Lisbon Treaty Part Trois

F1ngers

If there is a "yes" vote in the next Lisbon Treaty(making it 1-all), will there be a vote off to decide if we really want a "yes" or "no".

It would only be fair to have another vote if the "yes" side win.

If there was a "yes" vote last time, would we be having another vote to decide what THEY really wanted us to vote for in the first place?

blubloblu

Best of 5?

martyboy48

Sure they'll keep going until they get the answer they want....:rolleyes:

Zebra3

F1ngers wrote: »

If there is a "yes" vote in the next Lisbon Treaty(making it 1-all), will there be a vote off to decide if we really want a "yes" or "no".

It would only be fair to have another vote if the "yes" side win.

If there was a "yes" vote last time, would we be having another vote to decide what THEY really wanted us to vote for in the first place?

A) You really have no idea how democracy works, do you? :rolleyes:

or

I fully endorse your sarcasm. :cool:

jumpguy

Yeah but if the no wins then it'll be 2-nil and we'll have to put on the comeback.

Jesus Wept

It's all pointless till they have the 'IS that your final answer?!' Vote.

davyjose

How bout this, take all the people who voted no the first time and voted yes the second time, then take all the people who voted yes the first time, and no the second. Whichever number is bigger go with that.

I wish I still had the luxury of voting No, but at this point in time I think a No vote is damaging to this country*, and I'm sorry but, Necessity>Principles.

*I may be clueless here, but no moreso than I was the first time round, in fairness.

K-9

F1ngers wrote: »

If there is a "yes" vote in the next Lisbon Treaty(making it 1-all), will there be a vote off to decide if we really want a "yes" or "no".

It would only be fair to have another vote if the "yes" side win.

If there was a "yes" vote last time, would we be having another vote to decide what THEY really wanted us to vote for in the first place?

Suppose there's worse ways of wasting money than on democratic referenda.

I suppose some will still prefer to moan than actually take time to get an informed decision.

The_Minister

martyboy48 wrote: »

Sure they'll keep going until they get the answer they want....:rolleyes:

Nope.

Next answer will be last. Heard it from the mouth of a French Minister today.

If we vote No, Europe goes back to the drawing board and they find a new way to fix the institutional problems.

There won't be a third vote.

Zebra3

The_Minister wrote: »

Nope.

Next answer will be last. Heard it from the mouth of a French Minister today.

If we vote No, Europe goes back to the drawing board and they find a new way to fix the institutional problems.

There won't be a third vote.

Ah, how nice of them.

So they understand two No's, but not one? :rolleyes:

The_Minister

Zebra3 wrote: »

Ah, how nice of them.

So they understand two No's, but not one? :rolleyes:

The general perception (backed up by evidence) is that people didn't actually vote No to anything that was in the treaty, but to various concerns that had been raised by certain groups (conscription, abortion etc).
Guarantees were sought and obtained on those main issues.
Now that people have those guarantees, which address most of their concerns, they can decide if they now want to go ahead with Lisbon.

Reasonable enough.

The Irish people in surveys said "these are our concerns", the government went and got guarentees to deal with those concerns, now the people can decide if that is enough to convince them to vote Yes.

themont85

Zebra3 wrote: »

Ah, how nice of them.

So they understand two No's, but not one? :rolleyes:

How nice of the Irish public voting no for reasons completely irrelevant to the treaty because they listen to muppets like Coir and Libertas.

How would you feel if you worked your ass of putting a book together for years and then ignorant fools shot it down for childish and irrelevant reasons?

K-9

The_Minister wrote: »

Nope.

Next answer will be last. Heard it from the mouth of a French Minister today.

If we vote No, Europe goes back to the drawing board and they find a new way to fix the institutional problems.

There won't be a third vote.

You have a link to the French ministers quote? It'll give some people a chance to be offended!

French interfering in our internal matters etc. etc.

K4t

themont85 wrote: »

How nice of the Irish public voting no for reasons completely irrelevant to the treaty because they listen to muppets like Coir and Libertas.

How would you feel if you worked your ass of putting a book together for years and then ignorant fools shot it down for childish and irrelevant reasons?

A truly horrible post.

minidazzler

Just vote yes, really now, who actually listens to sinn fein? Enough people that there was a No vote?

Look where a no vote got us the first time.

