Lisbon I is over, roll on Lisbon II...

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 5:37pm

democrates wrote: »

But that ideal you espouse is exactly what is binned when a veto changes to QMV, whereby the individual nation can have rules imposed which it does not want...

Maybe we should demand a union of nations where every country gets its way on all issues, all the time. All take, no give.

That would be cool.

democrates · 13-06-2008 5:41pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe we should demand a union of nations where every country gets its way on all issues, all the time. All take, no give.

That would be cool.

I like that vision, maybe that's what Homer was thinking about for "Under the Sea".

Seriously though, there's always going to be horse-trading in negotiations, and good outcomes are perfectly achievable, but there's a world of difference between willingly compromising and being subject to impositions.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 5:43pm

nhughes100 wrote: »

It's in the treaty - Read it.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it's true - it's not. The Lisbon treaty says nothing about military spending. Feel free to prove me wrong.

nhughes100 wrote: »

In any case I don't see what all the yes voters are in such a panic over, you'll get a second chance unlike if a no vote had been carried.

Seems rather unlikely at this point. It's impossible to say what will happen now.

nhughes100 wrote: »

...lets have a referedum in every country and we'll see how united this so called union is.

You can't have a referendum in every country - it's simply not possible.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 5:45pm

democrates wrote: »

Seriously though, there's always going to be horse-trading in negotiations, and good outcomes are perfectly achievable, but there's a world of difference between willingly compromising and being subject to impositions.

Of those two, which do you think has characterised our relationship with our EU partners to date?

democrates · 13-06-2008 5:46pm

djpbarry wrote: »

People have come out with this argument over and over and over again without (as yet) providing any evidence whatsoever that the majority of people in Britain, France or the Netherlands (or any other EU state for that matter) actually want to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Can you please either provide some evidence to back up this claim, or else ditch it and just accept that most EU citizens are happy enough for their parliaments to ratify the treaty for them.

There's no evidence that the majority of any of the other 26 members' citizens either support or reject Lisbon, it's an unknown, which is of course something of a democratic deficit.

democrates · 13-06-2008 5:56pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of those two, which do you think has characterised our relationship with our EU partners to date?

First off, "our relationship", who is 'our', the people of Ireland or our supposed representatives?

The politicians who craft these deals have repeatedly found that they do not in fact represent their citizens, the Irish thanks to DeValera and Crotty have say on major changes, but for Lisbon the other 26 nations citizens do not.

Those politicians have done lots of horse-trading and negotiation, true, but part of it is to move from veto to qmv which is by definition a means to impose. What the deuce is wrong with an opt-in EU?

Rb · 13-06-2008 5:57pm

passive wrote: »

Refresh my memory, which were the major amendments to our constitution?

Changes to our constitution > yearly budget imo.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 6:02pm

democrates wrote: »

There's no evidence that the majority of any of the other 26 members' citizens either support or reject Lisbon, it's an unknown...

Precisely my point, so voting 'No' in solidarity with our fellow EU citizens is a bit daft when for all we know, they may well support the treaty.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 6:05pm

democrates wrote: »

First off, "our relationship", who is 'our', the people of Ireland or our supposed representatives?

Ireland. Neither the citizens nor the politicians are EU members; the country is.

Those politicians have done lots of horse-trading and negotiation, true, but part of it is to move from veto to qmv which is by definition a means to impose. What the deuce is wrong with an opt-in EU?

Your very premise avoids the point I was getting at, which you side-stepped: we achieve more by negotiation and compromise than we would by pushing everything to a vote we can veto.

What's wrong with an opt-in EU? Good question. Why don't we have an opt-in system of government in this country? That way I can opt-in to those laws I agree with, and avoid the pesky ones that don't suit me.

Moriarty · 13-06-2008 6:07pm

Threads merged.

axer · 13-06-2008 6:12pm

Brian Cowen on RTE news now saying he's not ruling out a Lisbon 2.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 6:16pm

axer wrote: »

Brian Cowen on RTE news now saying he's not ruling out a Lisbon 2.

