Lisbon - The Legal Guarantees

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

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.

So you think it's acceptable for a few hundred thousand people to hold up 500 million without giving any reason why and without being willing to compromise on anything? You think that's democratic?

And when someone asks you which part of the 300 page document you object to so they can make an effort to change it to satisfy you, you think the mere act of asking is undemocratic?

We have very different definitions of democracy tbh

bug

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"?

You're assuming that the person answering the door doesn't know what he wants and favoring the salesman's pitch.

Dinner

realismpol wrote: »

Well see normally salesmen don't come to the door selling the sovereignty of your country or your right to future referendums.

What do you mean by the bit I bolded?

realismpol

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you think it's acceptable for a few hundred thousand people to hold up 500 million without giving any reason why and without being willing to compromise on anything? You think that's democratic?

And when someone asks you which part of the 300 page document you object to so they can make an effort to change it to satisfy you, you think the mere act of asking is undemocratic?

We have very different definitions of democracy tbh

The lisbon treaty was never put to a popular vote throughout europe. Guess why? Governments know exactly how the people would vote and thus made sure they weren't given that option. Thank the lord our forefathers had the good sense to write into our constitution any changes to it require a referendum by the irish people.

Don't you also think that its a bit arrogant to assume that 500 million people in europe want the lisbon treaty passed. Where did you find out that stat? Did you go door to door like a salesman?(to use your own analogy)

This is not a debate about what democracy is because all fair minded people know exactly what that is. It is the will of the people respected and respected by 'ALL' regardless of the outcome.

Hey i tell you what if we are to operate by your own principles about democracy. If it gets passed lets ignore it find out why the people voted yes then hold another election because they may not have read it fully and understand all the implications. OK?

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

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.

In my analogy the salesman came back in a few weeks. The Irish people have had two years to understand the treaty. It's not quantum mechanics mate, it's written in English and there are literally thousands of resources that will explain it to you. If you want to find out about it you can but unfortunately many Irish people don't want to bother so instead they're rejecting it and then shouting that their vote should be respected

I can respect someone's right to vote but I will never respect the act of throwing something in the bin because you're not bothered trying to understand it

Dinner

realismpol wrote: »

The lisbon treaty was never put to a popular vote throughout europe. Guess why?

Their constitutions?

realismpol wrote: »

Thank the lord our forefathers had the good sense to write into our constitution any changes to it require a referendum by the irish people.

Eh.... no..

We're voting on Lisbon because of the Crotty Judgement, nothing to with our hallowed forefathers.

Sam Vimes

bug wrote: »

You're assuming that the person answering the door doesn't know what he wants and favoring the salesman's pitch.

I'm not assuming anything. The Milward Brown survey showed that the vast majority of people had very little knowledge of the treaty and 42% voted no because of it. It was by far the biggest reason

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

The lisbon treaty was never put to a popular vote throughout europe. Guess why? Governments know exactly how the people would vote and thus made sure they weren't given that option. Thank the lord our forefathers had the good sense to write into our constitution any changes to it require a referendum by the irish people.

Don't you also think that its a bit arrogant to assume that 500 million people in europe want the lisbon treaty passed. Where did you find out that stat? Did you go door to door like a salesman?(to use your own analogy)

This is not a debate about what democracy is because all fair minded people know exactly what that is. It is the will of the people respected and respected by 'ALL' regardless of the outcome.

Ireland has a long history of referendums on these matters but the rest of Europe doesn't. I'm posting from my phone now so I'm not looking it up but referendums have been called in EU countries only 18% of the time they could have been. Not having a referendum is not some devious plan, it's the norm in Europe. In fact in Germany they're illegal

realismpol

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. The Milward Brown survey showed that the vast majority of people had very little knowledge of the treaty and 42% voted no because of it. It was by far the biggest reason

Did you know that 90 per cent of all surveys can be made to justify whatever particular goal a certain person or organisation has? Interesting eh?

Anyway here look as i said

if it gets passed according to your own beliefs we have to cancel it and vote again because we must understand the reasons why people may vote yes. I agree with you 100 per cent on this they may be misguided.

bug

Dinner wrote: »

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.

Investigating isn't undemocratic.

Asking people to vote again on the same treaty is.

I personally don't give two ****s about their poll.

Hell, if I had known this was the way to go to get a particular outcome, we could have used poll's to revisit various decisions on outcomes on previous referenda?

