Lisbon 2 The Return!

K-9

Hugo Drax wrote: »

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

You can't.

They're not.

As per Paul Anthony McDermott and other eminent experts.

Do you have a link?

Hugo Drax

will you respect a 2nd NO vote?

Hugo Drax

Sophistry is often confused with intelligence as well.

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

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

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

The so-called Protocols are to be added to a future EU accession treaty at some unspecified future time. We are told it will be the Croatian or Icelandic Accession treaties. There are 3 problems with that. One, the gap between the yes-no sides in Croatia is 8.5%. Two, Icelanders now oppose membership 48-34 in the latest poll. Three, UK Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff claims that such addition of Irish Protocols to an Accession Treaty would be illegal and subject to challenge in the courts. These guarantees stand on foundations of quicksand, as far as I can see.

Hugo Drax

No to be honest but he was on questions and answers and clearly asserted that the guarantees have no legal substance.

Unless you can find archived q & ans with bowman on rte website somewhere....

Dinner

Hugo Drax wrote: »

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

The government hired a respected polling company to carry out sound statistical analysis.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

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

I'm angry because every day somebody like you comes on and spouts this same 'undemocratic' line and paints the EU as evil when clearly it is not. Some people take what is very obviously a good example of democracy in action and claim it to be undemocratic by 'conveniently' leaving out all the work that has gone on after the first vote.

I have no problem with anyone voting no if they don't like the EU or the way they feel it is going. I do have a problem with someone comparing a democratic referendum to one of the most horrific events in the history of Europe. Surely you cans see a problem there.

Dinner

dub_skav wrote: »

But what have the government done to educate those 42% or to address the 2 largest concerns of no voters?

Not enough. And I can only hope that in the lead up to the vote that they and the rest of the yes campaign pull the finger out and put a bit of an effort in this time.

marco_polo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

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

You can't.

They're not.

As per Paul Anthony McDermott and other eminent experts.

Declarations

The term "declaration" is used for various international instruments. However, declarations are not always legally binding. The term is often deliberately chosen to indicate that the parties do not intend to create binding obligations but merely want to declare certain aspirations. An example is the 1992 Rio Declaration. Declarations can however also be treaties in the generic sense intended to be binding at international law. It is therefore necessary to establish in each individual case whether the parties intended to create binding obligations. Ascertaining the intention of the parties can often be a difficult task. Some instruments entitled "declarations" were not originally intended to have binding force, but their provisions may have reflected customary international law or may have gained binding character as customary law at a later stage. Such was the case with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Declarations that are intended to have binding effects could be classified as follows:

(a) A declaration can be a treaty in the proper sense. A significant example is the Joint Declaration between the United Kingdom and China on the Question of Hong Kong of 1984.

(b) An interpretative declaration is an instrument that is annexed to a treaty with the goal of interpreting or explaining the provisions of the latter.

(c) A declaration can also be an informal agreement with respect to a matter of minor importance.

(d) A series of unilateral declarations can constitute binding agreements. A typical example are declarations under the Optional Clause of the Statute of the International Court of Justice that create legal bonds between the declarants, although not directly addressed to each other. Another example is the unilateral Declaration on the Suez Canal and the arrangements for its operation issued by Egypt in 1957 which was considered to be an engagement of an international character.

The statement of intention by the EU to create a new protocol will satisfy this requirement.

Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon

1. The European Council recalls that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by each of the 27 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It reaffirms its wish to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009.

2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

3. The European Council also agreed that other concerns of the Irish people, as presented by the Taoiseach, relating to taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, would be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States, by way of the necessary legal guarantees. It was also agreed that the high importance attached to a number of social issues, including workers' rights, would be confirmed.

4. Against this background, the European Council has agreed on the following set of arrangements, which are fully compatible with the Treaty, in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people:
(a) Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (Annex 1);
(b) Solemn Declaration on Workers' Rights, Social Policy and other issues (Annex 2). The European Council has also taken cognisance of the unilateral declaration of Ireland (Annex 3), which will be associated with the Irish instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any reratification of that Treaty;
(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(iv) 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;

(v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different from similar clarifications in Protocols obtained by other Member States. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Hugo Drax

Leaving aside the unfortunate holocaust analogy which you have latched onto as a way to smear my other arguments...

will you respect a 2nd NO vote?

dub_skav

Dinner wrote: »

The government hired a respected polling company to carry out sound statistical analysis.



I'm angry because every day somebody like you comes on and spouts this same 'undemocratic' line and paints the EU as evil when clearly it is not. Some people take what is very obviously a good example of democracy in action and claim it to be undemocratic by 'conveniently' leaving out all the work that has gone on after the first vote.

