Proponents of the No vote

P. Breathnach

mangaroosh wrote: »

sorry dude, you have failed to understand what I said, which seems to be a recurring theme not only with my posts, but with the referendum in general...

There does indeed seem to be a problem with people understanding your posts: you also thought that I failed to understand what you were saying. I suggest that you consider the explanation that what you are saying does not make good sense.

roosh

marco_polo wrote: »

I would be very interested to hear which constitutional provisions in French or Dutch Law the rewording Lisbon Treaty was able to bypass?

It was actually the changing of the name of the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty, and a few other legal words that facilitated this bypassing of the French and Dutch constitutions. If you didn't realise it, please realise it now, that this is effectively just a slightly re-worded version of the EU constitution. It was re-written to take into account Dutch and French concerns, but yet was strangely not put to referendum.

Ask Daftendirekt about that. I think it was him that was the first to confirm that for me.

marco_polo wrote: »

Any future amendments to the treaty that would require a referendum will be subject to a referendum. This will include any amendments that may increase the competencies of the EU. It is pretty simple really.

That is the beauty of the Lisbon Treaty, no other country legally required a referendum to ratify this, despite it being just a re-worded version of the EU constitution. The only reason that this is up for referendum here is because of the Irish constitution. Lisbon takes care of this little loophole nicely, by allowing the politicians of Europe to amend exisitng treaties themselves. Now, I wouldn't swear on this but I don't think that we will require a referendum when it comes to changing a treaty that we have already ratified - I'm sure there is a legal argument as to why we wouldn't, and remember that the EU is very clever when it comes to changing the wording of documentation in order to avoid clashing with country constitutions ala France and Holland.

Effectively, it creates a little bubble, where the politicians of Europe can decide on the matters that effect us, without having to consult us. Ireland is the last barrier to that, and Lisbon removes that barrier.

Some may point to the fact that our politicians will still have a say in deciding those issues, I would however firstly point to the fact that it will be dramatically reduced say due to QMV and the blocking mechanism clearly favouring Germany and France.

I would secondly point to the ineptedtude of our political leaders when it comes ot negotiating on our behalf - look at the decision to lumber the taxpayer with the bills from the sexual abuse cases, look at NAMA (and this is ever before the B-squad get sent in). You need also only look at the strong bargaining position we had prior to and after the last referendum on Lisbon. We hold all the cards here, yet our negotiators still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty. Instead we go legal guarantees. Now don't be fooled by the word legal as it is merely an adjective describing the guarantees we got. These legal guarantees don't actually become legal until the ratification of the next accession treaty. Now considering the fact that Lisbon grants the power to amend treaties, including accession ones, one would imagine, when exactly will a new accession treaty be ratified? Willl it ever? Even if they do, at some point in the future, become legal, we still have to look at the failure of our negotiators to get them written into the treaty, so that they become legal when the Treaty itself gets ratified. Remember, we have the EU over a barrel here, without our say so, this little bubble doesn't get created, not yet anyway. Despite holding all the cards, aces, jokers, wild cards, even the instruction card that comes in every deck, they still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty. Surely, a few small words onto the appendix that says they will come in with the ratification of Lisbon, would have been quite easy to negotiate, given our negotiating position.

But, one must remember, that they are up against such powerhouses as the French and German governments, who actually stand to gain massively under QMV and the blocking rule - effectively they have the power to decide by becoming the strongest allies.

Just think, as it stands we have one of the most powerful voices in Europe, such legislation like this has to be rubber stamped by us the people. This doesn't happen anywhere else in Europe. Somehow, our negotiators gave all this away and didn't seem to get much in return. Oh well I suppose the French and Germans were quick to point out how much we have received already, now its time to roll over and do as we're told.

marco_polo wrote: »

How does a treaty get amended?
With an amending treaty.

Not under Lisbon, where existing treaties can be amended - no need for an amending treaty

marco_polo wrote: »

What is Lisbon?
An amending treaty.

And if ratified, it will probably be the last of its kind.

marco_polo wrote: »

What are we having now?
A referedendum.

Remember that we are the only ones that get to have a referendum, this has been ratified by the politicians all around Europe. Under Lisbon we won't be given that opporutnity again, unless changes are in direct conflict with our constitution. We saw how easily they avoided that problem in France and Holland with all their legal expertise.

marco_polo wrote: »

What will happen for a future amending treaty?
A referedendum.

Not if Lisbon is ratified.


