Way to address the Lisbonissue?

Boggle

Was watching tv last night (Q&A or primetime or whatever) and the issue of Lisbon came up again. As usual it wass full of media monkeys (people of little to no personality or intelligence who are trained to say what people want to hear) who basically said that Lisbon would be run again as soon as they figured out how to safely do it - from my understanding, a rerun of the same referendum could be deemed illegal and/or prove hugely unopular as people resent having treaties shoved down their throat.

Basically, I may have a very simple way around this - ask us.
Why dont they run a dual referendum which both asks if:-
a) People want a second referendum on lisbon
b) People want to approve Lisbon

Its messy but if the majority of people want no second referendum then the second question can be ignored and the status quo maintained - if however people feel they were duped the first time and do want a second referendum, then surely they should be entitled to do so - whether it be to change their minds or to shut the government up once an for all.

The no side shouldn't complain as its main argument is the perservation of democracy and they have a 75% chance for the treaty to be stopped as it requires both a and b to return YES. The yes side has their second bite of the cherry and, although they'd have to work for it as they'd have to be sure that people DID vote no for the wrong reasons (their argument for a second referendum anyway) AND that they now want the treaty.

Anyone any thoughts on ths? Would it quell the arguments and discontents on both sides or can people see problems with it??

(If it has any rellevence to this thread I'll state that I was a no voter who favours EU membership and I am worried that the perceived bullying of the electorate in favour of the EU may be damaging in the long run and lead to us to wanting to leave the EU - a situation which could be much more damaging)

One caveat I would like from the EU though is an statement that, should the treaty come back as a no a second time, then it will review the treaty and engage with the public to see where its gone wrong and why its suddenly so unpopular with the electorate of the only country which has ratified via referendum. (This undertaking alone may rove sufficient in my mind to satisfy many of the worries of the no side also)

Kama

Hehe I kinda like it. The referendum-on-referendums sounds silly, but makes a fair bit of sense, and does actually address most standard arguments from either side. I'd be +1 on it, anyway, for the little that's worth. Expect your final caveat to be spun as 'Irish issue diktat to Europe' tho

Kudos for articulating a possible solution btw, more of that sort of thing!

oscarBravo

Boggle wrote: »

One caveat I would like from the EU though is an statement that, should the treaty come back as a no a second time, then it will review the treaty and engage with the public to see where its gone wrong and why its suddenly so unpopular with the electorate of the only country which has ratified via referendum. (This undertaking alone may rove sufficient in my mind to satisfy many of the worries of the no side also)

What happens if the engagement with the public comes back with the same canards of abortion and conscription?

turgon

Boggle wrote: »

Anyone any thoughts on ths? Would it quell the arguments and discontents on both sides or can people see problems with it??

Well the ignorant No brigade (composed of both blatantly deluded No people (conscription etc) and those who dont have a clue and as opposed to the reasonable No brigade) will kick up some fuss, however I couldnt imagine them having a fundamental opposition to it given the included option to publicly boycott as it were.

However if question A returns a NO vote it will be seen as hugely euroskeptic - as in we dont even want to discuss lisbon again out of our faces please.

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

What happens if the engagement with the public comes back with the same canards of abortion and conscription?

Have a general cul of all far left and far right groups. I doubt anyone would miss them ...

Seriously though, maybe there should be some form of questionaire that requires answering before voting.

For example - "Is the possibility of Conscription included in the Treaty?"

If it can be thoroughly proven there isnt then all those voters who said yes have there vote invalidated.

Boggle

Well the ignorant No brigade (composed of both blatantly deluded No people (conscription etc) and those who dont have a clue and as opposed to the reasonable No brigade) will kick up some fuss

True, but at least you have the fact that people are at least being asked if they want a second referendum. Its at least democratic in that they are being asked and it has to be argued that those who's arguments consisted solely of lies are the only ones who would not want these lies to be debated once more. Like I said, I'd be currently no on the issue but I want it put to bed for the sake of, not only the country, but the EU as a body.

However if question A returns a NO vote it will be seen as hugely euroskeptic - as in we dont even want to discuss lisbon again out of our faces please.

