Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

realismpol

Seriously vote yes..sure you can trust all politicans. I can't believe they are doing this but they are. They are pushing through a second referendum. It should be clear to all people who a decent amount of i.q now whats going on. We don't have leaders who respect the will of the people anymore. The only difference between our leaders and those in iran or north korea is they are at least open about their dictatorship.

I was watching prime time and it is now clear whats going on. No serious opposition was presented on the show. What was was a lame half assed effort by a boot licker politician to pretend he saw fault with the treaty. Obvioulsy the government has learnt that presenting serious opposition and asking serious questions i.e why are you not obeying the democratic principles you claim to uphold would kill them so they stuck the panel full of lisbon 2 supporters and put on some lame excuse opposition with canned questions to which the supporters of lisbon had all the awnsers.

The real issue here is no longer the treaty folks its the erosion of democracy. Even the most ardent lisbon supporter must now admit this. Look if these elitists don't respect the people's will in 3 different countries all voting on the one thing and telling them no and now asking for a fourth we are heading down the path to dictatorship.

Some of the things i heard coming from the same people who recently lost so badly in the election was amazing. Even fine gael are at it too. One of them said ' its a bit rich us taking money from europe for years and then having the cheek to say no to lisbon' yes i would think there is a much more important issue then that mainly being the people have voted on this and you are not respecting democracy or the will of the people..yes that would be a concern i think, and also thats like saying ' hey hitler gave you bread, now you must follow him, its on with the extermination of the jews'

Im am praying that people in ireland have the sense to see whats going on and give this shower of elitists another black eye from which they will never recover. They are bullies trying to bully people to their viewpoint and their 'goals'. Look i respect those who support the treaty on its merits but comon do you really think they won't change the terms of neutrality etc once we vote for this ...wake up will you they already pointed to their motives by not respecting the will of the people...do you think they even give a hoot about people..

Hitman Actual

Brilliant, another democracy thread. This one even has references to Iran, North Korea, and Hitler. No mention of Mugabe though.

Too much (bad) rhetoric there, but just on this one point:

realismpol wrote: »

Look i respect those who support the treaty on its merits but comon do you really think they won't change the terms of neutrality etc once we vote for this

... Who are "they", and how will they go about changing the terms of neutrality, etc?

Piste

I don't care about them putting the treaty to us again, I care about the treaty itself, and from the press release I read containing the assurances about what would and would not change I'd be happy to vote yes.

realismpol

so your bascially saying you trust a group of individuals who don't respect the democratic will of the people to respect the democratic will of the people? yes i see the logic there sort of a split personality real politiking.

You do realise once this is voted in they can change the terms and conditions. Don't tell me that people are that shortsighted. Jezzz...

Hitman Actual

realismpol wrote: »

so your bascially saying you trust a group of individuals who don't respect the democratic will of the people to respect the democratic will of the people? yes i see the logic there sort of a split personality real politiking.

I said what now where? Again, I ask you, who are "they", and how will they go about changing the terms of neutrality, etc?

sink

realismpol wrote: »

You do realise once this is voted in they can change the terms and conditions. Don't tell me that people are that shortsighted. Jezzz...

They can do what now?

Dinner

realismpol wrote: »

so your bascially saying you trust a group of individuals who don't respect the democratic will of the people to respect the democratic will of the people? yes i see the logic there sort of a split personality real politiking.

They're putting to a vote again. How is that not democratic.

If they weren't being democratic then they would try to put at least some elements of Lisbon through without a referendum.

As has been mentioned many many times, it is the governments policy to pass Lisbon. Also post election polls revealed that many people voted No because they either didn't understand the content of the treaty or they were mislead by groups such as Libertas and Coir.

These 2 things mean that the government is well within it's rights to put it to referendum again. And this time we're not just voting on Lisbon, we're voting on Lisbon and a package of reassurances sought on various issues, which, I believe, neutrality would be one of them.

Hitman Actual

realismpol wrote: »

You do realise once this is voted in they can change the terms and conditions. Don't tell me that people are that shortsighted. Jezzz...

Have a read of Article 48 below. But again, who are "they"? And as for being short-sighted, there's nothing in your posts to indicate you have the slightest clue about either the EU or Lisbon.

Article 48 Lisbon Consolidated wrote:

Article 48
(ex Article 48 TEU)
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.

The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

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

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

Simplified revision procedures
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

Rabble

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Have a read of Article 48 below. But again, who are "they"? And as for being short-sighted, there's nothing in your posts to indicate you have the slightest clue about either the EU or Lisbon.

