Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

EmeraldDragon

I voted no last time and will do so again. The so called legal guarantees look like the kind of thing they scribbled on a beer mat at the end of a long night of drinking before realizing they needed to present it the next day. They arent worth the paper theyre printed on and have no legal standing. Once Lisbon comes into force any such guarantees can be scrapped. Anything we thought we were safe from in the treaty can be put in due to its self amending nature.

The problem is that while the yes side say that theres great stuff in it short term they refuse to see things from the point of view of the no side who try to see the long term repercussions.

Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

I voted no last time and will do so again. The so called legal guarantees look like the kind of thing they scribbled on a beer mat at the end of a long night of drinking before realizing they needed to present it the next day. They arent worth the paper theyre printed on and have no legal standing. Once Lisbon comes into force any such guarantees can be scrapped. Anything we thought we were safe from in the treaty can be put in due to its self amending nature.

The problem is that while the yes side say that theres great stuff in it short term they refuse to see things from the point of view of the no side who try to see the long term repercussions.

Have you actually read the text of the guarantees? Or their legal status?

regards,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Surely given that the Council stated that the guarantees do not change the Treaty, they are therefore worthless? And yes - I have read them on this site. My problems with them are as follows:

A: Only the Council decisions are legally-binding in any sense with respect to the guarantees. But these decisions do not mention the retention of the Irish Commissioner. The decisions only apply to taxation, neutrality and abortion/ethical issues. What we have on the Commissioner is a non-binding "solemn agreement".

B:The question of workers-rights is not adequately addressed by the European Council. Instead, we are being fobbed off with a European Council 'solemn declaration' and an Irish Government statement which again are not legally-binding.

C:If the ECJ finds a conflict between the decisions and the Treaties, the Treaties take precedence.

Hitman Actual

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

I voted no last time and will do so again. The so called legal guarantees look like the kind of thing they scribbled on a beer mat at the end of a long night of drinking before realizing they needed to present it the next day.

Except that (from here):

wrote:

Work on the legal guarantees sought by the Government is well under way and is expected to be concluded in early June. The Council of Ministers’ legal service, the Attorney General, Irish diplomats and Czech diplomats are understood to be putting the final touches to the wording of the clarifications on taxation, neutrality, social/ethical issues and workers’ rights.

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

The problem is that while the yes side say that theres great stuff in it short term they refuse to see things from the point of view of the no side who try to see the long term repercussions.

What, like the long-term repercussions that occurred as a result of joining the EC in '73?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Surely given that the Council stated that the guarantees do not change the Treaty, they are therefore worthless? And yes - I have read them on this site. My problems with them are as follows:

A: Only the Council decisions are legally-binding in any sense with respect to the guarantees. But these decisions do not mention the retention of the Irish Commissioner. The decisions only apply to taxation, neutrality and abortion/ethical issues. What we have on the Commissioner is a non-binding "solemn agreement".

B:The question of workers-rights is not addressed by the European Council. Instead, we are being fobbed off with an Irish Government statement which again is not legally-binding.

C:If the ECJ finds a conflict between the decisions and the Treaties, the Treaties take precedence.

The statement on workers' rights is not the same as the Irish government declaration. Given that that's explicitly stated on the first page of the document you reference, I can only assume you either didn't read the document or didn't absorb anything from it:

The Guarantees comprise three documents:
1. Decision of the Heads of State or Government of EU Member States acting in their capacity as sovereign states. The Decision is an international agreement, because the Member States have clearly stated their intention for the document to be binding upon them under international law, like a contract. For extra legal certainty, the provisions of this Decision will become a protocol to the EU treaties in the near future.
The Decision contains 3 sections on Irish issues:
• Section A is a clarification that specific articles in the Constitution of Ireland on the protection of the right to life, family and education will not be affected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU or the justice provisions in the Lisbon Treaty;
• Section B is confirmation that the Lisbon Treaty does nothing to change the powers of the Member States regarding taxation;
• Section C is a clarification that Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality will remain unchanged and unaffected by the Lisbon Treaty, and a reiteration of Irish sovereignty in relation to other areas of EU security and defence policy.