A no is a no. The debating and the arguing will be one at that point so people will have all the information. If, armed with the information, the same people don't think it should have been forced again then someone really has to worry about the EU project and heads EU wide should roll. If people see the least bit of acccountability coming back from Europe it will re-rail the process I think. Anyway, if the EU reviews its situation and decides there is nothing wrong with where they are going despite such a blatant rebuttal then we have ask the ugly question about whether EU membership is a good thing in the long term for our children.

What happens if the engagement with the public comes back with the same canards of abortion and conscription?

Then go to Europe seeking a declaration against such arguments and have that declaration added to the treaty as an appendix (of sorts). At the very least, it removes the requirement for the first question as the treaty has been amended.

suckslikeafox

Boggle wrote: »

Basically, I may have a very simple way around this - ask us.
Why dont they run a dual referendum which both asks if:-
a) People want a second referendum on lisbon
b) People want to approve Lisbon

If this was done it would be basically saying to people "well do you want Lisbon or do you want us to get a better Lisbon for you to vote on?"

Far as I can see its a redundant question, its like me asking you "do you want me to give you €5 now or come back a little later with more that €5?"

A no-brainer as far as i can see

Tipsy Mac

I'd be in favour of a rerun only if every country in Europe allowed their people to also vote. So far no other country except Ireland has publicly voted and we said No.

Boggle

If this was done it would be basically saying to people "well do you want Lisbon or do you want us to get a better Lisbon for you to vote on?"

I don't get you.
If they say no to having a second referendum then they say no to a second referendum full stop and that ends it here. No more than that.
If they say no to Lisbon, then we are in the same position as we are now except, either way, the government know that they will have to represent our opinion within Europe. If thats a problem to you then fair enough.

If we get a better deal(ie one in which the prevailing concerns are addressed) having had a proper and targeted debate and having the current version discounted then so be it - better than stalling and stopping the EU process. Don't forget the EU's hands are tied right now as, like it or not, if we say no then its dead - that was the agreement - and going back on your word just once will deservedly finish the EU project.

Oh, and just thought of one more request I'd make of all politicians in it would be that if asked a question which has a yes or no answer, they'd start with the yes or no answer and expand after that, instead of waffling on for ages and hoping by the end that people have forgotten the original question or that the tv show is out of time...

Scofflaw

suckslikeafox wrote: »

If this was done it would be basically saying to people "well do you want Lisbon or do you want us to get a better Lisbon for you to vote on?"

Far as I can see its a redundant question, its like me asking you "do you want me to give you €5 now or come back a little later with more that €5?"

A no-brainer as far as i can see

Except that since what happens is a renegotiation with the other 26 countries also renegotiating their preferred bits, the question goes something more like this: "do you want €5 now, or will I come back after I've discussed with my mates how much we should give you?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

True Scofflaw, but seems as we have rejected €5, I doubt they would offer less!!

suckslikeafox

Boggle wrote: »

I don't get you.
If they say no to having a second referendum then they say no to a second referendum full stop and that ends it here. No more than that.
If they say no to Lisbon, then we are in the same position as we are now except, either way, the government know that they will have to represent our opinion within Europe. If thats a problem to you then fair enough.

But who would say no to going away and getting an improved deal to vote on? Only eurospectics (sp?) and they wont vote yes to anything apart from ending our membership. Renegotiation would not be a problem to me, with some changes I would happily support the treaty

Oh, and just thought of one more request I'd make of all politicians in it would be that if asked a question which has a yes or no answer, they'd start with the yes or no answer and expand after that, instead of waffling on for ages and hoping by the end that people have forgotten the original question or that the tv show is out of time...

Ha id love that but I think it would take more than a European treaty to make them do that!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that since what happens is a renegotiation with the other 26 countries also renegotiating their preferred bits, the question goes something more like this: "do you want €5 now, or will I come back after I've discussed with my mates how much we should give you?".

But in any renegotiation nobodys going to give away any of the things that benefit them in favour of somebody else. And if there was a way to change the treaty so that it benefits absolutely everyone that would have been done originally

Boggle

I'd be in favour of a rerun only if every country in Europe allowed their people to also vote. So far no other country except Ireland has publicly voted and we said No.

I would like that option also but I think its a bigger issue than the treaty itself.
I'm not trying to fix Lisbon itself in a way either - just get to a place where the questions raised can be safely dealt with.
Surely, as I said above, any major concerns which are raised in the process could be clarified to our voters and added as an addendum to the treaty itself if these concerns are truly unfounded.

