The YES side were wrong or lied?

evercloserunion

Villain wrote: »

So now that it’s clear that a second referendum is going to happen with a deal been done to keep our commissioner and get legal declarations on issues that the no side had with the treaty.

But does anyone remember that the YES side in particular Fianna Fail kept telling us over and over that there could be no better deal or renegotiation of the treaty yet now we look set to keep our commissioner and get legal declarations on other issues. So was it they lied to try and scare us into voting yes or were they just wrong in thinking that the EU wouldn’t make changes if we voted NO?

We were told we voted to give up our permanent commissioner in the Niece treaty and that to say voting NO would change that was nonsense, doesn’t look like nonsense now?

So it looks like we were right to vote “NO FOR A BETTER DEAL”

There has been no renegotiation of the Treaty. The Commissioner op-out, if it is added, will be added as a protocol and the Treaty itself will not be changed (otherwise all the other member states would have to ratify again). Declarations on the Treaty, binding or not, in no way alter the function of the Treaty. They are simply the EU stating clearly and unambiguously what has been the case all along. They are putting to rest all the absolute non-issues like taxation, abortion, conscription etc. that never would have been issues in the first place had it not been for the lies and misinformation of the No side.

And the commissioner thing is not a better deal. The thing about commissioners is that they each have their own portfolio, ie an area of policy in which they focus their work. This worked fine when there were 6 member states, so there were 6 portfolios. It even worked alright when there were 15 different portfolios. But now that we have 27 members and 27 commissioners, there are simply too many commissioners to do the work of the commission. As a result we end up creating pointless and superfluous portfolios and paying people to staff them. Each commissioner gets paid more than €200,000 per year, and has several people working under them who are also paid (handsomely I presume). Realistically there isn't all that much work for the commission to do than when there were 15 member states in the EU, but mow we're paying almost twice as many people to do that same work. People bitch and whine so much about the over-paid public sector, when ironically they voted (and in many cases campaigned) to save some of our most useless public servants.

And regarding us "losing our voice", the commissioners are not our voice in the EU. That is the job of our MEPs and our heads of state, who obviously we still retain after Lisbon. Commissioners have to swear to be neutral and impartial, and to represent the interests of the EU in general and not their own countries.

VoidStarNull

Obviously with 27 commissioners and not enough real work to do, some of them will be given meaningless portfolios. Since Ireland is responsible for this situation our commissioner in particular may have difficulty finding a "real" job.

In the national interest therefore, we should gather suggestions for useful work that an Irish commissioner can do post-Lisbon. Here are some initial thoughts:

1. Commissioner for explaining to the Irish why future EU treaties don't usher in abortion, conscription, or increased corporate taxes. (Declan Ganley?).

2. Commissioner for designing a de-regulated financial system that is not prone to sudden catastophic collapse (Charlie McCreevy in for a 2nd run).

3. Commissioner for figuring out what to do with all the empty and half-built houses in Ireland. (Tom Parlon).

JohnMc1

jhegarty wrote: »

Really ?

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

Would you really take Cowen a man who stupidly admitted to not reading the treaty and had no intention of reading it at face value when it comes to the treaty?

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Isn't that what McCreevy was saying? Isn't that what we were being told when it was said that the EU has been good to us and we should trust it?

sink

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Would you really take Cowen a man who stupidly admitted to not reading the treaty and had no intention of reading it at face value when it comes to the treaty?

Not that I'm trying to defend Cowen but let's be sensible, you don't need to read the treaty to know exactly what it contains. He certainly would have read the DFA EU Reform Treaty White Paper which contains all pertinent information on the Lisbon treaty and runs over 100 pages.

I read it and I glanced over the consolidated treaties to confirm that the white paper was entirely factual.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

Isn't that what McCreevy was saying? Isn't that what we were being told when it was said that the EU has been good to us and we should trust it?

