The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

The oft-repeated claim that Germany cannot have referenda is untrue. They cannot have national referenda, but can have regional state-referenda.

So you think that Germany should have a series of state referenda, to determine the will of the people regarding the Lisbon treaty. Do you require every German state to return a majority in favour? What if every state but one returns a majority in favour, but one returns a majority against? And so on.

Basically, you're demanding that a whole new mechanism be introduced in order to lend legitimacy to the Lisbon treaty - why? Because you feel there's a moral imperative. Germany didn't have a referendum to ratify Nice, or Maastricht, or Amsterdam, or... Does that mean that these treaties have no moral basis? What's so special about Lisbon, that you feel that it requires an entirely new mechanism for its ratification, that not one of the existing EU treaties required?

These are not rhetorical questions, and I'd appreciate straight answers.

My moral perspective goes like this: the politicians should only be allowed to act within a certain rulebook i.e. constitution, and that only the people should be able to change the rules themselves.

Great. That's how it works here. It's not how it works elsewhere. Who are you to dictate to other sovereign countries how they should do these things? Isn't that precisely the sort of thing the EU is (falsely) accused of?

On the question of which you put to referendum, I would put treaties affecting Irish sovereignty to referenda, as they are clearly in a special category of themselves.

Which we do. Other countries have their own approaches to this question, and those approaches are none of your business or mine - unless you happen to be a citizen of one of those countries.

The Tribunals show that it can take forever for political-corruption but that doesn't mean it's not happening. I have no proof, only a suspicion based on what happened with Haughey, Liam Lawlor, Burke and what has been discovered in terms of rampant corruption - especially in FF - during and since that era.

You suspect that the majority of politicians in the three main political parties have been receiving bribes from the EU?

Are you serious?

In a democracy you have to accept the decision of the people, which in this case was that Lisbon in its current form is unacceptable.

The decision was accepted. The treaty was not ratified. The quality of the decision-making has been questioned, so there's a case to be made for the decision to be re-evaluated.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

But the people of the country elected him knowing his euroskeptic views.

Actually the Czech President is elected by the Parliament, not the people. Klaus did a deal with the Communists to restore them to a modicum of respectability in exchange for their votes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually the Czech President is elected by the Parliament, not the people. Klaus did a deal with the Communists to restore them to a modicum of respectability in exchange for their votes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah but is the parliament that elects him not elected by the people?

Honestly I dont agree with him blocking it. I just found it funny that people who claim that elected politicians are the voice of the people and then gave out about one deciding whats best for his nation "on his own".

molloyjh

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Decades of FF govt in Ireland suggest otherwise.

I'm sorry I'm not sure what that has to do with the future of the EU....

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

It isn't just us its also the Czech republic and possibly Poland. I refuse to accept that small nations' concerns are not equal with those of Big States, and I also refuse to accept that these countries are alone in having peoples opposed to this Treaty. If the politicians believe only 1% of Europeans are against Lisbon, then they should have separate national referenda to prove it. They won't because it isn't true. Do you seriously believe that the British people support this Treaty? :rolleyes:

Have you any proof that the majority do not? Have you any prove that there is even a significant minority in Europe opposed to this Treaty? I'm sure there is opposition in every country, there always is. However I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is enough to warrant any real attention. Now if you can prove me wrong on that fire away. But remember that the Czech Parliament (elected by the people) have passed the Treaty and it is only their President (not elected by the people) that hasn't. As for Poland, didn't they try and claim that they should be getting a greater votng weight based on the number of people killed in WW2??? If so, then it would be fair to say that they are holding back on ratification as a bargaining chip, nothing more.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

More like he is one of the few elected Irish politicians to stand up to Brussels. It takes courage to swim against the tide.

Sometimes this is very much the case. And sometimes those swimming against the tide are not brave, but stupid. The tide isn't always wrong just as it is not always right.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Lisbon replaces the rotating presidency of the Council with one chosen by the European Council. Bertie and others including the current Danish and Luxembourg PMs have also been floated in the press as potential candidates. This is already in the public domain.

My bad....I somehow managed to interpret that as the Commission in my haste at lunch time. Ah sure it is Monday after all! :pac:

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Wrong. Lisbon had not even been drafted, let alone signed, when he was elected president. The Treaty was drafted and signed on 7-8th September 2007 and 13th December 2007 respectively. Sarkozy assumed the office of President of France on 16th May 2007. So he could not have been elected on a "pro-Lisbon" platform because the Treaty didn't even exist at that stage.

