So what IS the truth about the "legal" guarantees?

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

Your blaming the No side for the government in 'securing' guarantees that should make us vote Yes instead but only because they guarantee against something that was never in the treaty in the first place.

Yes that is the purpose of the guarantees. The issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, loss of neutrality and conscription were never in the treaty but certain groups claimed they were over and over again until large sections of the population believed them. These guarantees are meant to settle people's fears that those groups were lying and that those issues are not effected by the treaty, so that they will no longer object to it and vote yes this time

free-man

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Bingo! Stupid isn't it.

No side lied about what was in the treaty.
Government got guarantees that the no side were lying.

What an entire waste of time.

The government should be able to rely on the treaty text rather than wasting time on 'securing' guarantees. I wonder why they're not relying on the treaty text if it is so solid?

In my view the government really should be focussed on fixing our economy rather than going to Brussels getting guarantees on a referendum that never needed to be re-run.

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes that is the purpose of the guarantees. The issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, loss of neutrality and conscription were never in the treaty but certain groups claimed they were over and over again until large sections of the population believed them. These guarantees are meant to settle people's fears that those groups were lying and that those issues are not effected by the treaty, so that they will no longer object to it and vote yes this time

OR a cynic could say that the government 'secured' these guarantees to lie to the public that they should change their mind about Lisbon and vote yes.

prinz

free-man wrote: »

What an entire waste of time.
The government should be able to rely on the treaty text rather than wasting time on 'securing' guarantees. I wonder why they're not relying on the treaty text if it is so solid?

Yes they should be able to. Unfortunately the vast majority of no side rally points have nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. It's far easier to say "O Noes Minimum wage will fall!!! Vote No!".......instead of telling people to read the Treaty for themselves.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

What an entire waste of time.

The government should be able to rely on the treaty text rather than wasting time on 'securing' guarantees. I wonder why they're not relying on the treaty text if it is so solid?

Yes they should but those liars are really really determined. No matter how many times they are proven wrong they keep coming back

free-man wrote: »

In my view the government really should be focussed on fixing our economy rather than going to Brussels getting guarantees on a referendum that never needed to be re-run.

In your opinion. In the opinions of our government it did. If the treaty wasn't necessary they wouldn't have written it

free-man wrote: »

OR a cynic could say that the government 'secured' these guarantees to lie to the public that they should change their mind about Lisbon and vote yes.

Yes a cynic could say that and many cynics do say that but it's not just our government, you'd be talking about a massive conspiracy involving every member of every government in the EU (who had to approve these guarantees) and also the UN.

And of course one of the main groups that say they're not binding, Sinn Fein, accepted the Good Friday Agreement as binding even though it didn't go through nearly as rigorous a process and another, the UKIP, put known lies through our doors a few weeks ago.

And you don't quite seem to realise that if the EU actually did engage in such a conspiracy, if they tricked the Irish people like that, that would spell the end of the EU. A union like this only works if countries stick to their agreements. Every treaty and agreement that has ever been signed might as well be thrown in the bin if that happened, they wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on because they're only worth something if the EU sticks to them

While the government have been known to lie, in this case they are not lying. The people who are telling you they're not binding are lying, as they are lying about a great many other things

Sam Vimes

And free-man, now that you seem to be realising that those.....people are lying about the guarantees I think you should ask yourself why they feel the need to lie about that and all of these other things:

€200 billion in fisheries
€1.84 minimum wage
Forcing us to engage in military action in a terrorist attack
European superstate
Abortion, gay marriage and EUthanasia
Death penalty
Massive conspiracy to pretend the guarantees are binding
Treaty is unreadable
Treaty is designed to be unreadable
Corrupt surveys to make up fake issues and pretend to address them
Ratification through parliament in other countries is somehow undemocratic or unusual
EU "didn't allow" other countres to have referendums
Keep voting until you give the right answer
Ryanair allowed buy Aer Lingus in exchange for the campaign
Rigged polls to make it look like the yes side are ahead
Lisbon allows Turkish accession (with fake video)
Lisbon makes EU law superior to Irish law
Losing the right to referendums
We will no longer have a constitution in Ireland
Self-amending and escalator clause
Privatisation of healthcare and education
More military spending
Lavelle case could happen here
Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
Voting weight halved
QMV is brand new
Loss of veto in all areas
Allows EU to raise our corporation tax
Conscription into a non-existent EU army
EU commission diverted €10 million to yes campaign
Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums
Fake polls made up by Coir
2nd vote undemocratic. (The reasons that many people voted no have been addressed and the supreme court has ruled that it's not)

if this treaty is so bad for us. You ask why the government can't rely on the text of the treaty so I'm asking the same thing. If the treaty is truly bad for the country, why are they making stuff up?

