Sarkozy: Ireland needs to vote on Lisbon again

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

You mean like how Sarkozy isn't supporting the French farmers position in the world trade talks.

Sarkozy isn't a commissioner. Do you have the first clue how the EU works?

thehighground wrote: »

Sorry, it does matter to me whether the EU Europhiles (the people who interpet the Lisbon Treaty) are trustworthy or not.

The "EU Europhiles"? What the hell are you talking about?

It's a treaty. It's been agreed between 27 countries. The fact that you don't believe that a provision of it is binding has no more bearing on reality than the fact that some people don't believe in evolution.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sarkozy isn't a commissioner. Do you have the first clue how the EU works?

The "EU Europhiles"? What the hell are you talking about?

It's a treaty. It's been agreed between 27 countries. The fact that you don't believe that a provision of it is binding has no more bearing on reality than the fact that some people don't believe in evolution.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, please read EU Civil servants for EU Europhiles.

Most Commissioners are/or will be politicians. All politics is local. A better example than Sakozy tribalism would be with regard to the environmental airflight levies that will be introduced in 2012. If the Commissioner responsible was Irish, do you not think there is a chance that some sort of concession would be given to Ireland as the only EU country not to have a land bridge with Europe?

irishpaddy

if you p*ss crocked in france they- the unions there put up barricades and bring the country and half of europe to a halt. it just goes to show that if you try and do things the right way like we voted no by free choice and in the friendliest manner then the very important people of the leadership take it as a weakness.
we will be fools if we let ourselves be browbeaten into another referendum like they did for the nice vote. so i think mr. so cosy should fk off and let us do our thing our way. as the song goes; the stranger came and tried to change us from being what we are; well we sure are not french; or english or dutch; we are irish.

thehighground

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As I said, fine if you could articulate what's wrong and how to make it right and show that you have an understanding of the feasability and the realities of international politics. But you are not doing that.

Ignorance is bliss but what really irks yes voters is that you seem completly oblivious that you are seriously ruining our role in Europe and Europe's role in the world.

Do you know anyone who works in the EU? Ask them what the sentiment is to us now...

What wonderful role in Europe and the world have we played (other than supplying cheap labour to the UK & US over the last 150 years or so)? You are codding yourself if you think we have influence 'in' or 'out' of the EU.

And I can't tell you how upset I am that we have disappointed the EU bureacrats (paid by us) and they now don't 'like' us anymore for not voting Yes.

There is a point for 'Yes' campaigners for your posters for Lisbon II. Vote 'Yes' to Lisbon II because you won't be liked in Europe anymore if you don't.

Morgans

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's really hard to undertands is that despite the very broad of European views in Irish politics, you feel that none of them represent you.

The problem is when you either refuse to or are incapable of articulating what's wrong with the treaty, means that everyone else is prevented from moving forward, because you and grumpy and paranoid no voters, just don't want people to forward.

Anyone can give out and moan. The challenge is to find better ways of doing things. For a start, it would help if you and other no voters could articulate what areas you are concerned about losing soverignity in and why? Rather just banding the word in a piece of vacuous rherotic.

If an Irish Government said what you just said, we'd be laughed at.

Well for a start, I voted Yes. So, please dont assume. I believe now that I was wrong to vote Yes, but it is something that I have to live with. I thought in the final week the Yes side won the argument, but the actions since have disgusted me. So please dismount the high horse, remove the condescending tone and please have some respect for opposing views to your own.

Firstly, it is beholden on the public representatives to sell the treaty, especially when the soverignity(competencies) of a state are being asked to changed. If they fail to convince you, you have every right to vote No. Despite having the tacit support in political decisions from the vast majority of the nation, the political establishment failed miserably to do this for most. People have every right to vote No if they are confused. If they are confused those selling the treaty failed. Until this Lisbon treaty, it was seen that ignoramuses didnt bother getting off their arse to vote, but not the intelligent amongst us have decided that all the ignoramuses got up en masse and voted No.

Personally, what I would like presented to the public I would like some form of mission statement of where the EU sees itself in 5/10/20 years time. What are the end goals? How this would be done, of course, would not be easy. Some clarification of how the EU sees the role of "EU army" developing in that timeframe would be nice too.

With specific questions to Sarkozy including - Do the french still want to transfer some of the military burden from their national army to the "EU force"? Does the french still want to raise the issue of harmonising corporation tax bases and harmonising indirect taxes, or is that put off permanently after the Irish vote?

How the EU wants to achieve the aims set out in the missions statement should be outlined and what the implications are for the member states.

Rather than the current situation where a system of treaties, developed so that each country can tell the public what they want to hear, and a see how we go type attitude, allowing important wording to slip by without proper scrutiny. For example, Enhanced Corporation was agreed upon and signed by Ireland long ago (was it 1992? or Nice?) but now the implications seemingly can never be revisited, even though it is now more important in a EU of 35 possible members. Transparency is of course welcome, and I can see how Lisbon addressed some of these issues and was the reason that i voted Yes in the end. ( Council of ministers still meets in camera. )

My own opinion of what will happen is that lisbon will be fed back with safeguards on the chestnuts like neutrality and tax rates put in place/underlined (depending on whether you agree they were there beforehand). if there is any/further clarification on these issues, and further clarification of the European position then voting No was a great result for Ireland.