Sorry, maybe I should have been more literal, he ran on a platform that had as one of his policies pushing for a simplified treaty that would be ratified by the Parliament and not by referendum. That became the Lisbon Treaty, but his position on it was clear from the start.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2007#Electoral_issues

Nicolas Sarkozy (Union for a Popular Movement) proposed a simplified European treaty which would be ratified by the French Parliament instead of being submitted to a referendum.

So I wasn't in fact wrong......

ShooterSF wrote: »

But the people of the country elected him knowing his euroskeptic views.

As per Scofflaws post.....me and my overly long posts.......

ShooterSF

molloyjh wrote: »

As per Scofflaws post.....me and my overly long posts.......

See above

molloyjh

ShooterSF wrote: »

See above

Ah curse the overlap! :pac:

In any case all I was saying was that it is up to the Czech people to look for a referendum if they want one and that it is not our place or a single elected officials place to tell them whether they should or shouldn't hold one in a particular circumstance. Sure we all know that the Governments are not necessarily the voice of the people anyway, but its up to the people to make that call and do something about it in that eventuality.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you think that Germany should have a series of state referenda, to determine the will of the people regarding the Lisbon treaty. Do you require every German state to return a majority in favour? What if every state but one returns a majority in favour, but one returns a majority against? And so on.

Basically, you're demanding that a whole new mechanism be introduced in order to lend legitimacy to the Lisbon treaty - why? Because you feel there's a moral imperative. Germany didn't have a referendum to ratify Nice, or Maastricht, or Amsterdam, or... Does that mean that these treaties have no moral basis? What's so special about Lisbon, that you feel that it requires an entirely new mechanism for its ratification, that not one of the existing EU treaties required?

2 things are special about Lisbon. Firstly, it is the only EU Treaty in history to have been rejected (as the EU Constitution in its former guise) by 2 member states. And it is also the first time ever in EU history that national parliaments have ratified an EU treaty whose contents were rejected by their peoples who did not change their minds in a subsequent referendum. The Charter of Fundamental Rights being enshrined into EU law for the first time is another part of the answer. The National Forum on Europe's official summary of the Lisbon Treaty stated that the Charter considerably increased the jurisdiction of the court. I have read the Charter and have grave concerns about how the ECJ might interpret it. Everything from freedom of speech, asylum and immigration, our justice system, matters pertaining to the right to strike and work and scientific ethics will for the first time come fully under the jurisdiction of the ECJ if the govt does not come back with a Protocol opting us out of the Charter (Poland and the UK have such an optout). From my point of view that turns the ECJ into a Federal Supreme Court in all but name, considering all the jurisdiction it already has. That's a step too far for me in sovereignty-dilution terms. An important point on this matter is the need to distinguish between the ECJ and the ECHR. The former's rulings override national laws and the Irish Constitution, whereas those of the ECHR do not override the Irish Constitution. Furthermore, the ECJ is an EU institution whereas the ECHR is not. Lastly, in the ECJ, only 5 states - the big ones - have an automatic right to an Advocate-General on the court (they have 8 altogether), with the other 5 seats rotating among the remaining states. So an unelected body without a permanent Irish voice on the bench is going to be passing judgement through intepretation of the Charter in court-challenges from EU citizens and businesses perhaps for generations to come. Unlike the Irish Constitution which can be changed by referenda, the Charter can only be changed by unanimity and ratification of such changes at national level. As such, the Charter may well end up exerting the kind of longterm influence on human-rights issues in this country that the US Constitution has done. Again a marker of federalism.

These are not rhetorical questions, and I'd appreciate straight answers. Great. That's how it works here. It's not how it works elsewhere. Who are you to dictate to other sovereign countries how they should do these things? Isn't that precisely the sort of thing the EU is (falsely) accused of? Which we do. Other countries have their own approaches to this question, and those approaches are none of your business or mine - unless you happen to be a citizen of one of those countries. You suspect that the majority of politicians in the three main political parties have been receiving bribes from the EU?

Answered above. You are right in a way that if other countries don't want to have referenda, that is their business. But it is also the business of Irish people to take all factors into account in making their decisions, including what happens in other states. We cannot force them to do so, but neither do we have to play ball in helping them disenfranchise their respective peoples' from a direct say via referenda.

Are you serious? The decision was accepted. The treaty was not ratified. The quality of the decision-making has been questioned, so there's a case to be made for the decision to be re-evaluated.