And why did people vote no? Because of Lies spouted by Sinn Fein, Libertas and all those other twats, the government was put on the defensive too early and had to just fight the lies so they didn't have time to get the truthful parts of Lisbon across.

Zebra3

Interestingly enough, the people who want us to vote yes are the people who got the country into its current mess.

Enough said.

Sam Vimes

K4t wrote: »

A truly horrible post.

It's true though

Sam Vimes

Zebra3 wrote: »

Interestingly enough, the people who want us to vote yes are the people who got the country into its current mess.

Enough said.

I want you to vote yes. Did I get you into this mess?

Did IBEC?

I think it's interesting that the people who want you to vote no have voted no to every treaty since we joined. They just don't like the EU so they're tricking the Irish people into rejecting the big bad treaty

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I want you to vote yes. Did I get you into this mess?

Did IBEC?

I think it's interesting that the people who want you to vote no have voted no to every treaty since we joined. They just don't like the EU so they're tricking the Irish people into rejecting the big bad treaty

Nor did Fine Gael or Labour the main Trade Unions, or the Farmers Association, or the Small Firms Association or the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland or the IDA.

bill_ashmount

The_Minister wrote: »

The general perception (backed up by evidence) is that people didn't actually vote No to anything that was in the treaty, but to various concerns that had been raised by certain groups (conscription, abortion etc).

Can you point me to this evidence? I can't find it. The only thing I can find is lies spread by people like yourself.

Dyr

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Can you point me to this evidence? I can't find it. The only thing I can find is lies spread by people like yourself.

A vital part of the democratic process is that funding a survey can negate a referendum result :pac:

994

The_Minister wrote: »

The general perception (backed up by evidence) is that people didn't actually vote No to anything that was in the treaty, but to various concerns that had been raised by certain groups (conscription, abortion etc).
Guarantees were sought and obtained on those main issues.
Now that people have those guarantees, which address most of their concerns, they can decide if they now want to go ahead with Lisbon.

Reasonable enough.

The Irish people in surveys said "these are our concerns", the government went and got guarentees to deal with those concerns, now the people can decide if that is enough to convince them to vote Yes.

But most people don't vote "Yes" to the treaty either - they vote "yes" to not being expelled from the EU

Sam Vimes

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Can you point me to this evidence? I can't find it. The only thing I can find is lies spread by people like yourself.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61284547#post61284547
An analogy to show the ridiculousness of the argument that being asked to vote again is undemocratic and is enough reason in itself to vote no

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285634&postcount=215
In the real world people don't drop an entire 300 page document that took 5 years to write because a few people have a problem with a few paragraphs of it. Instead they find out what parts people object to, handle their objections and/or settle their fears and ask them to reconsider. It's not undemocratic, it's the essense of democracy.


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61287967&postcount=302
Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61287396#post61287396
The fact that we were asked to vote again doesn't "scare me" because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. 77% of people no longer have a reason to vote no so a second referendum is more than justified

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61289006&postcount=311
With the divorce referendum time passed which made it "ok" to hold another one. But the above point shows that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"

thelordofcheese

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Can you point me to this evidence? I can't find it. The only thing I can find is lies spread by people like yourself.

here comes the part where you back that shit up, or is this another one of those scenarios when presented with the actual reality of the situation, you storm off in a huff?

TheZohanS

The_Minister wrote: »

Guarantees were sought and obtained on those main issues.
Now that people have those guarantees, which address most of their concerns, they can decide if they now want to go ahead with Lisbon

Guarantees that are not really guarantees

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It seems the guarantees will be registered with the UN as a legally binding international treaty between all the member states. This treaty will enter in to force under international law, on the same day as the Lisbon treaty.

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

Hopefully that will put to bed the speculation.

Lots of things get registered with the UN and are ignored afterwards.

K-9 wrote: »

I suppose some will still prefer to moan than actually take time to get an informed decision.

We would all like to make an informed decision. But like your post below there are way too many "if"'s.

We're not backing horses here.

K-9 wrote: »

Think you pointed this out before. Bad form if it doesn't!

Hopefully this is better thought out than a FF Mini budget, if not, I think this whole forum will be up in arms if these assurances mean nothing.

So why take a chance on bad form?