Can anybody please put my mind at rest on this possible loophole:
Why is the following paragraph included?

"The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States."

That last sentence "the European Council shall define the terms of refrence of a conference..." worries me. It does not make any reference to a conference as provided for in paragraph 4.
Paragraph 4 requires

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

But a conference where the European Council defines the terms of refrence clearly might not have the requirement of ratification by all "Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements"


Having said all that whether or not the Treaty is good for Ireland (or indeed Europe) we have been told by Europe that not ratifying is going to be even worse for us in that Europe will punish us by isolating us and pushing on without us. Yes is now the lesser of two evils.

P. Breathnach

Rabble wrote: »

Can anybody please put my mind at rest on this possible loophole:
Why is the following paragraph included?

"The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments...

The article does not say that the Council has the power to determine if the extent of the proposed amendments does not justify a Convention. Rather does it recognise the possibility that tweaks or fine-tuning might be useful, and that the full amendment procedure is cumbersome.

If the government of any member state takes the position that a proposed amendment is substantial or significant, then it is open to that government to raise a legal challenge to invoking the procedure.

turgon

You say politicians dont have any respect for the people.

Why should they?

The electorate are dumb, cannot decipher information about international treaties and make bad decisions.

The fact that you disagree with our choice of leaders means you also think the electorate slightly dumb which really makes your OP slightly redundant.

Rabble

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The article does not say that the Council has the power to determine if the extent of the proposed amendments does not justify a Convention. Rather does it recognise the possibility that tweaks or fine-tuning might be useful, and that the full amendment procedure is cumbersome.

If the government of any member state takes the position that a proposed amendment is substantial or significant, then it is open to that government to raise a legal challenge to invoking the procedure.

The point is all the other methods of amending the treaty require that the member states ratify "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" .

I can see many governments including ours "justifying" that there doesnt have to be a convention for treaty amendments and pushing through a few "tweaks or fine-tuning" as you call them.

K-9

realismpol wrote: »

Some of the things i heard coming from the same people who recently lost so badly in the election was amazing. Even fine gael are at it too. One of them said ' its a bit rich us taking money from europe for years and then having the cheek to say no to lisbon'

That was a Journalist, not a FG Politician.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

The point is all the other methods of amending the treaty require that the member states ratify "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" .

I can see many governments including ours "justifying" that there doesnt have to be a convention for treaty amendments and pushing through a few "tweaks or fine-tuning" as you call them.

But it doesn't affect the provision that any amendments must be ratified by each member state in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

It's saying that there doesn't have to be a convention to discuss the amendments.

They still have to be ratified.

Hitman Actual

Rabble wrote: »

Can anybody please put my mind at rest on this possible loophole:
Why is the following paragraph included?

"The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States."

That last sentence "the European Council shall define the terms of refrence of a conference..." worries me. It does not make any reference to a conference as provided for in paragraph 4.
Paragraph 4 requires

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

But a conference where the European Council defines the terms of refrence clearly might not have the requirement of ratification by all "Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements"

No, you're not reading it quite right. Reading the Treaty is a bit like reading a piece of software, or working through the logic of a boolean circuit. In this case, the second part of paragraph 4 is always reached. Paragraph 3 describes two means of defining the terms of reference for the conference of representatives (the first through a Convention, the second just by the European Council themselves). However, there is nothing in the second part of paragraph 3 (or anywhere else in that section) to say that paragraph 4 does not apply. The Conference always happens i.e. paragraph 4 is always reached, and the important second part of paragraph 4 always applies.

In reading the Treaty, you can only ignore a specific paragraph/line if it's explicitly stated in the text.

Rabble wrote: »

Having said all that whether or not the Treaty is good for Ireland (or indeed Europe) we have been told by Europe that not ratifying is going to be even worse for us in that Europe will punish us by isolating us and pushing on without us. Yes is now the lesser of two evils.

I've no time for misrepresentation by either side, and it's just scaremongering to say that Ireland will be punished (in an explicit manner). However, our relationship with the EU will be damaged. Remember, we still have to negotiate for funding, or be involved in further reform plans should Lisbon fall. Ireland is currently losing a lot of goodwill built up over years of negotiations, and will lose a lot more should we fail to ratify Lisbon. As would the Czechs, Poles and Germans, but the bigger nations can withstand the loss of goodwill much more than a small nation like us.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Also, it while it's the case that the EU won't 'punish' us (us losing goodwill in negotiations notwithstanding), the international markets just might.

What we need to do right now for Ireland is to exude stability and European and international cooperation. To say to the markets 'Ireland is not just open for business, but it's a great and stable place to do business'.

