Barroso seeks speedy Lisbon vote

conchubhar1

we have a (e.u) flag - it flies over o'connol bridge
hum the anthem if you want

fine, but i wish the yes side would not use the argument of a no vote in ireland is unfair because we decide for the rest of the eu

djpbarry

gizmo555 wrote: »

I naively thought a democratic government was supposed to govern in the interests of all the citizens and not just the majority. Apparently I was wrong and the French socialist MPs (and by extension those who voted for them) are "irrelevant".

You’re missing the point. Either you accept that the French parliament represents the French people or you don’t. If you don’t (which is apparently the main basis for the argument for EU-wide referenda), then stating that Socialist MP’s in France oppose Lisbon is irrelevant because you’ve already decided that they don’t represent the people. Or are we going to be selective and say that pro-Lisbon MP’s don’t represent the people while the anti-Lisbon MP’s do?

djpbarry

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so if it gets voted down this time - we voted for ireland. we dont speak for the eu as a whole and it is not unfair that it cant go ahead without us...

So what do you think will be the consequences of a second 'No'?

Oh and we're still waiting for an explanation of the "better deal" that you mentioned here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we have a (e.u) flag - it flies over o'connol bridge
hum the anthem if you want

fine, but i wish the yes side would not use the argument of a no vote in ireland is unfair because we decide for the rest of the eu

Yes but they aren't official. Anyway, it's not looking likely that they will be any time soon, so there's no point in me getting upset about it.

As I said already the 'yes side' is not a single animal. Some people use that argument, and I disagree with that too.

conchubhar1

it is flying over dublin - wether you choose to see it as your flag is your choice
i am european - but my flag is irish as with my anthem.

no there are any who advocate a no and a yes vote - 53 to 47 last time
i fail to see your point

conchubhar1

djpbarry wrote: »

So what do you think will be the consequences of a second 'No'?

Oh and we're still waiting for an explanation of the "better deal" that you mentioned here.

a second no vote would be be keeping the status qou - but i am undecided on how to vote this time around as i have stated before
i am annoyed at several arguments used tho

the better deal is the one we got when we voted no the first time - the one being negogiated to get us to vote yes this time

the one which scofflaw calls ''lisbon plus''

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no there are any who advocate a no and a yes vote - 53 to 47 last time
i fail to see your point

Indeed you do.

I was agreeing with your wish that some on the 'yes' side of the house would stop saying that we shouldn't vote 'no', as we are supposedly voting for the rest of Europe.

I was also pointing out that not everyone on the 'yes' side has the same opinions, and makes the same arguments.

In the same way that people on the 'no' side don't agree on every point and argument.

BlitzKrieg

who oddly eneough were not allowed to vote this time

One could argue that both countries had general elections after the referendums (2006. 2007) and in both cases the parties that promoted a *yes to lisbon* stance and supported the original european constitution were elected comfortable.

conchubhar1

blitz and others

ye must have simple minded opinions when voting - parties and individulas have more opinions and outlooks than the lisbon treaty or any issue

its not that simple to say that the election after was a vote for agreeing with the elected people who agreed to vote on lisbon

PopeBuckfastXVI

Nobody knows for sure what the French electorate would do with Lisbon, either at the time it was ratified or now.

It's absolutely ripe for anyone on either side to project their own opinions onto the blank wall of French opinion, and that being the case, we're never going to come to a conclusion.

Can we put this to bed now please, or at the very least quarantine it into it's own thread?

brianthebard

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re missing the point. Either you accept that the French parliament represents the French people or you don’t. If you don’t (which is apparently the main basis for the argument for EU-wide referenda), then stating that Socialist MP’s in France oppose Lisbon is irrelevant because you’ve already decided that they don’t represent the people. Or are we going to be selective and say that pro-Lisbon MP’s don’t represent the people while the anti-Lisbon MP’s do?