This is the beauty of the Lisbon Treaty. It sews up so many loose ends for the politicians within the EU, to debate among themselves what is right for us. Yes our government will be present, but can we trust them to have our best interests at heart? Can we trust their negotiating skills to get the best deal for us? Remember they will have less of a say under QMV and the new blocking rule.

The real truth about QMV is that the double majority rule is already used in making decisions, but the new rules actually do weaken the irish say. Also, the new blocking rules with the 35% population requirement (of which Ireland will have 0.8%), makes us an extremely weak ally when looking to block legislation. In fact, France and Germany's population is almost 35% making them extremely powerful allies, meaning that if smaller nations want laws vetoed they will almost definitely need France and Germany, this means that they had better tow the line when it comes to voting legislation through.

Now, I'm not saying that big bad germany and france are going to start bullying everyone else, but they certainly will have a greater say in the direction of the EU. Oh, and lets not forget that harmonisation of taxes is one policy that they particularly favour, especially when it comes to corporation tax. Thank god we have those guarantees to fall back on :eek:

roosh

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There does indeed seem to be a problem with people understanding your posts: you also thought that I failed to understand what you were saying. I suggest that you consider the explanation that what you are saying does not make good sense.

if it doesn't, then point out where and I will seek to clarify

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, what then defines an "empire" as opposed to any other territorial grouping?

enquiringly,
Scofflaw

probably the same distinction betwen a constitution and a treaty

Elmo

mangaroosh wrote: »

probably the same distinction betwen a constitution and a treaty

Shouldn't we come up with a better word than the phrase "territorial grouping" just so it can be different to an Empire, just to easy the fears of the ordinary person.

roosh

Plotician wrote: »

It says something when your asked to cast your vote based on who's supporting one side or the other - what happened to 'read the treaty'.

This whole saga is now like a Curry's ad selling the latest wide-screen TV. It's as if the Irish have been conditioned to a soft sell and are easily bought. It's got great resolution, the sound is fantastic, watch all your films in brilliant colour.

Just like our 'debate' Curry's wouldn't be telling you about the power consumption if it was in any way a negative.

Whether a yes or a no is the right answer we've looked like a complete bunch of d---heads in this whole episode.

The process needs a review once this one is out of the way.

(as a subnote - not a great fan of DG, but unless the latest allegations are proven correct then subversion is now also part of the game from our elected representatives).

There is no incentive to review if we vote Yes.

Scofflaw

magaroosh wrote:

I would secondly point to the ineptedtude of our political leaders when it comes ot negotiating on our behalf - look at the decision to lumber the taxpayer with the bills from the sexual abuse cases, look at NAMA (and this is ever before the B-squad get sent in). You need also only look at the strong bargaining position we had prior to and after the last referendum on Lisbon. We hold all the cards here, yet our negotiators still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty. Instead we go legal guarantees. Now don't be fooled by the word legal as it is merely an adjective describing the guarantees we got. These legal guarantees don't actually become legal until the ratification of the next accession treaty. Now considering the fact that Lisbon grants the power to amend treaties, including accession ones, one would imagine, when exactly will a new accession treaty be ratified? Willl it ever? Even if they do, at some point in the future, become legal, we still have to look at the failure of our negotiators to get them written into the treaty, so that they become legal when the Treaty itself gets ratified. Remember, we have the EU over a barrel here, without our say so, this little bubble doesn't get created, not yet anyway. Despite holding all the cards, aces, jokers, wild cards, even the instruction card that comes in every deck, they still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty. Surely, a few small words onto the appendix that says they will come in with the ratification of Lisbon, would have been quite easy to negotiate, given our negotiating position.

Now, let's be quite clear on this. The guarantees are legally binding international agreements, from the moment that Lisbon is ratified - and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. If you claim again that they're not, you will be banned for repeated dishonesty.

moderately,
Scofflaw

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

adding to ignore list

I say this for posterity, rather than for the attention of ei.sdraob:
surprising, I invite him to engage in a logical and rational discussion, but instead he chooses to ignore me.

That appears to be very representative of all the major proponents of a Yes vote - avoid logical and rational discussion and dismiss all claims as conspiray theories.

Elmo

mangaroosh wrote: »

There is no incentive to review if we vote Yes.

There isn't any if we Vote No. at least for the pols.

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Now, let's be quite clear on this. The guarantees are legally binding international agreements, from the moment that Lisbon is ratified - and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. If you claim again that they're not, you will be banned for repeated dishonesty.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Not that that vindicates the negotiating abilities of those negotiating on our behalf. Lets be clear, they are still the same guys who decided the taxpayer should shoulder the burden of the legal fees of the catholic church. Was this to secure the endorsement of the leaders of the catholic church for Lisbon? One can only speculate, but the evidence is rather damning.

