Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

rigormortis

Well, I could start off by stating, possibly incorrectly, as I like everyone else have no idea what the treaty is about;

the treaty will include climate change measures and measures to fight global warming.

oscarBravo

rigormortis wrote: »

Well, I could start off by stating, possibly incorrectly, as I like everyone else have no idea what the treaty is about;

So when you said that you "would like to try and safeguard the few remaining rights in eixstance", you did so without having any idea whether or not the Treaty will actually compromise any of those rights?

rigormortis wrote: »

the treaty will include climate change measures and measures to fight global warming.

Yes, it will. This is perceived by most people as a good thing.

rigormortis

oscarBravo wrote: »

So when you said that you "would like to try and safeguard the few remaining rights in eixstance", you did so without having any idea whether or not the Treaty will actually compromise any of those rights? .

Look, I have referenced the times on this. No one has any idea what the whole thing is about. Now I would like to think of myself as someone at least somewhat immune to propaganda. Therefore when considering EU matters I look at the events of the last 30 or so years since Ireland joined the whole show. Taking the single currency as an example, look at the rampant inflation that has occured in the last six years, i thought prices were to reduce as a result of all this increased competition?

As for Global warming measures, this will restrict my freedom by inducing higher energy costs, probably travel reduction and who knows what else as this get more and more out of control.

oscarBravo

rigormortis wrote: »

Taking the single currency as an example, look at the rampant inflation that has occured in the last six years, i thought prices were to reduce as a result of all this increased competition?

So, like N8 before you, you simply have a problem with the EU as a whole and that's what's informing your vote in this case?

rigormortis wrote: »

As for Global warming measures, this will restrict my freedom by inducing higher energy costs, probably travel reduction and who knows what else as this get more and more out of control.

You've made your views on global warming known. What other rights will the Treaty remove?

rigormortis

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, like N8 before you, you simply have a problem with the EU as a whole and that's what's informing your vote in this case? You've made your views on global warming known. What other rights will the Treaty remove?

Youre right, I have got a problem with the EU as a whole. If I could actually get my hands on the complete treaty I may be able to debate properly.

As quoted in the economist magazine Oct 07: "Treaties are try-ons whose true effects become clear only years later"

Sponge Bob

rigormortis wrote: »

Look, I have referenced the times on this. No one has any idea what the whole thing is about.

Some people do. Those who wrote it do for example. Have you asked them what it means ???

rigormortis

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Some people do. Those who wrote it do for example. Have you asked them what it means ???

Have you got a phone number? And anyway, it is important to make the distinction between a legal document and a non legal document. I would consider ths treaty to be the former and therefore every word has about twenty meanings, every passage could have a thousand interpretations and the overall document would be a maze. Do you remember what Bill Clinton said on the stand following his debacle with monica; in response to a question he replied "that depends on what your definition of is, is". At the time according tp Black's law dictionary there were 18 seperate definitions, one interpretation involved "is" meaning "is not".

IRLConor

rigormortis wrote: »

If I could actually get my hands on the complete treaty I may be able to debate properly.

Is this not the full treaty?

I'm slowly working my way through it, if there's more I'd like to know!

oscarBravo

Given that Lisbon essentially modifies existing treaties, I wonder if anyone has applied it as a patch to those, and published the results? Sort of like patching with a diff, in geek terms. It would make it easier to read.

IRLConor

oscarBravo wrote: »

Given that Lisbon essentially modifies existing treaties, I wonder if anyone has applied it as a patch to those, and published the results? Sort of like patching with a diff, in geek terms. It would make it easier to read.

+1

I'm used to reading patches, but legal patches are in another league altogether.

dathi1

I'm voting no to see what the second option will look like. Then I'll wait for the third etc etc.

Sponge Bob

rigormortis wrote: »

in response to a question he replied "that depends on what your definition of is, is". At the time according tp Black's law dictionary there were 18 seperate definitions, one interpretation involved "is" meaning "is not".

Don't you go all metaphysical on me now ya hear !

Did you ask the people who wrote it what it means ???

Note I did not ask you if you RANG them, I asked you if you asked them !

rigormortis

IRLConor wrote: »

+1

I'm used to reading patches, but legal patches are in another league altogether.

Have a look at this IRL,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

IRLConor

rigormortis wrote: »

Have a look at this IRL,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

Interesting. Although I don't know if I believe him or not, after all he is a politician!

Either way, my comment above relates to all legal patches, not just European ones. I have in the past read the various Firearms Acts for example, it can be quite complicated to "keep state". Luckily, in the case of the Firearms Acts some people have created the merged version for me (colour coded and all!).

I'm still working my way through the Treaty, one piece at a time. It's slow going but I intend to read it and make up my own mind on it. There will certainly be enough scare-mongering from both sides that I'll want to know who's lying and when.

