Lisbon I is over, roll on Lisbon II...

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 6:37pm

democrates wrote: »

But that ideal you espouse is exactly what is binned when a veto changes to QMV, whereby the individual nation can have rules imposed which it does not want...

Maybe we should demand a union of nations where every country gets its way on all issues, all the time. All take, no give.

That would be cool.

democrates · 13-06-2008 6:41pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe we should demand a union of nations where every country gets its way on all issues, all the time. All take, no give.

That would be cool.

I like that vision, maybe that's what Homer was thinking about for "Under the Sea".

Seriously though, there's always going to be horse-trading in negotiations, and good outcomes are perfectly achievable, but there's a world of difference between willingly compromising and being subject to impositions.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 6:43pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

It's in the treaty - Read it.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it's true - it's not. The Lisbon treaty says nothing about military spending. Feel free to prove me wrong.

nhughes100 wrote: »

In any case I don't see what all the yes voters are in such a panic over, you'll get a second chance unlike if a no vote had been carried.

Seems rather unlikely at this point. It's impossible to say what will happen now.

nhughes100 wrote: »

...lets have a referedum in every country and we'll see how united this so called union is.

You can't have a referendum in every country - it's simply not possible.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 6:45pm

democrates wrote: »

Seriously though, there's always going to be horse-trading in negotiations, and good outcomes are perfectly achievable, but there's a world of difference between willingly compromising and being subject to impositions.

Of those two, which do you think has characterised our relationship with our EU partners to date?

democrates · 13-06-2008 6:46pm

djpbarry wrote: »

People have come out with this argument over and over and over again without (as yet) providing any evidence whatsoever that the majority of people in Britain, France or the Netherlands (or any other EU state for that matter) actually want to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Can you please either provide some evidence to back up this claim, or else ditch it and just accept that most EU citizens are happy enough for their parliaments to ratify the treaty for them.

There's no evidence that the majority of any of the other 26 members' citizens either support or reject Lisbon, it's an unknown, which is of course something of a democratic deficit.

democrates · 13-06-2008 6:56pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of those two, which do you think has characterised our relationship with our EU partners to date?

First off, "our relationship", who is 'our', the people of Ireland or our supposed representatives?

The politicians who craft these deals have repeatedly found that they do not in fact represent their citizens, the Irish thanks to DeValera and Crotty have say on major changes, but for Lisbon the other 26 nations citizens do not.

Those politicians have done lots of horse-trading and negotiation, true, but part of it is to move from veto to qmv which is by definition a means to impose. What the deuce is wrong with an opt-in EU?

Rb · 13-06-2008 6:57pm

passive wrote: »

Refresh my memory, which were the major amendments to our constitution?

Changes to our constitution > yearly budget imo.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 7:02pm

democrates wrote: »

There's no evidence that the majority of any of the other 26 members' citizens either support or reject Lisbon, it's an unknown...

Precisely my point, so voting 'No' in solidarity with our fellow EU citizens is a bit daft when for all we know, they may well support the treaty.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 7:05pm

democrates wrote: »

First off, "our relationship", who is 'our', the people of Ireland or our supposed representatives?

Ireland. Neither the citizens nor the politicians are EU members; the country is.

Those politicians have done lots of horse-trading and negotiation, true, but part of it is to move from veto to qmv which is by definition a means to impose. What the deuce is wrong with an opt-in EU?

Your very premise avoids the point I was getting at, which you side-stepped: we achieve more by negotiation and compromise than we would by pushing everything to a vote we can veto.

What's wrong with an opt-in EU? Good question. Why don't we have an opt-in system of government in this country? That way I can opt-in to those laws I agree with, and avoid the pesky ones that don't suit me.

Moriarty · 13-06-2008 7:07pm

Threads merged.

axer · 13-06-2008 7:12pm

Brian Cowen on RTE news now saying he's not ruling out a Lisbon 2.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 7:16pm

axer wrote: »

Brian Cowen on RTE news now saying he's not ruling out a Lisbon 2.

He's just being diplomatic - impossible to rule out anything at this point.

axer · 13-06-2008 7:16pm

djpbarry wrote: »

He's just being diplomatic - impossible to rule out anything at this point.

Eamon Gilmore is on now saying how it is "Lisbon is dead". It has to be dead. If it is not then democracy is a joke in Ireland.