Tim Robbins

Morgans wrote: »

So please dismount the high horse, remove the condescending tone and please have some respect for opposing views to your own.

I have no respect for subversion of democracy by ignorance, why should I?
Can you offer anything better than a ad hominen?

Firstly, it is beholden on the public representatives to sell the treaty,

Firstly, it is beholden on voters to be informed. Read newspapers. Watch debats. It's not a second hand car sales stall.

especially when the soverignity(competencies) of a state are being asked to changed.

How many times now have you been asked to specifically state what areas of soverignity you are concerned about?

If they are confused those selling the treaty failed.

Or people are too lazy to get informed. 70% of No voters thought another treaty could be negotiated, 40% said they voted No because they didn't understand. What are we supposed to tell the French and Germans, remove the big words?

Personally, what I would like presented to the public I would like some form of mission statement of where the EU sees itself in 5/10/20 years time. What are the end goals? How this would be done, of course, would not be easy. Some clarification of how the EU sees the role of "EU army" developing in that timeframe would be nice too.

Isn't that what the treaties are for?

With specific questions to Sarkozy including - Do the french still want to transfer some of the military burden from their national army to the "EU force"? Does the french still want to raise the issue of harmonising corporation tax bases and harmonising indirect taxes, or is that put off permanently after the Irish vote?

We got a veto on those issues with Lisbon, but rejected it.

My own opinion of what will happen is that lisbon will be fed back with safeguards on the chestnuts like neutrality and tax rates put in place/underlined (depending on whether you agree they were there beforehand).

What safeguards? We got vetos, what more do you want?

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds?
Hello Germany, France, Poland, Uk, SPain, Portugal...
Can we have safeguards on something we got a veto for and subsequently rejected?

if there is any/further clarification on these issues, and further clarification of the European position then voting No was a great result for Ireland.

We look absolutely stupid and selfish. If we could articulate exactly what provisions or opt out clauses we needed or wanted, then yes it would have been progress. In several posts here, like every single other no poster (I know you originally voted yes) you have been incapable or articulating any.

Now, for pub talk, you might think you have a good few of Euro politics, when it comes to the advanced legalities of treaties which doesn't work off wishy washy perceptions your points are meaningless.

molloyjh

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that domestic issues dominate general election campaigns and so things more immediate to people tend to sway them in such elections; tax rates, proposed spending on health, education etc; The Lisbon treaty would in my opinion have seemed much more remote to people during the last French general election than these issues.

If part of his manifesto was to ratify Lisbon without a referendum then it is the French people fault or ignoring that, if that is in fact what they did. By electing Sarkozy without insisting on a referendum they gave him a mandate to do what he said he would. It's quite simple really. Why should he have to back to people who gave him the go ahead to implement his mandate?

murphaph wrote: »

Those are bold statements with nothing whatsoever to back them up.

Other than the fact that Sarkozy was elected and all other member states are ratifying the Treaty, in addition to my conclusion that there isn't significant objection to Lisbon on the continent. This I have surmised from the fact I have yet to see any form of protest against Lisbon in any other member state. A lack of proof in itself proves nothing I agree, but certainly suggests that my conclusion is accurate. Unless you have something to the contrary there is no other conclusion I could possibly draw.

murphaph wrote: »

The few opinion polls I have seen show that there is indeed opposition to Lisbon in France. Quite how significant that opposition is cannot be ascertained in any meaningful way as there is to be no referendum for the French people.

My point exactly. Of course there is opposition to the Treaty, I've never said there was none. However there doesn't seem to be any significant opposition. Noone, yourself included, has been able to provide any hint of significant opposition. So whats the problem with my conclusion if you can't refute it in any way?

murphaph wrote: »

Once again, bold statements with no grounding.

Well technically the same statement so refer to the above.

murphaph wrote: »

I say again....why didn't the 'powers that be' take the french (and dutch) 'concerns' with regards to the European Constitution as rejected by the people of both nations in 2005 and simply amend the offending articles and resubmit it to them for referendum by the people? Too simple?

The problem with the European Constitution (from the perspective of the political elite) was that it was too easy to understand.

If the political elite thought the Constitution was "too simple", then why on earth did they ever bother with it? Your point is entirely disingenuous because you're saying that they didn't want to place the Constitution up for referendum again because it wasn't what they wanted despite the fact that they themselves came up with it.

The Treaty is essentially carrying on the tradition of treaties within the EU. The idea of an EU Constitution scared a lot of people and raised severe sovereignty issues. The purpose of the Constitution was to refiom the EU and simplify the treaties, but because the idea of a Constitution was so unpalatable to so many (sovereignty was a huge issue in France in that referendum) they reverted back to the original method of treaties, which by their very nature are nasty legal documents anyway. The funny thing about it is that the EU politicians reckoned that dropping the controversial idea of a European Constitution and reverting back to a Treaty they would gain greater support despite the fact that it is more complex purely based on the terminology and not the content.

Tim Robbins

thehighground wrote: »

What wonderful role in Europe and the world have we played (other than supplying cheap labour to the UK & US over the last 150 years or so)? You are codding yourself if you think we have influence 'in' or 'out' of the EU.

Tim wrote:

As I said, fine if you could articulate what's wrong and how to make it right and show that you have an understanding of the feasability and the realities of international politics. But you are not doing that.