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if this treaty is so bad for us. You ask why the government can't rely on the text of the treaty so I'm asking the same thing. If the treaty is truly bad for the country, why are they making stuff up?

Where are you getting this drivel? Is it from a No group or posters here?

Look, I don't agree with everything the No side says, just as I don't believe for a second the crap that the Yes side comes out with about jobs and the economy etc.

Its up to everyone to make their own decision, some will be a protest against the government, some will be a protest against the undemocratic re-run and others will be a fear vote that lisbon somehow has an effect on the economy.

Either way we'll know in 2 days.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Where are you getting this drivel? Is it from a No group or posters here?

I got it from my brain. If you read this post you'll see it was one of the main things that pushed me to a yes vote.

edit: also you said it about the yes side so I feel it's only appropriate to ask the same question about the no side

free-man wrote: »

Look, I don't agree with everything the No side says, just as I don't believe for a second the crap that the Yes side comes out with about jobs and the economy etc.

91% of economists, 90% of business, the majority of trade unions and these people agree with the government so I wouldn't exactly call it lying. Although I would prefer if they didn't have those posters it should be noted that they didn't really do things like that the last time, they tended to just have pictures of themselves and "vote yes". I believe that they looked at the results of the last referendum and saw that it was swung entirely by scaremongering and lies from the no side and decided that doing something along those lines was their best chance of winning. They're probably right unfortunately.

free-man wrote: »

Its up to everyone to make their own decision, some will be a protest against the government,

As far as I'm concerned the country and the EU will be the real losers if we vote no. FF are doomed either way

free-man wrote: »

some will be a protest against the undemocratic re-run

Yes unfortunately it will even though it's entirely democratic. Now that you seem to accept that the guarantees were meant to settle the fears of the huge numbers of people who believed those lies, can you not see the justification for the second referendum? Why should they let the treaty die because a few determined groups of liars tricked the Irish people?

free-man wrote: »

and others will be a fear vote that lisbon somehow has an effect on the economy.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Economists and businesses think it will, the same liars who said the guarantees aren't binding say it won't

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

91% of economists, 90% of business, the majority of trade unions and these people agree with the government so I wouldn't exactly call it lying.

These people keep getting wheeled out as support that if we vote yes to lisbon than the job market will improve or the economy will recover.

Again this is disingenuous. I'm sure these varied groups are united by one thing - supporting a yes vote for varied reasons. Are you saying ALL of these groups are only voting yes because of the boost it will give to the economy?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes unfortunately it will even though it's entirely democratic.

See Eamon Gilmore's quote below. Last year he was saying the treaty should not be re-run, this year he thinks it is democratic. Amazing how people can be swayed, wouldn't you agree?

People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels
- Eamon Gilmore 13/06/08

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that you seem to accept that the guarantees were meant to settle the fears of the huge numbers of people who believed those lies, can you not see the justification for the second referendum?

Hold your horses there. I agree that the guarantees were meant to settle fears, this doesn't mean I agree that they may not stand up in court. See my numerous other posts on this. No need to misrepresent me.

thebman

free-man wrote: »

Strange.. my follow up post was deleted by a mod with no explanation?

Probably because he explained what the legal guarantees were above and knows what he's talking about so knew you didn't and were spreading incorrect information.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

These people keep getting wheeled out as support that if we vote yes to lisbon than the job market will improve or the economy will recover.

Again this is disingenuous. I'm sure these varied groups are united by one thing - supporting a yes vote for varied reasons. Are you saying ALL of these groups are only voting yes because of the boost it will give to the economy?

Not all of them, for example concern don't really care about the economy, but economists, businesses and trade unions do and they have stated as much

free-man wrote: »

See Eamon Gilmore's quote below. Last year he was saying the treaty should not be re-run, this year he thinks it is democratic. Amazing how people can be swayed, wouldn't you agree?

People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels
- Eamon Gilmore 13/06/08

That was before we got the guarantees

free-man wrote: »

Hold your horses there. I agree that the guarantees were meant to settle fears, this doesn't mean I agree that they may not stand up in court. See my numerous other posts on this. No need to misrepresent me.

