Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

kevteljeur

This discussion is slowly but surely turning back to whether or not there should be a referendum, and if we should vote yes or no. That's not really relevent, since we will be voting again, and the issue is that after everybody else has agreed the treaty, signed the treaty, and gone home, Ireland (as a state, represented by Cowen) is declaring that it has some special claim to legally-binding assurances on the treaty, and then made the critical error of telling the Irish public that there won't be a problem in getting them.

I'd describe that as a 'classic schoolboy error'. It's up there with confidently telling everyone that bailing out the banks won't count as national debt, without actually checking the facts beforehand. Sheer arrogance, viewed negatively abroad.

oscarBravo, I like your holiday analogy a lot. It's a good description of the situation, and unfortunately European leaders really are as human as the rest of us, and can be very spiteful. Particularly if they're forced to re-ratify the treaty; it makes them look stupid in front of the home crowd, can cost them their leadership, and when Ireland negotiates treaties down the line it won't be forgotten (Ireland bargained hard in it's own interest with the Lisbon treaty, much to the annoyance of the larger states).


.

jacool

Quote:Originally Posted by 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.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

I think the point he is getting is is that democracy isn't democracy if the government only agree when the results suit them ! Bringing in the divorce line here is redundant, despite your clever use of the words "labouring" and "delusion" which automatically places you as a higher authority as you see things crystal clear.
I am waiting for the government to brag about all the extra benefits they got us when these were only obtainable because of the initial democratic "NO" vote

PopeBuckfastXVI

No it's still democracy alright.

Can we put a wordfilter on 'democracy', 'undemocratic' and other variants, as the word seems to have completely lost it's meaning on this forum?

jacool

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

(although that friend is a pathological liar) who is this friend you speak (ill) of ?

K-9

Was going to reply to various posts but then but didn't bother because this is a complete over reaction on the No side.

The Government did say there would be no renegotiation of Lisbon so I can't see why people are pissed off.

The letter clearly states out what Cowen wants and is a reflection on politics and the difficulty of negotiating with 26 other Govts.

People thinking this was just a matter of us giving them our wish list and hey presto, we get everything we wanted are a bit naive.

Dirk Gently

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then, a few days later, one of them comes back and says "sorry guys, the kids don't want to go there."

I think maybe substitute "kids" for a group of friends who are funding the trip and the analogy might work better. It at least implies that the friends are eligible to vote as opposed to minors who should really just do as their parent says. It's a little less elitist if we portray them as capable of making a decision in the story.

Also mention the part about where the friends representative took it upon himself to negotiate the holiday and then failed to explain the trip properly to the group after the deal was done, allowing rival tour operators to convince the group that the trip they were going on was a bad deal, when infact it may not have been so bad, if only the negotiator kept them informed and made a better effort to point this out. Only now, after getting a cancellation and having rebooked the same trip for a later date is the negotiator printing out his online boarding pass and making sure his passport is in date so as there is no hassle getting on the plane at the airport.

What I'm trying to say is the negotiator bears the brunt of the responsibility, more so than those pesky kids whom the negotiator was unwilling or unable to convince to tag along on the trip he (badly) organised.

Don't forget, everyone elses kids who were asked, kicked up a fuss too, they were simply told they're going anyway. Other negotiators then decided not to mention it to their kids at all when they seen the hassle kids can cause. I don't know why the poor parents bother organising these trips for their reluctant kids anyway, you'd think it was the parents who are benefiting from it the way they go on.




tl;dr

The Gov, after spending years on the project then allowed idiots like Libertas to spread lies virtually unchallenged. Then they blamed the kids.

gizmo555

K-9 wrote: »

Was going to reply to various posts but then but didn't bother because this is a complete over reaction on the No side.

The Government did say there would be no renegotiation of Lisbon so I can't see why people are pissed off.

The letter clearly states out what Cowen wants and is a reflection on politics and the difficulty of negotiating with 26 other Govts.

People thinking this was just a matter of us giving them our wish list and hey presto, we get everything we wanted are a bit naive.

All the talk about getting or not getting what "we wanted" ignores the fact that the single biggest factor in influencing voters to vote no or abstain was not fear of conscription, abortion, higher taxes, etc, etc, but a basic inability to understand the question they were being asked.

This is unsurprising when we take account of the views of people like Giscard d'Estaing and Amato that the treaty is unreadable for ordinary citizens and that this was a deliberate aim of those who drafted it. (For those of you who believe the treaty is readable and have read it - good on you, but you are in a small minority, if the opinion polls are to be believed.)

This was compounded by the failure of our government to give the referendum commission enough time to do an effective job, a failure which looks very likely to be repeated this time.

netron

Who leaked Cowen's letter?

He writes in the VERY FIRST sentence:

"I am writing to you in strictest confidence"

If the leaking wasnt done by the Irish, then does show that people we are negotiating with don't exactly have honourable intentions - and if that is the case, why should we trust their "guarantees"?

I find this whole process terrible undemocratic - we have said NO already.

And I would bet that if the UK population had a chance to vote on it , they'd say NO as well - instead Labour fudged the issue and rammed it through parliament , despite promising a UK vote on the matter.

