Lisbon: Equal airtime abolished by BCI

Martin 2

koHd wrote: »

On the original topic; both sides should always get equal airtime on rte (publicly funded station) in any kind of national vote.

Or in the case of this treaty, as mentioned in an earlier post, educational programmes on the treaty should be aired with the straight forward information on the treaty. Not debates with personal opinions and interpretations of the treaty.

Surely we can be given enough credit to break down the treaty's implications ourselves' when provided with the full unbiased document.

I'm not fully clued up myself on the whole thing. And would appreciate such an informative program without personal interpretations and opinions involved.

Because reading this thread it seems there are a lot of interpretations that are being put out as fact and are in some cases being taken as fact by the general public.

I'm neither a yes or no at this stage. So I'm aiming that at no particular side, as both sides seem to have done it.

Hi KoHd,

This site below has been cited as a good starting point if you want to understand the Lisbon treaty and the changes it introduces wrt existing treaties and the rejected constitution. It's a 'consolidated' version of the treaty with colour coded annotations but there is also a reference to the full text of the treaty if you are more interested in the primary source.

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

There is also an audio book version to download where the colour coding has been implemented through the use of different voices... very useful if you want to learn about the treaty while driving, exercising or pretending to work:).

Martin.

Ps, it's just a starting point, you can decide if it's biased or unbiased.
Apologies to everyone else for interupting the flow of the thread.

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

When Judge Frank Clarke says it is exactly the same treaty as the first one - despite what others say, I listen.

But is that what he said, or is it a paraphrase that makes it sound like he said something he didn't?

That's why you've been asked for a source for the quote, which you've so far failed to produce.

I suspect what Judge Clarke said is that the treaty document itself hasn't changed, which is true, and nobody is saying otherwise. What has changed is that now we have legally-binding agreements that directly refute many of the lies that were propagated before the last referendum.

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Basing time on political party profile is not the way to do it, thats the problem with the BCI decision.

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

I believe the Yes camp and No camp should get equal time.

Yes, so you've said. I'm challenging that belief, and you're refusing to answer questions on it.

Reducing the amount of time given to either side on party political basis means an overwhelming advantage in airtime for the Yes campaign, and that is in no way democratic on any issue - now or in the future

I didn't suggest that time be allocated on a party political basis; I asked whether you feel that all parties should get equal coverage prior to an election.

Your belief seems to be that all sides of any question deserve equal coverage, no matter what the question is. I disagree.

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

But is that what he said, or is it a paraphrase that makes it sound like he said something he didn't?

That's why you've been asked for a source for the quote, which you've so far failed to produce.

I suspect what Judge Clarke said is that the treaty document itself hasn't changed, which is true, and nobody is saying otherwise. What has changed is that now we have legally-binding agreements that directly refute many of the lies that were propagated before the last referendum.

Careful now, there is 'debate' about the legality of the agreements, even if that 'debate' was from before the nature of the agreements was defined...

I would be interested to see the quote from Clarke which agrees with McDermott's analysis (from before the nature of the guarantees was known) that they are worthless as they are scribbled on the back of envelopes.

djpbarry

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Its this simple,
When Judge Frank Clarke says it is exactly the same treaty as the first one - despite what others say, I listen.
When someone of McDermotts calibre says, whoa - hang on I listen, despite of what Mary Coughlan says.

That is pretty simple; you’re prepared to listen to what public figures have to say, but only if they (apparently) say something that reinforces your entrenched position.

worldrepublic

djpbarry wrote: »

That is pretty simple; you’re prepared to listen to what public figures have to say, but only if they (apparently) say something that reinforces your entrenched position.

Have you ever noticed the way "entrenched positions" are never available as units. They always come in pairs.... one is as bad as the other.

molloyjh

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I believe the Yes camp and No camp should get equal time.

