Could Lisbon have been made simpler or clearer for the ordinary citizen?

axer

Could the treaty have been made simpler or clearer for the ordinary citizen? i.e. was it an overly complex document that effected too many areas at the same time?

Was it purposely made complicated in the hope that people would just say "I don't understand it, I will vote yes to leave it up to the politicians". The amount of people that trusted our politicians were out numbered by those that do not.

Your thoughts...

mathias

First off , I think its offensive to imply that the referendum results were decided in large by people who dont understand the issues ... the result is in and must be respected.

Second, even if the majority who voted did not understand it , and I dont believe that , it still makes sense that the result is as it was , if you are confronted with a legal document you dont understand and are asked to sign it , the logical thing to do is refuse until its explained to you.

For me and I would imagine for a lot of people , the big issue here is the manner in which this treaty was presented , and the " vote yes or else " type of attitude that was prevalent. Also the fact that we are the only country to get a vote ,

Ive read somewhere this morning about some EU politician commenting that the Irish decision is regretful but we cant let a minority of the minority decide things , well that is a laughable statement , in truth a handful of politicians from each country in the union is deciding the issue ( or at least was until our uniquely democratic result ), and that truly is a minority of minorities.

It the treaty is so resoundingly good for everyone , then why is not put to the vote in all countries , why is it being railroaded through by political elites?

Yesterday was a good day for democracy , long may it continue , and the rest of Europe should demand their own referendums.

Duffman

Thing about Lisbon was that it really was "Plan B" (to use a phrase I'm sick of hearing at this point).

One of the main ideas behind the drafting of a European Constitution was that the existing Treaties were too complicated and technical for citizens to relate to. The Constitution was supposed to be something that more closely resembled the documents we were used to seeing, something that could at least be explained to citizens.

The Constitution was deeply flawed, but one criticism that can't be reasonably made is that it was undemocratic. We had the Convention on the future of Europe, public consultations, the input of pretty much any interest group you can think of - put simply, it was the most comprehensive and transparent public participation in the creation of a constitutional document ever. Certainly in a different league when you compare it to Bunreacht na hEireann which was written by two men.

This was shot down in France and the Netherlands. It was difficult to find a unifying reason for this (although far easier than it will be for the Irish result) but it was pretty clear that the people of those countries didn't like the idea of a "constitution" as such.

This is where Lisbon comes in. European leaders agreed to scrap the idea of a European Constitution and to simply amend the existing Treaties - the same thing that has happened every time we've had a referendum since the SEA in 1986.

The thing is truly awful to read but this is not the result of some conspiracy to make the text impenetrable. The fact is that it's a complicated legal text and its drafters had to work with what was already there. They realised that this was not a satisfactory situation but in light of the rejection of the constitution there was nothing that could be done to improve it.

This is the point I have been making all along. The Constitutional Treaty was rejected. We ended up with a worse result for citizens all over Europe, not least in France and the Netherlands. My concern now is what happens post-Lisbon, and experience tells us that it won't be a great development for the Irish people or indeed the people of Europe.

Duffman

mathias wrote: »

if you are confronted with a legal document you dont understand and are asked to sign it , the logical thing to do is refuse until its explained to you.

Will you hire a solicitor when you buy a house? Did you read the entire EULA when you installed windows? Do you read through the Finance Bill when its published every year? You can't reasonably expect to understand every complex legal document that you encounter, lawyers don't even expect to be able to do this.

towel401

its not that hard to understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_treaty#Central_changes

basically it is just another step along the way to making the EU into one country. It will make it easier for the EU to sign new laws and international treaties, this means more EU regulations being sent down to us.

the yes campaign had focused on that it was "good for the economy" without specifying a reason and other bits that don't seem directly related to the treaty.
Same with the no campaign - "vote no to stop hunting".

