The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

Scofflaw

In Chains wrote: »

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.



Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

No, you're again completely wrong, and you've taken up Peers completely wrong too, and quoted him only partially. As I said in my post, the guarantees are legally binding international agreements:

What is the legal status of the Decision? Legal authors agreed at the time that the 1992 agreement was legally binding; that it formed a type of simplified international treaty;

And also as I said, it has not amended the treaties:

that it did not amend the main Treaties (since it was not adopted in the form of a Treaty amendment);

And that within the sphere of the ECJ, however, they are member state commitments, not treaty commitments, until they are turned into protocols attached to the treaties:

and that therefore in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence.

They are therefore not the equivalent of the Treaties, but that does not mean they are not legally binding, as you keep claiming.

Peers' final conclusion with respect to their validity you have also left out:

The crucial question is then whether there is a conflict between the Decision and the Treaties. The quick answer is that there is no conflict. This will be explained in detail in the second analysis of the guarantees.

...

The 2009 Decision is legally binding but is subordinate to the Treaties in the event of conflict. However, there does not appear to be any conflict between the Treaties and the Decision.

If the 2009 Decision is turned, as promised, into a Protocol to the Treaties, it will be as binding as the rest of the Treaties and cannot be struck down by the EU courts in the event of any conflict with the rest of the Treaties (or for any other reason).

Now, please drop the false claim that the guarantees are "political assurances".

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

StealthRolex wrote: »

The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.

On what basis can you justify that?

Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.

So making a random choice of yes or no is moral, but deciding not to vote because you are undecided is not moral?

meglome

In Chains wrote: »

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.

Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

You know I'm amazed by this discussion. I don't know much about international law so I can't say for sure if these guarantees are legally binding our not. However enough experts are saying they are to make me reasonably confident. But even if the guarantees weren't legally binding the EU have never tried to force anything on us. I asked this question a few times now and I haven't been able to get anyone to point out where the EU has even tried to make us do something since 1973. So I have an organisation that doesn't lie to us and does everything through negotiation, why wouldn't I believe them?

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

We have a vote. It can be used or thrown away.

Actually it can be used, abused or thrown away.

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

A yes \no question only has two possible answers. Yes or No.

I hate teaching anyone to suck eggs but this is our Constitution. If you do not understand the changes a Yes vote will bring you are morally obliged to force the hand of those asking the question.

There is no "I don't know" option on the ballot.

The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.

Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.

Are you planning on addressing the minimum wage in Ireland again? You stated it was "more complicated than that" and have yet to expand on this point.

Or was it just an effort to throw a little more FUD into the debate and move swiftly along.

T-rev

meglome wrote: »

And ask yourself when have the EU ever lied to us or tried to make us do anything? I've been asking that question for a week or two and not one person has come up with anything.

they are trying to make us vote yes in this referendum. look at what they said the last time we voted. "we will press on withotu ireland" "ireland will pay the price", pay the price for what exactly? being a democracy and voting no?

it shows the EU's true colours when the only answer acceptable in a referendum in a democracy is a yes.

Sam Vimes

T-rev wrote: »

"ireland will pay the price", pay the price for what exactly? being a democracy and voting no?

That's not what he said, he said all of Europe, including Ireland, will pay the price because no one will be able to take advantage of the benefits the treaty will bring

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not what he said, he said all of Europe, including Ireland, will pay the price because no one will be able to take advantage of the benefits the treaty will bring

Here is what Barroso actually said:

If there was a 'No' in Ireland or in another country, it would have a very negative effect for the EU, we will all pay a price for it, Ireland included, if this is not done in a proper way

So we'll all pay a price for there being a 'No' in any country, because the EU as a whole would be negatively affected.

STOP THREATENING ME BARROSO!!!! :rolleyes:

source:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/vote-yes-or-well-all-pay--price-eu-chief-warns-1388158.html

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

A yes \no question only has two possible answers. Yes or No.

Are there two cars parked in my driveway right now? Yes or no?

There is no "I don't know" option on the ballot.

The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.

Answering "no" to a yes/no question isn't rejecting the question; it's answering it.

Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.

What's the "morally valid" option for voting in an election when you have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for?

StealthRolex

marco_polo wrote: »

Are you planning on addressing the minimum wage in Ireland again? You stated it was "more complicated than that" and have yet to expand on this point.

Or was it just an effort to throw a little more FUD into the debate and move swiftly along.