Imagine:
Electorate:Tax rate question?
EU: No issue as it is unfounded - here you go, I'll add it as an addendum to the treaty.
Electorate: No more tax rate question.

Except that since what happens is a renegotiation with the other 26 countries also renegotiating their preferred bits, the question goes something more like this: "do you want €5 now, or will I come back after I've discussed with my mates how much we should give you?".

Exactly, people forget that a renegotiation has to be approved by all states and could come out worse a second time around as some countries may play a harder ball. Also, a second time around, a mechanism could be included to allow for No's to be removed from the EU.

Boggle

suckslikeafox wrote:

A no-brainer as far as i can see

Why? Does it allow for the referendum to be safely and democratically brought forward again?
If so then it is a success.

If your argument against it is that you voted no and you want a better deal now well, whats the rush? In this situation, questions have been raised regarding the legitimacy of the arguments and thats what the first question is for. If people are happy that they voted based on the appropriate knowledge then they say no. If they say yes and still say no to the referendum, then surely this is the worst possible outcome for europe - one which would have to send shockwaves through Europe as it would be emphatic. By the way, what better deal can you expect for us (barring the appointment of a full time commissionerr for all countries which I agree with)? Don't forget, our voting weight by far exceeds what would be expected for a country of 4 million people out of (How many in Europe??).

oscarBravo

Boggle wrote: »

Electorate:Tax rate question?
EU: No issue as it is unfounded - here you go, I'll add it as an addendum to the treaty.
Electorate: No more tax rate question.

How about:

Electorate: Abortion question?
EU: No issue as it is unfounded - here you go, I'll add it as a protocol to the treaty.
Electorate: No to Lisbon, in part because of fears about abortion.

This has already happened. What's the point in adding assurances to the treaty, when the electorate have shown themselves unwilling to accept those assurances?

Boggle

This has already happened. What's the point in adding assurances to the treaty, when the electorate have shown themselves unwilling to accept those assurances?

A verbal assurance from some or any poltician who may or may not be right (depending on the complexity of the treaty) is pretty irrelevent with regard to a specific and binding declaration which is written into the treaty.

How can you even consider comparing the two??

Scofflaw

Boggle wrote: »

This has already happened. What's the point in adding assurances to the treaty, when the electorate have shown themselves unwilling to accept those assurances?

A verbal assurance from some or any poltician who may or may not be right (depending on the complexity of the treaty) is pretty irrelevent with regard to a specific and binding declaration which is written into the treaty.

How can you even consider comparing the two??

I think the point being made is that there is a pretty solid reassurance already written into the Treaties in respect of abortion - Protocol (No 35) On Article 40.3.3 Of The Constitution Of Ireland:

"Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland."

Article 40.3.3 of Bunreacht:

"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

Could it be more specific? Yet, despite writing into the Treaties that nothing in the Treaties - or any law or treaties subsequently amending them or adding to them - nothing at all in the domain of EU legislation (all of which is based on the Treaties, and limited in scope to the application of the Treaties), can affect our Constitutional Amendment on Abortion - still a good chunk of people thought Lisbon would enforce the legality of abortion on Ireland.

despairingly,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Boggle wrote: »

A verbal assurance from some or any poltician who may or may not be right (depending on the complexity of the treaty) is pretty irrelevent with regard to a specific and binding declaration which is written into the treaty.

How can you even consider comparing the two??

Is this:

Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in
the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of
Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

...not specific and binding enough for you?

edit: snap!

Boggle

Is this:
Quote:
Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in
the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of
Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

...not specific and binding enough for you?

It is for me, although I'm not the one your trying to convince on aborton. Would an addendum (call it addendum for dummies/clarification purposes or whatever) stating specifically that this "The EU cannot enforce abortion in Ireland", particularly if it actually is (unbelievably) a real issue, kill them?!? Would it change the treaty? Would it shut coir up??
If you can't convince 99% of the people about this you would have to be a failure...

edit: snap!

edit: taking credit for scofflaws posts is a little light. Intentionally ignoring the fact that there's no substitute for clear and concise language is even worse I'm afraid. (edit, edit: ??snap?!?:P)

oscarBravo

Boggle wrote: »

It is for me, although I'm not the one your trying to convince on aborton. Would an addendum (call it addendum for dummies/clarification purposes or whatever) stating specifically that this "The EU cannot enforce abortion in Ireland", particularly if it actually is (unbelievably) a real issue, kill them?!?

