Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man
Options
Comments
-
And I agree with that idea whole heartly.
But the problem arises that being well informed is a very subjective thing to try and measure
It is far too easy to claim that the public were not well informed when they vote aganist your opinion and that what it seems is happening.
How do you tell the difference between that and people genuinely not being informed?
There were infact polls done immediately after the ballot which showed a significant proportion of people were uniformed or ill informed. That does not mean the government can disregard the result. They can try to do a better job of informing the voters and ask them to vote again. It's not like they are able to get it past the voters without asking them.And whos responability is it to inform the people?
The government fouled that up entirely.
Dont get me started on the referednum commission...
The government and interested parties should provide the information (and it should be factual not lies and myths). It is then the responsibility of the voters to inform themselves. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.And would the same arguements be brought out by the same people if the treaty had passed?
I would call it a disgrace, just as the last election. But the trouble is once you have signed a legal document you are legally bound to it and can't easily get out of it. Voting yes to a treaty (or an election for that matter) is the same thing as signing a legal document and voting no to it in another ballot does not give the country the right to break the treaty they have already signed.0 -
There were infact polls done immediately after the ballot which showed a significant proportion of people were uniformed or ill informed. That does not mean the government can disregard the result. They can try to do a better job of informing the voters and ask them to vote again. It's not like they are able to get it past the voters without asking them.
Again it comes back to a subjective view of well informed.
How many referenda would it take to ensure that all the people are "well informed"?
Part of the lies and Myth problem is there were problems on both sides with that. If the treaty had been more clear cut then it should have been much easier to kill bad arguments off. Im someone who has read the Irish constitution and others from cover to cover and i had a very hard time following good chunks of it.The government and interested parties should provide the information (and it should be factual not lies and myths). It is then the responsibility of the voters to inform themselves. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Having said that though. What you have said did happen.
There was a ton of information on both sides available if you went digging.It should also be up to the people to decide what are "lies and myth".I would call it a disgrace, just as the last election. But the trouble is once you have signed a legal document you are legally bound to it and can't easily get out of it. Voting yes to a treaty (or an election for that matter) is the same thing as signing a legal document and voting no to it in another ballot does not give the country the right to break the treaty they have already signed.
Actually it does assuming you accept Ireland as a sovergin nation. Just have another referendum to delete the previous one and hey presto!
As far as i am aware(Open to correction) it is supposed to be a legal principle that you cant make a law that cannot be over turned by the same method.
Finally,
If a poor job was done in providing a reasoned arguement for the treaty then how can people trust the opinions of those for the treaty if they couldnt make the effort the 1st time?
And its not like this is without precedent. They had that experience with Nice and they let it happen again.0 -
Again it comes back to a subjective view of well informed.
It's within the governments rights to have it's own if subjective view and to act accordingly. That is how it approaches virtually all issues.How many referenda would it take to ensure that all the people are "well informed"?
Well if the government keeps holding referenda that are constantly voted down, how can they expect to ever be elected again? If the Irish people don't eventually vote them out of office it's the peoples own fault.Part of the lies and Myth problem is there were problems on both sides with that. If the treaty had been more clear cut then it should have been much easier to kill bad arguments off. Im someone who has read the Irish constitution and others from cover to cover and i had a very hard time following good chunks of it.
Quiet which is why I am seriously considering whether having a law introduced against intentionally misleading the public in a referenda. A bit like false advertising legislation. I am still considering this and haven't made up my mind as of yet.Having said that though. What you have said did happen.
There was a ton of information on both sides available if you went digging.It should also be up to the people to decide what are "lies and myth".
I know, but the same incompetent people were voted into government the last election so what else can we expect. I know the opposition don't appear to be much better, but it's long past the time where we should at least give them a shot.Actually it does assuming you accept Ireland as a sovergin nation. Just have another referendum to delete the previous one and hey presto!
As far as i am aware(Open to correction) it is supposed to be a legal principle that you cant make a law that cannot be over turned by the same method.
You are partially correct but you are not taking into account that if we break the treaty other countries are not bound by their obligations to us either. So if we signed the lisbon treaty and then broke it they could kick us out of the common market, currency and every other area of the EU.Finally,
If a poor job was done in providing a reasoned arguement for the treaty then how can people trust the opinions of those for the treaty if they couldnt make the effort the 1st time?
And its not like this is without precedent. They had that experience with Nice and they let it happen again.
Unfortunately I don't see much choice. As far as I see we have three basic options open to us, presuming the other countries are going to find some way to co-operate under lisbon like rules with our without us.- We gain opt outs and declarations and sign the treaty.
- We don't sign the treat and the other countries form a enhanced partnership without us, we continues to partake in areas under nice.