Dotsie~tmp · 13-06-2008 7:42pm

cornbb wrote: »

All the No campaigners have said "we'll send a clear message that we want a better deal". The notion of a "clear message" from the No side is laughable, seeing as most No votes were based on protest votes, votes out of lack of understanding of the issues and votes based on lies and misinformation.

Then of course the No campaigners don't have to deal with the fallout, the government and the people have to do that.

This man has single handedly read the minds of several hundred thousand people and gladly informs us us we are either grumpy, thick or gullible. Amazing stuff.

Steve01 · 13-06-2008 8:08pm

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

This man has single handedly read the minds of several hundred thousand people and gladly informs us us we are either grumpy, thick or gullible. Amazing stuff.

Care to prove the man wrong? :rolleyes:

zenno · 14-06-2008 10:40am

well now i know brussels is a dictatorship rejecting the irish no vote proves so. they absolutly dont want democracy if they did they would have respected the irish vote. all 27 countries have to ratify it for it to work. it is illegal for them to go ahead with the treaty now as we have blocked them. if anyone thinks for a minute that brussels have democracy in their thinking then they are not with the program. in a democracy you have to respect the final answer given in any treaty not doing so is undemocratic. if brian cowen brings out a new lisbon 2 in a different guise then he is undemocratic as well by not respecting the irish voters rights. as far as i have heard today brian cowen is quoted as saying there will be no more referendums on this treaty again. if there is then it is undemocratic.

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 11:04am

zenno wrote: »

if brian cowen brings out a new lisbon 2 in a different guise then he is undemocratic as well by not respecting the irish voters rights. as far as i have heard today brian cowen is quoted as saying there will be no more referendums on this treaty again. if there is then it is undemocratic.

Surely no one (except Patrica McKenna) believes that there should be no new treaty at all?

If there is any new treaty it will be based on Lisbon, so I imagine you would call that in another guise? It's a semantic issue whether it is called Lisbon 2... or treaty of Paris...

If the new treaty excludes Ireland from the military clause (maybe removes us from the battlegroups), and excludes Ireland from a CCTB without an Irish referendum, then I think that would assure many no voters... even though they should have been assured anyhow.

Ix.

nhughes100 · 14-06-2008 11:12am

djpbarry wrote: »

You can't have a referendum in every country - it's simply not possible.

Really?? It's impossible to have a vote in 27 democratic countries. Well IL Duce Barosso is going to have the treaty ratified in every country regardless of our vote thus proving that the veto is now useless. Sure we can't have one country holding up the other 26 now can we? As usual rules broken when it suits them.

Lets get out of this so called union and return to a trading block.

zenno · 14-06-2008 11:32am

ixtlan wrote: »

Surely no one (except Patrica McKenna) believes that there should be no new treaty at all?

people are missing the point. the whole point in voting on these sort of treaties in this country is we are a democratic country which gives us the right to vote whatever way the irish people want to its in our constitution to do so and to do so intelligently and any other democratic country that does not obey and respect the decision of a democratic peoples vote is a non democratic country even if they think they are. i do know that it looks strange a little country like ireland deciding where europe goes on this but it's the law. if you dont respect the law of a countries democratic decision you are not working for democracy. it's tough the way the vote came out for these other governments of europe but what about the millions of ordinary people of france and holland that already rejected it. at the end of the day its the law and if brussels wants to go ahead and break the democratic law of the lands then it doesn't deserve to run its own country. get over it.

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 11:45am

zenno wrote: »

well now i know brussels is a dictatorship rejecting the irish no vote proves so.

I'm sorry, how has Brussels "rejected" the Irish 'No' vote?

nhughes100 wrote: »

Really?? It's impossible to have a vote in 27 democratic countries.

Yes it is actually. Referenda are illegal in Germany and it is illegal to ratify an international treaty by referendum in Italy; together they comprise approximately 28.5% of the EU’s population. It's possible that referenda are not used in other states too - I'm not sure.

But let’s not let facts get in the way of a bit EU-bashing, eh?

zenno wrote: »

it's tough the way the vote came out for these other governments of europe but what about the millions of ordinary people of france and holland that already rejected it.

No they didn't; France ratified the Lisbon Treaty in February of this year.

WooPeeA · 14-06-2008 12:01pm

There will be no Lisbon 2. The treaty of Lisbon was negotiated for many years till the time when all national governments accepted it. Ireland was also a side of negotiations.

Few months later, same government which was a part of those negotiations and accept the final text has to reject it.. Nobody will spend 2 or 4 years for new negotiations. No time, no will.. Ireland was also the Europe's only country who rejected the Treaty of Nice. Now it's the same situation with Treaty of Lisbon...

The result might be similar to fears of No campaigners, Ireland will be ignored in the future as not veracious and reliable partner.

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 12:03pm

zenno wrote: »

ixtlan wrote: »

Surely no one (except Patrica McKenna) believes that there should be no new treaty at all?

people are missing the point. the whole point in voting on these sort of treaties in this country is we are a democratic country which gives us the right to vote whatever way the irish people want to its in our constitution to do so and to do so intelligently and any other democratic country that does not obey and respect the decision of a democratic peoples vote is a non democratic country even if they think they are. i do know that it looks strange a little country like ireland deciding where europe goes on this but it's the law. if you dont respect the law of a countries democratic decision you are not working for democracy. it's tough the way the vote came out for these other governments of europe but what about the millions of ordinary people of france and holland that already rejected it. at the end of the day its the law and if brussels wants to go ahead and break the democratic law of the lands then it doesn't deserve to run its own country. get over it.

But you are missing my point. We said no. OK. But did we say no to this specify treaty and issues with it, or did we say no to any further treaties and reform of the EU?

If there is to be any replacement treaty, whether it be next year or 5, 10, 100 years from now, the starting point will be Lisbon. It may be completely different from Lisbon, or it might be similiar. It would not be undemocratic to put some other treaty before the Irish people.

On the matter of the other countries choices going forward, they do indeed have to respect the laws of the Nice treaty which require all countries to ratify a change. However one can imagine some legal arrangement where Nice remains in effect for Ireland, and aspects of Lisbon come into effect for the others.

While they do need to respect our wishes it's understandable that it's a big problem if one country wishes to freeze any reform indefinitely. This appears to be the logic of saying we must have no Lisbon 2 or any related treaty.

Ix

cjx · 14-06-2008 12:11pm

Thatcher said NO NO NO Paisley Said NEVER NENER NEVER then where are they now
There is always hope and time!
We Irish (those of us in the 26 county statelet: which still takes its lead from the thrash of England SUN STAR and EASTENDERS "no Way Jose" bigotry) have shown total disdain for those in Europe whose aim is prevention of war, economic advancement all over the continent with dialog and union between Slavs and the rest).

We are the toast of the Chinese politburo today and just wait for the BIG handshake between BUSH (Halliburton) and poor wee Brian next week.

Isn't it crazy that we belong to an international economic grouping so democratic that it allows 0.5% of it electoral tell it how to do its business.

Action then
1. Sack the Referendum Commission who failed so abysmally to get the facts out in simple language)
2. Recognise that Sinn Fein have done more to cement the border in place by getting their Negitivity and totalitarianism to triumph.
3. Examine the democracy of Guantanamo/Homeland Securtiy in the light of the leadership of Libertas and decide should Ganley have Joe Higgins as Tainiste and Dana as Minister for Justice and Religious Police.
4. Remember that that fella who made some of his money betting in Manchester is to blame for a whole lot of this and treat his party accordingly.

Running one scenario to its logical conclusion will see custom posts and barbed wire as the wetbacks from Cavan try to get into the nearest bit of real "Europe" under King of Ulster Peter the Great.

Perhaps in thanksgiving the Chinese will take us over fully and send a couple of million mandarins to try and govern this outpost of Asia (but even they will know governing the airsick Irish is an impossible waste of time. The anarchists of Barcelona in 1937 were more in favour of government and organization than us today.
:mad::eek::eek::eek: Where next? back to prancing at the crossroads while the skangerachhi do donuts round us on their painted ponies.
I think we should declare another emergency (third world war) and have an economic war with the EU. God the twentieth century thirties and fifties were great lads!!!! and the bit in between where 30m died humm nothing to do with us lads!

zenno · 14-06-2008 12:29pm

ixtlan wrote: »

But you are missing my point. We said no. OK. But did we say no to this specify treaty and issues with it, or did we say no to any further treaties and reform of the EU?

