Lisbon Treaty

[pete]

As the chance of us being attacked is relatively low these days, this "assistance" applies in reality (as with everything else in the treaty) to the big states getting attacked. We don't have the resources, and now the money, to help them.

If the changes of us being attacked are relatively low could the same not be said of our EU neighbours?

That said we have never been purely neutral anyway. We have always been less neutral on the allies or US/Western sides.

I presume you know my "mock" quote above was tongue in cheek even if no similie... ;)

[dahamsta]

i prob wont vote, i have had some second doubts on lisbonThat doesn't make sense, if you have doubts about legislation, you should vote against it. Otherwise it risks getting in by default. Either that or take the time to educate yourself better about it.

You should always vote, no matter how frustrating it is (and yes, it's very frustrating). Even a spoil is better than no vote at all.

adam

[HomeBrewPlease]

http://eirigisligeach.blogspot.com/2009/06/eirigi-attack-plans-for-lisbon-2.html


Sligo éirígí activist Gerry Casey has condemned the decision by Brian Cowen’s administration to hold a re-run of the Lisbon Treaty referendum, which was democratically rejected last year.

Casey said the decision exposes the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the European Union and the contempt with which the political establishments in both Dublin and Brussels view the Irish people.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LbqE5AY0hqM/SkDkJF87WjI/AAAAAAAAAJw/999NCo4rknQ/s1600-h/Vote+no+to+lisbon.jpg

He said: “By ignoring the democratic decision of the Irish people last June to reject the Lisbon Treaty and by their decision to re-run the exact same referendum in October, the EU and the Brian Cowen’s administration have shown yet again the utter contempt with which they view the Irish people and the notion of democracy. From the time this Treaty was voted down, nothing whatsoever has been changed in it. Not a single paragraph, not a single word. The referendum the Irish people are being forced to vote for later this year will be exactly the same as that which they rejected last year.”

He added: “The so-called declarations and guarantees being given on certain issues are a red herring. They are meaningless and will have no legal force whatsoever as they will not be part of the Treaty itself. As such, they will not override the actual content of the Treaty. To put it simply, they will be meaningless political promises from untrustworthy politicians at both European and national level."

“Once again, this administration are attempting to bulldoze through, using a combination of coercion and deceit, a treaty that will further increase the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the EU. A vote for the Lisbon Treaty will further erode this state’s sovereignty, speeding up moves towards the creation of an EU super-state. The Treaty will see a further abandonment of the state’s neutrality as the militarisation of the EU will substantially increase, with moves towards an EU army intensifying and the establishment in the Treaty of the so-called mutual defence pact."

“The Treaty also continues to promote the right-wing ideology of greed over need, of privatisation and is fundamentally anti-worker, with negative consequences for the rights of workers, rights which need to be strengthened, not diminished. These are the very policies and values that have created the economic recession that we are currently in, that has led to massive unemployment, wage reductions, income levies and cuts in essential public services, such as health and education. For Irish workers to vote for Lisbon would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.”

Casey concluded: “Cowen and his colleagues have completely ignored the concerns of the Irish people over the Treaty. They have failed to secure any changes to it because they never once sought any changes to it. But Cowen and his cronies in Leinster House and in Brussels need to understand quite clearly that when we said No, we meant No. What part of No do these people not understand?”

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LbqE5AY0hqM/SkDkJF87WjI/AAAAAAAAAJw/999NCo4rknQ/s1600-h/Vote+no+to+lisbon.jpg

[pete]

Never heard of Sligo éirígí activist Gerry Casey so after bit of googling I see he is part of Socialist Republician fringe far left group. Main "policies" just seem to anti-British & as I have never heard of before I guess represent a very small minority of people given there is no evidence of even local council seats.

Vote No to Europe as the EU caused the Irish recession seems to be the summary. It is fairly clear that blog is anti-EU & not just anti-Lisbon.

[John83]

I'm pretty sure he's wrong on the guarantees having no legal force too.

[dahamsta]

I've only heard one person comment on the legality, and their argument was one of precendent, specifally referring to the Danes. It's essentially a gentleman's agreement as far as I can tell, which is about as trustworthy as a handshake or "verbal contract". I'm pretty sure the person that was commenting wasn't a lawyer either.

