The YES side were wrong or lied?

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

Micheál Martin says that the Government have responded to the NO posters saying "vote No to keep your commissioner" despite saying before the first vote this wasn't possible!

Who said it was not possible?

the_syco

Moriarty wrote: »

There will be no changes. The commission will spell out in big letters with crayons that the treaty didn't impact on any of the things the No campaign used as scare stories in the first campaign.

Font size 72 will be needed, I think.

molloyjh

WooPeeA wrote: »

No. Ireland will lose commissioner under current treaty anyway. Treaty of Lisbon won't make any change in that issue.

Strictly speaking thats not actually the case. The Nice Treaty stated that the Commission was to be reduced by 2009 but never specified any details as to how that would happen and who would "lose" out. The initial plan, which was then renegotiated as part of Lisbon, was to have the larger states retain permanent places on the Commission and the remaining states to have an equal rotation system. However, and if I'm not mistaken our Government played a large part in the renegotiation, the larger states agreed to the Lisbon method as part of the negotiations in part due to the fact that the "all politics is local" fear has been reduced significantly due to years of partnership within the Union.

jhegarty

WooPeeA wrote: »

Those who told you that Ireland will keep commissioner if you vote NO lied you.

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

sink

jhegarty wrote: »

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

As things stand now the commission is to be reduced at the end of Oct 2009 under the terms agreed to in the Nice treaty. The only way to change that is to ratify the Lisbon treaty which gives power to the European Council to change the size and shape of the Commission by unanimous agreement. So in essence the no vote last time did not guarantee our right to nominate a commissioner but a yes vote next referendum will.

molloyjh

jhegarty wrote: »

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

Again strictly speaking we don't have a Commissioner. There is currently an Irish person in a Commission position, but his job is to represent all of the EU in matters relating to his department, i.e. Internal Market and Services. He does not represent Ireland. And no decisions have been made regarding the Commission, although it is looking like they will be keepig all Commissioners. Its a bad idea IMO and could leave the door open for other nations to hold the EU to ransom in a similar way in future.

Oh and I never even realised that point sink, re voting Yes to Lisbon is the only way to prevent the Commission reduction. Duh!

WooPeeA

jhegarty wrote: »

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

I wouldn't give better answer than Sink and Molloyjh, right below your question.

T runner

Hindsight is a great thing, but now I'm sure the Yes side would have wished they thought of using declarations before the first referendum now.

I wonder will pre-emptive declarations be used with future EU referendums?

Villain

WooPeeA wrote: »

Those who told you that Ireland will keep commissioner if you vote NO lied you.

Really? Micheal Martin stated that because we voted no Ireland went back to the other EU Countries have got agreement on us keeping our Commisioner.

I think the NO side were spot on and the YES saying that there was no better deal if we voted no were wrong or lied

passive

Villain wrote: »

Really? Micheal Martin stated that because we voted no Ireland went back to the other EU Countries have got agreement on us keeping our Commisioner.

I think the NO side were spot on and the YES saying that there was no better deal if we voted no were wrong or lied

You seem so intent on thinking that is the case that you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary, so you might as well let the thread be closed.

sink

Villain wrote: »

I think the NO side were spot on and the YES saying that there was no better deal if we voted no were wrong or lied

A 'better deal' is a highly subjective thing. In my view this is a worse deal for Europe for in 10 years or so there will be 34 commissioners. That is 7 new portfolios that have to be invented or split off from others without any added benefit but with all the extra costs both in monetary terms and stifling bureaucracy.

sink

You think legislation on wonky fruit is pointless wait until you see what comes out of a commission of 34 where half the members have nothing to do all day but stroke their own egos. There really only needs to be 12-15 commissioners to do the job of the commission.

ShooterSF

molloyjh wrote: »

Again strictly speaking we don't have a Commissioner. There is currently an Irish person in a Commission position, but his job is to represent all of the EU in matters relating to his department, i.e. Internal Market and Services. He does not represent Ireland. And no decisions have been made regarding the Commission, although it is looking like they will be keepig all Commissioners. Its a bad idea IMO and could leave the door open for other nations to hold the EU to ransom in a similar way in future.

