Govt deception over Lisbon "guarantees" exposed by British ministers

Hitman Actual

tonycascarino wrote: »

Would that be the same Labour Party who's leader said the following after the rejection of the exact same Lisbon Treaty the last time out.

Luckily, in a democracy (see, we can casually throw that word around too), he's free to change his mind. Eamonn Gilmore seems satisfied that the concerns of the Irish have been dealt with.

Scofflaw

tonycascarino wrote: »

Those guarantees change absolutely nothing from the content of the rejected Treaty, so really they are meaningless. As for Gilmore, he will soon be out campaigning again after saying what he said, talk about contradicting ones self.

The guarantees guarantee that certain things claimed to be in the Treaty aren't in there. That's why they don't change the Treaty itself. The substantive change - retention of the Commissioner - doesn't require any change to the Treaty, but does require the Treaty.

As for Gilmore, Hitman's link allows him to speak for himself:

Eamonn Gilmore wrote:

I said at the beginning that democracy is a two-way conversation. Last June the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty, because they were concerned about how it would affect the Irish Constitution, Irish tax policy, Irish neutrality and workers’ rights. We now have guarantees that the Lisbon Treaty did not, and does not, affect Ireland’s ability to provide its public services, decide on ethical issues, preserve its low corporate tax rates or to remain neutral, and that, in the case of workers’ rights, the Lisbon Treaty actually strengthens them.

In the autumn, the people will get a chance to respond: to look again at what the Lisbon Treaty offers Ireland, and what Ireland offers the European Union. Ireland’s position within the European Union must be restored with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, so that we are part of a Union that is good for business, good for workers, and good for our citizens.

Note "conversation" - which suggests an evolving dialogue. No campaigners prefer the idea that the dialogue stopped after they'd had their say. Tough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tonycascarino

Scofflaw wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn Gilmore
''I said at the beginning that democracy is a two-way conversation. Last June the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty, because they were concerned about how it would affect the Irish Constitution, Irish tax policy, Irish neutrality and workers’ rights. We now have guarantees that the Lisbon Treaty did not, and does not, affect Ireland’s ability to provide its public services, decide on ethical issues, preserve its low corporate tax rates or to remain neutral, and that, in the case of workers’ rights, the Lisbon Treaty actually strengthens them.

In the autumn, the people will get a chance to respond: to look again at what the Lisbon Treaty offers Ireland, and what Ireland offers the European Union. Ireland’s position within the European Union must be restored with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, so that we are part of a Union that is good for business, good for workers, and good for our citizens.''



Note "conversation" - which suggests an evolving dialogue. No campaigners prefer the idea that the dialogue stopped after they'd had their say. Tough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for that. That just highlights my point that he has contradicted himself from what he said before.

Scofflaw

tonycascarino wrote: »

Thanks for that. That just highlights my point that he has contradicted himself from what he said before.

The first and only politician to do so! Ah well, he's a big lad, he can look after himself - personally, I won't be voting on the basis of what any public figure, be they politicians or footballers, says.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

Note "conversation" - which suggests an evolving dialogue. No campaigners prefer the idea that the dialogue stopped after they'd had their say.

While the yes campaigners can be confident that the dialogue will stop when the vote eventually goes their way.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

While the yes campaigners can be confident that the dialogue will stop when the vote eventually goes their way.

Nope. The dialogue continues. Contrary to what some "no" campaigners seem to be trying to tell us, there will be more EU treaties.

BlitzKrieg

While the yes campaigners can be confident that the dialogue will stop when the vote eventually goes their way.

We are?

I was under the impression that when the vote goes our way we would have a long road ahead of us implementing these changes, observing them, discussing their impact and debating the next step after this one, when situations such as the much hated Turkey issue, further enlargment, etc.

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Nope. The dialogue continues.

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

This conversation ends when I get my way.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

We are?

Yes, you are. If the result of the next referendum is a yes there'll be no more dialogue or two-way conversation about the Lisbon treaty.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

Are you kidding? There are people who are still talking about Rome, never mind Lisbon.

BlitzKrieg

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

It continues because the no vote has pretty much failed to provide a satisfactory alternative

If the result of the next referendum is a yes there'll be no more dialogue or two-way conversation about the Lisbon treaty.

The same way there was no more dialogue about Nice which didnt result in certain aspects of that treaty being rewritten or expanded in Lisbon...


oh wait.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

This conversation ends when I get my way.

Yes, you are. If the result of the next referendum is a yes there'll be no more dialogue or two-way conversation about the Lisbon treaty.

The dialogue will continue either way, since the Lisbon Treaty is not a thing in itself, but a set of amendments to the EU's constitutional treaties - that constitution, the direction of the EU, further developments, enlargement, etc etc, will continue to be live issues for at least some of us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

tonycascarino wrote: »

Thanks for that. That just highlights my point that he has contradicted himself from what he said before.