How do you square this with the gains the socialists made a month after the treaty was ratified?

conchubhar1

a seperate vote is the only way to make sure people get a say on this issue

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

a second no vote would be be keeping the status qou

As I already pointed out, post-Nice the TEU states:

Article 48
The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

In other words, the status quo is that the member state shall NOT use referenda, unless referenda are already an existing part of the constitutional requirements of a member state (such as is the case in Ireland in the limited scenario set out in the Crotty judgement).

But, it is crystal clear from your posts, that you want to force the other 26 democracies in the EU to use Irish constitutional procedure for ratifying EU Treaties, even though - in the case of some - their constitutions specify that their Parliaments have the sole legal authority to ratify international treaties.

So, you are not actually in favour of the status quo, are you?

djpbarry

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you square this with the gains the socialists made a month after the treaty was ratified?

Unless I'm mistaken, there has not been a legislative election in France since June 2007?

PopeBuckfastXVI

djpbarry wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, there has not been a legislative election in France since June 2007?

He's talking about the local elections.

conchubhar1

View wrote: »

As I already pointed out, post-Nice the TEU states:

In other words, the status quo is that the member state shall NOT use referenda, unless referenda are already an existing part of the constitutional requirements of a member state (such as is the case in Ireland in the limited scenario set out in the Crotty judgement).

But, it is crystal clear from your posts, that you want to force the other 26 democracies in the EU to use Irish constitutional procedure for ratifying EU Treaties, even though - in the case of some - their constitutions specify that their Parliaments have the sole legal authority to ratify international treaties.

So, you are not actually in favour of the status quo, are you?

if ireland votes no - it wont come ino effect without another vote
duh

i have always made an exception for germany as one example - no one could force a country to do something illegal....

status qou would be what the eu is now without the treaty - ie if ireland votes no it cant come into effect

anyway - i for one am waiting on the concessions to see if they actually are worth while or pure obvious crap that add nothing of use for ireland and the eu as a whole

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

if ireland votes no - it wont come ino effect without another vote
duh

i have always made an exception for germany as one example - no one could force a country to do something illegal....

It is not just Germany - offhand the Italian Constitution specifically excludes the use of referenda for international treaties, the Czech one specifies that Parliament shall ratify international treaties. And I am sure there are more than those if all the constitutions were examined in detail.

As such, the idea that all other member states must hold referenda is, and always was, total nonsense.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

status qou would be what the eu is now without the treaty - ie if ireland votes no it cant come into effect

The status quo in the EU Treaties is that the EU member states will build on the existing treaties. As such, failure by Ireland to ratify an EU treaty that it has already agreed to would constitute a direct refusal to honour that commitment to build on the existing treaties.

Maybe, that is what the electorate does want - I'd personally have my doubts...

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anyway - i for one am waiting on the concessions to see if they actually are worth while or pure obvious crap that add nothing of use for ireland and the eu as a whole

Expect to be disappointed. Most of the "concessions" will be declarations/protocols saying the political equivalent of "As the Government told you in Lisbon I, issue X will not be effected by this treaty" (where X is abortion, corporate tax etc).

USE

Second referendum on Lisbon may be held in late September

TAOISEACH BRIAN Cowen has spoken to key EU leaders in recent days in an effort to get an agreement that will allow the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty to be held in late September or early October.

<...>

The Government is hoping to hold the referendum in the last week of September or the first week of October. The legislation to enable the referendum to take place is expected to be passed by the Dáil before it adjourns for the summer recess in early July.

The referendum will only go ahead if all other 26 countries agree to the legal guarantees for Ireland covering the issues of abortion, neutrality, tax and workers rights.

Lisbon 'essential to recovery' - Ibec

Employers' lobby group Ibec has thrown its support behind the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, describing a Yes vote as essential to economic recovery.

IBEC

USE

The UK Conservatives would not push for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if it has been ratified by the Irish by the time they come to power <...>

Source.

conchubhar1

View wrote: »

As such, the idea that all other member states must hold referenda is, and always was, total nonsense.

The status quo in the EU Treaties is that the EU member states will build on the existing treaties. As such, failure by Ireland to ratify an EU treaty that it has already agreed to would constitute a direct refusal to honour that commitment to build on the existing treaties.

Maybe, that is what the electorate does want - I'd personally have my doubts...