Fair enough, you don't agree they will stand up in court. Why you don't baffles me but that's not really relevant to my question. You seem to accept that the guarantees were sought to settle people's fears about various lies. Since large sections of the population voted no because of these lies, why is it undemocratic to settle their fears about those lies and ask if they've changed their minds?

waitinforatrain

Sam Vimes wrote: »

European superstate

This is not totally unsubstantiated. The way Martin Schulz speaks is why I suspect that this is what it is moving towards. This whole "New World Order" stuff isn't so much a conspiracy theory anymore, there are people who are attempting to move towards one world governments.

Treaty is unreadable
Treaty is designed to be unreadable

It is unreadable, deliberate or not. have you TRIED to read it? This is why Jens-Peter Bonde publishes readable versions of treaties, instead of the insane amount of cross-referencing you would need to do to get through the original document.

Keep voting until you give the right answer

Was that not the way it was with Nice?

Voting weight halved

This is true isn't it? As far as I was aware it is becoming a population-based voting system.

Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums

This one is true. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/comparative.pdf

Losing the right to referendums
We will no longer have a constitution in Ireland
Self-amending and escalator clause
Privatisation of healthcare and education
Lavelle case could happen here
Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
Allows EU to raise our corporation tax

I have not heard anyone make these claims. You are right about the rest.

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Fair enough, you don't agree they will stand up in court.

Well that's the crux of the issue really.

People are saying the guarantees are a good reason to re-run the treaty.

But you've already said the guarantees are just a device to get the public to realise that there's nothing in the treaty that they should be worried about.

So if the electorate voted no based on genuine concerns about the treaty text

the government then use a device to avert those concerns in the form of guarantees... many people believe these guarantees are not worth anything unless they are protocols....

then the electorate are right to complain that their initial result based on the treaty text alone should stand as these guarantees are merely spin

Sam Vimes

waitinforatrain wrote: »

This is not totally unsubstantiated

Yes it is. It's the same thing that was said about Nice and Maastricht.

waitinforatrain wrote: »

The way Martin Schulz speaks is why I suspect that this is what it is moving towards. This whole "New World Order" stuff isn't so much a conspiracy theory, there are people who are aiming towards one world governments.

some people want it, most don't and the ones who want it can get it over my cold dead body. We're not giving up our right to referendums.

waitinforatrain wrote: »

It is unreadable, deliberate or not. have you TRIED to read it?

Yes as have many others. Take a look at these websites if you don't want to read the whole thing:
http://www.lisbonexposed.org/
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

waitinforatrain wrote: »

Was that not the way it was with Nice?

Nope, we got legally binding guarantees then too, some of the same ones we got this time because the same lies were told

waitinforatrain wrote: »

This is true isn't it? As far as I was aware it is becoming a population-based voting system.

Nope. Our voting weight increases slightly:

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's been pointed out repeatedly that this is false. We have two voting weights under Lisbon - population (0.8%) and 1 state vote (3.7%). Under Nice, we have three voting weights - population (0.8%), 1 state vote (3.7%), and negotiated votes (7/349 = 2%). The comparison being made by the No campaigns is of the negotiated vote to the population vote - but one is not being replaced by the other. Our composite voting weight under Nice is 2.167% (0.8+2+3.7/3), our composite voting weight under Lisbon is 2.25% (0.8+3.7/2).

And in QMV it's already a population based system. Look here for more info on how it works.

waitinforatrain wrote: »

This one is true. http://en.euabc.com/upload/fromConstTreaty.pdf

I have no interest in what euabc.com, a site set up by the UK Independence party who want to see the end of the EU, has to say. That site is pretending to be neutral but it's peddling lies.

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I have not heard anyone make these claims.

Lucky you :P

waitinforatrain wrote: »

You are right about the rest.

Why thank you

waitinforatrain

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have no interest in what euabc.com, a site set up by the UK Independence party who want to see the end of the EU, has to say. That site is pretending to be neutral but it's peddling lies.

.

waitinforatrain

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have no interest in what euabc.com, a site set up by the UK Independence party who want to see the end of the EU, has to say. That site is pretending to be neutral but it's peddling lies.

I posted the wrong link, please check the one that is there now.

WRT superstate, one of my original reasons is simply that I don't like making something that large more powerful and organised, and it's still one of the reasons I have left.

