Lisbon 2 The Return!

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Surely the purest form of democracy is the one in which the larger number of citizens of a nation has a direct say?

That's not up to you to decide. For a man who's going on about the important of sovereignty and hating other countries interfering in our affairs, you have awfully strong opinions about the ratification procedures of other sovereign nations, even going to far as to suggest that a no vote might be justifiable as a means to force these sovereign nations to change this aspect of their law.

Stop interfering in the affairs of foreign countries FutureTaoiseach

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not up to you to decide. For a man who's going on about the important of sovereignty and hating other countries interfering in our affairs, you have awfully strong opinions about the ratification procedures of other sovereign nations, even going to far as to suggest that a no vote might be justifiable as a means to force these sovereign nations to change this aspect of their law.

Stop interfering in the affairs of foreign countries FutureTaoiseach

I will when other countries stop trying to interfere in ours by pushing us to ratify Lisbon.

Dinner

dub_skav wrote: »

Ironically you have picked out minor points in my post and missed the main thrust of it.

My humble apologies, I thought that it went without saying that the government are useless and the rest of the yes camp aren't much better.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I will when other countries stop trying to interfere in ours by pushing us to ratify Lisbon.

So, just to be clear, because you don't like other countries 'interfering in our affairs' by telling us that they would like us to vote yes to something that effects them, you are refusing to vote yes to the thing that effects them until they change their ratification process, something that doesn't effect you in any way.

As long as we're clear

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So, just to be clear, because you don't like other countries 'interfering in our affairs' by telling us that they would like us to vote yes to something that effects them, you are refusing to vote yes to the thing that effects them until they change their ratification process, something that doesn't effect you in any way.

As long as we're clear

I am accusing those other govts of hypocrisy if they were to criticise us along those lines. The process is everyone's business because it only comes into force if everyone ratifies the Treaty. That makes it our business.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am accusing those other govts of hypocrisy if they were to criticise us along those lines. The process is everyone's business because it only comes into force if everyone ratifies the Treaty. That makes it our business.

So you're saying that you would prefer if the ratification of treaties stopped being a national competency and became an EU competency because it's everyone's business. Should we have shared competence or should the EU take full competence?

I thought you were against further pooling of sovereignty and 'foreign nations interfering in our affairs'?

edit: In fact, now I think of it, if the ratification of treaties becomes an EU issue then it will most likely be Ireland who has to change because we're very much the exception in having referenda

Hugo Drax

Bottom line is, the people were asked their opinion, they gave it.

The EU in Orwellian fashion has decided we gave the "wrong" answer and has ordered our forelock tugging govt. to push the constitution at us again and again till we ratify.

Basically the veil has slipped and we are being given a very interesting glimpse of the totally undemocratic nature of the EU.

You will vote how we tell you and if you don't you will vote again and again until you get it "right".

Sieg heil EU overlords.

If there's another NO vote get ready for Lisbon 3 and then Lisbon 4 etc. etc.

Please don't insult my intelligence with the canard that this is a new document with "protocols" - the most eminent barristers in Ireland have said that it's the same Treaty/Constitution with no changes and that the protocols/guarantees have ZERO substance and are not legally binding.

Also, it can scarcely have been within the contemplation of the authors of Bunreacht na hEireann when inserting the referendum provisions for a Constitutional amendment that the govt. would be able to repeatedly put the same referendum to people in a short space of time on the same issue until they got the answer they require.

This is a total abuse of Bunreacht na hEireann and a violation of the founding fathers vision of Ireland.

Sam Vimes

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Sieg heil EU overlords.

Yes, Hitler killed 6 million Jews and the EU asked us to reconsider after we told them that we did not understand the treaty. I see the comparison there alright

smokingman

"Ohhh it's so bad, it's awful really, pass me a teacake Mildred"

Right - ultimate plan is to have a federalist state....leading to a single Europen government....leading to an eventual world government....

So what's the big deal? It works in Star Trek!

marco_polo

dub_skav wrote: »

I believe if the government were doing anything to educate the voters on the treaty it would be reasonable to ask for another vote. You might say it is up to the voter to educate themselves, yet the government spent a lot of time and effort getting "guarantees" around spurious issues to sway the few % of voters they believe they need for a yes vote.
If instead they educated the voters on what the EU and its institutions do today and then explain what will change I would support this rerun more.

As it is:
"not one comma" has changed
We have guarantees for things that were never in the treaty in the 1st place
The government are continuing to trot out their "good for ireland" line.

I believe that nothing has changed since the last referendum. The government have once again failed.
They have data that tells them 42% of no voters did not understand the treaty, yet they have done nothing useful to address this.

Very sensible post. It would be nice to think that when the offical Yes campaign kicks off that that would be the case, not too optimistic though.