I don't trust the eurocrats and their treaty. I wonder why that might be.

adam

[HomeBrewPlease]

I'm pretty sure he's wrong on the guarantees having no legal force too.

Actually you are incorrect John. Unless they are included in the treaty itself, which they are not, then the guarantees have as much legal force as a politicians pre-election promise

[John83]

Actually you are incorrect John. Unless they are included in the treaty itself, which they are not, then the guarantees have as much legal force as a politicians pre-election promise
I was thinking of this article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0618/breaking54.htm


Spelling out the "requirement", Mr Cowen wrote that "what I ... require is a clear and unequivocal commitment that at a future point after the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the legal guarantees contained in the decision will be attached to the EU treaties by way of a protocol."Of course, there are fudges there - "at a future point" and "commitment" aren't "immediately" and "legal guarantee" - but it does seem like they would carry that weight if Cowen gets what he's asking for there.

[Sheridan]

Cowen was perfectly satisfied with the treaty as it was. What possible motivation would he have to chase down that meaningless "commitment" once he gets his way and the treaty is passed?

[John83]

Cowen was perfectly satisfied with the treaty as it was. What possible motivation would he have to chase down that meaningless "commitment" once he gets his way and the treaty is passed?
Votes. He's not exactly sitting on impressive polls at the moment.

[dahamsta]

For the record, that's what happened with the Danes, however it's important to point out that they weren't attached to the Maastricht Treaty, they were attached to another, later treaty. That's what the Irish Government is looking for here, in what has been described as a "belt and braces" approach. The problem being that the belt has no notches and is thus useless, and the braces are in the post from North Korea.

TBH, my time as a supporter of Europe is nearly at an end. While I believe in the concept in much the same way I believe in the concept of true socialism, I don't think it can work in practice. The communists ruined socialism with their greed for more and more power, and that's exactly what the eurocrats are doing to Europe. I don't think we should leave Europe, I don't think there's anything to be gained by it in the short to medium term, and I do think that the petty eurocrats would do everything in their power to truly shaft us.

I don't think Europe has the balls to throw us out either though, for many reasons including the accessions. So I think we should just plain do what we damned well please, including borrowing as much as a we damned well need to get ourselves out of this recession properly, and giving two figers to the EU when they wave their finger at us about it.

Either way, if Lisbon goes through, my support of the EU project is over.

adam

[HomeBrewPlease]

I was thinking of this article:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0618/breaking54.htm

Of course, there are fudges there - "at a future point" and "commitment" aren't "immediately" and "legal guarantee" - but it does seem like they would carry that weight if Cowen gets what he's asking for there.


The only way they would be legal would be for them to be part of a treaty. For that to happen we are dependent on the word of not just Cowen and the Irish government but also all the other governments in the EU who would also have to agree down the road to include those necessary protocols. To be honest they cannot be trusted to do so.

Do you remember Fianna Fáil's commitment to hold a referendum before allowing Ireland join NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP)? That promise wasn't long going into the bin was it?

Bottom line is, if it's not in the treaty then it has no legal standing and as I already said, it is as relaiable as a politicians pre-election promise. In other words, it is not in any way reliable

[John83]

For the record, that's what happened with the Danes, however it's important to point out that they weren't attached to the Maastricht Treaty, they were attached to another, later treaty. That's what the Irish Government is looking for here, in what has been described as a "belt and braces" approach. The problem being that the belt has no notches and is thus useless, and the braces are in the post from North Korea.
I'm not convinced the guarantees are worth much anyway - much of it seems to be grandstanding to appease the kind of people who voted no to stop the EU army conscripting their sons. Perhaps I've missed something there, and there actually is some value to them.

At any rate, none of this is going to change my "We already voted no to this, you undemocratic *******" no vote.

[Sheridan]

Votes don't come into it. Once the referendum is out of the way, the issue can be put off and spun indefinitely, or at least until the Croatian accession treaty. That gives FF plenty of time to sweep it under the carpet. In any case, FF is now so firmly ensconced in the back pockets of the neoliberal lobby that it has abandoned its previous populism (witness the imminent slashing of social welfare.) The know that come election time, a lot of yokels will still be stupid enough to vote for them.