The Decision will become legally binding at the same time as the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.

2. Solemn Declaration by the European Council on workers’ rights, social policy and other related issues;

3. National Declaration by Ireland on Irish security and defence policy.

I have already pulled you up on this. There is a world of difference between expressing an opinion on the facts, and constantly putting forward made-up facts. If you cannot refrain from putting forward your personal misunderstandings as fact, I will ban you from the forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Have you actually read the text of the guarantees? Or their legal status?

regards,
Scofflaw

You forgot. These areas weren't affected by Lisbon anyway. As such the legal guarantees are empty words, legally speaking. At least this is the yes side position, if it is going to be consistent anyway.

How about this? Have the text of Lisbon as a sticky instead.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

How about this? Have the text of Lisbon as a sticky instead.

Already Stickied. See the last post in that Sticky.

MrJetlag

Fianna Fail are a bunch of self serving hypocritical bastards only concerned with lining their own pockets.

They'll get feck all from me.

I voted No last time and Ill be voting no again

EmeraldDragon

Hitman Actual wrote: »

What, like the long-term repercussions that occurred as a result of joining the EC in '73?

Over the years there have been both good and bad things coming out of Europe wouldnt you agree? And while the Union helps some industries in some ways it also harms them in others. If anything the EU needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. All the treaty is doing is at best patching a few holes while letting more holes appear a little down the line.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

You forgot. These areas weren't affected by Lisbon anyway. As such the legal guarantees are empty words, legally speaking. At least this is the yes side position, if it is going to be consistent anyway.

Nice semantics. Since they'll become Protocols, they will have the same legal weight as the Treaty. They specifically cover claims that are regularly made, both here and elsewhere, by No proponents. Taken together, that makes them far from 'empty words'. If, for example, someone claims that Lisbon commits us to increasing our defence budget, it is sufficient to point out that:

Section C wrote:

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

If someone claims that Lisbon means an end to neutrality, we have:

Section C wrote:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

If there's a concern about tax rates:

Section B wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

...and so on. All of those are claims that were made by the No campaigns. If someone voted on the basis of those false claims, they're looking at a different Treaty from the one they thought they were voting on. If they did not vote on the basis of those false claims, good for them. If, as claimed by the No campaigns, those issues did not really figure (despite the No campaigns' use of them), then they will make no difference. If, instead, people did vote on the basis of such beliefs - and the evidence shows that substantial numbers did - then I can see why the No proponents are attempting to dismiss the guarantees.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon

MrJetlag wrote: »

Fianna Fail are a bunch of self serving hypocritical bastards only concerned with lining their own pockets.

They'll get feck all from me.

I voted No last time and Ill be voting no again

Harsh words but most definately a sentiment shared by many.

EmeraldDragon

Scofflaw the guarantees have no legal basis until attached to a later treaty which may never come to be. The treaty of lisbon can be amended later without need for further ratification thereby resulting in us not getting a new treaty to have the guarantees added to or they could simply be deemed by the EU to be unnecessary and dropped and we would have no say in this either.

Also your threats to Future Taoiseach leave a lot to be desired in regards to your conduct.

Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Scofflaw the guarantees have no legal basis until attached to a later treaty which may never come to be. The treaty of lisbon can be amended later without need for further ratification thereby resulting in us not getting a new treaty to have the guarantees added to or they could simply be deemed by the EU to be unnecessary and dropped and we would have no say in this either.

They are binding international agreements. They're not some kind of manifesto blurb, they're international law, governed by the Treaty of Vienna. They can't simply be set aside. As to 'not getting a new treaty', countries cannot accede to the EU without a new treaty. If required, the guarantees can be ratified separately as a mini-treaty in their own right. What can't be done is for them simply to disappear.

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Also your threats to Future Taoiseach leave a lot to be desired in regards to your conduct.

