Why Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty the first time around

aurelius79

oscarBravo wrote: »

The president's role is defined in the treaty, as quoted by BlitzKrieg.

The treaties he quoted are old treaties. The Lisbon treaty amended those treaties. This is what the amendments to the previous treaty has granted the new presidency:

"Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council will have a greater say over police and justice planning, foreign policy and constitutional matters, including: the composition of the Parliament and Commission; matters relating to the rotating presidency; the suspension of membership rights; changing the voting systems in the treaties bridging clauses; and nominating the President of the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The High Representative, along with the new post of President, are the only formal changes in composition. Further more, under the emergency break procedure, a state may refer contentious legislation from the Council of Ministers to the European Council if it is outvoted in the Council of Ministers, notwithstanding that it may still be outvoted in the European Council."

Now that's a lot of damn power for a council that only met twice every six months prior to Lisbon.

oscarBravo

aurelius79 wrote: »

The treaties he quoted are old treaties. The Lisbon treaty amended those treaties.

No, he quoted from the actual treaties that govern the EU, as amended by the Lisbon treaty.

This is what the amendments to the previous treaty has granted the new presidency:

"Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council will have a greater say over police and justice planning, foreign policy and constitutional matters, including: the composition of the Parliament and Commission; matters relating to the rotating presidency; the suspension of membership rights; changing the voting systems in the treaties bridging clauses; and nominating the President of the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The High Representative, along with the new post of President, are the only formal changes in composition. Further more, under the emergency break procedure, a state may refer contentious legislation from the Council of Ministers to the European Council if it is outvoted in the Council of Ministers, notwithstanding that it may still be outvoted in the European Council."

Now that's a lot of damn power for a council that only met twice every six months prior to Lisbon.

If you're just going to continue to refute quotes from the treaty with quotes from Wikipedia, you're rapidly heading for a ban for trolling.

BlitzKrieg

he treaties he quoted are old treaties

nope I quoted the lisbon treaty as it can be found here:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm

out of curiosity you do know that the european council is one of the institutions that its members are directly elected by the people of the member states (along with the council of ministers and the european parliament). Its made up of the elected leaders of every member state, its not an *unelected federal government* as you described it earlier.

btw I can quote wikipedia too

The European Council is an official institution of the EU, mentioned by the Lisbon Treaty as a body which "shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development". Essentially it defines the EU's policy agenda and has thus been considered to be the motor of European integration. It does this without any formal powers, only the influence it has being composed of national leaders.[5][3] Beyond the need to provide "impetus", the Council has developed further roles; to "settle issues outstanding from discussions at a lower level", to lead in foreign policy - acting externally as a "collective Head of State", "formal ratification of important documents" and "involvement in the negotiation of the treaty changes".[4][6]

aurelius79

BlitzKrieg, your quote refers to the Council prior to Lisbon. The Lisbon Treaty has given more power to the council. Why is this? What was wrong with the way the EU worked prior to the treaty? Too much time spent debating issues that affect every member state in the EU? If laws are being passed by the EU that supercede our constitution, I want to make damn sure that they are debated thoroughly. That's what democracy is all about. making sure everyone's voice is at least heard, even if it's ignored by the ruling elite.

oscarBravo

Enough is enough - aurelius79 gets a week off to figure out how to have a rational discussion.

BetterLisbon

The main reasons for rejection last time were as follows:
1- We werent in recession.
2- Approximately equal airtime.
3- Fresh and energetic no campaign.
4- Useless referendum commission.
5- Little Interference from the Commission.
6- Attempts by the Yes campaign to tie in the question of EU membership flopped.
7- Attempts to sow mistrust of anyone on the no side flopped.

