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

hellboy99

I voted no the first time round and will vote no again.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Another Newstalk survey before the euro elections had FF on 8%, so I wouldn't put too much stall on that, Sam Vimes. 'Important to the economy' is also open to interpretation.

It wasn't a Newstalk survey, it was a survey mentioned on Newstalk

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is no evidence of gridlock in the EU institutions. The argument that is always rolled out is that an EU of 27 members needs new procedures, but that was the argument for Nice. I also recall during the Amsterdam referendum the Rainbow govt (I think John Bruton) claiming it was 'about Enlargement' aswell. In fact, Helen Wallace, who carried out a study of the impact of Enlargement on the throughput of EU decisionmaking of the London School of Economics has said that the Nice arrangements are working well since Enlargement:

Yeah, Nice was about enacting new procedures and Lisbon is about enacting some more. It's not a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", the people who work in the area have decided that they need these changes and unless there's some compelling reason I don't see why they shouldn't have them

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The EU should be embarrassed for not taking no for an answer. So much for democracy. We are stronger in Europe when we hang tough and play our cards right to secure the best deal for the country. Rolling over to get on the gravy-train is not the answer.

When we have a valid ideological objection to something and we stand on our principles, that can be considered playing our cards right and could make us stronger but that's not what happened. What actually happened was the treaty was rejected for the following reasons mostly:

1. Hatred of Fianna Fail, as if that has anything to do with the treaty. Shows that the Irish people will stab Europe in the back over internal affairs, shows we don't understand what the treaty is about and shows that people don't even watch the news because all but one of the major parties also supported the treaty
2. Abortion, not effected by the treaty
3. Common taxation, not effected by the treaty
4. Neutrality, not effected by the treaty
5. Keeping our impartial commissioner that does not represent our interests in Europe. Shows a lack of understanding of what commissioners do and a lack of knowledge because the reduction of the commission was decided under Nice and Lisbon just defined how it would be done
6. Complaints about an "unelected" president while simultaneously fighting to keep an unelected commissioner and not quite realising that a directly elected president would always come from the country with the highest population
7. That it's a "self amending treaty" and the people and/or the governments will not be asked about these changes. Not true
8. "If you don't know, vote no". Putting ignorance on a pedestal instead of saying "if you don't know, find out".

That's all I can think of at the moment. Throughout the campaign the only valid objection I came across was from people who have a general objection to the way the EU is going and even that is nothing specific about the treaty. You are right that hanging tough with valid objections could strength our position but the reasons we rejected the treaty make us look like a pack of gobsh!tes. It's embarrassing that they had to ask us to vote again on exactly the same treaty because, unlike when the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution, there was nothing that could be renegotiated because we rejected it for reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty. All they could do was get guarantees that none of the stuff that we in our ignorance thought was going to happen actually was

Sam Vimes

free to prosper wrote: »

Back to FF, voting NO is a surefire way to get rid of this useless FF governnment.

One would think that a general election would be a better way to go about it rather than voting no to a treaty that is being proposed by the EU and that their opponents also support but what would I know.....

RandomName2

I am surprised that the Sunday Times article mentioning how an un-named Swedish party hopes to enact european-wide abortion legislation after Lisbon using (I think) the Citizens' Initiative.

If this is the case, it is unlikely to actually come to pass. Nevertheless it might highlight the messy boundaries of some of Lisbon's alterations (there seems to be no clear info on the CI apart from the 1million signiature requirement to have it looked at in Parliament). It might possibly also highlight some of the motives of the proponents of Lisbon (although personally I doubt this is the case).

sink

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Hatred of Fianna Fail, as if that has anything to do with the treaty. Shows that the Irish people will stab Europe in the back over internal affairs, shows we don't understand what the treaty is about and shows that people don't even watch the news because all but one of the major parties also supported the treaty
2. Abortion, not effected by the treaty
3. Common taxation, not effected by the treaty
4. Neutrality, not effected by the treaty
5. Keeping our impartial commissioner that does not represent our interests in Europe. Shows a lack of understanding of what commissioners do and a lack of knowledge because the reduction of the commission was decided under Nice and Lisbon just defined how it would be done
6. Complaints about an "unelected" president while simultaneously fighting to keep an unelected commissioner and not quite realising that a directly elected president would always come from the country with the highest population
7. That it's a "self amending treaty" and the people and/or the governments will not be asked about these changes. Not true
8. "If you don't know, vote no". Putting ignorance on a pedestal instead of saying "if you don't know, find out".