The quality of the decision in any referenda is invariably going to be questioned by the losing side - remember the No Divorce campaign running to the Supreme Court to try to get the divorce referendum result struck down? If we took the position that the result being open to criticism justifies a second referendum, then there would be second referenda on everything and that isn't practical. Noone would be calling for a second referendum if the answer had been a yes - the implication being that only the yes voters were properly informed and the 840,000 no voters were not. That is not how I see it, and I believe that their reaction to the no vote reflects what the peoples of Europe dislike about the EU - their refusal to take no for an answer and their dismissive attitude to people who disagree with them and their concerns. That has a lot to do with why many on the no side feel that there is a democratic-deficit in Europe.

molloyjh wrote:

Have you any proof that the majority do not? Have you any prove that there is even a significant minority in Europe opposed to this Treaty? I'm sure there is opposition in every country, there always is. However I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is enough to warrant any real attention. Now if you can prove me wrong on that fire away. But remember that the Czech Parliament (elected by the people) have passed the Treaty and it is only their President (not elected by the people) that hasn't. As for Poland, didn't they try and claim that they should be getting a greater votng weight based on the number of people killed in WW2??? If so, then it would be fair to say that they are holding back on ratification as a bargaining chip, nothing more.

I'm startled that you ask that question. Even the pro-Lisbon Irish journalists admit that there is zero chance the British people - the most Eurosceptic in the EU - would vote for this. The French and Dutch have already voted no to the Treaty's evil-twin the EU Constitution. Czech polls have shown a public that is evenly-split with more opposed than in favour. The Dutch are also opposed in polls. If we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion we wouldn't have a General Election unless there was evidence the public did not support them. :rolleyes:

Here:

U.K. Polls

Polls show opponents of the treaty in the U.K. outnumber supporters two-to-one, and the majority of voters want a referendum, saying the accord is little different from the constitution.

Most Czechs against ratifying Lisbon Treaty: poll
11 July 2008, 19:40 CET
(PRAGUE) - Opposition to the European Union's Lisbon Treaty has hardened in the Czech Republic with a majority now saying it should not be ratified by parliament, according to a poll released Friday.

The survey, conducted in June by the STEM polling agency, found 53 percent of Czechs opposed to the treaty, with 47 percent in favour. A similar survey in April found 53 percent favoured the treaty's ratification.

Awareness of what the treaty means has not changed significantly.

Only 23 percent of the 1,244 respondents said they knew what changes the treaty would bring, 43 percent said they had no clear idea and 34 percent admitted they did not have the faintest idea about it.

The Lisbon Treaty, a crucial reform package for the 27-member bloc, must gain the unanimous approval of the EU's member states to take effect. It was rejected by Irish voters in a June 12 referendum.

The centre-right Czech government has decided to wait for a constitutional court decision before taking any position, while the head of state, President Vaclav Klaus, has described it as finished and is lobbying hard for parliament to scupper ratification.

Dutch Voters Would Reject Lisbon Treaty
June 20, 2008
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - If the Lisbon Treaty were put to a vote in the Netherlands it would be rejected, according to a poll by Maurice de Hond. 54 per cent of respondents would vote against the common body of law for the European Union (EU) if they could cast a ballot in a referendum, while 46 per cent would vote in favour.

Opposition to the treaty has increased by nine points since last September.

EU heads of state officially signed the European Constitution on Oct. 29, 2004. The project for a continental body of law was practically abandoned in 2005, after voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed document in two plebiscites.

In October 2007, leaders of the 27 EU member nations reached an agreement on the Lisbon Treaty and Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Lisbon Treaty provisions call for the creation of new posts, such as a foreign policy chief, and a High Representative who will answer to EU governments and serve as vice-president of the European Commission. The Charter will become legally binding in all EU member states except Britain, which negotiated an exemption.

The EU leaders would also choose a president of the European Council for a two and a half year renewable term. This will effectively eliminate the current six-month rotating presidency among member nations. The Lisbon Treaty also provides for the creation of a mutual defence clause, in case one of the member states is attacked.

If all countries ratify the treaty—whether through a referendum or a parliamentary vote—it will become effective in January 2009. Ireland, due to its internal regulations, is the only country that must hold a nationwide vote on the Lisbon Treaty, while other governments can decide whether they want to do the same. On Jun. 12, 53.4 per cent of Irish voters rejected the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty.