Expect to be disappointed. Most of the "concessions" will be declarations/protocols saying the political equivalent of "As the Government told you in Lisbon I, issue X will not be effected by this treaty" (where X is abortion, corporate tax etc).

jah, that is why no one advocates all.....

so we should agree to ratify it to fufil that obligation even if we feel it is not in our best interests? nonsense

well we will have to wait and see - but yes i wouldnt hold my breath

conchubhar1

yes i took that comment as a empty promise by the conservitives

it is unlikely an event would rise that would force them to live up to that agreement

View

conchubhar1 wrote: »

jah, that is why no one advocates all.....

Fine, so now that we are no longer talking about all member states using referenda then we just talking about some member states using them. And if some should just equal one (i.e. Ireland) then what are you complaining about?

Either you respect the rights of each member state to ratify in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements (i.e. Article 48 TEU) or you don't. Which is it?

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so we should agree to ratify it to fufil that obligation even if we feel it is not in our best interests? nonsense

That is not what I said.

Bunreacht na hEireann specifies that the Government has the exclusive right to negotiate international treaties on behalf of the Irish people (Art. 29.4.1). Now, obviously we can all have a vigorous debate on what we believe is "our best interest" but the place for such a debate is during the actual negotiations - in others words, prior to the Government signing off a final version of the treaty.

Given that the Lisbon Treaty was signed in December 2007, roughly 6 months after the last general election, and then after years of EU discussions, there was ample opportunity for a discussion on what was the "our best interest" that the Government could have negotiated on our behalf for the treaty, wasn't there?

Yet, where were the leaders of the No campaign during this debate? They certainly made little, if any, effort to raise it in the media, much less in the General Election in May 2007, didn't they?

For that matter, did you contact Government Ministers and express concern about what the Government were negotiating prior to them signing the Lisbon Treaty? Do tell...

You see, oddly enough, the other member states do actually take seriously the obligations in the EU Treaties. They do expect us to be professional enough to negotiate properly and having done so to be able to subsequently ratify what we agreed to.

Of course, we could unilaterally decide not to honour our obligations under the Treaties, but that does raise the question - why then would the other member states honour their obligations to us?

conchubhar1

again

general and local or euro elections are fought on issues and policies in general
not on lisbon solely - if one votes for a candidate it does not mean they fully agree with everything they stand for

again, if a country can not legally hold a referndum no one can force them too
nor can anyone force a country who can hold one to hold one

but if ireland votes it down, as it did, then the crap about ireland deciding unfairly the right of 400 odd million citezens should not hold up.....

conchubhar1

again

general and local or euro elections are fought on issues and policies in general
not on lisbon solely - if one votes for a candidate it does not mean they fully agree with everything they stand for

again, if a country can not legally hold a referndum no one can force them too
nor can anyone force a country who can hold one to hold one

but if ireland votes it down, as it did, then the crap about ireland deciding unfairly the right of 400 odd million citezens should not hold up.....

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

again

general and local or euro elections are fought on issues and policies in general
not on lisbon solely - if one votes for a candidate it does not mean they fully agree with everything they stand for

again, if a country can not legally hold a referndum no one can force them too
nor can anyone force a country who can hold one to hold one

but if ireland votes it down, as it did, then the crap about ireland deciding unfairly the right of 400 odd million citezens should not hold up.....

I agree, that argument holds no water. It was never an argument of mine. But you must not confuse that argument with the one that I hold.

So much of EU politics is horse trading. Ireland depends on our ability to seek amicable compromises on issues of less importance to us in order to gain favour in areas of greater national importance such as taxation and CAP reforms. By effectively blocking the Lisbon treaty without a coherent reason we are doing ourselves no favours in this regard. We are effectively giving up the high ground when it comes to future agreements making it more difficult to get what we want.

conchubhar1

sink wrote: »

By effectively blocking the Lisbon treaty without a coherent reason we are doing ourselves no favours in this regard.