Ignorance is bliss but what really irks yes voters is that you seem completly oblivious that you are seriously ruining our role in Europe and Europe's role in the world.

Do you know anyone who works in the EU? Ask them what the sentiment is to us now...

Why are you quoting me and then talking about something completly different? Are you trying to make this conversation as illogical as possible?

And I can't tell you how upset I am that we have disappointed the EU bureacrats (paid by us) and they now don't 'like' us anymore for not voting Yes.

Oh those awful bureacrats!

There is a point for 'Yes' campaigners for your posters for Lisbon II. Vote 'Yes' to Lisbon II because you won't be liked in Europe anymore if you don't.

Well we haven't won any friends this time around. We've lost some. That's the reality. Seriously what it comes down to, can you give an intelligent reason for no and a constructive suggestion for a way forward?
It appears not.

murphaph

molloyjh wrote: »

If part of his manifesto was to ratify Lisbon without a referendum then it is the French people fault or ignoring that, if that is in fact what they did. By electing Sarkozy without insisting on a referendum they gave him a mandate to do what he said he would. It's quite simple really. Why should he have to back to people who gave him the go ahead to implement his mandate?

All of the main parties in France are pro-Lisbon. All of the main parties in France were pro-EU Constitution. All of the main parties in Ireland are pro-Lisbon. France voted no to the constitution when asked specifically about it. Ireland voted no to the treaty of Lisbon when asked specifically about it. The treaty of Lisbon and the European Constitution fundamentally shift power away from the national parliaments and to European institutions so a referendum(s) is entirely appropriate for these things.

molloyjh wrote: »

If the political elite thought the Constitution was "too simple", then why on earth did they ever bother with it?

Hindsight is 20/20 of course. They thought a simple easy to read constitution would be acceptable. It wasn't but they didn't know that until the french and dutch kicked it into touch.

molloyjh wrote: »

Your point is entirely disingenuous because you're saying that they didn't want to place the Constitution up for referendum again because it wasn't what they wanted despite the fact that they themselves came up with it.

That's not what I said. I said they put the constitution to the french and dutch who rejected it. They then opted to rewrite the guts of the constitution into a treaty which would avoid as many national referenda as possible. That is the treaty of Lisbon. It is a document borne out of a 'need' to get the contents through despite public opposition (3 out of 3 nations have rejected the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty by way of referendum). The political elite do not want to listen.

molloyjh wrote: »

The Treaty is essentially carrying on the tradition of treaties within the EU. The idea of an EU Constitution scared a lot of people and raised severe sovereignty issues. The purpose of the Constitution was to refiom the EU and simplify the treaties, but because the idea of a Constitution was so unpalatable to so many (sovereignty was a huge issue in France in that referendum) they reverted back to the original method of treaties, which by their very nature are nasty legal documents anyway. The funny thing about it is that the EU politicians reckoned that dropping the controversial idea of a European Constitution and reverting back to a Treaty they would gain greater support despite the fact that it is more complex purely based on the terminology and not the content.

You've as good as admitted my point above-they reverted to a treaty because the sovereignty issues were too unpallatable for the people and they couldn't get the constitution to pass. It's blindingly simple.

I and many millions of people do not want further EU integration. The political elite are afraid to ask the simple questions of the people and are afriad to publish an EU 'mission statement' Where is the EU going?

thehighground

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why are you quoting me and then talking about something completly different? Are you trying to make this conversation as illogical as possible?

I'm sorry that some how you don't understand that in my opinion, whether Ireland is an EU member or not is irrelevant to Ireland's influence and standing in EU or world politics.

Oh those awful bureacrats!

Yep, they sure don't like working the idea of working for the good of the people.

Well we haven't won any friends this time around. We've lost some. That's the reality. Seriously what it comes down to, can you give an intelligent reason for no and a constructive suggestion for a way forward?
It appears not.

Thats right, 'No' to Lisbon voters are just plain thick. When you get tired of repeating that mantra and are ready to listen, get back to me.

murphaph

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We look absolutely stupid and selfish. If we could articulate exactly what provisions or opt out clauses we needed or wanted, then yes it would have been progress. In several posts here, like every single other no poster (I know you originally voted yes) you have been incapable or articulating any

I am a no voter. I don't want any 'opt out clauses' or 'provisions'. I do not want any further integration with the EU. I believe much of the political integration already established should be abolished and the EU should return to a simpler state...the EEC. Am I allowed to want these things? Am I right to vote no if these are my aspirations for 'Europe'?

molloyjh

Jeff Bond wrote: »

I prefer the French gnome to the Irish piggie with no charisma who btw has yet to come up with solutions to the problem he has created himself by not putting what it takes to promote the treaty and explain it to the people.

To be fair to Cowen, though I don't like him, he is waiting for the results of a study they have undertaken before making any decisions. He wants to see why we voted the way we did first. The study is due to release its findings in September.

