Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

conchubhar1

ah!

''59) The following Article 49 B shall be inserted:
‘Article 49 B
The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof.’.''

that it?

that doesnt mean that the talks that were held on irish concerns will be made law....

as far as i know - im 99% sure on that

PopeBuckfastXVI

It seems the guarantees will be registered with the UN as a legally binding international treaty between all the member states. This treaty will enter in to force under international law, on the same day as the Lisbon treaty.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Hopefully that will put to bed the speculation.

conchubhar1

it ends speculation yes

as in it answers the main question - is it worth anything in law

---

having read that forcing the additions as protocols to lisbon is unneccessary and that would, rightly so, anger many in the eu
adding it to an acension treaty, would be grand, not neccesary appaerently so no real need

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it ends speculation yes

as in it answers the main question - is it worth anything in law

Think you pointed this out before. Bad form if it doesn't!

Hopefully this is better thought out than a FF Mini budget, if not, I think this whole forum will be up in arms if these assurances mean nothing.

Red Sleeping Beauty

kevteljeur wrote: »

Each EU State has a different implementation of good democracy, and none of them have a hugely clear advantage over the others.

.

For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to suggest that if there was a referendum in the UK on Lisbon now (or even if Brown had to ratify it again) then it'd probably fail. It can't be that hard to see where the anti-democracy complaints come from .

I don't think I particuarly like democracy and I've no sympathy for the Tories, Thatcher or anyone of their ilk but what is and what isn't democracy these days has been blurred almost as much as what is and isn't right/left wing, right/wrong etc.

conchubhar1

K-9 wrote: »

Think you pointed this out before. Bad form if it doesn't!

Hopefully this is better thought out than a FF Mini budget, if not, I think this whole forum will be up in arms if these assurances mean nothing.

what?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Alan Rouge wrote: »

For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to suggest that if there was a referendum in the UK on Lisbon now (or even if Brown had to ratify it again) then it'd probably fail. It can't be that hard to see where the anti-democracy complaints come from .

I don't think I particuarly like democracy and I've no sympathy for the Tories, Thatcher or anyone of their ilk but what is and what isn't democracy these days has been blurred almost as much as what is and isn't right/left wing, right/wrong etc.

It's probably just as fair to suggest that Brian Lenihan's budget wouldn't have passed a referendum here, does that mean Ireland, or our government, are anti democracy?

Sand

Most complicated policies or laws wouldnt pass a referendum. Much easier to motivate and mobilise fear and negativity ( If this law passes, it will mean theyll be able to come and take your children and sell them into slavery!!!!) as opposed to positivity ( Its a pretty boring law, but it removes a few layers of red tape so we can get business done better so itd be nice if youd show up to vote for it).

Democracy in and of itself is not a good thing. It is simply a tool. Good government is the end result to aim for.

conchubhar1

facts cant be easily downplayed

the yes side never strongly came out and said that those lies were utter crap and had a strong concensus among them and present the article number and facts

if that happened - all the money and lies couldnt have won out

Mario007

Alan Rouge wrote: »

For the sake of argument, I think it's fair to suggest that if there was a referendum in the UK on Lisbon now (or even if Brown had to ratify it again) then it'd probably fail. It can't be that hard to see where the anti-democracy complaints come from .

I don't think I particuarly like democracy and I've no sympathy for the Tories, Thatcher or anyone of their ilk but what is and what isn't democracy these days has been blurred almost as much as what is and isn't right/left wing, right/wrong etc.

well to answer to your illustrated situation, if cameron does put lisbon to a referendum in britain that would be very undemocratic, as it has already been ratifies and signed, you can't just open up already ratified treaties.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

facts cant be easily downplayed

the yes side never strongly came out and said that those lies were utter crap and had a strong concensus among them and present the article number and facts

if that happened - all the money and lies couldnt have won out

yes the 'yes' side did make huge mistakes last year. the one time three biggest parties came together and it failed...i hope they learn their lesson this time around, cos its really easy to argue lisbon with facts.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ah!