- We don't sign the treaty and leave the EU probably joining EFTA.
0 -
So if we vote 'no' again will a spring 09 vote , summer 09 vote and autumn 09 vote be ok ?
how many votes is too many ?
No that I think of it , I think FF miss lead us in the General Election complain , can we vote again please ?0 -
There were infact polls done immediately after the ballot which showed a significant proportion of people were uniformed or ill informed. That does not mean the government can disregard the result. They can try to do a better job of informing the voters and ask them to vote again. It's not like they are able to get it past the voters without asking them.
The government and interested parties should provide the information (and it should be factual not lies and myths). It is then the responsibility of the voters to inform themselves. You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I would call it a disgrace, just as the last election. But the trouble is once you have signed a legal document you are legally bound to it and can't easily get out of it. Voting yes to a treaty (or an election for that matter) is the same thing as signing a legal document and voting no to it in another ballot does not give the country the right to break the treaty they have already signed.
So your saying Irish people should vote for a document purposely designed to be unintelligible for the greater good?
I read the lisbon treaty in full. did you? And its the greatest load of jibberish and veiled language i ever read. It consistently refers to other treaties and articles whose text is not contained or explained within the treaty document itself. You'd need access to those treaties alone just to understand this one. It is not clear and concise as a document and is purposely made that way. The reason the governement didn't explain it properly is that they were at loss too because most of them did not understand it themselves. Of course they didn't they were just directed by their european masters to come back and deliver a yes vote. Saying that irish people didn't understand it fully is exactly what i expected them to come with and an insult to irish people's intelligence and freedom to choose what they want.
A lot of the people supporting the treaty are making no arguments as to the benefits of this treaty. I see none not one, all i see is power, rights and freedoms being given away to faceless bureaucratic power hungry elitists in brussels. Sarkozy's reaction to the irish vote should tell you all you need to know about what these people think about democracy and the people's say. The awnser is they don't give a hoot.
I have to laugh at people who say if you don't vote we will be left out of europe. Thats the same type of scaremongering that backfired so much on the goverment who were left red faced scrambling back to their masters in europe to explain ' these stupid people they didn't fully understand, we'll meet their demands via concessions, explain to them what they want to hear and run another referendum, just let things cool off again and they'll fall for it, becasue time heals all wounds you know'. Again if the government threaten this line i say so what ..if you want to live in a dictatorship because make no mistake thats what lisbon would create feel free to join the 26 other countries. I'd rather live in a free country the a pale impression of the former soviet union and its satellite states. If you want these guys in brussels making decisions for you and everything that will affect your life then feel free to jump on the europe bandwagon..
The following is an example of the puposefully confusing and unintellible text contained in the lisbon treaty. The irish people didn't understand it because it was designed not to be understood, thus causing people to rely on politicans and their 'good will' for the correct decision guidance. Luckily the irish are not that guillable.
In Article 6, the words ‘referred to in Article 3’ shall be deleted.
An Article 6a shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 153(2).
An Article 6b shall be inserted, with the wording of the enacting terms of the Protocol on the protection and welfare of animals; the word ‘fisheries’ shall be inserted after ‘agriculture’, the words ‘and research’ shall be replaced by ‘research and technological development and space’, and the words ‘, since animals are sentient beings,’ shall be inserted after ‘Member States shall’.
Articles 7 to 10 shall be repealed. Articles 11 and 11a shall be replaced by Article 10 of the Treaty on European Union and by Articles 280 A and 280 I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as set out in this Treaty in point 22 of Article 1 above and in point 278 below.
The text of Article 12 shall become Article 16 D.
The text of Article 13 shall become Article 16 E. It shall be amended as set out below at point 33.
The text of Article 14 shall become Article 22a. It shall be amended as set out below at point 41.
The text of Article 15 shall become Article 22b. It shall be amended as set out below at point 42.
Article 16 shall be amended as follows:
(a) at the beginning, the words ‘Without prejudice to Articles 73, 86 and 87,’ shall be replaced by ‘Without prejudice to Article 3a of the Treaty on European Union or to Articles 73, 86 and 87 of this Treaty,’;
(b) at the end of the sentence, the words ‘and conditions which enable them to fulfil their missions’ shall be replaced by ‘and conditions, particularly economic and financial conditions, which enable them to fulfil their missions.’; the following new sentence shall be added: ‘The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish these principles and set these conditions without prejudice to the competence of Member States, in compliance with the Treaties, to provide, to commission and to fund such services.’.