Morgans wrote: »

This is the crux of the problem. The politicans in ireland do not represent the opinion of the irish public. European issues, where there is little or no point scoring to be done, are rarely a factor in the Irish nation elections. Deciding who gets elected to the European parliament is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic. It is a home for TD's or party mandarins who do not want or are incapable of the cut and thrust of national politics.
Just because I do not vote for Sinn Fein does not mean that I support FF, FG, Labour, PD or the Greens stance on Europe. Why is that so hard to understand?
You mention the UK as not being apathetic. The general public generally couldnt care what goes on in Europe, but at least there is some dissenting voices in the mainstream who at least have some debate about about losing/sharing soverignity and whether the EU is overstepping the mark.
Its not a conspiracy. But it has been flippantly suggested that by voting for Sarkozy, the Lisbon treaty was effectively ratified by the public. As if Sarkozy stood alone on the Lisbon Treaty as part of his election platform. That is completely wrong. I repeat just because I do not vote for Sinn Fein in national elections, it does not mean that I support FF, FG, Labour, PD or the Greens stance on Europe. Maybe French prefer Sarkozy to Le Pen running their country. I dont see what is so difficult to understand. It was political opportunism. - killing two birds with one stone.

Every politician and political party are elected by the people. If the people have different needs to the ones that are being portrayed then they need to tell the politicians. How else do you propose they find out. Sarkozy is a perfect example. He said, among other things, that he would ratify Lisbon without a referendum. Now unless a signicant number of people told him that they didn't want that the only conclusion any logical person can reach is that they didn't exist. If they did then why didn't they make themselves known and how could it be anyone else's fault but their own if they didn't? Democracy is only as good as the people make it, and if they don't vocalise what they want properly they can't ever expect to get it. As much as I dislike and distrust politicians at least I recognise that they are not psychic. Your outrage seems to be over someone not representing an opinion you haven't shared with them. It makes no sense. If I say I'm going to ban cars when elected and I proceed to win the election and noone tells me that they don't want me to ban cars how in Gods name would it be my fault if I tried to ban them? By being elected, as far as I'm concerned, I'm being given a mandate by the people to do the things I said I'd do. I can hardly be to blame if they didn't think it through!

murphaph wrote: »

+1. I don't see what's so difficult either. People seem to be taking Sarkozy and his political chums at face value-that's the mistake!

Yes after all he said he'd ratify Lisbon without a referendum, and lo and behold he did just that.

murphaph wrote: »

You are wrong of course. Molloy stated that all 60 million frenchmen are happy with the treaty of Lisbon: patent nonsense.

That statement is what is patent nonsense. If you bothered to read some of my other posts you would see I have said that it would be (and this was the word I used) lunacy to suggest every Frenchman supported the Treaty. What I said was "the French people" which by the nature of the statement was a generalisation. By this logic of yours though you seem to be saying that every Irish person voted No even though less than 28% of the voting public in fact did:

murphaph wrote: »

Obviously the irish people have a problem with Lisbon as we voted NO yet ALL our realistic choices for an alternative government at the last GE were ALL pro-Lisbon....so what gives?!

thehighground wrote: »

You mean like how Sarkozy isn't supporting the French farmers position in the world trade talks.

Eh Sarkozy isn't a Commissioner....what are you talking about?

thehighground wrote: »

Sorry, it does matter to me whether the EU Europhiles* (the people who interpet the Lisbon Treaty) are trustworthy or not.
And the 'Yes' voters wonder why they are called arrogant!
EDIT: should read 'EU Civil Servants (unelected)'.

I know I really shouldn't bother but anyway.......You were talking about the taxation matters and our neutrality. All I said was that regardless of how much you as a person trust or don't trust the EU politicians (the majority of which we directly elect) the fact of the matter is that these things are covered in black and white in the Treaty and there is no room for interpretation. We would be protected by law, guaranteed. Trust isn't required in that case.

thehighground wrote: »

What wonderful role in Europe and the world have we played (other than supplying cheap labour to the UK & US over the last 150 years or so)? You are codding yourself if you think we have influence 'in' or 'out' of the EU.

No he wouldn't be kidding himself at all. Originally the bigger nations like France, Germany and Spain wanted a permanent member on the Commission while the smaller nations had a rotating system. It was us, yes little old us - or more to the point our politicians, that negotiated the equal rotation system. So in fact we have (or at least had) quite a good deal of influence in the EU. That was a major success for Bertie, who gained a reputation during the Lisbon negotiations as a top-class diplomat among his contemporaries.

Morgans

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Now, for pub talk, you might think you have a good few of Euro politics, when it comes to the advanced legalities of treaties which doesn't work off wishy washy perceptions your points are meaningless.

Tim Robbins, please forgive me for asking this, but given that your condescending attitude is one you seem happy to foster, can I ask you to show me proof of your expertise on the advanced legalities of treaties. I never claimed to be one but I can show you my primary degree and masters if you like???

molloyjh

murphaph wrote: »

All of the main parties in France are pro-Lisbon. All of the main parties in France were pro-EU Constitution. All of the main parties in Ireland are pro-Lisbon. France voted no to the constitution when asked specifically about it. Ireland voted no to the treaty of Lisbon when asked specifically about it. The treaty of Lisbon and the European Constitution fundamentally shift power away from the national parliaments and to European institutions so a referendum(s) is entirely appropriate for these things.

Please refer to my response to Morgans above. It is up to the people to tell the politicians if they are not being represented. If they don't then they have noone to blame but themselves if they aren't represented.

murphaph wrote: »

Hindsight is 20/20 of course. They thought a simple easy to read constitution would be acceptable. It wasn't but they didn't know that until the french and dutch kicked it into touch.