8. France and Holland voted no to the constitution already, the Lisbon treaty is essentially the same

8b. Other countries are being denied a vote by the EU

They're not the most cogent reasons for voting No for many reasons. An argument can be made that Lisbon and the Constitution are very similar but they're not the same. Polls done after the French and Dutch referenda showed the main objections were anger at the incumbent government and state like symbolism (flag & anthem), which are not a feature of Lisbon. Sarkozy ran for election declaring he would not hold a referendum on Lisbon and he was duly elected. The Dutch constitutional court ruled that non-binding referenda are illegal due to their binding nature and binding referenda are against Dutch law. Also most other countries never ratify treaties via referenda so Lisbon is nothing unusual, I don't recall Britain not have a referendum as a reason for voting no to Nice. On top of that it's not up to the EU to decide or even pressure countries to ratify treaties as most seem to believe, it's up to each countries constitution and government to determine their ratification method. In fact the EU (Commission, Parliament, ECJ) only has an advisory role when it comes to drafting treaties as the treaties remain nothing more than international agreements between 27 sovereign countries and they retain full control over the documents.

PopeBuckfastXVI

All well and good Sam and Sink, but your logic is no match for bolded font size six capitals, and 33 exclamation marks in a row.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

All well and good Sam and Sink, but your logic is no match for bolded font size six capitals, and 33 exclamation marks in a row.

You're absolutely right.

vote yes or Brian Cowen will eat your babies!!11!!11!!11!!11!11eleventyone

Is that better?

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah, Nice was about enacting new procedures and Lisbon is about enacting some more. It's not a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", the people who work in the area have decided that they need these changes and unless there's some compelling reason I don't see why they shouldn't have them

[...]
What actually happened was the treaty was rejected for the following reasons mostly:

1. Hatred of Fianna Fail, as if that has anything to do with the treaty. Shows that the Irish people will stab Europe in the back over internal affairs, shows we don't understand what the treaty is about and shows that people don't even watch the news because all but one of the major parties also supported the treaty
2. Abortion, not effected by the treaty
3. Common taxation, not effected by the treaty
4. Neutrality, not effected by the treaty
5. Keeping our impartial commissioner that does not represent our interests in Europe. Shows a lack of understanding of what commissioners do and a lack of knowledge because the reduction of the commission was decided under Nice and Lisbon just defined how it would be done
6. Complaints about an "unelected" president while simultaneously fighting to keep an unelected commissioner and not quite realising that a directly elected president would always come from the country with the highest population
7. That it's a "self amending treaty" and the people and/or the governments will not be asked about these changes. Not true
8. "If you don't know, vote no". Putting ignorance on a pedestal instead of saying "if you don't know, find out".

[...] the only valid objection I came across was from people who have a general objection to the way the EU is going and even that is nothing specific about the treaty[...] It's embarrassing that they had to ask us to vote again on exactly the same treaty because, unlike when the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution, there was nothing that could be renegotiated because we rejected it for reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty. All they could do was get guarantees that none of the stuff that we in our ignorance thought was going to happen actually was

By this logic Lisbon seems to change absolutely nothing whatsoever.

It seems to be the case that when someone complains about Lisbon on certain grounds half the 'yes' side will say: "that's blatantly untrue", and the other half will say "of course it's true, sure it's been like that since the 1970s/ Nice/ etc."

Which is a little bit difficult to work with.

Say 'self-amending treaty' or 'Europe gets no vote'

"Utter rubbish and sure its been like that since Maastricht."

Same with the Dutch and French rejection.

"They rejected something totally different, they actually approved of the same legislation in Lisbon"

Or the second Irish referendum

"Totally different thing we're voting on, sure its just a load of crap to appease the idiots who didn't bother reading Lisbon the first time" (like who, Brian Cowan?)

Or unelected President

"It's really a weak position that has no new powers, we need such a powerful position to be isolated from being directly elected"

The 'no' side arguments may be big and loud but the yes side arguments are like god-damn quicksand.