We are effectively giving up the high ground when it comes to future agreements making it more difficult to get what we want.

we have a coherent reason - just because you dont agree with that doesnt make it valid

that would be mild bullying but i see your point and i know it would happen

but it is better than bringing in this treaty if we see it as not good for ireland

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we have a coherent reason

Can you share it with us please?

conchubhar1

why i voted is for me and me only
why did you vote yes?

who did you vote for in the elections? and how much do you earn?

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why i voted is for me and me only
why did you vote yes?

who did you vote for in the elections? and how much do you earn?

Makes it a bit difficult for the Govt. to find out the reasons though!

BlitzKrieg

why i voted is for me and me only

Thats all fine and dandy, but if you intend to come into a forum and debate the issues, it would be a good idea to present the issues you consider important as an argument then telling us you have a coherent reason *BUT WE'RE NOT TELLING* NANANANANANAAAA

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why i voted is for me and me only
why did you vote yes?

who did you vote for in the elections? and how much do you earn?

I voted yes as I believe that the Lisbon changes are necessary for an efficient EU, which is capable of adopting a common energy policy, and has an aim of reducing global warming, along with being able to present a common policy on international crises such as the Iraq war. Mostly.

I voted for Labour in both local and national elections. I don't earn enough to keep me happy

Well if nobody is telling anyone why they voted 'no' then, how on earth can you claim that 'we have a coherent reason'.

On the one hand you are claiming that everyone on the 'no' side had a coherent (i.e. logically connected, single, similar, same) reason.

But on the other you can't tell anyone what it is.

So you know everyone on the 'no' side voted 'no' for the same reason as you, but you can't tell us?

BlitzKrieg

On the one hand you are claiming that everyone on the 'no' side had a coherent

cant say the same for the *yes* side.

PopeBuckfastXVI

You know what, you can keep to yourself why you voted no, as you say that's your business.

Meet us half way.

What would you replace in Lisbon, with what new wording, or new clauses, that would let you vote 'yes'?

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why i voted is for me and me only
why did you vote yes?

who did you vote for in the elections? and how much do you earn?

Lmao, What? How can you expect to convince others over to your way of thinking if you can't even say what that is, it's ridiculous! I voted yes for many reasons and I listed my top 10 in this post before the first vote.

conchubhar1

the thread is why are we voting again....

you are not the govt....... ill tell them if they ask

never said all the no side or the yes side voted with reason........

conchubhar1

sink wrote: »

Lmao, What? How can you expect to convince others over to your way of thinking if you can't even say what that is, it's ridiculous! I voted yes for many reasons and I listed my top 10 in this post before the first vote.

i am not trying to convince you of anything

this thread is why are we voting again


lamo fhgd shfkg - other pointless acronyms - rabble rabble

gizmo555

It is clear from a number of opinion polls, including one commissioned by the Dept of Foreign Affairs, that by far the biggest single reason for people either voting no or abstaining last time was a lack of understanding of the treaty and assoicated issues.

It would appear from this report in today's (June 18) Irish Times that in the opinion of the last Referendum Commission, the time available for it to do its work, if the govt goes for an early October date for the next referendum, is far too little:

There was some criticism of the last commission for the confusion that surrounded its [the Referendum Commission's] information campaign on the Lisbon Treaty, particularly its television advertising. In its report on the campaign published earlier this year, the commission defended its role and criticised the amount of time it had been given to prepare for the campaign. It suggested that a minimum of 158 days was required for it to do its work, given the complexity of the issue.

However, the Government has decided to go for a shorter campaign and is preparing for a referendum at the end of September or early October. The most likely date is Friday, October 2nd, or a week earlier on September 25th.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0618/1224249069209.html

Given that the very earliest a new Commission will be appointed is the start of next month, in the unbiased opinion of the last Commission, the referendum should not take place before early December if an effective public information campaign is to be mounted.

It would appear the government doesn't care very much about having an informed electorate. If it loses a 2nd Lisbon referendum on this issue, it will have only itself to blame.

