Lisbon - The Legal Guarantees

NiamhDunk

Just saw this video recently,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHju2n5HzwQ


Could someone please clarify the situation re these legal guarantees.

Gordon Brown seems to say that these guarantees have made no alteration whatsoever to the treaty....

If that is the case then what exactly has changed from the last referendum to appease the original concerns of voters?

ei.sdraob

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

Dinner

NiamhDunk wrote: »

Gordon Brown seems to say that these guarantees have made no alteration whatsoever to the treaty....

They haven't at all altered the Treaty. It isn't a secret and no member of the yes camp ever claimed that the text of the treaty was altered.

After the the first vote, a survey was carried out to discover why people voted the way they did.

It showed that 42% of no voters voted no because they didn't understand the treaty. 26% voted no for reasons such as taxation, neutrality, the Commissioner, abortion etc.

So the government took these finding to the EU. And the EU drew up these guarantees to reassure the Irish voter that Lisbon would not affect abortion, taxation neutrality etc.

These items were not in the treaty at all. But some members of the No camp said that they were and some people were worried about it and voted no because of it.

On the issue of the Commissioner, some Irish people didn't want to lose a permanent Irish Commissioner. So a guarantee was given that each country would retain a permanent Commissioner.

Since the government feels that the issues discovered by the survey have been solved by the legally binding guarantees, they decided to have another referendum this time on the Lisbon Treaty + the guarantees.

So the treaty hasn't changed, but the overall package that we are voting on has.

meglome

I love this comment on the video.

"PLEASE VOTE NO. (If not for any rational reason, just do it to see the look on Biffo's angry pudgy face)"

Yeah poor Biffo imagine he'd might have to retire on a big fat state pension while the rest of us suffer whatever the consequences are of the economic mess and giving the finger to the EU.

These people need to be slapped.

conchubhar1

humor is lost on some it seems.

meglome

conchubhar1 wrote: »

humor is lost on some it seems.

Believe me I love a good laugh. But it isn't funny whatsoever trying to potentially hurt this country just cause you want to point and laugh at biffo. There are loads of reasons to do that already.

conchubhar1

It is still lost on some people, it was a sarcastic comment and humorous at the expense of biffo.

I doubt the user advocated a no vote for that reason.

Daftendirekt

Hi NiamhDunk,

Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron are correct in saying that the guarantees don't change the treaty at all.

This is in no dispute, and any informed Yes voter will tell you the same.

However, the fact remains that the guarantees are in place to address the concerns of the Irish people about neutrality, direct taxation and abortion.

These are areas not affected by the treaty, and so the guarantees are assurances that the aforementioned issues are not, in fact, in the Lisbon Treaty. They are still legally binding, insofar as with the guarantees in place, nothing in the Lisbon Treaty can be interpreted in such a way as to affect our position on neutrality, taxation or abortion.

The reason the treaty cannot be altered is that if so much as a comma in the document is changed, all the EU member states would have to re-ratify it, which is a time-consuming and costly procedure. The guarantees will, however, be inserted as a protocol at the next accession treaty (if it passes), giving them the same the legal status as the treaty itself.

The only significant change is that if Lisbon is passed, the other member states have agreed to use a provision in the treaty which will allow the Commssion to remain as it is now (Article 17, Section 5, TEU, I think), while under Nice, the Commission will be downsized from this year onwards.

Hopefully this has been some help to you. Also see this for more info.

meglome

conchubhar1 wrote: »

It is still lost on some people, it was a sarcastic comment and humorous at the expense of biffo.

I doubt the user advocated a no vote for that reason.

I suppose all his/her other comments are jokes too. You know the ones that appear to have no humour in them. Seriously do you honestly believe they are joking?

conchubhar1

Yes - We obviously have different abilities in distinguishing humor.


I wouldn't vote no to spite cowen or to see the look on his face - I would however is thoroughly enjoy the look on his face should it happen....
simple really.

meglome

conchubhar1 wrote: »

Yes - We obviously have different abilities in distinguishing humor.