Nobody on the TV focused on what the treaty actually does. They assume the people are too thick to understand or they don't actually want the people to understand what it does. I'm not sure which.

ixtlan

Many people appear not to have even read the referendum commission documents, poor as they were. I despair at the people at work who told me that they didn't have time to look at anything related to Lisbon... except the posters. Many of them the day before the vote were saying the same thing... maybe that night they might have a look at it, at which point most of them looked at the rather impressive Libertas documentation.

One would assume that most people did not even bother to watch the debates or the RTE programs.

The sad reality is that the posters were the main source of information and the yes side lost because they didn't have clear yes reasons on their posters. Instead they put up pictures of their future candidates,

I'd like to think we could have an education campaign about how Europe works, but I really don't think people will spend the time to learn.

I respectfully understand that some of the yes side are likewise, and some of the no side really have considered things deeply, but I'm sure you would acknowledge the huge numbers of people who have a fundamental lack of understanding about the EU.

I despaired of people saying to me... our commissioner won't be there to veto votes... the big countries keep their commissioner and we don't... our voting weight is halved in the parliament.

So, the sad message is that soundbites work, detailed education programs or forums do not. Better posters are the way to go, and lots of consise documentation in the post. I didn't get any yes documentation at all.

Ix

irish_bob

this referendum was decided by people who voted no either because they signed up to the bogus criteria espoused by a few well known people in the media and elsewhere that if you dont know , vote no

it was also decided by people who let irrational fear on the issue of abortion or neutrality ( also bogus ) influence there descision
there were very few tru believers on the no side
when it comes to this countrys view on europe, what makes us tick is whether or not its good for us economically which is why if the campaign had not been dominated by fear tactics , the yes side would have romped home
the yes side failed miserably to convince people to vote yes and the no side done a masterfull job of painting the treaty as some kind of massive matrix style conspirocy against us

Duffman

ixtlan wrote: »

I despair at the people at work who told me that they didn't have time to look at anything related to Lisbon... except the posters. Many of them the day before the vote were saying the same thing...

The best example of this I heard was some eejit on Joe Duffy going on about how she "just had no time" to read the tiny referendum commission booklet because she worked, had four children and so on.. She spent so long on that radio programme that she probably could have read the Treaty itself from cover to cover.

I want to believe that this person doesn't represent the majority of No voters, I really do.

johnnyq

Duffman wrote: »

The best example of this I heard was some eejit on Joe Duffy going on about how she "just had no time" to read the tiny referendum commission booklet because she worked, had four children and so on.. She spent so long on that radio programme that she probably could have read the Treaty itself from cover to cover.

I want to believe that this person doesn't represent the majority of No voters, I really do.

i think any future votes of this type should be broken down into sections. e.g. to separate the military from the institutional from the human rights doc and so on.

At least then it may stop people ticking 5/6 yes's or no's which may increase engagement with the issues and stop the *if you like this bit you must also take this awful stuff* situation.

Take Coir for example. Their huge beef was with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So why not let people vote no/yes to that aspect and perhaps then also do the opposite to the military/environmental aspects.

It would help clear up what people find most objectional.

Duffman

That's not a bad idea

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

i think any future votes of this type should be broken down into sections. e.g. to separate the military from the institutional from the human rights doc and so on.

I'm thinking on this wavelength too. It should be possible to do it with the vague aspects of the treaty, certainly as you suggest with the military and rights charter.

johnnyq, as a reasoned no voter, could you accept a modified Lisbon, that excluded those clauses and perhaps added some others (like specifying that a CCTB needs a referendum... it does anyhow but since people don't believe it it could be written in...) , and made all dependent on further referendums?

Ix.

Dr. Baltar

johnnyq wrote: »

i think any future votes of this type should be broken down into sections. e.g. to separate the military from the institutional from the human rights doc and so on.

At least then it may stop people ticking 5/6 yes's or no's which may increase engagement with the issues and stop the *if you like this bit you must also take this awful stuff* situation.