Scofflaw

Consolidated versions of the treaties are available here. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the download links (free). AFAIK the EU will be releasing both a consolidated version and an annotated version next month some time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

I'm still working my way through the Treaty, one piece at a time. It's slow going but I intend to read it and make up my own mind on it. There will certainly be enough scare-mongering from both sides that I'll want to know who's lying and when.

I had also considered reading through the "treaty" too, and the thought filled me with a sort of gloomy despondency. Then I realised that my objection is one of principle, insofar as I could never vote for anything produced by a budy which is not just undemocratic, but actually anti democratic.

My guess is that most people here will either vote "yes" like sheep without any reason why, or else they will be bullied by the government again.

I have gone to http://www.libertas.org/ twice in the past 4 weeks and have mailed them offering help, which they say they want, but so far I haven't even got an acknowledgement to my email.

cabinteelytom

A recent Eurobarometer survey found that 'more than half of the Irish people support a common [EU] defence policy.'
-don't join!
Some EU countries (poland and Czech Rep) are pursuing highly provocative policies towards Russia. Both wish to cooperate , with a non-EU power (beat that for democracy), to site missiles capable of devastating Russia. Poland wishes us to join in an economic war with Russia!
A common EU defence could conceivebly oblige us to go to war with Turkey (to liberate occupied Cyprus); and while I don't deny the Turkish government are good value for it; it's not our fight, and 'we gave' in an earlier conflict (Gallipoli).
Some EU countries are willing junior partners in foreign adventures, with the ostensible aim of founding democracy in Asia, which coincidentally involve a military encirclement of Iran (the current anglo-american bugbear). I feel no obligation to 'defend' these countries from the consequences of excessively trusting policies; which in the nature of war are so often 'unintended'.

uptherebels

N8 wrote: »

I personally see this treaty as another example of contempt from the political elite of Ireland and Europe.

They have some cheek to re-present a European Constitution and rename it instead 'The Lisbon Treaty' after it was rejected by Holland and France and crashed, and the rules changed now that those same countries cannot vote now. The UK despite being promised a referendum it seems won’t get one.

Those that have voted (Malta) have been bribed with both aid and increased representation. A representation that is to be significantly reduced for us with this re-presented constitutional treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty will cut our voting strength on the European Council by more than half and will end our automatic right to a Commissioner.

Bar bribed Malta, we are the only country to be permitted to vote away our nationalities and our voting power in Europe, and we are being advised by our politicians to do so.

It gives the EU too much power and reduces our ability to stop decisions that are not in Ireland's interests. EU laws and agenda will take precedence.

Worse still the politicians here have decided to remove informing the Irish public by way of the referendum commission.

Me personally I am tired of being f*cked by politicians in this country.

I have to agree.Im voting no.I also completely disagree with the fact that the governments of the countries that voted no last time didnt give their people a choice this time.

PHB

I love that sort of reasoning.

Governments of the past held a constitution. It was rejected by the people. A new treaty came in, which is broadly similar although with a few key changes. Now those governments aren't going to put it to the peoples vote. As such, they are being undemocratic.

Let's get this very very very clear.
The government that are doing this was elected by those people! They chose these people.
France elected their current president despite the fact he never had any intention to hold a referendum. They chose this outcome! They elected him after the constitution had failed.

If they don't like this, they can vote them out in the next election, indeed some may (Labour)
To base your vote on this is not supporting democracy, it's infact doing the opposite. You are saying that representative democracy is not acceptable and only referendums count, which to be honest, is a typically Irish position.

They chose the governments who are accepting the treaty for them. That is democratic. If they actually care about the issue of the constitution (which I would suggest France didn't really care) they could have voted for Le Penn who specifically stated he was against the new treaty. Shock shock, they didn't!

They have made their choice, now we have to make our choice.

If you don't like the treaty fine, but don't decide because somebody else didn't get to 'decide', especially when they did!


Also the constitution was always going to pass in Ireland. This treaty is going to pass in Ireland. People understand how good the EU has been to them. They see that any legitimate political party is in support of it. And all the parties realise that they actually have to campaign to get this treaty through.

Who are the opponents? Libertas? They base their campaign on the fact it's the same as the constitution. Shock shock, nobody in Ireland is disagreeing with that! Which is why they will lose. They are campaigning towards people who already agree with them, not trying to change any minds.

Thirdfox

I was very much pro-EU and (world) integration in the past. Starting my EU law course though, I have had quite a few concerns about what closer political integration could mean for various countries (not just the smaller one like Ireland).

See Case 274/87, Commission v Germany [1989] ECR 229 or Case 178/84, Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 1227. Whereby old traditions were railroaded by the commission and ECJ for greater integration and free market ideas (in the extreme).

I am for reasonable free markets - if the Germans only want their beer to only be made of barley, hops, water and yeast (900 year tradition) then I feel they should have the right to do so. Instead they were forced by the Commission to change their ways.

