Govt deception over Lisbon "guarantees" exposed by British ministers

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

He couldn't given any info whatsoever about the Treaty. That's my recollection.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

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.

So which one of the guarantees are you worried about?

Supposing the other EU member states, for the first time ever, act in bad faith with us, which one of the guarantees are you most concerned about?

bokspring71

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So which one of the guarantees are you worried about?

Supposing the other EU member states, for the first time ever, act in bad faith with us, which one of the guarantees are you most concerned about?

I think you miss the point of my previous post. Incidentally, it's not "other member states" which we should be worried about acting in bad faith. It's our own government which seems more than capable of acting in bad faith with us as the past 18 months have shown all to clearly.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

I think you miss the point of my previous post. Incidentally, it's not "other member states" which we should be worried about acting in bad faith. It's our own government which seems more than capable of acting in bad faith with us as the past 18 months.

Again your concern is that the guarantees aren't legally binding, so which one in particular are you worried about, supposing you are right and they aren't legally binding (which they are, by the way)?

bokspring71

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Again your concern is that the guarantees aren't legally binding, so which one in particular are you worried about, supposing you are right and they aren't legally binding (which they are, by the way)?

It really isn't my concern as you'll notice if you read my post.

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

I think you miss the point of my previous post. Incidentally, it's not "other member states" which we should be worried about acting in bad faith. It's our own government which seems more than capable of acting in bad faith with us as the past 18 months.

That's an odd concern in respect of the guarantees, though, since they're guarantees given to us by the other member states. They're not Fianna Fail promises.

This is what the DFA says about them:

The Decision of the 27 EU Heads of States or Government agreed at the June European Council on Ireland’s legal guarantees will constitute an international agreement, which will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This will be legally binding under international law and will be registered with the United Nations.

If the Lisbon Treaty is approved by all EU Member States, including by Ireland in a further referendum and subsequently enters into force, the Decision will be annexed to the Treaties at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty for a new Member State. Protocols form an integral part of the Treaties to which they are annexed and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves.

For them to be international agreements to put text into the Treaties, the text will be explicit. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

It really isn't my concern as you'll notice if you read my post.

Well I'm not sure what your concern is then, because you only mentioned the guarantees and how you were worried they weren't legally binding.

---
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.
---

So you don't actually care about the guarantees, so whether they are legally binding or not (and they are) isn't actually an issue for you, even though it seems to be the only point you are making in the above quoted post.

I'm confused.

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an odd concern in respect of the guarantees, though, since they're guarantees given to us by the other member states. They're not Fianna Fail promises.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree and it's only mentioned as PopeBuckfastXVI asked me if we should trust the other governments or not.

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is what the DFA says about them:


Quote:
The Decision of the 27 EU Heads of States or Government agreed at the June European Council on Ireland’s legal guarantees will constitute an international agreement, which will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This will be legally binding under international law and will be registered with the United Nations.

If the Lisbon Treaty is approved by all EU Member States, including by Ireland in a further referendum and subsequently enters into force, the Decision will be annexed to the Treaties at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty for a new Member State. Protocols form an integral part of the Treaties to which they are annexed and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves.
For them to be international agreements to put text into the Treaties, the text will be explicit. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do you have a copy of the actual text which will be inserted into a future treaty?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

I've checked my post and it doesn't once mention the words "legally binding " although you keep insisting that that is what I have said. In any case it's not what I've said and not of concern to me.

So what is your concern? That they may not be added to the treaty?

Ok, so which of them are you worried will not be added to the treaty, and what are the dire consequences of them not being added to the treaty, given that you accept they are legally binding anyway?

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

I agree and it's only mentioned as PopeBuckfastXVI asked me if we should trust the other governments or not.

My point was explained in a previous post.

Presuming this to be the post in question:

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.

That does look exactly like you're saying they're not legally binding, that they're "political promises" and that they'll be reneged on. I obviously accept your word that that's not what you're saying, but since that's all you've said, and it looks like it says what you say you're not saying, you can understand my confusion...

dizzily,
scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presuming this to be the post in question:



That does look exactly like you're saying they're not legally binding, that they're "political promises" and that they'll be reneged on. I obviously accept your word that that's not what you're saying, but since that's all you've said, and it looks like it says what you say you're not saying, you can understand my confusion...

dizzily,
scofflaw

I've never queried that what is in a treaty, present, past or future, is legally binding.

What I've said is what I've said! Which is that we don't have the text of what will be included in the future treaty. What we have is the governments promise that it will be included in a future treaty, but not the text and, as ever, the devil is in the detail.

So what we seem to have is a political promise that it will be taken care of at some future time, and the text will be decided then.

As pointed out, it's a clever political trick insofar as by the time the text to be included in some future treaty to cover these points is revealed, the lisbon treaty referendum in October 2009 will be long gone.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

I've never queried that what is in a treaty, present, past or future, is legally binding.

What I've said is what I've said! Which is that we don't have the text of what will be included in the future treaty. What we have is the governments promise that it will be included in a future treaty, but not the text and, as ever, the devil is in the detail.

So what we seem to have is a political promise that it will be taken care of at some future time, and the text will be decided then.