The sad reality is that the majority of people have only the vaguest idea how the EU institutions currently function, and if that remains the case how as a country can we possibly be in a position to decide if proposed changes are positive or negative. To be absolutely clear making that point I am advocating more voter awareness, not that we should not have referendums.

I remember when I was in school we used to get taught about the basic functions of the EEC / EC, is that still the case nowadays? (Still under 30 in case I sound like an old fogey btw )

Hugo Drax

Why not answer the whole of my argument instead of cherry picking

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're saying that you would prefer if the ratification of treaties stopped being a national competency and became an EU competency because it's everyone's business. Should we have shared competence or should the EU take full competence?

I thought you were against further pooling of sovereignty and 'foreign nations interfering in our affairs'?

edit: In fact, now I think of it, if the ratification of treaties becomes an EU issue then it will most likely be Ireland who has to change because we're very much the exception in having referenda

Sovereignty is about being self-governing. What I have called for entails the retention of the requirement that for EU treaties to come into force, all nations must ratify. I am not calling for the EU to interfere, but the EU rules are already that their treaties can only come into force if their is unanimity. It is the EU that has made this our business. It is not a matter of hypotheticals for the future. Rather, it is a matter of the status-quo already making it our business because of the interdependence of mutual consent between the member states. Within that context, I see no problem nor any loss of sovereignty for other nations in the Irish people haggling with other nations on the conditions under which we will ratify Lisbon or not. I intend voting no in any case.

Being sovereign means being self-governing with respect to oneself, whereas the Lisbon Treaty is about investing supranatiinal governance in EU institutions. Therefore, while nation states have the right to ratify as they please, it is disingenuous to suggest that the supranational character of the Treaty makes it none of our business how it is ratified in other member states. We do not have a right to force other countries to do things our way, but neither do they have with respect to how we ratify. I am simply calling on these countries to use their sovereignty to voluntarily consult their peoples in referenda to see how they feel about Lisbon, given the issues of pooling national sovereignty involved, which go far beyond common-or-garden matters of representative democracy like writing the national budget. This document - if ratified - is going to bind future parliaments, governments and generations. For that reason, it is a special case.

Hugo Drax

Judging by the online poll here, the NO vote will carry the day again.

marco_polo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Bottom line is, the people were asked their opinion, they gave it.

The EU in Orwellian fashion has decided we gave the "wrong" answer and has ordered our forelock tugging govt. to push the constitution at us again and again till we ratify.

Basically the veil has slipped and we are being given a very interesting glimpse of the totally undemocratic nature of the EU.

You will vote how we tell you and if you don't you will vote again and again until you get it "right".

Sieg heil EU overlords.

If there's another NO vote get ready for Lisbon 3 and then Lisbon 4 etc. etc.

Please don't insult my intelligence with the canard that this is a new document with "protocols" - the most eminent barristers in Ireland have said that it's the same Treaty/Constitution with no changes and that the protocols/guarantees have ZERO substance and are not legally binding.

Also, it can scarcely have been within the contemplation of the authors of Bunreacht na hEireann when inserting the referendum provisions for a Constitutional amendment that the govt. would be able to repeatedly put the same referendum to people in a short space of time on the same issue until they got the answer they require.

This is a total abuse of Bunreacht na hEireann and a violation of the founding fathers vision of Ireland.

If you visting the UN website and find the section on International Treaties you will find they are very much legally binding.

http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If we keep refusing to to try to understand the treaty while still voting it down I think we should withdraw from the EU because it will have become clear that the Irish people are not capable of behaving as responsible citizens. It is not acceptable to reject something because you don't understand it while not making any effort to understand it


The way I look at it, the default should be yes. Five years and millions have been spent drafting this treaty and at no stage was the prince of darkness involved. Our own elected representatives and civil servants were involved in writing the treaty, they know what's in it and it's their job to represent Ireland's interests. It was not written by imaginary 'EU elites' trying to set up an EU superstate. If anything the treaty will make the whole process more open because it requires them to meet in the open whereas now they can do it behind closed doors.

When dealing with an organisation that has been as good for Ireland as the EU has, you shouldn't be looking for reasons to vote yes, you should be looking for reasons to vote no and if you find some, they will be addressed because, again, the EU is not run by the prince of darkness.

And if you have issues and they are addressed and you are asked to vote on a very similar treaty, or even the same treaty if addressing your issues did not require a change as in this case, it is not undemocratic, it's the essence of democracy. The treaty would most likely have gone through hundreds of such iterations within the EU before being sent out to the populace

That's it, though isn't it. That is the essence of your argument. Us little people should vote yes, and if we continue to misbehave, we should leave the EU.

How any Yes campaigner can accuse the No side of cohersion, and scaremongering when there default argument is 'The EU is good to you, sure why wouldn't you vote yes' is nothing short of hysterical.