Thanks for clarification on the rest of those.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Well that's the crux of the issue really.

It's really not. If you've ever talked to a creationist, one of those people who doesn't believe in evolution and thinks the world is 10000 years old, you'll see that they point to "gaps in the fossil record" to try to disprove evolution. Evolutionists try in vain to explain to them that the gaps in the fossil record are completely irrelevant and the fact that there are any fossils at all is an unnecessary bonus. Take a look at this video where Richard Dawkins interviews one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

She keeps saying: "show me the fossils, all you have is drawings"
He responds: "They're in the museum, go and look"
She responds:"show me the fossils, all you have is drawings"

If you watch that interview I guarantee you will be frustrated at her refusal to listen very quickly. This is what happens when someone really really wants to believe something. Human beings will latch onto anything they can find to support their belief, no matter how weak, because they don't want to let it go. you may have heard the phrase "god of the gaps" used in this context

I hope you don't mind me saying but this conversation is very similar to that one. The guarantees are legally binding. They quite clearly say they are legally binding. If it ever came to court the judge would take one look at the two lines declaring them to be legally binding and throw the case out. You are holding onto this idea that a court case could possibly have some other outcome despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You have found a gap to stick your belief in, the future, where you'll never have to let it go because no one can prove the future. You have declared that the only proof you will accept is proof that cannot possibly be provided. you believe this because you want to believe it, not because there is the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that you're right.

free-man wrote: »

People are saying the guarantees are a good reason to re-run the treaty.

But you've already said the guarantees are just a device to get the public to realise that there's nothing in the treaty that they should be worried about.

So if the electorate voted no based on genuine concerns about the treaty text

the government then use a device to avert those concerns in the form of guarantees... many people believe these guarantees are not worth anything unless they are protocols....

then the electorate are right to complain that their initial result based on the treaty text alone should stand as these guarantees are merely spin

Right, if the guarantees aren't binding then the second referendum isn't as easily justified. But they are binding so the second referendum is easily justified

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Take a look at this video where Richard Dawkins interviews one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs

I am a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, I admire his courage in standing up to the catholic church, against the establishment.. if you will.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I hope you don't mind me saying but this conversation is very similar to that one.

I respect the argument you are making. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but your tone is far more agreeable than others making the same point.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, if the guarantees aren't binding then the second referendum isn't as easily justified. But they are binding so the second referendum is easily justified

Again if you read my post you'll see

1. The guarantees were a device used to convince the public that their opinions on the treaty text were unfounded.
2. This device is being used as the basis for a re-run
3. The yes side admit that the guarantees were a device or PR stunt and
nothing in the treaty is really affected by them
4. If 3 holds true, then it is undemocratic to hold a re-run based on a PR
stunt.

Sam Vimes

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I posted the wrong link, please check the one that is there now.

It's still not true. The treaty is mostly the same as the constitution but that's because the French and the Dutch didn't object to most of it. If someone objects to one page of a 300 page document, you don't throw out all 300 pages, you change the one page

waitinforatrain wrote: »

WRT superstate, one of my original reasons is simply that I don't like making something that large more powerful and organised, and it's still one of the reasons I have left.

That's a matter of opinion. It's not a superstate but it does increase the competences of the union. I see that as a good thing, some people don't. It's the only actually valid reason I've seen for a no vote

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Again if you read my post you'll see

1. The guarantees were a device used to convince the public that their opinions on the treaty text were unfounded.
2. This device is being used as the basis for a re-run
3. The yes side admit that the guarantees were a device or PR stunt and
nothing in the treaty is really affected by them
4. If 3 holds true, then it is undemocratic to hold a re-run based on a PR
stunt.

3 doesn't hold true. It's not a "PR stunt", it's an attempt to address people's concerns. Say for example:

1. I ask you to sign a contract that I say will be mutually beneficial
2. Someone tells you that if you sign it, I will own your house
3. You reject it on that basis
4. I go to the high court and swear a legally binding oath that the contract does not give me ownership of your house and never did

Is it "undemocratic" for me to ask you to sign the contract again even though your only fear that was preventing you from signing it has now been settled?

waitinforatrain

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's still not true. The treaty is mostly the same as the constitution but that's because the French and the Dutch didn't object to most of it. If someone objects to one page of a 300 page document, you don't throw out all 300 pages, you change the one page

It ain't one page, it's quite a substantial amount. I'm looking for some sort of source that would indicate that the EU consulted the French and Dutch as to their reasons for rejecting the constitution, and modified it accordingly. But then again, if they had done that, it would be a constitution we are voting on, and not a treaty.