What McCreevy actually said:

"I don’t think there’s anybody in this room who has read it cover to cover. I don’t expect ordinary decent Irish people will be sitting down spending hours reading sections about sub-sections referring to other articles and sub-articles, but there is sufficient analysis done and people have put together a consolidated text which is quite easy to read ...Anyone who thinks that, as the reality and inevitability of EU enlargement has taken hold, that we can continue to tackle urgent problems without streamlining of the decision-making process is failing to face up to reality."

is very much what sink is saying there. I haven't read the Treaty cover-to-cover either, but, like sink, I've read the White Paper and long stretches of the consolidated version. What's in there tallies with what the civil servants say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

Just like the NO-side most of the YES-side haven't a clue what they are talking about. They're on about how the NO-side were telling lies and I agree that to a great extent the people voted no for all the wrong reasons but the 'YES-side' fails to understand (just like the NO people) the magnitude of this treaty and I'm beginning to wonder what their agenda is. I mean obviously they can't kick us out even if we kept voting NO for the next 20 years and also the no vote didn't have and won't have in the future any economical repercussions.

This is about building a new and not very democratic but very capitalistic and corporate power superstate and it's not Ireland or another country that's not getting a good enough deal here but it's the people of Europe that aren't. Thank god we had a vote and thank god we voted no. The same thing would happen in every other country and that's the reason why the so-called representatives of the people avoid referendums at all costs. I'm afraid in the long run it won't matter much as the people of Europe are already in a very much powerless situation and our electred will simply shift and maneuver until they achieve what the big corporate lobbyist organizations want them to achieve.

oscarBravo

realcam wrote: »

This is about building a new and not very democratic but very capitalistic and corporate power superstate...

No, it's not.

If you're planning to contradict me in turn, please do so with reference to specific provisions of the Lisbon treaty, explaining clearly their role in creating this undemocratic corporate power superstate of yours.

JohnMc1

sink wrote: »

Not that I'm trying to defend Cowen but let's be sensible, you don't need to read the treaty to know exactly what it contains. He certainly would have read the DFA EU Reform Treaty White Paper which contains all pertinent information on the Lisbon treaty and runs over 100 pages.

I read it and I glanced over the consolidated treaties to confirm that the white paper was entirely factual.

You have to admit it would have inspired more confidence in voting "Yes" if he had and could have explained why it would have been good for us to vote "Yes" Instead all he can say was "Trust Me." He came across as a used car salesman and to this day he wonders why the "No" side one.

djpbarry

realcam wrote: »

Just like the NO-side most of the YES-side haven't a clue what they are talking about. They're on about how the NO-side were telling lies and I agree that to a great extent the people voted no for all the wrong reasons but the 'YES-side' fails to understand (just like the NO people) the magnitude of this treaty...

What is the international unit of treaty magnitude and how is it calculated?

realcam wrote: »

I mean obviously they can't kick us out even if we kept voting NO for the next 20 years and also the no vote didn't have and won't have in the future any economical repercussions.

And you accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about? You think the rest of the EU is going to wait for us indefinitely?

realcam wrote: »

Thank god we had a vote and thank god we voted no. The same thing would happen in every other country and that's the reason why the so-called representatives of the people avoid referendums at all costs.

I do despair when I read these same old arguments that have been dispelled countless times on this forum over the last number of months.

Boskowski

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not.

Ok, you win. Nothing I can say to that.

Boskowski

djpbarry wrote: »

And you accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about? You think the rest of the EU is going to wait for us indefinitely?

Last time I looked the treaty was supposed to be ratified by all memberstates and we were still one of them. Also there was no smallprint about getting kicked out when you don't ratify it.

By the way the Germans aren't going to ratify either, their Bundesverfassungsgericht is going to call a stop to it as it did to Nice.

Ciaran500

realcam wrote: »

Ok, you win. Nothing I can say to that.

You could post some details of why you think that.

But I have a feeling you won't bother and then go on in real life spouting the same line to people who don't know enough to dispute your claims.

K-9

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You have to admit it would have inspired more confidence in voting "Yes" if he had and could have explained why it would have been good for us to vote "Yes" Instead all he can say was "Trust Me." He came across as a used car salesman and to this day he wonders why the "No" side one.