We'll agree to disagree on that one.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

I wouldn't vote no to spite cowen or to see the look on his face - I would however is thoroughly enjoy the look on his face should it happen....
simple really.

You should come round to my house too and see the look on my face, should be hi-larious. Voting No on a treaty that is good for this country should be a picture all right.

realismpol

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Hi NiamhDunk,

Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron are correct in saying that the guarantees don't change the treaty at all.

This is in no dispute, and any informed Yes voter will tell you the same.

However, the fact remains that the guarantees are in place to address the concerns of the Irish people about neutrality, direct taxation and abortion.

These are areas not affected by the treaty, and so the guarantees are assurances that the aforementioned issues are not, in fact, in the Lisbon Treaty. They are still legally binding, insofar as with the guarantees in place, nothing in the Lisbon Treaty can be interpreted in such a way as to affect our position on neutrality, taxation or abortion.

The reason the treaty cannot be altered is that if so much as a comma in the document is changed, all the EU member states would have to re-ratify it, which is a time-consuming and costly procedure. The guarantees will, however, be inserted as a protocol at the next accession treaty (if it passes), giving them the same the legal status as the treaty itself.

The only significant change is that if Lisbon is passed, the other member states have agreed to use a provision in the treaty which will allow the Commssion to remain as it is now (Article 17, Section 5, TEU, I think), while under Nice, the Commission will be downsized from this year onwards.

Hopefully this has been some help to you. Also see this for more info.

Yes right we should all trust the people who make the rules to abide by rules which they make....

Seriously it amazes me the level of naivety of people. To all you people who think voting for the lisbon treaty is a good idea. Can i ask you a straight question.

When 3 different nations vote no to the same thing under different guises then we vote no and are asked to vote again. Is that democracy?

I guess thats the kind of democracy we can expect if lisbon gets passed. In fact we won't even have a voice at all if it does. Thing about this is theres no going back on this. We get this wrong and thats it game over. Legal gaurentees? don't make me laugh. Guarenteed by the same people who want lisbon passed. Of course once its passed they will certainly abide by the rules they set down or maybe they'll just change the rulebook to suit themselves, eh?

Seriously you people actually think its a good idea to hand more power over to people that have practically destroyed this country and their masters in europe? You think they really care about ireland and our 'neutrality'.

Also i love the whole bullyboy tactics that are going on 'vote yes or else we will be chucked out of europe into the shadows cast into never neverland to be forgotton forever' Thats bullying people into a decision. Fearmongering. Something people with a lust for power are very good at. I submit to you in fact this will not be the case. We will more then likely get a pat on the back from our fellow european citizens who already lauded us for rejecting it first time round and rejected this same treaty themselves when it was hidden under previous guises. The people will never be bullied into a decision.

What they want to setup is a superpower rival to the states and emerging superpower countries like china and india. No other reason. Have no doubt once lisbon is passed you will see irish troops fighting under the guise of the e.u.

And that has already been admitted by euorpean m.e.p's. Good day.

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

Yes right we should all trust the people who make the rules to abide by rules which they make....

Legal gaurentees? don't make me laugh. Guarenteed by the same people who want lisbon passed. Of course once its passed they will certainly abide by the rules they set down or maybe they'll just change the rulebook to suit themselves, eh?

Why would they even bother with a treaty if they were just going to decide to ignore it and do whatever they wanted anyway? They could do that right now if they wanted and save themselves all the hassle and money of ratifying a treaty that they have no intention of following

Seriously, if you actually think that's a real possibility you shouldn't be talking about Lisbon, you should be amassing an army to overthrow these maniacal despots

Sam Vimes

btw hi niamhdunk

I see people are giving you the same answer I gave to your pm about the guarantees. Unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation going around about this treaty. The guarantees were meant to address some of the misinformation but it seems there's even more misinformation going on about them than the issues they were meant to address

realismpol

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why would they even bother with a treaty if they were just going to decide to ignore it and do whatever they wanted anyway? They could do that right now if they wanted and save themselves all the hassle and money of ratifying a treaty that they have no intention of following

Seriously, if you actually think that's a real possibility you shouldn't be talking about Lisbon, you should be amassing an army to overthrow these maniacal despots

The question you should be asking yourself is not so much that which is easily awnsered(below) but why a so called group which seeks greater democracy is ignoring the will of the people who clearly said no 3 times in 3 different countries. Also once they pass lisbon your not going to have much of a forum for opposition now are you? Current laws allow for this lisbon doesn't.