Daftendirekt

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're absolutely right.

vote yes or Brian Cowen will eat your babies!!11!!11!!11!!11!11eleventyone

Is that better?

Now that's a watertight reason to vote Yes.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Say 'self-amending treaty'
"Utter rubbish and
It is utter rubbish

or 'Europe gets no vote'
sure its been like that since Maastricht."
It has


Same with the Dutch and French rejection.

"They rejected something totally different, they actually approved of the same legislation in Lisbon"
It is a different treaty, they objected to the state like elements, which were removed

Or the second Irish referendum

"Totally different thing we're voting on, sure its just a load of crap to appease the idiots who didn't bother reading Lisbon the first time" (like who, Brian Cowan?)
Research indicated areas of concern which were addressed (or at least attempted). If you feel your concerns haven't been addressed, then by all means vote no, but don't vote no just because you are being asked again.

Or unelected President

"It's really a weak position that has no new powers, we need such a powerful position to be isolated from being directly elected"
It's not a powerful position, and as the position is President of the European Council, the European Council should elect her. If it was the president of Europe then certainly I would say Europe should elect her.

The 'no' side arguments may be big and loud but the yes side arguments are like god-damn quicksand.[/QUOTE]
All of the above are not arguments for the treaty, but refutations of irrelevancies to the treaty (the presidential position, and 'self ammending treaty' misunderstanding excepted, as they are relevant).

If you actually deal with the contents of the treaty, and accept where an argument has been falsified (like the treay being 'self ammending') you won't have to listen to the above any more.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

By this logic Lisbon seems to change absolutely nothing whatsoever.

No, it changes a good bit but nothing particularly bad

RandomName2 wrote: »

Say 'self-amending treaty' or 'Europe gets no vote'

"Utter rubbish and sure its been like that since Maastricht."

It hasn't been like that since Maastricht and it won't be like that after Lisbon. The article that is supposed to be self amending is article 48 and it's new to Lisbon so anyone saying it's been like that since older treaties is wrong

RandomName2 wrote: »

"They rejected something totally different, they actually approved of the same legislation in Lisbon"

They rejected something mostly the same but most of the parts they objected to were changed. They didn't have any problem with most of it so there was no reason to change those parts.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Or the second Irish referendum

"Totally different thing we're voting on, sure its just a load of crap to appease the idiots who didn't bother reading Lisbon the first time" (like who, Brian Cowan?)

I don't think anyone's said it's totally different, it's clearly the same treaty. The only difference is the guarantees that just confirm what's already there.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Or unelected President

"It's really a weak position that has no new powers, we need such a powerful position to be isolated from being directly elected"

I've never heard the second argument being put forward. Source?

RandomName2 wrote: »

It seems to be the case that when someone complains about Lisbon on certain grounds half the 'yes' side will say: "that's blatantly untrue", and the other half will say "of course it's true, sure it's been like that since the 1970s/ Nice/ etc."

Which is a little bit difficult to work with.

I think the problem here is that some of the complaints have been like that for years because Lisbon is mostly the older treaties thrown together (I've seen people pointing to things that are literally copied and pasted from Nice and saying they'll be the ruin of us) and some of the stuff is blatantly untrue so you will see both positions being put forward but rarely if ever on the same issues and if both positions are being put forward no the same issue one of them is clearly wrong, as I just pointed out

Daftendirekt

RandomName2 wrote: »

By this logic Lisbon seems to change absolutely nothing whatsoever.

It seems to be the case that when someone complains about Lisbon on certain grounds half the 'yes' side will say: "that's blatantly untrue", and the other half will say "of course it's true, sure it's been like that since the 1970s/ Nice/ etc."

Which is a little bit difficult to work with.

Say 'self-amending treaty' or 'Europe gets no vote'

"Utter rubbish and sure its been like that since Maastricht."

Same with the Dutch and French rejection.

"They rejected something totally different, they actually approved of the same legislation in Lisbon"

Or the second Irish referendum

"Totally different thing we're voting on, sure its just a load of crap to appease the idiots who didn't bother reading Lisbon the first time" (like who, Brian Cowan?)