We need to be 100% certain.

marco_polo

Bambi wrote: »

A vital part of the democratic process is that funding a survey can negate a referendum result :pac:

If you have evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of Millard Brown then why not present it.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

Guarantees that are not really guarantees



Lots of things get registered with the UN and are ignored afterwards.


We would all like to make an informed decision. But like your post below there are way too many "if"'s.

We're not backing horses here.




So why take a chance on bad form?

We need to be 100% certain.

The departmanet of Foreign Affairs of the legal position is as follows:

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

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

freyners

Zebra3 wrote: »

Ah, how nice of them.

So they understand two No's, but not one? :rolleyes:

well its oui oui for yes so maybe:D

honestly i cant see a second no vote but im hoping for one

TheZohanS

marco_polo wrote: »

The departmanet of Foreign Affairs of the legal position is as follows:

Just because it's lodged with the UN doesn't mean it's legal.

Protocols form an integral part of the Treaties to which they are annexed and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves.

Protocols can be challenged.

If a Protocol is challenged and the challenge is upheld the Protocol can be rejected thus making it null and void.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

Just because it's lodged with the UN doesn't mean it's legal.



Protocols can be challenged.

If a Protocol is challenged and the challenge is upheld the Protocol can be rejected thus making it null and void.

Shameless scaremongering again.

Under what specific mechanisms would you such a challenge to a protocol taking place?

Have you any examples of where protocols to previous EU treaties being have been successfully challenged? Nothing happend the Mastrict protocol for example.

Would it be theoretically possible to bring a ECJ case, in the case of an International agreement? I think it is outside its juristiction. In any case the odds of succeding would be slim and who on earth do you think might bring such a case in the first place?

Nothing in the UN Treaty Collection either.

Protocols

The term "protocol" is used for agreements less formal than those entitled "treaty" or "convention". The term could be used to cover the following kinds of instruments:

(a) A Protocol of Signature is an instrument subsidiary to a treaty, and drawn up by the same parties. Such a Protocol deals with ancillary matters such as the interpretation of particular clauses of the treaty, those formal clauses not inserted in the treaty, or the regulation of technical matters. Ratification of the treaty will normally ipso facto involve ratification of such a Protocol.

(b) An Optional Protocol to a Treaty is an instrument that establishes additional rights and obligations to a treaty. It is usually adopted on the same day, but is of independent character and subject to independent ratification. Such protocols enable certain parties of the treaty to establish among themselves a framework of obligations which reach further than the general treaty and to which not all parties of the general treaty consent, creating a "two-tier system". The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 is a well-known example.

(c) A Protocol based on a Framework Treaty is an instrument with specific substantive obligations that implements the general objectives of a previous framework or umbrella convention. Such protocols ensure a more simplified and accelerated treaty-making process and have been used particularly in the field of international environmental law. An example is the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer adopted on the basis of Arts.2 and 8 of the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

(d) A Protocol to amend is an instrument that contains provisions that amend one or various former treaties, such as the Protocol of 1946 amending the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols on Narcotic Drugs.

(e) A Protocol as a supplementary treaty is an instrument which contains supplementary provisions to a previous treaty, e.g. the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

(f) A Proces-Verbal is an instrument that contains a record of certain understandings arrived at by the contracting parties.

tolosenc

TheZohan wrote: »

Protocols can be challenged.

If a Protocol is challenged and the challenge is upheld the Protocol can be rejected thus making it null and void.

But these can't be. They're not granting Ireland certain exceptions, they're reducing it to baby terms for those who aren't arsed trying to understand the thing.

TheZohanS

marco_polo wrote: »

Shameless scaremongering again.

How is a simple statement of facts scaremongering

Under what specific mechanisms would you such a challenge to a protocol taking place?

Can you repeat the question.

Have you any examples of where protocols to previous EU treaties being have been successfully challenged? Nothing happend the Mastrict protocol for example.

Are you telling me that Protocols can not be challenged?

Perhaps it would be theoretically possible to bring a ECJ case.

So you admit it IS possible.

Nothing in the UN Treaty Collection either.

My point was these "guarantees" that are not in fact guarantees are lodged with the UN, the fact that they hold them does not mean anything and does not make them legally binding.

The_Minister

K-9 wrote: »

You have a link to the French ministers quote? It'll give some people a chance to be offended!

