Possibility of a Lisbon #2

dresden8

Seanies32 wrote: »

Ah first prize for thehighground.

He is on a roll alright.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

No, wee Willie would have to order the army out.
Think the Guards have done enough of intimidating voters in Donegal

Jesus they can't even get that right :pac:. I'll have to have a word with the commissioner.

marco_polo

dresden8 wrote: »

Politicians always throw lies into any old vote that's knocking around. You'd swear it was a new phenomenon.

If there was an infinite number of referenda, that would be a sort of fairness, but there won't be, the first yes vote the process gets shut down. You know as well as I do that's how things work.

marco_polo wrote: »

Like Divorce and Nice for example.

dresden8 wrote: »

Exactly.

heyjude

Seanies32 wrote: »

But the Govt. does.

You are a true democrat.

Ignoring the 46% who voted yes and the over 25% who voted because "if you don't know, vote no" or over concerns over Neutrality and tax, makes you the Fascist.

Many YES posters on Boards advised people who didn't know not to vote at all.

Where did you get the 25% figure from ? And did they ask voters why they voted YES or doesn't that matter ? (confusion is okay so long as its focussed in the right direction !)

In the last general election the current government didn't manage 54% of the vote but they are happy to accept that result, so apart from the fact that they approve of the result, so what (bearing in mind that referendums usually have a lower turnout than elections)makes the 54% this time less acceptable?

When the government wins a referendum/election, the reason why people voted the way they did is never cited as reason for a re-run, why should it be now ? How many people were mis-led by promises in the election campaign or do alleged lies only matter in a losing referendum campaign ?

Seanies32 wrote: »

Your attitude is we won, doesn't matter how, so f**k off. Reminds me of Hitler and Mugabe!

No, the attitude of the current government reminds me of Mugabe, in that when they/he loses a vote, it is decided that the vote needs to be held again.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Listening to the No side and addressing their concerns and having a different referendum next year is listening to the No side.

Any addressing of their concerns won't be worth the paper it is written on, as the EU leaders have already said that the Treaty will not be renegotiated(ie. changed), so that means that any second vote will be on exactly the same treaty. Any postscripts to the treaty that address Irish concerns will have no legal effect as they aren't part of the Treaty itself that may by that stage have been ratified by most of the other countries.

I would be worried though that in the case of the Treaty, we were told that all 27 countries had to ratify the Treaty and now we haven't done so, we are hearing that one country can't be allowed the stop the Treaty when everyone else has agreed to it. So what will the situation be it following the WTO talks, if the rest of the EU accept the result, we don't and we then go to apply our veto(as Brian Cowen has promised the farmers) ? Will we be told again that one country can't stop all the benefits for the rest of the EU ? or is it a case that one country can't halt things unless they happen to be Germany or France or Italy or Britain or Spain ? In essence, in future does the veto only really exist for the bigger countries ?

Also, why has all the attention about uninformed voters focussed solely on NO voters ? I assume that quite a few people voted YES not because they had read the Treaty or understood its contents and implications, but simply because they were urged to do so by whichever political party they share allegiances with. Don't forget the two most common occupations among TDs are teachers and farmers, two occupations that wouldn't make you any more capable of understanding a complex treaty than an ordinary member of the public. I also assume that some people who didn't know, simply took the advice of the politicians and voted YES, of course the government wouldn't want to know why people voted YES, as it wouldn't suit them if some of the YES voters were uninformed because they have blamed the referendum defeat on the don't knows voting NO and it would be embarrassing if the don't knows had voted YES too.

K-9

heyjude wrote: »

Many YES posters on Boards advised people who didn't know not to vote at all.

Where did you get the 25% figure from ? And did they ask voters why they voted YES or doesn't that matter ? (confusion is okay so long as its focussed in the right direction !)

From the only poll so far AFAIK on both yes and No voters. The 25% represents the "don't know, vote no" or voted No because of Neutrality or tax of the total vote.

heyjude wrote:

In the last general election the current government didn't manage 54% of the vote but they are happy to accept that result, so apart from the fact that they approve of the result, so what (bearing in mind that referendums usually have a lower turnout than elections)makes the 54% this time less acceptable?