Take Coir for example. Their huge beef was with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So why not let people vote no/yes to that aspect and perhaps then also do the opposite to the military/environmental aspects.

It would help clear up what people find most objectional.

An excellent idea.
I and my family would have been yes voters if there was no Common Security Policy and if there was no E.U. High Representative to be created.

Darragh29

Duffman wrote: »

Will you hire a solicitor when you buy a house? Did you read the entire EULA when you installed windows? Do you read through the Finance Bill when its published every year? You can't reasonably expect to understand every complex legal document that you encounter, lawyers don't even expect to be able to do this.

This argument doesn't carry any weight with me. Our constitution is easy to read, has served us extremely well since it was enacted and can be bought in any Easons shop and can be read over a coffee in Bewleys. This treaty on the other hand cannot be read without apparently a dozen reference manuals to other previous treaties.

At the end of the day, I think the people just fear that when you hitch an EU elite that is talking a lot lately about tax harmonisation, EU armies, abortion as a service, up to a treaty that in all reality is so broad and vague that it could possibly be used at some stage to railroad through by any one of a number of means, some consequence that we would not wish to be visited upon us, then you get what happened yesterday, a "thanks but no thanks" verdict.

reslfj

Sir Baralot wrote: »

An excellent idea.
I and my family would have been yes voters if there was no Common Security Policy and if there was no E.U. High Representative to be created.

As non Irish and out of interest for something I 100% do not understand - but

"Could a statement about respect for the Irish neutrality have changed the outcome ?"


Lars

BlitzKrieg

johnnyq wrote: »

i think any future votes of this type should be broken down into sections. e.g. to separate the military from the institutional from the human rights doc and so on.

At least then it may stop people ticking 5/6 yes's or no's which may increase engagement with the issues and stop the *if you like this bit you must also take this awful stuff* situation.

Take Coir for example. Their huge beef was with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So why not let people vote no/yes to that aspect and perhaps then also do the opposite to the military/environmental aspects.

It would help clear up what people find most objectional.

heh I just did a thread a second ago suggesting the exact same thing.

thecoolfreak

Darragh29 wrote: »

This argument doesn't carry any weight with me. Our constitution is easy to read, has served us extremely well since it was enacted and can be bought in any Easons shop and can be read over a coffee in Bewleys. This treaty on the other hand cannot be read without apparently a dozen reference manuals to other previous treaties.

At the end of the day, I think the people just fear that when you hitch an EU elite that is talking a lot lately about tax harmonisation, EU armies, abortion as a service, up to a treaty that in all reality is so broad and vague that it could possibly be used at some stage to railroad through by any one of a number of means, some consequence that we would not wish to be visited upon us, then you get what happened yesterday, a "thanks but no thanks" verdict.

Our Constitiution like nearly every legal document isn't that easy to read and isn't perfectly clear. Just look at the vast array of unemunerated rigts that have been implied as constitutional rights. Look at the different interpretations the Supreme Court have taken with respect to various different provisions. The Lisbon Treaty like all Constitutions and International Treaties was a long, complex document. It couldn't be any other way

BlitzKrieg

This argument doesn't carry any weight with me. Our constitution is easy to read, has served us extremely well since it was enacted and can be bought in any Easons shop and can be read over a coffee in Bewleys. This treaty on the other hand cannot be read without apparently a dozen reference manuals to other previous treaties.

Our constitution is a legal document that forms the legal basis of our national state and the role and relationship of our government with our people.

The EU constitution/Lisbon treaty is a legal document that forms the legal basis between national states.

It is a much much more complicated process because it has to work with the constitutions and legal documents of 27 different countries.

the document itself could not be made simpler. Well the EU constitution, the lisbon treaty could have been made simpler by being the EU constitution but there's a whole seperate issue hanging over that etc.


But what should have existed and failed to materilize soon enough were treaty supplements, they would have outlined the relationship between the treaty and the people, and a second to outline the relationship the relationship between the treaty and the state.

these appeared too late and were not pushed strong enough.

