Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

minus the sit on it part - ye pretty much perfect

it is what it is, we have to get on with it

Brown doesn't have to accept what the Irish electorate wants.

conchubhar1

no he does not......

nor does any other state

lisbon would be dead and ........ not a heart beat missed and back to the original square and half the topics would be pretty much used

fundamental rights - yes
climate change - yes
voting - it has been this way for years with no major problems

etc etc

KINGVictor

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Are you for real? You think that a "plain and democratic" EU just accepts whatever requests we put to them, with no negotiating with, or looking for support from, other nations?

Quoting and responding out of context...I think it would have been brilliant if dissected the whole post like some do...

Hitman Actual

KINGVictor wrote: »

Quoting and responding out of context...I think it would have been brilliant if dissected the whole post like some do...

I don't think it's out of context, but then again your post was vague in the extreme. Edit to add: Your last few posts seem to be about the fact that Cowen shouldn't have to look for support, no?

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right, unfortunately that isn't the way the EU works. If it did, not much would be done. Representing is all well and good but when you are 1 member out of 27 it's good to seek support from other members? No?

Precisely what I am talking about....the EU as we know it today is a bloc .The Irish referendum should be a model for what democracy is about .

Every head of government should be answerable to their citizens and not try to appease or please third parties.Until such a time we have a United states of Europe???...it should be the prerogative of every leader to protect the wishes of their citizens and not be allowed to be bullied ,cajoled or forced into acting against their own citizenry.

KINGVictor

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I don't think it's out of context, but then again your post was vague in the extreme. Edit to add: Your last few posts seem to be about the fact that Cowen shouldn't have to look for support, no?

How was my post vague...point it out.
Like I said earlier ,Cowen shouldn't have had any need to seek support in this instance...for what purpose?...the Irish said No to a treaty and the Brussels agreed to give concessions to allay the fears of the voters in IRELAND...why does he have to plead for support from anyone.The truth is that brussels found themselves in a risky situation ..considering the fact that if the gurantees were added to the treaty in principle ...it simply means a new treaty .

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

Every head of government should be answerable to their citizens and not try to appease or please third parties.Until such a time we have a United states of Europe???...it should be the prerogative of every leader to protect the wishes of their citizens and not be allowed to be bullied ,cajoled or forced into acting against their own citizenry.

So why are you complaining about Cowens letter asking Brown for support?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hang on,

Did I miss something?

The Irish People tell Cowen to go back and get more from the rest of the EU.

Cowen writes to Brown (and probably others) telling him we need to nail down the 'more', on behalf of the Irish people, who told him to go back and get more, and holds out the carrot of an approved Lisbon, which Brown wants.

And that's Cowen not representing the Irish people how?

Hitman Actual

KINGVictor wrote: »

How was my post vague...point it out.

Eh... by the very nature of something being vague, it's a bit hard to point out what the vagueness is. I don't know- four or five sentences, no clear point in any of them.

KINGVictor wrote: »

Like I said earlier ,Cowen shouldn't have had any need to seek support in this instance...for what purpose?...the Irish said No to a treaty and the Brussels agreed to give concessions to allay the fears of the voters in IRELAND...why does he have to plead for support from anyone.The truth is that brussels found themselves in a risky situation ..considering the fact that if the gurantees were added to the treaty in principle ...it simply means a new treaty .

And like I already said (but you chose to ignore), if you had been following this over the last 6 months or so, you would have anticipated that there was always likely to be some opposition to Ireland's requests, due to the potential problems it might cause in other member states. This was not a done deal, by any means.

kevteljeur

KINGVictor wrote: »

Precisely what I am talking about....the EU as we know it today is a bloc .The Irish referendum should be a model for what democracy is about .

Every head of government should be answerable to their citizens and not try to appease or please third parties.Until such a time we have a United states of Europe???...it should be the prerogative of every leader to protect the wishes of their citizens and not be allowed to be bullied ,cajoled or forced into acting against their own citizenry.

Each EU State has a different implementation of good democracy, and none of them have a hugely clear advantage over the others. In Germany, I believe national referenda are illegal. In Ireland, we have the one of the highest levels of parliamentary representation of any democratic country, so in theory the Irish population's views on any given issue are represented to a high degree of granularity in the Dáil - for democracy in action, the Dáil alone could vote on issues such as Lisbon, and the wishes of the people would be very adequately reflected. If people vote for their representatives based on other criteria (her grandfather fought against the treaty in the Civil war, he got you the planning permission for the extension, etc) then they've only themselves to blame for not having their views represented on a national or international level. If they're not representing you at that level, you shouldn't vote for them. My point being, national referenda are redundant in Ireland, but I believe they are offered as a cop-out on hard decision-making by the Government, or because they're afraid of legal challenges.

Personally, I think our biggest flaw here is the Party Whip system, but that's getting very off-topic.


Curious about everyone's opinions on the original topic, by the way; Cowen now has his guarantees, and seems happy with it.

