Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

Villain

The problem is the treaty is deliberatley designed to be over complicated and has areas which are open to legal argument, I have read large parts of the treaty and I understand these documents have to be complex and detailed for legal reasons, but I can read our constition a lot easier then this treaty, I'm not against the treaty but I don't understand it enough to be able to say yes I want to change our constitution so I voted no previously and unless we get declarations on all the topics which are not 100% clear cut I will vote again.

How many times do the people of Ireland have to vote NO before the EU accept that the Lisbon treaty as it stands cannot be adopted?

oscarBravo

Has there ever had to be a Supreme Court decision to interpret our wonderfully straightforward constitution?

Villain

Oh I'm not saying our Constitution is water tight but if you read it compared to the Lisbon treaty it's much easier to read and understand, obviously the treaty being a constitution for the entire EU is going to be longer, and be more complicated but imo the treaty has been over complicted deliberatley to ensure the ordinary voter can't understand it.

molloyjh

Villain wrote: »

The problem is the treaty is deliberatley designed to be over complicated and has areas which are open to legal argument, I have read large parts of the treaty and I understand these documents have to be complex and detailed for legal reasons, but I can read our constition a lot easier then this treaty, I'm not against the treaty but I don't understand it enough to be able to say yes I want to change our constitution so I voted no previously and unless we get declarations on all the topics which are not 100% clear cut I will vote again.

How many times do the people of Ireland have to vote NO before the EU accept that the Lisbon treaty as it stands cannot be adopted?

A Treaty, no matter what the Treaty, will never be as readable as a Constitution. As for Lisbon, it is a Treaty that by its nature has to refer to multiple other treaties which is only going to make it more complex.

You don't need to read the whole thing to understand it. There are non-biased summaries out there to do that for you. In GEs and other referenda we don't vote on the details, i.e. the exact detailed policies in each area the parties are going to implement or the articles of law in referenda, we vote on the summary.

is_that_so

oscarBravo wrote: »

Those would be the same opt-outs they're currently looking at holding a referendum to roll back?

We have opt-outs. I have yet to see a coherent response as to what form of the Lisbon treaty would be acceptable to the "no" voters who claim not to be Euroskeptics.

Yes they are and yes we do, however in my view everything should be explored. There may something within that Danish process that can offer solutions. In answer to the second comment I doubt we will see one. Positions appear to have become even more entrenched and the right to outrage seems to far outweigh any desire to engage beyond "No".

Fratton Fred

Villain wrote: »

How many times do the people of Ireland have to vote NO before the EU accept that the Lisbon treaty as it stands cannot be adopted?

What if the rest of Europe want to adopt the treaty as it stands and the Irish keep saying no? how long should 200m people have to be dictated to by the 800,000 Irish no voters?

Villain

molloyjh wrote: »

A Treaty, no matter what the Treaty, will never be as readable as a Constitution. As for Lisbon, it is a Treaty that by its nature has to refer to multiple other treaties which is only going to make it more complex.

You don't need to read the whole thing to understand it. There are non-biased summaries out there to do that for you. In GEs and other referenda we don't vote on the details, i.e. the exact detailed policies in each area the parties are going to implement or the articles of law in referenda, we vote on the summary.

Well the treaty is basically the EU Constitution and does ammend our Constitution as follows:

Proposed changes to the text

* Deletion of entirety of Article 29.4.9:

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

* Deletion of entirety of Article 29.4.11:

The State may ratify the Agreement relating to Community Patents drawn up between the Member States of the Communities and done at Luxembourg on the 15th day of December, 1989.