(Extract from Commission report - emphasis mine)
http://www.refcom.ie/en/Reports/ReportonthereferendumontheLisbonTreaty/File,9633,en.pdf

It is with a certain sense of frustration that the Commission must once again record the fact
that on this occasion it was not permitted ample time to prepare properly to plan and run a
fully comprehensive information campaign. This is a matter which has been raised in most of
the Commission’s previous reports and in particular pages 62-63 of its campaign report on the
Amsterdam Treaty and the Northern Ireland Agreements published in November 1998 (see extract
in Appendix 1) and pages 11-13 of its campaign report on the first Treaty of Nice published in
December 2001 (see extract in Appendix 2).

A further complication in this referendum was the fact that the date of referendum was not actually
finalised until the polling day order was made on 12 May 2008. The delay in finalising the actual
referendum day introduced a most unwelcome degree of uncertainty and further complicated the
Commission’s efforts to plan its information campaign.

The Commission has already set out in detail the actions other bodies were required to take in
order to ensure that this Commission could perform it role in a proper manner (see Chapter 2).
The point must be emphasised that future Commissions, like this one, will be obliged to operate
in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC, in relation to procurement, provided the relevant
threshold is exceeded. The table at Appendix 3 shows that a minimum period of 158 days
(i.e. over 5 months) is required if the Commission is to comply with proper procurement procedures.
This additional time would also give the Commission members adequate time to plan the
information campaign, identify and consider in detail the main provisions of the referendum
proposal, reduce this information to the appropriate number of pages of English text, have
it examined in detail by legal advisers (including senior counsel) to ensure its accuracy and
comprehensiveness, have it translated to Irish (to meet the statutory requirements arising
from the implementation of the Official Languages Act 2003) and have the booklet designed.
By contrast, on this occasion, the Commission had barely three weeks to carry out all those tasks.

K-9

gizmo555 wrote: »

It would appear the government doesn't care very much about having an informed electorate. If it loses a 2nd Lisbon referendum on this issue, it will have only itself to blame.

I think this is what Barroso was getting at.

Hitman Actual

If the Yes campaign can't inform the public in three months, in what is a 2nd referendum, with some excellently-worded assurances, and with the No campaign damaged from the elections, then some people should be brought out and flogged, or stoned, or something...

gizmo555

Hitman Actual wrote: »

If the Yes campaign can't inform the public in three months, in what is a 2nd referendum, with some excellently-worded assurances, and with the No campaign damaged from the elections, then some people should be brought out and flogged, or stoned, or something...

The referendum commission's job is to set out in a balanced way the pros and cons of the treaty - not to engage in partisan propaganda. It is apparent from the reports of the commission on succesive referenda (and not just EU related ones) that they are consistently being sabotaged in their efforts by governments with whom the McKenna judgement does not sit well.

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

The referendum commission's job is to set out in a balanced way the pros and cons of the treaty - not to engage in partisan propaganda. It is apparent from the reports of the commission on succesive referenda (and not just EU related ones) that they are consistently being sabotaged in their efforts by governments with whom the McKenna judgement does not sit well.

You are wrong.

Refcoms job is to impartially set out what a Constitutional change means.

It's got nothing to do with pro's and con's, or manufacturing 'balance', they changed that after the International Criminal Court referendum.

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You are wrong.

Refcoms job is to impartially set out what a Constitutional change means.

It's got nothing to do with pro's and con's, or manufacturing 'balance', they changed that after the Death Penalty referendum.

You're quite right - my mistake.

It doesn't alter the facts that

(i) successive governments have not given successive referendum commissions enough time to do a thorough job and if Lisbon II goes ahead in early October, the same will apply this time.

(ii) we ought to be able to rely on the commission for an unbiased explanation of the treaty, as opposed to the party political propaganda from politicians on all sides who are desperate not to lose face with their buddies in Eurpoe.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I agree with both i and ii, however I haven't ever seen any evidence of Refcom providing biased material, as described in ii.

Sometimes the truth doesn't reflect our own unconscious bias though

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I agree with both i and ii, however I haven't ever seen any evidence of Refcom providing biased material, as described in ii.

Sometimes the truth doesn't reflect our own unconscious bias though

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.