He's just being diplomatic - impossible to rule out anything at this point.

axer · 13-06-2008 6:16pm

djpbarry wrote: »

He's just being diplomatic - impossible to rule out anything at this point.

Eamon Gilmore is on now saying how it is "Lisbon is dead". It has to be dead. If it is not then democracy is a joke in Ireland.

Dotsie~tmp · 13-06-2008 6:42pm

cornbb wrote: »

All the No campaigners have said "we'll send a clear message that we want a better deal". The notion of a "clear message" from the No side is laughable, seeing as most No votes were based on protest votes, votes out of lack of understanding of the issues and votes based on lies and misinformation.

Then of course the No campaigners don't have to deal with the fallout, the government and the people have to do that.

This man has single handedly read the minds of several hundred thousand people and gladly informs us us we are either grumpy, thick or gullible. Amazing stuff.

Steve01 · 13-06-2008 7:08pm

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

This man has single handedly read the minds of several hundred thousand people and gladly informs us us we are either grumpy, thick or gullible. Amazing stuff.

Care to prove the man wrong? :rolleyes:

zenno · 14-06-2008 9:40am

well now i know brussels is a dictatorship rejecting the irish no vote proves so. they absolutly dont want democracy if they did they would have respected the irish vote. all 27 countries have to ratify it for it to work. it is illegal for them to go ahead with the treaty now as we have blocked them. if anyone thinks for a minute that brussels have democracy in their thinking then they are not with the program. in a democracy you have to respect the final answer given in any treaty not doing so is undemocratic. if brian cowen brings out a new lisbon 2 in a different guise then he is undemocratic as well by not respecting the irish voters rights. as far as i have heard today brian cowen is quoted as saying there will be no more referendums on this treaty again. if there is then it is undemocratic.

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 10:04am

zenno wrote: »

if brian cowen brings out a new lisbon 2 in a different guise then he is undemocratic as well by not respecting the irish voters rights. as far as i have heard today brian cowen is quoted as saying there will be no more referendums on this treaty again. if there is then it is undemocratic.

Surely no one (except Patrica McKenna) believes that there should be no new treaty at all?

If there is any new treaty it will be based on Lisbon, so I imagine you would call that in another guise? It's a semantic issue whether it is called Lisbon 2... or treaty of Paris...

If the new treaty excludes Ireland from the military clause (maybe removes us from the battlegroups), and excludes Ireland from a CCTB without an Irish referendum, then I think that would assure many no voters... even though they should have been assured anyhow.

Ix.

nhughes100 · 14-06-2008 10:12am

djpbarry wrote: »

You can't have a referendum in every country - it's simply not possible.

Really?? It's impossible to have a vote in 27 democratic countries. Well IL Duce Barosso is going to have the treaty ratified in every country regardless of our vote thus proving that the veto is now useless. Sure we can't have one country holding up the other 26 now can we? As usual rules broken when it suits them.

Lets get out of this so called union and return to a trading block.

zenno · 14-06-2008 10:32am

ixtlan wrote: »

Surely no one (except Patrica McKenna) believes that there should be no new treaty at all?

people are missing the point. the whole point in voting on these sort of treaties in this country is we are a democratic country which gives us the right to vote whatever way the irish people want to its in our constitution to do so and to do so intelligently and any other democratic country that does not obey and respect the decision of a democratic peoples vote is a non democratic country even if they think they are. i do know that it looks strange a little country like ireland deciding where europe goes on this but it's the law. if you dont respect the law of a countries democratic decision you are not working for democracy. it's tough the way the vote came out for these other governments of europe but what about the millions of ordinary people of france and holland that already rejected it. at the end of the day its the law and if brussels wants to go ahead and break the democratic law of the lands then it doesn't deserve to run its own country. get over it.

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 10:45am

zenno wrote: »

well now i know brussels is a dictatorship rejecting the irish no vote proves so.

I'm sorry, how has Brussels "rejected" the Irish 'No' vote?

nhughes100 wrote: »

Really?? It's impossible to have a vote in 27 democratic countries.