Earlier this month, the lower house of the Dutch legislature approved the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Dutch European affairs minister Frans Timmermans expressed satisfaction with the way legislators held what he called a "serious discussion" before the vote, saying, "The debate on the bill could serve as a model for close, painstaking consultation between parliament and the government."

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Firstly, it is the only EU Treaty in history to have been rejected (as the EU Constitution in its former guise) by 2 member states. And it is also the first time ever in EU history that national parliaments have ratified an EU treaty whose contents were rejected by their peoples who did not change their minds in a subsequent referendum.

You might have a point, except for the fact that the Lisbon treaty is not the EU Constitution. It's a different treaty, in part because it was modified to address some of the concerns that were expressed by those who voted down the Constitution.

It also must be noted that, in France's case, the fact of a referendum was relatively unusual; in general, France doesn't ratify EU treaties by referendum.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights being enshrined into EU law for the first time is another part of the answer. The National Forum on Europe's official summary of the Lisbon Treaty stated that the Charter considerably increased the jurisdiction of the court. I have read the Charter and have grave concerns about how the ECJ might interpret it. Everything from freedom of speech, asylum and immigration, our justice system, matters pertaining to the right to strike and work and scientific ethics will for the first time come fully under the jurisdiction of the ECJ if the govt does not come back with a Protocol opting us out of the Charter (Poland and the UK have such an optout). From my point of view that turns the ECJ into a Federal Supreme Court in all but name, considering all the jurisdiction it already has. That's a step too far for me in sovereignty-dilution terms.

First, the ECJ's jurisdiction extends only to the application of EU law. It has no say over national law - except insofar as that law implements EU law - and as such I don't buy the argument of dilution of sovereignty. Second, this whole argument is all very well in explaining your issue with Lisbon, but is in no way a compelling argument for forcing other member states to ratify international treaties in a way that suits your personal desires.

An important point on this matter is the need to distinguish between the ECJ and the ECHR. The former's rulings override national laws and the Irish Constitution, whereas those of the ECHR do not override the Irish Constitution. Furthermore, the ECJ is an EU institution whereas the ECHR is not.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but I'll reiterate that the ECJ's rulings apply only to the application of EU law in the member states.

Lastly, in the ECJ, only 7 states - the big ones - have an automatic right to a judge on the court, with the other 20 rotating.

Do you have a source for this? I don't believe it's true.

You are right in a way that if other countries don't want to have referenda, that is their business. But it is also the business of Irish people to take all factors into account in making their decisions, including what happens in other states. We cannot force them to do so, but neither do we have to play ball in helping them disenfranchise their respective peoples' from a direct say via referenda.

If the people of a country want a direct say by referendum, they should make that wish known to their government. If another member state told us that we shouldn't be ratifying by referendum, we'd tell them to bugger off and mind their own business.

The quality of the decision in any referenda is invariably going to be questioned by the losing side - remember the No Divorce campaign running to the Supreme Court to try to get the divorce referendum result struck down?

I'm not expressing a personal opinion as to the quality of the decision making. A substantial percentage admitted that they didn't understand what they were voting on. That's not acceptable.

If a TD was questioned after a parliamentary vote, and he shrugged and said "I didn't understand the question tbh" we'd call for his scalp - and rightly so. If you're going to get precious about the right of the people to have a say, you must insist that they at least make an informed decision.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

If another member state told us that we shouldn't be ratifying by referendum, we'd tell them to bugger off and mind their own business.

Equally if 20+ other states tell us that we should ratify it as we're the only ones that havent we have an equal right to tell them to bugger off.

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Equally if 20+ other states tell us that we should ratify it as we're the only ones that havent we have an equal right to tell them to bugger off.

Correct. However, the childish thing to do is to vote "no" because the others want us to vote "yes"; whereas the grown-up thing to do is to ignore them and make an informed and rational decision ourselves.

Eurosceptic2008

OscarBravo wrote:

First, the ECJ's jurisdiction extends only to the application of EU law. It has no say over national law - except insofar as that law imp

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah but is the parliament that elects him not elected by the people?

Honestly I dont agree with him blocking it. I just found it funny that people who claim that elected politicians are the voice of the people and then gave out about one deciding whats best for his nation "on his own".

And I find it equally hilarious that many who gave out yards about the idea of the "EU President" not being directly elected by the people of Europe are perfectly willing to hold Klaus up as some kind of shining hope for democracy. Something in it for everyone, really...

wryly,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

On the ECJ's composition, I stand over what I said except for two things. I meant to say Advocates-General. The 5 Big states actually have 8 AG's in total, with 5 others chosen from among the rest.

