Misleading statement by Yes campaigner?

Red Alert

Senator Maria Corrigan and one of her campaign team were outside Mass in Ballinteer yesterday evening canvassing for a 'Yes' vote. It was stated by them, that the new treaty was not the same one as that which we voted on previously. It's my understanding that the treaty itself remains unchanged, and that these legal guarntees are separate. Surely this was a misleading statement by Senator Corrigan and her colleague?

Sam Vimes

The old treaty meant we would lose our commissioner for 5 years at a time. The new one allows us to keep our commissioner. the text of the treaty is the same but one of the existing rules allowed this change to be made without a change to the text, meaning the expensive ratification process in other countries out be avoided. They all agreed to the guarantees though

Scofflaw

Red Alert wrote: »

Senator Maria Corrigan and one of her campaign team were outside Mass in Ballinteer yesterday evening canvassing for a 'Yes' vote. It was stated by them, that the new treaty was not the same one as that which we voted on previously. It's my understanding that the treaty itself remains unchanged, and that these legal guarntees are separate. Surely this was a misleading statement by Senator Corrigan and her colleague?

I can't really tell, given that I wasn't present for the actual statement. Nor did I get an opportunity to clarify with them whether they were talking specifically about the Treaty text, or the 'package' we're voting on. Did you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Captain Furball

Your correct when you mention that the treaty is exactly the same as the one previously voted on last year.Reporting that Maria Corrigan did or did not say this is not really that big a deal.But obviously we weren't there to hear her say it.So in all fairness she probably just said "vote yes or I will take your jobs and your children".

Red Alert

They both said "the treaty is not the same treaty you voted on before".

Scofflaw

Red Alert wrote: »

They both said "the treaty is not the same treaty you voted on before".

For all practical purposes, that's true. We're not voting on the text itself, as such, and didn't last time either. We're voting on the package.

Did you check with them whether they believed that the text of the treaty itself had been changed?

cordially,
Scofflaw

murfie

So will it say on the ballot, Lisbon treaty + EU guarantees: Yes/No

Its the exact same treaty, which is why all other EU nations didn't ratify it again.

Scofflaw

Is the whole point of this thread, then, to raise the "issue" that the guarantees don't change the text of the treaty (although they will change the text of the EU treaties)? Or is it to question Maria Corrigan's honesty, or the honesty of her campaign workers? Or indeed their nuanced understanding of the exact legal niceties of the situation?

We're voting on an amendment of our Constitution. Voting Yes to that amendment, last time, would have resulted in a specified set of legal changes to the existing EU treaties, to wit Lisbon and the COFR. This time, voting Yes to the proposed amendment will result in a different set of changes to the existing EU treaties, to wit, Lisbon, the COFR, and the guarantees. Not all of these changes will take place at the same time, but they will all be applied to the same EU treaties.

If you prefer to say that this time we're voting on Lisbon, the COFR, and a mini-treaty containing specifically Irish guarantees which will be applied later than the other two, you can certainly view it that way. However you view it, though, we're not voting on the same thing as last time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

murfie wrote: »

So will it say on the ballot, Lisbon treaty + EU guarantees: Yes/No

Its the exact same treaty, which is why all other EU nations didn't ratify it again.

The ubiquity of this particular misconception makes me despair for democracy, it really does. It's not your fault, it's a lie that's been consistently repeated from a number of sources and you had no reason not to believe them because it's superficially plausible but it is, and will always remain, a lie

murfie

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The ubiquity of this particular misconception

What misconception do i have? the treaty of Lisbon has not changed. its being put back to the us with these guarantees specific to Ireland. But as i asked will this be mentioned on the ballot paper? it will be interesting to see.

Are you also assuming i am a no voter?

Sam Vimes

murfie wrote: »

What misconception do i have? the treaty of Lisbon has not changed. its being put back to the us with these guarantees specific to Ireland. But as i asked will this be mentioned on the ballot paper? it will be interesting to see.

Are you also assuming i am a no voter?

Why would it be mentioned on the ballot paper? The ballot paper has a yes and a no, it doesn't give all 277 pages of the treaty plus the guarantees. It is your responsibility to know the ramifications of your vote before you mark your X. Honestly, I don't understand the relevance of it being explicitely written on the ballot paper

Also, significant numbers of people voted no over issues that are not effected the treaty, such as abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription etc. Why would the treaty have to be changed to satisfy these people? Surely all you have to do is...wait for it.....guarantee them that none of that stuff will happen, thereby negating their reason to vote no?

murfie

Sure but are we being asked the exact same question as before or being asked the same question plus attached to that to accept these guarantees that have been negotiated. no need to jump down my throat.
Scofflaw answered it quite nicely and for the record i would vote Yes, if I wasn't forced to leave my home due to lack of work.

Scofflaw

murfie wrote: »

Sure but are we being asked the exact same question as before or being asked the same question plus attached to that to accept these guarantees that have been negotiated. no need to jump down my throat.
Scofflaw answered it quite nicely and for the record i would vote Yes, if I wasn't forced to leave my home due to lack of work.

Well, the guarantees are contingent on Lisbon being passed, so they're part of the vote. As far as I know they're on the explanatory booklet, but they're not required to be passed by referendum, so they don't form part of the amendment itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The old treaty meant we would lose our commissioner for 5 years at a time. The new one allows us to keep our commissioner. the text of the treaty is the same but one of the existing rules allowed this change to be made without a change to the text, meaning the expensive ratification process in other countries out be avoided. They all agreed to the guarantees though

The Constitution of Ireland may be amended only after the people agree to do so in a referendum. The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon will be held in October 2009. The treaty has not been changed but the European Council has given specific guarantees about how it affects Ireland in a number of areas. These are the areas which the Irish government identified as having caused concerns to Irish people in the first referendum.

We are voting on exactly the same treaty as last time. The guarantees are not part of the treaty, but we have been told that they will be inserted into the next accession treaty

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

The Constitution of Ireland may be amended only after the people agree to do so in a referendum. The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon will be held in October 2009. The treaty has not been changed but the European Council has given specific guarantees about how it affects Ireland in a number of areas. These are the areas which the Irish government identified as having caused concerns to Irish people in the first referendum.

We are voting on exactly the same treaty as last time. The guarantees are not part of the treaty, but we have been told that they will be inserted into the next accession treaty

We haven't just "been told" - that agreement is part of the guarantees. The guarantees will amend the EU treaties in exactly the same way as Lisbon does - I'm not sure why some people feel that they should be in Lisbon, except of course as a tactical move.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

We haven't just "been told" - that agreement is part of the guarantees. The guarantees will amend the EU treaties in exactly the same way as Lisbon does - I'm not sure why some people feel that they should be in Lisbon, except of course as a tactical move.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's very tiring being told that the EU, which has never gone back on a agreement, is somehow suddenly going to go back on a agreement. The EU has done every possible sensible thing to meet Ireland's concerns so even if your from planet x and don't believe the guarantees are binding they've still never gone back on an agreement, ever.

ghost_ie

Scofflaw wrote: »

We haven't just "been told" - that agreement is part of the guarantees. The guarantees will amend the EU treaties in exactly the same way as Lisbon does - I'm not sure why some people feel that they should be in Lisbon, except of course as a tactical move.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If the guarantees are not in the Treaty, then we are voting on exactly the same document that we voted on the last time. What EU treaties will the guarantees amend?

Sam Vimes

ghost_ie wrote: »

If the guarantees are not in the Treaty, then we are voting on exactly the same document that we voted on the last time. What EU treaties will the guarantees amend?

The only change the guarantees make is to the commissioner issue, the rest of them just confirmed absolutely that certain things are not now nor ever were related to the treaty, the issues of taxation, abortion, conscription and neutrality

So if someone voted on those non-issues in an attempt to prevent something that was never going to happen, why does it matter if the text of the treaty is the same? There was nothing that could possibly be changed in the treaty to address those issues because they were never in the treaty

meglome

ghost_ie wrote: »

If the guarantees are not in the Treaty, then we are voting on exactly the same document that we voted on the last time. What EU treaties will the guarantees amend?

Well the EU can do two things.

1. They can spend years redrafting and reratifying a treaty to address Irish concerns most of which are not in that treaty anyway.
2. They can give binding guarantees on the issues the Irish people have some of which will be added to the next EU treaty, just like they've done for Denmark previously.

Now just from the point of view of what's most practical I'd choose option 2. But what about the No campaigners saying the guarantees are not binding? Well I'd compare the actions of the EU with those of the No campaigners. On the one hand we have the EU which does everything through negotiation and has never gone back on a deal and on the other hand we have a bunch of proven liars.

I trust the EU because their actions have earned that trust. Are they perfect, well no but they are very much worthy of our trust.

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

If the guarantees are not in the Treaty, then we are voting on exactly the same document that we voted on the last time. What EU treaties will the guarantees amend?

You're voting on the exact same document as before, plus the guarantees. If you'd like to regard the guarantees as a mini-treaty that is (a) conditional on Lisbon passing, and (b) won't take full effect for some time after Lisbon, then by all means do so - but that's what we're voting on (plus the Commissioner decision), and it's not the same thing we voted on last time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're voting on the exact same document as before, plus the guarantees. If you'd like to regard the guarantees as a mini-treaty that is (a) conditional on Lisbon passing, and (b) won't take full effect for some time after Lisbon, then by all means do so - but that's what we're voting on (plus the Commissioner decision), and it's not the same thing we voted on last time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So the FF senator was misleading when she said we were voting on a different treaty this time.

meglome

ghost_ie wrote: »

So the FF senator was misleading when she said we were voting on a different treaty this time.

Do you know EXACTLY what she said?

Daftendirekt

If her originally statement was that an altered treaty was being put to referendum, then it was not only misleading, but an outright lie.

If, however, she claimed that it was a different overall package being put to referendum, then she's absolutely correct.

Scofflaw

Daftendirekt wrote: »

If her originally statement was that an altered treaty was being put to referendum, then it was not only misleading, but an outright lie.

If, however, she claimed that it was a different overall package being put to referendum, then she's absolutely correct.

One could introduce a semantic quibble, and point out that (a) we don't actually vote on the Treaty, and (b) what we're voting on this time will result in different EU treaties being created from what we voted on last time.

However, unless Maria Corrigan's canvassers are somehow the most important people in the campaign, it's hard to see the point of discussing it. Unless of course it's yet more of this very tedious FUD, smear-by-association, and talk-about-anything-but-the-Treaty that's characterised the entire campaign so far. Or if you voted for her, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

Scofflaw wrote: »

One could introduce a semantic quibble, and point out that (a) we don't actually vote on the Treaty, and (b) what we're voting on this time will result in different EU treaties being created from what we voted on last time.

However, unless Maria Corrigan's canvassers are somehow the most important people in the campaign, it's hard to see the point of discussing it. Unless of course it's yet more of this very tedious FUD, smear-by-association, and talk-about-anything-but-the-Treaty that's characterised the entire campaign so far. Or if you voted for her, obviously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You're right. There are far more important issues than Maria Corrigan's canvassers to discuss. Believe me, I have no wish to smear anyone by association and neither did I vote for her.