Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why havent the just simply altered the treaty this time round?

Options
  • 01-10-2009 11:24am
    #1
    1der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭


    First of I am and always have been very pro-european.


    The treaty obviously doesn't suit Irish (and most other European) people as it is now. There are parts of the treaty that I am fine with and I can see why they should be passed but other parts of it are just stupid.

    Why on earth do they include changes to our military, and the weight of our european vote in the same treaty as other issues such as the commissioner stuff???

    Why is it a yes or no vote? Shouldnt it be a number of yes and no's??

    The very fact that multiple things are being changed in one vote is very very fishy.



    Also, on another note, the idea of michael o'leary placing ad's in the paper's today made me feel physically sick. To make me feel even more nauseated, I see that Brian Cowen decides to write an article in the same paper as Podge and Rodge so to sway the vote. Classy, that really shows how much of an intellectual debate is possible from the yes side.



    The yes side is money, money, money, at any cost, even if it means less money in the long run. Michael O'leary can go **** himself. I don't live in an airport, i live in a country. A country is more than just an economy and I, as a proud Irish person am not willing to jepardise what freedom we have to help his business plan. I'll need a few more reasons than that you plank!


    After vomiting into my newspaper this morning, I go to google news to try and get some normal, less biased news. I find and interesting article which happens to be on the Independant. I begin to notice more horrible advertisements about how great europe is (with which i do agree, but i dont need to be told today) and a link to todays most popular stories. And then... wait a minute is this serious, this is one of the top stories????
    link: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/michael-olearys-finest-photos-1897188.html?start=5

    michael o'leary wankin about, tryin to be hilarious, while looking like an embarrassment to the country. Now how is that one of the most popular stories?? its not even a ****in story.

    Propaganda, corruption bollox!


    anyways, there's plenty of good points in the treaty but the negative sides are not worth the risk. we should be asking for a new treaty rather than fussing over this one.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    A lot of people think it should be a number of Yes's and No's. Thats why the Lisbon treaty offers a new way to change the EU, that will enable us to vote on individual issues and not simply as a whole. If your in support of this by all means vote Yes.


  • Options
    #3
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    1der wrote: »
    anyways, there's plenty of good points in the treaty but the negative sides are not worth the risk. we should be asking for a new treaty rather than fussing over this one.

    The treaty does nothing to our military. The voting mechanisms need to be changed to a sustainable formula, rather than renegotiating everyone's every time there's a new country joining the EU, a process which could really reduce Ireland's weight. With the proposed changes we know how the voting mechanism works, and who gets what weight, automatically, forever.

    The new QMV system actually increases Malta's weight while reducing Germany's by a couple of percent, incidentally. It's actually weighted towards the smaller nations.

    Now, having learned these two things, do you still judge the treaty to be bad on balance?


  • Options
    #4
    1der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭1der


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    The treaty does nothing to our military.


    um, i think it does. I do believe that if any other European country is attacked by (cough, cough) "terrorists", then we have to support them.

    As an eligible soldier, I morally could not say yes if it may mean that I would possibly (and i know it is very slim chance) be expected to be involved in a war with who Europe consider to be "terrorists".

    You must remember that not to many years ago we were "terrorists" in Europe's eyes. not good.


  • Options
    #5
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    1der wrote: »
    um, i think it does. I do believe that if any other European country is attacked by (cough, cough) "terrorists", then we have to support them.

    As an eligible soldier, I morally could not say yes if it may mean that I would possibly (and i know it is very slim chance) be expected to be involved in a war with who Europe consider to be "terrorists".

    You must remember that not to many years ago we were "terrorists" in Europe's eyes. not good.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/54exdz.jpg

    :pac:


  • Options
    #6
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    1der wrote: »
    First of I am and always have been very pro-european.

    Excellent. Though with respect I have to comment that all the No side claim to be pro-European, even though they have campaigned against every EU treaty.
    1der wrote: »
    The treaty obviously doesn't suit Irish (and most other European) people as it is now. There are parts of the treaty that I am fine with and I can see why they should be passed but other parts of it are just stupid.

    I don't think you can say that it "obviously" doesn't suit most European people. Honestly most of them have no idea what Lisbon even is.
    1der wrote: »
    Why on earth do they include changes to our military, and the weight of our european vote in the same treaty as other issues such as the commissioner stuff???

    Why is it a yes or no vote? Shouldnt it be a number of yes and no's??

    The very fact that multiple things are being changed in one vote is very very fishy.

    It doesn't really have any changes for our military since the solidarity clause is so vague and since the guarantee clarifies that we can choose to do what we wish or indeed choose to do nothing, and spend nothing.

    You do raise an interesting point about having just one vote on the whole treaty. In a more rational world I would like such multiple votes, but considering the disruption to civil life and the disruption to schools many of which close on Friday and the cost, it seems it will always have to be this way.
    1der wrote: »
    Also, on another note, the idea of michael o'leary placing ad's in the paper's today made me feel physically sick. To make me feel even more nauseated, I see that Brian Cowen decides to write an article in the same paper as Podge and Rodge so to sway the vote. Classy, that really shows how much of an intellectual debate is possible from the yes side.