I have every confidence in the commission's lack of bias - in fact it will probably be the only source of entirely unbiased information available to the ordinary voter.

However, if one accepts the report of the last commission, a referendum in late Sep/early Oct will make it certain the next commission will be unable to do a thorough job.

It is equally certain that if the referendum is lost, the commission will be criticised for not doing a thorough job.

Hitman Actual

gizmo555 wrote: »

The referendum commission's job is to set out in a balanced way the pros and cons of the treaty - not to engage in partisan propaganda. It is apparent from the reports of the commission on succesive referenda (and not just EU related ones) that they are consistently being sabotaged in their efforts by governments with whom the McKenna judgement does not sit well.

I was talking about the Yes campaign in general. However, it's the job of the Referendum Commission to deal in facts, not to spell out advantages/disadvantages of the Treaty.

gizmo555 wrote: »

(i) successive governments have not given successive referendum commissions enough time to do a thorough job and if Lisbon II goes ahead in early October, the same will apply this time.

Well, they're getting more time than they did last time, for a start. And as it's a second referendum, more people should have a better idea about Lisbon than when RefCom started last time (Lisbon has been discussed for 14 months now). Also, they have a much clearer idea of what people are confused about. Three months should be plenty of time; if not, then I wonder about the ability of the people tasked with the job.

gizmo555 wrote: »

(ii) we ought to be able to rely on the commission for an unbiased explanation of the treaty, as opposed to the party political propaganda from politicians on all sides who are desperate not to lose face with their buddies in Eurpoe.

Firstly, you need to get away from the idea that political parties want Lisbon passed just so as to not "lose face with their buddies in Europe." It's a silly sentiment that gets thrown around here a lot. They clearly think Lisbon is a good deal for Ireland. Also, while the politicians may be biased as regards their support of the Treaty, can you point to any false statement by any politician in the original campaign, compared to, say, the lies by Libertas and Coir? There's much less scope for politicians to engage in outright lying; even Sinn Fein stop short of that.

markomongo

I believe that if every person on this island knew the nature and history of the Lisbon treaty, regardless of the content, the majority would vote NO again.

Its old rethoric at this stage to most that the Lisbon Treaty is over 85% of the rejected EU constitution, voted NO by the peoples of France and Holland in 2005. I have mentioned this again for anybody who was unaware. Now let us look at the quotes which changed my opinion before I even read the treaty.


“The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007

“The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’.”
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Parliament, 27 June 2007

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly” … “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew u the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007


“The Constitution is the capstone of a EuropeanFederalState”
- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004

“We decide on something. We leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
- Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, The Economist, 24 September 2004

“We need a European defence, a European army, not just on paper but a force genuinely capable of operating in the field, including beyond the European borders … The philosophy behind all these proposals - economic, political, military - is always the same. I believe that the citizens’ doubts and uncertainty, as for example reflected in the two referendums, actually constitute a plea for more Europe, a strong Europe, and not for less Europe. And I am also quite clear that I am advocating a more powerful Europe, also a more closely integrated Europe … In short I am advocating a United States of Europe.”
- Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, speech at the London School of Economics, 21 March 2006


I believe we are being asked to vote again simply because of the path the EU seems to have chosen. All be it not by the people, but by the shady characters at the top.

Once again I will be voting NO.

gizmo555

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Well, they're getting more time than they did last time, for a start. And as it's a second referendum, more people should have a better idea about Lisbon than when RefCom started last time (Lisbon has been discussed for 14 months now). Also, they have a much clearer idea of what people are confused about.

They are not getting more time - the commission hasn't been appointed yet and can't start its work until it is. Last time, it was appointed on 6 March 2008 - exactly 14 weeks before the referendum.

If the government goes for the first week in October for the next referendum, at best - if it's appointed next week - the next commission will have no more time than the last one.

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Three months should be plenty of time; if not, then I wonder about the ability of the people tasked with the job.

Go and read the relevant section of the last commission's report and you'll see why they felt three months wasn't enough.

http://www.refcom.ie/en/Reports/ReportonthereferendumontheLisbonTreaty/Name,9573,en.html

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Firstly, you need to get away from the idea that political parties want Lisbon passed just so as to not "lose face with their buddies in Europe." It's a silly sentiment that gets thrown around here a lot.