I have no problem with anyone voting no if they don't like the EU or the way they feel it is going. I do have a problem with someone comparing a democratic referendum to one of the most horrific events in the history of Europe. Surely you cans see a problem there.

And ignored most of it, which was a lost opportuity.

I agree with some of the rest of what you say. A lot of the "debate" on this treaty is equally uninformed people form both sides calling eachother names.

This thread has actually become reasonably interesting in the last few (read many) pages thanks to coherent arguments from both sides. Must be the 40+ pages scaring people off.

Hugo Drax

so you have just proven the FACT that Lisbon contains no legally binding guarantees, just the promise that they will be included in the next Acession treaty....

Do you think people can't see through that sh1t.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The so-called Protocols are to be added to a future EU accession treaty at some unspecified future time. We are told it will be the Croatian or Icelandic Accession treaties. There are 3 problems with that. One, the gap between the yes-no sides in Croatia is 8.5%. Two, Icelanders now oppose membership 48-34 in the latest poll. Three, UK Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff claims that such addition of Irish Protocols to an Accession Treaty would be illegal and subject to challenge in the courts. These guarantees stand on foundations of quicksand, as far as I can see.

The declarations are annexed to the Lisbon Treaty as is clearly stated in the EU declaration.

marco_polo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

so you have just proven the FACT that Lisbon contains no legally binding guarantees, just the promise that they will be included in the next Acession treaty....

Do you think people can't see through that sh1t.

Words fail me.

FutureTaoiseach

The statement of intent does not have the force of law and therefore does not protect workers rights or our right to a Commissioner. It constitutes a political promise. There has to be a question as to why, when taxation and abortion were addressed by Council decisions, that the Commissioner and workers-rights were not.

Dinner wrote:

The declarations are annexed to the Lisbon Treaty as is clearly stated in the EU declaration.

At present they are not.

Dinner

Hugo Drax wrote: »

will you respect a 2nd NO vote?

I, and the government respected the first vote. Lisbon was not ratified, unless I missed that.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that your question is "Do I think there should be a third referendum if Lisbon fails again".

I dont think there will, or probably should be.

dub_skav wrote: »

And ignored most of it, which was a lost opportuity.

And a better run campaign will give both the Yes and No voters that didn't understand it a chance to understand it. My expectations for the yes campaign are low, but I just hope that maybe for once FF will do something right.

Hugo Drax

I'd also just like to say that i am not some crackpot that is anti EU, i think the EU is a very good idea - as it stands, but the direction it's heading in - a federal undemocratic superstate is not what we signed up for in 1972.

Hugo Drax

answer the question, they're not in the Lisbon treaty are they? just promised to be included in future treatys...

What is it with this messianic need amongst yes people to have the treaty passed..

Hugo Drax

It's very condescending to assume that because people didn't vote how you wanted them to that they were too stupid to understand the issues.

Who are you to decide that

Hugo Drax

no doubt after the 2nd No vote we can look forward to having you on here again, bitchin and moaning about how the stupid people didn't understand the issues....

Dinner

Hugo Drax wrote: »

It's very condescending to assume that because people didn't vote how you wanted them to that they were too stupid to understand the issues.

Who are you to decide that

I'm not deciding anything. This were the findings from the Millward Brown study. But I don't think that matters to you.

marco_polo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

answer the question, they're not in the Lisbon treaty are they? just promised to be included in future treatys...

What is it with this messianic need amongst yes people to have the treaty passed..

1) Declaration are a form of International agreement in their own right.
2) It is crystal clear that these declarations are to create binding obligations between Ireland and the EU.
3) The declarations have been annexed to the current Lisbon treaty, which clearly states that such annexes form an integral part of the treaty.
4) Further more these will become protocols at the time of the next accession treaty. Which one of the Danish negotiators of the Edinburgh agreement is on record as saying is not even a nescessary step legally.


Why the messianic need to argue black is white?

Hugo Drax

Who are Millward Brown to decide that?

Did they survey every person who voted?

No of course not.

It's just a survey.

It's quite possible that the majority of people were well informed.

If there was a Yes vote the first time would you have said people didn't understand the issues?

No, you would have accepted it.

The hypocrisy and double standards is breat taking.

I accepted the first vote.

I'll accept the 2nd vote.

marco_polo

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Who are Millward Brown to decide that?

Did they survey every person who voted?

No of course not.

It's just a survey.

It's quite possible that the majority of people were well informed.