As pointed out, it's a clever political trick insoafr as by the time the text to be included in some future treaty to cover these points is revealed, the lisbon treaty referendum in October 2009 will be long gone.

You're inferring something, I'm just not sure what...

Can you be explicit please? What, in your opinion, would be the consequences of the guarantees not being added to a future treaty?

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

I've never queried that what is in a treaty, present, past or future, is legally binding.

What I've said is what I've said! Which is that we don't have the text of what will be included in the future treaty. What we have is the governments promise that it will be included in a future treaty, but not the text and, as ever, the devil is in the detail.

So what we seem to have is a political promise that it will be taken care of at some future time, and the text will be decided then.

As pointed out, it's a clever political trick insofar as by the time the text to be included in some future treaty to cover these points is revealed, the lisbon treaty referendum in October 2009 will be long gone.

This is the agreed text here. Full Council decisions here, including the text of the guarantees.

helpfully,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

..and, lo! A great silence fell...

amused,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is the agreed text here. Full Council decisions here, including the text of the guarantees.

helpfully,
Scofflaw

Thanks for that. Are you saying that the whole of the text you have supplied in your previous post, at these two locations, (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf & http://www.kosmopolito.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lisbon.pdf ) is the agreed text to be inserted into a future treaty, with no changes?

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Are you saying that the whole of the text you have supplied in your previous post, at these two locations, (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf & http://www.kosmopolito.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lisbon.pdf ) is the agreed text to be inserted into a future treaty, with no changes?

Actually, the former is a leaked draft. The latter is the agreed text, afaik.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, the former is a leaked draft. The latter is the agreed text, afaik.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The devil, as ever, is in the detail. It doesn't look like the text which will be inserted into a future treaty.

P. Breathnach

bokspring71 wrote: »

The devil, as ever, is in the detail. It doesn't look like the text which will be inserted into a future treaty.

On what basis do you make that judgement?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

The devil, as ever, is in the detail. It doesn't look like the text which will be inserted into a future treaty.

Seeing as you continue to hold that position, sans evidence, can you answer this question please?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61085867&postcount=103

bokspring71

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On what basis do you make that judgement?

On the basis that scofflaw says the first is leaked, and the second one is headed "Draft 15.06.2009.

We are dealing here with political promises, remember, and the actual wording is important, and a leaked document or a draft is not something anyone can hold politicians to in the future.

I notice Scofflaw has put up the text here under the heading "Text of the guarantees", but doesn't appear to mention there that the text is from a leaked document or is a draft, if those are indeed the documents he is relying on.

P. Breathnach

bokspring71 wrote: »

On the basis that scofflaw says the first is leaked, and the second one is headed "Draft 15.06.2009.

We are dealing here with political promises, remember, and the actual wording is important, and a leaked document or a draft is not something anyone can hold politicians to in the future.

Even Scofflaw, like Homer, nods, and gave the urls in the wrong order (or in the right order, but the descriptive comments in the wrong order).

Unless I missed something, both documents are the same in content, and the first one linked by Scofflaw is the formal record of the decision.

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

On the basis that scofflaw says the first is leaked, and the second one is headed "Draft 15.06.2009.

We are dealing here with political promises, remember, and the actual wording is important, and a leaked document or a draft is not something anyone can hold politicians to in the future.

I notice Scofflaw has put up the text here under the heading "Text of the guarantees", but doesn't appear to mention there that the text is from a leaked document or is a draft, if those are indeed the documents he is relying on.

When I said "the former is a leaked draft. The latter is the agreed text, afaik" I was referring, perhaps unsurprisingly, to my own post.

Fortunately, you have the fact that the draft is rather clearly marked "Draft", which should clarify that it is the draft - or would, if you weren't apparently seeking to make something out of nothing here. The guarantees I have given on the stickied thread are from the finalised Council decisions.

saddened,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

When I said "the former is a leaked draft. The latter is the agreed text, afaik" I was referring, perhaps unsurprisingly, to my own post.

Fortunately, you have the fact that the draft is rather clearly marked "Draft", which should clarify that it is the draft - or would, if you weren't apparently seeking to make something out of nothing here. The guarantees I have given on the stickied thread are from the finalised Council decisions.

saddened,
Scofflaw

So when I said "if those are indeed the documents he is relying on. " you are, in fact not relying on them but another document?

Do you have a link to the document you are relying on for the sake of clarity?

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

So when I said "if those are indeed the documents he is relying on. " you are, in fact not relying on them but another document?

Do you have a link to the document you are relying on for the sake of clarity?

Goodness me - yes, it's the Council conclusions. The other document - the first one I found - is a leaked draft of those conclusions.

You'll find it referenced at the top of the stickied thread, too. I have to add that I'm deeply unimpressed that we now have a page of you trying to generate confusion over a post rather than anything substantial.

You claimed they weren't releasing the text of the guarantees, and you were wrong. If I were you, I would admit that, and get on with attacking discussing the guarantees.

deeply unimpressed,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

Goodness me - yes, it's the Council conclusions. The other document - the first one I found - is a leaked draft of those conclusions.

