GenerationYes

passive

Dunno if any of you are involved in this, or have heard of it. But it's a Yes campaign group, recently set up, that seems pretty interesting and well organised, with a non-party political base and a drive towards young people and simple dealing with the treaty. I'm sadly going to be out of the country with my fingers crossed for Lisbon2, as I was for the first, but will probably be donating to these guys as well as pimping them on facebook and here...

www.GenerationYes.ie

conchubhar1

aptly named

did they read the treaty the first time?

passive

conchubhar1 wrote: »

aptly named

did they read the treaty the first time?

pretty apt name for a yes campaign group seeking to represent the younger generation, yeah...

And probably. Did you?

Iwasfrozen

aptly named

did they read the treaty the first time?

:rolleyes:
seeing as they are a political lobbyist group, then yes I'm thinking they did read the treaty.

storinius

I am involved with Generation YES, and YES, we have read the treaty!! Just thought that I would let you know.

passive

storinius wrote: »

I am involved with Generation YES, and YES, we have read the treaty!! Just thought that I would let you know.

Good to know . Keep up the good work!

Euro_Kraut

I hope you can come up with a better answer to the question 'Where does your funding come from?' than you have on the website.

Where do you guys get your funds from?

We are an independent organisation, and we get no Government or EU funding. All our funds come from donations from supporters, and help from volunteers. Can you help us fund this campaign?

Sounds a bit Libertassy (new word!). The language needs to be firmed up. All movements get money from their 'supporters'. They would hardly get money off people who do not support them.

If this is not clearer early on Libertas will deflect questions about their own funding on to groups like you.

Good luck with the campaign.

4Xcut

Without getting into a yes/no debate, could someone please clarify the following issue i'm having with the yes cmapaign and one of the claims they are making.

On their website, they claim that there are significant revisions to the treaty, and list some of them. (link below). As i understand it, some nations have already ratified the treaty as it was.

How can there be actual changes to the treaty without these nations going through the ratification proceedure again? Would this not be akin to 2 parties drawing up a contract, one signing it, the other then changing it and then signing it.

Again, do not want to get into a yes/no debate, merely a clarification on this issue.

http://www.generationyes.ie/faq/ (Questions 1 & 3)

BlitzKrieg

Scafflow gave a nice explanation of it:

What you're voting on is changing. The Treaty of Lisbon amends the existing EU treaties (TEC and TEU). What we voted on first time was only the changes in Lisbon. This vote is on Lisbon plus some additional amendments.

What was agreed after the No were that there would be some additional amendments to the EU treaties if we vote Yes. These will be enacted after Lisbon, though, because they won't happen if we vote No. They'll take the form of additional Protocols amending the EU treaties, just as Lisbon does, and will have exactly the same legal standing as Lisbon. The final form of those extra amendments is to be determined at the June Council of Europe, or immediately afterwards at the start of the Swedish Presidency.

The vote this autumn, then, is a vote on a different package from the last vote - Lisbon Plus, if you like.

sink

4Xcut wrote: »

Without getting into a yes/no debate, could someone please clarify the following issue i'm having with the yes cmapaign and one of the claims they are making.

On their website, they claim that there are significant revisions to the treaty, and list some of them. (link below). As i understand it, some nations have already ratified the treaty as it was.

How can there be actual changes to the treaty without these nations going through the ratification proceedure again? Would this not be akin to 2 parties drawing up a contract, one signing it, the other then changing it and then signing it.

Again, do not want to get into a yes/no debate, merely a clarification on this issue.

http://www.generationyes.ie/faq/ (Questions 1 & 3)

They are incorrect, there are no changes to the treaty. All the changes that are promised are going to applied separately from the treaty. So we are not purely voting for or against the treaty but rather for or against the treaty together with legal declarations x,y,z. So for instance the Commission will maintain one Commissioner per country in a separate agreement, we have to accept the treaty to accept the deal on the Commission, if we decline the treaty the Commission will be slimmed down per the Nice agreement.

Scofflaw

4Xcut wrote: »

Without getting into a yes/no debate, could someone please clarify the following issue i'm having with the yes cmapaign and one of the claims they are making.

On their website, they claim that there are significant revisions to the treaty, and list some of them. (link below). As i understand it, some nations have already ratified the treaty as it was.

How can there be actual changes to the treaty without these nations going through the ratification proceedure again? Would this not be akin to 2 parties drawing up a contract, one signing it, the other then changing it and then signing it.

