Possibility of a Lisbon #2

K-9

conceited wrote: »

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

That one liner is silly.

K-9

conceited wrote: »

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?

So are your 1 line quotes.

What do 1 line quotes prove, barring you selectively quoting 1 line out of a speech or interview?

Maybe the Daily Mail would selectively quote 1 line from a speech? A link to the full speech or interview would help if you can find it.

D'Estaing has been discussed here before.

conceited

It's hard work chatting to 3 different people.
Oh right my claim about them been biased,have a skim through that for yourself.
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18476&start=24&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Anyway lads it's been nice chatting with yee I'm off to lala land slán.

Your just arguing now for the sake of it you know them quotes are not taken out of context .

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

I made 1 or 2 one liners

Goodnight sean

K-9

There's an irony about quoting politics.ie and bias on the referendum.

Btw, last post on that is April 10th.

conceited

They had it spotted well in advance so .

Well study the programs yourself so.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0203/weekinpolitics_av.html?2332932,null,230


And here's a link to understand what your voting on in the spring.......

http://www.robert-schuman.org/tout-comprendre-sur-le-traite-de-lisbonne.php

I hope to god we agree on something anyway sean
again goodnight.

marco_polo

conceited wrote: »

It's hard work chatting to 3 different people.
Oh right my claim about them been biased,have a skim through that for yourself.
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18476&start=24&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Anyway lads it's been nice chatting with yee I'm off to lala land slán.

Your just arguing now for the sake of it you know them quotes are not taken out of context .

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

I made 1 or 2 one liners

Goodnight sean

So it is not your claim at all then?

To put it kindly the entire contents of that thread is highly subjective musing of members of FG / Labour / SF, not one bit of hard evidence or a single concrete example in it about actual instances of Bias. And as Seanies32 pointed out not a single post in anyway related to the Lisbon Treaty coverage.

When was the last time RTE were pulled before the BCI over allegations of favouritism towards the Government? It is not as if anyone who percieved themselves to be the victim of it would be shy about making such a complaint.

is_that_so

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?

Turnout was over 60% and as we use STV parties are unlikely to get over 50% unlike Britain's first past the post system.

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 is no denying that some people on the Yes side had equally dubious reasons for choosing their vote.
However there are consequences to the No vote that some people did not consider.
The amendment we were voting on was not like divorce or abortion or something that just affects us.
As many other No posters have highlighted there is more indignation with the fact the EU did not stop. Remember also that abortion has had 4 runouts including the X case and there is always the possibility that it could show up again.

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.

I am not sure that this is true at all even if you wish to believe it.

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.

Any provide proof of this? There are ways of adding guarantees and protocols. There is even a way to reverse the commissioner issue without materially affecting the treaty.

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) ?

The WTO have nothing to do with Lisbon. Oddly enough that evil man Sarkozy supports our stance as well and rounded on Mandelson during the week.

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 ?

No, QMV was part of Lisbon for a lot of decision making.

Also, why has all the attention about uninformed voters focussed solely on NO voters ?

There are a larger number of them on the No side and much of the focus now is on the reasons why the treaty was rejected. Unlike a single issue referendum, the reasons why people took a No stance are far more complex and some were muddied by non-issues.

The EU opinion poll result have been posted elsewhere but here it is again.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

dresden8

is_that_so wrote: »

There are a larger number of them on the No side and much of the focus now is on the reasons why the treaty was rejected. Unlike a single issue referendum, the reasons why people took a No stance are far more complex and some were muddied by non-issues.

The EU opinion poll result have been posted elsewhere but here it is again.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

For the “yes” voters, the prime motivation was the feeling that “Lisbon” was in Ireland’s best interest; the reasons mentioned were mostly one-dimensional, centred around how Ireland has benefitted from the EU

According to this paragraph most yes voters also voted on anything other than the treaty.

But......... The people have spoken, the answer is no, Cowan would want to come back with something new.

As an aside is Cowan supposed to represent us in Europe, or is he supposed to represent Europe in Ireland?

Anyway, I'm tired of saying the people have spoken, as I'm sure you're tired of reading it. Mostly, because most yes people seem to be of the opinion that they may have spoken but I didn't like the answer so f**k them.

