why are we voting again

oscarBravo

Oberoth wrote: »

"Why are we voting again"

Because we are told to

Who's "we", and who's telling us to vote?

smithcity

A directive is still an international agreement, EU makes directive and it is then up to member states to write it into law themselves.
On Questions and Answers two weeks ago, Joe Higgins explained how the Lisbon Treaty will limit our powers to have referendums on these issues.
Considering we were one of the only EU states to have any meaningful chance to democratically decide whether or not we wished to ratify this treaty (even though it was a hollow referendum, easily tossed aside) I think that is something we should protect and safeguard, unless we want to become another voiceless state.

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

A directive is still an international agreement, EU makes directive and it is then up to member states to write it into law themselves.
On Questions and Answers two weeks ago, Joe Higgins explained how the Lisbon Treaty will limit our powers to have referendums on these issues.
Considering we were one of the only EU states to have any meaningful chance to democratically decide whether or not we wished to ratify this treaty (even though it was a hollow referendum, easily tossed aside) I think that is something we should protect and safeguard, unless we want to become another voiceless state.

We never had a referendum on a Directive, ever. We have only had referenda on treaties.

Please can you explain how Lisbon will limit our powers to have referenda on treaties?

smithcity

I can't explain it, I'm taking the word of Joe Higgins, a capable, intelligent and seemingly honest politician.
If you have a point to make, go right ahead

Oberoth

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who's "we", and who's telling us to vote?

The 'we' are the people who will be taking part in the referendum. in order for Lisbon to be ratified we have to vote again and many politicians want it ratified.

You might aswell ask who the 'We' is in the Question title.

PopeBuckfastXVI

The only point I have, if you can even call it one as it's just a response to your assertion, is that there is *nothing* in Lisbon which makes it more difficult for us to have referenda.

Either Joe Higgins doesn't understand Lisbon, or he is lying. Either way you shouldn't just take him at his word. He is hardly agenda free, by the way, as an avowed opponent of the EU.

My guess is that Joe was referring to Article 48 of the amended TEU, often referred to as the 'self-amending' article.

I have quoted it here, earlier today, you can read it for yourself and see what you think:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60958819&postcount=208

smithcity

Careful now Oberoth, can't you tell that people critical of the Lisbon Treaty are going to be condescended to? We don't want to upset anyone, do we?

smithcity

My response is that the self amending clause has already shown itself to be an empty promise.
The issues raised by the Irish government were neither ammended nor submitted to other EU states for ratification.
Not a word of the treaty has changed.
Our gaurantees are not legally bound to the Lisbon Treaty, they don't even really exist yet.
The closest we will get is a protocol attached to the Croatian accession treaty which will not even exist for at least another two years.
(and even then the protocol is open to interpretation by EU courts)
I've repeated that over and over.
It's not much use to copy and paste bits and pieces of the treaty out of context , it's not an arguement for another referendum. In truth the clause you referred me to seems to highlight how insincere the EU is about member states making amendments.

P. Breathnach

smithcity wrote: »

A directive is still an international agreement...

smithcity, the last referendum attracted a number of campaigners whose tactic was to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. In order to do so, they played fast and loose with the truth. I am sure you do not want to be thought to be in that tradition.

smithcity wrote: »

I can't explain it, I'm taking the word of Joe Higgins, a capable, intelligent and seemingly honest politician...

I have no problem in accepting that Joe Higgins has some capability and intelligence, and I think he is honest. But his word reflects his understanding of society and how it should be reconstructed. I can buy into Marxist analysis (which was really quite an impressive contribution to sociological thinking) but no way can I accept Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist prescriptions for a better society. That's where Joe and I diverge. If you are willing to be guided by Joe, you should check on where he wants to bring you.

oscarBravo

Oberoth wrote: »

The 'we' are the people who will be taking part in the referendum.

OK. Who's telling us to vote again?

sink

smithcity wrote: »

My response is that the self amending clause has already shown itself to be an empty promise.
The issues raised by the Irish government were neither ammended nor submitted to other EU states for ratification.
Not a word of the treaty has changed.
Our gaurantees are not legally bound to the Lisbon Treaty, they don't even really exist yet.
The closest we will get is a protocol attached to the Croatian accession treaty which will not even exist for at least another two years.
(and even then the protocol is open to interpretation by EU courts)
I've repeated that over and over.
It's not much use to copy and paste bits and pieces of the treaty out of context , it's not an arguement for another referendum. In truth the clause you referred me to seems to highlight how insincere the EU is about member states making amendments.

All legal documents of the EU are interpreted by the European Court of Justice, just as all legal documents of the Republic of Ireland are interpreted by the supreme court. The only option to not be subject to the ECJ is to pull out of the EU and cut off all relations. Just as the only option to not be subject to the supreme court of Ireland is to leave this land and never to return.

smithcity

I don't see how my assertion that an EU directive is an international agreement could be seen to spread fear or doubt or misinformation.