Once it gets passed it gets written into law. They couldn't do this now because current laws don't allow for it. A leader in europe cannot determine the fate of the irish people to determine their own fate because of our constitution and standing army wouldn't allow for it. But thats ok i can see many people will happily give up the freedom our of forefathers to please some bureaucrats power lust in europe. I ask you if your planning on voting yes how will you feel when you realise you've sold your country out and been duped. I can live with saying no can you live with saying yes?

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

Why because it puts in place measures to actually detain and 'deal' with people who actually raise any opposition when it gets passed. Thats why they are trying to pass it. Current laws do not allow for this. Im guessing you have read it right?

I'm saying you should be amassing an army because you think the EU is run by people who are ratifying a treaty with every intention of breaking it to enforce their will on an unsuspecting people. Those are the actions of the Saddam Husseins and Kim Jong ils of this world, not a first world union of 27 nations in the 21st century. If you actually think that is the case you have a responsibility, not only as a democrat but as a human being to topple this evil dictatorship

realismpol

Just because they don't kill and torture people doesn't mean they are not corrupt. What sort of democratic organisation ignores the will of the people 3 times?

Dinner

realismpol wrote: »

When 3 different nations vote no to the same thing under different guises then we vote no and are asked to vote again. Is that democracy?

You, rather conveniently, leave out some facts.

France and Holland reject EU Constitution. Both countries find out why the public voted it down.

They go to the EU with these reasons. They are removed from the Constitution, some parts are added in at the request of those countries.


Anything undemocratic so far?

Something was rejected, so the governments addressed those issues. Democracy.


So the parts that were not removed from the Constitution + the parts that the Dutch wanted added, form the Lisbon Treaty. Ratification takes place. And to preempt what will no doubt be your next argument:

The Dutch courts ruled that binding referenda are illegal, so a referendum can't be held there. As for reasons why the French didn't, you'd need to go back in time to when Sarkozy was campaigning to be president and ask him why he openly states that he will ratify the upcoming treaty without a referendum.

So then the Irish reject Lisbon. Government asks why and goes to EU with those issues to try and sort them out. (Sound familiar?)

With these concerns sorted out, Lisbon + Legally Binding guarantees (you can say they aren't legally binding all you want, that won't make it true) are put before the people again.

So the 'guise' that you claim has been repeatedly rejected is actually the product of democracy in action.

Find the problem -> Fix the problem.

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

The question you should be asking yourself is not so much that which is easily awnsered but why a so called group which seeks greater democracy is ignoring the will of the people who clearly said no 3 times in 3 different countries.

The French and the Dutch voted no. They were asked why they did and they explained their objections. The treaty was renegotiated until their goverments were happy to ratify it. That's how democracy works. You don't throw out an entire 300 page document if a few people object to a few paragraphs, you renegotiate those paragraphs

When it came to Ireland, they asked us why we voted no and the vast majority of us said it was because we didn't understand it and the rest almost exclusively gave reasons that weren't actually in the treaty, eg taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription. The one thing that actually was in the treaty was the commissioner issue, although even that was fudged a bit because it was decided under Nice to reduce the size and Lisbon just defined how it would be done

So they went to Europe and got them to change the plan on the commission, everyone will now going to keep theirs and we got guarantees that the rest of the issues weren't in the treaty. There was nothing else that could be done based on the reasons we gave. And most importantly we were given extra time to understand the treaty so all those people who said they voted no because they didn't understand it might not this time. I've spoken to a good few people who have changed their minds because they understand it better now and are voting yes this time because of it

So they're not ignoring the will of the people, they're very much listening to it. And there's nothing undemocratic going on

realismpol wrote: »

Also once they pass lisbon your not going to have much of a forum for opposition now are you? Current laws allow for this lisbon doesn't.