They are also the same guys who are trying to force NAMA on us, just to give your point some context.

Now answer me this. Is there any reference to their becoming legal with the ratification of the next accession treaty? Beearing in mind the banning order for dishonesty

marco_polo

mangaroosh wrote: »

It was actually the changing of the name of the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty, and a few other legal words that facilitated this bypassing of the French and Dutch constitutions. If you didn't realise it, please realise it now, that this is effectively just a slightly re-worded version of the EU constitution. It was re-written to take into account Dutch and French concerns, but yet was strangely not put to referendum.

Ask Daftendirekt about that. I think it was him that was the first to confirm that for me.

I know what was changed to address their concerns, what is missing from your argument is what channged in between that avoided the 'need' for a referendum in both of these countries. What exact legal requirements were bypassed. (Hint: There are none)

That is the beauty of the Lisbon Treaty, no other country legally required a referendum to ratify this, despite it being just a re-worded version of the EU constitution. The only reason that this is up for referendum here is because of the Irish constitution. Lisbon takes care of this little loophole nicely, by allowing the politicians of Europe to amend exisitng treaties themselves. Now, I wouldn't swear on this but I don't think that we will require a referendum when it comes to changing a treaty that we have already ratified - I'm sure there is a legal argument as to why we wouldn't, and remember that the EU is very clever when it comes to changing the wording of documentation in order to avoid clashing with country constitutions ala France and Holland.

Effectively, it creates a little bubble, where the politicians of Europe can decide on the matters that effect us, without having to consult us. Ireland is the last barrier to that, and Lisbon removes that barrier.

No it doesn't. We ratify the provisions of the treaty as it stands on the date of ratification . It is not a carte blanche for future changes without a further referendum if required.

Some may point to the fact that our politicians will still have a say in deciding those issues, I would however firstly point to the fact that it will be dramatically reduced say due to QMV and the blocking mechanism clearly favouring Germany and France.

I would secondly point to the ineptedtude of our political leaders when it comes ot negotiating on our behalf - look at the decision to lumber the taxpayer with the bills from the sexual abuse cases, look at NAMA (and this is ever before the B-squad get sent in). You need also only look at the strong bargaining position we had prior to and after the last referendum on Lisbon. We hold all the cards here, yet our negotiators still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty. Instead we go legal guarantees. Now don't be fooled by the word legal as it is merely an adjective describing the guarantees we got. These legal guarantees don't actually become legal until the ratification of the next accession treaty. Now considering the fact that Lisbon grants the power to amend treaties, including accession ones, one would imagine, when exactly will a new accession treaty be ratified? Willl it ever? Even if they do, at some point in the future, become legal, we still have to look at the failure of our negotiators to get them written into the treaty, so that they become legal when the Treaty itself gets ratified. Remember, we have the EU over a barrel here, without our say so, this little bubble doesn't get created, not yet anyway. Despite holding all the cards, aces, jokers, wild cards, even the instruction card that comes in every deck, they still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty. Surely, a few small words onto the appendix that says they will come in with the ratification of Lisbon, would have been quite easy to negotiate, given our negotiating position.

But, one must remember, that they are up against such powerhouses as the French and German governments, who actually stand to gain massively under QMV and the blocking rule - effectively they have the power to decide by becoming the strongest allies.

Just think, as it stands we have one of the most powerful voices in Europe, such legislation like this has to be rubber stamped by us the people. This doesn't happen anywhere else in Europe. Somehow, our negotiators gave all this away and didn't seem to get much in return. Oh well I suppose the French and Germans were quick to point out how much we have received already, now its time to roll over and do as we're told.




Not under Lisbon, where existing treaties can be amended - no need for an amending treaty

[/I]

And if ratified, it will probably be the last of its kind.

[/I]

Remember that we are the only ones that get to have a referendum, this has been ratified by the politicians all around Europe. Under Lisbon we won't be given that opporutnity again, unless changes are in direct conflict with our constitution. We saw how easily they avoided that problem in France and Holland with all their legal expertise.

[/I]

Not if Lisbon is ratified.


This is the beauty of the Lisbon Treaty. It sews up so many loose ends for the politicians within the EU, to debate among themselves what is right for us. Yes our government will be present, but can we trust them to have our best interests at heart? Can we trust their negotiating skills to get the best deal for us? Remember they will have less of a say under QMV and the new blocking rule.