An Article 16 A shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 255; it shall be amended as follows:
paragraph 1 shall be preceded by the following text, paragraph 1 being renumbered 3 and paragraphs 2 and 3 becoming subparagraphs:
1. In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.
2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.’;
(b) in paragraph 1, renumbered 3, which shall become the first subparagraph of paragraph 3, a change shall be made to the French which does not concern the English version. The words ‘European Parliament, Council and Commission documents’ shall be replaced by
‘documents of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium’ and the words ‘paragraphs 2 and 3’ shall be replaced by the words ‘this paragraph’;
(c) in paragraph 2, which shall become the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, renumbered 3, the words ‘by means of regulations’ shall be inserted after ‘shall be determined by the Council’ and the words ‘within two years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam’ shall be deleted;
(d) in paragraph 3, which shall become the third subparagraph of paragraph 1, renumbered 3, the words ‘referred to above shall elaborate’ shall be replaced by ‘shall ensure that its proceedings are transparent and shall elaborate’, the words ‘, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph’ shall be inserted at the end of the subparagraph and the following two new subparagraphs shall be added: The Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank shall be subject to this paragraph only when exercising their administrative tasks.
The European Parliament and the Council shall ensure publication of the documents relating to the legislative procedures under the terms laid down by the regulation referred to in the second subparagraph.’.
29) An Article 16 B shall be inserted, replacing Article 286:
1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning them.
2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall lay down the rules relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Union law, and the rules relating to the free movement of such data. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to the control of independent authorities.
The rules adopted on the basis of this Article shall be without prejudice to the specific rules laid down in Article 25a of the Treaty on European Union.’.
30) The following new Article 16 C shall be inserted:
Article 16 C
1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.
2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and nonconfessional organisations.
3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.’.0 -
Advertisement
-
I read the lisbon treaty in full. did you? And its the greatest load of jibberish and vailed language i ever read. It consistently refers to other treaties whose text is not contained or explained with the treaty document itself. It is not clear and concise as a document and is purposely made that way. The reason the governement didn't explain it properly is that they were at loss too because most of them did not understand it themselves. Of course they didn't they were just directed by their european masters to come back and deliver a yes vote.
Wow you really wasted a lot of time there. You should have read the consolidated treaties which are the existing treaties with the edits made by lisbon. You can find them here.
And no I didn't read them all. I did read the parts that were disputed and found the majority of the no sides claims to utterly false.A lot of the people supporting the treaty are making no arguments but if you don't we will be left out. Again i say so what ..if you want to live in a dictatorship because make no mistake thats what lisbon would create feel free to join the 26 other countries. I'd rather live in a free country the a pale impression of the former soviet union and its satellite states.
Oh boy you really have tinted glasses on if you believe that the EU is anything like the USSR.
I don't think there is much point in discussing issues with you until you take them off. So i'm just going to dismiss you for now.0 -
So if we vote 'no' again will a spring 09 vote , summer 09 vote and autumn 09 vote be ok ?
how many votes is too many ?
Until we kick them out of office. Their coalition is bound to collapse before the next election if they attempt more than one more referendum.No that I think of it , I think FF miss lead us in the General Election complain , can we vote again please ?
Yes please, I would like that so much. However elections are quiet different to referenda please don't confuse them.0 -
Wow you really wasted a lot of time there. You should have read the consolidated treaties which are the existing treaties with the edits made by lisbon. You can find them here.
And no I didn't read them all. I did read the parts that were disputed and found the majority of the no sides claims to utterly false.
Oh boy you really have tinted glasses on if you believe that the EU is anything like the USSR.
I don't think there is much point in discussing issues with you until you take them off. So i'm just going to dismiss you for now.
''So i'm just going to dismiss you for now''....Taking your lead from europe then no doubt. The consolidated treaties link is farcical to say the least. That information should have been posted in to every door in ireland during the referendum and explained in clear, coherent language. Even when you read the other treaties in conjunction with the lisbon treaty it makes for very worrying reading indeed. If you say that the no's side is utterly false and misleading then you really haven't read it in detail because most of the points they make are absolutely true, including the most worrying of all the provision for the allowance of the death penalty.
Here are some of the worrying parts of the treaty your pro treaty friends forgot to mention
Article 2. Right to Life
a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:- in defence of any person from lawful violence;
- in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
- in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ “
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”
black and white folks hazy terminology and circumstances leaving these laws purposefully open to abuse and one would think if you were going to introduce the death penalty you would be crystal clear on when it should be used and not used. But vote for the dictatorship and reintroduction of the death penalty if you want because you know we may be left out of europe..0 -
Editing your post after I have replied to it is a little disingenuous don't you think?So your saying Irish people should vote for a document purposely designed to be unintelligible for the greater good?
