Possibility of a Lisbon #2

CtrlSource

Fair enough. But it would need to be a real change and not just playing around with the odd word.

One of my main reasons for voting No, was the what seems like inexorable move towards EU control of a raft of things that i think are best left in the hands of nation States. i don't really know how a minor adjustment to a Constitutional amendment will change my mind about that

berliner

IRLConor wrote: »

What would you have them do? Throw up their hands and say "Right lads, the Irish have said no. No more reform for the EU." ?

I'd have them sling it in the bin and respect the result of the election.The EU is a sham.

is_that_so

berliner wrote: »

The EU is a sham.

Do tell.

hmmm

dresden8 wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. A referendum every day for the next four years until the general election. Or until they get the result they want.

Just wow.

As a representative democracy we elect our government to run the country on our behalf as they see fit. If that means they want to run another referendum that's how it works. If we don't like this as voters, we get an opportunity every few years to re-elect a different government. I'm sorry you have difficulty with this concept, perhaps you'd like to suggest a referendum to change our constitution to something other than a representative democracy.

conceited

The Treaty was renegotiated after the French and Dutch rejections - that's what happened in the intervening two years - so Ireland rejected a different Treaty, despite your claim that they're the same.

Your incorrect the treaty has not changed since the 2004 one that got a no vote aswell.

If you are gonna drag France and Dutch NO result in their referenda into this i will have to remind you that PEOPLE of Spain and Luxembourg have voted YES in their referendums

Never knew this .

yes it does and its quite polite of the rest of the countries to give us another go next year to double check if thats a NO vote is really what we want, and by that stage hopefully the full consequence of such a vote to Ireland and EU are explained to the people

if they were pure evil as some people here believe the rest of the countries would have ganged up on us, but no were getting quite the special treatment and respect of being asked of our opinions again

What a silly thing to say.

Let me just start by saying i find ionix5891's posts quite arrogant and boredline ignorant, especially the use of bold text to emphasise his 'arguments'. But i've read enough so far to realise that i couldn't be arsëd getting into a debate with him/her.

I actually don't take him seriously since he ignored his own position in regards the constitution 2004 which he said changed to form the lisbon treaty.He ignores anything factual.

When the French and Dutch rejected the draft Constitution, their votes were respected and what should have happened, happened. Lisbon was born out of that and it took into account their concerns.

Wrong lisbon is nothing more than the constitution encapsulated in the lisbon treaty not one thing has changed.But instead the french and dutch goverments fiddled with their constitution and passed the treaty anyway and fooled the people in the process.

What would you have them do? Throw up their hands and say "Right lads, the Irish have said no. No more reform for the EU." ?

What exactly was the vote for?

Some would say the Lisbon treaty was plan B since the French and Dutch electorates rejected a similar treaty that Ireland never got a chance to vote on.

As said already it's the exact same treaty just dressed up .

is_that_so

conceited wrote: »

As said already it's the exact same treaty just dressed up .

I find this position quite specious and it displays a convenient oversight of what is required in drafting any kind of official document.

If you had to resubmit a report or thesis would it be sent back to you as being the "original just dressed up" if it was largely the same?

How many major treaties or legislation are you aware of that were completely rewritten due to objections or amendment?

Much of our own legislation is dressed up versions of the original as amendments are added or taken away but the basic text usually survives.

Even yesterday the EU had to choose between five sentences to reflect the Czech position while leaving the rest of the statement intact.

berliner

is_that_so wrote: »

Do tell.

I believe it has been bad for Ireland in many ways.I'm amazed even the NO side were all "great supporters of the EU project".Nobody seems to be against our membership of the EU.I'm convinced it's a bad idea and it will collapse eventually.There are better ways for Ireland to go but no politican on this island is interested.Always be weary when everyone is in agreement as they are about the EU.

RKQ

Why bother Vote, if they don't like the result, they have another ref...
How is this democratic?

I think its an utter disgrace....

The "YES" campaign had months to convince the people and they failed!
We Voted No! Don't bother asking us again!

conceited

You know aswell as i do that they renamed it and said it was different which it isn't.