[HomeBrewPlease]

What instructions did the electorate give Cowan, other than they didn't understand the Treaty?


They rejected the treaty. They voted NO.

There were two choices - Yes or No. They chose No.

Nowhere on the ballot paper did I see an option that said

No- I dont understand it or

No- but please ask me the exact same question again next year

Did you?

[micls]

A No vote shouldnt automatically mean it can't be brought forward again...

And in light of this we should definitely get a second bash of the general election this year as we clearly got that one wrong too......

[HomeBrewPlease]

A No vote shouldnt automatically mean it can't be brought forward again...

Even though it is the exact same question? So if we voted yes this time should we have another go - best out of three sort of thing?

Perhaps the government could have told us all that the result of the first referendum wouldnt count anyway before we voted and we could have just stayed at home and waited for the second one before wasting our energy getting up and going out to vote



I don't think Europe has the balls to throw us out either though, for many reasons including the accessions.

They can't throw us out anyway

[dahamsta]

HBP, if you read all of micls post, you'd see that it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Is your statement in response to me wishful thinking or is there a legal reason?

[GavinZac]

Perhaps the government could have told us all that the result of the first referendum wouldnt count anyway before we voted and we could have just stayed at home and waited for the second one before wasting our energy getting up and going out to voteOr the government could try to identify the issues the people had with the treaty, check if they were valid complaints, go get confirmation that they were not, and then present the treaty properly a second time with less misinformation possible?

Thank feck we don't live in a country where we can't have second goes at referenda. Imagine how embarrassing it'd be to live in a nation where we're still living on a 2:1 decision by our parents to ban divorce!

[HomeBrewPlease]

Gavin, if it's a yes vote this time, do you think there should be a third one as a decider?

[GavinZac]

Gavin, if it's a yes vote this time, do you think there should be a third one as a decider?

Referenda to change the constitution (thats what this is, to change the constitution to add a line "we accept the lisbon treaty") are brought by representatives of the people as bills by the members of the Dáil and/or Seanad. If this referendum was passed, another referedum could reverse the decision by removing the line. If the majority support for No was there as you say it is, any party willing to bring such a Bill (to remove the ammendment) before the Dáil and thus the irish people would receive majority support. That's a fairly tasty carrot to wave in front of Fine Gael, Labour or Sinn Fein. If a Yes vote occurs, I wouldn't rule out one of those parties adopting that very stance.

Referenda are there to poll the opinions of the voters at any one time. If the majority want a yes, it will place the ammendment into the constitution until the majority want it removed.

It's a fairly simple process when you think about it. Obviously not suited to flipping a coin though or where-ever you got the the best of three idea. Certainly not from precedence as the Nice and Divorce referenda show.

[dahamsta]

I don't have a problem with referendum reruns, as long as there's a reasonable amount of time between them. I reckon 5 years is a reasonable period of time.

[GavinZac]

I don't have a problem with referendum reruns, as long as there's a reasonable amount of time between them. I reckon 5 years is a reasonable period of time.

Surely "when the circumstances have changed/are clarified" is pretty apt? I mean, what harm is another re-run? If you were asked to vote on it once a week your opinion of its implications would hardly change?

[dahamsta]

You think these things run for free, and we and our "representatives" haven't got better things to do with our and their time?

[GavinZac]

You think these things run for free, and we and our "representatives" haven't got better things to do with our and their time?

Well yeah, once a week assumes they've got some new perspective on the issue once a week. Our elected "representatives" ( :confused: ) don't work that fast.

[dahamsta]

Be honest with you GZ, I don't even know what you're talking about any more.

[mypost]

Referenda are there to poll the opinions of the voters at any one time. If the majority want a yes, it will place the ammendment into the constitution until the majority want it removed.