I thik that is a seriously flawed idea. What you are saying is that if 10 groups are put in front of you and 8 believe one thing the other 2 believe another that the 8 groups should all get 6.25% of the time each and the other 2 should get 25% of the time each. I cannot possibly see how that can be fair. It is most certainly not democratic.

The only way a broadcaster can be fair is by giving equal time to all. 10% each in the above instance. It is not the broadcasters fault that the majority believe one way, they cannot dictate that, they can only represent that in a fair manner.

At the end of the day, regarding Lisbon, you are saying that SF should get more airtime than FF and FG combined. I can't see how that could be viewed as anything but unfair.

tolosenc

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I believe the Yes camp and No camp should get equal time.

What about groups advocating the spoiling of votes, or abstention?

checkbalance

Scofflaw wrote: »

What they claimed - across the board, from Sinn Fein to the Daily Telegraph - was that Lisbon would create an EU army, just as they claimed for Nice, and for Maastricht.

" The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy"

That is a claim made by Article 28A paragraph 2 section 2 of the Lisbon text that says that ratifying the treaty "shall" (as opposed to "could") lead to a common defence policy. Common defence means a European army. I'm guessing that claim can be seen as a neutral in the No and Yes arguments.

oscarBravo

checkbalance wrote: »

Common defence means a European army.

No, it doesn't.

djpbarry

checkbalance wrote: »

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy

That's some nice selective quoting; read the rest of the article and then get back to me.

checkbalance

meglome wrote: »

Maybe you can point out these federalist parts of the treaty just so I know?

A federation is a collection of states that are governed by a centralized government.

The governing of the states in the EU is done by their national parliaments, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Where there is unanimous voting at the council of ministers each member state governs itself in effect.

Where qualified majority voting exists, the states are governed by the decisions of a centralized body that they have representatives on.
Lisbon moves more than 33 major policy areas from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting (number agreed with by Dick Roche).

These shifts in voting styles are a shift from independent governance to centralized governance i.e. federalization.

oscarBravo

checkbalance wrote: »

A federation is a collection of states that are governed by a centralized government.

It's only truly a federation if the individual states are not sovereign.

Lisbon moves more than 33 major policy areas from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting (number agreed with by Dick Roche).

33 major policy areas? Can you list them?

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

A federation is a collection of states that are governed by a centralized government.

The governing of the states in the EU is done by their national parliaments, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Where there is unanimous voting at the council of ministers each member state governs itself in effect.

Where qualified majority voting exists, the states are governed by the decisions of a centralized body that they have representatives on.
Lisbon moves more than 33 major policy areas from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting (number agreed with by Dick Roche).

These shifts in voting styles are a shift from independent governance to centralized governance i.e. federalization.

By that argument we already are in a federalized Europe.

checkbalance

djpbarry wrote: »

That's some nice selective quoting; read the rest of the article and then get back to me.

It will take a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers and member states would ratify it in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

I fail to see accuracy in your crticism here. The Lisbon Treaty gives the competence to the EU to establish a common defence, which is in real terms a common EU army/common EU defence force. The process to achieve it doesn't change the fact that Lisbon gives the EU the power to do so and states that it will happen, not could happen.

oscarBravo

checkbalance wrote: »

...a common defence, which is in real terms a common EU army...

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

checkbalance

K-9 wrote: »

checkbalance wrote: »

By that argument we already are in a federalized Europe.

We still have quite a lot of independence but Lisbon will move us alot closer. In most federations the member states govern themselves to a certain degree.

Many people consider a state or federation to exist where there is a constitution. The leaders e.g. Angela Merkel advocating Lisbon have already admitted that in substance it is the EU Constitution that was rejected by France and Holland.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

WHAT!!! Do things not work that way?

checkbalance

oscarBravo wrote: »

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.

Of course not, perhaps you would like to explain what a common defence would mean?

oscarBravo

checkbalance wrote: »

In most federations the member states govern themselves to a certain degree.

In any federation that I'm aware of, the member states are not sovereign countries that can enter into international agreements in their own right.