If Gordon Brown and Labour are so afraid of their own population , why the hell should we say Yes to this a 2nd time round?

K-9

netron wrote: »

If the leaking wasnt done by the Irish, then does show that people we are negotiating with don't exactly have honourable intentions - and if that is the case, why should we trust their "guarantees"?

Depends on who did it I suppose. Leaks aren't a new thing in British politics, as can be seen by the MP expenses scandal.

netron

K-9 wrote: »

Depends on who did it I suppose. Leaks aren't a new thing in British politics, as can be seen by the MP expenses scandal.

in any case its clear from his letter that the Lisbon 2 vote will be on the exact same treaty - Joe Higgins is correct in pointing that out.

The "guarantees" will tagged on to future EU treaties. What happens if those "guarantees" are overruled?

turgon

A point to make its that had the No vote been a result of tangible reasons, if the No campaign could outline what they disagree with in the text there wouldnt be a second referendum.

And btw, what is the problem with a second referendum. Are the No-side afraid they might lose? Why so? Is their position intangible?

PopeBuckfastXVI

netron wrote: »

If Gordon Brown and Labour are so afraid of their own population , why the hell should we say Yes to this a 2nd time round?

If Chewbacca, a Wookie, lived on the planet Endor with the Ewoks, why the hell should we say No to this a 2nd time round?

netron

bottom line is - these "guarantees" can only be made legally binding by the ECJ, not the politicians. And the ECJ can overrule them if they are in conflict with the Lisbon Treaty.

netron

I note that Michael Martin (on newstalk) and Brian Cowen (on Today fm) have specifically mentioned the guarantees that they have acheived - such as taxation, abortion, and neutrality.

Which begs the question - if they had to go out and get those "guarantees" after the "No" vote, doesnt that mean that the No Campaign was actually correct in many of its criticisms of Lisbon?

PopeBuckfastXVI

netron wrote: »

I note that Michael Martin (on newstalk) and Brian Cowen (on Today fm) have specifically mentioned the guarantees that they have acheived - such as taxation, abortion, and neutrality.

Which begs the question - if they had to go out and get those "guarantees" after the "No" vote, doesnt that mean that the No Campaign was actually correct in many of its criticisms of Lisbon?

No.

P. Breathnach

netron wrote: »

bottom line is - these "guarantees" can only be made legally binding by the ECJ, not the politicians. ...

I think you should explain the basis of that statement.

Hitman Actual

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you should explain the basis of that statement.

Patricia McKenna was saying this at lunch-time. It doesn't take her long to start muddying the waters.

netron

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you should explain the basis of that statement.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_6999/general-presentation

"As part of that mission, the Court of Justice:

reviews the legality of the acts of the institutions of the European Union,

ensures that the Member States comply with their obligations under Community law,

interprets Community law at the request of the national courts and tribunals.

The Court thus constitutes the judicial authority of the European Union and, in cooperation with the courts and tribunals of the Member States, it ensures the application and uniform interpretation of Community law."


The ECJ is the ultimate interpreter of European Law. "Guarantees" from politicians are not enough.

The "guarantees" should have been incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty in the first place - which clearly our politicians have not done.

Hitman Actual

netron wrote: »

in any case its clear from his letter that the Lisbon 2 vote will be on the exact same treaty - Joe Higgins is correct in pointing that out.

The "guarantees" will tagged on to future EU treaties. What happens if those "guarantees" are overruled?

From here:

wrote:

The Irish guarantees will now be enshrined in a formal declaration of the European Council, which itself has legal force, and the summit will also indicate separately in its conclusions a willingness to return to the issue to copperfasten the interpreations of the treaty in the next treaty agreed between member-states, likely to be that providing for Croatian accession in a couple of years.

turgon

netron wrote: »

Which begs the question - if they had to go out and get those "guarantees" after the "No" vote, doesnt that mean that the No Campaign was actually correct in many of its criticisms of Lisbon?

No. The guarantees mostly merely repeat what is said in the Lisbon treaty, and if one reads the 2008 White Paper you will see this.

kevteljeur

I have to say, that I'm wondering why those guarantees are such a big deal now, when train has, so to speak, left the station already. If the guarantees hadn't been agreed already then it'll hardly happen now. Either Cowen is a clever strategist, or he's panicking, or he really isn't very good at this game at all.

The leak of the letter is interesting in itself; was the leak deliberate, to head off the Irish Government from damaging the Lisbon process any further in particular states? That's a not a 'tin foil hat' idea, if I was in the UK government's position and worried about Cowen's intentions then I might have done the same...


.

netron

The European Council has no formal legislative or executive powers.

It is not even a formal EU institution - the Lisbon Treaty would change that.

Hitman Actual

netron wrote: »

The European Council has no formal legislative or executive powers.

It is not even a formal EU institution - the Lisbon Treaty would change that.

So you say the European Council is lying when they say:

wrote:

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:

(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any reratification of that Treaty;

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

From the Presidency Conclusions of the Summit.