French interfering in our internal matters etc. etc.

No quote, I was in the room.
I think that the other countries have learned their lesson, they've made it clear that they aren't going to interfere this time unless they are specifically invited to (and even then they are pretty reluctant).

Zebra3 wrote: »

Interestingly enough, the people who want us to vote yes are the people who got the country into its current mess.

Enough said.

Eh what?
The people voting No are
*The Communists
*The Nazi's
*The Socialists
*The right-wing Catholics
*The Libertarians
*The Euro-sceptic.
*The American military industry
If it comes down to whose side has the 'better' people there is really no contest.
There are respectable people voting No, and I know some of them, but most of the campaigners are not people I would respect politically.

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Can you point me to this evidence? I can't find it. The only thing I can find is lies spread by people like yourself.

Poll conducted by an unbiased polling company which is held in high regard.
People voted No based on things like conscription.

TheZohanS

obl wrote: »

But these can't be. They're not granting Ireland certain exceptions, they're reducing it to baby terms for those who aren't arsed trying to understand the thing.

Yes they can.

If sucessfully challenged and the chalenge is upheld these Protocols are null and void.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

Yes they can.

If sucessfully challenged and the chalenge is upheld these Protocols are null and void.

I am not sure that they can, there is certainly no precedent that I know of. It is up to you to outline such a possible scenario.

Soapboxing is not debating.

Dinner

TheZohan wrote: »

Yes they can.

If sucessfully challenged and the chalenge is upheld these Protocols are null and void.

So far all you've managed to do is repeat the same sentence and bold 3 words. Is that the strength of your argument or do you have anything to back it up?

And which particular protocols are you worried about being made null and void? Why would they be repealed when all they do is confirm what is not in the treaty?

General Zod

Look where a no vote got us the first time.

Please explain where the no vote got us. and if you mean the recession, you're wrong.

RedPlanet

The_Minister wrote: »

The general perception (backed up by evidence) is that people didn't actually vote No to anything that was in the treaty, but to various concerns that had been raised by certain groups (conscription, abortion etc).
Guarantees were sought and obtained on those main issues.
Now that people have those guarantees, which address most of their concerns, they can decide if they now want to go ahead with Lisbon.

Reasonable enough.

The Irish people in surveys said "these are our concerns", the government went and got guarentees to deal with those concerns, now the people can decide if that is enough to convince them to vote Yes.

Yet, you're giving a pass to those that voted YES for reasons that were not in the treaty. You know things like "the economy", or "so we don't get kicked out of europe". :rolleyes:

TheZohanS

The_Minister wrote: »

Eh what?
The people voting No are
*The Communists
*The Nazi's
*The Socialists
*The right-wing Catholics
*The Libertarians
*The Euro-sceptic.
*The American military industry

Source?

Kirby

The problem is, both sides are trying to secure votes through fear.

"Oooh, if you vote yes you might get conscripted or lose your right to choose!11!!!1"

"Oooh, if you vote no we might get thrown out of europe and our economy will collapse11!!11"

Instead of discussing actual issues, its much more effective to scare people. And thats sad.

The_Minister

TheZohan wrote: »

Source?

On which?

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

Source?

I take it you are not going to provide us with a plausible mechanism for overturning a International protocol then?

bill_ashmount

thelordofcheese wrote: »

here comes the part where you back that shit up, or is this another one of those scenarios when presented with the actual reality of the situation, you storm off in a huff?

Oh dear you have no proof again, so you start throwing insults around.

Show me the evidence? You cannot because it doesn't exist.

Let me make a prediction. Your next post won't contain the evidence but rather a snide remark as per usual.

thelordofcheese

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Oh dear you have no proof again, so you start throwing insults around.

Show me the evidence? You cannot because it doesn't exist.

Let me make a prediction. Your next post won't contain the evidence but rather a snide remark as per usual.

You claimed people were lying, so come on chuckles, back that claim up.

If you know people who are for lisbon are lying, it should be easy to prove, right?

The burden of proof here is with you, not me.

TheZohanS

The_Minister wrote: »

On which?

On this:

The_Minister wrote: »

Eh what?
The people voting No are
*The Communists
*The Nazi's
*The Socialists
*The right-wing Catholics
*The Libertarians
*The Euro-sceptic.
*The American military industry

marco_polo wrote: »

I take it you are not going to provide us with a plausible mechanism for overturning a International protocol then?