If you know of such a federation, please enlighten me.

Many people consider a state or federation to exist where there is a constitution.

Many people believe the world was created in seven days. That don't make it so.

checkbalance wrote: »

Of course not, perhaps you would like to explain what a common defence would mean?

It means military co-operation, from which we have completely opted out.

Does NATO have an army?

checkbalance

oscarBravo wrote: »

In any federation that I'm aware of, the member states are not sovereign countries that can enter into international agreements in their own right.

If you know of such a federation, please enlighten me. Many people believe the world was created in seven days. That don't make it so.

It means military co-operation, from which we have completely opted out.

Does NATO have an army?

Governance was referring to matters such as making international agreements e.g. state taxes, death penalty etc. We can make agreements now with the EU about what competences of what we still have we would like to share. However, at international agreements such as WTO talks you do not see any Irish representatives. maybe you can tell me what would happen if we tried to make an international agreement with a third country on matters concerning Ireland but which the EU has full or shared competence?

Nato the last time I checked was a military alliance which of course does involve military cooperation. The EU the last time I checked was a supranational body which co-governs its member states. A common defence policy means setting a policy for military matters for the EU and applying it in defence and military practices.

I'm not sure about this completely opted out statement you've made. Did you mean the EDA which we're in and will stay in or missions such as the soldiers in Chad at present.

PopeBuckfastXVI

checkbalance wrote: »

A common defence policy means setting a policy for military matters for the EU and applying it in defence and military practices.

So it doesn't mean a European Army then? Thanks for clarifying.

oscarBravo

checkbalance wrote: »

However, at international agreements such as WTO talks you do not see any Irish representatives.

On the flip-side, I haven't seen any representatives of Florida or Bavaria at the UN.

maybe you can tell me what would happen if we tried to make an international agreement with a third country on matters concerning Ireland but which the EU has full or shared competence?

Why would we do that? Do you understand the point of ceding or sharing competences?

Nato the last time I checked was a military alliance which of course does involve military cooperation.

Does NATO have an army?

The EU the last time I checked was a supranational body which co-governs its member states.

Correct.

A common defence policy means setting a policy for military matters for the EU and applying it in defence and military practices.

...and we have opt-outs from that defence policy.

I'm not sure about this completely opted out statement you've made. Did you mean the EDA which we're in and will stay in or missions such as the soldiers in Chad at present.

OK, "completely" is overstating the issue. All Irish participation in EU defence policy is subject to the triple-lock mechanism.

None of this goes any further to justifying your claim that there will be an EU army. There won't.

Were you planning to list those 33 major policy areas any time soon?

djpbarry

checkbalance wrote: »

maybe you can tell me what would happen if we tried to make an international agreement with a third country on matters concerning Ireland but which the EU has full or shared competence?

Maybe you can tell us who decides which 'matters' are EU competences and which are not?

Scofflaw

checkbalance wrote: »

Governance was referring to matters such as making international agreements e.g. state taxes, death penalty etc. We can make agreements now with the EU about what competences of what we still have we would like to share. However, at international agreements such as WTO talks you do not see any Irish representatives.

Who, then, were the mysterious "Irish representatives" at the WTO talks in Geneva last year?

The Irish farm lobby was fighting a rearguard action to defend the sector's vital interests this week, as the WTO negotiations moved closer to a conclusion.

Irish representatives in Geneva have conceded that a trade deal is now a distinct possibility, with the framework for an overall package possibly being in place by tomorrow or Thursday.

Irish Independent

checkbalance wrote: »

maybe you can tell me what would happen if we tried to make an international agreement with a third country on matters concerning Ireland but which the EU has full or shared competence?

We negotiate at the WTO both as a country and as an EU member. Both Ireland and the EC are members. When we exercise our national veto at the WTO, we do so as Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

The WTO is actually a good example of how allowing every party in an organisation a veto can be a serious detriment. The Doha talks have been going on for 8 years and there is still no sign of agreement on the horizon.

koHd

oscarBravo wrote: »

Always?