Eh?

realismpol

Dinner wrote: »

You, rather conveniently, leave out some facts.

France and Holland reject EU Constitution. Both countries find out why the public voted it down.

They go to the EU with these reasons. They are removed from the Constitution, some parts are added in at the request of those countries.


Anything undemocratic so far?

Something was rejected, so the governments addressed those issues. Democracy.


So the parts that were not removed from the Constitution + the parts that the Dutch wanted added, form the Lisbon Treaty. Ratification takes place. And to preempt what will no doubt be your next argument:

The Dutch courts ruled that binding referenda are illegal, so a referendum can't be held there. As for reasons why the French didn't, you'd need to go back in time to when Sarkozy was campaigning to be president and ask him why he openly states that he will ratify the upcoming treaty without a referendum.

So then the Irish reject Lisbon. Government asks why and goes to EU with those issues to try and sort them out. (Sound familiar?)

With these concerns sorted out, Lisbon + Legally Binding guarantees (you can say they aren't legally binding all you want, that won't make it true) are put before the people again.

So the 'guise' that you claim has been repeatedly rejected is actually the product of democracy in action.

Find the problem -> Fix the problem.

Your absolutely correct. Find the problem, fix the problem. the final solution if you will.

Democracy in action. If first you don't succeed try try again. I mean if the people tell you no sure who cares what do they know the peasants, they didn't read it properly. They are obviously incapable. Find the problem. In this case the peoples right to vote what they want. Fix it. Make them vote the right way! Lies, propaganda and deception. My version of democracy must be very different from yours.

Dinner

realismpol wrote: »

Your absolutely correct. Find the problem, fix the problem. the final solution if you will.

Democracy in action. If first you don't succeed try try again. I mean if the people tell you no sure who cares. Find the problem. In this case the peoples right to vote what they want. Fix it. Make them vote the right way! through lies propaganda and deception. I absolutely agree with you.

Are you saying that the process of finding out (and addressing) the issues that the public have is undemocratic?

Try and answer without making any veiled Nazi remarks.

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

Your absolutely correct. Find the problem, fix the problem. the final solution if you will.

Democracy in action. If first you don't succeed try try again. I mean if the people tell you no sure who cares. Find the problem.

What is so wrong with finding out why someone said no and seeing if you can reach a compromise?

realismpol wrote: »

In this case the peoples right to vote what they want. Fix it. Make them vote the right way! through lies propaganda and deception. I absolutely agree with you.

To be honest if that's actually what you think is happening there's probably not much point having this conversation. There's not much point in pointing out the proof that what we're saying is true because we'd mostly be pointing to the treaty and you think they're just going to ignore it anyway and do whatever they want. Just in case it makes any difference, they're not and it would spell the end of the EU if they did

heyjude

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The guarantees will, however, be inserted as a protocol at the next accession treaty (if it passes), giving them the same the legal status as the treaty itself.

Does anyone know when the next accession treaty is due ? (ie. when our guarantees will formally be inserted into an actual treaty ?) and how many more countries it is planned to allow entry into the EU ?

realismpol

Dinner wrote: »

Are you saying that the process of finding out (and addressing) the issues that the public have is undemocratic?

Try and answer without making any veiled Nazi remarks.

Nazi remarks? Where?

Depends on what the issues the public have are. In this case if its the actual right to have the will of the majority respected( democracy by the way just to clear it up for you) examined and then coereced into voting again through state sponsored propaganda and flat out lies and deception then yes that is undemocractic.

See we're not just voting here on something inconsequential here although i notice many in favour of this treaty like to put it that way its the future of our sovereignty we're voting on. Thats something worth fighting for.

realismpol

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What is so wrong with finding out why someone said no and seeing if you can reach a compromise?