The proposed treaty on how Europe will be run is essentially the same as the rejected EU Constitution, an architect of the original document said yesterday.
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, admitted the changes made were "few and far between...and more cosmetic than real".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469118/EU-treaty-simply-old-constitution-reborn-says-creator-Giscard-dEstaing.html

How many major treaties are you aware of that were completely rewritten due to objections or amendment?

They didn't rewrite jack .

As Valéry Giscard d’Estaing said, the method “is to keep a part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty and to split them into several texts in order to make them less visible. The most innovative dispositions would pass as simple amendments of the Maastricht and Nice treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered in an innocuous treaty. The whole would be addressed to Parliaments, which would decide with separate votes. The public opinion would therefore unknowingly adopt the dispositions that it would not accept if presented directly.”

Scofflaw

is_that_so wrote: »

I accept that , in the same way that 20% are against the notion of the EU in any way, but I find it an uncomfortable situation and one that we should be addressing. From what I see it has gone far beyond a portion of the populace not liking them. There now appears to be a much wider and deeper mistrust.

I'm not actually sure about that:

|Dail|Govt|Parties
Autumn 07|33|32|22
Spring 07|43|41|
Autumn 06|36|34|23
Spring 06|44|42|32
Autumn 05|40|37|23
Spring 05|40|40|24
Autumn 04|||
Spring 04|40|39|23

In answer to the question "how much trust or mistrust do you have in the following institutions?" from the relevant Eurobarometers. That 23% trust in political parties (which is what I suspect is relevant in referendums) is pretty steady.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

RKQ wrote: »

Why bother Vote, if they don't like the result, they have another ref...
How is this democratic?

I think its an utter disgrace....

The "YES" campaign had months to convince the people and they failed!
We Voted No! Don't bother asking us again!

Not very useful, I'm afraid. There's still a question to be answered.

annoyingly,
Scofflaw

cabinteelytom

The EEA was set up in 1994 by negotiation btween the EFTA and the EU. To-day it consists of the 27 countries of the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein.
The EEA is based upon the same four freedoms as the EU- the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital throughout the EEA countries.

It's all good then?
The downside is that these three states have little influence on decision-making processes in Brussels. The EEA states also make a financial contribution to the single market (I think they receive nil) and have an obligation to implement some EU legislation. Former Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, in 2001 described his country as a 'fax democracy' waiting for the latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission.

Switzerland also has access to the EU's single market through a different procedure.The Swiss electorate rejected in referenda to join the EU in 2001 (and on another occasion), and rejected in 1994 joining the EEA!. Switzerland has instead conducted a series of 'bilateral treaties' with the EU , which , it seems replicate the EEA's obligations. The Swiss electorate are not entirely 'wreckers', and have voted by referendum to join the Schengen Agreement, which is something to do with security or asylum.

So, it seems there is European economic life outside the EU.
Is it a mischievous question to ask, 'Will Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein or Switzerland be queuing up to join the new-look, reformed, post-Lisbon EU?'

cabinteelytom

Information gathered from wikipedia and answers.com

dresden8

hmmm wrote: »

As a representative democracy we elect our government to run the country on our behalf as they see fit. If that means they want to run another referendum that's how it works. If we don't like this as voters, we get an opportunity every few years to re-elect a different government. I'm sorry you have difficulty with this concept, perhaps you'd like to suggest a referendum to change our constitution to something other than a representative democracy.

Good turn around, call the person who wants the result of a vote respected undemocratic.

I suggest some of you guys read 1984. You seem to have missed the point.

oscarBravo

conceited wrote: »

You know aswell as i do that they renamed it and said it was different which it isn't.

No matter how many times you repeat it, it's not going to magically become true.

Engage meaningfully in the debate or stay out of it.

biko

conceited wrote: »

Ireland has been given a year by his European counterparts to push through a second referendum on the lisbon treaty. So basically say yes in spring or ?

Sorry, I came in late and haven't read the whole thread but I must have missed that news flash?
The only thing I could dig up was

Brian Cowen said he would work between now and October with European colleagues and would try to distil the concerns of the Irish Electorate to find a way forward.
He said that until the process was over he was not in a position to engage in glib speculation as to what might happen.

The Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the French National Assembly, Axel Poniatowski, said that Ireland should stage another vote on the Lisbon Treaty in the next 12 months.today

The Irish Prime Minister says there will be no second referendum - which could result in the treaty being scrapped altogetherweek ago

Do OP have a link?

Simplicity

IRLConor wrote: »

I'll keep saying yes. No amount of asking me will make me say no.

Lucky for you that you will keep getting the chance. Some how if a yes gets through any next time, I doubt the will be a "are ya sure" ala a third vote.

This is why politics is a load of bollix. I am sickened.

Those who are in the Yes camp, are you happy our democracy is giving you another chance?

dresden8

cabinteelytom wrote: »

So, it seems there is European economic life outside the EU.
Is it a mischievous question to ask, 'Will Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein or Switzerland be queuing up to join the new-look, reformed, post-Lisbon EU?'

Sure wouldn't they be mad not to. It must be tough not being ordered around by Sarkozy, how will they ever run their own country?

conceited

Nobody is engaging me when i post facts so whats your point bravo?

conceited

Hi Biko I read an article this morning that says it is very likely this will happen in spring next year before the eu elections.

biko

conceited wrote: »

Hi Biko I read an article this morning that says it is very likely this will happen in spring next year before the eu elections.

Can you link it? What paper?
It seems unsupported as it would be on RTE if Biffo said it.

oscarBravo

conceited wrote: »

Nobody is engaging me when i post facts so whats your point bravo?

That's hardly a compelling reason to post something that's not true.

By the way, my polite suggestion to you wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion over it. Once more, engage meaningfully in the debate or stay out of it.

Moriarty

"Lisbon to be voted on again in the spring" merged back into this one.

IRLConor

Simplicity wrote: »

Lucky for you that you will keep getting the chance. Some how if a yes gets through any next time, I doubt the will be a "are ya sure" ala a third vote.

That's the problem that the government have a monopoly on calling referenda.

The fact that they have that monopoly does not affect the legitimacy of the referenda, nor does it make any of the referenda undemocratic.

I wouldn't be against the idea of adding other ways of calling referenda provided they are controlled somehow to stop fringe nutters wrecking the process.

Simplicity

IRLConor wrote: »

That's the problem that the government have a monopoly on calling referenda.

The fact that they have that monopoly does not affect the legitimacy of the referenda, nor does it make any of the referenda undemocratic.

I wouldn't be against the idea of adding other ways of calling referenda provided they are controlled somehow to stop fringe nutters wrecking the process.

I'd disagree.

There is no plan B. Remember? Wait...lets try plan A again?

Were it a yes vote and we were doing it again you would be less inclined to have a view tbh

conceited

European Parliament elections are in June 2009.
He will wait till after christmas and call another referendum because he obviously can't do it this year since it's to soon.

If anyine thinks their not going to call another referendum then what alternative do we have? Nothing.

IRLConor

Simplicity wrote: »

Were is a yes vote and we were doing it again you would be less inclined to have a view tbh

If it had been a yes vote, I wouldn't necessarily want another vote but I wouldn't moan if it happened either.

conceited

How will they present the information to the people this time to ensure they get a yes vote because if they don't get it this time round we are in limbo.
So what will they do give it out in a form like this

• tax will not be affected fact
• country will remain neutral fact
• etc
• etc

Wouldn't this be alot easier and if so can they actually get facts from that document without contradictions?

Simplicity

IRLConor wrote: »

If it had been a yes vote, I wouldn't necessarily want another vote but I wouldn't moan if it happened either.

I think you are lying to yourself.

RKQ

There was a referendum and the people voted NO!

A second referendum on the same question can only be justified if the people are considered to be stupid or misguided by the "No" campaign.

What other justification can there be for putting the same question to the people?

Were we brainwashed? Are we Stupid?

The EU wondons why we don't trust them... this is a great example why!
They just don't accept "No", they think we made a mistake!

Our decision, right or wrong, is being ignored. This is very bad in a democracy.

I am pro-EU but I may have to reconsider! ( I can't believe I'm becoming a Euro-sceptic because of this!)