Brian Cowen wrote:

“We came here with two aims. Ireland wanted firm legal guarantees. We got them. We wanted a commitment to a protocol. We got that,”

I don't see anything legally binding here, other than some sort of political misuse of wording, and media-friendly reassurance. I guess we can get back to the perpetual debate on what we should change in the already agreed and signed-off treaty, and the merits of having a second referendum (I guess there is such a thing as too much democracy after all).



.

Hitman Actual

kevteljeur wrote: »

I don't see anything legally binding here, other than some sort of political misuse of wording, and media-friendly reassurance. I guess we can get back to the perpetual debate on what we should change in the already agreed and signed-off treaty, and the merits of having a second referendum (I guess there is such a thing as too much democracy after all).

According to the Presidency Conclusions, the Decision is legally binding. See this post in this thread. But there is some confusion as to exactly how the European Council Decision is legally binding, as no one seems to know what legal powers the European Council actually has. (The consensus is they don't have any legal powers). One suggestion is that the Decision is legally binding through the Council of Ministers.

conchubhar1

so currently it isnt legally binding - them stating it is is about as useful as me stating it is legaly binding.

but i would imagine their would is fairly sound - they are unlikely to say it and then later allow it not to be implemented

that would look so so bad

Mario007

the thing is it doesnt have to be legally binding, the czech prime minister stated it quite bluntly when he said that they didnt really know what the irish wanted cause all they were expressing fears about was in the treaty, so they just gave the irish the treaty again, in simpler english...paraphrasing him, of course.
so really it turned out to be a big embarrassment for the irish in europe...but at least we got the simpler english text.
on the topic of will it be legally binding? the danes did a similiar deal with europe with maasachrist treaty and registered it in the UN and got all that their guarantee document stated.
lastly there is an article in the lisbon treaty that says all documents that are to do with the implementation of lisbon become a part of the treaty.

conchubhar1

it is an embarrasment to europe? well thats your view - an anger to sarcoxy and barrosso maybe

the irish want it legaly binded and garunteed - wether these are needed as they are ''obvious'' in the treaty is irrelevant as the majority of irish rejected this treaty and a lot used those points as reasons and lack of knowledge also

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it is an embarrasment to europe? well thats your view - an anger to sarcoxy and barrosso maybe

the irish want it legaly binded and garunteed - wether these are needed as they are ''obvious'' in the treaty is irrelevant as the majority of irish rejected this treaty and a lot used those points as reasons and lack of knowledge also

wrong...only 800 000 irish voted no...hardly what you'd call majority of the irish...the majority said 'i dont care' or 'i dont know'...

well it is embarrasing that we need to get guarantees that are already in the treaty, just condensed in simpler english.

and btw sarcozy is the one really cool politician in europe dont know why you dont like him

conchubhar1

the majority who were arsed to vote

are you criticising all eu country parliments and the eu parliment

all pretty much had an average of 50 ish %

we are a people who arent politicians or lawyers - of course we arent to all the ins and outs of an international treaty ammending but not replacing different treaties legslating and working with and for 27 states

i dont dislike him - but he would be one of the main ones criticising us so.....

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the majority who were arsed to vote

are you criticising all eu country parliments and the eu parliment

all pretty much had an average of 50 ish %

we are a people who arent politicians or lawyers - of course we arent to all the ins and outs of an international treaty ammending but not replacing different treaties legslating and working with and for 27 states

i dont dislike him - but he would be one of the main ones criticising us so.....

no, as far as i know it usually was along the lines of 60-70% support in the parliaments. usually only the nationalists were against it, or the conservatives(though of course there were exception)

its also worth pointing out that there is an article in the lisbon treaty that does say that any agreement reached regarding lisbon will become a part of the treaty, so just to finish off the debate about whether the guarantees will be legally binding.

well yet again, its his policy to pass lisbon and so he follows that vision. but to give him credit he even said he'd come to ireland to campaign and get merkel with him to get lisbon passed...so he's not just all talk and criticism

conchubhar1

yep - but should we drop referedums here i feel the only fair figure should be higher
but i whole heardetly back referendums so its only idle talk by me

which article number? why all this talk of it being added in 2011 or 2012 or possibly to an acension treaty then?

a few people have come to ireland - its within the eu it wouldnt take him long
i would like it - it would be beneficial

again - i dont mind him per-se and i see your point hes not only just being critical

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yep - but should we drop referedums here i feel the only fair figure should be higher
but i whole heardetly back referendums so its only idle talk by me

which article number? why all this talk of it being added in 2011 or 2012 or possibly to an acension treaty then?

a few people have come to ireland - its within the eu it wouldnt take him long
i would like it - it would be beneficial

again - i dont mind him per-se and i see your point hes not only just being critical

its article 51 of the Treaty of European Union(ya know seeing that there is a few treaties contained in the overall lisbon treaty) it states that protocols and additions to this treaty make them its part.