If there was a Yes vote the first time would you have said people didn't understand the issues?

No, you would have accepted it.

The hypocrisy and double standards is breat taking.

I accepted the first vote.

I'll accept the 2nd vote.

http://www.robertniles.com/stats/sample.shtml

So a sample of 1,600 people gives you a margin of error of 2.5 percent, which is pretty darn good for a poll. (See Margin of Error for more details on that term, and on polls in general.) Now, remember that the size of the entire population doesn't matter here. You could have a nation of 250,000 people or 250 million and that won't affect how big your sample needs to be to come within your desired margin of error. The Math Gods just don't care.

Dinner

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Who are Millward Brown to decide that?

A respected company whose reputation is staked on accurate results.
But they didn't decide anything, they just asked the question. It was the voters who decided the rest.

Hugo Drax wrote: »

Did they survey every person who voted?

No, that's not how statistics works. I take it you are familiar with basic statistics?

Hugo Drax wrote: »

If there was a Yes vote the first time would you have said people didn't understand the issues?

If that's what the surveys said then yeah I would have had to accept that. Because I, unlike you it seems, give some weight to statistics.

leitrim lad

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Are all farmers fúcktards?

Without the EU to protect the shower of gobshítes who call themselves farmers external farmers would long since have wiped them out. The inefficient fools who farm in this country would not survive a week without the EU to protect them. Imagine if we could buy Brazilian beef for a lot less than Irish beef. I know which I;d buy.

Because trust me, I;ve been to Brazil, and their beef tastes beautiful. A lot better than the Irish crap you can buy in Tesco.

And they think tehy should vote no?

yes you are right , oh by the way elizabeth called she was wondering what hym will you open your sunday service with , over in buckingham


if you havent copped on im being sarcastic, if you want to talk the way you did last night about my heritage , then **** off back to england , farming is my heritage and its not for you or anyone else to try and run down what my grand parents were tortured for,

brazilian beef, lets just hope we never meet in person,

sharky86

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not voting.

Voted No last time, nothings changed for me but I know a Yes would get Ireland out of this hole we're in faster

I'm gonna leave it up to you lot to make the right decision =p

Please explaing to me how you fcome to that conclusion seen as the rest of the world is in the same situation as us. It will only take us longer to pull through this ression than other places like Australia, USA and Canada for example due to lack of proper governance by skilled leaders, (I not saying that Obama or Rudd are great just better than Cowen and Harney is all) Also these countries has vast amounts of Raw unprocessed matrials to support them through.

Europe on the other hand relys heavily on Russian Oil for sample and in my opinion is fecked ether way!!!

I'll vote no

marco_polo

Just to hammer home the point about the Guarantees

The Danish Permanent Representative (Ambassador) to the EU, Poul Christoffersen was heavily involved in preparing the Edinburgh Agreement.

In an interview with RTÉ News, he explained the steps Denmark went through with its legally binding guarantees. But he also expressed surprise that the Irish were seeking to have their guarantees written in as a protocol, saying such a move was not legally necessary.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Dinner

leitrim lad wrote: »

brazilian beef, lets just hope we never meet in person,

Eat Irish beef or else!

Martin 2

sharky86 wrote: »

Please explaing to me how you fcome to that conclusion seen as the rest of the world is in the same situation as us. It will only take us longer to pull through this ression than other places like Australia, USA and Canada for example due to lack of proper governance by skilled leaders, (I not saying that Obama or Rudd are great just better than Cowen and Harney is all) Also these countries has vast amounts of Raw unprocessed matrials to support them through.

Europe on the other hand relys heavily on Russian Oil for sample and in my opinion is fecked ether way!!!

I'll vote no

I don’t think a yes is necessarily going to save the Irish economy but it’s much more likely to help than a No.

For example, a key part of our economy is the multinational sector which accounts for over 85% of our exports and employs over 250,000 people directly and indirectly, and they are strongly calling for a Yes, in fact I don’t think there is any multinational calling for a No. This isn’t due to any particular provisions of the treaty but rather the perception that a final No vote would be “cutting ourselves adrift from Europe”. Remember MNC’s such as Intel need to compete with other locations for investment (necessary for continued operation) and other countries are likely to use our No against us.

Another issue is our credit rating, if you look at Standards & Poors sovereign credit rating criteria, political risk is at the top of the list. A No vote probably represents a greater political risk than a Yes vote both in Ireland and the EU. A lower credit rating will affect Ireland’s ability to borrow and the interest rate we pay.

Johnnnybravo

I shall be voting NO