The real truth about QMV is that the double majority rule is already used in making decisions, but the new rules actually do weaken the irish say. Also, the new blocking rules with the 35% population requirement (of which Ireland will have 0.8%), makes us an extremely weak ally when looking to block legislation. In fact, France and Germany's population is almost 35% making them extremely powerful allies, meaning that if smaller nations want laws vetoed they will almost definitely need France and Germany, this means that they had better tow the line when it comes to voting legislation through.

Now, I'm not saying that big bad germany and france are going to start bullying everyone else, but they certainly will have a greater say in the direction of the EU. Oh, and lets not forget that harmonisation of taxes is one policy that they particularly favour, especially when it comes to corporation tax. Thank god we have those guarantees to fall back on :eek:

Under current QMV rules the three biggest nations can block anything, so I don't see how the changes strengthen that position in any way. Also if you don't selectively ignore the country votes (our blocking power increases in this aspect), and the double majority aspect of QMV, mathematically there is very little change in our voting strength.

In relation to tax harmonization in addition to our Guarantees on taxation we also have our veto and about 17 other allies (with 17 other vetos) who also want no such thing.

roosh

Elmo wrote: »

There isn't any if we Vote No. at least for the pols.

There is though. If we vote No, then they will be forced to do something. They will be exposed for what they are and will be under intense scrutiny from here on in. If we vote Yes, then we vindicate their actions and although they will be under scrutiny in future it won't be anywhere near as intense, and they will all have been in the same boat anyway, so there won't be much difference.

If we vote No, it won't be the people of Ireland who will have egg on their face, quite the opposite. It will be the politicians, while the people will be lauded for not having accepted this farce. If we vote yes, we WILL be the laughing stocks. A no vote will be shaming for Irish politicians, so much so that they will be forced to change. Yes lets them away by the skin of their teeth.

This really is about what kind of politics we are willing to accept in Ireland and from Europe

marco_polo

mangaroosh wrote: »

Now answer me this. Is there any reference to their becoming legal with the ratification of the next accession treaty? Beearing in mind the banning order for dishonesty

If you bothered to read them then yes. Once more this is not a nescessary step for them to become legally binding under international law.

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

Not that that vindicates the negotiating abilities of those negotiating on our behalf. Lets be clear, they are still the same guys who decided the taxpayer should shoulder the burden of the legal fees of the catholic church. Was this to secure the endorsement of the leaders of the catholic church for Lisbon? One can only speculate, but the evidence is rather damning.

They are also the same guys who are trying to force NAMA on us, just to give your point some context.

Now answer me this. Is there any reference to their becoming legal with the ratification of the next accession treaty? Beearing in mind the banning order for dishonesty

No, the guarantees become legally binding on ratification of Lisbon. They become Protocols at the next accession treaty:

The Decision of the Heads of State and Government taken at the June European Council on Ireland’s guarantees will constitute an international agreement which will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This will be legally binding under international law.

This form of international agreement was previously given to Denmark in 1992 in relation to the Maastricht Treaty. Following the Danish precedent, Ireland’s formal instrument of ratification would relate to both the Lisbon Treaty and the Decision, should a second referendum be successful. Both the Lisbon Treaty and the Decision would then be registered as international agreements with the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of the UN Charter.

and

European Council wrote:

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:

(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any reratification of that Treaty;
(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Is that clear enough? The guarantees include a legally binding international agreement to insert the guarantees as Protocols. "Legally binding" is not just a phrase. It means the guarantees, and the agreement that they will be turned into protocols, have exactly the same legal force as the Good Friday Agreement - except that these involve 27 countries rather than just 2.

Scofflaw

meglome

mangaroosh wrote: »

There is though. If we vote No, then they will be forced to do something. They will be exposed for what they are and will be under intense scrutiny from here on in. If we vote Yes, then we vindicate their actions and although they will be under scrutiny in future it won't be anywhere near as intense, and they will all have been in the same boat anyway, so there won't be much difference.

If we vote No, it won't be the people of Ireland who will have egg on their face, quite the opposite. It will be the politicians, while the people will be lauded for not having accepted this farce. If we vote yes, we WILL be the laughing stocks. A no vote will be shaming for Irish politicians, so much so that they will be forced to change. Yes lets them away by the skin of their teeth.

This really is about what kind of politics we are willing to accept in Ireland and from Europe

What will they do, look at us like we're mental? We gave our reasons for voting No which were addressed, do we have a completely different set of things that are not in the treaty this time? How stupid we'll look if we give the EU another set of non-issues for them to somehow magically address.

You know the crazy thing mangaroosh after all your posts I'm still not sure why you're voting No. Most of what you say has no back-up and is often provably wrong.

P. Breathnach

mangaroosh wrote: »

It was actually the changing of the name of the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty, and a few other legal words that facilitated this bypassing of the French and Dutch constitutions.

It was a bit more than that.

If you didn't realise it, please realise it now, that this is effectively just a slightly re-worded version of the EU constitution. It was re-written to take into account Dutch and French concerns,

And altered in some respects.

but yet was strangely not put to referendum.

Not strange at all. It was not a requirement in either state.

... That is the beauty of the Lisbon Treaty, no other country legally required a referendum to ratify this, despite it being just a re-worded version of the EU constitution.

It's not a question of beauty; it is a question of the legal requirements in each state that is party to the treaty.

The only reason that this is up for referendum here is because of the Irish constitution.

You got that bit right.

Lisbon takes care of this little loophole nicely, by allowing the politicians of Europe to amend exisitng treaties themselves.

And you got that bit wrong.

Now, I wouldn't swear on this but I don't think that we will require a referendum when it comes to changing a treaty that we have already ratified - I'm sure there is a legal argument as to why we wouldn't, and remember that the EU is very clever when it comes to changing the wording of documentation in order to avoid clashing with country constitutions ala France and Holland.

Effectively, it creates a little bubble, where the politicians of Europe can decide on the matters that effect us, without having to consult us. Ireland is the last barrier to that, and Lisbon removes that barrier.

It has been explained numerous times in this forum that this is not so.

Some may point to the fact that our politicians will still have a say in deciding those issues, I would however firstly point to the fact that it will be dramatically reduced say due to QMV and the blocking mechanism clearly favouring Germany and France.

The blocking mechanism does not give Germany and France a great advantage, and both countries have less overall weight in QMV than would reflect the size of their populations.

I would secondly point to the ineptedtude of our political leaders when it comes ot negotiating on our behalf - look at the decision to lumber the taxpayer with the bills from the sexual abuse cases, look at NAMA (and this is ever before the B-squad get sent in).

Our politicians have shown great ineptitude in domestic matters. Oddly, they have done very well in European matters; this is probably due to the high quality of some of the people in the Department of Foreign Affairs and in other senior positions in the civil service.

You need also only look at the strong bargaining position we had prior to and after the last referendum on Lisbon. We hold all the cards here, yet our negotiators still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty.

That would have required all those states which had already ratified Lisbon to re-ratify. For the purpose of saying that things that are not in the treaty are not in the treaty.

Instead we go legal guarantees. Now don't be fooled by the word legal as it is merely an adjective describing the guarantees we got.

I'm not fooled by the word "legal". Nor do I dismiss it, because it has real meaning.

These legal guarantees don't actually become legal until the ratification of the next accession treaty.

Wrong again.

Now considering the fact that Lisbon grants the power to amend treaties...

No, it doesn't.

... including accession ones ...

Especially not on accession.

... one would imagine, when exactly will a new accession treaty be ratified? Willl it ever? Even if they do, at some point in the future, become legal, we still have to look at the failure of our negotiators to get them written into the treaty, so that they become legal when the Treaty itself gets ratified. Remember, we have the EU over a barrel here, without our say so, this little bubble doesn't get created, not yet anyway. Despite holding all the cards, aces, jokers, wild cards, even the instruction card that comes in every deck, they still couldn't manage to get the guarantees written into the treaty. Surely, a few small words onto the appendix that says they will come in with the ratification of Lisbon, would have been quite easy to negotiate, given our negotiating position.

More of some of the errors already pointed out above.

But, one must remember, that they are up against such powerhouses as the French and German governments, who actually stand to gain massively under QMV and the blocking rule - effectively they have the power to decide by becoming the strongest allies.

It looks to me as if you haven't looked at the QMV formula.

Just think, as it stands we have one of the most powerful voices in Europe, such legislation like this has to be rubber stamped by us the people. This doesn't happen anywhere else in Europe. Somehow, our negotiators gave all this away and didn't seem to get much in return.

They got what they sought: the guarantees, which clarify matters for some of those had been misled by the last no campaign. In addition, they got the retention of one commissioner per member-state.

Oh well I suppose the French and Germans were quick to point out how much we have received already, now its time to roll over and do as we're told.

What's with this big idea of Franco-German bullying? On most matters in the EU we are at one with them, probably as much as they are with one another. They are our friends and our partners.

Not under Lisbon, where existing treaties can be amended - no need for an amending treaty

[/I]
And if ratified, it will probably be the last of its kind.
[/I]

No matter how often you say that, it is still wrong.

Remember that we are the only ones that get to have a referendum, this has been ratified by the politicians all around Europe. Under Lisbon we won't be given that opporutnity again, unless changes are in direct conflict with our constitution.

Which, oddly enough, is the legal position today, under existing treaties. In other words, we would not be giving anything away on that if Lisbon is passed.

We saw how easily they avoided that problem in France and Holland with all their legal expertise.

"They" being the French and the Dutch governments, operating in accordance with their national law.

This is the beauty of the Lisbon Treaty. It sews up so many loose ends for the politicians within the EU, to debate among themselves what is right for us. Yes our government will be present, but can we trust them to have our best interests at heart? Can we trust their negotiating skills to get the best deal for us? Remember they will have less of a say under QMV and the new blocking rule.

The real truth about QMV is that the double majority rule is already used in making decisions, but the new rules actually do weaken the irish say. Also, the new blocking rules with the 35% population requirement (of which Ireland will have 0.8%), makes us an extremely weak ally when looking to block legislation. In fact, France and Germany's population is almost 35% making them extremely powerful allies, meaning that if smaller nations want laws vetoed they will almost definitely need France and Germany, this means that they had better tow the line when it comes to voting legislation through.

Now, I'm not saying that big bad germany and france are going to start bullying everyone else, but they certainly will have a greater say in the direction of the EU. Oh, and lets not forget that harmonisation of taxes is one policy that they particularly favour, especially when it comes to corporation tax. Thank god we have those guarantees to fall back on :eek:

I'm not going to answer any more of your post on a point-by-point basis, because you are largely basing it on errors I have already addressed.

roosh

marco_polo wrote: »

I know what was changed to address their concerns, what is missing from your argument is what channged in between that avoided the 'need' for a referendum in both of these countries. What exact legal requirements were bypassed. (Hint: There are none)

Exactly my point. They took the EU Constitution, changed a few legal words and therefore did not have to ratify the treaty by means of a referendum. They bypassed the legal requirement to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution, by changing a few legal words - this is what is meant by the word bypasing. It isn't illegal, in fact it is perfectly legal, the thing is, that it was perfectly legal to ratify a document that was 95% the exact same as a document that was rejected by referenedum.

It would be like me getting convicted robbing a bank, but changing my name by deed pole after being convicted, and getting let off the conviction becuase I have a different name. I am still the same person who committed the crime, but because I have a different name I get away with it.

Remember that we are dealing with the best legal minds in Europe here, they have to be to draft legislation like they do. You can bet your bottom dollar that they are going to be good at bypassing legislation, by simply changing a few words to documents here and there.

I am not trying to trick you. I am merely a voter just like you. I have nothing to gain by lying to you - unlike the guys who are looking for you to give them more power to run Europe.

marco_polo wrote: »

No it doesn't. We ratify the provisions of the treaty as it stands on the date of ratification . It is not a carte blanche for future changes without a further referendum if required.

The treaty actually provides for future changes to existing treaties. That is one of the provisions, as it stands.

marco_polo wrote: »

Under current QMV rules the three biggest nations can block anything, so I don't see how the changes strengthen that position in any way. Also if you don't selectively ignore the country votes (our blocking power increases in this aspect), and the double majority aspect of QMV, mathematically there is very little change in our voting strength.

Under the new QMV France and Germany together with 2 other smaller countries can block legislation, this strenghtens their position because they already have an alliance, it isn't a military one but a political one. With the removal of the need for the next biggest nation, they gain more power to block on their own - this is in real terms.

In terms of our power to veto, you need only look at the Lisbon Treaty. In effect, we are the only country where the people get to decide on ratification, not the politicians. That is why we have this referendum. If we ratify this treaty, then we give the power to the politicians to ratify future treaties on our behalf. There will be no referenda, unless a change to an existing treaty conflicts with our constitution. Now, we already have the example of where the French and Dutch constitutions were circumnavigated with regard to the EU Constitution. It was simply renamed the Lisbon Treaty, and a few legal references were changed. This means, that the exact same thing can happen here in Ireland - well, it will happen wherever the legal teams draft these pieces of legislation.

Also, with the power to amend existing treaties, one would have to question whether or not there will be the need for a referendum, if changes, that contradict our constitution, occur to a treaty that has already been ratified by us, and therefore accepted as not contravening our constitution. My money would be on the fact that the legal eagles in Brussels, so adept at this sort of thing, will never let it come to that.

Under current QMV rules, there is still a need for a double majority. The thing is, that we have a stronger voting weight than our population requires. With the reduction in that voting weight, and the changes to QMV, we have less of a say.

marco_polo wrote: »

In relation to tax harmonization in addition to our Guarantees on taxation we also have our veto and about 17 other allies (with 17 other vetos) who also want no such thing.

OK, we will have to see what Scofflaw says about the guarantees, as I don't want to get banned, but I will check it out again - although I am 99% sure in what I have said thus far.

But with regard to the practicality of the whole Veto thing, if I am correct with regard to the guarantees.

Under QMV, Germany and France are the strongest possible allies to have. The reason being, that their combined populations almost total the 35% needed to veto legislation. That means that they simply need two more countries to join them to Veto legislation.

Therefore, if any country, is looking to veto legislation, in the future, then it is almost certain that they will need Germany and France, as well as one other country on their side. As you can imagine, in order to gain the backing of Germany and France to veto legislation, countries will be expected to row in behind them when it comes to getting legislation pushed through.

Consider the fact that Ireland has 0.8% of the population, we are not a very strong ally under the New QMV arrangement, particularly when it comes to vetoing legislation, whereas , with our current power to veto we are. Therefore, under the new QMV rules, we have a much weakened position.



Again, I am not trying to trick you. I stand to gain absolutely nothing by saying this. I am not looking to be right and prove you wrong. I did not realise a lot of this until I started discussing it and questioning it.

roosh

marco_polo wrote: »

If you bothered to read them then yes. Once more this is not a nescessary step for them to become legally binding under international law.

Let me try and get this straight. So it does say in the guarantees that they will not become law until the ratification of the next accession treaty?

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

Let me try and get this straight. So it does say in the guarantees that they will not become law until the ratification of the next accession treaty?

Apparently, your attention span is very short - or possibly you think mine is. The COIR question-mark defence is no defence.

Banned for a week for persistent and reckless dishonesty.

moderately,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

... Banned for a week for persistent and reckless dishonesty...

I'm not going to challenge a moderator's decision, but I think four days might have been enough.

Plotician

This might be slightly off thread but i thought it'd be interesting to note a recent example of an EU directives that had the UK up in arms - the EU request that the UK (and Ireland) convert weight and pint measurements to metric (500ml of Guinness anyone?).

The UK had huge internal objection to this one but it still took an intensive battle to get it knocked back.

If there was such a battle between the UK and the EU over a 'kilogram of bananas', imagine what the challenge would be like if the issue was something more important.

I think the only way the legal assurances issue is going to get settled is when there is a challenge. For example the first girl / lady to take an action to the EU demanding the right to have an abortion in Ireland would do it.

Scofflaw - the 'empire' discussion could be a good one (even though leading up to a referendum might not be the right time as there are too many fixed opinions right now), and i will return to it.

In the meantime muse on Barroso's definition of the EU as a 'unique construction' that combines to meet challenges such as energy security etc, a step by step approach, and one that can be likened to the organisation of empires - the difference this time being no force but more by concensus - a 'non imperial empire' that pools it's sovereignties.

In essence a redefinition of what an empire is in a modern EU context.

Elmo

Perhaps I am the only one on this but have both measurement systems is a pain in the ass.

View

Plotician wrote: »

This might be slightly off thread but i thought it'd be interesting to note a recent example of an EU directives that had the UK up in arms - the EU request that the UK (and Ireland) convert weight and pint measurements to metric (500ml of Guinness anyone?).

The UK had huge internal objection to this one but it still took an intensive battle to get it knocked back.

If there was such a battle between the UK and the EU over a 'kilogram of bananas', imagine what the challenge would be like if the issue was something more important.

Adopting the metric system was, if I recall correctly, a condition of admission to the then European Communities that both the UK and Ireland agreed to way back in the 1970s. Obviously, if either the British or us had felt strongly enough about the Imperial measurement system, we could have refused to join.

Also this was subject to a temporary derogation implemented which the other EU member states repeatedly extended. The real story here is more along the line of the UK agrees to something, then spends years whining about what it agreed to do until everyone gives up just to shut them up.

As an aside, I read somewhere that the situation in Ireland is you do NOT get served a "Pint" when you ask for one in a pub anymore. Instead, the barman does a quick mental conversion and serves you 568 mls (?) of your favourite tipple. You see, following EU directives is really easy if you just put your mind to it.

