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

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 1:45pm

free-man wrote: »

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

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

from 4.50 onwards

Could you be a little more specific?

zenno · 14-06-2008 2:03pm

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.

"what i would like to see changed in the lisbon treaty" what do you think... a complete revamp of the whole treaty document. it's a complete mess. no irish man/woman would vote for something that is unreadable which it is period. the people that voted yes only understood a little of the benefits for a yes vote and nothing of the concequences to our constitution by voting yes. the yes side seems to be able to read an unreadable document lol. make the treaty readable in laymans terms and i'll concider it. this is the main concern and the way the treaty was made out surely looks like they were hiding alot maybe 60 new policies that were going to be changed. they never explained all of these in detail thats what killed it yesterday. brussels needs to be honest and straight with us in excatually what is to be changed forever in our constitution it's too important to this country.

free-man · 14-06-2008 2:08pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Could you be a little more specific?

"if its not this constitution..or a variation of it..(but).. in 2008 we'll come back to this, probably a slimmed down version and hopefully not too much change in the substance of what we agreed 3 years ago"

Why does he keep referring to the 'constitution'

"Lets not get hung up on the constitution name"
- I thought this was a treaty?
- Had they just changed the name to disallow referrendum in Holland?

If the constitution is more or less the same why were we being asked to vote on a constitution that was already rejected?

Why are other countries not being allowed vote on it when it is obvious from almost every comment on every major publications website that people WANT to vote on this 'treaty'?

Why would I want to re-vote on something which we can do perfectly fine without?

I would love someone to explain these simple concerns coherently

Rb · 14-06-2008 2:20pm

The Irish Government would have to be thick to try and run another vote on this in the near future. People still aren't happy over what happened with the Nice Treaty afterall.

However, good news for us today, the Czech Republican President has said that the Treaty is dead and ratification cannot continue (Link) It looks like we've set a precedent, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other countries reject it now. Would definitely be a good thing for us anyway.

free-man · 14-06-2008 2:24pm

amacachi wrote: »

I've been wondering about this point for a while, where do you draw the line on what to have a referendum on? Why elect politicians if we want to make every slight decision on a referendum?

Do you not agree that a change to your country's constitution mandates a referendum? Or is that far too unimportant for us ignorant cititzens to contemplate?

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 2:26pm

free-man wrote: »

"if its not this constitution..or a variation of it..(but).. in 2008 we'll come back to this, probably a slimmed down version and hopefully not too much change in the substance of what we agreed 3 years ago"

Why does he keep referring to the 'constitution'

Lisbon is based primarily on the former failed EU constitution. This clip must be from 2005-2006?

free-man wrote: »

"Lets not get hung up on the constitution name"
- I thought this was a treaty?
- Had they just changed the name to disallow referrendum in Holland?

It was perceived that one of the primary reasons for the rejection in France and Holland (apart from strong national political protest votes) was that having a constitution and an anthem and a flag were going too far as regards losing national independance. Therefore the provisions of the constitution were written into a treaty as changes had previously been.

free-man wrote: »

If the constitution is more or less the same why were we being asked to vote on a constitution that was already rejected?

Well we were not voting on the constitution but on it's replacement treaty. This treaty is mostly the same, but since it was the actual constitutional nature of the constitution that were a big objection for the public it's unfair to say it's unchanged.

free-man wrote: »

Why are other countries not being allowed vote on it when it is obvious from almost every comment on every major publications website that people WANT to vote on this 'treaty'?

I'm not sure if there are any actual surveys? Anyone got links. I think most EU citizens don't even know about Lisbon. The EU does not specify how states ratify treaties. The national governments decide and their public can vote them out if they disagreed. Some countries like Germany have made such referendums illegal due to Hitler's interference in the past.

free-man wrote: »

Why would I want to re-vote on something which we can do perfectly fine without?