Yes it is actually. Referenda are illegal in Germany and it is illegal to ratify an international treaty by referendum in Italy; together they comprise approximately 28.5% of the EU’s population. It's possible that referenda are not used in other states too - I'm not sure.

But let’s not let facts get in the way of a bit EU-bashing, eh?

zenno wrote: »

it's tough the way the vote came out for these other governments of europe but what about the millions of ordinary people of france and holland that already rejected it.

No they didn't; France ratified the Lisbon Treaty in February of this year.

WooPeeA · 14-06-2008 11:01am

There will be no Lisbon 2. The treaty of Lisbon was negotiated for many years till the time when all national governments accepted it. Ireland was also a side of negotiations.

Few months later, same government which was a part of those negotiations and accept the final text has to reject it.. Nobody will spend 2 or 4 years for new negotiations. No time, no will.. Ireland was also the Europe's only country who rejected the Treaty of Nice. Now it's the same situation with Treaty of Lisbon...

The result might be similar to fears of No campaigners, Ireland will be ignored in the future as not veracious and reliable partner.

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 11:03am

zenno wrote: »

ixtlan wrote: »

Surely no one (except Patrica McKenna) believes that there should be no new treaty at all?

people are missing the point. the whole point in voting on these sort of treaties in this country is we are a democratic country which gives us the right to vote whatever way the irish people want to its in our constitution to do so and to do so intelligently and any other democratic country that does not obey and respect the decision of a democratic peoples vote is a non democratic country even if they think they are. i do know that it looks strange a little country like ireland deciding where europe goes on this but it's the law. if you dont respect the law of a countries democratic decision you are not working for democracy. it's tough the way the vote came out for these other governments of europe but what about the millions of ordinary people of france and holland that already rejected it. at the end of the day its the law and if brussels wants to go ahead and break the democratic law of the lands then it doesn't deserve to run its own country. get over it.

But you are missing my point. We said no. OK. But did we say no to this specify treaty and issues with it, or did we say no to any further treaties and reform of the EU?

If there is to be any replacement treaty, whether it be next year or 5, 10, 100 years from now, the starting point will be Lisbon. It may be completely different from Lisbon, or it might be similiar. It would not be undemocratic to put some other treaty before the Irish people.

On the matter of the other countries choices going forward, they do indeed have to respect the laws of the Nice treaty which require all countries to ratify a change. However one can imagine some legal arrangement where Nice remains in effect for Ireland, and aspects of Lisbon come into effect for the others.

While they do need to respect our wishes it's understandable that it's a big problem if one country wishes to freeze any reform indefinitely. This appears to be the logic of saying we must have no Lisbon 2 or any related treaty.

Ix

cjx · 14-06-2008 11:11am

Thatcher said NO NO NO Paisley Said NEVER NENER NEVER then where are they now
There is always hope and time!
We Irish (those of us in the 26 county statelet: which still takes its lead from the thrash of England SUN STAR and EASTENDERS "no Way Jose" bigotry) have shown total disdain for those in Europe whose aim is prevention of war, economic advancement all over the continent with dialog and union between Slavs and the rest).

We are the toast of the Chinese politburo today and just wait for the BIG handshake between BUSH (Halliburton) and poor wee Brian next week.

Isn't it crazy that we belong to an international economic grouping so democratic that it allows 0.5% of it electoral tell it how to do its business.

Action then
1. Sack the Referendum Commission who failed so abysmally to get the facts out in simple language)
2. Recognise that Sinn Fein have done more to cement the border in place by getting their Negitivity and totalitarianism to triumph.
3. Examine the democracy of Guantanamo/Homeland Securtiy in the light of the leadership of Libertas and decide should Ganley have Joe Higgins as Tainiste and Dana as Minister for Justice and Religious Police.
4. Remember that that fella who made some of his money betting in Manchester is to blame for a whole lot of this and treat his party accordingly.

Running one scenario to its logical conclusion will see custom posts and barbed wire as the wetbacks from Cavan try to get into the nearest bit of real "Europe" under King of Ulster Peter the Great.