Again, do not want to get into a yes/no debate, merely a clarification on this issue.

http://www.generationyes.ie/faq/ (Questions 1 & 3)

This question is bound to come up repeatedly - I think they've been a little over-brief, but then the actual explanation is slightly complex.

The changes we're being offered are to take the form of amendments to the existing EU treaties, as Lisbon does. They will not be written into the text of the treaty called the Treaty of Lisbon, but will be written into the EU treaties afterwards, and will form part of the package of amendments we are voting on this autumn. They're not a separate treaty from Lisbon, and form part of Lisbon from a legal and logical perspective - they will happen only with Lisbon, and if Lisbon does not pass, they will not happen. Lisbon consists of amendments, these are further amendments attached to Lisbon.

So, if one wants to quibble, one can say "the changes are not part of the Lisbon text". From an Irish perspective, though, if what we're voting on is Lisbon, then these are part of Lisbon, because they're part of what we're voting on. I would probably call it a new 'treaty package' rather than a 'new treaty', myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

4Xcut

Can I then take it from the above explanation that the other 26 countries will be deciding on these additional ammendments through their relevant means as well?

sink

4Xcut wrote: »

Can I then take it from the above explanation that the other 26 countries will be deciding on these additional ammendments through their relevant means as well?

AFAIK they can all be made at European level and don't require the involvement of national parliaments since they generally only deal with the functioning of EU and won't have any impact at national/domestic level.

BlitzKrieg

essentially it comes down to what these amendments are. If they do not in any manner interfere with the other states soveirgnty or constitution then they will be made at EU level, but even at this level the heads of each state will have to sign off as th Council of Europe will need to apporve the amendments as will the EU parliament.

Scofflaw

4Xcut wrote: »

Can I then take it from the above explanation that the other 26 countries will be deciding on these additional ammendments through their relevant means as well?

Well, not in the usual sense - those guarantees are being offered to us by them, so they come "pre-ratified", because they've been negotiated with the respective governments (that's why it takes time). They're being cast initially in the form of binding international agreements, which will be deposited with the UN - the ratification step for the other governments is therefore at that point rather than afterwards.

cordially,
Scofflaw

4Xcut

Well, thank you all very much, that clears that up nicely.

Cheers

storinius

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I hope you can come up with a better answer to the question 'Where does your funding come from?' than you have on the website.



Sounds a bit Libertassy (new word!). The language needs to be firmed up. All movements get money from their 'supporters'. They would hardly get money off people who do not support them.

If this is not clearer early on Libertas will deflect questions about their own funding on to groups like you.

Good luck with the campaign.

I like the new word I have to say!

All we mean by that is that we are not taking any money from the Government, or from Brussels. The campaign is funded by donations from ordinary people who care about the the Lisbon issue. The truth is that really, we have no money, so if you have a rich aunt or something....http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/wink.gif

turgon

It would probably be better to just state that. Let people know its a campaign funded by passion alone.

lostexpectation

there student mostly politics hacks from the greens or labour etc, headed by former tcs su head and member of the european youth parliament

rockthevote version 2.

lots of what we would do without the eu, when there's no question of of us being without it. ie scaremongering

O'Coonassa

"Furthermore, close to one fifth of EU countries are neutral states, like Ireland."

"Ireland’s neutrality will be further protected in EU Law."


It's hardly "neutral" helping to prop up Déby or Karzai is it? Or are Andrew Byrne and his student chums venturing some new and unheard of use of the word. I feel like setting Paul Calf on them.

Scofflaw

O'Coonassa wrote: »

"Furthermore, close to one fifth of EU countries are neutral states, like Ireland."

"Ireland’s neutrality will be further protected in EU Law."


It's hardly "neutral" helping to prop up Déby or Karzai is it? Or are Andrew Byrne and his student chums venturing some new and unheard of use of the word. I feel like setting Paul Calf on them.

You do know that we're in Chad under the UN? MINURCAT, yes? Are you saying the UN are trying to prejudice our neutrality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Coonassa

Scofflaw wrote: »

You do know that we're in Chad under the UN? MINURCAT, yes? Are you saying the UN are trying to prejudice our neutrality?

cordially,
Scofflaw

It was EUFOR though. France and the UK apparently have some leverage at the UN. What I'm saying is that involvement in military operations in other people's lands in assosciation with such nations does impact on our neutrality in the eyes of the world.

storinius

O'Coonassa wrote: »

What I'm saying is that involvement in military operations in other people's lands in assosciation with such nations does impact on our neutrality in the eyes of the world.

There is a big difference between neutrality and isolationism. Armed Swiss peacekeepers arrived in Kosovo in 2002, as that nation was not prepared to stand by and watch slaughter and genocide.