* (Existing subsection 10 of Article 29.4 retained but renumbered as subsection 9)
* Insertion of new Article 29.4.10:

The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.11:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.12:

The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.22, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68 and 2.278 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section and Articles 1.18 and 1.20 of Protocol No. 1 annexed to that Treaty, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.13:

The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.14:

The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts under —

i. Article 1.34(b)(iv),
ii. Article 1.56 (in so far as it relates to Article 48.7 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 4 of this section),
iii. Article 2.66 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 65.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),
iv. Article 2.67 (in so far as it relates to subparagraph (d) of Article 69A.2, the third subparagraph of Article 69B.1 and paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 69E of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),
v. Article 2.144(a),
vi. Article 2.261 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 270a.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), and
vii. Article 2.278 (in so far as it relates to Article 280H of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, and may also agree to the decision under the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 137.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (as amended by Article 2.116(a) of the Treaty referred to in the said subsection 10), but the agreement to any such decision, regulation or act shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.15:

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to —

i. Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section, or
ii. Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, where that common defence would include the State.

SO before I vote Yes to ammend OUR constitution I'd like to be certain about the consequences and what exactly the the Treaty does and I can't do that by reading it as its far too complex.

Villain

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What if the rest of Europe want to adopt the treaty as it stands and the Irish keep saying no? how long should 200m people have to be dictated to by the 800,000 Irish no voters?

Well then they need to agree a new a treaty among themselves because this treaty CANNOT be adopted unless ALL states including Ireland ratify it and how many of those 200m have being given the right to vote on the treaty?

Of those who were asked to vote the Dutch and the French voted no.

sink

Villain wrote: »

SO before I vote Yes to ammend OUR constitution I'd like to be certain about the consequences and what exactly the the Treaty does and I can't do that by reading it as its far too complex.

Have you ever used Satellite navigation? Do you perfectly understand Einstein's theory of general relativity? Because what you just said sounds something like 'i'm not going to use sat nav because I don't understand the scientific theory that allows it to work and I don't know the entire implications of that theory'.

But you do use sat nav or other such complex systems because you accept that experts in the relevant field know what the are doing. Why should a treaty be any different? All legal experts seem to be pretty unanimous about what Lisbon means but you reject their understanding because you yourself don't have the same understanding.

Sounds like a recipe for ignorance to me.

Villain

sink wrote: »

Have you ever used Satellite navigation? Do you perfectly understand Einstein's theory of general relativity? Because what you just said sounds something like 'i'm not going to use sat nav because I don't understand the scientific theory that allows it to work and I don't know the entire implications of that theory'.

But you do use sat nav or other such complex systems because you accept that experts in the relevant field know what the are doing. Why should a treaty be any different? All legal experts seem to be pretty unanimous about what Lisbon means but you reject their understanding because you yourself don't have the same understanding.

Sounds like a recipe for ignorance to me.

Its quite easy to understand GPS and assoicated navigation . Simply put sink I don't trust polictians they are not experts in their area they are simply people who have been elected through democracy, which is funny when you consider they won't accept the democratic result of a referendum.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

Well then they need to agree a new a treaty among themselves because this treaty CANNOT be adopted unless ALL states including Ireland ratify it…

All they have to do is stick a new cover on the Lisbon Treaty, remove Ireland from the text and call it something else.

Villain wrote: »

…and how many of those 200m have being given the right to vote on the treaty?

How many of them want to?

Villain wrote: »

Of those who were asked to vote the Dutch and the French voted no.

18 other countries voted ‘Yes’ (three by referendum; Luxembourg, Spain and Romania).

This has already been done to death on this forum.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

Simply put sink I don't trust polictians they are not experts in their area they are simply people who have been elected through democracy, which is funny when you consider they won't accept the democratic result of a referendum.

Won't accept? How exactly has the result of the Lisbon referendum not been accepted? Has Ireland ratified the treaty?

sink

Villain wrote: »

Its quite easy to understand GPS and assoicated navigation.

Really because I don't understand it perfectly. Do you know that it relies on atomic clocks that tick slightly faster than those on earth because they are not under as much influence of earth's gravity as predicted in general relativity. Now if you don't understand general relativity which most people don't (Including me, I only have a rough understanding) how claim to understand how the GPS system works?

Villain wrote: »

Simply put sink I don't trust polictians they are not experts in their area they are simply people who have been elected through democracy, which is funny when you consider they won't accept the democratic result of a referendum.