But that totally changes the weight of your argument. You originally argued (in effect) that the larger countries would be able to sway the direction of the court through their permanent presence on the Court. Now it turns out that the permanent presence is only that of AGs, which have a much less significant role in the court, and who are sworn to impartiality anyway.

All of which ignores the fact that the judges don't represent their member states any more than commissioners do, so the entire argument is a red herring.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. However, the childish thing to do is to vote "no" because the others want us to vote "yes"; whereas the grown-up thing to do is to ignore them and make an informed and rational decision ourselves.

I agree. It's annoying but we should vote on the issue. Im just sick of this how dare 1% of europe hold back the rest of it stuff. We had every right to vote no.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And I find it equally hilarious that many who gave out yards about the idea of the "EU President" not being directly elected by the people of Europe are perfectly willing to hold Klaus up as some kind of shining hope for democracy. Something in it for everyone, really...

wryly,
Scofflaw

Again I agree. I never said he was right I was simply pointing out the Hypocracy (sp?) of the comment in a joking fashion.

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

We had every right to vote no.

Yes, we did, and we have the right to vote "no" again. We also have a responsibility to inform ourselves about what we're voting for, and to accept the consequences of the decision we take.

Hypocracy (sp?)

"Hypocrisy".

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'm just sick of this how dare 1% of europe hold back the rest of it stuff. We had every right to vote no.

Well it is true in the sense that we are holding up ratification with our No vote. We do have every right to vote No, we have every right to leave the EU, the EU has no right to force us stay a member. The problem is that the EU is not a static entity, so the status quo argument isn't really that viable. The EU will change, we can't force it to stay the same when the rest of the club wants movement in certain directions and we can't get everything our own way. In exchange for some things we want, we'll probably have to give up other things, such is the reality of politics.

Eurosceptic2008

OBL is wrong when he claims the UK can't reverse the ratification. The Vienna Convention on Treaties makes it clear any country is free to pull out of a treaty.

sink

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

OBL is wrong when he claims the UK can't reverse the ratification. The Vienna Convention on Treaties makes it clear any country is free to pull out of a treaty.

Correct but once they pull out all aspects of the treaties are null and void so the rest of the EU could introduce tariffs on goods from the UK and require UK citizens to apply for visas to travel around Europe.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

OBL is wrong when he claims the UK can't reverse the ratification. The Vienna Convention on Treaties makes it clear any country is free to pull out of a treaty.

The Treaty of Lisbon is an amending treaty. Once passed, it ceases to have any separate existence. The UK would have to pull out of the treaties that Lisbon amends, thereby leaving the EU. Even in eurosceptic fantasy-land, that is an extremely unlikely event.

regards,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, we did, and we have the right to vote "no" again. We also have a responsibility to inform ourselves about what we're voting for, and to accept the consequences of the decision we take.

I agree though I wish the consequences weren't how many times are we going to this 'till we get it right?

"Hypocrisy".

Thanks! (Though I'll get it wrong again, that and ridiculous grrr)

djpbarry

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that the British people support this Treaty?

Do you seriously believe that the British people understand what this treaty entails?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

More like he is one of the few elected Irish politicians to stand up to Brussels. It takes courage to swim against the tide.

There’s a very fine line between bravery and stupidity.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

In a democracy you have to accept the decision of the people, which in this case was that Lisbon in its current form is unacceptable.

So unacceptable in fact that Mary Lou McDonald is (unbelievably) still calling for a renegotiation:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1202/1227910464232.html

Interesting that she doesn’t actually outline what this renegotiated treaty would look like. It makes me cringe to think that this woman represents me in Europe.

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

…we spent decades before the 1990's in the EU/EEC with mass-emigration and mass-unemployment.

Are you suggesting that this was the fault of the EU?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

In particular our politicians - especially the older ones - need to realise that we are now a rich country...

In terms of personal wealth, maybe. But in terms of infrastructure, we’re probably one of the poorest countries in the EU.

RedPlanet

djpbarry wrote: »

Interesting that she doesn’t actually outline what this renegotiated treaty would look like.

I don't find that to be true at all.