I've really had enough.

Dinner

bug wrote: »

Investigating isn't undemocratic.

Asking people to vote again on the same treaty is.

So they should have investigated the reasons, done nothing about it and abandon Lisbon for reasons that had nothing to with Lisbon?

nesf

bug wrote: »

Investigating isn't undemocratic.

Asking people to vote again on the same treaty is.

I personally don't give two ****s about their poll.

Hell, if I had known this was the way to go to get a particular outcome, we could have used poll's to revisit various decisions on outcomes on previous referenda?

I've really had enough.

How the hell is it undemocratic to put the question to the people again? If the people vote No and they decide to ram the Treaty through anyway, that's undemocratic. To ask the people again is perfectly within the remit of any elected Government.

Sam Vimes

realismpol wrote: »

Did you know that 90 per cent of all surveys can be made to justify whatever particular goal a certain person or organisation has? Interesting eh?

The survey was done independently by a group called Milward Brown, who are a company whose existence depends on giving accurate results.

And I always wonder what people think they have to gain from having an inaccurate survey. They were trying to find out why people voted no so those issues could be addressed. What would they have to gain by making up fake issues and addressing them? How could doing that possibly get them the yes vote they wanted

realismpol wrote: »

Anyway here look as i said

if it gets passed according to your own beliefs we have to cancel it and vote again because we must understand the reasons why people may vote yes. I agree with you 100 per cent on this they may be misguided.

If we vote yes and the treaty turns out to be a disaster we can use the new simplified revision procedure that Lisbon will bring in to undo any of the undesirable changes. Luckily none of the scary stuff coming from the no side is actually going to happen so it won't be necessary

K-9

realismpol wrote: »

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

Ignoring the back and forth of the last page (40 posts) the EU have never disregarded a EU Guarantee, solemn declaration or Protocol!

bug

nesf wrote: »

How the hell is it undemocratic to put the question to the people again? If the people vote No and they decide to ram the Treaty through anyway, that's undemocratic. To ask the people again is perfectly within the remit of any elected Government.

Ok nesf, so if we vote no again, and they ram the treaty through anyways, I hope to see you here talking about how undemocratic it is.

Or maybe they'll do a poll and blame it on the fact that the Irish didn't really know what they were voting on.

I really think that there are two sides to the Lisbon Treaty.
The very intelligent up and coming generation who accept everything at face value with hope, and the sinical skeptical generation who have been around long enough to see what the meaning of democracy has been reduced to.

I will be scathed I accept that.

nesf

bug wrote: »

Ok nesf, so if we vote no again, and they ram the treaty through anyways, I hope to see you here talking about how undemocratic it is.

Or maybe they'll do a poll and blame it on the fact that the Irish didn't really know what they were voting on.

I really think that there are two sides to the Lisbon Treaty.
The very intelligent up and coming generation who accept everything at face value with hope, and the sinical skeptical generation who have been around long enough to see what the meaning of democracy has been reduced to.

I will be scathed I accept that.

Ok, that doesn't make any sense.. What exactly is undemocratic about rerunning a referendum. Explain that me, without gesturing towards some fanciful future where they ran through treaties over the wishes of the people because history does not support such a view.

Sam Vimes

bug wrote: »

Ok nesf, so if we vote no again, and they ram the treaty through anyways, I hope to see you here talking about how undemocratic it is.

Or maybe they'll do a poll and blame it on the fact that the Irish didn't really know what they were voting on.

Not only would it be undemocratic, it would be illegal to push it through

Would you mind answering, when the government is trying to find out why we rejected the treaty so that they can renegotiate the parts we object to and get us to vote yes, what would they have to gain from making stuff up? Surely if they weren't addressing the real issues they'd just get the same result again, possibly with more no's because of people pissed off over them doctoring the survey?

Scofflaw

bug wrote: »

Ok nesf, so if we vote no again, and they ram the treaty through anyways, I hope to see you here talking about how undemocratic it is.

Or maybe they'll do a poll and blame it on the fact that the Irish didn't really know what they were voting on.

I really think that there are two sides to the Lisbon Treaty.
The very intelligent up and coming generation who accept everything at face value with hope, and the sinical skeptical generation who have been around long enough to see what the meaning of democracy has been reduced to.

I will be scathed I accept that.

And deservedly so. If they could "ram the treaty through anyway", they would presumably have done so.

You live in a democracy. It has certain rules, one of which is that the government is entitled to call referendums, and repeats if so desired. You don't like that, which is fair enough, but it's no excuse for a fantasy in which you're governed by some kind of arbitrary fiat system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bug

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not only would it be undemocratic, it would be illegal to push it through

Would you mind answering, when the government is trying to find out why we rejected the treaty so that they can renegotiate the parts we object to and get us to vote yes, what would they have to gain from making up stuff up? Surely if they weren't addressing the real issues they'd just get the same result again, possibly with more no's because of people pissed off over them doctoring the survey?

They promised us legal guarantees, I watched Michael Martin on prime time nodding at Mary Lou of all people, in agreement after she stated that they would wait and see after the legal guarantees were obtained.
We didn't get them. We got assurances. We were promised legal guarantees.

They didn't address it or renegotiate it. Its the same treaty. And you know, they might just get the same damn result. Im not saying that they doctored any survey. I never said that at all!

And deservedly so. If they could "ram the treaty through anyway", they would presumably have done so.

You live in a democracy. It has certain rules, one of which is that the government is entitled to call referendums, and repeats if so desired. You don't like that, which is fair enough, but it's no excuse for a fantasy in which you're governed by some kind of arbitrary fiat system.

scofflaw, I'm not inclined to fantasy and I resent that. I deduct that you are pro-Lisbon and are entitled to that.
Unfortunatley we will have to wait until October to see what the result is and if it is a No vote, what happens after that.

nesf

bug wrote: »

scofflaw, I'm not inclined to fantasy and I resent that. I deduct that you are pro-Lisbon and are entitled to that.

You're entitled to your opinion, not your own set of facts.

Mother says

So basically what happened was that the European Constitution got shot down, presumably because a significant proportion of Europeans either did not want it or were not ready for it.

EU leaders felt it was necessary for us so they forged ahead anyway. It then got rewritten in such a way as to make it so obscure and open to interpretation that it could be passed through most parliaments without having to go to a referendum. This became the Lisbon treaty.

For some reason this still wasn't enough to get it past the Crotty Judgement and in Ireland it went to a referendum. Having been purposefully written to be open to interpretation it was ripe for people opposed to it to make any number of claims about it and no one could reasonably deny or confirm them.

Whatever their reasoning, the electorate democratically voted against it.

Then the Irish government commissioned a poll to find out the reasons why people voted no. This poll found that the main reason, by a large proportion, was a lack of understanding of the treaty. A small number of people voted against it for various reasons including concerns about neutrality, commissioners and corporate tax.

The Irish government asked the authors of the treaty to confirm that these minor concerns were unwarranted. They did so in the form of the guarantees.

However, they chose not to address the main concern of the no voters, that of a lack of understanding of the treaty.

The presence of the guarantees was taken to be a sufficient reason for a second run of the referendum. The guarantees do not change the treaty in any way they merely state certain facts about it. This is necessary because it is not possible to simply refer to the actual document to confirm or deny these facts.

Does that about sum it up?

Dinner

Mother says wrote: »

Does that about sum it up?

You left out the bit where the parts that the French and Dutch objected to were removed and some parts added.

It was also not written 'in such a way as to make it so obscure and open to interpretation that it could be passed through most parliaments without having to go to a referendum' despite what Mr bonde would want you to believe.

It's a reform treaty, not a constitution.

Also: RE:

Mother says wrote: »

A small number of people voted against it for various reasons including concerns about neutrality, commissioners and corporate tax.

26% isn't a particularily small number.

Scofflaw

Mother says wrote: »

So basically what happened was that the European Constitution got shot down, presumably because a significant proportion of Europeans either did not want it or were not ready for it.

EU leaders felt it was necessary for us so they forged ahead anyway. It then got rewritten in such a way as to make it so obscure and open to interpretation that it could be passed through most parliaments without having to go to a referendum. This became the Lisbon treaty.

For some reason this still wasn't enough to get it past the Crotty Judgement and in Ireland it went to a referendum. Having been purposefully written to be open to interpretation it was ripe for people opposed to it to make any number of claims about it and no one could reasonably deny or confirm them.

Whatever their reasoning, the electorate democratically voted against it.

Then the Irish government commissioned a poll to find out the reasons why people voted no. This poll found that the main reason, by a large proportion, was a lack of understanding of the treaty. A small number of people voted against it for various reasons including concerns about neutrality, commissioners and corporate tax.

The Irish government asked the authors of the treaty to confirm that these minor concerns were unwarranted. They did so in the form of the guarantees.

However, they chose not to address the main concern of the no voters, that of a lack of understanding of the treaty.

The presence of the guarantees was taken to be a sufficient reason for a second run of the referendum. The guarantees do not change the treaty in any way they merely state certain facts about it. This is necessary because it is not possible to simply refer to the actual document to confirm or deny these facts.

Does that about sum it up?

It sums up one particular narrative, certainly. Whether that's an accurate narrative or not is open to discussion.

The main change between the Constitution and Lisbon was that literally all the 'state-like' language and symbolism of a 'state-like constitution' were dropped. There were certainly other changes that were introduced on foot of negotiations with the Dutch (who negotiated the subsidiarity 'orange card' mechanism) and the French (who negotiated a weakening of certain pro-market language), but the main change that happened was the removal of what was effectively a political claim to state-like status, because it was clear that for those who objected to what was actually in the Constitution (as opposed to kicking Mitterand or objecting to the possibility of Turkish entry), this was a major factor.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

Dinner wrote: »

It was also not written 'in such a way as to make it so obscure and open to interpretation that it could be passed through most parliaments without having to go to a referendum' despite what Mr bonde would want you to believe.

Mr Garret Fitzgerald would seem to disagree with you:

"The most striking change [between the Lisbon treaty and the Constitution treaty] is perhaps
that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will
have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the
provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual
amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity
as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the
constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have
simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of
ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
[Dr Garret FitzGerald, Irish Times, 30 June 2007.]

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

Mr Garret Fitzgerald would seem to disagree with you:

"The most striking change [between the Lisbon treaty and the Constitution treaty] is perhaps
that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will
have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the
provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual
amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity
as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the
constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have
simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of
ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
[Dr Garret FitzGerald, Irish Times, 30 June 2007.]

Garret Fitzgerald is extremely unlikely to be 'disagreeing' with Dinner, of whose existence he is probably unaware.

Let's not have "argument by quotation" please - the quoted person isn't here to explain themselves.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Mother says

Dinner wrote: »

26% isn't a particularily small number.

It is compared to 46 and divided amongst those three concerns. My point was that despite being the main concern it was not addressed in the guarantees while lesser concerns were. Why did they bother addressing the lesser concerns while ignoring the most significant one?

Scofflaw

Mother says wrote: »

It is compared to 46 and divided amongst those three concerns. My point was that despite being the main concern it was not addressed in the guarantees while lesser concerns were. Why did they bother addressing the lesser concerns while ignoring the most significant one?

It's not up to the EU to address the lack of understanding of the Treaty by Irish voters, if that's what you're referring to. That's the job of the Irish government, unfortunately. It's certainly not something that could be addressed by a European Council decision.

Having said that, there has been a large increase in the number of people saying they now understand what Lisbon's about.

cordially,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

Garret Fitzgerald is extremely unlikely to be 'disagreeing' with Dinner, of whose existence he is probably unaware.

Let's not have "argument by quotation" please - the quoted person isn't here to explain themselves.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Ok sorry about that. Will try to locate an official document that highlights the changes between the Constitution and the Treaty.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

Ok sorry about that. Will try to locate an official document that highlights the changes between the Constitution and the Treaty.

I did have a copy of the annotated version that Peadar O'Brion did, but the link keeps breaking.

There aren't huge differences in the text of the Constitution and the consolidated post-Lisbon text of the EU treaties. However, dropping the 'state-like' language and the symbols (flag, anthem, etc) was a much bigger thing than it's made out to be. The Constitution involved a political claim to state-like status, Lisbon doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mother says

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not up to the EU to address the lack of understanding of the Treaty by Irish voters, if that's what you're referring to. That's the job of the Irish government, unfortunately. It's certainly not something that could be addressed by a European Council decision.

Sorry, the 'they' I was referring to was the Irish Government. I assume the EC compiled the guarantees on the basis of whatever the Irish government told them we (the Irish) were worried about.
Perhaps they could have added a guarantee stating that the Treaty is in fact very easy to understand despite what we may have been told.