    The yes side is money, money, money, at any cost, even if it means less money in the long run. Michael O'leary can go **** himself. I don't live in an airport, i live in a country. A country is more than just an economy and I, as a proud Irish person am not willing to jepardise what freedom we have to help his business plan. I'll need a few more reasons than that you plank!

    While not being a big fan of Michael O'Leary I would acknowledge that he wants Lisbon passed to make more money for Ryanair, and this will only happen if the economy picks up across Europe and Ireland. Only with more jobs and less unemployment will more people fly...
    1der wrote: »

    anyways, there's plenty of good points in the treaty but the negative sides are not worth the risk. we should be asking for a new treaty rather than fussing over this one.

    What are the negative points? Without listing those we surely can't even start creating a new treaty.

    I appreciate your comments that there are some good points in the treaty. You should bear in mind that according to the No side there are no good sentences, words or it seems even characters in Lisbon, which makes it pretty hard to negotiate a replacement since 27 states contributed several years of effort into getting where we are today.

    ix.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    1der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭1der


    turgon wrote: »
    A lot of people think it should be a number of Yes's and No's. Thats why the Lisbon treaty offers a new way to change the EU, that will enable us to vote on individual issues and not simply as a whole


    I'm sorry but this paragraph doesn't actually make any sense.
    I'm not having a go at your argument here but it just genuinely doesn't make sense.
    "WE can vote on INDIVIDUAL issues and not as a WHOLE". what?


  • Options
    #8
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    1der wrote: »
    um, i think it does. I do believe that if any other European country is attacked by (cough, cough) "terrorists", then we have to support them.

    As an eligible soldier, I morally could not say yes if it may mean that I would possibly (and i know it is very slim chance) be expected to be involved in a war with who Europe consider to be "terrorists".

    You must remember that not to many years ago we were "terrorists" in Europe's eyes. not good.

    Please read the solidarity clause in the treaty and note how vague it is. Actually here it is...

    The Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster. The Union shall mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to: etc etc

    So that sounds like member states can decide what to make available?

    And that is further clarified by the guarantee, which is as legally binding as any EU treaty (and please let's not go into that again)

    The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

    That's not really unclear is it? We'd like you to do something... but if you don't want to fine...

    Ix.


  • Options
    #9
    1der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭1der


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    http://i36.tinypic.com/54exdz.jpg

    :pac:

    sorry man, but you have to have some principles, otherwise you might begin to act in this fashion:

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/michael-olearys-finest-photos-1897188.html?start=5

    it's only right to stand up against what you know is wrong from the very begining.


  • Options
    #10
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    1der wrote: »
    I'm sorry but this paragraph doesn't actually make any sense.
    I'm not having a go at your argument here but it just genuinely doesn't make sense.
    "WE can vote on INDIVIDUAL issues and not as a WHOLE". what?

    Currently changes to an EU treaty must go to a large intergovernmental conference where a new treaty is drafted.

    In some very limited sections changes can be made to Lisbon without this conference. However there is no change to how states ratify any future treaty.

    So, it is possible for there to be a small proposed change, which Ireland would need to vote separately on.

    The no side has pounced on this as "self-amending", it is not. Only the way the new treaty is created is changed, NOT the way it is ratified.

    Ix


  • Options
    #11
    1der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭1der


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    http://i36.tinypic.com/54exdz.jpg

    :pac:

    sorry man, but you have to have some principles, otherwise you might begin to act in this fashion:

    http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/michael-olearys-finest-photos-1897188.html?start=5

    it's only right to stand up against what you know is wrong from the very begining otherwise your gonna be responsible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    dogbert27
    Registered Users Posts: 4,931 ✭✭✭dogbert27


    In answer to the original question as far as I know the main body of the treaty could not be altered as then it would be a different treaty to what has already been ratified by 26 other countries.
    An altered treaty would have to go around the 26 countries again for ratification and waste more time.


  • Options
    #13
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    dogbert27 wrote: »
    In answer to the original question as far as I know the main body of the treaty could not be altered as then it would be a different treaty to what has already been ratified by 26 other countries.
    An altered treaty would have to go around the 26 countries again for ratification and waste more time.

    That's the size of it - however, the original question actually appears to be "why hasn't the Treaty been altered to one that I like?".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #14
    1der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 110 ✭✭1der


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's the size of it - however, the original question actually appears to be "why hasn't the Treaty been altered to one that I like?".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


    Am, I think it was actually the nation that voted "no" the last time. Or was it just that my vote accounted for multiple votes due to my body mass?

    so, i think the question still stands thank you.


  • Options
    #15
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    1der wrote: »
    Am, I think it was actually the nation that voted "no" the last time. Or was it just that my vote accounted for multiple votes due to my body mass?

    so, i think the question still stands thank you.

    Altering the Treaty text now would require at least a round of re-ratification, which most of the member states are opposed to, at most reconvening the Inter-Governmental Conference and repeating a lot of the negotiations, depending on what's to be renegotiated.

    if the guarantees that were negotiated do not address the concerns of sufficient voters, then it will be another No, and there will be no option but to renegotiate (which may work out well, or may work out badly). This is currently the easy route.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #16
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    The treaty was altered. They took out the bits in it that we didn't want. As they weren't there in the first place, the changes are hard to spot.


Advertisement