Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

conorhal

Could somebody enlighten me. I always thought that after a referendum had been held that there was a legal requirement for a 3 year moratorium on putting the same question to the people again?

I always thought that Nice2 and any subsequent Lisbon2 referendum required at least a minor change to the treaty to allow the government to circumvent this requirement and put the (essentially) same question to the people again within that time frame.

If that is the case, and we receive no changes to the treaty, surely the government can't put the Lisbon Treaty to a vote again for another two years. So if Brown is worried now about passing Lisbon through the British parliament again, how does he think it will fare in another couple of years?

gizmo555

conorhal wrote: »

Could somebody enlighten me. I always thought that after a referendum had been held that there was a legal requirement for a 3 year moratorium on putting the same question to the people again?

There is no such requirement. The government can effectively re-run referenda as often as it likes, if it is prepared to run the risk of annoying the voters.

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so you are saying

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

Not to that extent, no (or at least I'd hope not!). But it may make other member states less amenable to the requests of the Irish- it basically makes our negotiating position a lot tougher. This is not obvious, no?

conchubhar1

no its not obvious

the eu is set up to make it for the good of the whole

yes, there are other areas of bargaining and political hoo-haw but i still dont think it would make us any weaker

were the french and the dutch weaker?
are the czechs weaker?
would the uk be if it is to hold a referendum - (which will fail there). ?
are the polish weaker? altho they agree put are just waiting

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no its not obvious

the eu is set up to make it for the good of the whole

yes, there are other areas of bargaining and political hoo-haw but i still dont think it would make us any weaker

It's standard politicking. If you don't believe all this BS affects us, fine. I disagree.

conchubhar1

how could you defend such an organisation that doesnt accept when a people say no (as in let it die or accept the changes that the irish people feel are neccessary without being angered or using it against us at a later date)

then they come looking to see what they can change so we vote yes

then be angered that we accepted this extra items and held it up?

nonsense really

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

how could you defend such an organisation that doesnt accept when a people say no (as in let it die or accept the changes that the irish people feel are neccessary without being angered or using it against us at a later date)

You need to look at it from the point of view of the other member states. They negotiated a treaty in good faith, and assumed that we did too. It took a long time to arrive at a consensus that 27 countries felt they could agree to.

Then one of those countries fails to ratify. Why? Because people said they didn't understand what they were being asked, or believed the FUD that the treaty's more dishonest opponents spouted, or whatever.

Let's try an analogy again: 27 people sit down to negotiate a holiday destination that they will bring their respective families to. Each family has agreed that their representative has the authority to do this negotiation. It takes weeks of intensive discussion, research, argument and compromise, but eventually they have worked out an itinerary.

Then, a few days later, one of them comes back and says "sorry guys, the kids don't want to go there." He can't say for sure why not, other than that some of them don't know enough about the destination; some have heard bad things about it from a friend (although that friend is a pathological liar), and one just doesn't like going on holidays and always kicks up a fuss.

Do you really think it's unreasonable that the other 26 would be slightly miffed at having to re-open negotiations, having already sold the idea to their own families?

conchubhar1

ye ye

but when they sat down they knew it had to be ratified by all states - they knew ireland had to put it to a referendum

they knew - ireland was democratic and had to make sure the grandparents and kids agreed as they were not there in discussing it

the changes pretty much only affect ireland
all the countries have to do is push it through again

if this causes hassle, would it be that people are questioning why they dont get a vote?
or why wpuld they be peeved?

relativelt simply to push it through a second time, we have to have a 2nd referendum
they cant push it through parliments again?