Personally, I am extremely proud of our army's participation in peacekeeping missions, and I think that we don't give them anywhere near enough credit. But that's just me.

Scofflaw

O'Coonassa wrote: »

It was EUFOR though. France and the UK apparently have some leverage at the UN. What I'm saying is that involvement in military operations in other people's lands in assosciation with such nations does impact on our neutrality in the eyes of the world.

The EUFOR was also a UN force, though, and both forces contain French soldiers (the UN one even contains US soldiers!). Saying that we are tainted by participation in one but not the other seems to simply be a case of knee-jerk "EU bad".

Also, as storinius points out, neutrality is not isolationism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Coonassa

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EUFOR was also a UN force, though, and both forces contain French soldiers (the UN one even contains US soldiers!). Saying that we are tainted by participation in one but not the other seems to simply be a case of knee-jerk "EU bad".

Also, as storinius points out, neutrality is not isolationism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am saying that our neutrality is compromised in both situations given the underlying geo-politics. The foreign policy of the EU is totally reprehensible IMO as is that of the UN in it's present configuration. I'm no fan of isolationism. Neutrality is not taking sides in a conflict. If we stand alongside the pro-Déby French and the pro-Karzai Americans then it seems self evident that we are not being neutral.

storinius

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I am saying that our neutrality is compromised in both situations given the underlying geo-politics. The foreign policy of the EU is totally reprehensible IMO as is that of the UN in it's present configuration. I'm no fan of isolationism. Neutrality is not taking sides in a conflict. If we stand alongside the pro-Déby French and the pro-Karzai Americans then it seems self evident that we are not being neutral.

I don't know what you mean when you are saying the 'foreign policy of the EU'. As it stands the EU doesn't have a foreign policy, and any action that the Irish Government decides to become involved in is voted on, on a case by case basis, by the Dáil. It would appear to me that you actually have a problem with Irish foreign policy, which is a very different debate.

lostexpectation

i think our actions under our foreign policy at the moment show us how things would be under a more common eu approach, the irish gov would go even further from their own claims of neutrality.

cut off shanonn from all military and i might vote yes.

lostexpectation

The Irish people deserve an honest debate on this Treaty, we promise that our campaign will base all our arguments on the facts, and will reference all our statements

LIE: The EU wants to introduce conscription in Ireland.

sorry who said that, no reference.

andrew bryne mr 'director' of generation yes wrote letter to the times criticising people making judgement about which way to vote on lisbon 2 before the final wording was agreed, now he doing this generation YES.

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote: »

i think our actions under our foreign policy at the moment show us how things would be under a more common eu approach, the irish gov would go even further from their own claims of neutrality.

cut off shanonn from all military and i might vote yes.

Which, again, has exactly what to do with the EU?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I am saying that our neutrality is compromised in both situations given the underlying geo-politics. The foreign policy of the EU is totally reprehensible IMO as is that of the UN in it's present configuration. I'm no fan of isolationism. Neutrality is not taking sides in a conflict. If we stand alongside the pro-Déby French and the pro-Karzai Americans then it seems self evident that we are not being neutral.

No, sorry, not buying. We've always done our peacekeeping under a UN mandate, as we have done in Chad. There are sides in Chad, yes, but there always are where peacekeeping is involved - otherwise, why would peacekeeping be necessary? There have always been forces in the UN force whose countries have some interest or other in the country in question, although, to be fair, the UN tries to minimise that - it's never been a problem before. We were in Cyprus with the UK, the ex-occupier. We are in Lebanon with France - the ex-occupier - and Turkey (pro-US/NATO if you look at it one way, Muslim country if you look at it the other).

You can't run the UN on the basis of avoiding "possible interests", and you certainly can't do it on the basis of avoiding being in it with people who may have or have had interests in the countries - the point is that we're there under the UN, and so are they. That's the point of the UN, that the countries giving troops aren't giving them in their own interests, but those of the UN. What you're arguing for is nothing less than a withdrawal of Irish forces from their historical peacekeeping role for fear of some nebulous 'moral contamination'. It's bull.

regards,
Scofflaw

O'Coonassa

storinius wrote: »

I don't know what you mean when you are saying the 'foreign policy of the EU'. As it stands the EU doesn't have a foreign policy, and any action that the Irish Government decides to become involved in is voted on, on a case by case basis, by the Dáil. It would appear to me that you actually have a problem with Irish foreign policy, which is a very different debate.

I mainly mean the military policy of EUMS/EUFOR but yes I also have a problem with Irish foreign policy.