I would imagine that the European Court of Justice would be the mechanism used for examining, interpreting and possibly overturning a European Protocol.

You however are the Politics man, you should know the correct answer!

jacool

General Zod wrote: »

Please explain where the no vote got us. and if you mean the recession, you're wrong.

I would like to hear all the YES people actually acknowledging that the NO voters first time round (and I don't think that "The_Minister" can prove his listing, because I'm not in any of those groups !) helped to get these extra guarantees/concessions (disregarding whether or not they are legally applicable or not - better people than me can resolve that) ! I'm not hearing the gratitude for us being theoretically in a better position this time round, thanks to the NO voters.

Two points to bear in mind.
1. Its easier vote NO than YES on a 300 page document, because then you know that you haven't sanctioned any crazy hidden clauses down the back of page 233 ! I'm not saying they are there, just not everyone will read it all.
2. Its also easy to vote NO for your own reasons and believe that you are not aligning yourself with all the other groups who are voting NO, because your reasons don't have to coincide with theirs. Just imagine! Some people may vote NO for their own, valid reasons - not through scare-mongering by Libertas, etc.

Dinner

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Oh dear you have no proof again, so you start throwing insults around.

Show me the evidence? You cannot because it doesn't exist.

Let me make a prediction. Your next post won't contain the evidence but rather a snide remark as per usual.

The Millward Brown study?

It found that 42% of no voters did so because they didn't understand it and over a quarter did so for reasons such as neutrality, because it was a 'bad deal', losing the commisioner and then the other smaller reasons such as abortion, conscription etc.

Dinner

TheZohan wrote: »

I would imagine that the European Court of Justice would be the mechanism used for examining, interpreting and possibly overturning a European Protocol.

You however are the Politics man, you should know the correct answer!

Ah, so you don't actually have any proof. You just imagine that it can be overturned.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

On this:





I would imagine that the European Court of Justice would be the mechanism used for examining, interpreting and possibly overturning a European Protocol.

You however are the Politics man, you should know the correct answer!

So you haven't a clue and were just making it up then?

The ECJ has powers to rule in the areas of common EU law as defined by the EU treaties, it does not have authority to rule on the contents of the treaties as previously signed by member states. And since a protocol has the same legal status as a treaty ......

TheZohanS

marco_polo wrote: »

I am not sure that they can, there is certainly no precedent that I know of.

You're not sure, it seems that there is a lot of uncertainty in the "Yes" camp.

Why vote on something that you are not sure on?

Surely this Treaty (or Treaty of Treaties) is important enough for ALL of us to be 100% sure of before offering our Yes vote?

Dinner wrote: »

Ah, so you don't actually have any proof. You just imagine that it can be overturned.

Yes that IS the function of the European Court of Justice.

Source

Since the establishment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in 1952, its mission has been to ensure that "the law is observed" "in the interpretation and application" of the Treaties.As part of that mission, the Court of Justice:
reviews the legality of the acts of the institutions of the European Union,
ensures that the Member States comply with their obligations under Community law,
interprets Community law at the request of the national courts and tribunals.
The Court thus constitutes the judicial authority of the European Union and, in cooperation with the courts and tribunals of the Member States, it ensures the application and uniform interpretation of Community law.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities, which has its seat in Luxembourg, consists of three courts: the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance (created in 1988) and the Civil Service Tribunal (created in 2004).
Since their establishment, approximately 15 000 judgments have been delivered by the three courts.

Surely you already knew this?

The_Minister

jacool wrote: »

(and I don't think that "The_Minister" can prove his listing, because I'm not in any of those groups !)

I quite clearly said I was referring to the campaigners. I did acknowledge that there were others voting No.



As for a cite:

The people voting No are
*The Communists - Communist party of Ireland
*The Nazi's - check out Stormfront - all No
*The Socialists - every socialist group is anti-Lisbon
*The right-wing Catholics - Coir, Youth Defence
*The Libertarians - there isn't really an organisation of them in Ireland, but I've haven't met a single libertarian who isn't extremely anti-Lisbon.
*The Euro-sceptic. - Duh.
*The American military industry - Libertas

Aside from the American military thats who says No to every European referendum, in Ireland or abroad.