There really is no winning with you is there? I do't understand your point. Why, if they didn't want to have a simple and easy to read document, did they ever bother with the Constitution? For the laugh?

murphaph wrote: »

That's not what I said. I said they put the constitution to the french and dutch who rejected it. They then opted to rewrite the guts of the constitution into a treaty which would avoid as many national referenda as possible. That is the treaty of Lisbon. It is a document borne out of a 'need' to get the contents through despite public opposition (3 out of 3 nations have rejected the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty by way of referendum). The political elite do not want to listen.

You've as good as admitted my point above-they reverted to a treaty because the sovereignty issues were too unpallatable for the people and they couldn't get the constitution to pass. It's blindingly simple.

I and many millions of people do not want further EU integration. The political elite are afraid to ask the simple questions of the people and are afriad to publish an EU 'mission statement' Where is the EU going?

Have a look into the differences between the Constitution and the Treaty. For starters the word Constitution was enough to get the sovereignty issue off the ground. Then the official flag and anthem etc added to that (even though they exist, they are only symbloic and the Constitution sought to make them truly official). These elements have been dropped from the Treaty. You could continue making your point all you want, but at the end of the day there is no significant opposition forming to the Treaty in Europe. It has been public for over a year and thee is no sign of any resistance to it. Regardless of what the EU politicians did or didn't do to get it in, they did not make it secret and people haven't really complained outside of Ireland (that I can see) so where is the problem?

molloyjh

Morgans wrote: »

Tim Robbins, please forgive me for asking this, but given that your condescending attitude is one you seem happy to foster, can I ask you to show me proof of your expertise on the advanced legalities of treaties. I never claimed to be one but I can show you my primary degree and masters if you like???

Ah now come on boys, put them away. Morgans, we all know treaties, like most legal documents are complex. Its the nature of the beast.

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

(a) I just sought clarification as to whether the poster was referring to the rumours that the EU were prepared to revert back to each country getting its own Commissioner to secure an Irish 'Yes' vote.

What? Why didn't you ask that so, and not the confusing questions you offered? :

Tim Robbins wrote:

So what exactly was wrong with Lisbon?
3. Commision? We won those negotiations.

thehighground wrote:

You mean that each country is going to have a Commisioner? Source please?

Edit to add: Your comments there still make absolutely no sense to me. Tim Robbins was talking about Lisbon, not about rumors in the past week.

thehighground wrote:

(b) Sorry, I'm not so tribal that I would support something just because some Irish person (elected or not) was the chief negotiator.

Well, to me the result of the Irish negotiations on commissioner rotation looks like a hard-won compromise, considering we could have been faced with a situation where the big countries always had a commissioner. The reduction of the commission was agreed under Nice, remember? I don't think it was a bad deal. It's nothing to do with 'tribalism'.

Morgans

molloyjh wrote: »

Every politician and political party are elected by the people. If the people have different needs to the ones that are being portrayed then they need to tell the politicians. How else do you propose they find out. Sarkozy is a perfect example. He said, among other things, that he would ratify Lisbon without a referendum. Now unless a signicant number of people told him that they didn't want that the only conclusion any logical person can reach is that they didn't exist. If they did then why didn't they make themselves known and how could it be anyone else's fault but their own if they didn't? Democracy is only as good as the people make it, and if they don't vocalise what they want properly they can't ever expect to get it. As much as I dislike and distrust politicians at least I recognise that they are not psychic. Your outrage seems to be over someone not representing an opinion you haven't shared with them. It makes no sense. If I say I'm going to ban cars when elected and I proceed to win the election and noone tells me that they don't want me to ban cars how in Gods name would it be my fault if I tried to ban them? By being elected, as far as I'm concerned, I'm being given a mandate by the people to do the things I said I'd do. I can hardly be to blame if they didn't think it through!

I dont blame Sarkozy. It was a clever way of dodging that bullet. But it is wrong to suggest that the french reverse their decision on the referendum by voting Sarkozy in - as is the wont of the europhiles (Yes side). It is not comparing like for like. What was the last treaty that the framers/negotiators got right? That wasnt turned down in any country? Yet, Ireland was the only country whose population got to vote on Lisbon. Of course, democracies differ but its expedient that its the way Europe is going. It is clear that the appetite for the European project is far stronger in the political classes than the public.

In general, regardless of Europe, I believe that the govts should represent the wishes of their population, regardless of their mandate, and finding out what the population thinks is a worthwhile exercise.

murphaph

molloyjh wrote: »

Please refer to my response to Morgans above. It is up to the people to tell the politicians if they are not being represented. If they don't then they have noone to blame but themselves if they aren't represented.

We (and the french and dutch) went one better than 'telling the politicians'. We had 3 referenda on this specific question and all voted no.

molloyjh wrote: »

There really is no winning with you is there? I do't understand your point. Why, if they didn't want to have a simple and easy to read document, did they ever bother with the Constitution? For the laugh?