The article you've linked references SF's report on the pathetic "Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland’s future in the European Union".
Which, toward the bottom offers some amendments to Lisbon.
However, in this document SF clearly states :

"Section 3 - Recommendations
These changes do not represent Sinn Féin’s complete set of recommendations regarding the future direction of
the EU and what is required in a new Treaty. These recommendations address the key concerns raised at this subcommittee.
Go to www.no2lisbon.ie to access Sinn Féin’s document ‘A better deal for Ireland and the EU”

The document there, appears to spell out more detail on changes to Lisbon.

But obviously you could have simply followed the links from your story, couldn't be bothered?

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

"Go to www.no2lisbon.ie to access Sinn Féin’s document ‘A better deal for Ireland and the EU”

The document there, appears to spell out more detail on changes to Lisbon.

I'll present a detailed critique of that document later, but my initial impression is: what makes Sinn Féin so certain that the other 26 member states will be happy with their proposed changes?

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll present a detailed critique of that document later, but my initial impression is: what makes Sinn Féin so certain that the other 26 member states will be happy with their proposed changes?

I think that's what negotiation is all about OB.
SF have a lot of experience in that department.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll present a detailed critique of that document later, but my initial impression is: what makes Sinn Féin so certain that the other 26 member states will be happy with their proposed changes?

According to Mary Lou in today's Irish Times, we can use "the political goodwill which we have built up over many decades":

Mary-Lou McDonald wrote:

It is time that the Government stood up for the interests of the Irish people and used the political goodwill which we have built up over many decades. EU leaders will only move if the Irish Government leads the way. Sinn Féin is totally opposed to rerunning the referendum. It must be renegotiated.

There you go. We'll use the political goodwill.

the ironing is fecking delicious,
Scofflaw

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

I think that's what negotiation is all about OB.
SF have a lot of experience in that department.

SF have a lot of experience in international multilateral treaty negotiation now? I mean sure they've done a lot of negotiation with respect to the North but were they meaningfully involved in any past EU treaty negotiation?

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

SF have a lot of experience in international multilateral treaty negotiation now? I mean sure they've done a lot of negotiation with respect to the North but were they meaningfully involved in any past EU treaty negotiation?

Firstly, I didn't say that SF have a lot of experience in multilateral treaty negotiation, I said they had a lot of experience in negotiation.
I don't think that is a requirement for we the voters anyway is it?
When we send people to represent us we don't choose them on the basis of their "international multilateral treaty negotiation experience."
And i suspect that neither do our European neighbours.
Ian Paisley anyone?

Have the irish government even attempted to win any sort of re-negotiation of the Lisbon treaty?

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

Firstly, I didn't say that SF have a lot of experience in multilateral treaty negotiation, I said they had a lot of experience in negotiation.
I don't think that is a requirement for we the voters anyway is it?
When we send people to represent us we don't choose them on the basis of their "international multilateral treaty negotiation experience."
And i suspect that neither do our European neighbours.
Ian Paisley anyone?

But surely the type of negotiation experience that is most valuable here is that of negotiation between international parties? I mean it in terms of, do SF know what is possible at EU level given that they've not negotiated things at that level? Similar to how say the Greens wouldn't really know what negotiating in the North is like.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Have the irish government even attempted to win any sort of re-negotiation of the Lisbon treaty?

Wouldn't that they were involved in the first negotiation put them in a better position to tell if renegotiation is going to get us much? Wouldn't that all the parties who've been involved in EU politics at Governmental level, i.e. FF, FG and Labour, don't want to renegotiate indicate that the consensus among those with experience in the area is that the deal we're getting is about as good as we're going to get? That all the groups calling for renegotiation have never negotiated an EU treaty speaks volumes in my opinion.

RedPlanet

nesf wrote: »

FF, FG and Labour, don't want to renegotiate indicate that the consensus among those with experience in the area is that the deal we're getting is about as good as we're going to get? That all the groups calling for renegotiation have never negotiated an EU treaty speaks volumes in my opinion.

It doesn't matter what they may think, the people have said no, and it's their job to do our bidding.
Now, I'll ask the question again:
Have the irish government even attempted to win any sort of re-negotiation of the Lisbon treaty?
I'm not asking for reasons why they mighn't be attempting to re-negotiate it.

molloyjh

RedPlanet wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they may think, the people have said no, and it's their job to do our bidding.
Now, I'll ask the question again:
Have the irish government even attempted to win any sort of re-negotiation of the Lisbon treaty?
I'm not asking for reasons why they mighn't be attempting to re-negotiate it.

We haven't asked them to renegotiate so surely if they are just there to do our bidding they have no right to renegotiate? But then they also surely have no right to set the budget by that logic! :rolleyes: