The Lisbon Treaty

[Firo]

Treaty weren't discussed so much as what many perceive is a growing "anti-democracy" attitude in the EU, and even verbal ttacks on Ireland and the Irish, claiming they are traitors, Nazis, idiots, etc for not voting No a second time.

I say. Fuck them.

[Mr. Wilhelm]

I have nothing against the treaty. The problem is that when a country vote No, they're forced to revote until they say yes. It's not my view of democracy. It's nice to point out the criticism that grew for them not voting No a second time, but the criticism they got for voting No the first time are just ridiculous. And how do you think more than 20% of them changed heir opinions just one year latter? Thanks to a fair election where both side were allowed to easilly say why voting Yes, and why voting No, or because those who were for Voting No were nearly stopped from saying their message? Yeah, very fair election.

France voted No the first time too. Surprise, when we saw peoples refused it, they used the assembly to make it go. In fact nearly all the country used their President/Assembly/Government to give a Yes to the treaty. They were all too scarred to ask people, justified when you see what happened in France despite 80% of the politics and 90% of TV/Media time claiming to say Yes.

Good treaty? Yes. Democratic Europe? The day where the leaders will dare asking peoples their opinions, I'll consider calling it democratic.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wilhelm

I have nothing against the treaty. The problem is that when a country vote No, they're forced to revote until they say yes. It's not my view of democracy. It's nice to point out the criticism that grew for them not voting No a second time, but the criticism they got for voting No the first time are just ridiculous. And how do you think more than 20% of them changed heir opinions just one year latter? Thanks to a fair election where both side were allowed to easilly say why voting Yes, and why voting No, or because those who were for Voting No were nearly stopped from saying their message? Yeah, very fair election.

That's disingenuous. Pretty much everyone knew that a second No would've spelled the death of the treaty. There wouldn't have been a third try.

The issues the Irish were concerned with were taxation, abortion and neutrality. These issues had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. They voted No in protest because they felt the government hadn't done a good job of explaining the Treaty to them.

France voted No the first time too. Surprise, when we saw peoples refused it, they used the assembly to make it go. In fact nearly all the country used their President/Assembly/Government to give a Yes to the treaty. They were all too scarred to ask people, justified when you see what happened in France despite 80% of the politics and 90% of TV/Media time claiming to say Yes.

When's the last time your government has passed a referendum on whether to declare war or not? Or a referendum on whether or not a Supreme Court decision should be upheld?

The reason governments don't put it to a vote is because they know voters didn't actually read the Treaty, and are just going to go "EU IS HITLER, VOTE NO".

Good treaty? Yes. Democratic Europe? The day where the leaders will dare asking peoples their opinions, I'll consider calling it democratic.

But it isn't like you live in Switzerland; you don't live in a direct democracy. You live in a representative democracy. You pick people to make decisions for you.

Relatedly, you actually think 1 country killing a Treaty after 26 countries ratified it is actually democratic?

Originally Posted by Square Ninja

You'd be surprised.

Not saying you're wrong, simply surprised how xenophobia is kept alive by something you didn't even live through.

[Mr. Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That's disingenuous. Pretty much everyone knew that a second No would've spelled the death of the treaty.

Probably. Too bad everyone knew before the vote what were the results though, since the treaty has never been seriously threatened by this second vote.

The issues the Irish were concerned with where taxation, abortion and neutrality. These issues had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. They voted No in protest because they felt the government hadn't done a good job of explaining the Treaty to them.

Doesn't change the unfairness of the vote. Who care why they voted no? Fact is everything has been done to manipulate their vote at the extreme the second time (although this is pretty much everywhere). In one year, pretty much nothing changed to justify them voting yes.

When's the last time your government has passed a referendum on whether to declare war or not? Or a referendum on whether or not a Supreme Court decision should be upheld?

Actually in France, some very important treaty on the Europe were voted through referendum. That is until people said no, what pretty much changed nothing. One more wonderful example of how 'representative' democracy makes think to peoples they have powers when they don't.