It was a PR disaster. Personally, I'd prefer my Taoiseach to not spend days on reading complicated EU Treaties, or for that matter, every last detail of Finance Bills, Trade deals etc. etc.

He has Ministers and Department specialised personnel to do all the hard work and summarise it for him, such as specialised EU Legal advisors.

You should also look up "Management by Exception".

Still, it was a great soundbyte and exploited well by the media and the No side, despite it not being particularly important.

Scofflaw

realcam wrote: »

Last time I looked the treaty was supposed to be ratified by all memberstates and we were still one of them. Also there was no smallprint about getting kicked out when you don't ratify it.

True, but that confuses the legal bindings of the EU with the possible diplomatic repercussions of annoying 26 other countries. That there's nothing in the former that allows for expulsion or any other form of sanction does not eliminate the risks of the latter.

realcam wrote: »

By the way the Germans aren't going to ratify either, their Bundesverfassungsgericht is going to call a stop to it as it did to Nice.

Not sure exactly what you man here, because Nice was ratified. The German left mount a legal challenge to every EU treaty.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

Ciaran500 wrote: »

You could post some details of why you think that.

But I have a feeling you won't bother and then go on in real life spouting the same line to people who don't know enough to dispute your claims.

Here you go, this fella sums it up pretty well. A bit lengthy I admit, 10 parts roughly 10 mins each, but a very good starting point if you try to understand why someone would be opposed to all this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT60PbsKC6s

Boskowski

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not sure exactly what you man here, because Nice was ratified. The German left mount a legal challenge to every EU treaty.

It was 'ratified' by the parliament and therefore supposed to pass as legislation but it wasn't signed by the Bundespraesident as he correctly assumed the Bundesverfassungsgericht would declare it nil and void anyways which is exactly what they did.

Scofflaw

realcam wrote: »

Here you go, this fella sums it up pretty well. A bit lengthy I admit, 10 parts roughly 10 mins each, but a very good starting point if you try to understand why someone would be opposed to all this.

Well, yes - if you oppose the EU, then you'll oppose Lisbon. Schachtschneider opposes the EU, much as Anthony Coughlan does here.

It was 'ratified' by the parliament and therefore supposed to pass as legislation but it wasn't signed by the Bundespraesident as he correctly assumed the Bundesverfassungsgericht would declare it nil and void anyways which is exactly what they did.

So Nice is not in force? My source has:

Adopted by the Bundestag on 18/10/2001 (570 for, 32 against, 2 abstentions) and by the Bundesrat on 9/11/2001 (unanimously). Signed by the President on 21/12/2001. Deposit of instrument on 11/2/2002.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

Scofflaw wrote: »

Adopted by the Bundestag on 18/10/2001 (570 for, 32 against, 2 abstentions) and by the Bundesrat on 9/11/2001 (unanimously). Signed by the President on 21/12/2001. Deposit of instrument on 11/2/2002.

Correct, I actually confused two of Schachtschneiders initiatives here which obviously wouldn't do a lot for my credibility on the subject, but there you go, damage done, all I can do is to admit my mistake.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, yes - if you oppose the EU, then you'll oppose Lisbon. Schachtschneider opposes the EU, much as Anthony Coughlan does here.

I wouldn't say that Schachtschneider opposes the EU as such, and neither do I, but he doesn't like the way it's shaping up. He'd prefer the EU to become a true democratic republic rather than what's currently happening.

sink

realcam wrote: »

I wouldn't say that Schachtschneider opposes the EU as such, and neither do I, but he doesn't like the way it's shaping up. He'd prefer the EU to become a true democratic republic rather than what's currently happening.

But that would mean it would be a federal style superstate which is exactly what so many people say they don't want.

Boskowski

sink wrote: »

But that would mean it would be a federal style superstate which is exactly what so many people say they don't want.

I'd say that's the way it's going to go whether we like it or not. I think it's our obligation to do everything we can to ensure it's going to be a democracy.

evercloserunion

realcam wrote: »

I'd say that's the way it's going to go whether we like it or not. I think it's our obligation to do everything we can to ensure it's going to be a democracy.

Why would you say that's the way it's going?