Oh and I never even realised that point sink, re voting Yes to Lisbon is the only way to prevent the Commission reduction. Duh!

Sooo if you're for keeping all the commissioners this time you vote Yes and if you're against you vote No?

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sooo if you're for keeping all the commissioners this time you vote Yes and if you're against you vote No?

Basically, yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

I dunno if its been getting coverage in Ireland, but the way it was announced over here was that the EU hoped to clear the way for a second referendum in Ireland.

There were several countries opposed to the change to the number of Comissioners...and as OB has pointed out, that one requires unanimity.

PHB

I'd argue this is a worse deal for Ireland personally.

What will happen now with commissioners is that we will continue to have 27/29 when new people join.
Some commissions are just more important than others, multilingualism for example. In a 15 body commission, all the commissions would be of pretty significant important. In a 27/29 member commission, there will be upper and lower commissioners. There however is no rotation system in place at all to ensure that people get fair representations.
IMO it will be worse for Ireland. And that's why quite a few countries will have serious problems with it, smaller countries rather than bigger ones, because they think that they'll be the ones with the crappy positions.

Beyond that, the legal smudge that will allow this commissioner deal to go through was only thought up after the No vote. I doubt FF were even aware of this.

This isn't a better deal. The protocols which will be attached to the treaty through the Croation assession are just assurances, but in reality, there was no chance of the stuff they talked about happening anyway, so its like getting an assurance that Germany wouldnt invade us.

Hattrick

Episode II - The Union Strikes Back
http://explicit.ie/union-strikes-back.jpg

I was heavily involved with the yes campaign and did a website for one of the major organisations pushing for a yes vote.

I cannot say if I'll be doing the same again as I am appalled by the response to the referendum by FF. Their reaction to the result was that the people voted wrong and we are going to change this. They immediately stated that the Treaty will not be renegotiated as Europe wasn't interested. For the sake of keeping face let's make a roadmap to say we "consulted" the people, staple on a few concessions but overall bring back the exact same document!

Some how I think we may just all vote yes anyway as we will be voting on it until the people get it "RIGHT"!

WooPeeA

Hattrick wrote: »

They immediately stated that the Treaty will not be renegotiated as Europe wasn't interested.

Why should Europe be interested in renegotiation? They were negotiating the final text for 3 years.

I don't even know which article could they renegotiate.. About voting? About common security? About what?

None of them was the reason for Irish to reject it. Of course some of "No" voters had some reasons, but I would risk to say that most of undecided had no reason or have believed in lies.

Hattrick

If Lisbon I was the best possible deal that could be achieved, does this mean we were lied to if they are now saying Lisbon II is better?

I'm not sure how I will vote this time but I do believe that the Government is being rushed into this by Europe. As a person who was heavily involved in the Yes campaign, I'm now seeing myself lean more towards the No side...

molloyjh

Hattrick wrote: »

If Lisbon I was the best possible deal that could be achieved, does this mean we were lied to if they are now saying Lisbon II is better?

I'm not sure how I will vote this time but I do believe that the Government is being rushed into this by Europe. As a person who was heavily involved in the Yes campaign, I'm now seeing myself lean more towards the No side...

I haven't heard anyone claim anything about the Treaty being "better". All the statements I have heard thus far talk about clarifying points and getting guarantees on existing points etc, which by definition mean no change to the Treaty itself.

I have a dis-similar view to yours though regarding who is pressuring who. We have managed to get agreement from the EU in a short few weeks regarding the Commission that goes against years of negotiation, all so that we can ensure a greater chance of a Yes vote. Our Government and the EU are pandering to a non-issue and could be opening up a totally different can of worms for themselves for the future......