I don't trust politicians either but I'm not putting my faith in politicians but in solicitors. None of whom with credibility seem to disagree with the interpretation of the lisbon treaty set out by the revenue commissioners. If we were being lied to I would expect at least a significant number of solicitors to be crying fowl.

Villain

djpbarry wrote: »

Won't accept? How exactly has the result of the Lisbon referendum not been accepted? Has Ireland ratified the treaty?

If it was accepted there wouldn't be a need for another vote on it and I think its pretty obvious from Dick Roche's comments and those from Brian Cowen that they will look for another vote and thus disregard the result of a democratic vote

Villain

sink wrote: »

I don't trust politicians either but I'm not putting my faith in politicians but in solicitors. None of whom with credibility seem to disagree with the interpretation of the lisbon treaty set out by the revenue commissioners. If we were being lied to I would expect at least a significant number of solicitors to be crying fowl.

But the thing is what solictors believe they have achieved in text and what the European Courts decide if the parts of the treaty are challenged may differ.

I'm sure this has been discussed to death on here before the vote, so apologies if this is a repeat of old arguments I wasn't around back then.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

If it was accepted there wouldn't be a need for another vote on it...

Why not? Tell you what, why don't you tell us what should happen next; where does the EU go from here (considering almost every other member state has ratified)?

Villain

djpbarry wrote: »

Why not? Tell you what, why don't you tell us what should happen next; where does the EU go from here (considering almost every other member state has ratified)?

The Lisbon treaty in its current state cannot be adopted, so the EU either need to address the issues that Irish voters had and ammend the treaty if all the other countries agree or they need to leave Ireland behind and move on with a new treaty.

You can't say you accept the democratic result of a vote and then ask the voters to vote again on the same thing?

Darragh29

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The next vote should be Yes, accept Lisbon or No, leave the EU.

Force people into thinking about what they are voting for rather than taking the easy option of voting No and changing nothing.

+1. I voted no on Lisbon and I'll be voting no on the next occasion. This startling refusal to accept the will of voters, not just on this occasion, has in my opinion completely vindicated my decision to vote no on Lisbon...

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

where does the EU go from here (considering almost every other member state has ratified)?

The Lisbon Treaty needs unanimous support before it can come into effect. One member state cannot ratify the treaty because it has been rejected in a referendum. This means that the treaty lacks unanimous support and so the only direction the EU can go in is the direction it would have gone in if the Lisbon Treaty never existed.

The EU needs to scrap the Lisbon Treaty completely and continue to function as it has done since enlargement. If a 27 member EU is found to be unworkable then the sensible thing for them to do would be to offload some of their responsibilities and hand back competences to the member states. That would leave a downsized EU to more effectively deal with those things which it should be responsible for i.e. the successful functioning of a single market.

If the Euro elite is not happy with that then they might consider leaving the current EU as the free-trade area that it was originally intended to be and they can then set up some alternative union of like-minded European countries who do share the same ambitions of a politically integrated federal Europe.

Begob

Villain wrote: »

SO before I vote Yes to ammend OUR constitution I'd like to be certain about the consequences and what exactly the the Treaty does and I can't do that by reading it as its far too complex.

The thing is though (and here's the problem I have with the it's so full of legalese argument) in my opinion,this treaty should have had the "experts" working for another 6 months on it to engineer it such that it didn't need a referendum here.

Our relationship with the EU is too important for this small open economy to be left to the mercy of a pencil and minds that either don't understand the legalese or don't want to so don't care about scuppering the whole thing.

I too have read the treaty.I voted yes because I thought for myself,I did the research and discovered there was nothing bad or of harm to Ireland in it.

Ironically,the two biggest proponents of a No vote that I saw were friendly to the Euroskeptic Tory party on the one hand and to Sinn Féin on the other as well as a mish mash of other silly people like Cóir spouting delusional stuff about abortion etc.
The biggest element of the No vote seems to have been the if you don't know vote no brigade and the stick it to them brigade.
None of those categories have anything to offer other than from what I can see , the disruption of our good relations with Europe.
They'll all deny this of course but it is and always was plain as day for anyone neutral and informed to see.