Perhaps in thanksgiving the Chinese will take us over fully and send a couple of million mandarins to try and govern this outpost of Asia (but even they will know governing the airsick Irish is an impossible waste of time. The anarchists of Barcelona in 1937 were more in favour of government and organization than us today.
:mad::eek::eek::eek: Where next? back to prancing at the crossroads while the skangerachhi do donuts round us on their painted ponies.
I think we should declare another emergency (third world war) and have an economic war with the EU. God the twentieth century thirties and fifties were great lads!!!! and the bit in between where 30m died humm nothing to do with us lads!

zenno · 14-06-2008 11:29am

ixtlan wrote: »

But you are missing my point. We said no. OK. But did we say no to this specify treaty and issues with it, or did we say no to any further treaties and reform of the EU?

If there is to be any any treaty, whether it be next year or 5, 10, 100 years from now, the starting point will be Lisbon. It may be completely different from Lisbon, or it might be similiar. It would not be undemocratic to put some other treaty before the Irish people.

On the matter of the other countries choices going forward, they do indeed have to respect the laws of the Nice treaty which require all countries to ratify a change. However one can imagine some legal arrangement where Nice remains in effect for Ireland, and aspects of Lisbon come into effect for the others.

While they do need to respect our wishes it's understandable that it's a big problem if one country wishes to freeze any reform indefinitely. This appears to be the logic of saying we must have no Lisbon 2 or any related treaty.

Ix

i am not against future treaties. i am only saying it would be undemocratic to force this same treaty on us again in a different guise with no new changes in it. if brussels deal with our concerns and change it to suit the irish peoples worries on it then im all for it. but this act of twisting it around with no new changes to address the problems we have with it is not on. just have to wait and see next week what happens.

zenno · 14-06-2008 11:45am

djpbarry: I'm sorry, how has Brussels "rejected" the Irish 'No' vote?

they have rejected it by going ahead and trying to ratify it elsewere. it's dead by law. maybe they will see how it goes with the other countries and if theres another no vote then it might be scrapped.

the french citizens are not been heard if they were put to a referendum it would have definatly been a no vote and the french government knew that. the french government voted yes not the people of france. correct me if im wrong.

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 12:06pm

zenno wrote: »

if brussels deal with our concerns and change it to suit the irish peoples worries on it then im all for it.

Could you outline some of these concerns? What changes to the treaty would you deem necessary for a 'Yes' vote?

zenno wrote: »

they have rejected it by going ahead and trying to ratify it elsewere.

"They" (i.e. the EU) have done nothing of the sort; all the other states that have yet to ratify the treaty are perfectly entitled to have their say.

zenno wrote: »

maybe they will see how it goes with the other countries and if theres another no vote then it might be scrapped.

Maybe; it will at least allow us to see exactly where everyone stands.

zenno wrote: »

the french citizens are not been heard if they were put to a referendum it would have definatly been a no vote and the french government knew that.

Would it? If the French are so unhappy about their government not allowing them a vote on the treaty, then surely they would be rather vocal about it, no? Besides, how the French decide to ratify the treaty is entirely up to them.

aliqueenb · 14-06-2008 12:15pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Something that also has me baffled; I've yet to hear a single 'No' voter explain how we could (realistically) get a better deal. The usual response is a Libertas-style "we have to keep our commissioner!"

Seeing as a rejection now looks likely, I'm looking forward to Libertas (in particular) having to retract many of their claims.

i agree completly with you. but they wont all the no people will say is that its someone elses job to do that, cos they have no idea themselves

marco_polo · 14-06-2008 12:22pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Could you outline some of these concerns? What changes to the treaty would you deem necessary for a 'Yes' vote.
"They" (i.e. the EU) have done nothing of the sort; all the other states that have yet to ratify the treaty are perfectly entitled to have their say.
Maybe; it will at least allow us to see exactly where everyone stands.
Would it? If the French are so unhappy about their government not allowing them a vote on the treaty, then surely they would be rather vocal about it, no? Besides, how the French decide to ratify the treaty is entirely up to them.

Well you know how meek the French are, they always do what they are told by the Government.