What turned it around was:
1- Recession frightened people and allowed the government to use the upcoming "budget from hell" as a lever over the social partners to get them to come out to bat for a yes.
2- The BCI ruling and the abandoning of the McKenna & Coughlan Judgements ensured heavily biased coverage.
3- The local and european elections drained too much energy out of the no campaign volunteers. Also the no groups didnt have the money to mount a decent campaign.
4- Blatently biased referendum commission and DFA material was a great help to the yes side as all their dubious claims were treated as "considered opinion" while all dubious claims by the no side were denounced as "having no treaty basis".
5- All those "Information" booklets, talktoEU (now dissappeared, job done), cinema ad's etc. Utter propoganda.
6- Feeds in from 2,4 and 5. This message successfully got across and hit hard especially in the context of 1.
7. This was modestly successful, not as successful in previous referenda. Helped by 2,4 and 5.

K-9

passive wrote: »

Then, after being unemployed for the next few months, and getting rather worried about this fact, you were offered the same contract, with a couple of post-its on the front (Does not contain Hitler/Satan/Xenu) and this time the lunatic outside the building was telling you that signing the contract would make your feet turn into geese, and make your first born child explode. You... wondered about this, for a moment, then shrugged it off, signed the contract, and commenced a dull office job.

Ta-da!

I Lol'ed, thought it was a good parody of the campaign and as with all good parodies, this thread shows it has some truth.

Mario007

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The main reasons for rejection last time were as follows:
1- We werent in recession.
2- Approximately equal airtime.
3- Fresh and energetic no campaign.
4- Useless referendum commission.
5- Little Interference from the Commission.
6- Attempts by the Yes campaign to tie in the question of EU membership flopped.
7- Attempts to sow mistrust of anyone on the no side flopped.

What turned it around was:
1- Recession frightened people and allowed the government to use the upcoming "budget from hell" as a lever over the social partners to get them to come out to bat for a yes.
2- The BCI ruling and the abandoning of the McKenna & Coughlan Judgements ensured heavily biased coverage.
3- The local and european elections drained too much energy out of the no campaign volunteers. Also the no groups didnt have the money to mount a decent campaign.
4- Blatently biased referendum commission and DFA material was a great help to the yes side as all their dubious claims were treated as "considered opinion" while all dubious claims by the no side were denounced as "having no treaty basis".
5- All those "Information" booklets, talktoEU (now dissappeared, job done), cinema ad's etc. Utter propoganda.
6- Feeds in from 2,4 and 5. This message successfully got across and hit hard especially in the context of 1.
7. This was modestly successful, not as successful in previous referenda. Helped by 2,4 and 5.

firstly i think your post is very very biased propaganda but let me just go the point about BCI overruling the McKenna and Coughlan decisions...firstly they can't do that, they're not a court. Secondly nothing was overruled as the guidelines also specifically say that the political parties broadcasts in regards to the lisbon referendum have to be equally attributed to parties that are for and for parties that are against the treaty. so the court decisions are upheld

Scofflaw

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The main reasons for rejection last time were as follows:
1- We werent in recession.
2- Approximately equal airtime.
3- Fresh and energetic no campaign.
4- Useless referendum commission.
5- Little Interference from the Commission.
6- Attempts by the Yes campaign to tie in the question of EU membership flopped.
7- Attempts to sow mistrust of anyone on the no side flopped.

What turned it around was:
1- Recession frightened people and allowed the government to use the upcoming "budget from hell" as a lever over the social partners to get them to come out to bat for a yes.
2- The BCI ruling and the abandoning of the McKenna & Coughlan Judgements ensured heavily biased coverage.
3- The local and european elections drained too much energy out of the no campaign volunteers. Also the no groups didnt have the money to mount a decent campaign.
4- Blatently biased referendum commission and DFA material was a great help to the yes side as all their dubious claims were treated as "considered opinion" while all dubious claims by the no side were denounced as "having no treaty basis".
5- All those "Information" booklets, talktoEU (now dissappeared, job done), cinema ad's etc. Utter propoganda.
6- Feeds in from 2,4 and 5. This message successfully got across and hit hard especially in the context of 1.
7. This was modestly successful, not as successful in previous referenda. Helped by 2,4 and 5.

Talktoeu don't seem to have disappeared.

cordially,
Scofflaw

TheCandystripes

the voters in question are irish, the irish aren't political.