So I will leave you to wallow in your pit of fascism.

See you at the polls.

is_that_so

dresden8 wrote: »

According to this paragraph most yes voters also voted on anything other than the treaty.

You might try reading my post properly.

The rest of your diatribe doesn't merit any comment at all.

oscarBravo

conceited wrote: »

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.

I've warned you already about repeating this little piece of fiction ad nauseam. I won't warn you again.

zenno

sorry guy's/gal's if i insulted anyone in the debate over the lisbon treaty. I obviously should consider, and have considered not to call anyone a fool when it is your opinion that should be respected no matter what. I messed up and definatly men't no disrespect in any way.
best wishes
zenno

conceited

Originally Posted by conceited
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.

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

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

Ok so your saying they added not changed the below article .

8. - Declaration in relation to the delimitation of competencesThe Conference underlines that, in accordance with the system of division of competences between the Union and the Member States as provided for in the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.


When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.



The latter situation arises when the relevant EU institutions decide to repeal a legislative act, in particular better to ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Council may, at the initiative of one or several of its members (representatives of Member States) and in accordance with Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, request the Commission to submit proposals for repealing a legislative act.


The Conference welcomes the Commission's declaration that it will devote particular attention to these requests.
Equally, the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting in an Intergovernmental Conference, in accordance with the ordinary revision procedure provided for in Article 48(2) to (5) of the Treaty on European Union, may decide to amend the Treaties upon which the Union is founded, including either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the said Treaties.





And you also say

they defined for the first time what the different forms of competence mean

See below (this was already in the TFEU)
Article I-13 - Areas of exclusive competence
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b)the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.




Article I-14 - Areas of shared competence
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Constitution confers on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles I-13 and I-17.
2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in Part III;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g)transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;

(k) common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in Part III.
3. In the areas of research, technological development and space, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities, in particular to define and implement programmes; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.
4. In the areas of development cooperation and humanitarian aid, the Union shall have competence to carry out activities and conduct a common policy; however, the exercise of that competence shall not result in Member States being prevented from exercising theirs.


The only thing that changed was they subsitute the word Constitution for Treaties .


For exmaple in section 4



4. The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy

was changed to read





4. The Union shall have competence, in accordance with the provisions of Treaty on European Union, to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.




Thats all it is .It's a big fat mess and was made that way for a reason.
So if you think thats a valid eough reason to ignore the french no and the dutch no and ratify it anyway then so be it.

IRLConor

Here's a consolidated and annotated version of the treaty: http://www.ibeclisbon.ie/Sectors/Lisbon/LisbonTreaty.nsf/4811895b651b7f49802572e6004b9a13/b5f075dd12bf19a9802574030050cd68/$FILE/Annotated%20Treaties.pdf

Anything highlighted in blue is a difference added after the constitution.

Please take note of all of the significant, non-cosmetic changes.

conceited

Thanks for the conor thats a quite handy.
The text in yellow is what the french and dutch voted no on wasn't it?
And the text in blue + the text in yellow is what we voted no on

Strikeout text in red – represents text contained in the Treaty on European
Union or the Treaty establishing the European Community that is deleted by the
Treaty of Lisbon (but the content may be replaced in substance by a provision
introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon)

Text that appears in pale grey – represents text that is moved from one part of
the founding Treaties to another by the Treaty of Lisbon.

They shuffled and added text like what is said in the colour sheme.

IRLConor

conceited wrote: »

Thanks for the conor thats a quite handy.

You're welcome.

conceited wrote: »

The text in yellow is what the french and dutch voted no on wasn't it?

That's the substance of it, though as I understand it the French and Dutch (and Spanish and Luxembourgers) voted on the entirety of the constitution, not an amendment like Lisbon.

conceited wrote: »

And the text in blue + the text in yellow is what we voted no on

(yellow) + (blue) + (red strikeout)

is what we voted on.

conceited wrote: »

They shuffled and added text like what is said in the colour sheme.

Yes. Some of the text added makes the Lisbon Treaty a significantly different document to the constitution. Look near the end in the protocols section for example, whole protocols have been added.