There is no contradiction. For most people, the ability to change your opinion over time based on changing circumstances is usually regarded as a positive value. Not of course by fanatics or zealots but for most people.

After all, if prior to last election Eamonn said he favoured tax cuts, should he still favour them now giving the horrendous state of the public finances?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

The treaty doesn't change.

One of the apparent concerns expressed by the Irish electorate - the reduction in size of the Commission - has been addressed.

Therefore we're voting on a different proposition.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

There is no mention in the European Council decisions of the retention of the Irish Commissioner. In that context, this matter is not closed in my opinion.

Blitzkrieg wrote:

It continues because the no vote has pretty much failed to provide a satisfactory alternative

The status-quo is an alternative and there is neither the legal-mechanism or political-will to force Lisbon through without unanimity. The politicians are going to have to learn that it is the satisfaction of the people that counts, not just that of themselves. Furthermore, there are questions surrounding what becomes of the promised Protocol if Croatia rejects EU membership or Slovenia vetoes their accession on grounds of the maritime-border dispute. The gap between the yes and no sides in Croatia is approx 8%. We know from our own experience of referenda in this country that it's too close for comfort for the yes side. Furthermore, self-confessed "militant federalist" Liberal Democrat UK MEP Andrew Duff says adding an Irish Protocol to an accession treaty may violate EU law and be subject to challenges in the courts.

Andrew Duff MEP wrote:

Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts

The Irish Times says:

he added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state's accession to be dealt with.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is no mention in the European Council decisions of the retention of the Irish Commissioner. In that context, this matter is not closed in my opinion.

That's a really bizarre statement. No offence, but is your impression of what's happening important in some way?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The status-quo is an alternative and there is neither the legal-mechanism or political-will to force Lisbon through without unanimity. The politicians are going to have to learn that it is the satisfaction of the people that counts, not just that of themselves.

Of course! Elected politicians don't care at all about what the electorate thinks! Thanks heavens for that - otherwise they might make poor decisions on the basis that they're popular. That would never do, and presumably doesn't happen in your world? You're not in the middle of an enormous global recession caused by short-sighted but "popular" policies?

halfway between amazement and laughter,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote:

Of course! Elected politicians don't care at all about what the electorate thinks! Thanks heavens for that - otherwise they might make poor decisions on the basis that they're popular. That would never do, and presumably doesn't happen in your world? You're not in the middle of an enormous global recession caused by short-sighted but "popular" policies?

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

When the Irish people elect representatives, it is in the context that the politicians make act within the parameters set down by the Constitution, but that changing those parameters is the sole prerogative of the Irish people. As such, most of us will vote for parties with whom we do not always agree. The evidence since 1987 has been that even those opposed to closer European integration have continued voting for integrationist-parties. This has to be seen, however, in the context of the electorate being aware of the emergence-brake provided by the Constitution, whereby the political-class must defer directly to the people on certain matters, including large-scale European integration.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

There is usually always a hard core of 15/20% who will always vote NO. Usually SF voters, extreme Nationalists and xenophobic types amongst others. Democracy means that hard core are usually ignored.

I'd be amazed if an EU Referendum was a 95% Yes.

The question is: why did the other 30% vote No?

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

There is usually always a hard core of 15/20% who will always vote NO. Usually SF voters, extreme Nationalists and xenophobic types amongst others.

I'd be amazed if an EU Referendum was a 95% Yes.

The question is: why did the other 30% vote No?

In my personal opinion it reflects primarily a desire to retain national sovereignty. Other concerns include the democratic-deficit, the race to the bottom and in some cases unhappiness with EU policies such as the Common Fisheries Policy. Being asked to foist provisions on the French and Dutch peoples that they rejected also didn't sit well with voters' consciences.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

In my personal opinion it reflects primarily a desire to retain national sovereignty.

We'll see if the assurances and hopefully a better campaign, on all sides, will make a difference.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

That comment would have some weight if you could show that the 53% No vote was decided directly on Lisbon/EU issues.

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

In my personal opinion it reflects primarily a desire to retain national sovereignty. Other concerns include the democratic-deficit, the race to the bottom and in some cases unhappiness with EU policies such as the Common Fisheries Policy. Being asked to foist provisions on the French and Dutch peoples that they rejected also didn't sit well with voters' consciences.