Care to show any evidence that the treaty is deliberately unintelligible? And please don't use a misquote from Valery Giscard d’Easting.A lot of the people supporting the treaty are making no arguments as to the benefits of this treaty. I see none not one, all i see is power, rights and freedoms being given away to faceless bureaucratic power hungry elitists in brussels. Sarkozy's reaction to the irish vote should tell you all you need to know about what these people think about democracy and the people's say. The awnser is they don't give a hoot.
I will direct you to a post I made before the referendum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56206650&postcount=303I have to laugh at people who say if you don't vote we will be left out of europe. Thats the same type of scaremongering that backfired so much on the goverment who were left red faced scrambling back to their masters in europe to explain ' these stupid people they didn't fully understand, we'll meet their demands via concessions, explain to them what they want to hear and run another referendum, just let things cool off again and they'll fall for it, becasue time heals all wounds you know'.
Surely from your distorted perspective of the EU being kicked out of a 'fascist dictatorship' would be a good thing.0 -
Care to show any evidence that the treaty is deliberately unintelligible?
I just did... but i can see this is a bit of a pointless debate really what with all the examples you have provided of how this will benefit the irish people. Most irish people would be against misuse and abuse of power, the death penalty thing you know but hey i can see where it would be advantageous to be in a european superstate with a super army and probably conscription if there was ever a serious war. Yes im sure the irish would love that given our status of neutrality over the past say 80 years of our existance.
The negatives are outweighing all those great benefits i can see which you have pointed out of being in a new super european fascist state. No thanks, but feel free to discuss how great it will be. And how exactly is giving greater powers to the european parliment to override ours a good thing? You seem to think so. Some faceless bureaucrat in brussels decides he wants to tweak our privacy laws and thats a good thing? And say people complained who would they go to. They could no longer contact their local t.d because he wouldn't have any control over it. Oh yes that sounds like a great idea....
Just one final thing though and i'd like to know what leads you to trust these politicans in brussels or sarkozy and co? Why such enthusiasm towards these people. What have they ever done to show you can trust or believe them. Do you not know of how corrupt these people are or do you care?0 -
Advertisement
-
Breaking my own word but I'll attempt to change your mind, which I think is probably a futile task.
I think you are confusing the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) which is part of the COE (Council of Europe) and of which we have been signatories for many years with the CFREU (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) which Lisbon would make legally binding to the EU. The COE and the EU are completely separate institutions.
None the less I shall shed light on the ECHR as you have so wrongly interpreted it.Here are some of the worrying parts of the treaty your pro treaty friends forgot to mention
Article 2. Right to Life
a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:- in defence of any person from lawful violence;
- in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
- in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ “
This does not apply to someone already in custody. It only applies to someone resisting. Anyone who is strapped to an electric chair or an operating table could hardly be construed as fullfilling any of those conditions.“b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”
In time of war only, that is very specific.
Protocols allow countries to introduce domestic laws within the confines of the protocols. The can introduce laws which are more restrictive than those confines as in the case of Ireland. Ireland has no provision on allowing the death penalty in time of war, which is within the confines of the protocol. A country can not introduce a law outside of these protocols such as the death penalty outside of war.0 -
I'm going to bed, I might get round to addressing your last post tomorrow. Good night.0
-
Only if we make it mandatory for wives and husbands to vote on the disolution of their marriage everytime theres a row... :rolleyes:So if we vote 'no' again will a spring 09 vote , summer 09 vote and autumn 09 vote be ok ?
how many votes is too many ?
No that I think of it , I think FF miss lead us in the General Election complain , can we vote again please ?
As said already voting for a government is voting for people to take decisions and a reasonable timeframe to judge the outcome of their decisions.
We get that opportunity every five years.0 -
God,I read so much rubbish here.1)Dick roche either through incomptence or malious lied to the Irish people.
Its been replayed on newstalk and i heard him myself on the last word. He was asked directly if lisbon was rejected what would happen
-The Eu would continue under the current rules
Would there be a 2nd referendum
-No because it had to be ratified before the end of 2008 so another referendum would have to be held before then.
Go read the treaty for yourselves. It clearly states that this is not the case.
So how on earth are we supposed to trust him?
2)If Ireland doesnt accept the Lisbon treaty then the treaty is dead.
End of story. Any other rework will not be the same document and somehow i dont see the other countries letting their politicians letting them pass yet another rework without being consulted. If the EU doesnt move quickly enough then the Tories will get back into power accross the water and then any hope of a reform treaty will be dead.
3)If the treaty has been passed would there even be a consideration of having another referednum to make sure we really meant it? Would there be a group to find out why the people voted Yes?