And my lecturers have not persuaded me that further integration is what we need.

...So on that point I am leaning to the "no" side right now - of course I am keeping an open view and will give the treaty a good read once the campaign starts (law exams are taking precedence right now )

jawlie

PHB wrote: »

Let's get this very very very clear.
The government that are doing this was elected by those people! They chose these people.

Oh dear. Are there still people who spout this stuff? What options did "those people" have when it came to voting for parties who are advising a "no" vote on this treaty?

Thirdfox

I agree with PHB on this point - they did choose their political parties. And of course in a democratic country if you are unhappy with how your chosen representative has voted on your behalf in parliament then you can go out and protest... if it's a big enough issue for enough people then governments can change their minds or be brought down by lack of support.

We should not be voting on behalf of other people. This just leads to the potential argument about the "51%" (random number chosen) of the EU population who do support this treaty. Do we vote on their behalf too?

We should analyse this treaty on its merits and how it affects Ireland. I may not agree with PHB's viewpoint on which way to vote but I certainly agree that we are voting for ourselves and no-one else.

uptherebels

PHB wrote: »

If you don't like the treaty fine, but don't decide because somebody else didn't get to 'decide', especially when they did!

I never said that my no vote was because of what happened in other countries.

dresden8

I'm still voting on the basis of Nice.

We rejected it, Bertie and Mary apologised to the Europeans for Irish people being stupid and Politically naive and re-ran the vote until they got the result they wanted.

I will be voting no, but even if the no vote wins the treaty/constitution or however else they choose to re-package it will eventually come in. I just don't want to make it easy for the bas***ds.

cabinteelytom

The supranational ideas are a bit threatening but are already as good as dead. The EU is in deep mid-life crisis. Bloated from an anglo-german 'let's double every ten years' policy, it is a wobbling amoeba unfit to move in any direction.
But I would vote for the flawed treaty. The EU has transformed Ireland. Within the EU, for the first time in 800 years we could trade with other countries on terms which were not seriously to our disadvantage. The direct subsidy to agriculture and the EU regional fund were the least part of the benefit, compared with stability and a committment to international consistency.
Commerce does not stand still. We need to prepare now for the opportunities which there will be in 20 years time.
How many school kids do you know that are learning Turkish? Bloody difficult isn't it?

PHB

dresden8 wrote: »

We rejected it, Bertie and Mary apologised to the Europeans for Irish people being stupid and Politically naive and re-ran the vote until they got the result they wanted.

We rejected it, then we were basically asked about it again, by FF, and we accepted it. If people had a real problem with this, they would have not voted FF, but most didn't.
I don't see why this is a logical reason to vote no. If the treaty specifically gave Ireland 200 million pounds for drink, I can't imagine you'd vote like that.

PHB

uptherebels wrote: »

I never said that my no vote was because of what happened in other countries.

Nor did I say you were. I perfectly understand the whole political elite doing stuff in the background argument, indeed I would waver towards it on some days. I just think our problem is with our political elite, not somebody elses.

Scofflaw

PHB wrote: »

We rejected it, then we were basically asked about it again, by FF, and we accepted it. If people had a real problem with this, they would have not voted FF, but most didn't.
I don't see why this is a logical reason to vote no. If the treaty specifically gave Ireland 200 million pounds for drink, I can't imagine you'd vote like that.

And some of us voted No in the first Nice referendum, knowing full well we'd be given another go - and voted Yes in the second, because we were happy enough with the Nice Treaty, just not happy with the appalling way the government failed to present it. There was a large national protest vote involved, although I can see why the No side might feel cheated when they really thought they'd won for once - but even most of the No side knew at the time there'd be a rerun, because the whole thing had been such a shambles.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

PHB wrote: »

I love that sort of reasoning.

Governments of the past held a constitution. It was rejected by the people. A new treaty came in, which is broadly similar although with a few key changes. Now those governments aren't going to put it to the peoples vote. As such, they are being undemocratic.

Let's get this very very very clear.
The government that are doing this was elected by those people! They chose these people.
France elected their current president despite the fact he never had any intention to hold a referendum. They chose this outcome! They elected him after the constitution had failed.

Firstly, as a republic, France has a duty to its citizens to allow them to vote on the treaty, seperately from the general election.

Secondly, Sarkozy insisted that Chirac put the constitution to a referendum, but now he will not do it himself. hypocrisy, cowardice, etc, etc.

Thirdly, some of the French people chose some of the French government. All of the French people did not chose the government exactly as it exists.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm still voting on the basis of Nice.

We rejected it, Bertie and Mary apologised to the Europeans for Irish people being stupid and Politically naive and re-ran the vote until they got the result they wanted.

It just never gets old, does it?

We voted on two different propositions relating to the Nice treaty. One was rejected, the other accepted - by a bigger percentage of a different turnout.

But feel free to let something other than facts inform your voting decision...