Here's my point. The EU elite thought that the proposed EU constitution would be acceptable to the people. It wasn't acceptable to the french and dutch people and this stunned the EU elite. They decided not to simply amend the proposed constitution and put it back to the french and dutch. Instead they opted to remove the irksome referendum option from as many EU citizens as possible with a treaty containing the essence of the constitution.

molloyjh wrote: »

Have a look into the differences between the Constitution and the Treaty. For starters the word Constitution was enough to get the sovereignty issue off the ground. Then the official flag and anthem etc added to that (even though they exist, they are only symbloic and the Constitution sought to make them truly official). These elements have been dropped from the Treaty. You could continue making your point all you want, but at the end of the day there is no significant opposition forming to the Treaty in Europe. It has been public for over a year and thee is no sign of any resistance to it. Regardless of what the EU politicians did or didn't do to get it in, they did not make it secret and people haven't really complained outside of Ireland (that I can see) so where is the problem?

The differences between constitution and treaty are minor indeed, so why didn't they amend the constitution to remove what you believe to be the offending articles and put the constitution back to the french and dutch for their approval?

How do you define 'significant opposition' because I believe there is significant opposition to a second Lisbon referendum here in Ireland but we won't riot in the streets or even hold mass demonstrations if (when) Lisbon II is announced! We will grumble to each other. It doesn't mean there isn't opposition!

Morgans

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah now come on boys, put them away. Morgans, we all know treaties, like most legal documents are complex. Its the nature of the beast.

molloyjh, I think my repsonse was fair given the post that prompted it.

Again molloyjh, fine debating with someone who is reasonable. The Lisbon treaty was written in such a way that it allowed both the yes and no side to read what they wanted into it, without any conclusive arguements on either side.

The line of the Nice treaty was that it was about accession, that it needed to be ratified or else Ireland would be embarrassed accross Europe because we wouldnt allow the eastern europeans come to the party. Yet now, its the reduction of the commission that is gaining the most importance, despite assurances before Nice that no one was going to lose a commissioner. Did the Yes side mislead the irish public?

The principal of Enhanced Corporation likewise was ratified in earlier treaties, and the Lisbon treaty was written in such a way that it was not clear even to several politicians promoting it, what the full implications were. As you said, It is the nature of the beast.

a5y

ircoha wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0715/eulisbon.html

Not surprising really, time to get out the posters for the 21st July.:)

According to this its happening at 12:30, government buildings in Merrion Square. I'm there.

I felt insulted with the "Lets pretend that didn't happen and try again" Nice Treaty re-run; it was a parody of democracy.

K-9

murphaph wrote: »

I am a no voter. I don't want any 'opt out clauses' or 'provisions'. I do not want any further integration with the EU. I believe much of the political integration already established should be abolished and the EU should return to a simpler state...the EEC. Am I allowed to want these things? Am I right to vote no if these are my aspirations for 'Europe'?

Oh, do you speak for every no voter?

Tim Robbins

a5y wrote: »

According to this its happening at 12:30, government buildings in Merrion Square. I'm there.

I felt insulted with the "Lets pretend that didn't happen and try again" Nice Treaty re-run; it was a parody of democracy.

That makes load of sense. Protest to a French leader about a war they were against. How about something constructive?

Tim Robbins

thehighground wrote: »

I'm sorry that some how you don't understand that in my opinion, whether Ireland is an EU member or not is irrelevant to Ireland's influence and standing in EU or world politics.

Well unless you think all politics is irrelevant, you need to be able argue that. You haven't.

Yep, they sure don't like working the idea of working for the good of the people.

They're nasty martians, the lot of them. Apparently the have a cook book with recipes in it how to brainwash people to like Europe!

Thats right, 'No' to Lisbon voters are just plain thick. When you get tired of repeating that mantra and are ready to listen, get back to me.

Until you can come up with one logical reason for no or one constructive way forward, your reason seems vacuous. Of course that doesn't mean you're thick.

Kev_ps3

I wont be surprised if we are asked to vote again. All I know is they will get it thrown back in their face again and Fine Fail wont get back into power then next election.

auerillo

Morgans wrote: »

I dont blame Sarkozy. It was a clever way of dodging that bullet. But it is wrong to suggest that the french reverse their decision on the referendum by voting Sarkozy in - as is the wont of the europhiles (Yes side). It is not comparing like for like. What was the last treaty that the framers/negotiators got right? That wasnt turned down in any country? Yet, Ireland was the only country whose population got to vote on Lisbon. Of course, democracies differ but its expedient that its the way Europe is going. It is clear that the appetite for the European project is far stronger in the political classes than the public.

In general, regardless of Europe, I believe that the govts should represent the wishes of their population, regardless of their mandate, and finding out what the population thinks is a worthwhile exercise.

I agree that its just lazy thinking to say that, because the people voted for a government in a general election, then anything the government does is the democratic will of the people.

More especially when it concerns giving away specific powers out of the control of the people, there should be a direct mandate from the people. It seems many on the "yes" side don't agree with this argument, not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of expediency and as a means to achieve what they want, rather than as a means of achieving what is the will of the people. To find out what is the will of the people would require asking them in a ballot, and they can't do that for fear that it gives them the result they don't want. Thats why France and the UK couldn't risk running a ballot.

Mr Sarkozy certainly should not be censored, and has as much right as any of us to express his opinion. Having said that, its a bit rich from him to say that Ireland needs to vote again, when he wouldn't allow his country to vote at all on the treaty, after they rejected the constitution.

It seems he agrees with some posters here who think democracy is a fine and dandy thing when you get the result you want, but should be avoided if is going to give you the vote you don't want.