What about the referendum on children's rights, should that ever happen. Should those opposed to children having rights be given equal airtime?

Well I did say national vote. Meaning that it's the general publics vote.

If such a vote were to take place for the general public, then yes both sides of the vote should get equal airtime.

Although I doubt such a vote as you've mentioned would ever be a national vote for the general public.

oscarBravo

koHd wrote: »

Well I did say national vote. Meaning that it's the general publics vote.

If such a vote were to take place for the general public, then yes both sides of the vote should get equal airtime.

Although I doubt such a vote as you've mentioned would ever be a national vote for the general public.

OK, I'll spell it out. Have a read of the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2007, and tell me if anyone who's opposed to the provisions contained therein should get equal airtime to those who support it.

checkbalance

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the flip-side, I haven't seen any representatives of Florida or Bavaria at the UN. Why would we do that? Do you understand the point of ceding or sharing competences? Does NATO have an army? Correct. ...and we have opt-outs from that defence policy. OK, "completely" is overstating the issue. All Irish participation in EU defence policy is subject to the triple-lock mechanism.

None of this goes any further to justifying your claim that there will be an EU army. There won't.

Were you planning to list those 33 major policy areas any time soon?

You earlier stated that we still make our own international agreements but then when I point out that only the ones we have some power left to deal with (which isn't many and will get alot less under Lisbon) you make an example of the fact that states in some federations don't sit at the UN. Not exactly refuting the point that the EU makes agreements for its member states. It's funny because you mentioned Florida, well Florida like Ireland gets represented at the WTO talks by a centralised body, theirs is the U.S government, ours is the Commission (in almost all cases).

Understanding the ceding or sharing of competences is simple to understand. It means you give the power to someone else to make decisions on your behalf, states cede and share power with their central governments in federations.

NATO doesn't have an army, it has many armies to draw forces from. Just because a governing body doesn't have forces that are permanently labeled as its own doesn't mean it doesn't have armed forces it can use to achieve its goals. Call it what you want but a common defence policy along with the mutual defence clause in Lisbon puts an even greater military dimension to the EU. You of course have already admitted that we haven't opted out "completely".

You asked about the major policy areas that move from unanimous voting i.e. everyone agrees, to qualified majority voting i.e. where a majority of countries agree but their voting strength depends on how big their population is. Some include the rules concerning the European Defence Agency, freedom to establish businesses, transport, European Central Bank, European Court of Justice, criminal law, energy, the EU budget. maybe you don't consider these as major policy areas. Have a look at the full list published by the Commission, it tells you exactly how much power we will lose by voting Yes.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

checkbalance

Scofflaw wrote: »

Who, then, were the mysterious "Irish representatives" at the WTO talks in Geneva last year?



Irish Independent



We negotiate at the WTO both as a country and as an EU member. Both Ireland and the EC are members. When we exercise our national veto at the WTO, we do so as Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You do know that lobby groups aren't meant to make the decisions for the countries at different international agreements right?

I just say that because although there was an Irish delegation at those talks but the negotiations were led by the Commission. In fact it was well publicised because the farmers were furious with Peter Mandelson, the commissioner in charge there.

If the area being negotiated at the talks requires unanimious voting (see response to oscarbravo) then the member states represented have negotiating power because unanimous voting means they can veto the terms if they disagree with them. However, we do not have a veto in agriculture so the Commission does our negotiating. The only way a veto could have worked there is if a part of the package of terms negotiated extended into areas where unanimous voting is required. Then the package, along with agriculture, could be rejected. Luckily for Irish farmers the Commission didn't get their way otherwise they would have needed to learn how to breed cows alot cheaper then at present.

I'll leave you with this little quote from the WTO website

"The European Commission speaks for all EU member States at almost all WTO meetings."

http://www.wto.org/english/theWTO_e/countries_e/european_communities_e.htm