If a poster can't get basic facts right when they're presented in very simple form, but instead insist on stating something completely false as fact, their contribution to the discussion is necessarily negative. FutureTaoiseach, like anyone else, is at liberty to make mistakes - he is not at liberty to simply continue repeating what is factually wrong after it has been pointed out, any more than anyone else is. Persistent and wilful disregard for inarguable facts will earn a ban.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Scofflaw the guarantees have no legal basis until attached to a later treaty which may never come to be.

I'm open to correction but as I understand it they have the same legal basis as the treaty from the point of view of each state. If you believe the other states will ignore the guarantees deposited with the UN because they are outside the EU treaties then we better get out of the EU because no state can be trusted. And we might as well stop signing up to any international agreements since no other country can be trusted to honour them.

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

The treaty of lisbon can be amended later without need for further ratification thereby resulting in us not getting a new treaty to have the guarantees added to or they could simply be deemed by the EU to be unnecessary and dropped and we would have no say in this either.

Oh come on...!!!!!!! Have read the section on self-ammendment?! It makes no change to how countries agree to changes in the EU treaties. If a change would have required a referendum in Ireland before, it still will. The only different is we will be voting on an ammendment to Lisbon and not a complete new treaty. Which is actually a great idea because such a vote would be very focussed.

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Also your threats to Future Taoiseach leave a lot to be desired in regards to your conduct.

Maybe that was a bit harsh but I know Scofflaw is getting frustrated with people repeating over and over the same mistruths.

Even in this post I'm replying to ... the guarantees have no legal basis? Of course they do. Consider them a separate international legal agreement outside the EU. And no ratifications on treaty ammendments? Untrue.

Ix.

alphamale 1

While in essence and on principal, I believe that we are better to stay in with the Euro, i think I will be voting No because of the way the govt are treating the farmers and the people of the country even though i voted Yes last time round:mad:

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

The statement on workers' rights is not the same as the Irish government declaration. Given that that's explicitly stated on the first page of the document you reference, I can only assume you either didn't read the document or didn't absorb anything from it:



I have already pulled you up on this. There is a world of difference between expressing an opinion on the facts, and constantly putting forward made-up facts. If you cannot refrain from putting forward your personal misunderstandings as fact, I will ban you from the forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

A mixup not something made-up, and I have consequently edited the relevant post. But the underlying point is that the statement on workers-rights are not legally-binding. In that context, what good are they from the Irish electorate's perspective, other than sophistry? Statements about values aren't good enough, especially after ECJ judgements like Laval and the Irish govt's failure to address the problems brought to light in terms of Irish Ferries-type disputes. Indeed the IIEA website states that neither are legally-binding. So what good are they?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

A mixup not something made-up.

I'll accept that - I have no problems as long as you stick to the facts where the facts are inarguable.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But the underlying point is that the statement on workers-rights are not legally-binding. In that context, what good are they from the Irish electorate's perspective, other than sophistry? Statements about values aren't good enough, especially after ECJ judgements like Laval and the Irish govt's failure to address the problems brought to light in terms of Irish Ferries-type disputes.

What's the relevance to Lisbon of the latter points, though? Laval took place under Nice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'll accept that - I have no problems as long as you stick to the facts where the facts are inarguable.



What's the relevance to Lisbon of the latter points, though? Laval took place under Nice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It calls into question the credibility of the EU when it claims to value workers'-rights in the European Council statement.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It calls into question the credibility of the EU when it claims to value workers'-rights in the European Council statement.

Because Laval was decided by the European Council? You're simply mixing up different bits of the EU. The Laval judgement was by the ECJ - the statement is by the European Council, which is a body strictly speaking external to the EU, representing the member states.

What you're saying is the equivalent of claiming that the Irish government's bona fides are established by the Crotty judgement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

alphamale 1 wrote: »

While in essence and on principal, I believe that we are better to stay in with the Euro, i think I will be voting No because of the way the govt are treating the farmers and the people of the country even though i voted Yes last time round:mad:

And of course voting No will change that. Your doing your 1916 forefathers proud with the amount of respect you hold for the democratic rights they fought so dearly for.

AuRevoir

turgon wrote: »

And of course voting No will change that. Your doing your 1916 forefathers proud with the amount of respect you hold for the democratic rights they fought so dearly for.