Tim Robbins

Morgans wrote: »

The line of the Nice treaty was that it was about accession, that it needed to be ratified or else Ireland would be embarrassed accross Europe because we wouldnt allow the eastern europeans come to the party. Yet now, its the reduction of the commission that is gaining the most importance, despite assurances before Nice that no one was going to lose a commissioner. Did the Yes side mislead the irish public?

What a load of nonsense. Lisbon is also about accession. Nice limits the EU to 27 which means Croatia can't join. And it was known that the number of commissioners would be a problem when all the accession states had completed joining i.e. when the EU reached 27. Rotation was suggested then the final arrangements were to be agreed in a subsequent treaty.

In general, regardless of Europe, I believe that the govts should represent the wishes of their population, regardless of their mandate, and finding out what the population thinks is a worthwhile exercise.

As for this, it's impossible to understand what the wishes of No voters are. They are incapable of articulating what is wrong with the treaty. All we are hearing is a myriad of nonsesenical rhetoric and unintelligble straw man arguments.

molloyjh

Morgans wrote: »

I dont blame Sarkozy. It was a clever way of dodging that bullet. But it is wrong to suggest that the french reverse their decision on the referendum by voting Sarkozy in - as is the wont of the europhiles (Yes side). It is not comparing like for like. What was the last treaty that the framers/negotiators got right? That wasnt turned down in any country? Yet, Ireland was the only country whose population got to vote on Lisbon. Of course, democracies differ but its expedient that its the way Europe is going. It is clear that the appetite for the European project is far stronger in the political classes than the public.

In general, regardless of Europe, I believe that the govts should represent the wishes of their population, regardless of their mandate, and finding out what the population thinks is a worthwhile exercise.

For a start the French never had a referendum on Lisbon. It was on the Constitution. The biggest issue the French had with it was the thought that they would lose sovereignty to the EU. This was caused by the use of a Constitution first off, and then by the fact that the EU was getting an official flag and anthem (which it already has of course, but it doesn't have the same stature in legislation than the Constitution was gioving it). So to resolve this issue the elements that appeared to threaten French sovereignty were removed, but the reform elements remained. Given that reform was the jist of the Constitution in the first place that meant that the Treaty was never going to be much different.
And to say that the French Government should find out the wishes of its people is typical of Western peoples attitude to democracy. The politicians should do all the work apparently. We should just be able to sit back and be spoon-fed everything. Everytime the Government has to make an important decision abut something they should always double check that it is what the people want, even though it was on the election manifesto that the people voted in favour of. Thats nonsense of the highest order. The people have a responsibility to democracy too and if they don't exercise that responsibility then thats their tough. Either way this whole point is based on the hypothetical scenario of a significant number of people in France opposing Lisbon, which we have seen absolutely no evidence of at all.

murphaph wrote: »

We (and the french and dutch) went one better than 'telling the politicians'. We had 3 referenda on this specific question and all voted no.
Here's my point. The EU elite thought that the proposed EU constitution would be acceptable to the people. It wasn't acceptable to the french and dutch people and this stunned the EU elite. They decided not to simply amend the proposed constitution and put it back to the french and dutch. Instead they opted to remove the irksome referendum option from as many EU citizens as possible with a treaty containing the essence of the constitution.

The differences between constitution and treaty are minor indeed, so why didn't they amend the constitution to remove what you believe to be the offending articles and put the constitution back to the french and dutch for their approval?

See my above point re the fact that the idea of a Constitution alone provoked opposition in France which is why the Constitution was abandoned.

murphaph wrote: »

How do you define 'significant opposition' because I believe there is significant opposition to a second Lisbon referendum here in Ireland but we won't riot in the streets or even hold mass demonstrations if (when) Lisbon II is announced! We will grumble to each other. It doesn't mean there isn't opposition!

So essentially what you are saying is that the politicians should know that significant opposition exists despite the fact that the significant opposition make no attempt to make themselves heard? I again refer you to my above point re the abandonment of responsibility that is becoming ever more clear in Western democracy.
If a politician is running for election says he is going to do A but the public want him to do B, yet they elect him without telling him they want B, is it not fair for the politician to assume that the people want A? If they are supporting him and not telling him otherwise what other conclusion can he come to? And if he should be checking back with the people, when does he check back and when not? Will he ever get anything done in that case? Its madness to suggest the people should get what they want if they are keeping what they want secret from the people who make it happen.

Morgans wrote: »

molloyjh, I think my repsonse was fair given the post that prompted it.
Again molloyjh, fine debating with someone who is reasonable. The Lisbon treaty was written in such a way that it allowed both the yes and no side to read what they wanted into it, without any conclusive arguements on either side.
The line of the Nice treaty was that it was about accession, that it needed to be ratified or else Ireland would be embarrassed accross Europe because we wouldnt allow the eastern europeans come to the party. Yet now, its the reduction of the commission that is gaining the most importance, despite assurances before Nice that no one was going to lose a commissioner. Did the Yes side mislead the irish public?
The principal of Enhanced Corporation likewise was ratified in earlier treaties, and the Lisbon treaty was written in such a way that it was not clear even to several politicians promoting it, what the full implications were. As you said, It is the nature of the beast.