They would never dream of staging a protest if they were unhappy with the treaty.

free-man · 14-06-2008 12:29pm

Could someone please explain what Bertie is rambling on about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVcCMdyfJaI&feature=related

from 4.50 onwards

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 12:42pm

zenno wrote: »

i am not against future treaties. i am only saying it would be undemocratic to force this same treaty on us again in a different guise with no new changes in it. if brussels deal with our concerns and change it to suit the irish peoples worries on it then im all for it. but this act of twisting it around with no new changes to address the problems we have with it is not on. just have to wait and see next week what happens.

Surely we are arguing semantics here. Could not Brussels deal with our concerns with some minor changes/opt-outs to this treaty? Does it have to be a completely new treaty 5 or more years from now?

Ix

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 12:45pm

free-man wrote: »

Could someone please explain what Bertie is rambling on about here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVcCMdyfJaI&feature=related

from 4.50 onwards

Could you be a little more specific?

zenno · 14-06-2008 1:03pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Could you outline some of these concerns? What changes to the treaty would you deem necessary for a 'Yes' vote?
"They" (i.e. the EU) have done nothing of the sort; all the other states that have yet to ratify the treaty are perfectly entitled to have their say.
Maybe; it will at least allow us to see exactly where everyone stands.
Would it? If the French are so unhappy about their government not allowing them a vote on the treaty, then surely they would be rather vocal about it, no? Besides, how the French decide to ratify the treaty is entirely up to them.

"what i would like to see changed in the lisbon treaty" what do you think... a complete revamp of the whole treaty document. it's a complete mess. no irish man/woman would vote for something that is unreadable which it is period. the people that voted yes only understood a little of the benefits for a yes vote and nothing of the concequences to our constitution by voting yes. the yes side seems to be able to read an unreadable document lol. make the treaty readable in laymans terms and i'll concider it. this is the main concern and the way the treaty was made out surely looks like they were hiding alot maybe 60 new policies that were going to be changed. they never explained all of these in detail thats what killed it yesterday. brussels needs to be honest and straight with us in excatually what is to be changed forever in our constitution it's too important to this country.

free-man · 14-06-2008 1:08pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Could you be a little more specific?

"if its not this constitution..or a variation of it..(but).. in 2008 we'll come back to this, probably a slimmed down version and hopefully not too much change in the substance of what we agreed 3 years ago"

Why does he keep referring to the 'constitution'

"Lets not get hung up on the constitution name"
- I thought this was a treaty?
- Had they just changed the name to disallow referrendum in Holland?

If the constitution is more or less the same why were we being asked to vote on a constitution that was already rejected?

Why are other countries not being allowed vote on it when it is obvious from almost every comment on every major publications website that people WANT to vote on this 'treaty'?

Why would I want to re-vote on something which we can do perfectly fine without?

I would love someone to explain these simple concerns coherently

Rb · 14-06-2008 1:20pm

The Irish Government would have to be thick to try and run another vote on this in the near future. People still aren't happy over what happened with the Nice Treaty afterall.

However, good news for us today, the Czech Republican President has said that the Treaty is dead and ratification cannot continue (Link) It looks like we've set a precedent, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other countries reject it now. Would definitely be a good thing for us anyway.

free-man · 14-06-2008 1:24pm

amacachi wrote: »

I've been wondering about this point for a while, where do you draw the line on what to have a referendum on? Why elect politicians if we want to make every slight decision on a referendum?

Do you not agree that a change to your country's constitution mandates a referendum? Or is that far too unimportant for us ignorant cititzens to contemplate?

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 1:26pm

free-man wrote: »

"if its not this constitution..or a variation of it..(but).. in 2008 we'll come back to this, probably a slimmed down version and hopefully not too much change in the substance of what we agreed 3 years ago"

Why does he keep referring to the 'constitution'

Lisbon is based primarily on the former failed EU constitution. This clip must be from 2005-2006?

free-man wrote: »

"Lets not get hung up on the constitution name"
- I thought this was a treaty?
- Had they just changed the name to disallow referrendum in Holland?