Elmo

View wrote: »

As an aside, I read somewhere that the situation in Ireland is you do NOT get served a "Pint" when you ask for one in a pub anymore. Instead, the barman does a quick mental conversion and serves you 568 mls (?) of your favourite tipple. You see, following EU directives is really easy if you just put your mind to it.

Does the word pint not appear on a glass beside the 568ml? at least it used to and Bulmers have a pint bottle surely that is against advertising laws and should be known as a 568ml bottle. Way off topic.

meglome

Plotician wrote: »

This might be slightly off thread but i thought it'd be interesting to note a recent example of an EU directives that had the UK up in arms - the EU request that the UK (and Ireland) convert weight and pint measurements to metric (500ml of Guinness anyone?).

The UK had huge internal objection to this one but it still took an intensive battle to get it knocked back.

If there was such a battle between the UK and the EU over a 'kilogram of bananas', imagine what the challenge would be like if the issue was something more important.

I think the only way the legal assurances issue is going to get settled is when there is a challenge. For example the first girl / lady to take an action to the EU demanding the right to have an abortion in Ireland would do it.

Scofflaw - the 'empire' discussion could be a good one (even though leading up to a referendum might not be the right time as there are too many fixed opinions right now), and i will return to it.

In the meantime muse on Barroso's definition of the EU as a 'unique construction' that combines to meet challenges such as energy security etc, a step by step approach, and one that can be likened to the organisation of empires - the difference this time being no force but more by concensus - a 'non imperial empire' that pools it's sovereignties.

In essence a redefinition of what an empire is in a modern EU context.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm

The BBC's list of Euro myths.

nullzero

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ah ffs, they are crawling out of woodwork now

dude conspiracy theories forum is this way

:mad:

You just want everyone here to agree with everything you say.
You're childish and insulting to people when they disagree with you.
Doesn't say much about you or those who espouse your arguments.

ei.sdraob

nullzero wrote: »

You just want everyone here to agree with everything you say.
You're childish and insulting to people when they disagree with you.
Doesn't say much about you or those who espouse your arguments.

im not the one making up conspiracy theories

if you read my posts you would notice

I reference any claims i make instead of putting on a tinfoil hat and sprouting nonsense

but go on today is attack ei.sdraob personally day, since you cant address logically the points being made you are lowering yourself

/

Elmo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im not the one making up conspiracy theories

if you read my posts you would notice

I reference any claims i make instead of putting on a tinfoil hat and sprouting nonsense

but go on today is attack ei.sdraob personally day, since you cant address logically the points being made you are lowering yourself

/

feck I forgot my tinfoil today

Your sign says it all

When you look at the no campaign you see that it consists almost entirely of the far left, the far right and the far out, the liars, the losers and the lunatics. They're the communists, the fascists, the terrorists, the religious fundamentalists and the guy with the US military contracts. They're the people who've been opposed to the EU since we joined and would love nothing more than to see Ireland pull out to satisfy their various vested interests and some of them want the end of the EU (UKIP).

Also Wikipedia isn't a ref.

Sam Vimes

Elmo wrote: »

Your sign says it all

That's a quote from me and I consider it pretty accurate. It's not meant to encompass everyone who's voting no but I think it's a fair representation of the main proponents of a no vote in this country. The average Joe has unfortunately been taken in by these people, their lies have been repeated so often that most people have forgot where they originated and think that there must be some validity behind them because these claims are everywhere. That is of course not the case but it shows the problem with having referendums on things like this

Elmo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's a quote from me and I consider it pretty accurate. It's not meant to encompass everyone who's voting no but I think it's a fair representation of the main proponents of a no vote in this country. The average Joe has unfortunately been taken in by these people, their lies have been repeated so often that most people have forgot where they originated and think that there must be some validity behind them because these claims are everywhere. That is of course not the case but it shows the problem with having referendums on things like this

But sure you can say the same about the Yes side. I think you give the list of proponents of the Yes Vote who all come from very different backgrounds and some are very interested in this treaty for their own ends it has nothing to do with the people of Europe.

Again a NO vote doesn't take us out of the EU. There are a few Labour people who were attached to SF, The Workers Party etc so lets not talk about were people come from. That is history.

When you look at the YES campaign you see that it consists almost entirely of the far left, the far right, the middle, the left, the right and the far out, the liars, the losers and the lunatics.* They're the capitalist, the fascists, the catholic church and the builders and the banks. They're the people who've been supportive of the EU since we joined and would love nothing more than to see Ireland subsumed into an EU nation state to satisfy their various vested interests.

*Just name calling for the sake of it.