There are a lot of positive aspects to Lisbon. I won't get into them here, but I would dispute that you can do perfectly well without. I will mention one. Lisbon would have put energy policy under Eu control so that we could negotiate with Russia as regards gas and get a better price and more reliability. Now we remain separate states negotiating.

free-man wrote: »

I would love someone to explain these simple concerns coherently

It's probably a bit late now!

Ix.

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 2:35pm

free-man wrote: »

Do you not agree that a change to your country's constitution mandates a referendum? Or is that far too unimportant for us ignorant cititzens to contemplate?

I agree a change to your constitution should mandate a referendum. However in some cases treaties can be agreed by states without affecting their constitution. It's not the case that any treaty does this. It depends on the provisions and on the nature of the state's constitution.

In the case of Lisbon for Ireland, it's actually uncertain whether a referendum was required. However that's a moot point because regardless of the legal position it's politically unacceptable to avoid a vote here.

In other countries it is considered acceptable to not have a vote. There will always be those who feel dis-enfranchised, it's true, but it's telling that those people are unable to garner wide-spread support for those views.

As I keep saying the EU is a victim of it's own success. Things are just too stable for the citizens to be much worried about what goes on, and the only concerns raised are about the future big brother, capitalist super-state. If you look at what we have now, there are few criticisms made of EU laws and regulations, and yet Sinn Fein, and others on the no side, opposed all of those changes in the past.

Ix.

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 2:39pm

zenno wrote: »

a complete revamp of the whole treaty document. it's a complete mess. no irish man/woman would vote for something that is unreadable which it is period.

So you've no idea what you want changed? That's what I thought, but thanks for clearing it up.

zenno wrote: »

...make the treaty readable in laymans terms and i'll concider it.

Expecting an international treaty between 27 countries to be written in layman's terms is simply not realistic.

free-man wrote: »

Why does he keep referring to the 'constitution'

Because he was asked about it?

free-man wrote: »

"Lets not get hung up on the constitution name"
- I thought this was a treaty?

The interview was conducted in March 2007; the Lisbon Treaty was not in existence at that time.

free-man wrote: »

Had they just changed the name to disallow referrendum in Holland?

All of this has already been explained numerous times in other threads, so I'm not going into too much detail. When the constitution was rejected in France and Netherlands, it was renegotiated as the Lisbon Treaty, taking into consideration the concerns of the French and the Dutch.

free-man wrote: »

If the constitution is more or less the same why were we being asked to vote on a constitution that was already rejected?

We were not voting on the constitution; our planned referendum to ratify the constitution was cancelled after it was rejected by the French and the Dutch.

EU Constitution ≠ Lisbon Treaty.

free-man wrote: »

Why are other countries not being allowed vote on it when it is obvious from almost every comment on every major publications website that people WANT to vote on this 'treaty'?

Again, this has already been discussed at length. There were some very small protests around Europe (that numbered about 100 people in total, if I remember correctly) with regard to the Treaty. But it's irrelevant; how other states ratify the treaty is entirely up to the states in question and has nothing to do with Ireland or the EU.

free-man wrote: »

Why would I want to re-vote on something which we can do perfectly fine without?

I don't know what you mean by that.

zenno · 14-06-2008 2:52pm

djpbarry wrote: »

So you've no idea what you want changed? That's what I thought, but thanks for clearing it up.
Expecting an international treaty between 27 countries to be written in layman's terms is simply not realistic.
Because he was asked about it?
The interview was conducted in March 2007; the Lisbon Treaty was not in existence at that time.
All of this has already been explained numerous times in other threads, so I'm not going into too much detail. When the constitution was rejected in France and Netherlands, it was renegotiated as the Lisbon Treaty, taking into consideration the concerns of the French and the Dutch.
We were not voting on the constitution; our planned referendum to ratify the constitution was cancelled after it was rejected by the French and the Dutch.