I thought the turn out for the GE was higher?

heyjude wrote:

When the government wins a referendum/election, the reason why people voted the way they did is never cited as reason for a re-run, why should it be now ? How many people were mis-led by promises in the election campaign or do alleged lies only matter in a losing referendum campaign ?

There's a thing called a General election. FF, IIRC got not far of the No vote!

heyjude wrote:

No, the attitude of the current government reminds me of Mugabe, in that when they/he loses a vote, it is decided that the vote needs to be held again.

I've outlined the reasons, if you don't accept them, vote No Again. I take it you didn't agree with the democratically accepted Nice2 for the same reasons?

heyjude wrote:

Any addressing of their concerns won't be worth the paper it is written on, as the EU leaders have already said that the Treaty will not be renegotiated(ie. changed), so that means that any second vote will be on exactly the same treaty. Any postscripts to the treaty that address Irish concerns will have no legal effect as they aren't part of the Treaty itself that may by that stage have been ratified by most of the other countries.

So, it will need to be ratified again if they are substantive changes.

heyjude wrote:

I would be worried though that in the case of the Treaty, we were told that all 27 countries had to ratify the Treaty and now we haven't done so, we are hearing that one country can't be allowed the stop the Treaty when everyone else has agreed to it. So what will the situation be it following the WTO talks, if the rest of the EU accept the result, we don't and we then go to apply our veto(as Brian Cowen has promised the farmers) ? Will we be told again that one country can't stop all the benefits for the rest of the EU ? or is it a case that one country can't halt things unless they happen to be Germany or France or Italy or Britain or Spain ? In essence, in future does the veto only really exist for the bigger countries ?

So, if the no side is to be believed, the treaty is the same as the Constitution, so were France and Holland listened to? If you have a problem with Ireland getting provisions to suit our concerns, well nothing I can do.

heyjude wrote:

Don't forget the two most common occupations among TDs are teachers and farmers, two occupations that wouldn't make you any more capable of understanding a complex treaty than an ordinary member of the public.

So why the preoccupation with them not reading the Treaty?

conceited

One of the reasons people voted yes is RTE are blatantly biased towards YES vote.

So, if the no side is to be believed, the treaty is the same as the Constitution, so were France and Holland listened to? If you have a problem with Ireland getting provisions to suit our concerns, well nothing I can do.

It's not the no side get over yourself for a second ,france and holland were not listened to and that was proven wwhen they ratified the consitution anyway when they voted no previously.
If you need facts or sources just ask.

K-9

conceited wrote: »

One of the reasons people voted yes is RTE are blatantly biased towards YES vote.

Bloody worked didn't it! :cool:

marco_polo

heyjude wrote: »

Many YES posters on Boards advised people who didn't know not to vote at all.

Is this not a sensible option

Where did you get the 25% figure from ? And did they ask voters why they voted YES or doesn't that matter ? (confusion is okay so long as its focussed in the right direction !)

It was a Commission poll of 2000 people discussed at some length here and they asked the same question of all voters.

In the last general election the current government didn't manage 54% of the vote but they are happy to accept that result, so apart from the fact that they approve of the result, so what (bearing in mind that referendums usually have a lower turnout than elections)makes the 54% this time less acceptable?

They managed to gain more than 50% of the seats through the PR system, I haven't seen anyone complain about the turnout which was respectable for a referendum.

When the government wins a referendum/election, the reason why people voted the way they did is never cited as reason for a re-run, why should it be now ? How many people were mis-led by promises in the election campaign or do alleged lies only matter in a losing referendum campaign ?

That is a fair point, and the electorate should hold the governmet to account at the next general election. I think the question is important enough to our future to ask it again in some form.

No, the attitude of the current government reminds me of Mugabe, in that when they/he loses a vote, it is decided that the vote needs to be held again.

Will the government stop potential no voters from registering or force them to become refugees. If not then the Mugabe comparison is not called for.

I think that the Irish people have shown that they will not be pressured into a YES vote because the authorities say so.

Any addressing of their concerns won't be worth the paper it is written on, as the EU leaders have already said that the Treaty will not be renegotiated(ie. changed), so that means that any second vote will be on exactly the same treaty. Any postscripts to the treaty that address Irish concerns will have no legal effect as they aren't part of the Treaty itself that may by that stage have been ratified by most of the other countries.