I am by no means a socialist but by the same measure, I don't believe in a Federal Europe or taking the first steps on the path to a Federal Europe.

I also think that the points I made in relation to the self amending clause are totally valid and are reason enough to be disillusioned with EU leadership (and FF leadership).

My final point, and most relevant, is that I think it is undemocratic to rerun a referendum on the Lisbon treaty without changing the content of the treaty.
It defeats the whole purpose of the original referendum, how many do-overs are necessary before our government representatives decide to accept the vote of the people?

smithcity

sink wrote: »

All legal documents of the EU are interpreted by the European Court of Justice, just as all legal documents of the Republic of Ireland are interpreted by the supreme court. The only option to not be subject to the ECJ is to pull out of the EU and cut off all relations. Just as the only option to not be subject to the supreme court of Ireland is to leave this land and never to return.

I think it's obvious there, Sink, that the problem arises in the protocol being interpreted seperately, and secondarily to, the Lisbon Treaty.

These gaurantee's would have held more water if they had been amendments to the actual treaty, but it wasn't worth having to take it back for ratification by the other EU states.

oscarBravo

smithcity wrote: »

I am by no means a socialist but by the same measure, I don't believe in a Federal Europe or taking the first steps on the path to a Federal Europe.

That's basically an argument against having a European Union at all. If you don't think the EU should exist, fair enough - but you're in a small minority.

I also think that the points I made in relation to the self amending clause are totally valid and are reason enough to be disillusioned with EU leadership (and FF leadership).

What points did you make that weren't debunked?

My final point, and most relevant, is that I think it is undemocratic to rerun a referendum on the Lisbon treaty without changing the content of the treaty.

I disagree. There are two aspects in a referendum: the question being asked, and the people of whom it's asked. If either changes, then re-asking the question is a valid thing to do.

You seem to be suggesting that it's undemocratic to allow people to change their mind on a given question; that once a question has been asked, people should be actively prevented from ever expressing a view on it again, and that only a different question should be asked. I disagree.

smithcity wrote: »

These gaurantee's would have held more water if they had been amendments to the actual treaty, but it wasn't worth having to take it back for ratification by the other EU states.

The guarantees are pretty pointless anyway, given that they just reiterate what's already in (or rather, not in) the treaty. To actually modify the treaty itself just to add assurances that it doesn't have certain effects seems the height of pointlessness.

Oberoth

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK. Who's telling us to vote again?

The Oireachtas.

smithcity

Look oscar, I'm not going to waste my time and effort argueing with someone who puts words in my mouth.

Nor do I see how anything I said was debunked.

If you can't manage to have a difference of opinion with someone without resorting to twisting and villainising their words, maybe you should take a wee time out

Oberoth

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that it's undemocratic to allow people to change their mind on a given question; that once a question has been asked, people should be actively prevented from ever expressing a view on it again, and that only a different question should be asked. I disagree.

And you seem to suggest that a question can be asked as many times as needed until the 'right' answer is given.

oscarBravo

Oberoth wrote: »

The Oireachtas.

As is their constitutional role to do. More accurately, they're not telling us to vote, they're giving us an opportunity to vote - there's no legal requirement that any of us vote.

smithcity wrote: »

Look oscar, I'm not going to argue with someone who puts words in my mouth.

Nor do I see how anything I said was debunked.

The whole "self-amending" idea has been thoroughly debunked, repeatedly. Any amendments to the treaties will have to be ratified by every member state, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In our case, that's a referendum if sovereignty is ceded - so what's the problem?

Oberoth wrote: »

And you seem to suggest that a question can be asked as many times as needed until the 'right' answer is given.

There's no legal or constitutional impediment, no. There's also precedent, both in Ireland and in Denmark, for having multiple referenda on the same treaty. In both cases, the answer the second time was different from the first, indicating that the people changed their minds.

Do you think it's somehow more democratic to prevent people from changing their minds?

smithcity

I somehow doubt anyone would have the chance to change their mind if a yes vote had gone through before.

I dont see how anything I said regarding the self ammending clause and how it should have been used instead of a protocol has been debunked

sink

smithcity wrote: »

I think it's obvious there, Sink, that the problem arises in the protocol being interpreted seperately, and secondarily to, the Lisbon Treaty.

These gaurantee's would have held more water if they had been amendments to the actual treaty, but it wasn't worth having to take it back for ratification by the other EU states.

Protocols in the Croatian accession treaty are just as legally binding as protocols in the Lisbon treaty. There will be no difference. The simple fact is that 26 out of 27 nations don't want to reopen negotiations on the Lisbon treaty and then have to restart ratification in all their parliaments. We have been offered legally binding international declarations which will become treaty protocols in time, which are as legally binding as the treaty itself.

Oberoth

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no legal or constitutional impediment, no. There's also precedent, both in Ireland and in Denmark, for having multiple referenda on the same treaty. In both cases, the answer the second time was different from the first, indicating that the people changed their minds.

