Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes - keep talking down to the no side

Should we treat blatant ignorance with respect?

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

Sorry?

the socialist party are not to be ignored

a previous poster left them out of the no list

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

Should we treat blatant ignorance with respect?

no your right - keep talking down.
that wont fuel the no side even more.

yes you should treat humans with respect

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the socialist party are not to be ignored

a previous poster left them out of the no list

My question was in relation to the claim that they polled 26% of the first preferences in the locals

conchubhar1

well i dont pay attention to figures - seems way too high

netron

turgon wrote: »

Sorry?

yeah. cork north central.

http://www.rte.ie/news/elections/local/l0401.html


i know - it shocked me as well - used to be a FF heartland in my day. 2 or 3 FF councillors returned usually..

now its gone majority socialist. (SF/Lab/SP)

netron

K-9 wrote: »

Definitely and there is an increasing amount of Euro sceptics that vote FF, FG and Labour in GE's but ignore party lines come EU Elections and Referenda, something the likes of Joe, SF, Libertas, Patricia McKenna et all seize on. It isn't a criticism either.

it'll be very interesting to see which side Labour go this time.
Gilmore is in a dilemma as he wants to be seen as "anti establishment" and an alternative to the FF/FG politics.

Tough call. I wouldnt like to be in his shoes , as the SP is grabbing votes from Labour in many areas.

BlitzKrieg

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I'm not sure, my fookin' brain is melted at this stage. The Presidency Conclusions reference only the European Council as regards the Irish Decision, which is the heads of state.

I *think* (I came into this thread a bit late and havnt fully read everything yet ) that Annex 1 is a confirmation that the heads of state via The European Council have confirmed that they all agree to the following changes. The council of the European Union will now be required to process the changes legally into the European Union with the Commission and Parliament. I assume the heads of state are also now expected to process the national agreement from each member state (hence Cowen's letter?)

Once both sides are finished it comes down to the referendum.

but they are having to issue interpretations of what is actually IN the Lisbon Treaty, then surely that proves that the Treaty itself is unreadable.

Who are they? My point was that every group I have named interpret the treaty the same way with the exception of specific members of the no campaign. That neutral groups, The EU, myself, members of this forum have all been able to interpret the treaty the same way, and that if the issue did come down to a matter of interpretation then it would be a major issue to suddenly have something that everyone has agreed on for the last 2 years to mean something different. It is a gamebreaking issue but it has not happened yet (unless you want to show me proof it has)

This obsfuscation by legalese is deeply troubling - its almost as if there is an EU elite political class that doesnt want us mere plebs to understand the EU as they make for an enormous power grab.

Or it could be that the treaty (because its not a constitution) has to work within the structures and systems of the other treaties and on top of that needs to work around the structures and systems of each member states constitution/legal framework. That requires alot of natural legalese regardless of any intention.

The Yanks seem to manage fine with the U.S. Constitution - why cant we?

because there's just the constitution? before the constitution...nothing, just alot of people on western body of land, after the constitution wow a 50 state federal system with rights and responsibilities.

Again *before* nothing

*after* HOLY **** SUPERPOWER!

and for Europe

*before* 27 sovereign states with their own national laws and constitutions, international policies, different rights for their national people etc.

*after* 27 sovereign states with their own national laws and constitutions, international policies, different rights for their national people, cooperating on common issues through a single inter governmental body.

why not put it up to a European vote - do you want a United States of Europe or not? Period.

well firstly because that would mean it comes down to the germans and only the germans and the irish vote would be useless.

Secondly I do not want a united states of europe.

conchubhar1

if he advicates no this time?

he would be an idiot - what would he have to back up why he switched?

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes you should treat humans with respect

Im not talking about respecting humans, Im talking about respecting ignorance.

netron wrote: »

yeah. cork north central.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that was a national trend.

I suppose North Central is a working class heartland, perfect SP territory.

netron

turgon wrote: »

Should we treat blatant ignorance with respect?

thats a bit unfair as i personally am genuinely interested in European politics.

would be a democratic USE advocate, so i would oppose Lisbon from a different angle. its cumbersome, full of legal jargon - and there is no clear 100 per cent "vision" of a future Europe on offer. And yes , I have studied it.

It's just that the legal jargon leaves a bad taste in the mouth - as if there's another motive which they are not making clear to the electorate.

Key example - Labour in the UK offering a referendum on the EU Constitution , but then after getting elected , not doing a referendum because it was renamed the "Lisbon Treaty".

That sort of crap really makes me mistrust the whole thing.

Another example is the treatment of the Irish - "oh you voted the wrong way last time. Go vote again on it until you say Yes".

Doesnt exactly instill confidence in the whole thing.

turgon

netron wrote: »

It's just that the legal jargon leaves a bad taste in the mouth - as if there's another motive which they are not making clear to the electorate.

What is the alternative for an international treaty?

netron wrote: »

Key example - Labour in the UK offering a referendum on the EU Constitution , but then after getting elected , not doing a referendum because it was renamed the "Lisbon Treaty".

But the essence of the Lisbon Treaty is totally different to that of the Constitution. And it was this essence they were probably advocating a vote on?

turgon

Oh btw Im not saying all no side arguments = ignorance, I just said I dont respect ignorance.

netron

turgon wrote: »

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that was a national trend.

I suppose North Central is a working class heartland, perfect SP territory.

Used to be a strong FF area. how times have changed

(used to canvass for the Workers Party as smallie in that area... remember when we socialists would barely break the 10% mark..)

BlitzKrieg

Another example is the treatment of the Irish - "oh you voted the wrong way last time. Go vote again on it until you say Yes".