There is a precedent which happened for the Nice treaty, there was no need to alter the text of the treaty per say. Has that been shown to be illegal?

It remains to be seen what is will be done for the Lisbon treaty so any judgement on possible items that address concerns is premature.

I would be worried though that in the case of the Treaty, we were told that all 27 countries had to ratify the Treaty and now we haven't done so, we are hearing that one country can't be allowed the stop the Treaty when everyone else has agreed to it.

All we have heard that our decision cannot stop other countries from ratifying the treaty. It cannot legally come into force unless there is agreement from all 27.

So what will the situation be it following the WTO talks, if the rest of the EU accept the result, we don't and we then go to apply our veto(as Brian Cowen has promised the farmers) ? Will we be told again that one country can't stop all the benefits for the rest of the EU ? or is it a case that one country can't halt things unless they happen to be Germany or France or Italy or Britain or Spain ? In essence, in future does the veto only really exist for the bigger countries ?

Would you agree he would certainly have been in a much stronger position to use the veto at the WTO on the back of acceptance of the Lisbon treaty?

Anytime any country uses a veto by on their own they will be under massive pressure to have a very good reason for it. This is not exclusive to when Ireland use theirsand applies to all countries.

In any case it seems that the French and a few other are backing the Irish position so the main point of concern so the question may be moot on this occasion.

Also, why has all the attention about uninformed voters focussed solely on NO voters ? I assume that quite a few people voted YES not because they had read the Treaty or understood its contents and implications, but simply because they were urged to do so by whichever political party they share allegiances with. Don't forget the two most common occupations among TDs are teachers and farmers, two occupations that wouldn't make you any more capable of understanding a complex treaty than an ordinary member of the public. I also assume that some people who didn't know, simply took the advice of the politicians and voted YES, of course the government wouldn't want to know why people voted YES, as it wouldn't suit them if some of the YES voters were uninformed because they have blamed the referendum defeat on the don't knows voting NO and it would be embarrassing if the don't knows had voted YES too.

No real beef with any of that, all voters should have a duty to inform themselves of the issue they are voting on.

conceited

Amazing input ,what's the intended interpretation of that sentence?
Perhaps you don't understand what RTE stands for?


“RTE is a Public Service Broadcaster, a non-profit making organization owned by the Irish people. RTE is Ireland’s cross-media leader, providing comprehensive and cost-effective free-to-air television, radio and online services, which are of the highest quality and are impartial, in accordance with RTE’s statutory obligations.”

marco_polo

conceited wrote: »

One of the reasons people voted yes is RTE are blatantly biased towards YES vote.

http://www.bci.ie/

Send them a complaint with details of of the programmes concerned.

How so out of curiosity?

It's not the no side get over yourself for a second ,france and holland were not listened to and that was proven wwhen they ratified the consitution anyway when they voted no previously.
If you need facts or sources just ask.

They made numerous concessions to address the French and Dutch concerns in a process that took over two years.

By the way an analysis of reasons for the french vote are here if you want to have a scan through it. Not much of it is related specifically to the treaty either, but at least they understood what they were voting on to some degree.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl171_en.pdf

This paragraph is particularly interesting

According to three quarters of respondents, the European Constitution is indispensable in order to pursue European construction (75%). This proposal is supported by 90% of “yes” voters, but also by 66% of “no” voters.

The oldest French citizens (55 and over) seem more aware of the fundamental importance of the European Constitution for the ongoing European Construction (79% versus 66% of the 18 to 24 age group).

Moreover, the indispensable nature of the Constitution is given considerably more recognition among citizens who voted in the referendum (90%) than among those who abstained (66%).

K-9

conceited wrote: »

Amazing input ,what's the intended interpretation of that sentence?
Perhaps you don't understand what RTE stands for?


“RTE is a Public Service Broadcaster, a non-profit making organization owned by the Irish people. RTE is Ireland’s cross-media leader, providing comprehensive and cost-effective free-to-air television, radio and online services, which are of the highest quality and are impartial, in accordance with RTE’s statutory obligations.”

Still, bloody worked didn't it!

If what you are saying is true, it didn't work!

conceited

I've read that already thanks .There's a huge discusion on politics.ie about it.

It says about 30% of people didn't understand it and didn't bother voting ,kinda sounds similar.
I'll finish that and get back to you on a few points .