BlitzKrieg

turgon wrote: »

No. The guarantees mostly merely repeat what is said in the Lisbon treaty, and if one reads the 2008 White Paper you will see this.

Just wondering if the guarantees merely repeat what is already said, could they not be treated like amendments and be applied into the treaty via the *self amending* process, rather then the complaints and fears expressed by some that we would have to wait for some *future* treaty?

netron

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So you say the European Council is lying when they say:


From the Presidency Conclusions of the Summit.

Now that is interesting. Because pre-Lisbon it has no legal powers.

pre Lisbon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_council#Powers_and_functions

"The European Council isn't an official institution of the EU, although it is mentioned in the treaties as a body which "shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development". Essentially it defines the EU's policy agenda and has thus been considered to be the motor of European integration. It does this without any formal powers, only the influence it has being composed of national leaders."

and post Lisbon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_council#Future_of_the_European_Council

"In separating from the Council of Ministers, the European Council gains no legislative power."


This is very curious - how can the Council declare something legally binding when it has no legalistive powers?

Even if they DID had some sort of legal powers, at the very least they should be referring it to the European Parliament for ratification.

It does strike me as not entirely correct that the Council can enact laws on a whim without recourse to other EU institutions or national parliaments.

netron

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So you say the European Council is lying when they say:



From the Presidency Conclusions of the Summit.

my bad - you're correct.

The European Council is a different body entirely to the "Council of the European Union" - and it is THAT which issued the PDF you linked to.

And yes, they have legal powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#Powers_and_functions

However they are NOT legally binding - the Council of the European Union only has legal initiative powers - it has to be ratified by the European Parliament.

So yeah -maybe they are lying after all.

UNLESS - and note they come into force once Lisbon is passed -UNLESS the Lisbon Treaty gives the council legally binding powers without recourse to the European Parliament.

It may well be the case that those legally binding declarations from that Council are in effect argueing the case against the Lisbon Treaty.

For if the Council can make legally binding declarations , doesnt that in effect give it powers to bypass parliament entirely?

K-9

gizmo555 wrote: »

All the talk about getting or not getting what "we wanted" ignores the fact that the single biggest factor in influencing voters to vote no or abstain was not fear of conscription, abortion, higher taxes, etc, etc, but a basic inability to understand the question they were being asked.

This is unsurprising when we take account of the views of people like Giscard d'Estaing and Amato that the treaty is unreadable for ordinary citizens and that this was a deliberate aim of those who drafted it. (For those of you who believe the treaty is readable and have read it - good on you, but you are in a small minority, if the opinion polls are to be believed.)

This was compounded by the failure of our government to give the referendum commission enough time to do an effective job, a failure which looks very likely to be repeated this time.

Completely agree and that's why I mentioned the Govt. needs to have an informative campaign and the assurances should help to avoid a lot of the FUD.

netron wrote: »

in any case its clear from his letter that the Lisbon 2 vote will be on the exact same treaty - Joe Higgins is correct in pointing that out.

The "guarantees" will tagged on to future EU treaties. What happens if those "guarantees" are overruled?

The Govt. pointed this out in the first referendum too.

Tbh, if these are over ruled if we vote yes, I think it's time to seriously consider leaving the EU.

Do you have any grounds for suggesting they'll just ignore them?

netron wrote: »

I note that Michael Martin (on newstalk) and Brian Cowen (on Today fm) have specifically mentioned the guarantees that they have acheived - such as taxation, abortion, and neutrality.

Which begs the question - if they had to go out and get those "guarantees" after the "No" vote, doesnt that mean that the No Campaign was actually correct in many of its criticisms of Lisbon?

No. Barring the change on Commissioners the rest are just double assurances to pacify concerns.

netron wrote:

The "guarantees" should have been incorporated into the Lisbon Treaty in the first place - which clearly our politicians have not done.

They where in the legislation, these are clarifications.

Hitman Actual

netron wrote: »

my bad - you're correct.

The European Council is a different body entirely to the "Council of the European Union" - and it is THAT which issued the PDF you linked to.

And yes, they have legal powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#Powers_and_functions

However they are NOT legally binding - the Council of the European Union only has legal initiative powers - it has to be ratified by the European Parliament.

So yeah -maybe they are lying after all.

UNLESS - and note they come into force once Lisbon is passed -UNLESS the Lisbon Treaty gives the council legally binding powers without recourse to the European Parliament.

It may well be the case that those legally binding declarations from that Council are in effect argueing the case against the Lisbon Treaty.

For if the Council can make legally binding declarations , doesnt that in effect give it powers to bypass parliament entirely?

I'm unsure myself where they're getting the power from, and I'm interested in finding out as well, tbh. In this case, we're talking about the negotiation of Protocols/Declarations in a summit- we need to know exactly what powers the European Council has in this situation. It's something that may not be explicitly stated in any of the Treaties.

BlitzKrieg

council of european union is the council of ministers correct? They get their power from being the actual ministers for that specific area from each government.

conchubhar1

Hitman Actual wrote: »

It's something that may not be explicitly stated in any of the Treaties.

ye - its the council of misinsters no\?