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

how could you defend such an organisation that doesnt accept when a people say no (as in let it die or accept the changes that the irish people feel are neccessary without being angered or using it against us at a later date)

then they come looking to see what they can change so we vote yes

then be angered that we accepted this extra items and held it up?

nonsense really

Last word on this, because there's only so many ways to make a point. Take a look at the current situation, which is all a result of Ireland's No vote (which of course we were entitled to do, but that's beside the point). We're already 6 months behind from when the Treaty should have come into force, which creates institutional problems in itself. Also, the delay has created problems in The Czech Republic, since the collapse of their government and Klaus having a stranglehold on the ratification process. In Poland, the President Lech Kaczynski is holding off ratification in a bid to gain more power for his office. In the UK, there's a big problem for Gordon Brown with pressure from the Conservatives pledging to hold a referendum. In Spain, they're pissed off because there is uncertainty about the extra MEPs they are due to get with the ratification of Lisbon.

Now, considering that government officials across the EU are very pro-EU/Lisbon (borne out by the big majorities in ratifying Lisbon in Parliaments across Europe), do you really think other member state ministers are going to greet our ministers with open arms, like you suggest? Again, I'm not saying that other member states will be vindictive in their relationship with the Irish, but it does make the negotiating position of the Irish a lot tougher. It's very naive to not understand that.

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye ye

Thank you for that well-reasoned rebuttal.

but when they sat down they knew it had to be ratified by all states - they knew ireland had to put it to a referendum

they knew - ireland was democratic and had to make sure the grandparents and kids agreed as they were not there in discussing it

Leaving aside the suggestion that other member states are un-democratic: yes, they knew Ireland would have to put it to referendum. The Irish negotiators believed that they had negotiated a good deal for Ireland, and that it would be acceptable to the electorate.

For what it's worth, I think they did. I think the "assurances" are redundant, and I think the decision not to reduce the size of the Commission is a big mistake.

the changes pretty much only affect ireland
all the countries have to do is push it through again

The changes affect every member state. Why do you think some of them are reluctant to agree to the declarations?

if this causes hassle, would it be that people are questioning why they dont get a vote?
or why wpuld they be peeved?

relativelt simply to push it through a second time, we have to have a 2nd referendum
they cant push it through parliments again?

The question they're asking is, why should they have to re-ratify? It means re-opening the debate in each member state.

Fundamentally, my point is that our reasons for rejecting the treaty were bad ones. I actually outlined this in the analogy that you dismissed with a hand-waving "ye ye".

conchubhar1

several states have changed posistions slightly - that should be ignored

klaus was elected - that is democratic
conservatives if elected - can do what they like

we are entitled to do it - that is far from ''not the point''

again

france and holland
czech republic
uk
ireland
poland
spain

yes, the eu will be mad at us - all those countries

do you mean barrossa and sarcozy will be mainly angered?

they should have given eneough time as a no vote was and should have been taken into consideration

so the problems that its late - holds little grounds - that should have been debated and used in the negotiations

conchubhar1

no i saw your analogy

i never debated that a large chunk voted for the wrong reasons - in the past.
we have to move on and deal with what is happening now

---

so you would want next time for when they agree a treaty - it is in the interest of their states and europe

and screw the ratification and vote - sure a ''yes'' was and is the only right answer

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we are entitled to do it - that is far from ''not the point''

From the point of my post, it wasn't relevant. And I'm done arguing this, because it's pointless.

TheSpecialOne

why are we having another vote?!i voted yes first but now will vote no we must respect democracy!this is a farce!

oscarBravo

TheSpecialOne wrote: »

why are we having another vote?!i voted yes first but now will vote no we must respect democracy!this is a farce!

What an intriguingly and refreshingly new and different perspective to bring to the debate.

We're voting again because the governments of the other member states of the Union still feel that the EU requires reform, as does our own government. The need for reform didn't go away just because we voted the treaty down for a variety of largely irrelevant reasons.

Max Power1

everyone seems to be missing the most basic of points here. WE HAVE ALREADY REJECTED THIS TREATY!!!!!

If the vote last time was a yes, do you think the no side would have been afforded a second go at it? NO

This treaty should now be scrapped and sent back to the drawing board. As for the so called "guarantees", they are about as reliable as our Taoiseachs dietician.

oscarBravo

Max Power1 wrote: »

everyone seems to be missing the most basic of points here. WE HAVE ALREADY REJECTED THIS TREATY!!!!!