So I personally think that giving a 'Yes' to Lisbon will benefit us economically, indirectly. While giving a 'No' will cause us to lose out on benefits, more than getting 'punished' as such.

Rabble

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

But it doesn't affect the provision that any amendments must be ratified by each member state in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

It's saying that there doesn't have to be a convention to discuss the amendments.

They still have to be ratified.

Thanks that seems encouraging but can you claify this for me, its does say not only that there doesnt have to be a convention but it can also define the terms of the conference for ratifciation

This is distinct from from the first part of paragraph three which explicitly refers to a conference under the terms of paragraph 4 and its paragraph 4 that contains the provision relating to member states constitutional requirements.

So are you saying it 100% watertight that any conference of reps defined by the European Council must follow the requirements of paragraph 4 and therefore even minor amendments must come back to the Oireachtas for ratification. I hope so.

Rb

Voting Yes won't say anything to the "markets", our country exudes instability and anyone with half a brain can see that. We've a government who haven't a clue what to do next, a lazy electorate and absolutely nothing that should attract companies here at the moment, the cost of labour and lack of infrastructure are the two that pop to mind first.

Whether you vote Yes or No, neither will have an effect on our economy. To say it will, even indirectly, is scaremongering.

P. Breathnach

Rabble wrote: »

... I can see many governments including ours "justifying" that there doesnt have to be a convention for treaty amendments and pushing through a few "tweaks or fine-tuning" as you call them.

Do you suppose that the EU is a conspiracy against the interests of its citizens?

The point is that a need might emerge for housekeeping arrangements to be improved, and doing so should not be made unduly cumbersome. But a fundamental change in the treaty would immediately fail the test of not being "justified by the extent of the proposed amendments" because there is no power given to the Council to make that determination. The Council can take that road only if it seems evident to them (and the parliament) that the amendments are not material. No court would allow them to interpret that in an unreasonably wide way.

There is no way that a change such as creating a European Army (with or without conscription) or a decision to force abortion on demand services throughout the EU would get through the process.

Most of the changes involved in Lisbon are housekeeping, and uncontroversial. There are a few major alterations, and they (rightly) dominate the debate. In my view, they involve a reasonable re-balancing of interests, and I don't see any interest group ceding or gaining a disproportionate amount. It's more giving a bit and getting a bit. You cannot reasonably pocket what you get and cavil at what you are asked to give in return.

Hitman Actual

Rabble wrote: »

Thanks that seems encouraging but can you claify this for me, its does say not only that there doesnt have to be a convention but it can also define the terms of the conference for ratifciation

This is distinct from from the first part of paragraph three which explicitly refers to a conference under the terms of paragraph 4 and its paragraph 4 that contains the provision relating to member states constitutional requirements.

So are you saying it 100% watertight that any conference of reps defined by the European Council must follow the requirements of paragraph 4 and therefore even minor amendments must come back to the Oireachtas for ratification. I hope so.

I see where the confusion is now, and I agree there's some ambiguity. I'll try to dig up some reputable links, but the way to read it is that paragraph 3 is used to decide the mandate of the Conference of Representatives. The first part of paragraph 4 deals with the convening of said Conference by the President, whether the mandate comes from a Convention or from just the European Council. Paragraph 4 always happens, and the second part dealing with ratification always applies.

Edit to add: That doesn't necessary mean that there would be a referendum. That's purely a domestic matter through Crotty. But even amendments that don't require a referendum must come back to the Oireachtas/Dail for ratification. There can be no Treaty amendments without the full cooperation of member states.

P. Breathnach

Rb wrote: »

Voting Yes won't say anything to the "markets", our country exudes instability and anyone with half a brain can see that. We've a government who haven't a clue what to do next, a lazy electorate and absolutely nothing that should attract companies here at the moment, the cost of labour and lack of infrastructure are the two that pop to mind first.

Whether you vote Yes or No, neither will have an effect on our economy. To say it will, even indirectly, is scaremongering.

Voting yes will tell the markets that we are linked to a significant economic alliance and in good standing with our fellow-members. That's a big deal.

Voting no would tell the markets that not only have we messed up our economy, but we are cutting ourselves off from our allies. That would scare me.

PopeBuckfastXVI

With respect Rb, it's just your opinion that voting either way will have 'no effect' in the markets.

I have a differing opinion, and I'm presenting a scenario that's, in my mind, a possibility. People can choose to examine what I say and agree or reject it (as you have done), based on their own experiences and opinions.