The resultds arent being treated equally by the government. They are paying lipservice to "respecting the will of the people" while looking for a way around it.
If the government continues to engage in kite flying exerices and then pushes a 2nd referednum then its only going to harden the No side and perhaps alienate a few yes sider people on a basic democratic principle.
Finally. Lets assume we have a 2nd referendum.
Should we have a 3rd? 4th? Which number of referenda becomes ridiculus?(Within a short space of time of course. Asking a question like divorce every 10/20 years is different. )
The items agreed in Lisbon can go ahead without Ireland.
Lisbon is just a name.All it needs is to go back to the printers for those two words to be inserted "without Ireland" in the required paragraphs and to be re ratified by the consenting parliaments.
I guess it would take about a few months and viola,we have the frame work for the two speed Europe and the capacity for the rest of Europe to better iself whilst we are left behind withering in the face of the competition the new leaner entity has and with much less or practically no say from us in it's running.
All the government or Europe need to do is tickle peoples pockets with the stick that they'll be adversely affected by a two speed Europe if we don't want to go along with the rest of Europe due to lets see some aversion to legalese or some conspiracy theory or some fear of abortion or wait for it a I can't be bothered understanding what the treaty is about attitude or I will misrepresent it to further some barely hidden agenda attitude.
And they will.
Mind you,if you read all this thread which I'm doubting,you'll have seen my fairly substantive views on this already.0 -
This thread is moving fast, OscarBravo I was giving my opinion that I believed the document may have been deliverately over complicated.
In respect of the Nice comparison, it doesn't really apply as it stands at the minute as the second vote for Nice included changes most notably the addition of new 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.
So if they ammend or clarify the Lisbon treaty to address some of the Irish issues and then ask for a second vote it will be the same as voting again on Nice on if enough is done I would vote Yes and I'd guess a majority would too, but to compare Nice at the moment doesn't make sense imo0 -
But I thought they were our friends?
That's not fighting the good fight, that's being a smartarse. If you don't have something of substance to contribute, don't contribute.Last reply was facetious I know, but I've been fighting the good fight all night.
What legal basis is there for preventing 26 countries from entering into a new treaty, and leaving us as the sole member of the "old" EU?I'm not ok with them going ahead without us. There are current treaties in place.
A lot of people give that opinion, but not one of them can even give a compelling reason why it might be the case, never mind produce any actual evidence for it. This isn't a forum for the airing of paranoid theories; there's an entire forum dedicated to that.This thread is moving fast, OscarBravo I was giving my opinion that I believed the document may have been deliverately over complicated.
There was no change to the Nice treaty between referenda. As you've pointed out, the text of the constitutional amendment was changed.In respect of the Nice comparison, it doesn't really apply as it stands at the minute as the second vote for Nice included changes most notably the addition of new Article 29.4.9:
So if they ammend or clarify the Lisbon treaty to address some of the Irish issues and then ask for a second vote it will be the same as voting again on Nice on if enough is done I would vote Yes and I'd guess a majority would too, but to compare Nice at the moment doesn't make sense imo
I've asked before: what do you want to see clarified before Lisbon can go to another vote?0 -
Only if we make it mandatory for wives and husbands to vote on the disolution of their marriage everytime theres a row... :rolleyes:
As said already voting for a government is voting for people to take decisions and a reasonable timeframe to judge the outcome of their decisions.
We get that opportunity every five years.
But you can't have it both ways....
either a misinformed electorate is a reason to re-vote or it's not... be that referendum or government.....0 -
No, no, it's ok; they have faces. Look, here's Nicolas and here's Angela. Feel better now?If europe turns out the way sarkozy and merkel and the other faceless bureaucrats want...
This thread is making my computer bleed...0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »A lot of people give that opinion
Including that French gent with the long name who drafted the EU constitution.0 -
But you can't have it both ways....
either a misinformed electorate is a reason to re-vote or it's not... be that referendum or government.....
I think that depends on which way the first vote goes - if it's a yes vote the fact that people were misinformed shouldn't be focused on. We don't need answers to see why people voted yes because we can assume they were informed, and, even if they weren't, it's not really important once the correct vote is passed.0 -
Advertisement
-
I just did...
You showed me an excerpt from a treaty which amends two other treaties. It's not meant to be read on it's own, that's impossible. No one is claiming that you can read it on it's own. It's not that way purposely to disguise some hidden agenda. The consolidated treaties are readable, but you do require some understanding of legalese as it is a legal document. The referendum commission explained all of the contentious issues that the treaty addressed quiet well (with room for improvement).but i can see this is a bit of a pointless debate really what with all the examples you have provided of how this will benefit the irish people. Most irish people would be against misuse and abuse of power, the death penalty thing you know but hey i can see where it would be advantageous to be in a european superstate with a super army and probably conscription if there was ever a serious war. Yes im sure the irish would love that given our status of neutrality over the past say 80 years of our existance.