Yes our forefathers would have been proud of the respect we have for the democratic rights that they fought for, a democratic right that the majority of Irish people used to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty when it was put to us, but was ignored by Europe and our own government.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because Laval was decided by the European Council? You're simply mixing up different bits of the EU. The Laval judgement was by the ECJ - the statement is by the European Council, which is a body strictly speaking external to the EU, representing the member states.

What you're saying is the equivalent of claiming that the Irish government's bona fides are established by the Crotty judgement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is there not a difference though, considering the recentness of Laval relative to Crotty? And don't forget that the current Commission tried to foist the Services Directive on us. Granted, the European Parliament stymied the plan somewhat by removing the country of origin principle in its original form. But still, it seems a reasonable supposition that workers-rights was a very major influence on voting-intentions last year, something confirmed by the govt's own reseatch.

ixtlan

AuRevoir wrote: »

Yes, a democratic right that the majority of Irish people used to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty when it was put to us but was ignored by Europe and our own government.

Actually a majority of voters.. but certainly not a majority of Irish people, considering it was a 53% turnout.

And it was not ignored, since if it was you would not be asked to vote again.

Ix.

AuRevoir

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually a majority of voters.. but certainly not a majority of Irish people, considering it was a 53% turnout.

And it was not ignored, since if it was you would not be asked to vote again.

Ix.

Our NO vote was blatantly ignored. The only reason we are being asked to vote again is because those in Europe didn't get the answer they wanted.

Hitman Actual

AuRevoir wrote: »

Rubbish! Our NO vote was blatantly ignored. The only reason we are being asked to vote again is because those in Europe didn't get the answer they wanted.

You keep forgetting that all the major parties in Ireland want this passed as well. Please lay off the conspiracy theory of being forced to vote by some invisible entity in Europe. It does nothing for your credibility.

Hitman Actual

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Over the years there have been both good and bad things coming out of Europe wouldnt you agree? And while the Union helps some industries in some ways it also harms them in others. If anything the EU needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. All the treaty is doing is at best patching a few holes while letting more holes appear a little down the line.

Membership of the EU has by and large been very beneficial to Ireland. There's no doubting this- even something like 80% of No voters agreed on this after the referendum last year. But I'd love to know what you think the long-term repercussions of Lisbon would be? Some elements of Lisbon, for example a greater significance being placed on energy security and environmental issues, show that Lisbon is a Treaty which is attempting to strengthen the EU for the future.

jabbertalky

I will be voting NO, and NO, and NO again until the voice of the Irish people is heard, we might be a small country but we will not be bullied around by the big boys of Europe.

FutureTaoiseach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

You keep forgetting that all the major parties in Ireland want this passed as well.

And why is that in your opinion? In 1800 the Irish Parliament supported the Act of Union too. Some believe patronage is at the heart of this strange abandonment of the critical-faculties of the Opposition on European issues, irrespective of which parties are in govt/opposition (an exception being SF of course). I would draw upon a famous quote from economist Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations":

Adam Smith wrote:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public,..

Does Smith's maxim apply to the political "trade" I wonder?

AuRevoir

Hitman Actual wrote: »

You keep forgetting that all the major parties in Ireland want this passed as well. Please lay off the conspiracy theory of being forced to vote by some invisible entity in Europe. It does nothing for your credibility.

It does nothing for my credibility says the bluffer behind a computer screen. The only one worth listening to on the YES side is Scofflaw, so there really is no need to attempt your self-righteous rubbish please. Fianna Fail are a failure, Fianna Gael aren't much better and Eamon Gilmore after the last Treaty rejection said that the Treaty was dead. They all called for a YES to the Treaty the last time too but got a NO, which obviously shows that no one really listens to what they have to say.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And why is that in your opinion?

I assume they believe that not only is it a good deal for Ireland, it's also the best deal we're likely to get. Why do you ask, have you got some outlandish claim of there being some invisible forces in Europe bullying our TD's into ratifying Lisbon? Considering everything else you're getting pulled up on here, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.