Or vote in a government in that is not pro lisbon.

Again the General election was a *year* before lisbon.

everyone knew Lisbon was coming.

was it an issue in the general election?


No.

Cant get any more democratic then the people simply not caring.

netron

turgon wrote: »

What is the alternative for an international treaty?



But the essence of the Lisbon Treaty is totally different to that of the Constitution. And it was this essence they were probably advocating a vote on?

yeah - but that didnt go down well with the UK electorate and has made them even more Euro sceptic. (witness the UKIP vote recently.. )

allowing ratifications by parliaments alone was a very very bad idea. The EU should have insisted on referendums.

turgon

netron wrote: »

allowing ratifications by parliaments alone was a very very bad idea. The EU should have insisted on referendums.

But why should the EU have the power to dictate the way in which member states ratify international treaties. The treaties werent even negotiated within the EU, they were negotiated as a meeting of all member states.

K-9

netron wrote: »

The EU should have insisted on referendums.

That usually doesn't go down well with Euro sceptics, EU interference in internal matters.

netron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Or vote in a government in that is not pro lisbon.

Again the General election was a *year* before lisbon.

everyone knew Lisbon was coming.

was it an issue in the general election?


No.

Cant get any more democratic then the people simply not caring.

Bit difficult to do when ALL the major parties were pro-Lisbon.

Most reasonable folks wouldnt want to hand over national power to the likes of Sinn Fein or the SP , would they?

netron

turgon wrote: »

But why should the EU have the power to dictate the way in which member states ratify international treaties. The treaties werent even negotiated within the EU, they were negotiated as a meeting of all member states.

come off it - you're seriously saying that the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated WITHOUT EU involvement?

pull the other one.


And the EU wonders why so few people vote in EU parliament elections.

For if "member states" are clubbing together to arrange treaties amongst themselves without referring back to the electorate, is it any wonder that Euro sceptics refer to the democratic deficit.

Sounds like a nice political class club arranging treaties with each other and the voters having no say in the matter.

Thats not right.

conchubhar1

people dont vote on simple one minded things like oh they are anti lisbon

vote (nevermind all their other policies are so against what i believe in.....)

conchubhar1

netron wrote: »

Bit difficult to do when ALL the major parties were pro-Lisbon.

Most reasonable folks wouldnt want to hand over national power to the likes of Sinn Fein or the SP , would they?

sorry you mean centre right/left - but hugging the line type people

dont use a cop out of ''reasonable folk'' - hobbits were made to be reasonable folk

netron

K-9 wrote: »

That usually doesn't go down well with Euro sceptics, EU interference in internal matters.

yeah. those EU directives and EU law.

obviously a figment of the Euro sceptic imagination.

netron

conchubhar1 wrote: »

sorry you mean centre right/left - but hugging the line type people

dont use a cop out of ''reasonable folk'' - hobbits were made to be reasonable folk

fair enough - i used an idiom I shouldnt have used.

being as i am myself part of the "unreasonable" crowd i really should not have said that.

centre left/right more appropriate. apologies.

BlitzKrieg

obviously a figment of the Euro sceptic imagination.

well the bit where it magically skips the national parliament's involvement and becomes a matter of the EU interferring directly into national affairs and that our government had nothing to do with how it is implemented nationally and couldnt do anything about it and Oh those evil elites from brussals dont care about us british/irish/italian/spanish/timboktu people yeah that is a bit of a imaginationary figment.

conchubhar1

and as an aside anyone who can still stand by the fianna fáil party - i wouldnt regard as reasonable in any aspect got to do with politics

K-9

netron wrote: »

yeah. those EU directives and EU law.

obviously a figment of the Euro sceptic imagination.

Yeah, the ones allowed by our Referenda.

netron

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0001:0016:EN:PDF

"Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union"


"Article 2: No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."

disagree.


Article 3, 2(d) "the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings."

disagree. if you want to clone yourself , thats up to you.


"Article 4 No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

disagree. "degrading treatment" can be interpreted in numerous ways. Publishing a cartoon of Mohammed could be deemed "degrading treatment". Taking the piss out the Pope in a stand up routine could be deemed "degrading" to devout Catholics.

"Article 7
Respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications."

Disagree - this could put a muzzle on the press investigating public figures and their private lives.

"Article 9
Right to marry and right to found a family
The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights."

Disagree - the right to found a family is none of governments business. If i want to have kids , thats my business. Not because of "national laws".

"Article 10
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

Disagree - doesnt take account of cults, such as Scientology. In my view if a cult is damaging to society, government should have the right to restrict it.

"This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."

Disagree - ones religion should not be visible in schools or other places that are funded by the taxpayer (i'm a secularist , in the strict French sort of way. Agree with their ban of religious symbols from schools..)


And thats only to article 10.

I guess i'll be voting No so - the above charter is part of the Lisbon Treaty.

netron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well the bit where it magically skips the national parliament's involvement and becomes a matter of the EU interferring directly into national affairs and that our government had nothing to do with how it is implemented nationally and couldnt do anything about it and Oh those evil elites from brussals dont care about us british/irish/italian/spanish/timboktu people yeah that is a bit of a imaginationary figment.

indeed.. so true.

and the bit where the Council of Ministers agrees on something, INCLUDING the UK minister, only for it to turn up as Daily Mail banner headlines weeks later and the UK guy going "oh thats something from Brussels, vote for me"

PopeBuckfastXVI

Your reasons for voting no are mostly my reasons for voting yes!

Isn't diversity wonderful!?

Also you do realise your quoted charter only governs laws that come from the EU, not national ones.

OMG the EU are banning themselves from torturing me?? The cads!