You'll find it referenced at the top of the stickied thread, too. I have to add that I'm deeply unimpressed that we now have a page of you trying to generate confusion over a post rather than anything substantial.

You claimed they weren't releasing the text of the guarantees, and you were wrong. If I were you, I would admit that, and get on with attacking discussing the guarantees.

deeply unimpressed,
Scofflaw

The problem with the document you refer to in your last post is that it doesn't seem to have the actual text which is going to be inserted to a future treaty, which is what we have been discussing. Does it ahve the actual text, or is it more a list of general intentions, the actual text of which will be decided upon after the Lisbon treaty vote on Oct 2nd ?

"the European Council has taken cognisance..." and "..they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached" etc etc doesn't sound like the text which will be inserted into a future treaty.

I've looked through the document and may have missed the actual text which is proposed to be inserted into a future treaty. If so, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to where in the document it can be found.

If it's not actually there and we haven't got a copy of the actual text to be inserted, then tell us that.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

The problem with the document you refer to in your last post is that it doesn't seem to have the actual text which is going to be inserted to a future treaty, which is what we have been discussing. Does it ahve the actual text, or is it more a list of general intentions, the actual text of which will be decided upon after the Lisbon treaty vote on Oct 2nd ?

"the European Council has taken cognisance..." and "..they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached" etc etc doesn't sound like the text which will be inserted into a future treaty.

I've looked through the document and may have missed the actual text which is proposed to be inserted into a future treaty. If so, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to where in the document it can be found.

If it's not actually there and we haven't got a copy of the actual text to be inserted, then tell us that.

No chance of an answer to
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61085867&postcount=103

Then?

P. Breathnach

bokspring71 wrote: »

The problem with the document you refer to in your last post is that it doesn't seem to have the actual text which is going to be inserted to a future treaty...

Yes it does.

... the Heads of State or Government have declared that ... they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union..

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

The problem with the document you refer to in your last post is that it doesn't seem to have the actual text which is going to be inserted to a future treaty, which is what we have been discussing. Does it ahve the actual text, or is it more a list of general intentions, the actual text of which will be decided upon after the Lisbon treaty vote on Oct 2nd ?

"the European Council has taken cognisance..." and "..they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached" etc etc doesn't sound like the text which will be inserted into a future treaty.

I've looked through the document and may have missed the actual text which is proposed to be inserted into a future treaty. If so, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to where in the document it can be found.

If it's not actually there and we haven't got a copy of the actual text to be inserted, then tell us that.

As P. Breathnach says, that's the text. There really is no point in attempting to spin this out any further. There is no missing text, nor any confusion. What's in the Council Decisions is the text that will be inserted as Protocols.

finally,
Scofflaw

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

As P. Breathnach says, that's the text. There really is no point in attempting to spin this out any further. There is no missing text, nor any confusion. What's in the Council Decisions is the text that will be inserted as Protocols.

finally,
Scofflaw

We seem to be in a circular argument about whether or not we believe political promises. If the argument comes down to whether or not we believe political promises then that fair enough.

You seem to believe that the exact text of what appears in the documents is the same as the actual text which will be inserted into the future treaty, without any changes whatever. That seems unlikely as the document doesn't pretend to be the precise text to be inserted into a future treaty, but seems to be a series of promises agreed at a meeting, and pretty vague ones at that.

I am long enough in the tooth to suspect that what is more likely to be inserted into a future treaty is the political or bureaucraitc interpretation of the document, which may, and possibly will, not be the same thing at all.

The point I was attempting to make is that, by the time we get the actual treaty with the actual wording, it will be too late to cry "foul" as the reason for it, the lisbon treaty, will be history. And if the text is different, no one is going to suggest we re run the Lisbon treaty referendum again. Once the treaty has been passed, it has been passed, and its only if it's not passed we are told we must vote again.

As pointed out, it's a neat political trick if I am right and, after all, they are politicians so political manouverings are their business.

In any case, neither of us will know who is right until some time in the future and long after October 2nd 2009 and the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bokspring71 wrote: »

We seem to be in a circular argument about whether or not we believe political promises. If the argument comes down to whether or not we believe political promises then that fair enough.

You seem to believe that the exact text of what appears in the documents is the same as the actual text which will be inserted into the future treaty, without any changes whatever. That seems unlikely as the document doesn't pretend to be the precise text to be inserted into a future treaty, but seems to be a series of promises agreed at a meeting, and pretty vague ones at that.

I am long enough in the tooth to suspect that what is more likely to be inserted into a future treaty is the political or bureaucraitc interpretation of the document, which may, and possibly will, not be the same thing at all.

The point I was attempting to make is that, by the time we get the actual treaty with the actual wording, it will be too late to cry "foul" as the reason for it, the lisbon treaty, will be history. And if the text is different, no one is going to suggest we re run the Lisbon treaty referendum again. Once the treaty has been passed, it has been passed, and its only if it's not passed we are told we must vote again.

As pointed out, it's a neat political trick if I am right and, after all, they are politicians so political manouverings are their business.

In any case, neither of us will know who is right until some time in the future and long after October 2nd 2009 and the Irish vote on the Lisbon treaty.

Still not willing to answer
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61085867&postcount=103
so?