And following on from my first point: That may be your personal opinion, but you're well aware from polls that the No vote wasn't primarily due to the reasons you just outlined. A large percentage of the No vote was determined from either lack of knowledge of the Treaty, or on issues that were not affected by the Treaty. You say that 'the people' and the pro-Lisbon parties are at odds on this, but the only reason they are is that the electorate weren't voting in a FUD-free environment. I think you know full well that if you took the misinformation out of the debate, there is no way the Treaty would have been rejected first time around.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

When the Irish people elect representatives, it is in the context that the politicians make act within the parameters set down by the Constitution, but that changing those parameters is the sole prerogative of the Irish people. As such, most of us will vote for parties with whom we do not always agree. The evidence since 1987 has been that even those opposed to closer European integration have continued voting for integrationist-parties. This has to be seen, however, in the context of the electorate being aware of the emergence-brake provided by the Constitution, whereby the political-class must defer directly to the people on certain matters, including large-scale European integration.

The referendum isn't the constitutional leash on which we hold politicians - that's elections. Referendums protect the Constitution from political meddling, but do not have any direct impact on politicians at all. Nor was the Constitution intended as an emergency brake on the powers of the government to make international treaties, as demonstrated by the fact that the government constantly makes such treaties without any reference to the electorate.


cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

The referendum isn't the constitutional leash on which we hold politicians - that's elections. Referendums protect the Constitution from political meddling, but do not have any direct impact on politicians at all. Nor was the Constitution intended as an emergency brake on the powers of the government to make international treaties, as demonstrated by the fact that the government constantly makes such treaties without any reference to the electorate.


cordially,
Scofflaw

It largely depends on whether it affects national sovereignty.

[B][B]Article 1[/B][/B] wrote:

The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.

Inherent in this is the right to choose not merely the personalities who govern us, but to choose the political system itself. That would seem to cover questions of the transfer of sovereignty.

Article 6 wrote:

1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.2. These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution.

Now I accept the argument that in the context of the Crotty Judgement 1986, that there may be circumstances where the govt need not put constitutional treaties to a referendum, but this does not apply to treaties with third countries. You may remember the 2001 reference on the International Criminal Court, for example.

View

Perhaps, when holding the referendum on Lisbon II, there should be a question on an additional ballot asking people whether they actually want to have referenda on EU Treaties at all. An advisory one you understand - maybe even a multiple choice PR style one - in which the electorate get to express their preferences on whether, how often and on what they actually vote. It could set the stage for a future change (or changes) to the Constitution if necessary.

After all, if our democratically elected politicians are so out of touch with the people's wishes (as the no side contends), it would be hard to believe that our Supreme Court justices - who have never faced the electorate - could possibly be in touch with it.

Offhand, I don't recall that the Supreme Court justices put the Crotty case to the electorate in a referendum to establish the electorate's wishes on the matter when deciding the case.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It largely depends on whether it affects national sovereignty.

Inherent in this is the right to choose not merely the personalities who govern us, but to choose the political system itself. That would seem to cover questions of the transfer of sovereignty.

Now I accept the argument that in the context of the Crotty Judgement 1986, that there may be circumstances where the govt need not put constitutional treaties to a referendum, but this does not apply to treaties with third countries. You may remember the 2001 reference on the International Criminal Court, for example.

Have you any idea just how many "treaties with third countries" the Irish government makes? How many bilateral tax treaties are we involved in, for example?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Have you any idea just how many "treaties with third countries" the Irish government makes? How many bilateral tax treaties are we involved in, for example?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't know how many.

bill_ashmount

Hitman Actual wrote: »

That comment would have some weight if you could show that the 53% No vote was decided directly on Lisbon/EU issues.

lol

The 53% vote was against the lisbon treaty, this is a FACT.

Nobody needs to show you anything, a question was asked and an answer was given. The answer was given on the question asked on the ballot paper, not some imaginary question that you are alluding to. It's not a hard concept to grasp. The issue was asked in the form of a question and the question was answered. Perhaps it's democracy that annoys you?

oscarBravo

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Perhaps it's democracy that annoys you?

If your definition of democracy is "ill-informed answers to complex questions for simplistic reasons", then yes: democracy annoys me.

Hitman Actual

bill_ashmount wrote: »

lol

The 53% vote was against the lisbon treaty, this is a FACT.

Nobody needs to show you anything, a question was asked and an answer was given. The answer was given on the question asked on the ballot paper, not some imaginary question that you are alluding to. It's not a hard concept to grasp. The issue was asked in the form of a question and the question was answered. Perhaps it's democracy that annoys you?

I think you miss the point, Bill. FT is trying to claim that the pro-Lisbon parties (as in everyone except Sinn Fein) are out of touch with 'the people', and that the full range of the No vote was a vote against the supposed direction that the EU is going. However, his position has no basis unless he can say that the 53% No vote was based entirely on Lisbon/EU reasons. Polls have clearly shown that the majority of the No vote had nothing to do with the Treaty itself or the EU, so his position is not very credible to begin with. Or, do you believe that the No vote was an informed decision against the EU? And can you prove it?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

If your definition of democracy is "ill-informed answers to complex questions for simplistic reasons", then yes: democracy annoys me.