That's not scaremongering.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

Thanks that seems encouraging but can you claify this for me, its does say not only that there doesnt have to be a convention but it can also define the terms of the conference for ratifciation

This is distinct from from the first part of paragraph three which explicitly refers to a conference under the terms of paragraph 4 and its paragraph 4 that contains the provision relating to member states constitutional requirements.

So are you saying it 100% watertight that any conference of reps defined by the European Council must follow the requirements of paragraph 4 and therefore even minor amendments must come back to the Oireachtas for ratification. I hope so.

OK, I am not a Lawyer, but...

It's my understanding that the 'terms of the conference' is the agenda, i.e. what is to be discussed and approved by the council.

The methods of ratification, and the need for ratification is covered by the Lisbon Treaty, as above, not by the terms of the conference.

The council has the power to determine what the council considers, i.e. to set the agenda (if 50%+1 agree to that agenda).

Member states then still have to ratify any amendments from that conference, in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

I think it's pretty watertight, and your initial concern was due to mistaking what the article was actually saying.

Rabble

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you suppose that the EU is a conspiracy against the interests of its citizens?

The point is that a need might emerge for housekeeping arrangements to be improved, and doing so should not be made unduly cumbersome. But a fundamental change in the treaty would immediately fail the test of not being "justified by the extent of the proposed amendments" because there is no power given to the Council to make that determination. The Council can take that road only if it seems evident to them (and the parliament) that the amendments are not material. No court would allow them to interpret that in an unreasonably wide way.

There is no way that a change such as creating a European Army (with or without conscription) or a decision to force abortion on demand services throughout the EU would get through the process.

Most of the changes involved in Lisbon are housekeeping, and uncontroversial. There are a few major alterations, and they (rightly) dominate the debate. In my view, they involve a reasonable re-balancing of interests, and I don't see any interest group ceding or gaining a disproportionate amount. It's more giving a bit and getting a bit. You cannot reasonably pocket what you get and cavil at what you are asked to give in return.

On the whole I agree with what you are saying but one of the important parts of the Europe Treaty surely is that it ensures that ALL amendments will be brought back to the member states before ratification.

As was said in one reply the Treaty can be read as if were a piece of software code in that context I think everyone is aware of the impact a bit of "tweeking or fine tuning" can have!

For example we dont want any politician in Europe arguing that a single "SHALL" changed into a "MAY" does not "justify" the full ratification process.

Hitman Actual

Rabble wrote: »

On the whole I agree with what you are saying but one of the important parts of the Europe Treaty surely is that it ensures that ALL amendments will be brought back to the member states before ratification.

As was said in one reply the Treaty can be read as if were a piece of software code in that context I think everyone is aware of the impact a bit of "tweeking or fine tuning" can have!

Well, I just meant that there is a logical flow to the text, although maybe that's just the way I read it as my background is in (electronic) engineering.

Rabble wrote: »

For example we dont want any politician in Europe arguing that a single "SHALL" changed into a "MAY" does not "justify" the full ratification process.

I see where you're coming from, but this shouldn't be a concern at all, imo. If/when Lisbon is ratified, the text will be set in stone, and to change even one comma of that text, the full ratification process will have to be carried out.

Rabble

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

OK, I am not a Lawyer, but...

It's my understanding that the 'terms of the conference' is the agenda, i.e. what is to be discussed and approved by the council.

The methods of ratification, and the need for ratification is covered by the Lisbon Treaty, as above, not by the terms of the conference.

The council has the power to determine what the council considers, i.e. to set the agenda (if 50%+1 agree to that agenda).

Member states then still have to ratify any amendments from that conference, in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

I think it's pretty watertight, and your initial concern was due to mistaking what the article was actually saying.

I'm simply asking is it possible to say it is 100% watertight (not just pretty) and that such a conference MUST be as set out in paragraph 4?

It would have been 100% watertight if they had added the words "as provided for in paragraph 4" to the sentence "In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States."

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

I'm simply asking is it possible to say it is 100% watertight (not just pretty) and that such a conference MUST be as set out in paragraph 4?

It would have been 100% watertight if they had added the words "as provided for in paragraph 4" to the sentence "In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States."

I would say yes, but again, I'm not a Lawyer. I can't see how you could interpret it to read that full ratification is not needed for amendments. The format of the document and the English language used can't be interpreted any other way than stipulating that full ratification is needed for amendments.

However, again, anyone can turn round to me and say 'you're not a lawyer'.

Paragraph 4 doesn't refer to the terms of reference, it refers to the method of adoption of any amendments that come out of the conference.

The terms of reference of the conference are the limits to the subjects that that conference has the power to deal with, or to put it another way, the terms (areas to be covered) to which the conference can refer (deal with, discuss).

