Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

KINGVictor

Toiseach Brian Cowen sent this letter to Britains PM Gordon Brown yesterday .


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0618/breaking70.htm


It is becoming apparent that Brussels and some EU countries are becoming increasingly very wary and skeptical of including the legal guarantees in the Lisbon Treaty beacause it would essentially be a "revised treaty" that has to debated by all EU member countries,which would inevitably lead to the death of the treaty.What are your opinions /Thoughts...

turgon

At the publication of these guarantees I was glad the No-side would now have to base their argument on solely non-Lisbon issues, such as Slovakia's method of ratifying international treaties.

However at this stage it will seem that this Lisbon debate could descend into a dogmatic debate on whether the guarantees are in fact legally binding. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Red Alert

turgon wrote: »

However at this stage it will seem that this Lisbon debate could descend into a dogmatic debate on whether the guarantees are in fact legally binding. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Why should it be avoided? In case there's some nasty surprises in there?

nesf

The first few words amuse me:

I am writing to you in strictest confidence

conchubhar1

that should be avoided? wtf

no it should not be avoided - if they are not legally binding

take a **** on it and give it to biffo to eat..... would be useless besides


'' if i am to call, and win, a second referendum''

---

''I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.'' aww isnt that nice

Red Sleeping Beauty

turgon wrote: »

At the publication of these guarantees I was glad the No-side would now have to base their argument on solely non-Lisbon issues, such as Slovakia's method of ratifying international treaties.

However at this stage it will seem that this Lisbon debate could descend into a dogmatic debate on whether the guarantees are in fact legally binding. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Clever post there. First part essentially means "yeah, the guarantees are here, the 'no side' haven't a leg to stand on now" meaning it's a bait into anyone opposing the treaty to of course point out the obvious.

But then the second is like a sort of disclaimer. "oh them feckers on the 'no side', they're just going to blabber on and on about these guarantees now".

Hitman Actual

Alan Rouge wrote: »

But then the second is like a sort of disclaimer. "oh them feckers on the 'no side', they're just going to blabber on and on about these guarantees now".

It's a valid point though. It will take away from the discussion of the merits of (or lack of) the Treaty itself, and we'll again end up with a misinformed electorate.

conchubhar1

it should not be ignored ^

it should be dealt with appropiately and then get on with the merits or lack of etc of the treaty

Rb

turgon wrote: »

At the publication of these guarantees I was glad the No-side would now have to base their argument on solely non-Lisbon issues, such as Slovakia's method of ratifying international treaties.

Sorry Turgon, but I haven't really seen the Yes side basing their argument solely on the Lisbon text itself, more attempting to debunk the arguments of the "No" side which isn't really an acceptable way to "sell" this treaty to the Irish electorate. Although I'm sure we can discuss that in another thread.

There was nothing unreasonable in An Taoiseach's letter anyway. It doesn't exactly scream that we can trust of our fellow member states though nor that there is security in what they have said in the past.

conchubhar1

ye

its as if he is asking of rock solid gurantees because he thinks they would go back on their word - which is worrying

KINGVictor

nesf wrote: »

The first few words amuse me:

That is what amuses me...because it was the British camp that leaked the letter to the press...it is becoming very confusing!!

conchubhar1

where did you find that out? ^

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye

its as if he is asking of rock solid gurantees because he thinks they would go back on their word - which is worrying

From following this over the last few months, I don't think that's his point at all. It's not about trusting other member states to keep their promise at the next Accession Treaty (or whatever), it's more to ensure that they agree on the Protocols now. The other states are just worried about having to reopen Lisbon ratification.

KINGVictor

Just read this on the Internet:


Britain, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia do not want to agree to provide a protocol because this would require every member state to ratify the legal instrument through their national parliaments - a process that may ignite a debate over the treaty in their home countries.
There are also growing concerns that providing an assurance of a protocol to Ireland, which could be ratified when Croatia joins the Union in 2011 or 2012, could provide the eurosceptic Czech president Vaclav Klaus with more arguments to stop him signing the treaty and completing ratification in the Czech Republic.
Mr Klaus warned yesterday that he believed the legal guarantees provided to Ireland justified starting a new ratification process in the Czech parliament, something which could delay the ratification of Lisbon.
EU diplomats fear any further delays to the ratification of Lisbon could allow Conservative party leader David Cameron to come to power in Britain. Mr Cameron has promised to hold a referendum on the treaty in Britain if he gets elected before the treaty enters into force. Most analysts believe this would fail killing the treaty once and for all.
The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown later refused to be drawn on whether he could support the Taoiseach's call. Speaking to journalists ahead of the meeting he said it "was important to do the right thing by Ireland and Europe" but that he did not want to do anything that would change the treaty in any way.



Sounds to me that some people want to eat their cake and have it!!! You cannot force a second vote on Ireland and not expect to contextually take into account their reservations....that would be IMOH very manipulative and undemocratic...

KINGVictor

conchubhar1 wrote: »

where did you find that out? ^

I watched the Six news on RTE and supposedly the letter was private between Cowen and Brown ,but was leaked to the press this afternoon...the Irish camp have vehemently denied leaking it while the british keep quiet.....

conchubhar1

would that be because they know that re opening ratifiction will give people a chance to air their views and call for a referendum where that is possible

and that might kill the treaty

turgon

Yeah thank you everyone for deliberately misinterpreting my post.