The reason governments don't put it to a vote is because they know voters didn't actually read the Treaty, and are just going to go "EU IS HITLER, VOTE NO".

This is an extremely biased view. Actually no one of those who asked to vote No take stupid argument like that. You should try to listen what they say and not push everything aside in block. I myself disagree with them, but the fears of peoples and the flaw of this text are reals. Peoples who are against it arent just a bunch of "Lolz, Europe sucKs cuz of the Euro!!!1! Everything's moar expansive since THEN!!".

You're not Switzerland; you don't live in a direct democracy. You live in a representative democracy. You pick people to make decisions for you.

Just because our system is flawed means that we're gotta agree and calls democratic everything those elected do. You seem to consider normal that after french people said massively no, government said Yes anyway, or normal that after the irish voted no, they're given a second vote where medias decided their vote in before. I don't. At least dictatorship makes it clear that what peoples want doesn't matter.

Relatedly, you actually think 1 country killing a Treaty after 26 countries ratified it is actually democratic?

Would this treaty have been done in asking peoples their opinions, I'd say it's not democratic. But a treaty where all governments avoided to ask peoples their opinions, because the knew out of the 400 millions European more than half would have said no? One country stopping it isn't much more anti democratic than what happened.

[Phoenix]

Probably. Too bad everyone knew before the vote what were the results though, since the treaty has never been seriously threatened by this second vote.

Not really sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

Doesn't change the unfairness of the vote. Who care why they voted no? Fact is everything has been done to manipulate their vote at the extreme the second time (although this is pretty much everywhere). In one year, pretty much nothing changed to justify them voting yes.

Besides the legally binding assurances that the specific issues they were concerned with aren't being touched by the Treaty? You're half right, the No campaign was using anger, the Yes campaign was using fear. The recession hit Ireland pretty bad, and in this time, they don't really want to alienate the rest of Europe since they depend on the EU.

Actually in France, some very important treaty on the Europe were voted through referendum. That is until people said no, what pretty much changed nothing. One more wonderful example of how 'representative' democracy makes think to peoples they have powers when they don't.

Referendum or opinion poll? There's a difference.

Be that as it may, you're not really addressing my point. The entire country could disagree with a Supreme Court decision, so what? It's not up for opinion.

Also you are aware that, by law, such a minute change to the law didn't require a referendum, right? The only country where it did was Ireland.

This is an extremely biased view. Actually no one of those who asked to vote No take stupid argument like that. You should try to listen what they say and not push everything aside in block. I myself disagree with them, but the fears of peoples and the flaw of this text are reals. Peoples who are against it arent just a bunch of "Lolz, Europe sucKs cuz of the Euro!!!1! Everything's moar expansive since THEN!!".

Oh, that comment was not about Ireland. It's more directed at Britian's eurosceptism. My point is that the reason governments don't put it to a referendum is because there's a large group people that are against an unified Europe for reasons other than smart ones, and the governments don't want to run the risk.

Just because our system is flawed means that we're gotta agree and calls democratic everything those elected do. You seem to consider normal that after french people said massively no, government said Yes anyway, or normal that after the irish voted no, they're given a second vote where medias decided their vote in before. I don't. At least dictatorship makes it clear that what peoples want doesn't matter.

I'm not sure what Treaty you're referring to, just keep in mind it has to be a legally binding referendum and not just an opinion poll.

Again, you must really hate every government apart from Switzerland's, since things like streamlining an organization's enlargement are usually never put to vote. Should slavery have been put to vote? Women's rights? Balls no. Is it undemocratic for a government to illegalize slavery without consulting a referendum?

In regards to direct democracy, no thank you. Switzerland lacks a complete separation of church and state because the majority voted against it. I think I'll keep my representative democracy.

[Mr. Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Not really sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

The Referendum was an act. Its results was set in stone since the No of last year.

Referendum or opinion poll? There's a difference.

Referendum.

Be that as it may, you're not really addressing my point. The entire country could disagree with a Supreme Court decision, so what? It's not up for opinion.

In theory that's true. In the facts, as far as France is concerned at least, a jurisprudence rejected by a majority of people who make it knows, doesn't last long. But that's beside the point.

Also you are aware that, by law, such a minute change to the law didn't require a referendum, right? The only country where it did was Ireland.

So, you don't consider that there is a problem when 27 governments vote a text, with maybe more than half peoples disagreeing with said text? For you, it's the absolute expression of perfect democracy?

Like I said, dictatorship makes itself clear on the 'freedom to chose' all those democracy claim peoples have.

I'm not sure what Treaty you're referring to, just keep in mind it has to be a legally binding referendum and not just an opinion poll.

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. French rejected it in 2005 (as well as Dutch), and it was legally binding, the treaty died beside. That is, until the Treaty of Lisbon, which is basically a rewritten version of this very treaty with a few change. My main issue is that basically they took the rejected treaty, remixed it to make it look fully new, and voted it discarding the votes of peoples before.

Again, you must really hate every government apart from Switzerland's, since things like streamlining an organization's enlargement are usually never put to vote. Should slavery have been put to vote? Women's rights? Balls no. Is it undemocratic for a government to illegalize slavery without consulting a referendum?

Freedom being a main point of democracy, any country still using slaves or not allowing women to vote is by definition not a democracy. A government who allows woman to vote is in this sense not democratic yet, so if we were to push the reasoning, this was an anti democratic decision because the country wasn't a democracy in before it. Bad decision? No, at the contrary.

But this doesn't compare with the vote of a treaty in a modern democracy.

In regards to direct democracy, no thank you. Switzerland lacks a complete separation of church and state because the majority voted against it. I think I'll keep my representative democracy.

We're speaking of the same Switzerland, right, the one that has no official religion? Now if you want to speak on the cantons and stuff, we can go on how the Bible is used for about anything official in the US. Not to add, Switzerland, the (or at least one the) country with the highest quality of life in the world. Not saying direct democracy is its cause obviously, although I wonder how it'd be with a 'representative democracy'.

Beside they have universal health care. The US don't, and I start to wonder if Obama ever will go until doing something near of it. Just trying to say, direct democracy is not the heaven, neither is representative one, maybe even worst.

[Phoenix]

The Referendum was an act. Its results was set in stone since the No of last year.

Now is this a conspiracy theory, or can you back this up?

So, you don't consider that there is a problem when 27 governments vote a text, with maybe more than half peoples disagreeing with said text? For you, it's the absolute expression of perfect democracy?

Like I said, dictatorship makes itself clear on the 'freedom to chose' all those democracy claim peoples have.

I have to bring up, yet again, that unless you live in a direct democracy, most of government decisions are made without consulting the will of the people.

How is it that you consider Lisbon a problem, yet every single other government decision that is made without putting it to a referendum (more than 99.9% of them) is a-ok? What is it about a Treaty that is designed to streamline enlargement makes people so nervous?

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. French rejected it in 2005 (as well as Dutch), and it was legally binding, the treaty died beside. That is, until the Treaty of Lisbon, which is basically a rewritten version of this very treaty with a few change. My main issue is that basically they took the rejected treaty, remixed it to make it look fully new, and voted it discarding the votes of peoples before.

Couple of things. First, really bad example since the treaty establishing Constitution of Europe, as you said, died. Secondly, it's a bit hypocritical to say Ireland referendum wasn't going to kill Lisbon when France's referendum killed the Constitution.

Lastly, are you implying that because a Treaty gets rejected, they should never make any more treaties ever? The Constitution changed the law in such a way that France, by law, had to put it to a referendum. The Lisbon Treaty does not. They spent more than a decade making Lisbon. That's a very long time to spend "remixing" an existing treaty.

Freedom being a main point of democracy, any country still using slaves or not allowing women to vote is by definition not a democracy. A government who allows woman to vote is in this sense not democratic yet, so if we were to push the reasoning, this was an anti democratic decision because the country wasn't a democracy in before it. Bad decision? No, at the contrary.

But this doesn't compare with the vote of a treaty in a modern democracy.

Answer my question, though: is he government correct in ignoring the will of the voters (in issues such as slavery, women's rights, or if you prefer, homosexual rights, etc.) if it determines the issue should legally not be put to a referendum?

If, for example, the issue of whether atheists should be eligible for President or not is put to vote in America, what do you think would happen?

We're speaking of the same Switzerland, right, the one that has no official religion? Now if you want to speak on the cantons and stuff, we can go on how the Bible is used for about anything official in the US. Not to add, Switzerland, the (or at least one the) country with the highest quality of life in the world. Not saying direct democracy is its cause obviously, although I wonder how it'd be with a 'representative democracy'.

Pointing out USA's bullshit does not excuse Switzerland's refusal to allow full separation of church and state. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. And of course they have a high quality of life; it's Europe. I'm not saying they don't live well (I think Norway's e top one, btw), I'm simply saying that direct democracy has some gaping holes I don't feel comfortable with.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

By the same token, what is the well-grounded objection to Lisbon? If it's not, as you say, simply fueled by paranoia, ultra-nationalism and xenophobia, what are the objections to it?

Beside they have universal health care. The US don't, and I start to wonder if Obama ever will go until doing something near of it. Just trying to say, direct democracy is not the heaven, neither is representative one, maybe even worst.

Fair enough, then let's go with parliamentary democracy then, as opposed to a direct democracy.

[Mr. Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Now is this a conspiracy theory, or can you back this up?

Let's say that when during one year the medias brainwash peoples to vote Yes, that every single country (or nearly) of Europe looks down on them for having voted No, and some leaders obsessed with the treaty like Sarkozy do everything they can for the treaty be voted Yes everywhere, I've difficulty to see how this referendum was a threat, the result was obvious. Not conspiracy, more like how elections are easilly manipulated.

Explain me where is the democracy in that election. Sending 'brainwashed' peoples to vote is the definition of democracy?

I have to bring up, yet again, that unless you live in a direct democracy, most of government decisions are made without consulting the will of the people.

How is it that you consider Lisbon a problem, yet every single other government decision that is made without putting it to a referendum (more than 99.9% of them) is a-ok? What is it about a Treaty that is designed to streamline enlargement makes people so nervous?

The treaty is about Europe, and a big step for the union. In a country like France where most treaty were voted by Referendum, it's a problem. And I never said every decision were a ok with me either.

Couple of things. First, really bad example since the treaty establishing Constitution of Europe, as you said, died. Secondly, it's a bit hypocritical to say Ireland referendum wasn't going to kill Lisbon when France's referendum killed the Constitution

.
Ireland could have killed the treaty with a second No (though, looking at what Sarkozy said when he was President of Europe, he'd do anything for the treaty still pass, and he won). Things is that everyone knew there would never be a second no, thus why I said they couldn't kill it.

Lastly, are you implying that because a Treaty gets rejected, they should never make any more treaties ever? The Constitution changed the law in such a way that France, by law, had to put it to a referendum. The Lisbon Treaty does not. They spent more than a decade making Lisbon. That's a very long time to spend "remixing" an existing treaty.

They spent a decade for Lisbon? Mind to back up? Because between 2005 and 2007 I see only two years. Also, not really forced, change in the french constitution don't need peoples opinions at the origin (what I disagree with but whatever). But it's a tradition since De Gaulle twisted the constitution, and it came to somehow using referendum for Europe stuff, that is, before Sarkozy got elected.

And obviously they have to keep making treaty. But coming out with a remix of a treaty rejected two years earlier? Meh.

Answer my question, though: is he government correct in ignoring the will of the voters (in issues such as slavery, women's rights, or if you prefer, homosexual rights, etc.) if it determines the issue should legally not be put to a referendum?

Yes they are because in this case the will of the voters is against the very definition of democracy. To preserve democracy, they have to ignore their will.

Voting No to the treaty isn't against the definition of democracy on the other hand.

If, for example, the issue of whether atheists should be eligible for President or not is put to vote in America, what do you think would happen?

Then a Atheist President will never be elected, but as I said before, this would change the American Democracy into a false, or limited democracy, what shouldn't happen.

Pointing out USA's bullshit does not excuse Switzerland's refusal to allow full separation of church and state. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. And of course they have a high quality of life; it's Europe. I'm not saying they don't live well (I think Norway's e top one, btw), I'm simply saying that direct democracy has some gaping holes I don't feel comfortable with.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

He forgot to point out the average voter elected him. What leads to the idea that if voters aren't smart enough to vote laws and stuff, they aren't smart enough to vote for the 'good' leader, same leaders who male decisions.

By the same token, what is the well-grounded objection to Lisbon? If it's not, as you say, simply fueled by paranoia, ultra-nationalism and xenophobia, what are the objections to it?

As I said, I'm for the treaty, not against, so I'm not the good person to ask for this. I am merely against the way the treaty was 'voted'.

But I thin, if I had to say personally, that the flaws of the text (they were presented many times and even those for the yes admitted its flaw) is a big argument against. They say "It's better than the one we already have", and it's totally true, but I'd prefer they don't rush and make a better treaty.

Also, from many peoples opinions, when there is things like Europe forbidding to help with money some kind of jobs because it would be unfair compared to others country and stuff, and that said peoples were used to have that help, it can make you anti Europe in this way. I understand the Europe viewpoint, but I understand too that you're pissed off when suddenly Europe cuts off all the helps, or refuse to do anything to help. Heard the recent milk crisis? Not really a good image of the union's efficiency given there.

Fair enough, then let's go with parliamentary democracy then, as opposed to a direct democracy.

I know that this system is flawed too, the worst one possibly. Although parliamentary and representative democracy shouldn't even be called democracy.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wilhelm

Let's say that when during one year the medias brainwash peoples to vote Yes, that every single country (or nearly) of Europe looks down on them for having voted No, and some leaders obsessed with the treaty like Sarkozy do everything they can for the treaty be voted Yes everywhere, I've difficulty to see how this referendum was a threat, the result was obvious. Not conspiracy, more like how elections are easilly manipulated.

Explain me where is the democracy in that election. Sending 'brainwashed' peoples to vote is the definition of democracy?

Again, you are aware that the issues the Irish were concerned with were neutrality, taxation and abortion, right?

Is it hard to accept that legally binding guarantees that Lisbon didn't touch these issues might have changed their minds?

The treaty is about Europe, and a big step for the union. In a country like France where most treaty were voted by Referendum, it's a problem. And I never said every decision were a ok with me either.

It's about Europe and the Union. That's too broad. What part of the treaty do you think merits a referendum?

Ireland could have killed the treaty with a second No (though, looking at what Sarkozy said when he was President of Europe, he'd do anything for the treaty still pass, and he won). Things is that everyone knew there would never be a second no, thus why I said they couldn't kill it.

To the contrary, everybody was nervous about this result. I'm not sure why you keep asserting that there wouldn't be a second No.

They spent a decade for Lisbon? Mind to back up? Because between 2005 and 2007 I see only two years.

My mistake, I meant to say a treaty to improve on Nice was in the works for a decade (or to be more specific, 8 years).

Also, not really forced, change in the french constitution don't need peoples opinions at the origin (what I disagree with but whatever). But it's a tradition since De Gaulle twisted the constitution, and it came to somehow using referendum for Europe stuff, that is, before Sarkozy got elected.

And obviously they have to keep making treaty. But coming out with a remix of a treaty rejected two years earlier? Meh.

I'm not sure what you expect.

"You rejected this Treaty? Ok. We changed the objectionable parts. How about now?"

It's just common sense.

Yes they are because in this case the will of the voters is against the very definition of democracy. To preserve democracy, they have to ignore their will.

Voting No to the treaty isn't against the definition of democracy on the other hand.


Then a Atheist President will never be elected, but as I said before, this would change the American Democracy into a false, or limited democracy, what shouldn't happen.

But you do agree that, in certain cases, the voter's will is not to be followed, correct?

He forgot to point out the average voter elected him. What leads to the idea that if voters aren't smart enough to vote laws and stuff, they aren't smart enough to vote for the 'good' leader, same leaders who male decisions.

So he ran a good campaign. If you actually think that the average voter is competent enough to know what's good for the country, and selfless enough to know bread prices might go up for a good reason, then I'm not sure what idyllic land you hail from.

As I said, I'm for the treaty, not against, so I'm not the good person to ask for this. I am merely against the way the treaty was 'voted'.

But I thin, if I had to say personally, that the flaws of the text (they were presented many times and even those for the yes admitted its flaw) is a big argument against. They say "It's better than the one we already have", and it's totally true, but I'd prefer they don't rush and make a better treaty.

Also, from many peoples opinions, when there is things like Europe forbidding to help with money some kind of jobs because it would be unfair compared to others country and stuff, and that said peoples were used to have that help, it can make you anti Europe in this way. I understand the Europe viewpoint, but I understand too that you're pissed off when suddenly Europe cuts off all the helps, or refuse to do anything to help. Heard the recent milk crisis? Not really a good image of the union's efficiency given there.

Which is exactly why voters can't be trusted with these decisions, and therein lies the flaw of a direct democracy. Your average voter can't really see past his own, personal reality.

I know that this system is flawed too, the worst one possibly. Although parliamentary and representative democracy shouldn't even be called democracy.

Wait, you think direct democracy is more effective than parliamentary and representative democracy? Are you serious?

[Mr. Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Again, you are aware that the issues the Irish were concerned with were neutrality, taxation and abortion, right?

Is it hard to accept that legally binding guarantees that Lisbon didn't touch these issues might have changed their minds?

To the height of 20% in less than one year? yes, it is. It's like if Bush said "I'll stop war in Iraq if you vote for me again" and got elected back (in considering he could have been elected three time, what we know he can't).

It's about Europe and the Union. That's too broad. What part of the treaty do you think merits a referendum?

I don't know it in the details, but about everything. Europe limits each countries power to give more to the Europe. Today if a country is against one big decision of the union they can stop it. Tomorrow, France, Britain and Germany can be against a decision, and it can still be voted yes by all others. From the viewpoint of the country's inhabitant, it deserve to be put in referendum if they accept this.

To the contrary, everybody was nervous about this result. I'm not sure why you keep asserting that there wouldn't be a second No.

Anyone good in politics saw the results coming. When you brainwash peoples for one year, except i you do it very badly there's few chance the results don't be the one expected. Now of course everybody looked anxious, they had to play their roles.

I'm not sure what you expect.

"You rejected this Treaty? Ok. We changed the objectionable parts. How about now?"

It's just common sense.

I said what I think for Irish earlier on the change. As far as France go, how can we know since Sarkozy refused to do a referendum?

But you do agree that, in certain cases, the voter's will is not to be followed, correct?

You obviously know my answer, that is yes.

So he ran a good campaign. If you actually think that the average voter is competent enough to know what's good for the country, and selfless enough to know bread prices might go up for a good reason, then I'm not sure what idyllic land you hail from.

I don't think they can, but I think they could be taught the different stuff to take into account when to vote, (not just that NO is evil like for the Irish for example).

Which is exactly why voters can't be trusted with these decisions, and therein lies the flaw of a direct democracy. Your average voter can't really see past his own, personal reality.

Except if they 'enlightened' the voters so to say.

Wait, you think direct democracy is more effective than parliamentary and representative democracy? Are you serious?

In theory it is. I know in fact it's nearly impossible to have enough smart voters to have a direct democracy. What gives birth to the horrors that are called democracy today.

[Phoenix]

To the height of 20% in less than one year? yes, it is. It's like if Bush said "I'll stop war in Iraq if you vote for me again" and got elected back (in considering he could have been elected three time, what we know he can't).

Once again, is it that hard to believe that once the main issues were addressed (taxation, abortion and neutrality) the Irish would overwhelmingly vote yes? Yes there was fear mongering, and yes the recession had a giant impact on the vote, but credit where credit's due. The Irish didn't really care about the sovereignty thing, like the British; they were worried about different things.

I don't know it in the details, but about everything. Europe limits each countries power to give more to the Europe. Today if a country is against one big decision of the union they can stop it. Tomorrow, France, Britain and Germany can be against a decision, and it can still be voted yes by all others. From the viewpoint of the country's inhabitant, it deserve to be put in referendum if they accept this.

While I'm no expert in EU law, there are, and have always been, opt-outs. No one can force you to do something you don't want to do. What the Treaty does is that you can't force the entire Union to stop everything on a whim. It's mainly directed at enlargement.

But yes, I'm aware you don't necessarily disagree with Lisbon, just with the way it's being addressed. I'm nitpicking, I know.

I said what I think for Irish earlier on the change. As far as France go, how can we know since Sarkozy refused to do a referendum?

I would need to read both of the treaties, and I admit I'm wholly ignorant on the Constitution, but have you considered that neither actually legally needed a referendum and one was just provided for completeness' sake? Or that the part that may have required a referendum was removed in Lisbon?

You obviously know my answer, that is yes.

I don't think they can, but I think they could be taught the different stuff to take into account when to vote, (not just that NO is evil like for the Irish for example).

Except if they 'enlightened' the voters so to say.

In theory it is. I know in fact it's nearly impossible to have enough smart voters to have a direct democracy. What gives birth to the horrors that are called democracy today.

I'm going to be honest with you. Sad as it may be, as it stands, I'd rather have the moderately corrupt government making international deals than the common voter weighing in the merits of Lisbon vs. Nice.

Parliamentary and Representative democracy is a way to cater to the public will, but not have completely retarded decisions every day.

[Phoenix]

Double post with substance:

The Czech President said that he would sign if he could opt-out of a part of the Treaty. But there's a dark side to it:

"It is the government, not the president, who negotiates international treaties and the Czechs did not ask for an opt-out when the Lisbon Treaty was drawn up, our correspondent says.

Some Czech politicians believe Mr Klaus has now stepped well beyond his constitutional remit. One party leader said on Friday proceedings to impeach the president should start immediately. "

BBC NEWS | Europe | Czech leader wants treaty opt-out

I don't think he can afford to buy time anymore.

EDIT:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Polish leader ratifies EU treaty

Poland ratified. Only the Czechs (or to be more exact, their President) are left now.

[Nirv]

It's mainly misinformation that lead Ireland to voting No the first time anyways, the No campaign destroyed the Yes with information and getting their point across while the government waddled along barely even knowing how to explain what the treaty meant for the country so I don't think it was really to do with nationalism or isolation at all

[Phoenix]

BBC NEWS | Europe | EU reform treaty passes last test

Klaus signed it. That was the last obstacle to the Treaty.

I cannot wait to see what the Tories' position is. They're stuck between a rock and a really, really hard place.

[Alaude Drenxta]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So you would say that there aren't legitimate concerns over it and it's just stupid paranoia, right?

Not if the aim is to create a larger version of the US.

If the system worked, I'd say go for it; but it doesn't.