Hitman Actual wrote:

I think you miss the point, Bill. FT is trying to claim that the pro-Lisbon parties (as in everyone except Sinn Fein) are out of touch with 'the people', and that the full range of the No vote was a vote against the supposed direction that the EU is going. However, his position has no basis unless he can say that the 53% No vote was based entirely on Lisbon/EU reasons. Polls have clearly shown that the majority of the No vote had nothing to do with the Treaty itself or the EU, so his position is not very credible to begin with. Or, do you believe that the No vote was an informed decision against the EU? And can you prove it?

In a democracy there are always winners and losers, and more often than not, the losers will claim the people gave "ill informed answers to complex questions for simplistic reasons". However, in a democracy, the losers have to accept the will of the people - whatever the motivations behind it. Anything other than that is a return to Edmund Burke's notion of the masses as "the swinish multitude" who must yield to the "men of property" - an idea common to the European ruling-classes in the 19th century but unacceptable to mainsrtream public opinion in 2008 - except apparently to the Eurocrats and their lackeys in national-govt, many of whom are prepared to sell out in return for patronage or the prospect of patronage in Brussels. King Louis and Marie Antoinette also regarded the people as "ill informed" in 1789, but the will of the people ruled and must rule - even where it clashes with that of the elites.

Spiritoftheseventies

Zuiderzee wrote: »

All I know about guarantees in relation to EU is that FF and FG (tweedle dumb and dumber) have lied in the past.

In 1997 we were guaranteed that we would never be part of the PfP without a referendum.

After the Amsterdam treaty went through, in 1999 David Andrews flew to NATO head quarters in Brussels and signed us up, without a referendum.

Can't see the future, so we need to learn from the past.

just to keep this as simple as possible, in less then 100 words why should we vote or vote against the treaty.

Zuiderzee

All I know about guarantees in relation to EU is that FF and FG (tweedle dumb and dumber) have lied in the past.

In 1997 we were guaranteed that we would never be part of the PfP without a referendum.

After the Amsterdam treaty went through, in 1999 David Andrews flew to NATO head quarters in Brussels and signed us up, without a referendum.

Can't see the future, so we need to learn from the past.

As for the guarantee on workers rights and equal pay - as trumpeted on eumatters.ie (a taxpayer funded site which rediverts you to Lisbon.ie when you click on Lisbon treaty - so much for impartiality) - the Lisbon 2 treaty will make things worse.

I work in the maritime field, it is a race to the bottom.

The free market ideals promoted in Lisbon are damaging to workers.
Look at Dell and Ericson, even higher skills are no longer safe.
EU regulations allowed for Irish employees to be replaced by cheaper labour from the Baltic states. Initially they were being bought in getting less than our minimum wage.

The Irish workers still got laid off, and it was the Unions who got the new workers minimum wage, not the EU.

Unlike the Irish workers the replacements do not have long term contracts, pension rights or benefits, medical care is covered by the EU ENG 111. Trade Union membership is activly discouraged.

They are paid far less money for the same job.
Not only were Irish workers displaced in a vessel working out of Ireland on a daily basis, those who replaced them are being paid far less for the same job, with much reduced conditions- that is exploitation.

What happens in shipping, e.g. outsourcing, importation of cheap labour, reductions of workers rights etc. tends to happen ashore within 10 years.
In Sweden for example a well known case was when a low pay grade group of workers were given a contract over the objection of Swedish workers.

Scandanavian countries like Denmark dont have minimum wage in law - it is left up to labour agreements with Trade Unions.

Charlie McCreevey - safe in his unelected and secure position - went along with this.
The precident set turns workers who are EU citizens into commodities.
With electronic banking and call centres in India etc - there are very few positions outside civil servants etc. that cannot be replaced.

If we are going to have a Lisbon Treaty for the people as opposed to the politicians of the Union, lets enshrine workers rights for all.

On the 'sensitive' issues I am still very wary about the European Defense Agency - and cant see why military alliances cannot be kept as a separate issue, if other countries want to be part of NATO thats entirely their business - and covers everything the EDA does.
On abortion, I am pro choice and would welcome another referendum on that.
However, unlike the Government I respect the collective decision of a referendum, and do not want to see a referendum on the issue every 15 months.

Rather than use the rejection of the constitution/treaty as a period of reflection and reconstruction of a treaty that citizens of the EU want the Governments have simply repackaged and reworked it so ratification could be done by parliament rather than plebiscite.

We are the only ones, less than 1% of the population of the EU, who have been given the right to choose the future for the entire EU.

Our membership of the Union, access to the Union and having a say in the Union is not conditional to accepting the Lisbon Treaty.
Lets not believe the incompetent liars that got us into the current economic mess.

Lets send it back until we get something we can understand, that will make the Union more democratic, transparent and that is to our benefit, and the benefit of our fellow citizens.