Cabaal

BetterLisbon wrote: »

The main reasons for rejection last time were as follows:
1- We werent in recession.
2- Approximately equal airtime.
3- Fresh and energetic no campaign.
4- Useless referendum commission.
5- Little Interference from the Commission.
6- Attempts by the Yes campaign to tie in the question of EU membership flopped.
7- Attempts to sow mistrust of anyone on the no side flopped.

What turned it around was:
1- Recession frightened people and allowed the government to use the upcoming "budget from hell" as a lever over the social partners to get them to come out to bat for a yes.
2- The BCI ruling and the abandoning of the McKenna & Coughlan Judgements ensured heavily biased coverage.
3- The local and european elections drained too much energy out of the no campaign volunteers. Also the no groups didnt have the money to mount a decent campaign.
4- Blatently biased referendum commission and DFA material was a great help to the yes side as all their dubious claims were treated as "considered opinion" while all dubious claims by the no side were denounced as "having no treaty basis".
5- All those "Information" booklets, talktoEU (now dissappeared, job done), cinema ad's etc. Utter propoganda.
6- Feeds in from 2,4 and 5. This message successfully got across and hit hard especially in the context of 1.
7. This was modestly successful, not as successful in previous referenda. Helped by 2,4 and 5.

Biased much?
Thanks for the biased reasoning behind the not-passing/passing of the treaty
:rolleyes:

BlitzKrieg

5- All those "Information" booklets, talktoEU (now dissappeared, job done), cinema ad's etc. Utter propoganda.

Actually we just saw an ad from the European Commission in cineworld before a law abiding man.

not a great ad mind you, it comes off as a trocaire ad until it starts talking about global warming, I was about to tell my friend that the EU promised seven billion to combat climate change when it came up *EUROPEAN COMMISSION*

meglome

oscarBravo wrote: »

Enough is enough - aurelius79 gets a week off to figure out how to have a rational discussion.

I think that rational discussion with with many people that post heavily in the conspiracy theories forum just isn't possible.

bonkey

Just because someone was banned, doesn't mean its open season on insults in breach of the charter.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Okay, let me stop you there for a moment. If you're really going to be going on about NWO etc, then the place for it is the Conspiracy Theories forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

That is a bit strange in a european context as nearly every media outlet accross the planet is talking about a new world order. One where the EU and the USA will struggle to maintain their standard of living with economic power shifting eastwards.

God knows it has left Ireland.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

That is a bit strange in a european context as nearly every media outlet accross the planet is talking about a new world order. One where the EU and the USA will struggle to maintain their standard of living with economic power shifting eastwards.

God knows it has left Ireland.

Yes, but there's a difference between "a new world order" and "the New World Order". The former is a phrase simply descriptive of a change in the existing set of relationships between the various state and non-state actors on the planet - the latter refers to a conspiracy theory of the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government and the steps taken towards that goal by a powerful and secretive elite.

Something like the Bilderberg Group, for example, both exists, and clearly plays a part in the world order, by bringing together powerful decision-makers from across the globe. If someone wants to discuss the extent of the influence of such meetings, or their intentions, that's politics - if, on the other hand, someone wants to bang on about how the Lisbon Treaty was decided by the global elite at such and such a Bilderberg meeting as an important step on the road to one world government, then that's CT. The difference is that the latter poster has already made a very sweeping set of assumptions about the role and goals of the Bilderberg group, and neither agreeing with them nor disagreeing with them involves discussing politics as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Good point. On this topic without (I hope) delving into conspiracies it is true that global corporations who operate outside national rules seem to have an enormous influence on our economies. For example there is concern in the markets of hedge funds moving east. Everyone liked them when they were in europe, france wanted its own and indeed might have one now.

These SPV's or whatever they are called now have enormous power and can influence governments. How related banks are to these I do not know. What is slightly disturbing and worrying is that when they fail national governments must step in and fix the problem at the expense of tax payers.

It then becomes an extremely political event. What is happening in Ireland is only the tip of the iceberg, the states have a printing press going 24/7 printing dollars to sort this out, ditto the ECB and UK. My view is that they should have been told to sink or swim.

But we didn't and these entities now run around the place and judge how much money they will charge us to lend us money again. Frustrating...