rules. Is it so much to ask that countries abide by the rules they actually agreed to?
Don't you see that your and the EU's willingness to trample the current rules as set in Nice and force a small country like Ireland to abide by the will of the other governments is exactly what is wrong with Europe?
That it is that attitude more than anything else that is making people resist further integration.
There is no respect for the rules, as set in the current Nice treaty in the Yes-camp, there is no respect for the sovereign right of a country like Ireland to say no, even though every nation in the EU agreed to the treaty that gave Ireland that very right to say no.
And then you wonder why people stop following you further down that path? Amazing.
Complain about this comment
Do government's hate referendum? Only when they ask the wrong question!
The vote YES or NO concept is flawed. Referendum can only cope with choice between distinct options i.e. Do THIS or do THAT. The do THIS or don't do THIS question doesn't work as there is nothing to lose by saying no.
I think that Europe should continue, and that Ireland should still be a part but excluded from voting procedures, should not have any commissioners etc until they agree to follow the Lisbon treaty. That should re-focus the minds of the NO campaign pretty quickly.
It appears that all the commentators have missed the irony of a single small country derailing a much larger process that includes the expansion of Qualified Majority Voting! Isn't this why Europe needs the Lisbon Treaty in the first place?
Complain about this comment
"I think that Europe should continue, and that Ireland should still be a part but excluded from voting procedures, should not have any commissioners etc until they agree to follow the Lisbon treaty. That should re-focus the minds of the NO campaign pretty quickly."
So in other words Europe should just abandon the concept of democracy and just fully embrace tyranny?
I thought the "If they don't agree with us then we will beat them up until they do" attitude was bad enough in the playground.
Complain about this comment
to virtualreality, #54
What your approach does is to effectively lock the EU into an institutional arrangement that the EU will not be able to reform. This is ok if no changes are needed. But if the EU loses its ability to function as a result of its inability to reform itself, the EU will gradually lose its relevance until it is replaced by another form of organization that can reform itself. If this is what people intend, I am not necessarily against that, but we should openly say that this is the case and people should start thinking about what kind of an organization (if any) should replace the EU once it withers away.
Complain about this comment
Of course the referendum reflects a lot of issues - that's what the YES campaign were hoping for. Their slogans: "Making Europe work better", "Increase your prospects", "Enlarge your opportunities" helped turned it into an "EU? Yes or No" vote. The fact every other nation is scared by the thought of a referendum has to reflect popular anti-EU feeling.
Sure enough, the EU's anti-democratic tendencies will make it tend towards ignoring the will of a significant number of people though. How could they ever be wrong?...
Complain about this comment
Ironbath
So as you would have it, Ireland should be compelled to be subject to EU laws over which they would have no say whatsoever because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to. This is a typical European reaction which demonstrates that democracy is neither inherent in the European culture nor manifest in an of its governments. The fact that the people of only one nation had the right to a referendum and rejected a treaty they didn't understand and were afraid would take away even more of their rights than the EU has already appropriated is unacceptable to you. As I've said, the EU is beginning to resemble the USSR in every way more and more each day. And with that despotism will come the social disintegration of the entire fabric of society and the economic collapse the USSR suffered under identical circumstances. And what will Europeans say when it happens. I know, they will say it's America's fault. When anything goes wrong for them it's always America's fault. Perhaps that is why so few Americans even care anymore what Europeans say or think.
Complain about this comment
A fundamental point is being missed here.
It comes down to the differences in the nature of politics in Continental Europe and the British Isles (yes, I am including Ireland, since the original Brits were Celts!) . On the continent, politics in most countries comes down to a split between the left and right, so much so that "policies" rarely have the same weight as political allegiances, obviating the need for politicos, whatever their hue, to campaign too hard on issues. Which is exactly what happened in Ireland....
Je reste ma valise, as the Frenchman might have put it
Complain about this comment
Number 46
Silly me to think that there was an ethical dimension to democracy.
Democracy without ethics is politics.
The Labour party might be legally entitled to push through ratificaiton of the Treaty, but it cannot do so claiming a democratic mandate.
