Govt deception over Lisbon "guarantees" exposed by British ministers

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

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.

In a democracy, it is perfectly acceptable to propose something to the electorate on more than one occasion. FG, for instance, has been proposing to the electorate, that they should form the major part of a new, alternative Government since 1997. Is it undemocratic of them to have done so?

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote: »

In a democracy, it is perfectly acceptable to propose something to the electorate on more than one occasion. FG, for instance, has been proposing to the electorate, that they should form the major part of a new, alternative Government since 1997. Is it undemocratic of them to have done so?

No, but there were 5 years between General Elections whereas only one year has elapsed since Lisbon I. So it's not comparable.

Paul Anthony McDermott, one of the country's most eminent constitutional-law experts, was right on Q+A to say that when the referendum-provision was inserted into the Constitution in 1937, it seems unlikely it was intended to be used to repeatedly ask the same question until you get "the right answer".

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No, but there were 5 years between General Elections whereas only one year has elapsed since Lisbon I. So it's not comparable.

It is the prerogative of the Government to call a General election at any time. If the major party in a Government (i.e. FF or FG), called a general election - in the hope of winning an overall majority - within a year of taking office, what are you saying? That the opposition should go "Oh, we lost the last election less than a year ago, we can't offer ourselves as an alternative Government"?

PS If you read Article 29.4.2 of BnahE, it is hard to believe that the drafters of the Constitution, or the electorate who voted for it, ever intended that we would hold referenda on international treaties.

oscarBravo

View wrote: »

If you read Article 29.4.2 of BnahE, it is hard to believe that the drafters of the Constitution, or the electorate who voted for it, ever intended that we would hold referenda on international treaties.

Article 29 really is becoming a bit of a mess.

bill_ashmount

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Or, do you believe that the No vote was an informed decision against the EU? And can you prove it?

Yes I do and you cannot prove that it wasn't.

View

oscarBravo wrote: »

Article 29 really is becoming a bit of a mess.

I'd agree. In retrospect, I think Article 29.4.3.1 (the original 1972 European Communities one) was dumb. Yeah, I can see the case for trying to bullet-proof the obligations of EU membership but it would probably have been simpler to have allowed the constitutional challenges to go ahead and have modified the constitution to fix any issues that arose as a result. I am not sure it would have resulted in any more referenda than we currently have had and the issues involved in such referenda would be a lot clearer than in the ones we currently have on EU Treaties.

View

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Yes I do and you cannot prove that it wasn't.

Yes, of course it was - that's why the leaders of the No campaign - Declan Ganley and Mary-Lou McDonald - topped the polls in the European elections and the electorate returned 7 out of 12 anti-EU MEPs.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No, but there were 5 years between General Elections whereas only one year has elapsed since Lisbon I. So it's not comparable.

Are you saying that if the government collapsed, Fine Gael would not stand for election on the basis that it would be "too soon"? Five years is a maximum, not a minimum.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Paul Anthony McDermott, one of the country's most eminent constitutional-law experts, was right on Q+A to say that when the referendum-provision was inserted into the Constitution in 1937, it seems unlikely it was intended to be used to repeatedly ask the same question until you get "the right answer".

You're aware that the opinion of a legal expert is not the same thing as a 'legal opinion'? Admittedly, on current form, you're probably not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote: »

I'd agree. In retrospect, I think Article 29.4.3.1 (the original 1972 European Communities one) was dumb. Yeah, I can see the case for trying to bullet-proof the obligations of EU membership but it would probably have been simpler to have allowed the constitutional challenges to go ahead and have modified the constitution to fix any issues that arose as a result. I am not sure it would have resulted in any more referenda than we currently have had and the issues involved in such referenda would be a lot clearer than in the ones we currently have on EU Treaties.

The point in Article 29 is most pertinant to this debate. If it were not there, many no voters such as myself would not be so concerned as to the implications for example of enshrining the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law. The time has come for a debate in Leinster House and in civil society on the wisdom or otherwise or retaining Article 29.4.10 in its present form.

Scofflaw wrote:

Are you saying that if the government collapsed, Fine Gael would not stand for election on the basis that it would be "too soon"? Five years is a maximum, not a minimum.

I'm sure they would stand for election. The point I'm making is in relation to timeframes that are deliberate and intentional, which doesn't usually include what you are talking about.

Scofflaw wrote:

You're aware that the opinion of a legal expert is not the same thing as a 'legal opinion'? Admittedly, on current form, you're probably not.