With the EU referendums however, the majority don't get to remove a Yes vote. It's made in stone. With Lisbon, the question asked in the Autumn is the exact same as the one last year. The fact we're having another referendum on the exact same document is Rule 1 of Mugabe-style politics. "You didn't do what we told you to do, now you'll do it again" :mad:

As for the sham guarantees that came as a result of the government's "research", I would like to know on what basis were the findings taken from. If it was solely the Irish Times, then clearly the government hasn't learned the lessons from the last referendum.

Listen to the (No voter) electorate, not the (Pro-Lisbon) papers.

[HomeBrewPlease]

Surely "when the circumstances have changed/are clarified" is pretty apt? I mean, what harm is another re-run? If you were asked to vote on it once a week your opinion of its implications would hardly change?

Nothing has changed. Exact same Treaty that was already rejected. Exact same referendum once again.

And since you seem to support re-running referenda, if it's a yes vote this time, do you think there should be a third one as a decider?

Oh and there was 9 years between the two divorce referenda.

[pete]

Has anyone here changed his/her mind since the last Referendum? I can't see many people who vote Yes the last time deciding the vote No because we are running a second Referendum.

Even though I will vote Yes again I think Cowans legal guarantees highlight the government incompetence in negotiating the first Treaty.

I can understand why some people are wary of the EU political union but are there any specific issues?

[Dodge]

As for the sham guarantees that came as a result of the government's "research", I would like to know on what basis were the findings taken from. If it was solely the Irish Times, then clearly the government hasn't learned the lessons from the last referendum.

Listen to the (No voter) electorate, not the (Pro-Lisbon) papers.

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=81464

Full report there.

[The Ref]

I voted No in the last referendum, and will do so again. A lot of my friends did so also, but on a recent night out, a number of them said they will vote Yes, not because of the guarantees or that their opinion has changed, but to paraphrase "they have been bullied". Vote No again, and the Government will keep running this off until they get the result we want.

Democracy at its best!

[John83]

I voted No in the last referendum, and will do so again. A lot of my friends did so also, but on a recent night out, a number of them said they will vote Yes, not because of the guarantees or that their opinion has changed, but to paraphrase "they have been bullied". Vote No again, and the Government will keep running this off until they get the result we want.

Democracy at its best!
Two quotes come to mind.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Einstein.

"No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." - H. L. Mencken

[HomeBrewPlease]

Referenda to change the constitution (thats what this is, to change the constitution to add a line "we accept the lisbon treaty") are brought by representatives of the people as bills by the members of the Dáil and/or Seanad. If this referendum was passed, another referedum could reverse the decision by removing the line. If the majority support for No was there as you say it is, any party willing to bring such a Bill (to remove the ammendment) before the Dáil and thus the irish people would receive majority support. That's a fairly tasty carrot to wave in front of Fine Gael, Labour or Sinn Fein. If a Yes vote occurs, I wouldn't rule out one of those parties adopting that very stance.

Referenda are there to poll the opinions of the voters at any one time. If the majority want a yes, it will place the ammendment into the constitution until the majority want it removed.

It's a fairly simple process when you think about it. Obviously not suited to flipping a coin though or where-ever you got the the best of three idea. Certainly not from precedence as the Nice and Divorce referenda show.

A long answer but you stil didnt actually answer what I asked you. If their was a yes vote this time, would you support the government holding another referenudm on the issue? Yes or no would suffice?

I dont support a best of three or best of five or whatever, but the government dont seem to like the idea of people voting the way they didnt want them to vote and seem intent on keeping holding referenda until they vote the "right way".

Do you seriously think that if there had been a yes vote last year, that the government would be holding a second referendum? Can you tell me any referendum that the government held and that they won, where they went back and re ran the exact same referendum within 12 - 18 months of doing so?

They never even held the promised referendum into joining Partnership for Peace that they promised. They cannot be trusted and promises from them and european bureaucrats dressed up as "legal guarantees" cannot be trusted either.

[pete]

A long answer but you stil didnt actually answer what I asked you. If their was a yes vote this time, would you support the government holding another referenudm on the issue? Yes or no would suffice?.

I'll answer that. I think should keep trying. As long as the Dail/government wants to keep trying that is their right. If the people don't like that will be ejected at the next General Election.