Complain about this comment
I am dismayed at the tone and tenor of the BBC's reporting of this vote and its follow up. Virtually every single news item has begun with the bland and disgracefully one-sided view: the Lisbon Treaty is designed to stream-line the voting in an expanded Europe. And the rest, Mr Mardell and cronies. This is so ludicrously simplistic as to be lies by omission.
Then there is something thrown in like "Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we'd voted 'Yes'?", thereby hinting that the No voters are all poorly informed or lunatics or both - People who are scarcely worthy of a vote, perhaps? Or people who's views can readily be ignored by the intelligentsia, all of whom, naturally, vote Yes.
Bring on the defenestration in Prague. Hoepfully 2008 will be a Prague Spring for European democracy.
Complain about this comment
@57 Oulematu
Yes, stagnation is a real possibility here. Unfortunately, that is a choice that governments have willingly made when they agreed to all the treaties preceding the Lisbon treaty. However unattractive that might be, it is the only basis that has a full legal basis. Everything else would be imposing rules that have not been agreed on by everyone on countries.
Complain about this comment
Mark, I'm surprised that you fell for the notion that the Treaty was too complicated to understand - it was intentionally designed to obscufate all meaning.
I'm glad you think it will die. I can't wait to dance on its grave.
lacerniagigante @11 - Yeah, That Mussolini made the trains run on time.....
Complain about this comment
"we stood for 1/2 hour on the tracks with the train driver making up excuses for the delay. And I was kept wondering that such things have never happened to me on French or German railways" [#11]
Simple: because French and German railway workers always announce their train stoppages way in advance so that you can make alternative trip arrangements with some lorry driver.
Especially since those stoppages (they call it 'industrial action') usually last longer than 1/2 day.
Complain about this comment
I bet that if the Irish (and many other European peoples) were given the choice between WAR or PEACE, many would choose WAR. That's because of our warrior-like spirits and culture, which is very European.
The good thing about the EU in general and this treaty in particular is that we are kissing goodbye the old ages of war.
Who are the Eurosceptics like MaxSceptic, Declan Ganley, Sinn Fein? They are the peoples that live in this past view of Europe and given the choice always choose War over peace. They cannot even overcome the Irish Republic/Northern Ireland divide!
As a European who lived briefly in the UK and got an Education there, I would like to see specially the English help make the European Union on the world stage. If you wish to win the coming 'battles' with China, Brazil, Russia, India and the US, be proudly all the Europeans that you always been.
Complain about this comment
We in the UK never voted to join the EU. We voted to join the EEC which then morphed into the EC and finally came to be the EU. We did not choose ever-closer political union. The EU is an idea dreamt up to keep Germany and France from tearing each other's throats out again. Why we should have to come under the dictatorship of continental politicians with their Roman Law, excessive bureaucracy and illiberal trade is a mystery to me. Membership should be voted on every tens years. That would keep the Eurocrats on their toes and their snouts half out of the trough.
Complain about this comment
cryptomate @66 writes: "Who are the Eurosceptics like MaxSceptic, Declan Ganley, Sinn Fein? They are the peoples that live in this past view of Europe and given the choice always choose War over peace."
Who the hell are you to make such an outrageous accusation?!
Have you witnessed war first-hand? I have, and it ain't pretty.
Maybe this is why I don't want my country to be put into a potential federal pressure-cooker that could one day explode.
Complain about this comment
R67
"Why we should have to come under the dictatorship of continental politicians with their Roman Law, excessive bureaucracy and illiberal trade is a mystery to me."
Ask this mystery to the 3 main British parties that persist in keeping the UK within the EU.
Don't ask it to the continentals... For us it's also a mystery :-)
Complain about this comment
The arrogance of the EU crowd and their acolytes is breathtaking. I mean, why bother to have referendums or elections at all? We the ordinary people are too stupid anyway. Much better to appoint a few politicians for life and let them do whatever they want.
The thing that ticks me off the most is the condescending tone with which they belittle us. "You don't understand", "it's too complicated for referendums" etc.
Complain about this comment
Well who'd have thought that Mt Olympus was actually in Brussles...