I am aware of that but nonetheless, when you also have Gerard Hogan expressing concerns about the implications of the Treaty, it suggests a wise man would do well to take heed.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The time has come for a debate in Leinster House and in civil society on the wisdom or otherwise or retaining Article 29.4.10 in its present form.

In other words, a debate on whether we're going to stay in the EU, or leave it.

I would welcome such a debate - it might flush out the "pro-EU but anti-Lisbon" tripe for what it is. Then again, it might not: there seems to be a body of opinion that believes we should retain all the benefits of EU membership with none of the concomitant obligations.

Hitman Actual

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Yes I do and you cannot prove that it wasn't.

Ah come on now. You have no solid basis to believe that, whereas luckily I have some polls to back up my point. One poll from Millward Brown and one from Gallup, clearly show that lack of understanding was the big reason for the No vote (not that the Yes side were necessarily much more informed either). Figures from those polls and others also show that the Irish are very supportive of EU membership, usually to the tune of more than 70% of the people. Yet, FT and you would have us believe that the 53% No vote was a vote against the EU and shows that the Government is out of touch with the people. That position is deluded, to be honest; you have nothing to back up your (weak) opinion.

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

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.

What a load of waffle, but then again most of your posts are based on that premise. You haven't addressed my point, which is simply that the 53% No vote does not indicate a vote against the EU or that the Government is out of touch with the people, and should not be used as such.

FutureTaoiseach

What a load of waffle, but then again most of your posts are based on that premise. You haven't addressed my point, which is simply that the 53% No vote does not indicate a vote against the EU or that the Government is out of touch with the people, and should not be used as such.

I agree that it does not constitute a vote against the EU. In fact, one of the most welcome aspects of the Lisbon debate is how the yes and no sides all agree with EU membership. The question is the kind of Europe we want. But the govt is out of touch with the people. You have 95% of the TDs in favour of Lisbon, while 53% voted against it. How much more out of touch can you get? :rolleyes:

View wrote:

Yes, of course it was - that's why the leaders of the No campaign - Declan Ganley and Mary-Lou McDonald - topped the polls in the European elections and the electorate returned 7 out of 12 anti-EU MEPs.

They voted on national issues. However, the outcome is misleading, because the combined vote for anti-Lisbon candidates would have, in the event of solid transfers between them, have elected an anti-Lisbon MEP in NW and South. The problem was the failure of anti-Lisbon candidates to transfer to one another. That's why you have 1 Socialist party MEP in spite of the fact that on his own, Declan Ganley outpolled him in 1st preferences and Libertas outpolled the Socialist party nationally.
In fact, when you consider the fact that Libertas won 5.4% of the 1st preferences in their first (and possibly only) election, and bear in mind that that is more than double the vote in the euros of the Green party who are sitting in govt, and more than the PD vote since 1992, their performance can be said to have been rather impressive as Irish elections go, given the resistance to change that the Irish electorate have normally shown. Voting patterns for most Irish voters owe more to traditional family voting-patterns than issues, and you know that well.

Zuiderzee

View wrote: »

Yes, of course it was - that's why the leaders of the No campaign - Declan Ganley and Mary-Lou McDonald - topped the polls in the European elections and the electorate returned 7 out of 12 anti-EU MEPs.

So if you are against Lisbon you must be pro shinner and pro Ganley - do you slavishly follow every party line?

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I agree that it does not constitute a vote against the EU. In fact, one of the most welcome aspects of the Lisbon debate is how the yes and no sides all agree with EU membership. The question is the kind of Europe we want. But the govt is out of touch with the people. You have 95% of the TDs in favour of Lisbon, while 53% voted against it. How much more out of touch can you get? :rolleyes:

This is going to turn into a circular argument (and I hate those), but unless you can show that the 53% No vote was for reasons that were completely at odds with the positions held by the 95% of TDs, your argument has no weight. Again, the most prominent factor in the No vote was lack of understanding of the Treaty contents. The most prominent factor in abstaining was lack of understanding of the Treaty contents. This is widely accepted, and probably would have been accepted even if the polls weren't there to back it up. So your opinion that TDs are out of touch with the people, as regards the EU, is completely illogical.