That you state (obliquely) that the Treaty should be continuously put to a vote until it passes, merely emphasises the arrogance of the Yes side, since after all the default position is supposedly 'Yes', and the only burden of proof rests on the no side's shoulders. This is ridiculous.

I would like to return to an analogy of your own from earlier on in this thread. You and I have been in business for just over thirty years, and it's worked out pretty well for both of us. Every time we drew up a new contract we would both consider it and make a decision at that time. Today I give you a three hundred page contract, and I want it signed now, since after all the default decision should be yes. Does this not sound ridiculous to you?

FutureTaoiseach

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Judging by the online poll here, the NO vote will carry the day again.

I hope so but you never know. The boards.ie poll on the European Union politics forum was astonishingly accurate last time, predicting a no vote of 54%. It's more like 50-46 over there, so I think it could well be closer this time. It's important not to be complacent.

Hugo Drax

At the risk of seeming stupid? I don't see the relevance, this is an EU treaty, with an unchanged text and nebulous protocols to be appendaged. Where does the UN come into it?

Dinner

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Bottom line is, the people were asked their opinion, they gave it.

Unfortunately a large amount of people read the ballot paper and saw "Do you understand the Lisbon Treaty?"

Your points are not new. Usually they are less sensationalist and don't compare rerunning a treaty to the deaths of millions of people. So well done on that. Keep up the scaremongering.


What the hell, I'll indulge your rant.

After the first vote the government asked the public (through surveys) why they voted the way they did. The results came back to show that 42% of no voters did so because they didn't understand the treaty. About a quarter voted no for reasons such as taxation, neutrality, the commissioner and to a lesser extent, abortion.

So the government went to the EU with these findings and said; "Listen, I know these issues have nothing to do with the treaty, but is there anything we can do anyway". So the EU draws up the guarantees to reassure some Irish voters that Lisbon won't do anything nasty.

In light of these guarantees the government decides that since the issues of some of the public have been solved, it is reasonable to have another referendum.

It's all perfectly democratic, pubic has issues, government sorts them out. The way it should be. I can see no possible way that it is undemocratic. It's not like they said "You voted no, wrong answer, try again". A lot of work went on between the referenda yet people like you just refuse to see that, favouring instead to paint the EU as the big bad wolf out to ruin or lives for some reason.

And if you'll note, not one Jew has been murdered, although I don't see that stopping you spewing bollox like your Seig Heil comment.

Hugo Drax

Why don't you copy and paste for me the exact text in the EU treaty where it says literally that all protocols and guarantees offered to ireland are legally binding and may be relied on in a court of law.

Show me that and i'll believe you.

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

That's it, though isn't it. That is the essence of your argument. Us little people should vote yes, and if we continue to misbehave, we should leave the EU.

No, that's not it. You should continue to vote yes unless you have a good reason to vote no. And if you give a reason to vote no it will be addressed. I see no reason to throw out an entire treaty because some people have an objection to a few paragraphs of it. It's madness

dan719 wrote: »

That you state (obliquely) that the Treaty should be continuously put to a vote until it passes, merely emphasises the arrogance of the Yes side, since after all the default position is supposedly 'Yes', and the only burden of proof rests on the no side's shoulders. This is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous but that's not what I said. The treaty will be edited and updated as objections are voiced and renegotiated and the compromise will be voted on. That's how democracy works.

dan719 wrote: »

I would like to return to an analogy of your own from earlier on in this thread. You and I have been in business for just over thirty years, and it's worked out pretty well for both of us. Every time we drew up a new contract we would both consider it and make a decision at that time. Today I give you a three hundred page contract, and I want it signed now, since after all the default decision should be yes. Does this not sound ridiculous to you?

Yes it does but again, that's not what I said. The actual analogy would be that you give me the contract and I say I'm not bothered reading it so I do my best to try to explain to it you and ask you to reconsider.

Dinner

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Why don't you copy and paste for me the exact text in the EU treaty where it says literally that all protocols and guarantees offered to ireland are legally binding and may be relied on in a court of law.

Show me that and i'll believe you.

Show me how the Edinburgh, Seville and Good Friday agreements are not legally binding and have been breached.

marco_polo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

At the risk of seeming stupid? I don't see the relevance, this is an EU treaty, with an unchanged text and nebulous protocols to be appendaged. Where does the UN come into it?

Because the guarantees are a seperate international agreement that exist alongside the Treaty of Lisbon. You were the one who said they had no legal basis.

Sam Vimes

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Why don't you copy and paste for me the exact text in the EU treaty where it says literally that all protocols and guarantees offered to ireland are legally binding and may be relied on in a court of law.

Show me that and i'll believe you.

The guarantees just confirm what's already in the treaty. Their purpose is to confirm to people that the lies about the treaty were actually lies. Watch now as you don't believe me.