Or unelected President

"It's really a weak position that has no new powers, we need such a powerful position to be isolated from being directly elected"

Eh... no.

You're deliberately distorting and mixing up arguments made by Yes proponents.

Some No proponents claim that Lisbon will be self-amending, and that we will never need to have a referendum on any EU legislation again.

This is rightly dismissed as 'utter rubbish' by the Yes camp. I haven't heard anyone say 'it's been like that since Maastricht', since it hasn't.

Dutch and French voters rejected the EU Constitution. We can, however, assume that they approve of Lisbon, since they subsequently elected representatives who approved of this similar, but not identical, treaty.

None of the Yes proponents say that we're voting on a completely different thing. We're voting on the same treaty, in different package. And while the guarantees are based on changes the Lisbon Treaty wouldn't even have made, I doubt many of the Yes voters would dismiss them as 'a load of crap' if they address the concerns of at least some of the people who voted no.

Your last point:

"It's really a weak position that has no new powers, we need such a powerful position to be isolated from being directly elected"

is incoherent, so I won't bother attempting to refute it.



Edit: Damn, Sam Vimes beat me to it.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

or 'Europe gets no vote'
sure its been like that since Maastricht."
It has

Right, now this is confusing. What exactly are we talking about here? I thought it was article 48 and its apparent self amending nature. what are you talking about?


edit: having read back I can see the confusion. He put two issues in the same sentence which have different responses (self-amending and Europe gets no vote) and then said that it's contradictory to have different responses to those issues. RandomName2, of course if you put two different issues in the same sentence it's quite likely that you're going to get different responses to them and there's nothing contradictory there

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, now this is confusing. What exactly are we talking about here? I thought it was article 48 and its apparent self amending nature. what are you talking about?

If you look at his original compound statement and compound response above

Say 'self-amending treaty' or 'Europe gets no vote'

"Utter rubbish and sure its been like that since Maastricht."

I've bolded and underlined the bits I think apply to each other, so:

'Utter rubbish' is a response to 'self-ammending treaty'
And I say 'it is utter rubbish'
and
'sure it's been like that since Masstricht' is a response to 'Europe gets no vote'.
And I say 'it has'

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If you look at his original compound statement and compound response above

Say 'self-amending treaty' or 'Europe gets no vote'

"Utter rubbish and sure its been like that since Maastricht."

I've bolded and underlined the bits I think apply to each other, so:

'Utter rubbish' is a response to 'self-ammending treaty'
And I say 'it is utter rubbish'
and
'sure it's been like that since Masstricht' is a response to 'Europe gets no vote'.
And I say 'it has'

Yep, spotted it myself and edited it in

I can see why it would be confusing if you think that the response to the entire treaty should either be "It's been like that since Maastricht" or "Utter rubbish" and that having different responses to different parts would be contradictory.

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, now this is confusing. What exactly are we talking about here? I thought it was article 48 and its apparent self amending nature. what are you talking about?


edit: having read back I can see the confusion. He put two issues in the same sentence which have different responses (self-amending and Europe gets no vote) and then said that it's contradictory to have different responses to those issues. RandomName2, of course if you put two different issues in the same sentence it's quite likely that you're going to get different responses to them and there's nothing contradictory there

Well, from Germany's point of view it has been self-amending, so no difference there. From Ireland's point of view there is nothing to suggest that Crotty is overturned in Lisbon so no difference there either. Although I believe the lack of vote in Europe is a good reason to protest about Lisbon II, such protests are drowned out by the fact that this is already the status quo, which is a damn shame.

Edit: Of course you can argue what the term 'self-amending' means until the cows come home as well.

PPS: I meant for the two statements to both be argued as simultaneously not existing and existing at the same time... if that makes any sense (which it doesn't)

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, from Germany's point of view it has been self-amending, so no difference there. From Ireland's point of view there is nothing to suggest that Crotty is overturned in Lisbon so no difference there either. Although I believe the lack of vote in Europe is a good reason to protest about Lisbon II, such protests are drowned out by the fact that this is already the status quo, which is a damn shame.

Edit: Of course you can argue what the term 'self-amending' means until the cows come home as well.

What do you think it means?