EU Constitution ≠ Lisbon Treaty.
Again, this has already been discussed at length. There were some very small protests around Europe (that numbered about 100 people in total, if I remember correctly) with regard to the Treaty. But it's irrelevant; how other states ratify the treaty is entirely up to the states in question and has nothing to do with Ireland or the EU.
I don't know what you mean by that.

are you blind. i just told you no one understands the full treaty how could you its not READABLE. you asked me what i would like changed and i gave you an answer. are you just fedup because there was a no vote ?. look i said i would consider voting yes as well as a lot of people if it was made readable. what gives

zenno · 14-06-2008 2:58pm

DJPBARRY:
you cannot expect the people of ireland to vote on a treaty that makes no sense. do you think just voting yes on that treaty will make everything ok. you seem to be uncautious as to what you vote on.

free-man · 14-06-2008 3:14pm

djpbarry wrote: »

All of this has already been explained numerous times in other threads, so I'm not going into too much detail. When the constitution was rejected in France and Netherlands, it was renegotiated as the Lisbon Treaty, taking into consideration the concerns of the French and the Dutch.
We were not voting on the constitution; our planned referendum to ratify the constitution was cancelled after it was rejected by the French and the Dutch.

EU Constitution ≠ Lisbon Treaty.

A few comments from government ministers which a quick google search turned up:

"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'."
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007

Why would they say this? Are they mistaken? Perhaps they didn't read the treaty and could not have been an authority on it? If so this begs the question, how could they lend weight to something they had not read.

djpbarry wrote: »

Again, this has already been discussed at length. There were some very small protests around Europe (that numbered about 100 people in total, if I remember correctly) with regard to the Treaty. But it's irrelevant; how other states ratify the treaty is entirely up to the states in question and has nothing to do with Ireland or the EU.

Would completely disagree - 100 people!! Every site I've come across has overwhelming support for Ireland's decision and anger at their government that they were not allowed to vote.

Some comments on the london times website:

A big thank you to the Irish.

I wonder what the Eu will call it next time?
Rob, Guildford, England

People don't like to be told how they should vote. The British media from the BBC on down are so convinced among themselves about anything European that they no longer even bother to debate it. I guess the Irish are normal in that they don't like anything shoved down their throat either.
Somak, Bangkok, Thailand

The Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty diminishes all the more the people of Britain who would overwhelmingly have also voted 'no' were they given the opportunity. No more should we say, nor feel, that we live in a democracy -- we don't.

Frank in Orpington

Frank Reilly, Orpington, England

Thank you Ireland! A great thanks from Denmark! The danish constitution was just about to disappear because of EU laws and our politicians wouldn't let us vote about it!
So here in Denmark we'll open bottles of champagne and praise our irish brothers and sisters!
Anders Gravers, Aalborg, Denmark

Yes there were negative comments too, but check for yourself on most sites across the globe the comments are overwhelmingly positive towards the Irish decision.

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 3:15pm

Rb wrote: »

The Irish Government would have to be thick to try and run another vote on this in the near future. People still aren't happy over what happened with the Nice Treaty afterall.

However, good news for us today, the Czech Republican President has said that the Treaty is dead and ratification cannot continue (Link) It looks like we've set a precedent, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other countries reject it now. Would definitely be a good thing for us anyway.

Not really, like the Poles the Czechs have been sold the dream of Europe and are spilt on whether it's good or bad. Election campaigns over the last few years haev invariably included Europe.

zenno · 14-06-2008 3:17pm

free-man wrote: »

A few comments from government ministers which a quick google search turned up:

"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'."
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007

Why would they say this? Are they mistaken? Perhaps they didn't read the treaty and could not have been an authority on it? If so this begs the question, how could they lend weight to something they had not read.

Would completely disagree - 100 people!! Every site I've come across has overwhelming support for Ireland's decision and anger at their government that they were not allowed to vote.

Some comments on the london times website:
A big thank you to the Irish.