All I've found is Barroso saying "The treaty is not dead". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm

That's a matter of opinion. It's not a superstate but it does increase the competences of the union. I see that as a good thing, some people don't. It's the only actually valid reason I've seen for a no vote

I don't see it as a good thing.


I have little doubt that there are people out there who would push for a European federal state, (read: "The Idea of a European Superstate: Public Justification and European Integration" by Prof. Glyn Morgan)

I do not like the idea of making something so big more organised and powerful, especially with the EUs attitude on issues such as privacy and copyright. Perhaps this sounds paranoid, but governments change over time, and it's only 70 years since WW2 started. The bigger an organisation is, the more opaque it becomes.

I simply do not trust Martin Schulz right down to the gut, who I believe would love an EU superstate:

“What we need is recognition that there was a time when the pro-European movement has a soul,” he said. “Now anti-Europe has got a soul. The soul is very mobile. They can go, they fly to Ireland and elsewhere, they can stand on street corners, they can canvass, they can talk to people on their doorsteps. The question is where is the pro-Europe? Where is the passion we had, which has now emigrated to the other side? Why do people talk so ill of Europe? Because there are fears, there is angst. The easy solution, the knee-jerk reaction is fascism.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDONrrJ0EZY
(excuse the slightly sensationalist video, it is footage from the EU parliament however.)

Sam Vimes

waitinforatrain wrote: »

It ain't one page, it's quite a substantial amount. I'm looking for some sort of source that would indicate that the EU consulted the French and Dutch as to their reasons for rejecting the constitution, and modified it accordingly. But then again, if they had done that, it would be a constitution we are voting on, and not a treaty.

All I've found is Barroso saying "The treaty is not dead". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4592243.stm

The treaty is about 90% the same as the constitution but it's an important 10% difference. For example your objection about QMV is only a few pages that could be removed

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I don't see it as a good thing.

I have little doubt that there are people out there who would push for a European federal state, (read: "The Idea of a European Superstate: Public Justification and European Integration" by Prof. Glyn Morgan)

This is true but we have to give it to them and Lisbon doesn't do that.

waitinforatrain wrote: »

I do not like the idea of making something so big more organised and powerful, especially with the EUs attitude on issues such as privacy and copyright. Perhaps this sounds paranoid, but governments change over time, and it's only 70 years since WW2 started. The bigger an organisation is, the more opaque it becomes.

I simply do not trust Martin Schulz right down to the gut, who I believe would love an EU superstate:

“What we need is recognition that there was a time when the pro-European movement has a soul,” he said. “Now anti-Europe has got a soul. The soul is very mobile. They can go, they fly to Ireland and elsewhere, they can stand on street corners, they can canvass, they can talk to people on their doorsteps. The question is where is the pro-Europe? Where is the passion we had, which has now emigrated to the other side? Why do people talk so ill of Europe? Because there are fears, there is angst. The easy solution, the knee-jerk reaction is fascism.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDONrrJ0EZY
(excuse the slightly sensationalist video, it is footage from the EU parliament however.)

You might have a point, I don't think you do but you might. One thing I would say though is that that attitude is why people talk about a no vote damaging Ireland's reputation and the economy. As you say you don't really trust the EU and you don't think it's acting in our interests. Business people see this and when deciding to set up in the EU, our apparent mistrust of them increases the risk that we won't be in the EU forever or that going into the future we'll get so many opt outs that we might as well not be.

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

3 doesn't hold true. It's not a "PR stunt", it's an attempt to address people's concerns.

I understand the point your making but disagree with it. If its not a PR stunt then why do so many Yes campaigners admit that it has feck all to do with the treaty and is really quite an embarrassment that they had to get it at all.

I think you yourself might have even said this. If you want I can check.

Another point on the guarantees.

True or false please:

1. The guarantees have been signed by each head of member state?
2. The guarantees were announced in June of this year.
3. The guarantees have not yet been lodged with the UN
4. The ECJ would interpret the guarantees if they were ever to be challenged
5. When the electorate vote on Friday they technically are voting for the Lisbon treaty only and not Lisbon + Guarantees

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Is it "undemocratic" for me to ask you to sign the contract again even though your only fear that was preventing you from signing it has now been settled?