Scofflaw

Hattrick wrote: »

Episode II - The Union Strikes Back
http://explicit.ie/union-strikes-back.jpg

I was heavily involved with the yes campaign and did a website for one of the major organisations pushing for a yes vote.

I cannot say if I'll be doing the same again as I am appalled by the response to the referendum by FF. Their reaction to the result was that the people voted wrong and we are going to change this. They immediately stated that the Treaty will not be renegotiated as Europe wasn't interested. For the sake of keeping face let's make a roadmap to say we "consulted" the people, staple on a few concessions but overall bring back the exact same document!

Some how I think we may just all vote yes anyway as we will be voting on it until the people get it "RIGHT"!

I have to say I don't see it that way at all. Much of the referendum campaign was fought on possible interpretations of the Treaty - that it might allow EU interference with our public services, our corporate taxation, neutrality, abortion, what have you. It was also fought on the basis that "a better deal is possible" even though it was stated in advance that it wasn't - that there was no appetite for renegotiation.

What is now being provided is guarantees that the Treaties will not be interpreted in the ways suggested by the various No campaigns - that Lisbon will not empower "the EU" to interfere with corporate tax, public services, neutrality, abortion, etc. These guarantees will be written into whatever the next Treaty the EU is involved in as Protocols.

What is not on offer, just as per the original statement, is renegotiation of Lisbon.

Further, the government campaign was extremely lacklustre, with a complete lack of positive messages, and starting extremely late after the Bertie stepdown and attendant switch of focus. Their failure to explain the reasons for the Treaty, the reasons for ratifying the Treaty, and the Irish part in negotiating the Treaty in the first place.

Now it's tempting to say "well tough, they still lost - they played badly", but this is not football. It's not about winning. It's about whether a treaty that Ireland negotiated and signed should be ratified by the people, because it is in the best interests of Ireland, or not. If that question is buried under mounds of false interpretation and blurred by the failure of the government to explain it, then of course we run it again. It's not about the government - it's about the Treaty. The last referendum was about anything but the Treaty - and if I am wrong about that, then the result will be another No anyway. I don't believe I am wrong.

seriously,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Summed up perfectly by Scofflaw, particularly the last paragraph. Its pure and simple logic and I'm not sure what part of it some people have a problem with.

Villain

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say I don't see it that way at all. Much of the referendum campaign was fought on possible interpretations of the Treaty - that it might allow EU interference with our public services, our corporate taxation, neutrality, abortion, what have you. It was also fought on the basis that "a better deal is possible" even though it was stated in advance that it wasn't - that there was no appetite for renegotiation.

What is now being provided is guarantees that the Treaties will not be interpreted in the ways suggested by the various No campaigns - that Lisbon will not empower "the EU" to interfere with corporate tax, public services, neutrality, abortion, etc. These guarantees will be written into whatever the next Treaty the EU is involved in as Protocols.

What is not on offer, just as per the original statement, is renegotiation of Lisbon.

Further, the government campaign was extremely lacklustre, with a complete lack of positive messages, and starting extremely late after the Bertie stepdown and attendant switch of focus. Their failure to explain the reasons for the Treaty, the reasons for ratifying the Treaty, and the Irish part in negotiating the Treaty in the first place.

Now it's tempting to say "well tough, they still lost - they played badly", but this is not football. It's not about winning. It's about whether a treaty that Ireland negotiated and signed should be ratified by the people, because it is in the best interests of Ireland, or not. If that question is buried under mounds of false interpretation and blurred by the failure of the government to explain it, then of course we run it again. It's not about the government - it's about the Treaty. The last referendum was about anything but the Treaty - and if I am wrong about that, then the result will be another No anyway. I don't believe I am wrong.

seriously,
Scofflaw

Sadly I think the next referendum will be about the Government unless the opposition come out with a fierce campaign the cuts backs that will have been seen by the time the next referendum comes will make it a very tough time for any vote to be passed.