If there is to be any any treaty, whether it be next year or 5, 10, 100 years from now, the starting point will be Lisbon. It may be completely different from Lisbon, or it might be similiar. It would not be undemocratic to put some other treaty before the Irish people.

On the matter of the other countries choices going forward, they do indeed have to respect the laws of the Nice treaty which require all countries to ratify a change. However one can imagine some legal arrangement where Nice remains in effect for Ireland, and aspects of Lisbon come into effect for the others.

While they do need to respect our wishes it's understandable that it's a big problem if one country wishes to freeze any reform indefinitely. This appears to be the logic of saying we must have no Lisbon 2 or any related treaty.

Ix

i am not against future treaties. i am only saying it would be undemocratic to force this same treaty on us again in a different guise with no new changes in it. if brussels deal with our concerns and change it to suit the irish peoples worries on it then im all for it. but this act of twisting it around with no new changes to address the problems we have with it is not on. just have to wait and see next week what happens.

zenno · 14-06-2008 12:45pm

djpbarry: I'm sorry, how has Brussels "rejected" the Irish 'No' vote?

they have rejected it by going ahead and trying to ratify it elsewere. it's dead by law. maybe they will see how it goes with the other countries and if theres another no vote then it might be scrapped.

the french citizens are not been heard if they were put to a referendum it would have definatly been a no vote and the french government knew that. the french government voted yes not the people of france. correct me if im wrong.

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 1:06pm

zenno wrote: »

if brussels deal with our concerns and change it to suit the irish peoples worries on it then im all for it.

Could you outline some of these concerns? What changes to the treaty would you deem necessary for a 'Yes' vote?

zenno wrote: »

they have rejected it by going ahead and trying to ratify it elsewere.

"They" (i.e. the EU) have done nothing of the sort; all the other states that have yet to ratify the treaty are perfectly entitled to have their say.

zenno wrote: »

maybe they will see how it goes with the other countries and if theres another no vote then it might be scrapped.

Maybe; it will at least allow us to see exactly where everyone stands.

zenno wrote: »

the french citizens are not been heard if they were put to a referendum it would have definatly been a no vote and the french government knew that.

Would it? If the French are so unhappy about their government not allowing them a vote on the treaty, then surely they would be rather vocal about it, no? Besides, how the French decide to ratify the treaty is entirely up to them.

aliqueenb · 14-06-2008 1:15pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Something that also has me baffled; I've yet to hear a single 'No' voter explain how we could (realistically) get a better deal. The usual response is a Libertas-style "we have to keep our commissioner!"

Seeing as a rejection now looks likely, I'm looking forward to Libertas (in particular) having to retract many of their claims.

i agree completly with you. but they wont all the no people will say is that its someone elses job to do that, cos they have no idea themselves

marco_polo · 14-06-2008 1:22pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Could you outline some of these concerns? What changes to the treaty would you deem necessary for a 'Yes' vote.
"They" (i.e. the EU) have done nothing of the sort; all the other states that have yet to ratify the treaty are perfectly entitled to have their say.
Maybe; it will at least allow us to see exactly where everyone stands.
Would it? If the French are so unhappy about their government not allowing them a vote on the treaty, then surely they would be rather vocal about it, no? Besides, how the French decide to ratify the treaty is entirely up to them.

Well you know how meek the French are, they always do what they are told by the Government.

They would never dream of staging a protest if they were unhappy with the treaty.

free-man · 14-06-2008 1:29pm

Could someone please explain what Bertie is rambling on about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVcCMdyfJaI&feature=related

from 4.50 onwards

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 1:42pm

zenno wrote: »

i am not against future treaties. i am only saying it would be undemocratic to force this same treaty on us again in a different guise with no new changes in it. if brussels deal with our concerns and change it to suit the irish peoples worries on it then im all for it. but this act of twisting it around with no new changes to address the problems we have with it is not on. just have to wait and see next week what happens.

Surely we are arguing semantics here. Could not Brussels deal with our concerns with some minor changes/opt-outs to this treaty? Does it have to be a completely new treaty 5 or more years from now?

Ix

Lisbon I is over, roll on Lisbon II...

Comments