Are you a member of pana? We are not obligated to get involved militarily in any conflict! Legally we can't without a security council resolution! Conscription is about as likely as forcing us all to speak German.The negatives are outweighing all those great benefits i can see which you have pointed out of being in a new super european fascist state. No thanks, but feel free to discuss how great it will be. And how exactly is giving greater powers to the european parliment to override ours a good thing? You seem to think so. Some faceless bureaucrat in brussels decides he wants to tweak our privacy laws and thats a good thing? And say people complained who would they go to. They could no longer contact their local t.d because he wouldn't have any control over it. Oh yes that sounds like a great idea....
You didn't even read my 10 benefits. We don't give powers from our parliament to the EU parliament, the council and commission give some of their powers to the EU parliament, the most democratic institution in the EU, increasing democracy.
Some faceless bureaucrat can't tweak any laws. You have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how legislation passed in the EU. The Council consisting of ministers from each country must vote to pass it and so must the directly elected parliament. It's far more detailed than that if you want to learn more (Which I know you don't) wikipedia explains all the legislative procedures quiet well. You had the opportunity to vote so did I.
And those 'faceless bureaucrats' that pass laws all ironically have names and faces. You can find a directory which gives a name, face, telephone number, address, email, fax and even qualifications and a bit of history right here. I voted for Eoin Ryan, who did you vote for?Just one final thing though and i'd like to know what leads you to trust these politicans in brussels or sarkozy and co? Why such enthusiasm towards these people. What have they ever done to show you can trust or believe them. Do you not know of how corrupt these people are or do you care?
It's not a matter of trust because I am not taking them on blind faith. I can read the consolidated treaty I can examine the issues for myself and I can make up my own mind. You don't seem to have properly examined anything. You seem to have take pana and sinn fein at their word without examining the evidence for yourself. In my opinion you don't want to look for evidence you just want to buy into a conspiracy theory wholesale, because like all conspiracy theorists you get some sort of nutty satisfaction out of it.0 -
I don't know if a revote would even work to be honest such is the laxadasical approach of the don't know couldn't be bothered to know and the stick it to them brigade that form such a large part of the no vote.But you can't have it both ways....
either a misinformed electorate is a reason to re-vote or it's not... be that referendum or government.....
The only way that will be brought home to that cohort is through their pockets.
Then it's too late.0 -
This is more of the same rubbish.nacho libre wrote: »I think that depends on which way the first vote goes - if it's a yes vote the fact that people were misinformed shouldn't be focused on. We don't need answers to see why people voted yes because we can assume they were informed, and, even if they weren't, it's not really important once the correct vote is passed.
If you were misinformed and the "yes" vote is so unbeneficial aka harmfull,then you hit your government in the ballot box because like,the consequences of the Yes vote being bad would be plain to see n'est pas?
I've not seen a government party yet that likes to lead us into a position that would harm an economy and thats what matters here.
The EU is good for our Economy,it always has been.
We are however facing down a situation where we can be easily locked out of the new higher speed Europe that won't be halted by little old Ireland.
I'll tell you what will be halted though..
Our Economy will,when the real EU (minus input from us-as we'll be told to leave the room in that new decision making club) speeds on with levels of cooperation that has negative impacts on jobs growth here and positive benefits for jobs in the rest of the EU.0 -
To add. In regards to 'faceless bureaucrats' you can find the names of everyone who sit's on any council of the European Union here. You should at least be familiar with the Irish members (hint! they are our government ministers).
You can also find all the commissioners here. We are not represented by our commissioner. If you want to contact the commission in regards to certain issues you must contact the relevant commissioners, e.g. concerning agriculture contact the commissioner for agriculure, concerning multilingualism contact the commissioner for multilingualism.
Please don't say you don't know who make laws and implements policy at the EU ever again.0 -
This is more of the same rubbish.
If you were misinformed and the "yes" vote is so unbeneficial aka harmfull,then you hit your government in the ballot box because like,the consequences of the Yes vote being bad would be plain to see n'est pas?
I've not seen a government party yet that likes to lead us into a position that would harm an economy and thats what matters here.
The EU is good for our Economy,it always has been.
We are however facing down a situation where we can be easily locked out of the new higher speed Europe that won't be halted by little old Ireland.
I'll tell you what will be halted though..