...and now we're being afforded the opportunity to change our minds.

Straight question for you: do you honestly, genuinely believe it's more democratic to ask someone a question and then permanently hold them to their answer, than to ask them the same question again?

I'll throw in another analogy. I know it's a waste of time, because it will be dismissed with another "ye ye" type of response, but I can't help it: I love analogies.

"Would you like a cup of tea?"

"Ew, no, that's disgusting."

"Oh. OK."

"Wait a sec, did you say 'pee' or 'tea'?"

"Tea."

"Oh, I'd love a cup, ta."

"Sorry, you said no, and NO MEANS NO. I respect your original decision, whether you still do or not."

conchubhar1

ye ye - haha j/k

a verbal conversation and a long ammending treaty of a huge political union on how it should be changed to work better that needed a referendum which was backed by most of irish politicians and had media coverage, booklets, campains, posters and a commission to put an unbiased view forward

are hardly the same thing? analogy or not

also - on a cup of tea (i know you dumbed it down but still) is a simple thing most would just go ye or no and pay little heed

the referendum wasnt like this - it had time, discussion and media coverage etc
it wasnt taken lightly

Max Power1

But we are not simply being, as you put it, "afforded the opportunity to change our minds", the referendum is only being re-ran because the government was not satisfied with the result from the previous referendum.

Your analogy about the tea is redundant. We heard exactly what was being decided upon. (not from libertas i might add). This was shot down.

I will ask another question. As the results of the recent local and european elections were not to the liking of the government, surely they should re run those too? What is the difference? It is still ignoring the voice of the people.

oscarBravo

Max Power1 wrote: »

But we are not simply being, as you put it, "afforded the opportunity to change our minds", the referendum is only being re-ran because the government was not satisfied with the result from the previous referendum.

Of course they weren't satisfied. They want the treaty ratified. You seem to be labouring under the standard delusion that once something has been rejected at referendum that it can never, ever be asked again - thankfully you're wrong, as otherwise we'd never have divorce here.

Your analogy about the tea is redundant.

There's a surprise.

We heard exactly what was being decided upon. (not from libertas i might add). This was shot down.

I guess that explains why a substantial percentage said that they voted "no" because they didn't understand the treaty. Oh wait, it doesn't.

I will ask another question. As the results of the recent local and european elections were not to the liking of the government, surely they should re run those too?

Sure - all you have to do is show how there's a constitutional mechanism for the government to do that. Otherwise, to borrow a phrase, your analogy is redundant.

conchubhar1

oBravo were you on the government yes campaign?

not for your outlook - have no bother with that thats up to you

but your analogies are like weak tea with cold water

and most of the posts i see you make tend to attack and or deal with countering others arguments......

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

oBravo were you on the government yes campaign?

:rolleyes:

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

not for your outlook - have no bother with that thats up to you

but your analogies are like weak tea with cold water

and most of the posts i see you make tend to attack and or deal with countering others arguments......

hi - there you go ignoring the rest of comments :(:mad:

Max Power1

Oscarbravo

You can disagree with what I or Concubhar may say, or dispute why people voted no. But the fact remains that the treaty was rejected. This is the same treaty with a few bells and whistles added, in the form of "guarantees", which, wfrom my understanding wont even be added formally to the treaty before we vote again.

The bottom line is i have not heard a single reason that I should vote yes to this treaty, either prior to the last election or now. There was the usual pro EU scaremongering etc. There were attempts to discredit the no side. However concrete reasons, there were none to be found. THIS is why people voted no, they decided to stick with the status quo as they werent given any good reason to change.

conchubhar1

they will be attached to the acension treaty of crotia sometime in 2011 or 2012

afaik and recall

sink

Max Power1 wrote: »

Oscarbravo

You can disagree with what I or Concubhar may say, or dispute why people voted no. But the fact remains that the treaty was rejected. This is the same treaty with a few bells and whistles added, in the form of "guarantees", which, wfrom my understanding wont even be added formally to the treaty before we vote again.