''59) The following Article 49 B shall be inserted:
‘Article 49 B
The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof.’.''

that it?

that doesnt mean that the talks that were held on irish concerns will be made law....

as far as i know - im 99% sure on that

it does, cos the irish guarantees are called 'protocol' or so RTE news said...

but i'm glad they are being registered with the UN...it totally finishes the discussion if the guarantees have legal power

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

well to answer to your illustrated situation, if cameron does put lisbon to a referendum in britain that would be very undemocratic, as it has already been ratifies and signed, you can't just open up already ratified treaties.

hang on a minute - the Labour Government went back on its manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the matter. and no , I dont buy the argument of "well its different - this is Lisbon, and not the EU Constitution" - thats pure sneaky lawyer speak.. and not in the SPIRIT of that Manifesto commitment.

So with that in the background, Cameron is well within his right to put the Treaty to a referendum in Britain.

Politically , I cannot see how he can get around this - if he goes back on that , then he'll risk a serious split in his party.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

but i'm glad they are being registered with the UN...it totally finishes the discussion if the guarantees have legal power

Excuse me? Registered with the UN?
Since when has the UN become the legal authority of world governance?


Thats a new one to me.

KINGVictor

Mario007 wrote: »

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

If we use your analogy in the context of the recently concluded European elections...then the elections show how "credible and legitimate " the EU institution is...as only 41% of the eligible electorate turned out to vote...and voting patterns has consistently been on the decline since the early 80's.I think it speaks volume of how the EU as an institution is percieved by ordinary citizens.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

Excuse me? Registered with the UN?
Since when has the UN become the legal authority of world governance?


Thats a new one to me.

its been out there eversince the league of nations, really. ireland registered the anglo-irish treaty with the league for example. the un got the same powers so it has this power too...the danes used it when they got guarantees from eu back in 1993

KINGVictor wrote: »

If we use your analogy in the context of the recently concluded European elections...then the elections show how "credible and legitimate " the EU institution is...as only 41% of the eligible electorate turned out to vote...and voting patterns has consistently been on the decline since the early 80's.I think it speaks volume of how the EU as an institution is percieved by ordinary citizens.

ya thats exactly my logic...i think any elections should have at least 50% turnout otherwise be deemed not legitimate...cos you need at least that to get a fair glimpse of the country's opinion.
with regards to why is there a decline...saying it shows how eu is perceived by the citizens is an oversimplification. there are many factors affecting this...but that's for a totally different discussion to be honest

netron

KINGVictor wrote: »

If we use your analogy in the context of the recently concluded European elections...then the elections show how "credible and legitimate " the EU institution is...as only 41% of the eligible electorate turned out to vote...and voting patterns has consistently been on the decline since the early 80's.I think it speaks volume of how the EU as an institution is percieved by ordinary citizens.

UK: 34% turnout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)

Netherlands: 36.9%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Netherlands)

Czech Republic: 28.22%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Czech_Republic)

Germany: 43.3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Germany)

and the lowest:

Slovakia 19.3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Slovakia)

Mario007

netron wrote: »

UK: 34% turnout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(United_Kingdom)

Netherlands: 36.9%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Netherlands)

Czech Republic: 28.22%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Czech_Republic)

Germany: 43.3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Germany)

and the lowest:

Slovakia 19.3%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Slovakia)

your point being?


btw why didnt ya include the highest as well?

KINGVictor

Mario007 wrote: »

its been out there eversince the league of nations, really. ireland registered the anglo-irish treaty with the league for example. the un got the same powers so it has this power too...the danes used it when they got guarantees from eu back in 1993



ya thats exactly my logic...i think any elections should have at least 50% turnout otherwise be deemed not legitimate...cos you need at least that to get a fair glimpse of the country's opinion.
with regards to why is there a decline...saying it shows how eu is perceived by the citizens is an oversimplification. there are many factors affecting this...but that's for a totally different discussion to be honest

I really do not get your post...you assert that any election should have a minimum of 50% turnout for it to be adjudged to be legitimate ( fair enough)..

In response to an earlier post you indicated that you felt that the No vote wasnt enough reflection of popular inclination... as only 800000 irish people voted No .You claimed the majority did not bother to vote or were disinterested in the outcome.