They made numerous concessions to address the French and Dutch concerns in a process that took over two years.

By the way an analysis of reasons for the french vote are here if you want to have a scan through it. Not much of it is related specifically to the treaty either, but at least they understood what they were voting on to some degree.

But in the mean time what concessions are you referring to exactly?
The dutch and french both said no in 2005 and in 2007 when Nicolas Sarkozy came took over(the 2 years ) he propossed a simplified treaty which in reality is the exact same treaty but they called ita different name and told the french and the dutch it was different and put it through parliment for ratification.

conceited

Seanies32 it obviously helped the yes vote so whats your point exactly?

marco_polo

conceited wrote: »

I've read that already thanks .There's a huge discusion on politics.ie about it.

It says about 30% of people didn't understand it and didn't bother voting ,kinda sounds similar.
I'll finish that and get back to you on a few points .


But in the mean time what concessions are you referring to exactly?
The dutch and french both said no in 2005 and in 2007 when Nicolas Sarkozy came took over(the 2 years ) he propossed a simplified treaty which in reality is the exact same treaty but they called ita different name and told the french and the dutch it was different and put it through parliment for ratification.

Yes but the vast majority of those who did vote did have a much better understanding of it.

And the French and Dutch governments just fell for this trick did they? Ignoring the fact that the Dutch and French are an integral part of the EU and thus would have been centrally involved in the renegotiations.

You seem to be giving the trying to give the impression, deliberately of not I don't know, that national governments of each member state had nothing to do with the formation of the treaty and were give a document by the EU and a pen going sign here. They are the EU so they didn't have to be 'told' what was in it.

conceited

If you tell me what concessions france and holland got because i don't see any.

With Nicolas Sarkozy in power they obviously had a vote in their parliments but since he was supported by the majority of the polititions they had nothing to fall for.

marco_polo

conceited wrote: »

Seanies32 it obviously helped the yes vote so whats your point exactly?

Any credibable evidence for that throw away statement of not. And which RTE programs are you complaining about. Any debate I saw was equally balanced in numbers.

In fact they even threw Enda Kenny into one debate on the Yes side so if anything they were pro the No camp. :pac:

K-9

conceited wrote: »

I've read that already thanks .There's a huge discusion on politics.ie about it.

It says about 30% of people didn't understand it and didn't bother voting ,kinda sounds similar.
I'll finish that and get back to you on a few points .

I read politics.ie and the debates before and just after the vote. I give up now over there after 10 minutes. The most respected posters on both sides seem to have given up as well!

conceited wrote:

Seanies32 it obviously helped the yes vote so whats your point exactly?

You are proof it didn't.

A significant part of the NO vote was because politicians said to vote Yes. The same section wouldn't listen to RTE etc. telling them how to vote.

Unless you're saying the No vote would have been substantially higher without RTE, what's your point?

conceited

You seem to be giving the trying to give the impression, deliberately of not I don't know, that national governments of each member state had nothing to do with the formation of the treaty and were give a document by the EU and a pen going sign here. They are the EU so they didn't have to be 'told' what was in it.

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, admitted the changes made were "few and far between...and more cosmetic than real".
Mr d'Estaing, who has compared his role in drawing up the blueprint to that of America's founding fathers, said the term 'constitution' had been dropped simply to "make a few people happy".

Source the daily mail

EU leaders including Germany's Angela Merkel have lined up to boast that the new 'amending treaty' is the old constitution in a new form.
"The substance of the constitution is preserved," Mrs Merkel told MEPs last month. "That is a fact."

Source the daily mail

marco_polo

conceited wrote: »

If you tell me what concessions france and holland got because i don't see any.

With Nicolas Sarkozy in power they obviously had a vote in their parliments but since he was supported by the majority of the polititions they had nothing to fall for.

French concerns were the main motivating force behind the removal of symbolic elements from the treaty that such as the title "Constitution", the European flag and anthem. Also removal of the expression "free and undistorted competition" at the request of President Sarkozy. The rest of the changes were concessions to other countries, or not specific to any one country in particular.

marco_polo

conceited wrote: »

Source the daily mail



Source the daily mail

None of that is a secret.

conceited

The same section wouldn't listen to RTE etc. telling them how to vote.