I wonder what game the gods will want to play with the mortals next?
Complain about this comment
Europe has a easy way to sort out this mess. One referendum across all 27 member states asking if they want a Euro super state, scrapping all sovereign states(what they want us to have) or a common market ( what we were promised). With compulsory voting! This slice by slice method is becoming meaningless and very painful.
Lets get rid of all pretence and sort it out once and for all
Complain about this comment
I find it a bit unfair that it is argued that 980,000 irish people voted against 450,000,000 other europeans.
That's simply not true. Every one else hasn't even been asked. How can one be so presumptuous to assume that everyone else is in favour of the Lisbon Treaty?
Complain about this comment
Only those politicians who think that they are true leaders of the states hate referendums.
In Lithuania, when people had to decide whether to join EU or not in 2004, May referendum, government set whole weekend for voting (two days).
After first day, government realized that too little people are coming and referendum won't meet requirements due to lack of voters.
On Sunday, the biggest chain of supermarkets "Maxima LT" announced that everyone who voted in referendum and got a sticker at voting place could buy washing powder, beer or salt only for 1 ct (lest then 1 euro cent). People's activity has risen dramatically and referendum the decision was legal.
However there were people complaining that they didn't get a sticker and couldn't buy things almost free in the "Maxima LT" stores.
How will you call this referendum? I bet Lithuania is illegally in EU, because government tricked citizens and that referendum broke the laws.
I wonder how much did government paid to "Maxima LT" store chain for such a favor.
Complain about this comment
It is rare for me to have sympathy with governments, but on the issue of referenda on Europe, i do.
Perhaps the anti-EU posters who populate Mark's blogs should reflect on the fact that the reason why any referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would be meaningless in the UK is the attitude of the British press (BBC excluded). The Telegraph, Sun, Express, Mail and even the Times resolutely fail to give any form of balanced coverage to the EU, especially not on this Treaty.
They fail in their duty to inform the public, preferring an entirely one-sided attempt to brainwash the public. The vast majority of voters have no hope of making an informed decision - either way - on whether Lisbon or the EU are good or bad for the UK.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR @75,
Oh? So we're total dummies influenced by this or that newspaper (but not the nice BBC...).
Best take away our right votes to vote on anything.... freedom is so dangerous.
BTW - you didn't mention The Guardian or the FT. Why? is that because their coverage is 'balanced' (i.e. pro-EU)?
Complain about this comment
Re Comment #79
So the voters in the UK are insufficiently astute to decide for themselves whether to vote for or against a referenda question!
UK voters would all blithely vote according to the British Press unbalanced coverage but not be swayed by the BBC coverage? (Mark, you might as well give up reporting and blogging on the EU . . . the UK citizens are too gullible to listen to you - they only read newspapers!).
How quaint. Another person who wishes to denigrate the British Electorate but now also wants to castigate the British Press as well.
Perhaps we should disenfranchise the easily persuaded/misled electorate for General Elections too! Heaven forbid we elected a government just because the British Press took sides and we all trooped into the voting booths and marked the ballot paper as we were merely pawns of the newspapers. Stuff and nonsense!
The UK electorate are far more astute than the europhiles believe and, Heaven forbid that they actually voted for membership of the EU in a UK Referendum, I would not trash a pro-European Union result by denigrating the voters intelligence or honesty. I would accept the result as the wish of the majority. It would be "the Peoples" choice for good or bad.
Comment #79 merely highlights the fascist nature of the argument of the EU Fantasists, "We cannot trust the citizens of the EU to vote for the EU so we will deny them any referenda or democratic choices and they can trust us to do the right thing!".
Possibly, more troubling is the implication that the electorate are too weak-willed or intelligent enough to make up their own minds and make a self-informed choice.
Yeah, right!
Complain about this comment
Politicians hate referendums because there is no guarantee that they will get their way! They always brag about democracy and freedoms, but do mostly the very opposite!
Politicians have vastly different agendas than what the people need or want. Sometimes, I wonder whether or not
'someone' else has power over them!??