Your mixing up the terms of reference of the conference which produces amendments, with the method by which those amendments, if any, are adopted.

The method of adoption, above, that each member state must ratify the treaty, in accordance with their constitutional requirements, is set in stone, by Lisbon, and is not part of the terms of reference for any conference.

*** Except in the following scenario:
50%+1 of member states want to change that particular paragraph to state that amendments don't have to be ratified. This subject would then become part of the terms of reference of the conference. If agreed as an amendment it would still have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements, because the old wording would remain law until changed.

I can't see it being anything but watertight, as you define it.


Short answer:
You cannot make an amendment without full ratification, even an amendment which ends the full ratification provision.

Rabble

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I would say yes, but again, I'm not a Lawyer. I can't see how you could interpret it to read that full ratification is not needed for amendments. The format of the document and the English language used can't be interpreted any other way than stipulating that full ratification is needed for amendments.

However, again, anyone can turn round to me and say 'you're not a lawyer'.

Paragraph 4 doesn't refer to the terms of reference, it refers to the method of adoption of any amendments that come out of the conference.

The terms of reference of the conference are the limits to the subjects that that conference has the power to deal with, or to put it another way, the terms (areas to be covered) to which the conference can refer (deal with, discuss).

Your mixing up the terms of reference of the conference which produces amendments, with the method by which those amendments, if any, are adopted.

The method of adoption, above, that each member state must ratify the treaty, in accordance with their constitutional requirements, is set in stone, by Lisbon, and is not part of the terms of reference for any conference.

*** Except in the following scenario:
50%+1 of member states want to change that particular paragraph to state that amendments don't have to be ratified. This subject would then become part of the terms of reference of the conference. If agreed as an amendment it would still have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements, because the old wording would remain law until changed.

I can't see it being anything but watertight, as you define it.


Short answer:
You cannot make an amendment without full ratification, even an amendment which ends the full ratification provision.

That seems thorough enough. ALL amendments to the the Treaty even ones that dont justify a conference must be passed back to the member state for raitification by the Oireachtas and most likely a referendum.

This is good news they cant rush through any future amendments and since it is the established case law that treaty amendments be put to a referendum here so we can block any change in Europe that doesnt meet the approval of the Irish people.

Perhaps its just me but we have everyone saying dont make a decision on Lisbon without reading it but when I do read it I end up more indecisive than when I started it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

That seems thorough enough. ALL amendments to the the Treaty even ones that dont justify a conference must be passed back to the member state for raitification by the Oireachtas and most likely a referendum.

Every amendment has to come from a conference. Some amendments may not require a convention.

A convention is

composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

So you can see how getting together a convention every time would be seriously painful, that's all that provision is about.

It gives the right to get together a convention consisting of all of the above people to discuss any proposed amendments, if a simple majority calls for it.

Hitman Actual

Rabble wrote: »

That seems thorough enough. ALL amendments to the the Treaty even ones that dont justify a conference must be passed back to the member state for raitification by the Oireachtas and most likely a referendum.

This is good news they cant rush through any future amendments and since it is the established case law that treaty amendments be put to a referendum here so we can block any change in Europe that doesnt meet the approval of the Irish people.

Perhaps its just me but we have everyone saying dont make a decision on Lisbon without reading it but when I do read it I end up more indecisive than when I started it.

A Convention is different to a Conference though. The Conference in paragraph 4 always happens. Here's the interpretation of Article 48 by Ralf Grahn, a respected EU legal expert:

wrote:

Ordinary revision procedure

The amended Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) contains some new options and procedures, although its hard core remains fairly equal to its predecessor.

The government of any member state, the European Parliament and the Commission can make proposals to amend the treaties.

The proposals can serve to increase or to decrease the powers of the European Union.

The European Council consults the European Parliament and the Commission (and the national parliaments have been notified).

The European Council decides to examine the proposals by a simple majority.

In this case the primary option is to call a Convention, but with the consent of the European Parliament it can be dispensed with.

With or without a Convention, an intergovernmental conference decides by common accord (unanimity) the amendments to make to the treaties.

The amendments enter into force after being ratified by all member states.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

Perhaps its just me but we have everyone saying dont make a decision on Lisbon without reading it but when I do read it I end up more indecisive than when I started it.

You just have to be very careful reading it. It's in relatively plain English, but you still need to be careful that you understand exactly what's being said, and what each term refers to.

Just see the amount of bother and confusion you've caused yourself by mixing up the conference with the convention.

I'd imagine the whole thing is littered with possible slip ups like that, if you're not very very careful when reading it.