It was perceived that one of the primary reasons for the rejection in France and Holland (apart from strong national political protest votes) was that having a constitution and an anthem and a flag were going too far as regards losing national independance. Therefore the provisions of the constitution were written into a treaty as changes had previously been.

free-man wrote: »

If the constitution is more or less the same why were we being asked to vote on a constitution that was already rejected?

Well we were not voting on the constitution but on it's replacement treaty. This treaty is mostly the same, but since it was the actual constitutional nature of the constitution that were a big objection for the public it's unfair to say it's unchanged.

free-man wrote: »

Why are other countries not being allowed vote on it when it is obvious from almost every comment on every major publications website that people WANT to vote on this 'treaty'?

I'm not sure if there are any actual surveys? Anyone got links. I think most EU citizens don't even know about Lisbon. The EU does not specify how states ratify treaties. The national governments decide and their public can vote them out if they disagreed. Some countries like Germany have made such referendums illegal due to Hitler's interference in the past.

free-man wrote: »

Why would I want to re-vote on something which we can do perfectly fine without?

There are a lot of positive aspects to Lisbon. I won't get into them here, but I would dispute that you can do perfectly well without. I will mention one. Lisbon would have put energy policy under Eu control so that we could negotiate with Russia as regards gas and get a better price and more reliability. Now we remain separate states negotiating.

free-man wrote: »

I would love someone to explain these simple concerns coherently

It's probably a bit late now!

Ix.

ixtlan · 14-06-2008 1:35pm

free-man wrote: »

Do you not agree that a change to your country's constitution mandates a referendum? Or is that far too unimportant for us ignorant cititzens to contemplate?

I agree a change to your constitution should mandate a referendum. However in some cases treaties can be agreed by states without affecting their constitution. It's not the case that any treaty does this. It depends on the provisions and on the nature of the state's constitution.

In the case of Lisbon for Ireland, it's actually uncertain whether a referendum was required. However that's a moot point because regardless of the legal position it's politically unacceptable to avoid a vote here.

In other countries it is considered acceptable to not have a vote. There will always be those who feel dis-enfranchised, it's true, but it's telling that those people are unable to garner wide-spread support for those views.

As I keep saying the EU is a victim of it's own success. Things are just too stable for the citizens to be much worried about what goes on, and the only concerns raised are about the future big brother, capitalist super-state. If you look at what we have now, there are few criticisms made of EU laws and regulations, and yet Sinn Fein, and others on the no side, opposed all of those changes in the past.

Ix.

djpbarry · 14-06-2008 1:39pm

zenno wrote: »

a complete revamp of the whole treaty document. it's a complete mess. no irish man/woman would vote for something that is unreadable which it is period.

So you've no idea what you want changed? That's what I thought, but thanks for clearing it up.

zenno wrote: »

...make the treaty readable in laymans terms and i'll concider it.

Expecting an international treaty between 27 countries to be written in layman's terms is simply not realistic.

free-man wrote: »

Why does he keep referring to the 'constitution'

Because he was asked about it?

free-man wrote: »

"Lets not get hung up on the constitution name"
- I thought this was a treaty?

The interview was conducted in March 2007; the Lisbon Treaty was not in existence at that time.

free-man wrote: »

Had they just changed the name to disallow referrendum in Holland?

All of this has already been explained numerous times in other threads, so I'm not going into too much detail. When the constitution was rejected in France and Netherlands, it was renegotiated as the Lisbon Treaty, taking into consideration the concerns of the French and the Dutch.

free-man wrote: »

If the constitution is more or less the same why were we being asked to vote on a constitution that was already rejected?

We were not voting on the constitution; our planned referendum to ratify the constitution was cancelled after it was rejected by the French and the Dutch.

EU Constitution ≠ Lisbon Treaty.

free-man wrote: »

Why are other countries not being allowed vote on it when it is obvious from almost every comment on every major publications website that people WANT to vote on this 'treaty'?

Again, this has already been discussed at length. There were some very small protests around Europe (that numbered about 100 people in total, if I remember correctly) with regard to the Treaty. But it's irrelevant; how other states ratify the treaty is entirely up to the states in question and has nothing to do with Ireland or the EU.

free-man wrote: »

Why would I want to re-vote on something which we can do perfectly fine without?