DadaKopf

axer wrote: »

Could the treaty have been made simpler or clearer for the ordinary citizen? i.e. was it an overly complex document that effected too many areas at the same time?

Was it purposely made complicated in the hope that people would just say "I don't understand it, I will vote yes to leave it up to the politicians". The amount of people that trusted our politicians were out numbered by those that do not.

Your thoughts...

Having been disenfranchised, then re-enfranchised days before polling day, I had to swot up fast. After reading some articles produced for an Irish Institute of European Affairs book on the pre-Lisbon referendum, I think it's not hugely complicated at a general level. It is possible to summarise.

I became convinced, for the most part, that it did simplify EU procedures, and in some cases, improved them. It clearly defined what the EU does, and what individual member states do - for the first time. That's just one example.

The reason it seems complicated is because it's an amending treaty. The proposed EU Constitution sought to replace the key treaties and protocols with one single document. Following the resounding rejection of the EU Constitution (which was actually just another treaty), the EU had no other route than to create a jigsaw document that brought together, and in some cases changed, what mostly already exists in the other treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Nice).

What we have now - the status quo - is messy and confusing, but I think it would have been possible to tell a convincing narrative to the public to explain how the EU works, what it does, and what it can do to people, if we had had this document. But, I mean, most people won't go to read the boring, academic literature to get an opinion. That's usually where you get real information and analysis about things. Anyway...

So now, the EU is back to where it was in 2006. A bizarre labrynth of strange international treaties governing a regional structure the like of which the world has never seen. It does cause trouble for those in the EU advocating further integration (and there are rational reasons for greater federalisation IMHO), and I'd say it'll impact negatively on the no side, too. It does make sense that it'll lead to a two-speed Europe. But I suppose we'll learn more as time goes on.

I can't say I'm enamoured with the no vote, but wouldn't have been celebrating a yes vote either.

Darragh29

thecoolfreak wrote: »

Our Constitiution like nearly every legal document isn't that easy to read and isn't perfectly clear. Just look at the vast array of unemunerated rigts that have been implied as constitutional rights. Look at the different interpretations the Supreme Court have taken with respect to various different provisions. The Lisbon Treaty like all Constitutions and International Treaties was a long, complex document. It couldn't be any other way

Relative to the Lisbon Treaty our constitution is easy to read.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

i think any future votes of this type should be broken down into sections. e.g. to separate the military from the institutional from the human rights doc and so on.

At least then it may stop people ticking 5/6 yes's or no's which may increase engagement with the issues and stop the *if you like this bit you must also take this awful stuff* situation.

Take Coir for example. Their huge beef was with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So why not let people vote no/yes to that aspect and perhaps then also do the opposite to the military/environmental aspects.

It would help clear up what people find most objectional.

I'd favour that - one of the things I liked about Lisbon was the notorious "self-amending" article, which actually just allowed for changes to the Treaties by single amendment.

I'm not sure, legally, how you'd guarantee a referendum on every further amendment. The Crotty judgment often wouldn't apply - and writing it into the Constitution, while the obvious step, would need to be carefully phrased.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Darragh29 wrote: »

Relative to the Lisbon Treaty our constitution is easy to read.

That is partly because it is largely a set of loosely-worded aspirational statements, which then require interpretation in the courts. The body of interpretive work on the Constitution runs to hundreds of judgments, maybe thousands - of which Crotty is one such judgment.

For any document there is a trade-off between ease of reading and looseness of meaning. I have written, over time, dozens of training manuals in Internet subjects. In every case one had to strike a balance between making the manual readable - so that the student understood what they were doing - and precise - so that the student could see exactly what to do.

It would be nice if a document had been produced showing the intent of the Treaty articles. However, what would be preferable would be the ability to deal with amendment of the treaties either singly (as per Lisbon), or in penny packets as johnnyq suggested.

cordially,
Scofflaw