Ok, substiute "lose influence and goodwill" for "lose face" - same thing really.

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Also, while the politicians may be biased as regards their support of the Treaty, can you point to any false statement by any politician in the original campaign, compared to, say, the lies by Libertas and Coir? There's much less scope for politicians to engage in outright lying; even Sinn Fein stop short of that.

I have no idea what this has to do with successive referendum commissions consistently being denied enough time to do their job properly.

K-9

markomongo wrote: »

I believe that if every person on this island knew the nature and history of the Lisbon treaty, regardless of the content, the majority would vote NO again.

Its old rethoric at this stage to most that the Lisbon Treaty is over 85% of the rejected EU constitution, voted NO by the peoples of France and Holland in 2005. I have mentioned this again for anybody who was unaware. Now let us look at the quotes which changed my opinion before I even read the treaty.


“The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007

“The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’.”
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable… The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Parliament, 27 June 2007

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly” … “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew u the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007


“The Constitution is the capstone of a EuropeanFederalState”
- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004

“We decide on something. We leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
- Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, The Economist, 24 September 2004

“We need a European defence, a European army, not just on paper but a force genuinely capable of operating in the field, including beyond the European borders … The philosophy behind all these proposals - economic, political, military - is always the same. I believe that the citizens’ doubts and uncertainty, as for example reflected in the two referendums, actually constitute a plea for more Europe, a strong Europe, and not for less Europe. And I am also quite clear that I am advocating a more powerful Europe, also a more closely integrated Europe … In short I am advocating a United States of Europe.”
- Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, speech at the London School of Economics, 21 March 2006


I believe we are being asked to vote again simply because of the path the EU seems to have chosen. All be it not by the people, but by the shady characters at the top.

Once again I will be voting NO.

You have the speeches that these were quoted from to get some context?

Would be worth using the search function as I think most, if not all of those have been addressed before.

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

You have the speeches that these were quoted from to get some context?

Would be worth using the search function as I think most, if not all of those have been addressed before.

What's the point, some of them don't even mention Lisbon...

Hitman Actual

gizmo555 wrote: »

They are not getting more time - the commission hasn't been appointed yet and can't start its work until it is. Last time, it was appointed on 6 March 2008 - exactly 14 weeks before the referendum.

If the government goes for the first week in October for the next referendum, at best - if it's appointed next week - the next commission will have no more time than the last one.

Go and read the relevant section of the last commission's report and you'll see why they felt three months wasn't enough.

http://www.refcom.ie/en/Reports/ReportonthereferendumontheLisbonTreaty/Name,9573,en.html

Fair enough on the date- I confused it with the May date when the referendum day was set in stone. In reading that report, I see the issues that RefCom have.

The question is, though- do you believe that the there is some conspiracy going on to ensure that RefCom can't do their job?

gizmo555 wrote: »

Ok, substiute "lose influence and goodwill" for "lose face" - same thing really.

My point is that, however you put it, loss of goodwill or whatever isn't the reason that Ireland is trying to get Lisbon ratified here. We're not Europe's lackeys, and I hate the assertion by some people that we are (not directed specifically at you, btw). The government believes that Lisbon is the best deal we will get, that's why they're keen to push it through. (Not that loss of goodwill isn't a problem either, though).

gizmo555 wrote: »

I have no idea what this has to do with successive referendum commissions consistently being denied enough time to do their job properly.

Nothing, I'm just making the point that statements made by pro-EU politicians on the technical aspects of the Treaty are demonstrably true. For example, when Michael Martin says that the status of corporation tax does not change in Lisbon, he's talking about something which is directly verifiable from the Treaty, and should be believed, as it's too easy to prove him wrong. So while politicians may be biased, a lot of what they say regarding the Treaty is true and should be believed.

That's a bit of a ramble- my point is that just because the Government is biased, it doesn't mean they're lying about the Treaty. Unlike groups who have no accountability (Libertas and crazy Coir).