Our Economy will,when the real EU (minus input from us-as we'll be told to leave the room in that new decision making club) speeds on with levels of cooperation that has negative impacts on jobs growth here and positive benefits for jobs in the rest of the EU.
disregarding the usual scaremongery,
whether they(the politicians) are of good intentions, or voting yes is actually beneficial, is irrevelant, the point is if you are advocating a re-run on the basis of the electorate being misinformed, it should work both ways.0 -
nacho libre wrote: »disregarding the usual scaremongery,
whether they(the politicians) are of good intentions, or voting yes is actually beneficial, is irrevelant, the point is if you are advocating a re-run on the basis of the electorate being misinformed, it should work both ways.
But the trouble is once you have signed a legal document you are legally bound to it and can't easily get out of it. Voting yes to a treaty (or an election for that matter) is the same thing as signing a legal document and voting no to it in another ballot does not give the country the right to break the treaty they have already signed. If we break the treaty other countries are not bound by their obligations to us either. So if we signed the lisbon treaty and then broke it they could kick us out of the common market, currency and every other area of the EU.0 -
Voting yes to a treaty (or an election for that matter) is the same thing as signing a legal document
No it isn't. Voting yes in a referendum isn't anything like signing a legal document. Signing the legal document in the case of the Lisbon treaty would be the parliament ratifying the treaty. Until that happens nothing has been signed by anyone.sink wrote:and voting no to it in another ballot does not give the country the right to break the treaty they have already signed.
It does if the treaty hasn't been ratified by the parliament in the period between the two referendums. If there is another referendum and it gets passed, I would expect the government to delay ratification until such time as it has been determined that ignorance didn't place a decisive role in the outcome.0 -
No it isn't. Voting yes in a referendum isn't anything like signing a legal document. Signing the legal document in the case of the Lisbon treaty would be the parliament ratifying the treaty. Until that happens nothing has been signed by anyone.
Ok you caught me out there. I should have said 'like', I was using the legal document as an analogy. Once a yes vote is cast then the government will ratify which is signing a legal document. Just because there is an extra step in the middle does not change the outcome of the result. My point still stands.It does if the treaty hasn't been ratified by the parliament in the period between the two referendums. If there is another referendum and it gets passed, I would expect the government to delay ratification until such time as it has been determined that ignorance didn't place a decisive role in the outcome.
Fair point. I'm not sure how practical it would be as it was pointed out before that deciding when the demos are well informed is a very subjective thing, and it is up to the government which will use it's subjective view to decide. Unless you propose handing this power to another body? Which would be difficult to hold democratically accountable.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
You showed me an excerpt from a treaty which amends two other treaties. It's not meant to be read on it's own, that's impossible. No one is claiming that you can read it on it's own. It's not that way purposely to disguise some hidden agenda. The consolidated treaties are readable, but you do require some understanding of legalese as it is a legal document. The referendum commission explained all of the contentious issues that the treaty addressed quiet well (with room for improvement).
Are you a member of pana? We are not obligated to get involved militarily in any conflict! Legally we can't without a security council resolution! Conscription is about as likely as forcing us all to speak German.
You didn't even read my 10 benefits. We don't give powers from our parliament to the EU parliament, the council and commission give some of their powers to the EU parliament, the most democratic institution in the EU, increasing democracy.
Some faceless bureaucrat can't tweak any laws. You have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how legislation passed in the EU. The Council consisting of ministers from each country must vote to pass it and so must the directly elected parliament. It's far more detailed than that if you want to learn more (Which I know you don't) wikipedia explains all the legislative procedures quiet well. You had the opportunity to vote so did I.
And those 'faceless bureaucrats' that pass laws all ironically have names and faces. You can find a directory which gives a name, face, telephone number, address, email, fax and even qualifications and a bit of history right here. I voted for Eoin Ryan, who did you vote for?
It's not a matter of trust because I am not taking them on blind faith. I can read the consolidated treaty I can examine the issues for myself and I can make up my own mind. You don't seem to have properly examined anything. You seem to have take pana and sinn fein at their word without examining the evidence for yourself. In my opinion you don't want to look for evidence you just want to buy into a conspiracy theory wholesale, because like all conspiracy theorists you get some sort of nutty satisfaction out of it.
Nutty satisfaction? So thats how you view people with a different opinion to your own. Nice attitude you have there. Its easy to label someone who disagrees with you a 'nutty conspiracist'. Am i detecting a little veiled anger? I must be one of those 'stupid people' who didn't vote the right way..
'It's not a matter of trust because I am not taking them on blind faith. I can read the consolidated treaty I can examine the issues for myself and I can make up my own mind' .The treaty is manmade not the other way round, it can always be changed by the persons who created it as we will see them do to appease the irish no voters to get them to vote the 'correct way'. So yes my question still remains.