Sorry Morgans, that post was directed at both of you. I didn't intend to make it seem like a dig at you. Fair enough point out flaws in someones behaviour (and I'm not making any judgements on it myself) but you're always better off not getting into a "mine's bigger than yours" type row.
And I don't doubt that there are politicians out there who don't fully get the Treaties they support. However most won't ever have read any of them. Instead they trust their legal advisors to do that and to help paraphrase it for them. This is always going to cause issues with the completeness of their understanding. Again nature of the beast. Politicians don't have the time to review every peice of legal legislation themselves. Any issues that crop up may leave them caught in the wind at the time, but they can clarify them with their legal teams later. Sadly the damage will have been done at this point.`

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I wont be surprised if we are asked to vote again. All I know is they will get it thrown back in their face again and Fine Fail wont get back into power then next election.

Well now that would be a silver lining alright. However due to the fact that people didn't seem to care that Bertie was being investigated for financial irregularities last time while the election was going on I doubt they'll be impacted by the re-run of a referendum 3 years before an election. And there's no guarantee a No will be returned next time. Remember approx 49% of No voters voted for reasons unrelated to the Treaty or out of a lack of understanding of the Treaty (according to Gallups poll), and then there is the Yes side where there was surely a good deal of ignorance aswell, so there's no telling what people may say were they to fully understand it.

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

I agree that its just lazy thinking to say that, because the people voted for a government in a general election, then anything the government does is the democratic will of the people.

More especially when it concerns giving away specific powers out of the control of the people, there should be a direct mandate from the people. It seems many on the "yes" side don't agree with this argument, not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of expediency and as a means to achieve what they want, rather than as a means of achieving what is the will of the people. To find out what is the will of the people would require asking them in a ballot, and they can't do that for fear that it gives them the result they don't want. Thats why France and the UK couldn't risk running a ballot.

Mr Sarkozy certainly should not be censored, and has as much right as any of us to express his opinion. Having said that, its a bit rich from him to say that Ireland needs to vote again, when he wouldn't allow his country to vote at all on the treaty, after they rejected the constitution.

It seems he agrees with some posters here who think democracy is a fine and dandy thing when you get the result you want, but should be avoided if is going to give you the vote you don't want.

Okay, first noone said that Governments always act in the will of the people. My points were all about the fact that unless the people tell their Governments where their will differs from the Governments manifesto the people cannot expect anything other than the manifesto. Its a simple point.

Secondly, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, I have no opinion about whether the French method for ratification is any better or worse than our own because, just as our ratification method is not their business, theirs is not ours. If the French people have an issue with what has happened let them deal with it. If they are not, and I've seen nothing to suggest that they are, then stop using them as an example of how politicians are going against the will of their people. There seems to be more outrage here that the French people didn't get a referendum than than there is in France itself. Get over it, the French appear to have! There is no evidence that any member states Government is going against the will of their people.

This is all hypothetical talk with no substance. If you can provide some then by all means fire away, but if not then stop making irrelevant points about other member states. It is not your place to judge how other countries choose to ratify the Treaty, that is down to their people. If their people have an issue then by all means be outraged. If not then leave them their sovereign right to decide on these matters.

auerillo

molloyjh wrote: »

... I don't know how many times I have to say this, I have no opinion about whether the French method for ratification is any better or worse than our own because, just as our ratification method is not their business, theirs is not ours.

Its entirely up to you whether or not you have an opinion. I do have an opinion and expressed it, as boards is that sort of site where we come to express our opinions. Perhaps you are confusing having an opinion with interfering? As I said about Mr Sarkozy, I am not in favour of censoring his opinions on whether or not we should vote again on the treaty, but do think his opinion ironic bearing in mind he denied his own people a vote on it! I simply can't agree with you that we should have no opinions, or not express our opinions on any subject which you deem is not our business. The business of boards is having opinions and expressing them and discussing them.

molloyjh wrote: »

This is all hypothetical talk with no substance. If you can provide some then by all means fire away, but if not then stop making irrelevant points about other member states. It is not your place to judge how other countries choose to ratify the Treaty, that is down to their people. If their people have an issue then by all means be outraged. If not then leave them their sovereign right to decide on these matters.

It seems ironic indeed that you tell me its not my place to judge (what exactely is my place?), when you seem to feel free to judge that its not my place to judge! And then you judge I should "stop making irrelevant points about other states" and so on and further advice me to "get over it". How come it seems to be your "place" to judge me, but your opinion is that it's not my place to judge?

While I have no doubt your advice is well meant, it is a fact of life that unasked for advice is rarely well received, and the very people who offer unasked for advice are, in general, not the people whom others seek out when they want advice. It would be great if we could stick to the agruements and try to avoid telling people what we think is their "place" or to "get over it" etc etc

Hitman Actual

auerillo wrote: »

Its entirely up to you whether or not you have an opinion. I do have an opinion and expressed it, as boards is that sort of site where we come to express our opinions. Perhaps you are confusing having an opinion with interfering? As I said about Mr Sarkozy, I am not in favour of censoring his opinions on whether or not we should vote again on the treaty, but do think his opinion ironic bearing in mind he denied his own people a vote on it! I simply can't agree with you that we should have no opinions, or not express our opinions on any subject which you deem is not our business. The business of boards is having opinions and expressing them and discussing them.

I don't get this part at all. How did Sarkozy deny the French people anything? He said he would ratify the Treaty if elected, and he did. What are you basing this 'denial' on? Has there been a court challenge in France that he over-ruled, or something sinister like that? Your comment is completely false, as far as I can see.