Call it bullying or whatever but in these times Ireland cannot lose ist influence in the EU. We might need a bailout from someone in the next couple fo years if cannot raise billions on the money markets. We have no right to an EU bailout but if we give them what they want will have earned some loyalty points. An EU bailout is so much more preferable that an IMF bailout.

[mypost]

"they have been bullied".

http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/paulnutz.jpg


We might need a bailout from someone in the next couple for years if cannot raise billions on the money markets. We have no right to an EU bailout but if we give them what they want will have earned some loyalty points. An EU bailout is so much more preferable that an IMF bailout.

Whether it passes or not, this country is economically screwed for the next 5 years at least. A very rough budget is still coming in in the winter. Passing Lisbon won't make that any easier. The Lisbon Treaty is not a financial goldmine, it is "to streamline decision-making in the EU" :rolleyes:

As regards EU bailouts, any financial aid that we're entitled to, we'll get. We are an EU member, and as such we can't be refused it, (e.g. Pork crisis) much as Brussels would like to refuse it.

This is the last referendum on the treaty, pre-UK election. When they reject it, they won't be isolated in Brussels and neither will we. No is our first and final answer.

[HomeBrewPlease]

I'll answer that. I think should keep trying. As long as the Dail/government wants to keep trying that is their right. If the people don't like that will be ejected at the next General Election.

Call it bullying or whatever but in these times Ireland cannot lose ist influence in the EU. We might need a bailout from someone in the next couple fo years if cannot raise billions on the money markets. We have no right to an EU bailout but if we give them what they want will have earned some loyalty points. An EU bailout is so much more preferable that an IMF bailout.

So why bother holding referenda in the first place?

Why do they not just tell us up front before wasting our time going out to vote, instead of pretending that there is some sort of democratic process at work or that the democratic wishes of people would be respected, that regardless of how we vote, they will ignore us and keep holding one until we do as they say?

[mypost]

In Brussels, democracy only works when the political class get the answer they want. It used to work in the Eastern bloc, until the people rose up against it. The "job for life" that they had didn't matter to them. They wanted to decide their own future, and many died in order to get it.

It's striking to me, that in the same week as Iranians were risking their lives so that their choice should be respected, the Irish government in Brussels were actively trying to rig the outcome of the next referendum, by declaring that we will have the "financial tools" to get out of the recession, should it be passed. Funny that, as none of the countries that passed it have them.

Not a single Euro, nor a single job will come here as a result of passing Lisbon. On the day of the vote, people must realise that and vote accordingly.

[Dodge]

Did you just compare the Lisbon referendum to the Iranian elctions?

Seriously?!?

[OneRedArmy]

Since this thread is clearly into covering old ground territory I'd like to re-iterate that we are living with the consequences of a completely flawed Supreme Court decision on the definition of a constitutional amendment in respect of EU treaties.

The evidence for this:
1) we voted No for spurious reasons
2) we're likely to vote Yes for equally spurious reasons.

There is something fundamentally wrong in putting legislation that the average person cannot (either through lack of effort or intelligence) understand.

The "concessions" the Government have gotten may us look, frankly, like thickos.

This isn't just about the Lisbon Treaty, it's a symptom of decades of bad Government and worse judiciary.

[John83]

There is something fundamentally wrong in putting legislation that the average person cannot (either through lack of effort or intelligence) understand.
I agree. I think it's ridiculous that the details covered by Lisbon are even in a treaty, much less a referendum. I think there should be a simple, clear treaty strictly defining the powers of the EU, and this should be the only document we ever vote on. The gritty details can be left to bureaucrats.

[HomeBrewPlease]

I agree. I think it's ridiculous that the details covered by Lisbon are even in a treaty, much less a referendum. I think there should be a simple, clear treaty strictly defining the powers of the EU, and this should be the only document we ever vote on. The gritty details can be left to bureaucrats.

Why should they? Those "gritty details" as you put it effect our everyday lives. People should have far more of a say than at present, not less like you are suggesting

[dahamsta]

I don't really understand why anyone would complain about plain-englishing legislation.

[pete]

Why should they? Those "gritty details" as you put it effect our everyday lives. People should have far more of a say than at present, not less like you are suggesting

We don't have much say in domestic issues so why would the EU be any different. Until the 90s Refendums were very rare & even the ones we have had not many were important.