I wonder what the Eu will call it next time?
Rob, Guildford, England
People don't like to be told how they should vote. The British media from the BBC on down are so convinced among themselves about anything European that they no longer even bother to debate it. I guess the Irish are normal in that they don't like anything shoved down their throat either.
Somak, Bangkok, Thailand
The Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty diminishes all the more the people of Britain who would overwhelmingly have also voted 'no' were they given the opportunity. No more should we say, nor feel, that we live in a democracy -- we don't.

Frank in Orpington

Frank Reilly, Orpington, England
Thank you Ireland! A great thanks from Denmark! The danish constitution was just about to disappear because of EU laws and our politicians wouldn't let us vote about it!
So here in Denmark we'll open bottles of champagne and praise our irish brothers and sisters!
Anders Gravers, Aalborg, Denmark

Yes there were negative comments too, but check for yourself on most sites across the globe the comments are overwhelmingly positive towards the Irish decision.

here here

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 3:19pm

free-man wrote: »

Why would they say this? Are they mistaken? Perhaps they didn't read the treaty and could not have been an authority on it? If so this begs the question, how could they lend weight to something they had not read.

If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it and write it all out again differently? Cowen's comment was asking for trouble, in an environment where people were looking for reasons to vote no, whether he was there or not at the negotiations.

zenno · 14-06-2008 3:23pm

is_that_so wrote: »

If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it and write it all out again differently? Cowen's comment was asking for trouble, in an environment where people were looking for reasons to vote no, whether he was there or not at the negotiations.

"If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it." at least a thesis will make sense i cant understand how you and a very small amount of other people can say such a stupid thing. have you even read the whole treaty ?

free-man · 14-06-2008 3:31pm

is_that_so wrote: »

If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it and write it all out again differently? Cowen's comment was asking for trouble, in an environment where people were looking for reasons to vote no, whether he was there or not at the negotiations.

Why bother writing it out again at all? The public have voted, can this not be the final decision. It is clear that each time it is put to the electorate is it greeted unfavourably.

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 3:31pm

zenno wrote: »

"If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it." at least a thesis will make sense i cant understand how you and a very small amount of other people can say such a stupid thing. have you even read the whole treaty ?

The point I am making here is about the process of writing something. If 95% is not contentious or you are happy with it why throw it out. And yes I have read some of the treaty , not all of it yet, but working my way slowly through it.

zenno · 14-06-2008 3:34pm

I wish you luck

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 3:36pm

free-man wrote: »

Why bother writing it out again at all? The public have voted, can this not be the final decision. It is clear that each time it is put to the electorate is it greeted unfavourably.

We gave our negotiators a mandate and we basked in the glow of Bertie's success when he managed to get the core of a deal together on the Constitution ;that 95% ,but now it's bad?

As regards Lisbon II there seems to be little appetite for any renegotiating or rewriting and some other mechanism may be found to fix it.

Call Me Jimmy · 14-06-2008 3:47pm

The thing is, when we vote no to a big treaty like this the problem doesn't just go away, it's not that simple. When everyone else seems to want to push ahead it leaves us in limbo in our current situation. The no campaigners were asking for a better deal and if they want that to happen then yes there has to be a lisbon II.

zenno · 14-06-2008 3:47pm

"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention."

- V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention

zenno · 14-06-2008 4:30pm

DOWN WITH THE NEW WORLD ORDER. WE DON'T WANT A DICTATORSHIP RUNNING THIS COUNTRY.

Nederlander · 14-06-2008 4:59pm

While the most of us were never against cooperation between countries of the EU, we felt that the European constitution was an attempt to assimilate our countries in a superstate called de EU, which we clearly didn't want, so we voted NO in the first referendum, Our leaders thought by themselves "once, but never again" and with the revised text and a different name our leaders decided that we agreed with the new text even we were never asked again, knowing that we would torch the treaty again.

So with all my heart I thank you Ireland for at least slowing down the assimilation process and sending a clear message to the lords in their ivory towers in Brussels.