Complain about this comment
Many of you mention the clarity and greatness of the american constitution and with right. But it goes without saying that it was NOT inspected or ratified by peoples. The basic tenant of any democratic regime is the scope of the competence of the people, and in any sensible theory of democracy you will learn that peoples are supposed and have right to judge of the consequences of current policies, they are not, however, supposed to judge of the consequences of the policies the future result of which is only relatively predictable by competent judges (economists, law professionals etc.)
To that extent all those denouncing "the general drift" are nothing but ignorant , and those who support them nothing but populists.
Complain about this comment
I'm all in favour of referendums provided they concern simple black/white issues and people know something about what they are voting for. With regard to the Lisbon Treaty, I'm not sure this is the case. Maybe the voting paper should have had five questions along the following lines
1) How many countries are there in the European Union?
2) Which country currently holds the presidency (up until the end of June 2008)?
3) Which one of the following countries is a member: Croatia, Finland, Norway or Switzerland?
4) Who is Jose Manuel Barroso?
If you get at least three of the above questions right you are eligible to answer question 5
5) Do you agree with the Lisbon Treaty?
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill - An excellent suggestion!
To the two people who thought my previous comment (#55) was akin to playground bullying (#56) and formation of the USSR (#59):
1) More governments have ratified the Lisbon Treaty (representing a vast population of Europe) so why is it democratic to ignore their views?
2) The Lisbon Treaty was not imposed, but was argued and debated by the participant member states and agreed by their political leaders.
It seems that Ireland had every opportunity to influence the "rules of the club", and now those rules have been decided by the governments of the member states, then Ireland must accept the rules or leave the club.
My point is principally that Ireland should not have been allowed to vote "No" without knowing what that "No" would mean.
Complain about this comment
@iantownhill (80)
I've got a few more questions for your referendum.
1) do you think that elected national parliaments should have the legislative powers, or the unelected commission?
2) do you agree that government ministers should be able to bypass national parliaments and legislate themselves?
3) Which one of the following was not elected: Medvedev, Bush, Barroso, Mbeki, Lula, Calderon, Chaves?
4) what do the following have in common: Hitler, Mussolini, Barroso, Mao, Castro?
My answers would be:
1) national parliaments
2) no
3) Barroso
4) they were all appointed, not elected
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic Re 64: Ha ha ha! Maybe that's the reason why Winston Churchill admired him so much as to call him "Roman genius… the greatest lawgiver among men". (ISBN 1840186313)
Anyway, the fact is that the current state of railways in the UK is worse than many 3rd world countries. Fortunately, other EU nations which are aiming at privatising the rail sector are taking note of the Thatcherite "free-market" nonsense.
Complain about this comment
I would never agree with the Lisbon Treaty which represents another step towards a federal Europe because of unacceptable current practices and /or problems e.g.
1) unreformed CAP which benefits countries with big agricultural sectors while making food unecessarily expensive not to mention butter mountains and wine lakes for ordinary people
2) overbearing beaurocracy such as interference in the internal government of member countries and the expense of shuttling from Brussels to Strasbourg on amonthly basis just to indulge France.
3)EU accounts have NEVER been passed by auditors.
4)EU is governmet by beaurocrats with minimal or no democracy
5)'Fiddling' of expenses by overpaid MEPs
Complain about this comment
Politicians and businessmen love Europe because they make money from it.
We, the ordinary people, dislike (some hate) Europe because it is a bottomless pit swallowing more and more of our hard-earned cash whilst denying us a say in how it should be spent.
Couple that with endless new laws and directives that interfere with our freedoms, is it any wonder that The Irish said 'no'.
I'm certain that, given the chance, we would say 'no' too.
Incidentally, the reason that the USA has such a clear and easy-to-understand Constitution is that the bulk of it is taken, often word-for-word, directly from our own Bill and Declaration of Rights, 1688-9.
That is OUR Constitution, parts of which our Government constantly denies us.
Europe is fine for trade and travel, but may God protect us from a Superstate and its greedy politicians.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
To revised my comments on 16 June 2008
Politicians hate referendums since they are not able to predict the outcome of the vote....
--Dennis Junior--
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS