Conspiracy?

dresden8

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055447018

The only thing I can see wrong here is that RTDH is claiming it's a secret.

The government has been more than open in it's determination to see Lisbon passed, at whatever cost. They didn't like the No vote. The referendum will be run again. Until it is passed.

Obviously, after a period of reflection and study of the reason for a no vote.

Lisbon 2 is not a secret. It was a well telegraphed move by the government.

No secret there.

Where's the "secret" conspiracy?

K-9

Well unlike a lot of Conspiracy theories about, this one seems to have large support.

Hitman Actual

dresden8 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055447018

The only thing I can see wrong here is that RTDH is claiming it's a secret.

The government has been more than open in it's determination to see Lisbon passed, at whatever cost. They didn't like the No vote. The referendum will be run again. Until it is passed.

Obviously, after a period of reflection and study of the reason for a no vote.

Lisbon 2 is not a secret. It was a well telegraphed move by the government.

No secret there.

Where's the "secret" conspiracy?

In before lock. The post you're referring to had the nonsensical tone and rhetoric of a CT thread, pretty much proven in reply No.10, which agreed that something sinister is going on. You really think there was going to be any useful debate here? I don't bother with the CT forum (and I feel sorry for people who live that paranoid sort of life, tbh), but I'm sure there are plenty of EU CT threads in there. Why dilute this forum with that sort of BS?

partholon

because by all evidence it appears to be true?

we were told WAY back in 73 that unanimity meant if one country objected to something in europe that would be the end of the matter.

doesnt seem to be the case here eh?

in fact now were in full on "one little country of 4 million people cant be allowed stop the will of 500 million" territory.

we were sold out, pure and simple. the only sad thing is supposedly intelligent people didnt cop that this was always going to be the case the minute the NO vote came in.

its not a conspiracy when its happening right in front of your eyes

Furious-Dave

partholon wrote: »

because by all evidence it appears to be true?

we were told WAY back in 73 that unanimity meant if one country objected to something in europe that would be the end of the matter.

doesnt seem to be the case here eh?

in fact now were in full on "one little country of 4 million people cant be allowed stop the will of 500 million" territory.

we were sold out, pure and simple. the only sad thing is supposedly intelligent people didnt cop that this was always going to be the case the minute the NO vote came in.

its not a conspiracy when its happening right in front of your eyes

Do you want democracy in Europe or not? 4 million holding back 500 million is NOT democracy. Democracy = majority rules

partholon

no.

i was quite happy with the EEC.

Ive no interest what so ever in the "greater intergration" of the EU. as i dont think its necessary or in ireland best interest as a sovereign nation.

ShooterSF

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Do you want democracy in Europe or not? 4 million holding back 500 million is NOT democracy. Democracy = majority rules

I don't see where he said he wanted democracy.

BigUnit

Furious-Dave wrote: »

4 million holding back 500 million is NOT democracy. Democracy = majority rules

The majority have ruled. Did we not reject the treaty?

I don't recall 500 million getting a vote, do you?

Furious-Dave

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't see where he said he wanted democracy.

No, I ask him if he did. And he gave a very simple answer which I accept.

It has been explained many times already that the Irish people only voted because we are required to vote. If it were not in the Irish Constitution that for any changes to that constitution to be made it must be put to a vote by the people then the Lisbon Treaty would have been ratified already. Simple as that. The governments of other EU countries were within their rights to ratify the treaty without referendum.

ShooterSF

Fair enough. Sorry just getting tired of hearing (truth) that each nation has its own rules for passing things but the same people (hypocritically) ignoring the E.U's own rules on Lisbon when accusing us of holding back 500 million.
Either we accept the rules as is or we discuss whether its fair or not in both contexts. As it is I don't take any other nations vote into account as we vote on whether it's good for our country or not and they do the same for this with different methods.

trellheim

If it were not in the Irish Constitution that for any changes to that constitution to be made it must be put to a vote by the people then the Lisbon Treaty would have been ratified already

Only since the Crotty case.

Ireland is being given another chance to sign up.

oscarBravo

partholon wrote: »

we were told WAY back in 73 that unanimity meant if one country objected to something in europe that would be the end of the matter.

When did unanimity mean that a vetoed proposal would never again be discussed? I'm not old enough to remember '73, but I doubt if anyone ever claimed that vetoing a proposal meant it was permanently and irrevocably off the table.

kevteljeur

If I ask you, "Do you want to eat cake, yes or no" and you reply no, and then if I ask a second time (or more, as the case may be) then I am not forcing you to eat cake. I am simply asking you repeatedly if you want to eat cake. It may be inefficient, tedious and repetitive, but it is still your choice and not mine. You can keep saying no, if you that is your choice.

There a clearly a large number of people both inhabiting this forum and in Ireland generally who don't see the difference between repeatedly asking, and forcing to accept, and this bothers me a lot. Ireland can still vote no.

Of course, if the rest of the EU decides to go ahead with some of those proposals and leave Ireland behind, then that is both their choice and our choice. They get their advances and we get to stay behind, and there's nothing wrong with that scenario either. After all, we wouldn't want to undemocratically force any other state to do anything they didn't want to, would we?

K-9

kevteljeur wrote: »

There a clearly a large number of people both inhabiting this forum and in Ireland generally who don't see the difference between repeatedly asking, and forcing to accept, and this bothers me a lot. Ireland can still vote no.

Of course, if the rest of the EU decides to go ahead with some of those proposals and leave Ireland behind, then that is both their choice and our choice. They get their advances and we get to stay behind, and there's nothing wrong with that scenario either. After all, we wouldn't want to undemocratically force any other state to do anything they didn't want to, would we?

It bothers me too. There is so much distrust and cynicism about Politicians that people are seeing things that aren't there. It's a shame as often people end up dismissing perfectly good ideas or decisions.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. Sorry just getting tired of hearing (truth) that each nation has its own rules for passing things but the same people (hypocritically) ignoring the E.U's own rules on Lisbon when accusing us of holding back 500 million.
Either we accept the rules as is or we discuss whether its fair or not in both contexts. As it is I don't take any other nations vote into account as we vote on whether it's good for our country or not and they do the same for this with different methods.

The EU's rule, though, is just that if a treaty is not ratified by all member states, it doesn't come into force. There is no such rule as "if any member state fails to ratify on the first go, that's it, full stop". Indeed, informally, the rule is that if a member state fails to ratify on the first go, a way is sought to make ratification possible - us at Nice and Lisbon, Denmark at Maastricht.

cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Do you want democracy in Europe or not? 4 million holding back 500 million is NOT democracy. Democracy = majority rules

What about the 50 odd million french and 14 odd million dutch who also rejected the spirit of Lisbon?

The EU is getting less and less democratic by the day. Bring back the constitution for ALL of Europe to vote on and let's see if your 4:500 ratio is anywhere near correct. I fear it is not. When a founder member of the Belelux rejects the constitution, think on.

murphaph

Scofflaw wrote: »

the rule is that if a member state fails to ratify on the first go, a way is sought to make ratification possible - us at Nice and Lisbon, Denmark at Maastricht.

What did they do when the French and Dutch rejected the constitution though? We all know the answer-they crafted a way to ensure they wouldn't have to ask the people of those countries again by way of a treaty of amendment. Sneaky sneaky sneaky and everyone knows it!!!

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

What did they do when the French and Dutch rejected the constitution though?

"They" did exactly the same thing that "they" did after Ireland rejected Lisbon. Polls were conducted to determine the reasons for the 'No' vote and changes were made accordingly. There was nothing "sneaky" about it at all.

SkepticOne

djpbarry wrote: »

"They" did exactly the same thing that "they" did after Ireland rejected Lisbon. Polls were conducted to determine the reasons for the 'No' vote and changes were made accordingly. There was nothing "sneaky" about it at all.

So where is the Constitution with those changes? Did the French subsequently get to vote on this new Constitution with the amendments made?

I think the thing that people find a bit sneaky is that the bulk of the democratically rejected constitution were inserted into the Lisbon treaty and no opportunity to vote on it was subsequently given to the French or Dutch people. Don't worry, the French were told, all your objections have been incorporated into this new document. There's no need to vote!

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

So where is the Constitution with those changes? Did the French subsequently get to vote on this new Constitution with the amendments made?

I think the thing that people find a bit sneaky is that the bulk of the democratically rejected constitution were inserted into the Lisbon treaty and no opportunity to vote on it was subsequently given to the French or Dutch people. Don't worry, the French were told, all your objections have been incorporated into this new document. There's no need to vote!

I know what you're saying here - but the problem is the French were told that by Sarkozy, who they then elected. Of course, elections are about a lot of other things, and the question of Lisbon probably figured very low down on most voters' lists, if it featured at all - but that doesn't change the point. Indeed, it reinforces it - most people don't give a toss about EU treaties, and appear to be entirely unbothered by not holding a vote on Lisbon. There have been no riots, and nothing but a handful of demonstrations, with handfuls of protesters, in a country famous for them.

I think one has to face the fact that Lisbon is not important to most people, and they don't actually care about getting to vote on it. Obviously, if one does care about the Lisbon Treaty, the lack of a vote is important - but for most people, I don't think so at all. Getting highly worked up over the non-voting of people who don't appear to care about voting seems a little artificial either way.

The Dutch case is slightly different, in that the Dutch government had a constitutional problem with the referendum. The Dutch constitution only allows for non-binding referendums, but the government found themselves unable to ratify after the referendum No vote. That effectively made the referendum binding, which presents a problem under the Dutch constitution, so the idea of referendums has been rejected. Again, that sounds dubious, but the Dutch are happy with their constitution, so this appears to be, again, entirely acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

partholon

oscarBravo wrote: »

When did unanimity mean that a vetoed proposal would never again be discussed? I'm not old enough to remember '73, but I doubt if anyone ever claimed that vetoing a proposal meant it was permanently and irrevocably off the table.

in less than SIX MONTHS ?

we GAVE our answer. they didnt like the result. hence the pantomine show were going through now that has the audacity to say it "respects" our vote.

oh hey back in 73 people (LAB if i remember correctley) were being slagged off about the possibilty of losing the punt at some stage in the then EEC

isnt it AMAZING how things work out .

Scofflaw

partholon wrote: »

in less than SIX MONTHS ?

we GAVE our answer. they didnt like the result. hence the pantomine show were going through now that has the audacity to say it "respects" our vote.

oh hey back in 73 people (LAB if i remember correctley) were being slagged off about the possibilty of losing the punt at some stage in the then EEC

isnt it AMAZING how things work out .

The referendum will probably be held next October - sixteen months after the first. Nice II was about the same length of time after, and events in between had been a good deal less dramatic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

partholon

yes.

but the DECISION was taken officially less than six months after the referendum and in reality the day the NO came in.

we also had a change in government between NICE 1 and 2 .

hardly respectfull of the whole point of referendums is it?

Scofflaw

partholon wrote: »

yes.

but the DECISION was taken officially less than six months after the referendum and in reality the day the NO came in.

Ach, we all knew there'd be a second referendum after Nice I, even though it was without precedent that time - and I'm saying it was known at the time of the vote.

partholon wrote: »

we also had a change in government between NICE 1 and 2 .

hardly respectfull of the whole point of referendums is it?

The point of a referendum is to make a decision on a matter that, constitutionally, can only be decided by the people. If the matter is one on which the government thinks the best interests of the country are served by a particular answer - as tends to be the case with EU treaties - they're likely to ask twice, in the hopes of getting the answer that allows them to proceed with the course of action they think best. I don't think there's anything undemocratic or disrespectful about that - they have to ask the people, and as long as that is the case, it remains part of the democratic process. Your objection is that you already have the answer you want.

Do you think that if the power of calling referendums were available by, say, petition, we wouldn't regularly run referendums on the same few subjects, as most places with citizen-called referendums do? Would that be disrespectful?

cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

djpbarry wrote: »

"They" did exactly the same thing that "they" did after Ireland rejected Lisbon. Polls were conducted to determine the reasons for the 'No' vote and changes were made accordingly. There was nothing "sneaky" about it at all.

Are you serious? If all was above board and honest, why not make the few tweaks you suggest the EU discovered that the french wanted to the constitution and simply re-run it? Why scrap all that work into the constitution onlyto have to re-create it legally using a complicated series of amendments (Lisbon)? It's totally illogical to suggest that if the EU could clearly address the issues the french had with the constitution that they would then abandon it and draft the same thing in a different, complex way! Can none of the YES supporters here hold their hands up on this point and admit that Lisbon was crafted in principle to get the ethos of the constitution through the statute books without recourse to public referenda (except us)?

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

Are you serious? If all was above board and honest, why not make the few tweaks you suggest the EU discovered that the french wanted to the constitution and simply re-run it? Why scrap all that work into the constitution onlyto have to re-create it legally using a complicated series of amendments (Lisbon)? It's totally illogical to suggest that if the EU could clearly address the issues the french had with the constitution that they would then abandon it and draft the same thing in a different, complex way! Can none of the YES supporters here hold their hands up on this point and admit that Lisbon was crafted in principle to get the ethos of the constitution through the statute books without recourse to public referenda (except us)?

First off, the EU Constitution did not require referendums except in a couple of countries. The majority of the proposed referendums were non-binding, and were proposed as a purely political exercise.

Second, the Constitution was a break with the standard way of writing EU treaties. Since the founding treaties, all the others have been amending treaties exactly like Lisbon.

So, no, Lisbon was not "crafted in principle to get the ethos of the constitution through the statute books without recourse to public referenda" - because what was in the constitution didn't require referendums in the first place.

The reason why it was redrafted was because those who had originally supported the idea of a 'constitution' (ie a complete redraft) and referendums were always opposed by those who felt that it was better to stick to the way EU treaties had always been done. When the Constitution was defeated, those who had put it forward were also defeated, and the civil servants - unsurprisingly - reverted to their original preference of an amending treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

partholon wrote: »

oh hey back in 73 people (LAB if i remember correctley) were being slagged off about the possibilty of losing the punt at some stage in the then EEC

look how things worked out for the brits who didnt want the euro

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=GBPEUR

give them a bit more time and their economy more stairs to fall and they be begging to join the more stable eurozone

evercloserunion

partholon wrote: »

yes.

but the DECISION was taken officially less than six months after the referendum and in reality the day the NO came in.

we also had a change in government between NICE 1 and 2 .

hardly respectfull of the whole point of referendums is it?

I don't think you, or many others on the No side, actually understand the point of referendums. They are for the government to attain the consent of the people to change the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less. The Constitution says that the Oireachtas can initiate a referendum bill whenever it likes and doesn't say anything like "but only when Declan Ganley or partholon say it's okay". To say the the government shouldn't be able to hold a referendum denies them a basic constitutionally protected competence and completely violates Bunreacht ne hEireann.

murphaph

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason why it was redrafted was because those who had originally supported the idea of a 'constitution' (ie a complete redraft) and referendums were always opposed by those who felt that it was better to stick to the way EU treaties had always been done. When the Constitution was defeated, those who had put it forward were also defeated, and the civil servants - unsurprisingly - reverted to their original preference of an amending treaty.

Do you accept that the constitution was more transparent than Lisbon?

Do you think it is acceptable that the constitution was binned without trying to make it work?

You see, I'd have no problems in complex treaties of amendment IF the ordinary joes of Europe were asked, just once, in clear unambiguous language, if they actually want to be members of what the EU is heading for.

murphaph

ionix5891 wrote: »

look how things worked out for the brits who didnt want the euro

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=GBPEUR

give them a bit more time and their economy more stairs to fall and they be begging to join the more stable eurozone

The pound reached similarly low (actually lower) levels against the Deutschmark in the early 90's. It recovered then (by leaving the ERM!).

ionix5891

murphaph wrote: »

The pound reached similarly low (actually lower) levels against the Deutschmark in the early 90's. It recovered then (by leaving the ERM!).

and then creating an economic bubble that recently burst...