I don't know what you mean by that.

zenno · 14-06-2008 1:52pm

djpbarry wrote: »

So you've no idea what you want changed? That's what I thought, but thanks for clearing it up.
Expecting an international treaty between 27 countries to be written in layman's terms is simply not realistic.
Because he was asked about it?
The interview was conducted in March 2007; the Lisbon Treaty was not in existence at that time.
All of this has already been explained numerous times in other threads, so I'm not going into too much detail. When the constitution was rejected in France and Netherlands, it was renegotiated as the Lisbon Treaty, taking into consideration the concerns of the French and the Dutch.
We were not voting on the constitution; our planned referendum to ratify the constitution was cancelled after it was rejected by the French and the Dutch.

EU Constitution ≠ Lisbon Treaty.
Again, this has already been discussed at length. There were some very small protests around Europe (that numbered about 100 people in total, if I remember correctly) with regard to the Treaty. But it's irrelevant; how other states ratify the treaty is entirely up to the states in question and has nothing to do with Ireland or the EU.
I don't know what you mean by that.

are you blind. i just told you no one understands the full treaty how could you its not READABLE. you asked me what i would like changed and i gave you an answer. are you just fedup because there was a no vote ?. look i said i would consider voting yes as well as a lot of people if it was made readable. what gives

zenno · 14-06-2008 1:58pm

DJPBARRY:
you cannot expect the people of ireland to vote on a treaty that makes no sense. do you think just voting yes on that treaty will make everything ok. you seem to be uncautious as to what you vote on.

free-man · 14-06-2008 2:14pm

djpbarry wrote: »

All of this has already been explained numerous times in other threads, so I'm not going into too much detail. When the constitution was rejected in France and Netherlands, it was renegotiated as the Lisbon Treaty, taking into consideration the concerns of the French and the Dutch.
We were not voting on the constitution; our planned referendum to ratify the constitution was cancelled after it was rejected by the French and the Dutch.

EU Constitution ≠ Lisbon Treaty.

A few comments from government ministers which a quick google search turned up:

"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'."
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007

Why would they say this? Are they mistaken? Perhaps they didn't read the treaty and could not have been an authority on it? If so this begs the question, how could they lend weight to something they had not read.

djpbarry wrote: »

Again, this has already been discussed at length. There were some very small protests around Europe (that numbered about 100 people in total, if I remember correctly) with regard to the Treaty. But it's irrelevant; how other states ratify the treaty is entirely up to the states in question and has nothing to do with Ireland or the EU.

Would completely disagree - 100 people!! Every site I've come across has overwhelming support for Ireland's decision and anger at their government that they were not allowed to vote.

Some comments on the london times website:

A big thank you to the Irish.

I wonder what the Eu will call it next time?
Rob, Guildford, England

People don't like to be told how they should vote. The British media from the BBC on down are so convinced among themselves about anything European that they no longer even bother to debate it. I guess the Irish are normal in that they don't like anything shoved down their throat either.
Somak, Bangkok, Thailand

The Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty diminishes all the more the people of Britain who would overwhelmingly have also voted 'no' were they given the opportunity. No more should we say, nor feel, that we live in a democracy -- we don't.

Frank in Orpington

Frank Reilly, Orpington, England

Thank you Ireland! A great thanks from Denmark! The danish constitution was just about to disappear because of EU laws and our politicians wouldn't let us vote about it!
So here in Denmark we'll open bottles of champagne and praise our irish brothers and sisters!
Anders Gravers, Aalborg, Denmark

Yes there were negative comments too, but check for yourself on most sites across the globe the comments are overwhelmingly positive towards the Irish decision.

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 2:15pm

Rb wrote: »

The Irish Government would have to be thick to try and run another vote on this in the near future. People still aren't happy over what happened with the Nice Treaty afterall.

However, good news for us today, the Czech Republican President has said that the Treaty is dead and ratification cannot continue (Link) It looks like we've set a precedent, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other countries reject it now. Would definitely be a good thing for us anyway.