We elect politicians to run a country usually to be judged on their performance at the end of their 5 year term.
That's what should have happened here.
They should have engineered the thing for ease of passage through the Irish legislative system and not left it open for an obvious roadblock.
Whats laughable is that our politicians were chieftains in Lisbons design and yet failed to make the case or see the need for tweaking it to avoid constitutional hurdles here.

I don't know how they could have done that,But I sure will be giving them grief for not even trying.

By the way,I'll vote yes again for the simple reason,that I'm not happy with the don't give a damn stick it to them don't know brigade harming the countries relationship with Europe.
I doubt it will do any good though,it will still be voted down.
Not see'ing this coming is an indictment on the politicians.

The feckers should be made put every piece of legislation in the Dáil to referendum for the next ten years and have their salaries based on how many pass.Most mightn't for the same main reason as Lisbon because they are all in half latin legalese..
That would be punishment for them

dresden8

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What if the rest of Europe want to adopt the treaty as it stands and the Irish keep saying no? how long should 200m people have to be dictated to by the 800,000 Irish no voters?

Fred, if you want to play a numbers game, how about possibly 5,000 politicians across Europe voted yes while 862,415 Irish people voted no.

Plus 752,451 Irish yes voters. No still wins

dresden8

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re a funny guy. Really.

You guys should brush up on how politics works.

Can anybody tell me what a Hawarden kite is?

dresden8

To Fly a Kite is a term used in politics to describe a tactic whereby a politician either directly themselves informally, or indirectly in the media, raises an idea to gauge the reaction to it. Depending on the reaction, the idea may be implemented (if the reaction was positive) or disowned and denied (if negative). The benefits of flying a kite is that it allows a controversial issue to be raised in a way that gives a government "deniability" if the reaction is negative, with the Government being able to say "the Minister was speaking personally, not for the Government" if necessary, and so distance itself from an issue that draws a negative response.

Among the examples of flying a kite was the suggestion in the 1960s by then Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan that the Republic of Ireland should rejoin the Commonwealth of Nations. He did so on the orders of then taoiseach Seán Lemass. However the reaction was negative and Lemass and Lenihan dropped the issue, with Lemass (with Lenihan's connivance) claiming that Lenihan had just been speaking theoretically in a personal manner and not for the government.

For reference.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

Oh I'm not saying our Constitution is water tight but if you read it compared to the Lisbon treaty it's much easier to read and understand, obviously the treaty being a constitution for the entire EU is going to be longer, and be more complicated but imo the treaty has been over complicted deliberatley to ensure the ordinary voter can't understand it.

Your opinion doesn't count for anything unless you can back it up with facts. Tell you what, though: I'll make it easier for you. Rather than ask you to produce evidence for the assertion that the treaty was deliberately overcomplicated to make it difficult to read, how about for starters you come up with a single convincing reason why anyone would want to do so?

Villain wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty in its current state cannot be adopted, so the EU either need to address the issues that Irish voters had...

What were those issues, again? Abortion? Conscription? Gay marriage? Corporation tax?

Anything that's actually in the treaty?

...and ammend the treaty if all the other countries agree or they need to leave Ireland behind and move on with a new treaty.

If the other 26 countries do decide to tell us to bugger off, I presume you'll be applauding that? After all, it's one way to accept the result of the referendum.

You can't say you accept the democratic result of a vote and then ask the voters to vote again on the same thing?

Why not? What's undemocratic about it? We voted twice on divorce; we voted twice on Nice. We also voted twice on the abolition of PR/STV (voting "no" both times).

Worse again, we vote in general elections every few years. I mean, what's that about? Didn't they get the message in 1922?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

Tell you what, though: I'll make it easier for you. Rather than ask you to produce evidence for the assertion that the treaty was deliberately overcomplicated to make it difficult to read, how about for starters you come up with a single convincing reason why anyone would want to do so?

Well at least the forum has moved from the Treaty wasn't complicated and was easily understood to it's not deliberately overcomplicated

RichMc70

Whats the point in having a constitution if every time the government don't get their own way then they just keep going back for referendum after referendum until they finally get what they wanted in the first place.