It does state that. It states it in language appropriate to a treaty, but it states it nonetheless.

Would it shut coir up??

I suspect that's a physical impossibility.

If you can't convince 99% of the people about this you would have to be a failure...

The people were told about this. The people didn't want to know. The people would rather believe Cóir's lies than actually find out the truth.

edit: taking credit for scofflaws posts is a little light. Intentionally ignoring the fact that there's no substitute for clear and concise language is even worse I'm afraid. (edit, edit: ??snap?!?:P)

Harsh, man.

tolosenc

Regards double referendum:
Hows about: I wish to accept the terms of the treaty of Lisbon, and not annul the treaty of Rome.

suckslikeafox wrote: »

Far as I can see its a redundant question, its like me asking you "do you want me to give you €5 now or come back a little later with more that €5?"

At best, it'll be a little less than a fiver, and maybe not a kick in the face.

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

I'd be in favour of a rerun only if every country in Europe allowed their people to also vote. So far no other country except Ireland has publicly voted and we said No.

Germany - referenda on issues like this are illegal, as they are charcteristic of Hitler

Both Luxembourg and Spain voted yes, as people here have said hundreds of times.

turgon wrote: »

True Scofflaw, but seems as we have rejected €5, I doubt they would offer less!!

They could try damn hard, but probably couldn't give us any more even if they wanted. I mean, Ireland's deal was nearly the sweetest of all the countries.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

True Scofflaw, but seems as we have rejected €5, I doubt they would offer less!!

Which is where the analogy rather breaks down! We could extend it again, by saying that we were offered €5 in a combination of odd currencies which we didn't clearly understand the value of, and we refused to say why we refused the deal.

But in any renegotiation nobodys going to give away any of the things that benefit them in favour of somebody else. And if there was a way to change the treaty so that it benefits absolutely everyone that would have been done originally

Well, the problem we run into there is that it was our government who argued for keeping a lot of the things that were (apparently) found objectionable, such as the Commissioner deal - and indeed, most of the institutional changes. It's all in the DFA White Paper on the negotiations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boggle

It does state that. It states it in language appropriate to a treaty, but it states it nonetheless.

Completely agree with you here and, to my mind, it just illustrates how disastrous a campaign the yes side ran that they could not dispell this myth completely. Still, there's no substitute sometimes for using, and I mean no disrespect to coir or anyone here, "idiots" or "laymans" language in an addendum to put an argument to bed.

Quote:
Would it shut coir up??
I suspect that's a physical impossibility.

Unfortunately, fringe groups which border of fanatiscism are always going to exist so while you might not be able to shut them up, you can completely discredit their arguments. Although, in fairness, the govt were so disorganised, I could have argued that the treaty meant that we would all have to submit to bi-weekly anal probings and the yes rabble still couldn't prove otherwise.
(No disrespect intended to the posters on this site on both sides, many of whom did a far finer job of clarifying the treaty than any official source)

turgon

obl wrote: »

Both Luxembourg and Spain voted yes, as people here have said hundreds of times.

Just as France and the Netherlands also voted No to Lisbon :rolleyes:

djpbarry

Boggle wrote: »

...I mean no disrespect to coir...

As if they deserve respect.

Boggle wrote: »

Unfortunately, fringe groups which border of fanatiscism are always going to exist so while you might not be able to shut them up, you can completely discredit their arguments.

Most (if not all) of the arguments from the 'No' camp were utterly discredited; have a look at some of the threads on this forum in the run up to the Referendum for examples. But these same arguments were still offered by the electorate as reasons for voting 'No'.

Boggle wrote: »

...I could have argued that the treaty meant that we would all have to submit to bi-weekly anal probings and the yes rabble still couldn't prove otherwise.

How could they PROVE otherwise? How can you PROVE that something WILL NOT happen? You can say it's incredibly unlikely. You can give assurances; you can even incorporate these assurances into the text of the treaty (abortion). If that won't allay people's fears, then nothing will.