Do you think it's somehow more democratic to prevent people from changing their minds?

Well read this.

smithcity wrote: »

I somehow doubt anyone would have the chance to change their mind if a yes vote had gone through before.

I dont see how anything I said regarding the self ammending clause and how it should have been used instead of a protocol has been debunked

He raised a very good point, if people had voted yes, would they have been given a chance to change their minds?

smithcity

The difference is, Sink, that it is going to be at least 2 more years before the Croatian treaty becomes law, so during that time we have nothing but a handful of promises.

Why is it that the whole No camp claims that such protocols wont have the same legal standing as the Lisbon treaty?

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

I somehow doubt anyone would have the chance to change their mind if a yes vote had gone through before.

I don't see how anything I said regarding the self amending clause and how it should have been used instead of a protocol has been debunked

You're right, it would have been a good idea. You can't use Article 48 until it actually becomes law though. So it's a chicken and egg scenario, you can't use Article 48 to add the guarantees which Ireland says are needed to pass Lisbon, until you pass Lisbon.

I think the current compromise is reasonable under the circumstances.

sink

Oberoth wrote: »

Well read this.



He raised a very good point, if people had voted yes, would they have been given a chance to change their minds?

Once you've entered into a legal contract the only way to end it is with the consent of all parties involved. If we voted yes and ratified Lisbon, effectively entering into a legal contract with 26 other nations the only way to legally exit the agreement would be with the consent and co-operation of all 26 other nations. The only other way would be to break all agreements with other nations thus exiting the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

The difference is, Sink, that it is going to be at least 2 more years before the Croatian treaty becomes law, so during that time we have nothing but a handful of promises.

Why is it that the whole No camp claims that such protocols wont have the same legal standing as the Lisbon treaty?

The 'handful of promises' are being registered with the UN as legally binding International Agreements.

RT&#201 wrote: »

The draft that leaked on Monday states the agreement is 'An agreement between the heads of state or government of the 27 member states of the European Union'.

In other words, it will be in the form of an international agreement or treaty, governed by the terms of the 1969 Vienna Convention on International Agreements.

The Vienna Convention is the 'treaty of treaties'. It is a UN treaty that sets the rules for legally binding agreements between sovereign states.

Its most widely cited article is article 26 - which starts 'Pacta sunt servanda' (Agreements must be kept - arguably the oldest principle in international law). 'Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.'

The agreement on the Irish guarantees will in effect be a treaty in its own right. It would come into force on the same day as the Lisbon treaty (if it is ratified).

Both would then be registered at the UN under the terms of the Vienna Convention. So the guarantees would be binding in international law, not just EU law or Irish law.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

It seems pretty watertight, to me. Especially when you consider that they are just reiterations of the positions under Nice/Lisbon, in clearer language.

smithcity

That's a good point Pope, but I would have expected that it would be easier to amend it before it was signed into law than it would be afterwards?

Maybe it's just that the legal mechanisms weren't in place to do so, if that's the case it seems a bit odd.

PopeBuckfastXVI

sink wrote: »

Once you've entered into a legal contract the only way to end it is with the consent of all parties involved. If we voted yes and ratified Lisbon, effectively entering into a legal contract with 26 other nations the only way to legally exit the agreement would be with the consent and co-operation of all 26 other nations. The only other way would be to break all agreements with other nations thus exiting the EU.

Well Lisbon gives a mechanism to exit the EU, thereby reversing Lisbon's affect on Ireland. If we elected a Government on that platform, then that could happen. I'm not even sure they would need a referendum, as it would be increasing Irish sovereignty, not reducing it.

It might be politically a bad idea to leave the EU without a referendum though.

sink

smithcity wrote: »

The difference is, Sink, that it is going to be at least 2 more years before the Croatian treaty becomes law, so during that time we have nothing but a handful of promises.

No we will have legally binding declarations under international treaty law.

smithcity wrote: »

Why is it that the whole No camp claims that such protocols wont have the same legal standing as the Lisbon treaty?

That's incorrect. The 'No' camp claims correctly (at least the part that knows what they're talking about) that the declarations are not of as high a legal standing as the treaties, but once they become protocols they are in fact part of the treaties and every bit as legally enforceable.

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

That's a good point Pope, but I would have expected that it would be easier to amend it before it was signed into law than it would be afterwards?

Maybe it's just that the legal mechanisms weren't in place to do so, if that's the case it seems a bit odd

Yep, Lisbon is adding those mechanisms, which is another good reason to vote yes.

Sorry edit, just to say, it's already ratified and in law in the other Member states, but we need to agree to it before it's actionable, so it's actually easier to do it this way.

smithcity

Why couldn't you have said that two pages ago? Huh?

To be honest that's the first convincing arguement I've heard for the legal standing of the protocol.

Now to open up a new kettle of fish, where do we stand on the EDA? Will Ireland be obliged to increase military spending?