ya it'd be very beneficial, cos to be honest many people(myself included) feel that some of the foreign leaders and politicians can be trusted more than the ones we have here.

ya i know what you mean, and thanks for not just being one-sided

conchubhar1

i still dont know on that point

there was talk by sarcoxy i think on when it could be implemented and 2011 or 2012 was mentioned or added to an acension trety

what page is it on in the treaty - what version do you have? like whats it say on the first page

yes, i would trust certain eu politicians and experts over some of our own

no bother, just my opinions and yours (a good discussion)

K-9

Mario007 wrote: »

ya it'd be very beneficial, cos to be honest many people(myself included) feel that some of the foreign leaders and politicians can be trusted more than the ones we have here.

ya i know what you mean, and thanks for not just being one-sided

Can't agree on that. Some would see it as interfering and everything he said would be under the microscope to be misinterpreted by others.

conchubhar1

everything should be under the microscope............

things are miscontrued now..........


i am not at all suprised you wouldnt back this tho

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i am not at all suprised you wouldnt back this tho

Why?

I think he's perfectly entitled to come but it will be spinned.

conchubhar1

on your previous stances - not an attack on you....

yes, as things are twisted and spinned now

but it will give variety and a vast and wide view on things

Mario007

K-9 wrote: »

Can't agree on that. Some would see it as interfering and everything he said would be under the microscope to be misinterpreted by others.

i think that argument is very short-sighted because most of the foreign experts and politicians have usually high ratings, if they are to come here. its like when soccer player, say from serbia, wants to play in premier league. sure he'll be under microscope etc but it'll ensure that he's the best, because you dont really find 'avarage players' from foreign countries. i hope you can get that soccer anathology, cos i'm a bit confused about it myself:D

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i still dont know on that point

there was talk by sarcoxy i think on when it could be implemented and 2011 or 2012 was mentioned or added to an acension trety

what page is it on in the treaty - what version do you have? like whats it say on the first page

yes, i would trust certain eu politicians and experts over some of our own

no bother, just my opinions and yours (a good discussion)

its called Treaty of European Union and Treay of Functioning of the European Union as consolidated in the Lisbon Treaty. and its on page 40

i didnt catch that from sarkozy, so i cant agree or disagree with you there

ya yet again, the big credibility gap that has been created has a lot to do with that...exactly the reason why lee won the by-election

conchubhar1

ah we have different versions...

page 40 on the one i have starts :
6. The decisions and recommendations of the Council within the framework of permanent structured cooperation, other than those provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5, shall be adopted by unanimity. For the purposes of this paragraph, unanimity shall be constituted by the votes ofthe representatives of the participating Member States only.’.

george lee is a good politician (not a long standing one and is popular, educated and good for the job imo)
the protest vote alone didnt get him elected either did knowability factor


could you qoute article 51 - if you have it to hand

K-9

Mario007 wrote: »

i think that argument is very short-sighted because most of the foreign experts and politicians have usually high ratings, if they are to come here. its like when soccer player, say from serbia, wants to play in premier league. sure he'll be under microscope etc but it'll ensure that he's the best, because you dont really find 'avarage players' from foreign countries. i hope you can get that soccer anathology, cos i'm a bit confused about it myself:D

I do , manys the BNP or UKIP Voter in the UK who has no problem with foreign players just immigration! :eek:

I'm basing it on the reaction to Sarkozy coming after the Referendum, though I admit it was more noise than substance.

Mario007

K-9 wrote: »

I do , manys the BNP or UKIP Voter in the UK who has no problem with foreign players just immigration! :eek:

I'm basing it on the reaction to Sarkozy coming after the Referendum, though I admit it was more noise than substance.

really? i didnt know that...wow talk about ignorance:D

yeah i can see your point but i still would like it if sarkozy came here, cause it would show he's not just criticizing but also doing something for the irish 'yes'. plus wherever sarkozy flies somewhere he usually achieves his aims:D

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ah we have different versions...

page 40 on the one i have starts :
6. The decisions and recommendations of the Council within the framework of permanent structured cooperation, other than those provided for in paragraphs 2 to 5, shall be adopted by unanimity. For the purposes of this paragraph, unanimity shall be constituted by the votes ofthe representatives of the participating Member States only.’.

george lee is a good politician (not a long standing one and is popular, educated and good for the job imo)
the protest vote alone didnt get him elected either did knowability factor


could you qoute article 51 - if you have it to hand

i could...but i have a slovakian version of it, as i still find it easier to read these treaties in slovakian even after living in ireland for five years now:D translating it, it says something along the lines of: the protocols and additions to this treaty make them its part.

conchubhar1

well sarcoxy comments werent expert opinion and unbiased

he woukd be an expert but not unbiased or note being an ass would help.....

thats why his comments werent well welcomed - it would be different with outside people not neccessarily non europeans or eu members but outside that interest group