The bottom line is i have not heard a single reason that I should vote yes to this treaty, either prior to the last election or now. There was the usual pro EU scaremongering etc. There were attempts to discredit the no side. However concrete reasons, there were none to be found. THIS is why people voted no, they decided to stick with the status quo as they werent given any good reason to change.

There were many good reasons for voting yes but they were drowned out by the far louder BS claims by both sides. The real reasons for voting yes are pretty mundane & uninteresting you could even go as far to call them boring. But in reality that's what this treaty is about, mundane boring restructuring. That is why you have people like me tearing their hair out because debate keeps getting sidetracked into irrelevant BS. It seems people are more interested in the crap that gets flung around by both side than actual the substance of the treaty.

Here are the reasons i listed last time round for voting yes.

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.

The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%

2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally

Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

3. Permanent President of the European Council

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the role, this causes the President to push his/her countries agenda often against the will of others. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state.

4. The Councils must meet in the open.

At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own.

6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers

The treaty provides for a greater role for EU militaries to co-operate on UN mandated peacekeeping missions, while guaranteeing our neutrality.

7. Includes charter of human rights

For the first time EU all laws will be based on a charter of rights guaranteeing all EU citizens human rights.

8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing

The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.

9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one

The Lisbon creates an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two positions of 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy'. This is to provide a coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, few governments are clear who to contact in regards to specific areas.

10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

The Lisbon treaty merges the three pillars of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff.

Max Power1

Some credible reasons there. One issue I was always in favour of was the permanent president. However where is the part about the "self amending treaty", or have you conveniently left that out?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Max Power1 wrote: »

Some credible reasons there. One issue I was always in favour of was the permanent president. However where is the part about the "self amending treaty", or have you conveniently left that out?

You probably think that 'self amending' means that the Council, or the Commission, or even the Parliament can change the terms of the treaty without recourse to the member states.

This is an incorrect view to have. The 'self amending' clause is actually that the treaty can be amended without drafting an entirely new treaty. This is to allow small changes to happen without necessarily pushing through a full new treaty. Any changes will still have to be ratified in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member state.

In Ireland this means that if such an amendment were to increase the competencies of the EU in respect of Irish national sovereignty we would have to have a referendum on any such amendment before it could be adopted, otherwise it would be passed by the Dáil as is the current case with any international treaties.

Hitman Actual

Max Power1 wrote: »

Some credible reasons there. One issue I was always in favour of was the permanent president. However where is the part about the "self amending treaty", or have you conveniently left that out?

This is a common misconception. It's not a 'self-amending' Treaty, although the procedure for amending the Treaties will change. From Lisbon onwards, individual sections of the Treaty can be amended on a piece-by-piece basis; there is no longer the need for a large Treaty for further reforms. However, the ratification procedure remains the same- amendments always come back to the national Parliaments for approval. So if an amendment conflicts with the Crotty judgement, we still have to ratify by referendum.

The clear advantages of this are that we can focus on just particular parts of the Treaty, rather than having to listening to all the scaremongering that comes with large Treaties. There will be much less confusion on what people are actually voting on. This is one of the biggest advantages of Lisbon, imo.

Edit: PopeBuckfast got there before me.

sink

Max Power1 wrote: »

Some credible reasons there. One issue I was always in favour of was the permanent president. However where is the part about the "self amending treaty", or have you conveniently left that out?

I wrote that over a year ago before the first referendum. After the debacle that ensued i'm more convinced than ever of the need for the new revision procedures. 'Self amending treaty' is however a misleading description. The new procedures allow amendments to be passed individually without the need to clump them all together in a new treaty. The amendments are still required to be ratified by the standard constitutional requirements of each member state. For most countries that will mean passing through their parliaments but in Ireland's case it could mean a referendum. The referenda themselves will allow us to vote on one issue at a time and avoid all the confusion associated with large complex multiple issue treaties. It's a infinite improvement in my book.