Not really, like the Poles the Czechs have been sold the dream of Europe and are spilt on whether it's good or bad. Election campaigns over the last few years haev invariably included Europe.

zenno · 14-06-2008 2:17pm

free-man wrote: »

A few comments from government ministers which a quick google search turned up:

"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution'."
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007

Why would they say this? Are they mistaken? Perhaps they didn't read the treaty and could not have been an authority on it? If so this begs the question, how could they lend weight to something they had not read.

Would completely disagree - 100 people!! Every site I've come across has overwhelming support for Ireland's decision and anger at their government that they were not allowed to vote.

Some comments on the london times website:
A big thank you to the Irish.

I wonder what the Eu will call it next time?
Rob, Guildford, England
People don't like to be told how they should vote. The British media from the BBC on down are so convinced among themselves about anything European that they no longer even bother to debate it. I guess the Irish are normal in that they don't like anything shoved down their throat either.
Somak, Bangkok, Thailand
The Irish vote against the Lisbon Treaty diminishes all the more the people of Britain who would overwhelmingly have also voted 'no' were they given the opportunity. No more should we say, nor feel, that we live in a democracy -- we don't.

Frank in Orpington

Frank Reilly, Orpington, England
Thank you Ireland! A great thanks from Denmark! The danish constitution was just about to disappear because of EU laws and our politicians wouldn't let us vote about it!
So here in Denmark we'll open bottles of champagne and praise our irish brothers and sisters!
Anders Gravers, Aalborg, Denmark

Yes there were negative comments too, but check for yourself on most sites across the globe the comments are overwhelmingly positive towards the Irish decision.

here here

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 2:19pm

free-man wrote: »

Why would they say this? Are they mistaken? Perhaps they didn't read the treaty and could not have been an authority on it? If so this begs the question, how could they lend weight to something they had not read.

If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it and write it all out again differently? Cowen's comment was asking for trouble, in an environment where people were looking for reasons to vote no, whether he was there or not at the negotiations.

zenno · 14-06-2008 2:23pm

is_that_so wrote: »

If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it and write it all out again differently? Cowen's comment was asking for trouble, in an environment where people were looking for reasons to vote no, whether he was there or not at the negotiations.

"If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it." at least a thesis will make sense i cant understand how you and a very small amount of other people can say such a stupid thing. have you even read the whole treaty ?

free-man · 14-06-2008 2:31pm

is_that_so wrote: »

If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it and write it all out again differently? Cowen's comment was asking for trouble, in an environment where people were looking for reasons to vote no, whether he was there or not at the negotiations.

Why bother writing it out again at all? The public have voted, can this not be the final decision. It is clear that each time it is put to the electorate is it greeted unfavourably.

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 2:31pm

zenno wrote: »

"If you are not altogether happy with a large document like a thesis do you just scrap it." at least a thesis will make sense i cant understand how you and a very small amount of other people can say such a stupid thing. have you even read the whole treaty ?

The point I am making here is about the process of writing something. If 95% is not contentious or you are happy with it why throw it out. And yes I have read some of the treaty , not all of it yet, but working my way slowly through it.

zenno · 14-06-2008 2:34pm

I wish you luck

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 2:36pm

free-man wrote: »

Why bother writing it out again at all? The public have voted, can this not be the final decision. It is clear that each time it is put to the electorate is it greeted unfavourably.

We gave our negotiators a mandate and we basked in the glow of Bertie's success when he managed to get the core of a deal together on the Constitution ;that 95% ,but now it's bad?

As regards Lisbon II there seems to be little appetite for any renegotiating or rewriting and some other mechanism may be found to fix it.

Call Me Jimmy · 14-06-2008 2:47pm

The thing is, when we vote no to a big treaty like this the problem doesn't just go away, it's not that simple. When everyone else seems to want to push ahead it leaves us in limbo in our current situation. The no campaigners were asking for a better deal and if they want that to happen then yes there has to be a lisbon II.

Lisbon I is over, roll on Lisbon II...

Comments