Seanies32 Obviously RTE aren't going to tell anyone how to vote but they can still report and chat about it and be biased in the run up to the referendum.

conceited

Tes as the title "Constitution" because treaty sounds nicer to the public and they also removed refrences to religion christianity and europe and all that.
There nothing here's some quotes.

“The substance of the Constitution has been maintained. That is a fact”(9);

- “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go...”(10);

- “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.”(11);

Thats all the stuff you just mentioned ie fluff.

- “The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'”(12);

- “It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution.”(13);

- “The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”(14);

- “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”(15), etc.

Anyway my point has been made about the constitution not changing.

Scofflaw

conceited wrote: »

I've read that already thanks .There's a huge discusion on politics.ie about it.

It says about 30% of people didn't understand it and didn't bother voting ,kinda sounds similar.
I'll finish that and get back to you on a few points .


But in the mean time what concessions are you referring to exactly?
The dutch and french both said no in 2005 and in 2007 when Nicolas Sarkozy came took over(the 2 years ) he propossed a simplified treaty which in reality is the exact same treaty but they called ita different name and told the french and the dutch it was different and put it through parliment for ratification.

First, the work on the Treaty started with the Amato Group in September 2006, not with Sarkozy's election.

Second, the Dutch certainly did renegotiate to their own satisfaction. As to the French, we know that at the least Sarkozy got the competition clause downgraded.

regards,
Scofflaw

conceited

First, the work on the Treaty started with the Amato Group in September 2006, not with Sarkozy's election.

I knew it started when jack was still in power because they had to have it ready for the next president,Nicolas.

Second, the Dutch certainly did renegotiate to their own satisfaction. As to the French, we know that at the least Sarkozy got the competition clause downgraded.

They ignored the peoples no vote and changed miniscule parts same goes for the french.

For a while now, the main talking point about the Lisbon treaty has been the ways in which it differs from its predecessor. The Dutch rejection of the constitutional treaty gave the government leverage during the subsequent negotiations, which The Hague then used to demand substantial changes to the new treaty. They wanted it to be clearer about which areas would remain national competences and which would be vested in the Union. They also wanted the treaty to include accession criteria for new member states and to be called something other than a "constitution".
It turned out to be a sound negotiating strategy. The Hague hailed the outcome of last June's political agreement on the treaty as a success and said Dutch diplomacy helped save Europe from becoming a "super state".

All this says to me is they added on not took away anything.
See my earlier post and the changes they made.

K-9

conceited wrote: »

Source the daily mail



Source the daily mail

Ah. A good independent source.

And you call the RTE biased!

K-9

conceited wrote: »

Seanies32 Obviously RTE aren't going to tell anyone how to vote but they can still report and chat about it and be biased in the run up to the referendum.

Neither did the Catholic Church. Are they biased?

conceited

Seanies your 1 line comments are getting a bit how can i say?Silly?
I posted quotes and those quotes are obviously direct 1to1 on what a person says so how can there be any biased?

Scofflaw

conceited wrote: »

I knew it started when jack was still in power because they had to have it ready for the next president,Nicolas.



They ignored the peoples no vote and changed miniscule parts same goes for the french.


All this says to me is they added on not took away anything.
See my earlier post and the changes they made.

They had the delineation of competences added, which means that the EU cannot add competences to itself through the actions of the ECJ. They also defined for the first time what the different forms of competence mean. Both of those are technical, but also important, and by no means fluff. The consultative role of the national parliaments and their ability to send back legislation is likewise a new addition.

Unfortunately, I can predict that no matter what was changed, you will dismiss it as insubstantial or irrelevant, even though other nations apparently regarded them as important enough to be worth negotiating for. We shall have to agree to differ - as far as I know, governments don't bother negotiating "fluff", since the quid pro quo is that they will have to give up other things in exchange.

regards,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

conceited wrote: »

Seanies32 Obviously RTE aren't going to tell anyone how to vote but they can still report and chat about it and be biased in the run up to the referendum.

I have asked you a couple of times now to put some substance on these claims.

conceited

The treaty still hasn't gone through any real transformation it's just been dressed up and passed around the parliments of europe on a fanciful tour.

Giscard d’Estaing try read up a bit on him if you get time .