Boskowski

evercloserunion wrote: »

Why would you say that's the way it's going?

With the attempt of introducing a European Constitution and with a second attempt of introducing a European Constitution in disguise (Jehova, I know) it pretty much looks that way doesn't it. That's the way I always thought about it anyway, that at the end of this process we will have some sort of European state, hopefully a democratic, federal republic.

evercloserunion

realcam wrote: »

With the attempt of introducing a European Constitution and with a second attempt of introducing a European Constitution in disguise (Jehova, I know) it pretty much looks that way doesn't it. That's the way I always thought about it anyway, that at the end of this process we will have some sort of European state, hopefully a democratic, federal republic.

But there's no actual evidence that we are heading towards a federal republic, a unified state. Europe remains a Europe of the nations.

Boskowski

evercloserunion wrote: »

But there's no actual evidence that we are heading towards a federal republic, a unified state. Europe remains a Europe of the nations.

You seriously think we're not? What about actual legislation. I know that for instance in Germany the majority of laws and regulations that are passed by the parliament already have their origin in Brussels not in Berlin. I would imagine not much different in any other European member state including Ireland. Isn't that a pretty strong indicator when the rules we live to are already mostly European rules rather than Irish, French or German rules?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

evercloserunion wrote: »

But there's no actual evidence that we are heading towards a federal republic, a unified state. Europe remains a Europe of the nations.

Common central bank
Common legislation
Common courts
Common social policies
Common economic policies
Common agricultural policies
Common environmental policies

sink

Sean_K wrote: »

Common central bank
Common legislation
Common courts
Common social policies
Common economic policies
Common agricultural policies
Common environmental policies

All common interests of sovereign states who have chosen work together.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

sink wrote: »

All common interests of sovereign states who have chosen work together.

If the question was is there evidence that the EU actually is a federal republic, then yes what I said would constitute circumstantial evidence.

The poster asked was their evidence that we are heading toward a federal system. What I said absolutely constitutes evidence of that.

Scofflaw

Sean_K wrote: »

If the question was is there evidence that the EU actually is a federal republic, then yes what I said would constitute circumstantial evidence.

The poster asked was their evidence that we are heading toward a federal system. What I said absolutely constitutes evidence of that.

Those features are equally characteristic of what I see the EU as - a permanent intergovernmental cooperation framework.

The matter is, of course, endlessly debatable. However, let's deal with the most obvious counter-point first to the 'federal' argument - voluntary withdrawal of competences and members. These are contrary to a federal system - US states, German Lander, Swiss cantons - these cannot withdraw from the federal entity, and cannot withdraw powers from the federal government. EU member states can both withdraw, and can withdraw powers. Further - and again this is contrary to federal systems - there is the principle of subsidiarity, which was to be further reinforced in Lisbon.

So, since your arguments in favour of the EU being a federal system are equally well explained by an alternative hypothesis, and your federal arguments do not encompass several other vital features of the EU, I have to say on balance that your argument falls. I wouldn't be in favour of a federal EU, I don;t see there as being a federal EU, and voting No in order to determine the shape of a federal EU doesn't make a jot of sense to me. Lisbon is a good compromise along the lines of the previous compromises which together have produced the EU we have - an intergovernmental system with a supranational technical core and an international democratic body. Slightly bastardised, but there we go - a camel is a horse designed by committee, as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

Sean_K wrote: »

Common central bank
Common legislation
Common courts
Common social policies
Common economic policies
Common agricultural policies
Common environmental policies

As has been stated, these are all little more than instances of sovereign member states working together in their own interests. The common EU courts can decide only on EU law and not on national law, so that defeats your argument about it being indicative of a trend towards a federal system. "Common legislation" and "Common * policies" are the same thing, you were just posting them twice to make the whole thing seem scarier and more federal than it actually is.

Can I ask you though, why exactly do you think that a national government exercising its national sovereignty on behalf of its people to further their (and its) interests by signing up to these common initiatives is a sign of federalism? By signing up and allowing social, economic, agricultural and environmental policies to be shaped on a European level we were pursuing our own national interest.