I then put it to you that in the recent EU elections there was a low turnout..(less than 50%) and this wasnt monolithic ...as there had been a consistent nosedive in voting patterns over the years and IMOH ...postulated that this would be as a result of the disaffection with the EU as an institution.

I totally agree with you that there are multiple of reasons for this phenomena but it doesnt negate the fact that the EU as an economic concept is quite brilliant but as a political structure is simply inviable.

Mario007

KINGVictor wrote: »

I really do not get your post...you assert that any election should have a minimum of 50% turnout for it to be adjudged to be legitimate ( fair enough)..

In response to an earlier post you indicated that you felt that the No vote wasnt enough reflection of popular inclination... as only 800000 irish people voted No .You claimed the majority did not bother to vote or were disinterested in the outcome.

I then put it to you that in the recent EU elections there was a low turnout..(less than 50%) and this wasnt monolithic ...as there had been a consistent nosedive in voting patterns over the years and IMOH ...postulated that this would be as a result of the disaffection with the EU as an institution.

I totally agree with you that there are multiple of reasons for this phenomena but it doesnt negate the fact that the EU as an economic concept is quite brilliant but as a political structure is simply inviable.

haha and i dont get what you dont get;)
i think the eu elections do not represent the vote of the eu citizens due to the small turnout. thats why i dont think the lisbon treaty really reflected the attitude of the irish people...
and i agree with you that eu as a political structure has a long way to go...the officials in Brussels really need to inform the citizens more and the media ought to inform more as well. and thats just one of the many reasons for the decline of the election turnout....
would that explain something that you didnt get?

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

your point being?


btw why didnt ya include the highest as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Belgium)

belgium - 90.39%

where its actually illegal not to vote.

netron

Mario007 wrote: »

haha and i dont get what you dont get;)
i think the eu elections do not represent the vote of the eu citizens due to the small turnout.

and oddly enough i see nobody in the EU declaring the vote invalid.


seems like they couldnt give a damn - if it declines to 1 per cent, they wont care. EU superstate goes on.


and thats another reason why i'm voting No.

K-9

netron wrote: »

and oddly enough i see nobody in the EU declaring the vote invalid.


seems like they couldnt give a damn - if it declines to 1 per cent, they wont care. EU superstate goes on.


and thats another reason why i'm voting No.

They do care as it says a lot, but sure if they put in say a 40% clause, they'll be accused of interfering in elections, you know, the "forcing us to vote" line.

Some of our own national Referenda have had terrible turnouts too, but there is no Constitutional bar on that.

Mario007

netron wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_(Belgium)

belgium - 90.39%

where its actually illegal not to vote.

yeah i know that about belgium...i kinda like that idea...everyone must vote...provided there's a 'none of the above represents my views' box there as well

netron wrote: »

and oddly enough i see nobody in the EU declaring the vote invalid.


seems like they couldnt give a damn - if it declines to 1 per cent, they wont care. EU superstate goes on.


and thats another reason why i'm voting No.

barroso said we need to look at that(i know...they all say that on all different things but at least its something). didnt you just say in another thread you wanted united states of europe and now you're against it?
could you actually explain the reason to me a tad more clearly, cos i dont really get ya...

KINGVictor

Mario007 wrote: »

haha and i dont get what you dont get;)
i think the eu elections do not represent the vote of the eu citizens due to the small turnout. thats why i dont think the lisbon treaty really reflected the attitude of the irish people...
and i agree with you that eu as a political structure has a long way to go...the officials in Brussels really need to inform the citizens more and the media ought to inform more as well. and thats just one of the many reasons for the decline of the election turnout....
would that explain something that you didnt get?

Apart from your sacarsim:(....well understood...we are well on the same page.

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

They do care as it says a lot, but sure if they put in say a 40% clause, they'll be accused of interfering in elections, you know, the "forcing us to vote" line.

Some of our own national Referenda have had terrible turnouts too, but there is no Constitutional bar on that.

Respectfully ..thats a horrible comparison...the EU as an institution have been known to cast doubts on the legitimacy of elections in some countries because of low turnout eg Russia,Zimbabwe,Iran (2004) etc and the reason had always been the results weren't representative of popular inclinations.