The minimum wage is a non-issue for me as I don't earn minimum wage. Also I accept the rebuttals that the treaty will not affect minimum wage and that is an answer for those that do.

The complication in regards to wages is not from this treaty but from earlier changes in EU law regarding the employment of foreign nationals. I have nothing against this however I do have objections to the way this is applied and implemented - especially by employers. As this has no bearing on the current treaty I see little point in discussing them.

What has happened is that I have examined this treaty and without any Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt I have decided that regardless of what the No campaign presents I do not like the fact that this is the next best thing after the EU Constitution. It is a fudge to get around the French and Dutch rejections.

I didn't like the EU constitution and would have voted against it had we had the chance.

The EU constitution was clear. There were things in it that a lot of people didn't like just as many people did like. Democracy had its day. The French and The Dutch were given no second chance.

It is my opinion that this treaty is designed to benefit politicians, their mandarins, lawyers, big business and the military and contains little of benefit to the ordinary civilian, here, or elsewhere in Europe, and is in reality a Stealth Constitution.

Picking on little bits of the treaty or side issues like minimum wage, common defense, taxes, the environment area FUDs on both sides just as Yes for Europe and Yes for Jobs are. None of the arguments presented on the posters or by the talking heads for either side has anything to do with the meat and bones of the treaty and what it implies.

This treaty is not easily read or understood. I can spend hours poring over elements of it until I grasp what it actually means by my interpretation only to find someone else has an equally vaild but different point of view that negates my own. I cannot accept that this is the type of document that will dictate my future, your future, my childrens future or anyone elses future.

We deserve better. We pay enough for our politicians and civil servants. They are supposed to serve us. It's not supposed to be the other way around.

This is not the Europe I accepted in 1973. I want a better Europe and I don't see how this treaty is making it better.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are there two cars parked in my driveway right now? Yes or no? Answering "no" to a yes/no question isn't rejecting the question; it's answering it. What's the "morally valid" option for voting in an election when you have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for?

vote only for independents and avoid like the plague anyone who looks gormless or has big blubbery lips

T-rev

Okay I didnt get the quote exactly right. My bad.

Its still scaremongering whatever way he said it.

Was looking at the "yes" posters on the way back to work. Are they having a laugh, lol.

"Yes to jobs" Some stupid people would think if we vote yes loads of people will get jobs. Its an absolute farce.

StealthRolex

T-rev wrote: »

"Yes to jobs" Some stupid people would think if we vote yes loads of people will get jobs. Its an absolute farce.

Loads of people will get jobs. Just not people like us.

This treaty is a lawyers wet dream.

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I cannot accept that this is the type of document that will dictate my future, your future, my childrens future or anyone elses future.

As opposed to the Nice treaty, which was much clearer and dictated a much better future for us all?

StealthRolex wrote: »

vote only for independents and avoid like the plague anyone who looks gormless or has big blubbery lips

Toss a coin in referenda, and judge candidates on their looks in elections - this is your idea of morally valid choices?

We'll have to agree to differ on the very definition of "moral", I see.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Asserting that the treaty is open to wild interpretation does not make it fact.

It is no more complex than Nice.

Give me an example of Nice having been wildly interpreted by 'lawyers' and I might take your argument more seriously.

Should be easy, they've had 10 years, and according to you there's loads of money in it for them, being a 'wet dream' and all...

Sam Vimes

T-rev wrote: »

Okay I didnt get the quote exactly right. My bad.

Its still scaremongering whatever way he said it.

No, it's scaremongering the way you said it but a recognition that rejecting the treaty is bad for Europe the way he actually said it. It was deliberately misquoted by no campaigners (not you personally) to make it look like a threat

T-rev wrote: »

Was looking at the "yes" posters on the way back to work. Are they having a laugh, lol.

"Yes to jobs" Some stupid people would think if we vote yes loads of people will get jobs. Its an absolute farce.

Lisbon will help restore Ireland's reputation after the rejection of a treaty due to fear whipped up by extremists. Businesses don't want to invest in a country that is seen to be fighting against the neighbours that are trying to help it for no good reason. Since our banks are about to go and get ~€50 billion from the ECB we are biting the hand that feeds us.

They're not just going to completely drop their plans because a few hundred thousand people in one country have been tricked into rejecting them. We won't be kicked out of the EU but we will be left behind. Lots of the Lisbon treaty can go ahead without us.

A yes vote will also show businesses that we want to be fully involved in the European project going into the future. If the other 26 countries are pulling one way and we're pulling another, it's better to set your business up in one of the other 26.

And the new energy policies will create green jobs.

T-rev

Why didnt every joe soap in every country get a vote on it so if it really is going to do that much for the people of Europe?

Because it would be shot down by a lot more than the Irish. Thats why.

This treaty is about governments best interests, not countries and peoples interests.

Sam Vimes

T-rev wrote: »

Why didnt every joe soap in every country get a vote on it so if it really is going to do that much for the people of Europe?

Because it would be shot down by a lot more than the Irish. Thats why.

This treaty is about governments best interests, not countries and peoples interests.

Firstly, I refer you to this post. Now, those countries generally don't have referendums on these issues. The only reason we're having one is because of the Crotty judgement. The governments of Europe, including Ireland, make decisions every day that have implications far greater than the Lisbon treaty, that's what governments do.
You are suspicious of the motives of these countries for not having referendums, you think it's because the treaty would be voted down and I think you're right, but for different reasons. You think that people will see that it's bad for them and rightly reject it but the reality is that this treaty is so big that, as you know yourself, it's far too easy for extremists to spread lies about it and almost impossible for people to prove them wrong.

It's not that the governments want to ignore the will of the people, it's that the governments know that if it's put to a referendum the extremists will get their way by burying this benign and beneficial treaty under a massive pile of bullsh!t. It will be rejected not because it is damaging but because the extremists will lie so persistently as to trick people into thinking that it's damaging. This is exactly the reason that referendums are illegal in Germany. Referendums are good for social issues like divorce and abortion where there is no right and wrong but with issues like the Lisbon treaty it will inevitably result in the mess of lies, misinformation and mudslinging that has happened in Ireland. I would rather it wasn't put to a referendum here.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

As opposed to the Nice treaty, which was much clearer and dictated a much better future for us all?

Toss a coin in referenda, and judge candidates on their looks in elections - this is your idea of morally valid choices?

We'll have to agree to differ on the very definition of "moral", I see.

I was disenfranchised for Nice being a refugee from the previous recession at the time so no comment as I did not vote.

Toss what you like when you vote.
I vote yes if I accept it and no if I don't. And if I don't understand it I vote No in case no-one else does.
If anyone else wants to toss in a booth feel free

As for candidates looks - make of it what you will - what I said was I vote independent and I don't care what they look like.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

And if I don't understand it I vote No in case no-one else does.

Five questions:

1. What if it would be beneficial for you?
2. What if a no vote would have consequences? A no vote is not necessarily a vote for no change.
3. You've had two years to learn about it. Do you not think you should understand it by now?
4. And by extenstion, do you not think you should leave the decision to the people who made the effort to understand it instead of denying them something they want because you're afraid to pass something you don't understand but not motivated enough to try to understand it?
5. Since the EU has been extremely beneficial to Ireland, turning us from a backwards hole into one of the richest countries in the world and is currently bailing us out of our recession, why default to rejecting something they've asked for? Do you not think that the default response should be yes unless you have a good reason to say no?

meglome

T-rev wrote: »

they are trying to make us vote yes in this referendum. look at what they said the last time we voted. "we will press on withotu ireland" "ireland will pay the price", pay the price for what exactly? being a democracy and voting no?

It is our constitution that requires a referendum and that same constitution allows for there to be more than one on any topic. Our government then decided to rerun the vote (as they are perfectly entitled to do). The EU has no say over this whatsoever.

I said the EU have never even tried to force us to do anything. If they said 'we will press on without Ireland' that may well be a statement of fact. Who in the EU said 'Ireland will pay the price', I'm sure you have link there, right?

So I say again the EU isn't forcing us to do anything, nor has it ever done so. If I have to choose a between a bunch of lying, exaggerating, misrepresenting No campaigners and the EU well forgive but the EU will win hands down every time.

T-rev wrote: »

it shows the EU's true colours when the only answer acceptable in a referendum in a democracy is a yes.

Yawn... the only sensible answer might be a Yes but it's never been the only acceptable answer.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Five questions:

1. What if it would be beneficial for you?
2. What if a no vote would have consequences? A no vote is not necessarily a vote for no change.
3. You've had two years to learn about it. Do you not think you should understand it by now?
4. And by extenstion, do you not think you should leave the decision to the people who made the effort to understand it instead of denying them something they want because you're afraid to pass something you don't understand but not motivated enough to try to understand it?
5. Since the EU has been extremely beneficial to Ireland, turning us from a backwards hole into one of the richest countries in the world and is currently bailing us out of our recession, why default to rejecting something they've asked for? Do you not think that the default response should be yes unless you have a good reason to say no?

How is this supposed to encourage me to vote Yes?

No, I do not think I should leave the voting to those who "understand it"

No, I am not voting out of fear. I am voting because I do not agree with it.

We are no longer one of the richest countries in the world. if we ever were it was based on credit and not intrinsic worth. if that was as a result of the EU I'll be voting No as often as I can.

As for being bailed out of the recession - do you not pay tax? The ECB will come looking for it's money someday and that is not a bail out.

If you want to be emperor, go get dressed. In the meantime thanks for the lesson in FUD

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

How is this supposed to encourage me to vote Yes?

No, I do not think I should leave the voting to those who "understand it"

No, I am not voting out of fear. I am voting because I do not agree with it.

We are no longer one of the richest countries in the world. if we ever were it was based on credit and not intrinsic worth. if that was as a result of the EU I'll be voting No as often as I can.

As for being bailed out of the recession - do you not pay tax? The ECB will come looking for it's money someday and that is not a bail out.

If you want to be emperor, go get dressed. In the meantime thanks for the lesson in FUD

How can you disagree with what you don't understand.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

How is this supposed to encourage me to vote Yes?

No, I do not think I should leave the voting to those who "understand it"

No, I am not voting out of fear. I am voting because I do not agree with it.

My post was in response to yours saying you don't understand it and so are voting no but now you're saying you disagree with it. Both cannot be true. If your problem is that you disagree with it, which parts do you disagree with?

StealthRolex wrote: »

We are no longer one of the richest countries in the world. if we ever were it was based on credit and not intrinsic worth. if that was as a result of the EU I'll be voting No as often as I can.

As for being bailed out of the recession - do you not pay tax? The ECB will come looking for it's money someday and that is not a bail out.

If you want to be emperor, go get dressed. In the meantime thanks for the lesson in FUD

The EU will come looking for its money but they are giving us 50 billion that they are not giving to any non EU members. Every company in the world that's getting a bail out is supposed to pay it back when they've recovered. They are bailing us out. Not to mention the fact that a major factor in the decision of all those foreign companies to locate here (140,000 jobs give or take) was EU membership. We give them access to the common market. There is no way you can deny that EU membership has been massively beneficial to Ireland. Even after 36 years we're not net contributors

StealthRolex

marco_polo wrote: »

How can you disagree with what you don't understand.

I don't think I like what you are implying.

Either you are openly implying that I don't understand it or you are implying that if I understood it I would vote Yes.

I understand that there are military implications to this treaty.
This I object to.

I understand that the President of Europe will be elected by the Council, not the people.
This I object to.

I understand that Foreign Affairs and Security minister will be elected by the Council with an unlimited term of office. This I object to.

The European Council will have powers over our personal data. This I object to.

The treaty increases the Military (Common Defense, Security,) role of the EU in a manner to which I object, and not just as an Irish citizen.

Why does an economic union need an army? Why do we need to progressively improve our military capabilities? This element alone is a warmongers charter at the worst and a licence to print money for the arms manufacturers and researchers at best.

Now, while I might not understand all of it those parts I do understand I do not like.

So please, allow me the democratic right to exercise my franchise.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't think I like what you are implying.

Either you are openly implying that I don't understand it or you are implying that if I understood it I would vote Yes.

I understand that there are military implications to this treaty.
This I object to.

I understand that the President of Europe will be elected by the Council, not the people.
This I object to.

I understand that Foreign Affairs and Security minister will be elected by the Council with an unlimited term of office. This I object to.

The European Council will have powers over our personal data. This I object to.

The treaty increases the Military (Common Defense, Security,) role of the EU in a manner to which I object, and not just as an Irish citizen.

Why does an economic union need an army? Why do we need to progressively improve our military capabilities? This element alone is a warmongers charter at the worst and a licence to print money for the arms manufacturers and researchers at best.

Now, while I might not understand all of it those parts I do understand I do not like.

So please, allow me the democratic right to exercise my franchise.

If I can step in for a second to defuse a misunderstanding?

marco_polo was responding to your hypothesis that it's better to vote no if you don't understand the treaty.