Anyways i did read through your 10 points on the benefits of the e.u constitution but please give me time to retort. You are bascially saying that centralisation of power is a good thing for ireland. This is where i fundamentally disagree. But lets address the points.
1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%
Again not a good thing. How is centralisation of power and law a good thing when it halves our voting bloc and doubles other large countries such as germanys. Handing over over 70 areas of control in decision making and law to major voting blocs with more voting power then us ensures we will be on a loser every time.
2.The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally
Yes and abolishes ireland's commissioner for five years at a time as the treaty will introduce rotatation. So if we have no seat for 5 of every 15 years we will not be able to have an effect legislation passed that will have a direct effect on us.
3.The Councils must meet in the open
Yes and what goes on behind closed doors will be not be discussed im sure
4. Greater role for EU peacekeepers
The creation of a e.u military for defence and strengthening as a counter weight in the world to the united states and china. Peace keeping? Don't kid yourself in thinking merkel, sarkozy and co really care about peace keeping. E.U battlegroups was the start. Of course lisbon also means ireland will have to up its expenditure on military infrastructure to match the requirements of the other states in the e.u and given people's attitude's to military and our current military infrastructure i.e basically non existant im sure people will be only glad to fork out taxpayers money for brand new shiny jets and tanks. Peacekeeping activities is just a way for european leaders to assess how well the various countries are working together. And yes the manditory military service issue is one i have no doubt will come when the leaders decide we need to flex our muscle on the world stage, but this will not be disccused before we sign up to the treaty for fear we will scupper their plans as a french minister has recently admitted. More glory making for former imperalist powers like france and germany. Sarkozy seems particularly interested in this area. Of course our neutrality will pretended to be acknowldeged so we will vote yes in the next treaty rehash then quickly ignored and legislation passed to null this when we pass over defence powers to europe which have been hidden behind purposefully designed unintelligible text and treaty references.
The treaty would also allow for european armed forces to act without a mandate from the united nations.
5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies
Yes the famous ghg effect which is bascially a way for new carbon laws to be passed based on emissions a priority for the e.u, why ?because its a new form of taxation for them on companies. Don't kid yourself thinking that the e.u really cares about the environment they didn't for years until they found out the taxation of emissions could be a very lucrative market indeed.
6. . Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing
The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.
Don't forget to mention that it means that data privacy laws of individuals can be abused too, for the good of the motherland..
Now heres some more interesting facts about lisbon
- It opens the door to the european union act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. This means that determining our own rate of taxation something which has been so important to our economic growth over the last 25 years will be taken out of our hands.
- Irish law will take a backseat to european legislation and laws
The treaty stipulates that if we had voted an ammendment would be made to the irish constitution allowing european law to override irish law.
ARTICLE 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 ARTICLE 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.”
This means we would never have another referendum again in ireland on issues of importance to the country such as abortion because if european law overrides irish law(a nice little trick) they could change our constitutional right to even have referendums.
Death penalty - In accepting the lisbon treaty we will be accepting the european union charter which states that the death penalty will be allowed in ' cases of war, riots, upheaval'
Again nobody has addressed this i notice you've stayed far away from this particular point because you would to present a rosy picture of englargement for us all. In fact the langauge used by many of the parties who supported the treatyis reminds me very much of communist and fascist slogans used in the past and present day. Anything for the 'greater good' i.e 'europe its good for us all' does not seek to appease the individual or considers the individual even important. I haven't heard one good reason to convince me that this is in ireland's best interests and there are far too many loopholes within the treaty itself to be seen as anything other then an attempt to pull the wool over the irish people's eye's.
No doubt you'll bang on about how great enlargement will be, however, in every one of your arguments for this you are assuming that centralisation and handover our our soverignity is a good thing. This is done whilst ignoring and overlooking the serious implications of the text contained within the treaty with a sense of irrelevance when it comes to areas such as soverign laws, taxation, defence spending, human rights, immigration(which will be controlled by europe and we will have no say if lisbon passed), areas to which any country that claims to be democratic does not compromise on. Yet the parties that want enlargement seem so willing to give these up for' the greater good'. The very fact they have asked for votes in france, holland and ireland and were rejected and now are asking again shows how they view the people's opinion. They are assuming people are stupid, in fact they have decided that themselves, they must be because they didn't agree with their leaders and its the leaders opinions that matter and not the people's. If this is the behaviour they are showing now imagine what they will up to once we sign away our powers and law making to them.
Its too late when this is passed, theres no going back thats why its so important to vote no again until they get the message loud and clear. NO MEANS NO!....and on that point that i close my argument.0
Advertisement