A referendum is held on particular issues which might not be of particular interest to a sizeable number of the electorate and considering the fact that some of the referenda you are referring to..might not relatively have much bearing on their day -to -day life...as opposed to an European election (especially considering the debacle of the NO vote and the effect it is supposed to have ) and still managed to attract a very low turn out...that is an indication of disenchantment and being non-commital to the EU project.

Mario007

KINGVictor wrote: »

Apart from your sacarsim:(....well understood...we are well on the same page.

oh there actually wasnt meant to be any sarcasm...i genuinely didnt know what you didnt get...sorry if it seemed i was being sarcast

KINGVictor wrote: »

Respectfully ..thats a horrible comparison...the EU as an institution have been known to cast doubts on the legitimacy of elections in some countries because of low turnout eg Russia,Zimbabwe,Iran (2004) etc and the reason had always been the results weren't representative of popular inclinations.

A referendum is held on particular issues which might not be of particular interest to a sizeable number of the electorate and considering the fact that some of the referenda you are referring to..might not relatively have much bearing on their day -to -day life...as opposed to an European election (especially considering the debacle of the NO vote and the effect it is supposed to have ) and still managed to attract a very low turn out...that is an indication of disenchantment and being non-commital to the EU project.

the eu is a very very complex mechanism that most people find difficult to comprehend. most of the time they dont actually know what the eu does for them and they do not know that many laws are created in the eu and just passed by the dail, for example. i think that needs to be changed, more information is needed...it would allow for a better transparency and a higher interest in the eu

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

Respectfully ..thats a horrible comparison...the EU as an institution have been known to cast doubts on the legitimacy of elections in some countries because of low turnout eg Russia,Zimbabwe,Iran (2004) etc and the reason had always been the results weren't representative of popular inclinations.

A referendum is held on particular issues which might not be of particular interest to a sizeable number of the electorate and considering the fact that some of the referenda you are referring to..might not relatively have much bearing on their day -to -day life...as opposed to an European election (especially considering the debacle of the NO vote and the effect it is supposed to have ) and still managed to attract a very low turn out...that is an indication of disenchantment and being non-commital to the EU project.

I think it's disenchantment, disillusionment with politicians, dissatisfaction with the EU, boredom, Big Brother is on the TV etc. etc.

Still if they insisted on a certain percentage, it would be spinned as interference, even though it's EU Elections.

KINGVictor

Mario007 wrote: »

oh there actually wasnt meant to be any sarcasm...i genuinely didnt know what you didnt get...sorry if it seemed i was being sarcast



the eu is a very very complex mechanism that most people find difficult to comprehend. most of the time they dont actually know what the eu does for them and they do not know that many laws are created in the eu and just passed by the dail, for example. i think that needs to be changed, more information is needed...it would allow for a better transparency and a higher interest in the eu

But so was the USA that the EU is trying to emulate....I completely concur with you that it is a very complex endeavour but the more reason why there has to be a high measure of transparency and communication(which you acknowledged)...my reservations is based from the fact that the EU is trying to desperately to acheive its goals in such a hurry that it is ready to do it at all COST.
People are not computers or data that can be inputed or manipulated...The lisbon treaty would be passed in Ireland whenever it is held not because the it is actually popular but because the Irish people have been subjugated into that position and also because of the current economic climate and uncertainties.

After the NO vote ,we heard noices of a two speed Europe that would exclude uncooperative nations in the scheme of things...Unions dont behave that way...there are ,arguements,differences and sometimes confrontations....the difference is???...The successful ones do not impose on one another...they compromise...Lisbon2 is not a compromise but subjugation.

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

I think it's disenchantment, disillusionment with politicians, dissatisfaction with the EU, boredom, Big Brother is on the TV etc. etc.

Still if they insisted on a certain percentage, it would be spinned as interference, even though it's EU Elections.

Thats nonsensical...if they use the same yardstick on other countries ...it should be equally applicable to them as well,...I suppose??...

Interference???...thats what those countries would assume as well.

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

Thats nonsensical...if they use the same yardstick on other countries ...it should be equally applicable to them as well,...I suppose??...

Interference???...thats what those countries would assume as well.

The criticism would be nonsensical, Yes.