Re-running Treaties is not reserved for EU version as we have had 3 successfully & 2 unsuccessful Referendums on various issues related to abortion. Possibly the best issue to show that voters don't want to discuss & happy to let politicians decide.

[mypost]

We don't have much say in domestic issues so why would the EU be any different. Until the 90s Refendums were very rare & even the ones we have had not many were important.

We have 3 or 4 or them per decade. In 83 and 86 there were abortion and divorce referendums, in 92 we had the abortion, Maastricht , Amsterdam, and GF agreement. Since then, there has been another abortion ref, a citizens ref, and 4 EU treaty referendums.

Unlike other states, we don't have a parliamentary democracy, we have a constitutional democracy, with a constitution that is very strong. That will be torn up however, if Lisbon is passed. Lisbon is the EU Constitution, and as such supersedes all national constitutions.

[John83]

Why should they? Those "gritty details" as you put it effect our everyday lives. People should have far more of a say than at present, not less like you are suggesting
Really? I could call for a show of hands damn near anywhere in the country, see who has read the whole treaty and understands the context of every line, who understands the structure, powers and voting procedure of the institutions which will be affected by it. I'd get a crowd of full pockets. That's not helpful or democratic. The Lisbon referendum was sold to people as necessary structural change, but there was more to it than that, and it's not right that people are bullied into granting the EU powers under the false flag of necessary structural change.

[HomeBrewPlease]

pete
We don't have much say in domestic issues so why would the EU be any different. Until the 90s Refendums were very rare & even the ones we have had not many were important.

I wasn't just referring to the EU. Same goes for domestically. Though bad and all as this country's politicians may be at least we get the chance to vote for them at some point, unlike the decision makers in Brussels.

pete
Re-running Treaties is not reserved for EU version as we have had 3 successfully & 2 unsuccessful Referendums on various issues related to abortion.

The abortion referenda were years apart and were not all the exact same referenda as is happening in this case.

[HomeBrewPlease]

Really? I could call for a show of hands damn near anywhere in the country, see who has read the whole treaty and understands the context of every line, who understands the structure, powers and voting procedure of the institutions which will be affected by it. I'd get a crowd of full pockets. That's not helpful or democratic. The Lisbon referendum was sold to people as necessary structural change, but there was more to it than that, and it's not right that people are bullied into granting the EU powers under the false flag of necessary structural change.

I agree with you over the governments lying to people over this referendum. They are doing so again. Micheál Martin has a big piece in the Sligo Champion this week, riddled with lies. This is the EU constitution that was already rejected by some other country's voters that they are trying to force through. They are not to be trusted or believed

So you dont believe people should have more of a say and control over decisions effecting them?

[John83]

So you dont believe people should have more of a say and control over decisions effecting them?
I think that it's more important that the broad strokes be clearly understood and agreed upon by the citizens.

The fine details are understood by so few people that putting them to referenda does more harm than good.

[HomeBrewPlease]

I think that it's more important that the broad strokes be clearly understood and agreed upon by the citizens.

The fine details are understood by so few people that putting them to referenda does more harm than good.

But you could use that argument also to abolish elections. How many people know the intimate details and policies and how they willl effect the economy etc of each candidate and party they vote for?

[OneRedArmy]

I don't really understand why anyone would complain about plain-englishing legislation.By all means have plain English explanations of legislation, but the legislation itself is complex for a reason. If you want to change that, you're pretty much going to have to go back to Adam and Eve and start from scratch.

There seems to be an argument building that if legislation is too complicated for the average man to understand, it's bad legislation. Rightly or wrongly, we are way beyond that. Issues like banking and insurance, food safety, competition etc. are all much too specialist for most of the population to understand, yet we entrust people to draft and enact them, knowing full well they impact our daily lives.

Getting back to the point at hand, we made a decision in the 70s to throw our lot in with Europe. We should let our Government legislate the detail under this as they see fit, whilst allowing the people of Ireland to revisit, through referenda,the original constitutional amendment i.e. The simple question of our membership of the EU.