What I meant is that Cowen should have avoided any doubt whatsoever as this issue is likely to take centre stage.

Rb wrote: »

Sorry Turgon, but I haven't really seen the Yes side basing their argument solely on the Lisbon text itself, more attempting to debunk the arguments of the "No" side which isn't really an acceptable way to "sell" this treaty to the Irish electorate.

Yes. Because debating it solely on issues that are completely and utterly unaffected by the out come is the acceptable way.

sink

This all kind of flies in the face of another common argument used during the first referendum particularly by Sinn Fein - That the Ireland had a strong mandate to open up renegotiation of the treaty and that other countries would willingly go along.

conchubhar1

that is what happened?

we should gain garuntees that they are legally binding as fast as possible

then and only then - debate the treaty
because if not people already decided no - these garuntees are a neccessity

(like it or not - debate all you want on how they are obvious blah de blah)

Hitman Actual

turgon wrote: »

Yeah thank you everyone for deliberately misinterpreting my post.

What I meant is that Cowen should have avoided any doubt whatsoever as this issue is likely to take centre stage.

I'm not sure what else he can do though, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. The Protocols/Declaration can't be annexed to Lisbon now without reopening ratification. The only way is to have them included at a later date... Am I missing something?

conchubhar1

he stated some time in the future

he also stated not to be attached to lisbon - as that would cause uneccessary hassle

KINGVictor

turgon wrote: »

Yeah thank you everyone for deliberately misinterpreting my post.

What I meant is that Cowen should have avoided any doubt whatsoever as this issue is likely to take centre stage.



Yes. Because debating it solely on issues that are completely and utterly unaffected by the out come is the acceptable way.

How would Cowen have done that....this is politics...Most of the practitioners dont reveal their real intentions until the last minute...I think the issue is that Cowen should have been proactive and leave no room for any oversight whatsoever...now he looks like an idiot!!!

conchubhar1

he looked like one way before this - irrelevant to the disscussion but hey...

lostexpectation

the no voters didn't ask for half these guarantees, they didn't ask re conscription but about militarisation, didn't ask about school discrimination etc...

g5fd6ow0hseima

conchubhar1 wrote: »

that is what happened?

we should gain garuntees that they are legally binding as fast as possible

then and only then - debate the treaty
because if not people already decided no - these garuntees are a neccessity

(like it or not - debate all you want on how they are obvious blah de blah)

But if we obtain legal bindings wont other states also campaign for those, especially Mr. Klaus, thus making the whole treaty a little less potent.

conchubhar1

no - if other states want garuntees....

wouldnt that be what happened in the original talks

but in other countries it did not come to light - in ireland we had a referendum and read up on it and decided we wanted more
you know making the eu better, like it was all about

Dirk Gently

So it looks like Mr Brown is resisting the Irish guarantees on the basis that it could mean he has to go back to parliment and get it re-ratified. (according to radio report this morning)

Is it an elaborate show of support, projecting some meat and legitmatcy to the Irish document or a genuine conflict between the guarantees and the treaty?

kevteljeur

Asking for legally-binding guarantees now, before a second referendum, is precisely what loses Ireland (as a state) friends in the EU; the Treaty has been agreed and finalised, including by Ireland, and getting legally-binding guarantees now is a renegotiation. It's a terrible gamble by Cowen to try and leverage what he sees as the need by the EU to have Ireland on-board, to get more advantages for Ireland at the expense of the other 26 states.

Remember, the negotiations for the Lisbon Treaty have already happened and are finished, Ireland as a State (regardless of the referendum result) declared itself happy with the treaty which was subsequently signed off by the other signatories, we can't go back and renegotiate them. In that case, it's very close to opening up the treaty for renegotiation by everyone else too, in which case the EU is back at square one. I can't imagine there not being sanctions against Ireland in one form or another if that were to happen.


Being the most economically unstable state in the Eurozone doesn't strengthen Ireland's hand here either. This latest move is going to look like sheer arrogance.



.

conchubhar1

well it got rejected

there are two options - look for garuntees
leave it be - loose the whole treaty

not a gamble really..... a neccessity

i despise this loosing friends in the eu business - it is supposed to be great and democratic and not a mens club
but that attitude tends to show it as voting for friends on a you help us we will help you basis

bull**** - if we do loose friends in the eu over this, feck them. but it wont happen, it cant happen

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i despise this loosing friends in the eu business - it is supposed to be great and democratic and not a mens club
but that attitude tends to show it as voting for friends on a you help us we will help you basis

That's a very naive attitude. It's politics, on a multi-national scale. I think I've said this a few times now, but we still have to negotiate with our EU partners on funding, future Treaty reform, etc. Also, our Council ministers still have to regularly negotiate with other ministers- You think any of this makes it any easier for Brendan Smith to negotiate Ireland's position on CAP reform (which is going to be a huge EU issue in the next decade), or Tony Killeen to negotiate on Fisheries issues?

conchubhar1

so you are saying

the other commissioners or whoever would vote on something to spite ireland? or to give ireland a worse deal?

come on