Its undemocratic to be asked to sign the contract (vote yes) again when many of those fears are still present for the irish electorate.

waitinforatrain

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The treaty is about 90% the same as the constitution but it's an important 10% difference. For example your objection about QMV is only a few pages that could be removed

From what I understand, the French rejection was based on not being allowed to vote for the expansion of the EU that occured with Nice, and still not being allowed to.

(I didn't object to QMV btw)

This is true but we have to give it to them and Lisbon doesn't do that.

Perhaps this is true.

You might have a point, I don't think you do but you might. One thing I would say though is that that attitude is why people talk about a no vote damaging Ireland's reputation and the economy. As you say you don't really trust the EU and you don't think it's acting in our interests. Business people see this and when deciding to set up in the EU, our apparent mistrust of them increases the risk that we won't be in the EU forever or that going into the future we'll get so many opt outs that we might as well not be.

I refuse to base my vote on economics or out of fear of Europe.


My final concern being that I object to Tony Blair being the EU president.

Dinner

waitinforatrain wrote: »

My final concern being that I object to Tony Blair being the EU president.

It's not 'EU President' it's President of the European Council, a position which has existed for decades and Tony Blair is by no means a shoe in for the position.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

I understand the point your making but disagree with it. If its not a PR stunt then why do so many Yes campaigners admit that it has feck all to do with the treaty and is really quite an embarrassment that they had to get it at all.

It's embarrassing because we were lied to and we believed it. The Irish people were fooled by a few anti-EU groups. That's pretty embarrassing
. And the fact that people won't believe the guarantees is even more embarrassing

free-man wrote: »

Another point on the guarantees.

True or false please:

1. The guarantees have been signed by each head of member state?

True. If not literally signed then agreed

free-man wrote: »

2. The guarantees were announced in June of this year.

Don't know when they were announced tbh

free-man wrote: »

3. The guarantees have not yet been lodged with the UN

They have been

free-man wrote: »

4. The ECJ would interpret the guarantees if they were ever to be challenged

I can't predict the future but someone would have to be retarded to interpret "the decision is legally binding" to mean anything but that. It's about as likely as Brian Cowen marrying Britney Spears. Technically possible but it's never going to happen

free-man wrote: »

5. When the electorate vote on Friday they technically are voting for the Lisbon treaty only and not Lisbon + Guarantees

The people are voting to amend the constitution. The government then ratify the treaty, the same way they have already ratified the guarantees, which come into force at the same moment as the treaty is ratified

free-man wrote: »

Its undemocratic to be asked to sign the contract (vote yes) again when many of those fears are still present for the irish electorate.

No it's not undemocratic. The government, the EU and the UN have guaranteed these issues. All they can do is present the facts and it's not their fault if no one believes them. People need to realise they have been lied to in the face of the overwhelming evidence that they have

waitinforatrain

Dinner wrote: »

It's not 'EU President' it's President of the European Council, a position which has existed for decades and Tony Blair is by no means a shoe in for the position.

If that is true then why do news sources refer to him as campaigning to be the first president of the eu?

marco_polo

waitinforatrain wrote: »

From what I understand, the French rejection was based on not being allowed to vote for the expansion of the EU that occured with Nice, and still not being allowed to.

(I didn't object to QMV btw)



Perhaps this is true.



I refuse to base my vote on economics or out of fear of Europe.


My final concern being that I object to Tony Blair being the EU president.

Aside from a protest vote the main problems of the French was that the draft text was too liberal economically. This was addressed by the French Negotiators.

French Survey

The Dutch had concerns about soverignty so during the Lisbon negotiations the dutch governement pursued the addition of the Orange Card system, removal of state like symbols etc. A lack of information and anti government vote also features highly in the results.

Dutch Results

prinz

waitinforatrain wrote: »

If that is true then why do news sources refer to him as campaigning to be the first president of the eu?

Because it sells

Dinner

waitinforatrain wrote: »

If that is true then why do news sources refer to him as campaigning to be the first president of the eu?

Because the news sources are obviously mistaken. There's another thread on this that goes into greater detail. But as I said the position of President of the European Council has existed for a long time. The only change that Lisbon brings is the lengthening of the term and making it a full time position so that one person doesn't have to worry about running their own country as well as the Council.

Tony Blair is one name that has been mentioned. But Scofflaw linked some articles in another thread that shows Sarkozy, among others would rather someone else got it.