5 ms·

For those downvoting, there is truth in this e.g.: * Ireland voting (twice) on the Nice Treaty - 2001 then 2002 * Denmark voting (twice) Maastricht Treaty - f

For those downvoting, there is truth in this e.g.: * Ireland voting (twice) on the Nice Treaty - 2001 then 2002 * Denmark voting (twice) Maastricht Treaty - first 1992 then 1993 * Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009 There was also a case where the Labour government (in the UK) promised a referendum on a couple of EU treaty changes, before changing their mind after other countries' referendums voted them down, and just ratified it in parliament instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Constitution_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Consti...

feintruled 7y ago
The treaties changed between the votes though. So a more sympathetic reading would be, the treaties were voted down so had to be changed - then the new treaties were acceptable and voted for. (I don't even necessarily think a second vote on an unchanged treaty would be unacceptable, if there was reason to believe people had changed their minds).
KSteffensen 7y ago
Denmark still has 4 opt-outs from EU because of the Maastricht treaty vote. Abolishment of these is regularly discussed as part of Danish politics. https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Had Cameron taken this approach, things could have worked out OK for the UK. Every one of those involved renegotiation and change of treaties before a re-vote. The timeline could have been: Cameron attempts to renegotiate with EU, achieves little. Calls a referendum, leave achieves a very narrow margin. Cameron doesn't resign, but attempts to renegotiate with the EU, achieves some small but significant improvements. Second referendum, this time for remain. UK and Cameron would still have some reputation.
- tristanperry 7y ago
  Good point - I agree, and I'm really disappointed it didn't play out like that. Instead the UK has had political stalemate for 3.5 years and even now it doesn't look like we're closer to 'a deal'.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    No, we're stuck with a "government" that's lost every vote they called, and a no-deal crash out looks the only option. Realistically that was always the only option without moving some of those infamous "red lines", or accepting Theresa May's deal. I don't see room for anything else. So the no-deal that was explicitly ruled out during the referendum campaign. The Swiss invalidate referendums when the electorate haven't been given correct information. What a mess.
    - cgiles 7y ago
      I have found the best source of information about Brexit, although it certainly has its own bias, to be eureferendum.com . They have long advocated for Efta/EEA membership as the first move for the UK before gradually disentangling from EU directives. IMV (I'm not British) the only sane option was some form of soft Brexit. Which was the only way to avoid most of the economic damage and also prevent hordes of Leavers with pitchforks. But the damage was done at Lancaster House which made immigration a red line. Theresa May concluded that Leavers wouldn't consider anything without immigration control to be a real Brexit, thus implicitly agreeing with the idea that the referendum passed because of immigration. And now you have a neverending shitshow as a result. So I mostly agree, but there was a window of opportunity for TM to sell a soft Brexit. She opted not to.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        See this is where it gets truly silly. You may not be wrong about some form of soft-Brexit, or EEA status, but whichever level of closeness you consider that is not "hard Brexit" would have required dropping one of the UK's "red line" issues. Anything else that was not Theresa May's deal needed the EU offering cake and cookies for free. It wasn't so much she couldn't sell it as the hardliners of the Tory party wouldn't take it. For 3 years the UK's negotiating position has been "la, la, la, not listening", whilst asking for the impossible (or cake). Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator summarised it all beautifully in a single slide he put out in about 2016 or 17. Each level of softer Brexit available is ruled out by a UK red line. Should you want a breakdown, CGP Grey did a short video about "that slide". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E
nicky0 7y ago
That's the EU's policy on plebiscites. Make them keep voting until they give the right answer.
stordoff 7y ago
> Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009 It wasn't just a straight re-vote through. Selected reasons for voting no, according to The Times (bearing in mind it was only 53:47 to no): > Protect neutrality - 10% > Keep commissioner - 10% > Protect tax system - 8% And according to Gallop (for the European Commission): > To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters - 6% > We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission - 6% > To protect our tax system - 6% > It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia - 2% Consequently, The European Council agreed that: > the necessary legal guarantees would be given that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon made any change of any kind to the Union's competences on taxation for any member state; > the necessary legal guarantees would be given that the Treaty of Lisbon did not prejudice the security and defence policy of any member state, including Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality; > the necessary legal guarantees would be given that neither the Treaty of Lisbon (including the Justice and Home Affairs provisions), nor the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, affected the provisions of the Irish Constitution in relation to the right to life, education and the family in any way; > in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, a Decision would be taken to retain Ireland's Commissioner, provided that the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified; > the high importance attached to issues including workers' rights would be confirmed.

feintruled 7y ago

The treaties changed between the votes though. So a more sympathetic reading would be, the treaties were voted down so had to be changed - then the new treaties were acceptable and voted for. (I don't even necessarily think a second vote on an unchanged treaty would be unacceptable, if there was reason to believe people had changed their minds).