You then replied that you were voting no because you didn't like the treaty.

marco_polo misunderstood your original hypothesis as applying to you, even though it didn't, and asked how you can both not understand the treaty, and also not like it, which, in fairness would be a fallacy.

That's where the confusion arose, that he thought your original idea about voting 'no' if you don't understand the treaty applied to you.

Handbags down all

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My post was in response to yours saying you don't understand it and so are voting no but now you're saying you disagree with it. Both cannot be true. If your problem is that you disagree with it, which parts do you disagree with?

My suggesting "if you don't understand it vote no" is not the same as me saying "I don't understand it"

I disagreed with the EU Constitution. The French got to it before we did.

I disagreed with Lisbon 1. I voted No.

I disagree with Lisbon 2 as it's unchanged since Lisbon 1 so I intend to vote No again.

Some parts I disagree with are listed else where.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Now! On to the content of your post

StealthRolex wrote: »

I understand that there are military implications to this treaty.
This I object to.

What military implications, and for who? Are there military implications for any state which doesn't specifically want those implications?
Implications is a broad, and ultimately meaningless word.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I understand that the President of Europe will be elected by the Council, not the people.
This I object to.

With respect, then you don't understand, because the office is President of the European Council, not President of Europe, we currently have an unelected (by anyone) President of the Council, which rotates between countries, we are moving to a model where the Council elects it's own president for a longer term, and doesn't have to work with whatever one is forced upon it by rotation. Again this is not the President of Europe.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I understand that Foreign Affairs and Security minister will be elected by the Council with an unlimited term of office. This I object to.

Foreign Minister will be authorised to speak only on areas where there is unanimous agreement. Given that, why do you care how long they will retain, or not retain office. Are you actually claiming they are elected for life, or just that they don't have to stop if they are doing a good job?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The European Council will have powers over our personal data. This I object to.

What Lisbon article are you referring to here, what powers?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The treaty increases the Military (Common Defense, Security,) role of the EU in a manner to which I object, and not just as an Irish citizen.

Why does an economic union need an army? Why do we need to progressively improve our military capabilities? This element alone is a warmongers charter at the worst and a licence to print money for the arms manufacturers and researchers at best.

Actually it's a license to save money by pooling research costs, for those who wish to participate.

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I understand that the President of Europe will be elected by the Council, not the people.

I'd like to take you up on this.

You want the President of the European Council to be directly elected in a popular election?

What form should such an election take - one EU citizen, one vote, or some type of electoral college?

Either way, don't you think that a directly- and popularly-elected President would make the EU much closer to a federal superstate, which is something very few people - even in the Yes camp (with notable exceptions) want?

Why does an economic union need an army?

(a) It's not just an economic union, and hasn't been from the inception of the ECSC. (b) It doesn't, which is handy, because it doesn't have and won't be getting one.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't think I like what you are implying.

Either you are openly implying that I don't understand it or you are implying that if I understood it I would vote Yes.

I understand that there are military implications to this treaty.

I am honestly asking you which parts you disagree with because people keep telling me they object to it but no one can ever tell me why. You have and I thank you.

StealthRolex wrote: »

This I object to.

I understand that the President of Europe will be elected by the Council, not the people.
This I object to.

We don't elect our taoiseach either, do you object to that?

Would you prefer a directly elected president, ie a German president forever?

What powers will this president have? Are you sure it's not just a ceremonial role with no real power like ours or the current rotating EU council president?

StealthRolex wrote: »

I understand that Foreign Affairs and Security minister will be elected by the Council with an unlimited term of office. This I object to.

Just like our taoiseach. Why do you object to this?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The European Council will have powers over our personal data. This I object to.

Do they not already? Which part says they'll have these powers and what powers will they have?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The treaty increases the Military (Common Defense, Security,) role of the EU in a manner to which I object, and not just as an Irish citizen.

What do you object to about it exactly? What exactly does it say btw?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why does an economic union need an army? Why do we need to progressively improve our military capabilities? This element alone is a warmongers charter at the worst and a licence to print money for the arms manufacturers and researchers at best.

Do they have an army? Or is it the separate armies of the member nations? All I can see there is making members obliged to be able to defend themselves, which is prudent, and means that member states can't neglect their own defensive capabilities secure in the knowledge that their EU buddies will bail them out. Do you really think the EU are warmongers?