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

PPS: I meant for the two statements to both be argued as simultaneously not existing and existing at the same time... if that makes any sense (which it doesn't)

You've conflated two different statements, which merit two different responses, and you've got the two responses merited.

In fact you've changed the response conjunction from 'or' in the initial statement, to 'and' in the response, and joined the responses in quotes.

Really your response would be more accurate if you used 'or' instead of 'and', and separated your responses as per the original statements.

So:
Say 'self-amending treaty' or 'Europe gets no vote'

"Utter rubbish and sure its been like that since Maastricht."

Becomes
Say 'self-amending treaty' or 'Europe gets no vote'

"Utter rubbish" or "sure its been like that since Maastricht."

Which is entirely consistent.

If you introduce you're own inconsistencies, and join separate statements, requiring separate responses in a single statement, you can't very well complain when your answer comes in two parts.

the-island-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When we have a valid ideological objection to something and we stand on our principles, that can be considered playing our cards right and could make us stronger but that's not what happened. What actually happened was the treaty was rejected for the following reasons mostly:

1. Neutrality, not effected by the treaty
2. Complaints about an "unelected" president while simultaneously fighting to keep an unelected commissioner and not quite realising that a directly elected president would always come from the country with the highest population

I agree about the rest of your points being stupid reasons but these two i see as legitamite.

The whole neutrality issue depends on your view point. Many people would be fine with the fact that ireland will not be forced to deploy their troops to non-peacekeeping mission but some people would think that having other member states deploying their troops in non-peacekeeping missions under the European Union badge would be nearly as bad!
Fair enough there wouldn't be any irish troops out there but there would be troops that represent a union we are part of.

I think the whole argument about the president is not about him being elected or not its the fact that it is another step towards the European Union looking like a super state.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, from Germany's point of view it has been self-amending, so no difference there. From Ireland's point of view there is nothing to suggest that Crotty is overturned in Lisbon so no difference there either.

How's that then?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Although I believe the lack of vote in Europe is a good reason to protest about Lisbon II, such protests are drowned out by the fact that this is already the status quo, which is a damn shame.

The decision to have a referendum or not rests solely with the governments of the member nations. If the people of those countries don't like it they can call for their constitutions to be changed as we did with the Crotty judgement or vote out their governments. It's not up to us to tell them they're not running their countries right.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Edit: Of course you can argue what the term 'self-amending' means until the cows come home as well.

No, you can't. This is from article 48:

"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

There are three positions on whether it's self amending. The one that says it isn't, the one that lies to say it is and the one that believes the lies

RandomName2 wrote: »

PPS: I meant for the two statements to both be argued as simultaneously not existing and existing at the same time... if that makes any sense (which it doesn't)

They're not both being argued simultaneously

Scofflaw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They rejected something mostly the same but most of the parts they objected to were changed. They didn't have any problem with most of it so there was no reason to change those parts.

For the Dutch, the state-like elements were dropped, the Protocol on Services of General Interest was added, as was the entire national parliament 'yellow' and 'orange' card system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What do you think it means?

If I was a German or Belgian voter I would consider it self-amending since I would see changes happening to the EU (such as Nice) which just come and go without much of a mention, and with no objectifiable means to do anything about it if you felt the need to. I suppose you could vote in radicals into the Reichstag, or whatever. Not only would this likely to be a wasted vote, other parties would be unlikely to work with such radicals, so they would actually need an absolute majority (pretty unlikely). Besides which, to vote in radicals just because there may or may not be an EU treaty which you may or may not approve of really is cutting off your nose to spite your face - besides which the Germans, or whatever still wouldn't get a referendum.

Sure if it wasn't for Crotty absolutely no citizen who wasn't a politician would have a say on Lisbon. Jasus!

Sure it's been that way since Maastricht.

Sam Vimes

the-island-man wrote: »

The whole neutrality issue depends on your view point. Many people would be fine with the fact that ireland will not be forced to deploy their troops to non-peacekeeping mission but some people would think that having other member states deploying their troops in non-peacekeeping missions under the European Union badge would be nearly as bad!
Fair enough there wouldn't be any irish troops out there but there would be troops that represent a union we are part of.