Thank you.

free-man · 14-06-2008 5:41pm

ixtlan wrote: »

I'm not sure if there are any actual surveys? Anyone got links. I think most EU citizens don't even know about Lisbon. The EU does not specify how states ratify treaties. The national governments decide and their public can vote them out if they disagreed. Some countries like Germany have made such referendums illegal due to Hitler's interference in the past.
Ix.

You were looking for some numbers?

Check the financial times poll that states:

A substantial majority of voters in five large European Union countries want a referendum on the bloc's new reform treaty.

and:

According to the poll, 76 percent of Germans, 75 percent of Britons, 72 percent of Italians, 65 percent of Spaniards and 63 percent of French wanted a referendum ...

Please explain now how the EU is in step with it's public? And why is it that despite overwhelming public demand this has not been put to vote?*

*in countries where it is constitutional to do so

zenno · 14-06-2008 7:43pm

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.

after all the crap the irish republican army went through to get independance in this country just over 700,000 irish people want to get rid of it and give it to the dictatorship of brussels. how can you people sleep at night your not f,ucking irish.

roadruner · 14-06-2008 8:06pm

As our economy continues to sink
The Government will blame the NO voters!

PH01 · 14-06-2008 8:31pm

How are the Yes side going to get back that percentage of the electorate who voted No in Lisbon I?
It's not going to be easy that's for sure. Historically a 53% turnout would have been a win for the Yes side. Even a 45% would have been a marginal win for the Yes. But this time its different and unlike Nice I a huge chunk of the Yes vote that came out in Nice II went over to the NO side this time.
This is going to make the Pro-Treatists think twice or trice about about rerunning.

I expect to see a EU Opinion surveys during the summer, early autumn. I expect that will still show that the Irish electorate is still pro-EU. This will be used to the EU to seek a couple of admendments or addendums (the usual - nuatrality, taxation, abortion - although these were all taken care of in Nice I and II) to the treaty.

But it isn't going to be easy, and will the pro-treaty groups have the stomach for it?

limklad · 14-06-2008 11:24pm

DishonestPikey wrote: »

It is not democracy when people are voting for the wrong reasons, on yes and no sides. They left it to the elected politicians who do know what they are voting on.

A communismist said the same thing as you did.Read the description of how a communismist government works.

Political leaders rise up through the bureaucracy; elections offer little or no real choice. Internally the party operates on the principle of democratic centralism, which means that public expressions of dissent from the party line are not allowed.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_Communist_Government_work

A democracy is when people voice their own opinion in a ballot box not what others want them to do. Otherwise it dictatorship, communism, fascist etc depends on your form of democracy.

is_that_so · 15-06-2008 12:15am

limklad wrote: »

A communismist said the same thing as you did.Read the description of how a communismist government works.

A democracy is when people voice their own opinion in a ballot box not what others want them to do. Otherwise it dictatorship, communism, fascist etc depends on your form of democracy.

Collectively 80% of the people who voted in the last election chose the Yes camp politicians and we'll probably continue to do so. They are elected by us, of our own free will and if they are so "abhorrent" we are implicated for choosing them. Yet these are the same undesirables that should be sent back to renegotiate for us.

limklad · 15-06-2008 12:31am

is_that_so wrote: »

Collectively 80% of the people who voted in the last election chose the Yes camp politicians and we'll probably continue to do so. They are elected by us, of our own free will and if they are so "abhorrent" we are implicated for choosing them. Yet these are the same undesirables that should be sent back to renegotiate for us.

There is no alternative but choose what is available on an election sheet.

For the Referendum we had a choice too YES or NO. We made it and it our elected
Politicians job is to talk to us and find out why we voted NO and find a different path for the EU. Most people complaining here about the referendum are from the yes camp who now have “No respect for Democracy of the people” and trying to smear those who voted NO (who made their own choice) as stupid.

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

Comments