FutureTaoiseach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

This is going to turn into a circular argument (and I hate those), but unless you can show that the 53% No vote was for reasons that were completely at odds with the positions held by the 95% of TDs, your argument has no weight. Again, the most prominent factor in the No vote was lack of understanding of the Treaty contents. The most prominent factor in abstaining was lack of understanding of the Treaty contents. This is widely accepted, and probably would have been accepted even if the polls weren't there to back it up. So your opinion that TDs are out of touch with the people, as regards the EU, is completely illogical.

The figures on lack of understanding by the no voters vary drastically but in the Eurobarometer poll, it was 22% of the no voters, in spite of a previous spinning in the Irish Times that it was 40%. Even if true, I would argue that those on the yes side attributing their support for Lisbon to "the EU has been good for Ireland" are equally guilty of a lack of understanding of the Treaty. DJ Carey was on Liveline in the Lisbon I campaign supporting the yes side, and it was obvious he hadn't a clue of its contents. The research smacked of push-polling with the yes and no sides coralled into giving certain answers amenable to the politicians. Hence, the yes voters were not offered the answer of "lack of information" while the no voters were. Read the research.

Zuiderzee

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

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.

Spot on - there must be collective respect for the collective decision - we afford the politicians that, but they do not show us the same measure of respect.
Yet when one says No to Lisbon suddenly you are a Shinner - Xenophobe - extreme nationalist - slack jaw squirrel eater - All of the above

No means No - and that is from 3 nations.

Go back and give us something for the people, not the political classes.

And Paul Anthony McDermott, (not a Shinner - Xenophobe - extreme nationalist - slack jaw squirrel eater - Any combo of the above) probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the 'assurances' gotten by Biffo may as well be written on the back of an envelope.

What got me was the stage management of Biffo, as if getting a half arsed agreements in principle had been an epic struggle.

I really think there are panic stations, barring a miracle FF and the Greens are going to be ****ing eviscerated in the next general election.
There are going to bea lot of people looking for quangos in the EU when they find themselves looking for a new job alongside Commisioner Ryan.

So delivering the Lisbon 2 treaty despite the objections of a majority of French, Brits and Dutch - will give them a toe in the door.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The figures on lack of understanding by the no voters vary drastically but in the Eurobarometer poll, it was 22% of the no voters, in spite of a previous spinning in the Irish Times that it was 40%. Even if true, I would argue that those on the yes side attributing their support for Lisbon to "the EU has been good for Ireland" are equally guilty of a lack of understanding of the Treaty. DJ Carey was on Liveline in the Lisbon I campaign supporting the yes side, and it was obvious he hadn't a clue of its contents. The research smacked of push-polling with the yes and no sides coralled into giving certain answers amenable to the politicians. Hence, the yes voters were not offered the answer of "lack of information" while the no voters were. Read the research.

The MB figure was 42%, and the Gallup figure of 22% doesn't include the ~25% for corporation tax, neutrality, abortion and other 'lack of understanding' issues. Also, it doesn't make sense to include the level of understanding of the Yes side (and again I'm not saying it was much better than the No side) in your argument. The very reason of voting Yes because you're satisfied with the EU would mean that you're 'in touch' with the position of TDs, who evidently are also satisfied with the EU. No, your position can only be based on the section of the 53% No vote that was due to reasons that are 'out of touch' with TDs. And you're not doing very well in coming up with any of these reasons to back up your argument, just skirting around the issue, as is your wont.

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

And Paul Anthony McDermott, (not a Shinner - Xenophobe - extreme nationalist - slack jaw squirrel eater - Any combo of the above) probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, said on Q&A that the 'assurances' gotten by Biffo may as well be written on the back of an envelope.

I'm sure the eminent constitutional-law expert in question is aware that what's written on the back of an envelope is perfectly capable of forming a legally-binding contract.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... DJ Carey was on Liveline in the Lisbon I campaign supporting the yes side, and it was obvious he hadn't a clue of its contents...

You mean that he didn't know that voting yes would commit us to NATO?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The figures on lack of understanding by the no voters vary drastically but in the Eurobarometer poll, it was 22% of the no voters, in spite of a previous spinning in the Irish Times that it was 40%. Even if true, I would argue that those on the yes side attributing their support for Lisbon to "the EU has been good for Ireland" are equally guilty of a lack of understanding of the Treaty. DJ Carey was on Liveline in the Lisbon I campaign supporting the yes side, and it was obvious he hadn't a clue of its contents. The research smacked of push-polling with the yes and no sides coralled into giving certain answers amenable to the politicians. Hence, the yes voters were not offered the answer of "lack of information" while the no voters were. Read the research.