FutureTaoiseach

Dinner wrote: »

Show me how the Edinburgh, Seville and Good Friday agreements are not legally binding and have been breached.

Surely the Seville declarations differ in that they were annexed to the Nice Treaty, becoming legally-binding by virtue of that. I want to know why the so-called 'guarantees' were not similarly annexed to Lisbon. And surely the Edibnurgh Agreement with respect to Denmark differed in that it granted explicit optouts for that country with respect to the euro, the CFSP, European citizenship and judicial-cooperation. We have received no optouts whatsoever that we didn't already have before Lisbon.

I am not satisfied with the guarantees, because they don't touch on the Charter of Fundamental Rights other than claiming that it doesn't impact on family law and abortion. I am opposed to the Charter as a concept, because the ECJ will decide what it means, and that smacks of federalism to me when such a vast codification of human rights law is put under their ambit. I am not satisfied with Article 51's stipulations that the Charter only impacts on member states when they are implementing EU law, because the Charter itself becomes EU law under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, which states that the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties". So my interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter is: 'The Charter is EU law and any national law contravening it can be annulled by the ECJ'. An optout from the Charter in its entirety might have been just enough to make me vote yes. Its continued presence in Lisbon is anathema to me and I must vote no.

Hugo Drax

my points are bollox? Hmm ad hominem argument is always the refuge of those with no valid points to make themselves.

The government hired lobbyists to find out how people voted, blah blah.

Heard that one before.

You still can't prove to me that the Guarantees are legally binding.

But please let me ask you a question.

You and your ilk have now supposedly "informed the people and addressed their concerns through guarantees" - if the people in their wisdom and sovreignty decide to vote no again, will you respect the will of the people or will you push for Lisbon 3 with more b/s about how we got it wrong.

Ps, you seem a little angry with use of the word "bollox" could it be the clear no majority on here has you rattled???

marco_polo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Why don't you copy and paste for me the exact text in the EU treaty where it says literally that all protocols and guarantees offered to ireland are legally binding and may be relied on in a court of law.

Show me that and i'll believe you.

Article 49 B [51][new article] [66]

The Protocols and Annexes to the Treaties shall form an integral part thereof.

Hugo Drax

no, show how the "guarantees" are legally biding?

You can't.

They're not.

As per Paul Anthony McDermott and other eminent experts.

K-9

Hugo Drax wrote: »

my points are bollox? Hmm ad hominem argument is always the refuge of those with no valid points to make themselves.

The government hired lobbyists to find out how people voted, blah blah.

Heard that one before.

You still can't prove to me that the Guarantees are legally binding.

But please let me ask you a question.

You and your ilk have now supposedly "informed the people and addressed their concerns through guarantees" - if the people in their wisdom and sovreignty decide to vote no again, will you respect the will of the people or will you push for Lisbon 3 with more b/s about how we got it wrong.

Ps, you seem a little angry with use of the word "bollox" could it be the clear no majority on here has you rattled???

The onus is on you to back up why they aren't. Plenty of evidence that they are, what is the evidence they aren't?

dub_skav

Dinner wrote: »

Unfortunately a large amount of people read the ballot paper and saw "Do you understand the Lisbon Treaty?"

Your points are not new. Usually they are less sensationalist and don't compare rerunning a treaty to the deaths of millions of people. So well done on that. Keep up the scaremongering.


What the hell, I'll indulge your rant.

After the first vote the government asked the public (through surveys) why they voted the way they did. The results came back to show that 42% of no voters did so because they didn't understand the treaty. About a quarter voted no for reasons such as taxation, neutrality, the commissioner and to a lesser extent, abortion.

So the government went to the EU with these findings and said; "Listen, I know these issues have nothing to do with the treaty, but is there anything we can do anyway". So the EU draws up the guarantees to reassure some Irish voters that Lisbon won't do anything nasty.

In light of these guarantees the government decides that since the issues of some of the public have been solved, it is reasonable to have another referendum.

It's all perfectly democratic, pubic has issues, government sorts them out. The way it should be. I can see no possible way that it is undemocratic. It's not like they said "You voted no, wrong answer, try again". A lot of work went on between the referenda yet people like you just refuse to see that, favouring instead to paint the EU as the big bad wolf out to ruin or lives for some reason.

And if you'll note, not one Jew has been murdered, although I don't see that stopping you spewing bollox like your Seig Heil comment.

But what have the government done to educate those 42% or to address the 2 largest concerns of no voters?
Absolutley nothing, they have taken the quick wins that required no effort and they now hope to swing enough crackpots to the Yes side to carry the day. To me this is dishonest and typical of our government.

I should add that I will not be voting no as a protest vote (though I will be voting No) - in case you infer that from my above comments.
I believe that the EU as a collection of separate states as it stands today does a perfectly good job and does not need further change.

Hugo Drax

that's not legally binding.