Rock Climber

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say I don't see it that way at all. Much of the referendum campaign was fought on possible interpretations of the Treaty - that it might allow EU interference with our public services, our corporate taxation, neutrality, abortion, what have you. It was also fought on the basis that "a better deal is possible" even though it was stated in advance that it wasn't - that there was no appetite for renegotiation.

What is now being provided is guarantees that the Treaties will not be interpreted in the ways suggested by the various No campaigns - that Lisbon will not empower "the EU" to interfere with corporate tax, public services, neutrality, abortion, etc. These guarantees will be written into whatever the next Treaty the EU is involved in as Protocols.

What is not on offer, just as per the original statement, is renegotiation of Lisbon.

Further, the government campaign was extremely lacklustre, with a complete lack of positive messages, and starting extremely late after the Bertie stepdown and attendant switch of focus. Their failure to explain the reasons for the Treaty, the reasons for ratifying the Treaty, and the Irish part in negotiating the Treaty in the first place.

Now it's tempting to say "well tough, they still lost - they played badly", but this is not football. It's not about winning. It's about whether a treaty that Ireland negotiated and signed should be ratified by the people, because it is in the best interests of Ireland, or not. If that question is buried under mounds of false interpretation and blurred by the failure of the government to explain it, then of course we run it again. It's not about the government - it's about the Treaty. The last referendum was about anything but the Treaty - and if I am wrong about that, then the result will be another No anyway. I don't believe I am wrong.

seriously,
Scofflaw

Good post.
There is a hard core anti EU vote in Ireland.I'd guess its about 15% and the most vocal part of it is coming from parties most people wouldnt vote for in a month of sundays in all other matters.
Basically it amounts to national sabotage in my opinion.
It's a very cleverly run national sabotage by people who see their only route to power in my opinion as the downfall of the people that are getting on ok.
The more people in poorer demographics the better and the best way to get us all there is to fuck up the country.

Lets hope the pro lisbon campaign has learned it's lesson and fights fire with fire on this.

djpbarry

Rock Climber wrote: »

Lets hope the pro lisbon campaign has learned it's lesson and fights fire with fire on this.

I'd say that was the problem with the first referendum: the 'Yes' side fought fire with petrol, got dragged down to the level of the 'No' campaign and then it all went horribly Steve Staunton.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote: »

I'd say that was the problem with the first referendum: the 'Yes' side fought fire with petrol, got dragged down to the level of the 'No' campaign and then it all went horribly Steve Staunton.

On the flip-side: that's the problem the 'Yes' side faced last time, and will again. If they aggressively counter the lies and misinformation, they're perceived as bullying. If they fail to do so, they're allowing the other side to get away with it. It's a no-win situation, particularly as at least some of their opponents are only interested in winning an argument, not in putting forward a reasonable case.

Sounds familiar, actually...

ChocolateSauce

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think it's a better deal. I think the retention of a commissioner from every member state is pandering to stupidity and ignorance

It's also a shame that calling people on stupidity and ignorance usually causes a defensive reaction which exacerbates that stupidity and ignorance.

K-9

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It's also a shame that calling people on stupidity and ignorance usually causes a defensive reaction which exacerbates that stupidity and ignorance.

Yep, it doesn't help.

Either does the No side feigning offense that many No voters voted No because they couldn't understand the Treaty. Damn, one of the main No pints was that the Treaty was unreadable!

Scofflaw

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yep, it doesn't help.

Either does the No side feigning offense that many No voters voted No because they couldn't understand the Treaty. Damn, one of the main No pints was that the Treaty was unreadable!

An apt typo, since we're fundamentally talking about a dialogue along the lines of "are you looking at my girlfriend?".

The great slogan of the No side was "if you don't know, vote No!". It was used everywhere, but heaven help anyone who suggests that No voters might have voted No because they didn't know. It isn't as if there was anyone shouting "if you don't know, vote Yes!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

It isn't as if there was anyone shouting "if you don't know, vote Yes!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nope, they where advised NOT to vote!