KSteffensen 7y ago

Denmark still has 4 opt-outs from EU because of the Maastricht treaty vote. Abolishment of these is regularly discussed as part of Danish politics. https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts https://english.eu.dk/en/denmark_eu/danishoptouts

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Had Cameron taken this approach, things could have worked out OK for the UK. Every one of those involved renegotiation and change of treaties before a re-vote. The timeline could have been: Cameron attempts to renegotiate with EU, achieves little. Calls a referendum, leave achieves a very narrow margin. Cameron doesn't resign, but attempts to renegotiate with the EU, achieves some small but significant improvements. Second referendum, this time for remain. UK and Cameron would still have some reputation.

tristanperry 7y ago
Good point - I agree, and I'm really disappointed it didn't play out like that. Instead the UK has had political stalemate for 3.5 years and even now it doesn't look like we're closer to 'a deal'.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  No, we're stuck with a "government" that's lost every vote they called, and a no-deal crash out looks the only option. Realistically that was always the only option without moving some of those infamous "red lines", or accepting Theresa May's deal. I don't see room for anything else. So the no-deal that was explicitly ruled out during the referendum campaign. The Swiss invalidate referendums when the electorate haven't been given correct information. What a mess.
  - cgiles 7y ago
    I have found the best source of information about Brexit, although it certainly has its own bias, to be eureferendum.com . They have long advocated for Efta/EEA membership as the first move for the UK before gradually disentangling from EU directives. IMV (I'm not British) the only sane option was some form of soft Brexit. Which was the only way to avoid most of the economic damage and also prevent hordes of Leavers with pitchforks. But the damage was done at Lancaster House which made immigration a red line. Theresa May concluded that Leavers wouldn't consider anything without immigration control to be a real Brexit, thus implicitly agreeing with the idea that the referendum passed because of immigration. And now you have a neverending shitshow as a result. So I mostly agree, but there was a window of opportunity for TM to sell a soft Brexit. She opted not to.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      See this is where it gets truly silly. You may not be wrong about some form of soft-Brexit, or EEA status, but whichever level of closeness you consider that is not "hard Brexit" would have required dropping one of the UK's "red line" issues. Anything else that was not Theresa May's deal needed the EU offering cake and cookies for free. It wasn't so much she couldn't sell it as the hardliners of the Tory party wouldn't take it. For 3 years the UK's negotiating position has been "la, la, la, not listening", whilst asking for the impossible (or cake). Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator summarised it all beautifully in a single slide he put out in about 2016 or 17. Each level of softer Brexit available is ruled out by a UK red line. Should you want a breakdown, CGP Grey did a short video about "that slide". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E

nicky0 7y ago

That's the EU's policy on plebiscites. Make them keep voting until they give the right answer.

stordoff 7y ago

> Ireland (again) this time on the Lisbon Treaty - 2008 then 2009 It wasn't just a straight re-vote through. Selected reasons for voting no, according to The Times (bearing in mind it was only 53:47 to no): > Protect neutrality - 10% > Keep commissioner - 10% > Protect tax system - 8% And according to Gallop (for the European Commission): > To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters - 6% > We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission - 6% > To protect our tax system - 6% > It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia - 2% Consequently, The European Council agreed that: > the necessary legal guarantees would be given that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon made any change of any kind to the Union's competences on taxation for any member state; > the necessary legal guarantees would be given that the Treaty of Lisbon did not prejudice the security and defence policy of any member state, including Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality; > the necessary legal guarantees would be given that neither the Treaty of Lisbon (including the Justice and Home Affairs provisions), nor the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, affected the provisions of the Irish Constitution in relation to the right to life, education and the family in any way; > in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, a Decision would be taken to retain Ireland's Commissioner, provided that the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified; > the high importance attached to issues including workers' rights would be confirmed.