Read both sets of research, perhaps. The Eurobarometer figure is 22%, but the Millward Brown figure cited by the Irish Times is indeed 42%. The accusation of "spin" is unwarranted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

just finished reading a piece by a leaving cert student in Saturday's Irish times on about what Europe means to her. She makes a good point particularly about the relatively cheap cost of third level education. ie e20,000 for Eu students as opposed to e100,000.
Seems to me this treaty is not being sold because they are putting too much information out there. If it means them having to do a series of ads laying out the issues on neutrality and other issues effecting us than do so. but sell this treaty properly this time.

P. Breathnach

Zuiderzee wrote: »

... And Paul Anthony McDermott, (not a Shinner - Xenophobe - extreme nationalist - slack jaw squirrel eater - Any combo of the above) probably the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert...

He's a bit more like a "rent-a-quote" lawyer, a practising barrister who also lectures in law in UCD, and does some writing for newspapers. He is not a specialist in constitutional law.

djpbarry

Zuiderzee wrote: »

The free market ideals promoted in Lisbon are damaging to workers.
Look at Dell and Ericson, even higher skills are no longer safe.

“1,900 jobs lost at Dell in Limerick: Vote NO to Lisbon!”

It’s original, I’ll give you that.

Spiritoftheseventies

Merkels bavarian alliies, the Christian Social Union, will only agree to ratify treaty on the proviso that there is "maximum" parliamentary influence over future EU policy. We need to be informed as to what our other European partners are up to before we sign this.

skearon

free to prosper wrote: »

There are no date or timetable for these "guarantees" to be added to any EU treaty - ever.

Re Conscription - As it was never mentioned by No side group - I believe this canard was just a creative invention or possibly exaggeration of MB.
Govt paid the money and gets the ham.

Wrong on all counts

The legal guarantees are between 27 sovereign nations, the agreement will be lodged with the UN and governed by the 1969 Vienna convention

The guarantees will be added as protocols to the next treaty, that is a certainty.

Conscription was regularly mentioned by SF canvassers on the doorsteps.

K-9

skearon wrote: »

Wrong on all counts

The legal guarantees are between 27 soverneign nations, the agreement will be lodged with the UN and governed by the 1969 Vienna convention

The guarantees will be added as protocols to the next treaty, that is a certainty.

Conscription was regularly mentioned by SF canvassers on the doorsteps.

From speaking to a few SF members, what seemed to happen was that as I countered each of the party line points they grew increasingly desperate and yes, the EU Army point was brought up.

I'd say for SF canvassers it was more a case of not denying that conscription was an issue if it was brought up.

skearon

Zuiderzee wrote: »

The free market ideals promoted in Lisbon are damaging to workers.
Look at Dell and Ericson, even higher skills are no longer safe.

And if its wasn't for our active membership of the EU in the first place, they wouldn't be here at all. You 'logic' is perverted to say the least.

The free market is why Ireland was able to grow its economy in the first place, jobs are being lost due to the world wide recession, along with the fact Irish workers have become overpaid.

Voting No to Lisbon will send a message to the world that Ireland is turning its back on the EU, and create real doubt about our commitment to the EU; this will certainly damage our ability to attract further FDI.

Just look at the international headlines that were published last year.

In essence a No vote damages Ireland's national interest, and serves no useful or logical purpose what so ever.

skearon

K-9 wrote: »

From speaking to a few SF members, what seemed to happen was that as I countered each of the party line points they grew increasingly desperate and yes, the EU Army point was brought up.

I'd say for SF canvassers it was more a case of not denying that conscription was an issue if it was brought up.

I'm sure they grew more desperate as all they did was tell lies, plus now their only MEP has been rejected by the people and is left with no mandate what so ever.

I was actively involved in canvassing last time and believe me many Shinners used that lie, over and over again.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I can imagine...

'No to conscription! There's only 3... 2... 1, wait, 2? Emm... there's definitely less than 3 legitimate armies in Ireland! I'm pretty sure'

bokspring71

skearon wrote: »

The guarantees will be added as protocols to the next treaty, that is a certainty.

We have a promise that they will be added to a future treaty. Unfortunately , it s political promise, and we don't have the specific text or wording of what will be added to a future treaty.

In any case, by the time we all have to argue over the future wording, the Lisbon treaty will be passed.

It's a clever political position, to promise to change it at some stage in the future, and not to specify what the exact nature of the change will be, or even when it will happen.