That's not an Irish neutrality issue. Ireland is still neutral and the rest of the countries in the EU were never neutral. That is a valid issue but not the one held by the majority of people who voted no because of neutrality. I've never even heard that point being put forward before.

the-island-man wrote: »

I think the whole argument about the president is not about him being elected or not its the fact that it is another step towards the European Union looking like a super state.

Again, that's a separate issue. All I heard throughout the campaign was "unelected president", mostly from libertas. That is a valid objection which I covered in my post by saying "Throughout the campaign the only valid objection I came across was from people who have a general objection to the way the EU is going and even that is nothing specific about the treaty"

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sure if it wasn't for Crotty absolutely no citizen who wasn't a politician would have a say on Lisbon. Jasus!

To be honest I would prefer that. The overwhelming majority of people who voted on both sides had no idea what they were voting on. We might as well shake a magic 8-ball as abide by the will of people who don't actually know what their will is because their opinion is based on a snappy slogan that's most likely a lie

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not an Irish neutrality issue. Ireland is still neutral and the rest of the countries in the EU were never neutral. That is a valid issue but not the one held by the majority of people who voted no because of neutrality. I've never even heard that point being put forward before.


Again, that's a separate issue. All I heard throughout the campaign was "unelected president", mostly from libertas. That is a valid objection which I covered in my post by saying "Throughout the campaign the only valid objection I came across was from people who have a general objection to the way the EU is going and even that is nothing specific about the treaty"

I forgot neutrality:

'Ireland's neutrality is not effected by Lisbon, Ireland is already not neutral' - there should be a raft of arguments for the latter position somewhere around here... but since I don't really care about the neutrality argument I will leave the dredging up to others

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

If I was a German or Belgian voter I would consider it self-amending since I would see changes happening to the EU (such as Nice) which just come and go without much of a mention, and with no objectifiable means to do anything about it if you felt the need to. I suppose you could vote in radicals into the Reichstag, or whatever. Not only would this likely to be a wasted vote, other parties would be unlikely to work with such radicals, so they would actually need an absolute majority (pretty unlikely). Besides which, to vote in radicals just because there may or may not be an EU treaty which you may or may not approve of really is cutting off your nose to spite your face - besides which the Germans, or whatever still wouldn't get a referendum.

Sure if it wasn't for Crotty absolutely no citizen who wasn't a politician would have a say on Lisbon. Jasus!

Sure it's been that way since Maastricht.

Well, with respect, you are just redefining the English language to suit your agenda. You could call 'not having a referendum' a purple polka-dotted tiger, but it wouldn't make it such a thing.

'Self amending' as per the English language, means the treaty is amended, under it's own authority, i.e. the Council update the treaty without recourse to National ratification.

This is blatantly not true.

National ratification is a matter for National governments, and National legal systems, and nothing to do with the amendment procedures of the EU Treaties.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

From Ireland's point of view there is nothing to suggest that Crotty is overturned in Lisbon so no difference there either.

How could Crotty possibly be overturned in Lisbon?

P. Breathnach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well, with respect, you are just redefining the English language to suit your agenda. ...

I am impressed. I failed to understand the post at all.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

I forgot neutrality:

'Ireland's neutrality is not effected by Lisbon, Ireland is already not neutral' - there should be a raft of arguments for the latter position somewhere around here... but since I don't really care about the neutrality argument I will leave the dredging up to others

If a country can have 'degrees of neutrality', I think we certainly do, for instance, we are in the UN and participate in UN missions. We allow Shannon to be used for US military purposes. Then it's fair to say that Irelands degree of neutrality is not affected by Lisbon, or in shorthand Irelands neutrality is not affected (as it doesn't increase or decrease).

In which case both the statements 'Ireland's neutrality is not affected' and 'Ireland is not neutral anyway' are actually consistent.

No country is entirely Neutral, not even Switzerland.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

If I was a German or Belgian voter I would consider it self-amending since I would see changes happening to the EU (such as Nice) which just come and go without much of a mention, and with no objectifiable means to do anything about it if you felt the need to.

By which argument, all national legislation is self-amending - as long as we're defining "self-amending" as "not subject to referendum".

Interestingly, by that bizarre definition, Lisbon still isn't self-amending from an Irish perspective.