We may as well scrap democracy and hire Mugabe to run the country.

Hagar

Two simple questions.

1) Is it true that the Treaty must be unanimously ratified by every State?

If the answer to question one above is "yes" then since Ireland hasn't ratified it the Treaty is null and void and Europe should forget it and move on. That's how democracy works isn't it? Or were they lying to us just hoping we would fall into step with the wishes of the Great and Good?

If the answer to question one above is "no" then we all move forward on a majority decision and no harm done. Democracy in action yet again.

2) Can we trust our Politicians to act on our behalf or are they merely taking our money and dancing to someone else's tune?

irish_bob

RichMc70 wrote: »

Whats the point in having a constitution if every time the government don't get their own way then they just keep going back for referendum after referendum until they finally get what they wanted in the first place.

We may as well scrap democracy and hire Mugabe to run the country.

totally agree , before the election , a bunch of big burly men with offaly accents came to my house telling me that if i didnt do what biffo said and vote yes to lisbon , my family would be burned out of it

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Well at least the forum has moved from the Treaty wasn't complicated and was easily understood to it's not deliberately overcomplicated

Is there a danger of you at some point actually contributing something to the debate, rather than this constant low-level meta-sniping?

RichMc70 wrote: »

Whats the point in having a constitution if every time the government don't get their own way then they just keep going back for referendum after referendum until they finally get what they wanted in the first place.

The point in having a constitution is that they have to ask. I'm at a loss as to why it's so offensive to be asked the same question more than once.

We may as well scrap democracy and hire Mugabe to run the country.

I'd suggest you spend time in Zimbabwe before comparing Ireland to Mugabe's regime.

Hagar wrote: »

1) Is it true that the Treaty must be unanimously ratified by every State?

In its current form, yes.

If the answer to question one above is "yes" then since Ireland hasn't ratified it the Treaty is null and void and Europe should forget it and move on.

That's working on the rather naive assumption that Europe is prepared to just forget about something it spent several years negotiating.

That's how democracy works isn't it?

The EU isn't necessarily a particularly democratic institution. It happens to work quite well that way.

Can no-one else see the irony of talking about democracy, when in reality they're talking about a veto?

2) Can we trust our Politicians to act on our behalf or are they merely taking our money and dancing to someone else's tune?

I don't trust politicians. I do have a fair bit of faith in the process of international diplomacy, and I'm not prepared to reject eight years' work by hundreds of experienced diplomats on a whim.

Begob

Hagar wrote: »

Two simple questions.

1) Is it true that the Treaty must be unanimously ratified by every State?

Common misconception.
It can move ahead without Ireland if they send it back to the printing presses with two new words inserted and those are : "Without Ireland" followed by re ratification in each parliament.

Not a good idea in my opinion as the two speed Europe kicks in then and you can be guaranteed that a year or two down the road that juggernaut will probably have itself constructed with no benefit to Ireland and all the benefits to the majority.

If the answer to question one above is "yes" then since Ireland hasn't ratified it the Treaty is null and void and Europe should forget it and move on. That's how democracy works isn't it? Or were they lying to us just hoping we would fall into step with the wishes of the Great and Good?

The answer is no so your translation of Orwell there need not apply.

If the answer to question one above is "no" then we all move forward on a majority decision and no harm done. Democracy in action yet again.

The rest of the EU could proceed to create whatever they like in terms of co operation which would ultimately be to our detriment as we'd have no input and no benefit skewed to our favour like heretofore..

2) Can we trust our Politicians to act on our behalf or are they merely taking our money and dancing to someone else's tune?

Wheres your evidence of that?
The treaty is or was the result of a protracted negotiation among co operating members of a club designed for the good of all it's members.
I don't think anyone can deny the benefits all of these members so far have conferred willingly on Ireland thanks to our ability to punch in the club well above our weight.
To suggest that they suddenly have turned to the Dark side is a tad far fetched in my opinion if not highly hyperbolic in nature.