To be honest if that's actually what you think is happening there's probably not much point having this conversation. There's not much point in pointing out the proof that what we're saying is true because we'd mostly be pointing to the treaty and you think they're just going to ignore it anyway and do whatever they want. Just in case it makes any difference, they're not and it would spell the end of the EU if they did

No my main bone of contention(outside the treaty itself) is why the will of the people was ignored in the last referendum. The awnser was no and yet we are being asked to vote again. The concerns thing is just an excuse as no element of the treaty has been altered. So to me and to anyone i would think with some common sense this can only mean one thing.

bug

Dinner wrote: »

Are you saying that the process of finding out (and addressing) the issues that the public have is undemocratic?

Try and answer without making any veiled Nazi remarks.

Putting a treaty in front of the people is democratic.

Investigating their reasoning as to voting one way or another by means of a "poll" and using it as a means to re-run the vote is undemocratic.

Re-running the same treaty under the guise of democracy is extremely worrying.
Wondering why other people aren't worried, is extremely worrying.

They lost me completely at assurances rather than legal guarantees.
And in any case, the poll results didnt reflect my main concerns about the treaty. I wasn't polled.:D

But I'm just an idiot who voted no, dont listen to me. I'm obviously uneducated and stupid. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

Depends on what the issues the public have are. In this case if its the actual right to have the will of the majority respected( democracy by the way just to clear it up for you) examined and then cohereced into voting again through state sponsored propaganda and flat out lies and deception then yes that is undemocractic.

See we're not just voting here on something inconsequential here although i notice many in favour of this treaty like to put it that way its the future of our soveignity we're voting on. Thats something worth fighting for.

Your point is only valid if the people had valid reasons for rejecting the treaty in the first place. In a democracy, in fact in any form of social interaction, you don't just get to stop everyone else doing what without explaining yourself. "NO MEANS NO" is not good enough. The people were asked why they voted no and they said they didn't understand the treaty.

That is not a reason to throw the treaty in the bin, it's not even a reason to change it in any way. It's a reason to give them more time to learn about it and come back to them when they understand it better. Why is that so wrong?

Sam Vimes

An analogy: someone comes to your door offering you a brand new product

You say that you're not quite sure because you don't really understand how it works or if it's too expensive etc

The person says that he'll accept that you don't want it now but that he'll give you a chance to think about it and research it and he'll come back in a few weeks when you're better informed

Has the salesman just done something "undemocratic"?

realismpol

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your point is only valid if the people had valid reasons for rejecting the treaty in the first place. In a democracy, in fact in any form of social interactio, you don't just get to stop everyone else doing what without explaining yourself. "NO MEANS NO" is not good enough. The people were asked why they voted no and they said they didn't understand the treaty.

That is not a reason to throw the treaty in the bin, it's not even a reason to change it in any way. It's a reason to give them more time to learn about it and come back to them when they understand it better. Why is that so wrong?

''NO MEANS NO' is not good enough'

according to yourself...And therein lies the reason their will be many no voters and all common sensed people in this country will be voting lisbon down again.

realismpol

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An analogy: someone comes to your door offering you a brand new product

You say that you're not quite sure because you don't really understand how it works or if it's too expensive etc

The person says that he'll accept that you don't want it now but that he'll give you a chance to think about it and research it and he'll come back in a few weeks when you're better informed

Has the salesman just done something "undemocratic"?

Well see normally salesmen don't come to the door selling the sovereignty of your country or your right to future referendums. Eh? Bit of a poor analogy there. But i understand you have to make it seem trival in order to justify such a complex thing as the lisbon treaty. In fact if you've read it you'll know that providing such a simplistic analogy would seem farcical unless of course you want to make people believe that voting on such a complex issue with such profound consequences is in fact a trivial act in itself.

Thats the yes campaign for you.

Dinner

bug wrote: »

Investigating their reasoning as to voting one way or another by means of a "poll" and using it as a means to re-run the vote is undemocratic.

Why is investigating their reasons undemocratic?

Or is your problem with the 'poll'? The study conducted is based on solid statistics, it's not some straw poll. The figures found in the result of the survey is accepted as being accurate to with 1/2% when scaled up to over a million.