Lisbon Treaty

[d13bohs]

How many were subject to a referendum? They were all ratified by national parliaments where the result was guaranteed.


There were four referenda on the Constitutional Treaty; Spain, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands. We don't hear too much about upholding the democratically expressed will of the people of Spain and Luxembourg though!

[GavinZac]

There were four referenda on the Constitutional Treaty; Spain, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands. We don't hear too much about upholding the democratically expressed will of the people of Spain and Luxembourg though!

Luxembourg are one of the countries we can look down upon whilst still playing the "we're a small island nation" card.

[John83]

There were four referenda on the Constitutional Treaty; Spain, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands. We don't hear too much about upholding the democratically expressed will of the people of Spain and Luxembourg though!
What does that even mean? It's like complaining about the poor deal FG voters get. That constitution was rejected according to current EU treaties. That should be the end of it.

[GavinZac]

What does that even mean? It's like complaining about the poor deal FG voters get. That constitution was rejected according to current EU treaties. That should be the end of it.

The only countries that rejected the Constitution were France and Holland. That sort of majoritarian elitism is bad, and protected against in the Lisbon Treaty which ensures that at least four countries have to back a proposal for it to pass. Those federalist No campaigners want France to make all our decisions for us!

[John83]

The only countries that rejected the Constitution were France and Holland. That sort of majoritarian elitism is bad, and protected against in the Lisbon Treaty which ensures that at least four countries have to back a proposal for it to pass. Those federalist No campaigners want France to make all our decisions for us!
Yes, and equally, those imperialist Yes campaigners want disguise to accustom counter-revolution.

A more flexible voting system would be good, but the current system exists for a reason, and it's not the EU's place to undermine it by rerunning votes until it gets the desired result.

[d13bohs]

Yes, and equally, those imperialist Yes campaigners want disguise to accustom counter-revolution.

A more flexible voting system would be good, but the current system exists for a reason, and it's not the EU's place to undermine it by rerunning votes until it gets the desired result.

To be honest, having read the Lisbon Treaty, I think it shouldn't even go to a referendum. From reading the Crotty v An Taoiseach case in 1987 where it was first held that, where there was a major transfer of power to the EU in a treaty going outside the areas in which we were already party to, a referendum would be required to ratify it. However, a large part of that judgment which is often disregarded set out the other areas of the 1986 Single European Act (SEA) which would NOT have required a referendum (as follows):

"(1) Changes which are proposed in the decision-making process of the Council in six instances from unanimity to a qualified majority were asserted to be an unauthorised surrender of sovereignty.



(2) The power given to the Council by unanimous decision at the request of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the European Court) to attach to it a court of first instance with an appeal from the latter on questions of law to the European Court was said to be an unauthorised surrender of the judicial power.



(3) It is submitted that Article 20 dealing with cooperation in economic and monetary policy, Article 21 dealing with social policy, Article 23 dealing with economic and social cohesion, Article 24 dealing with research and technological development, and Article 25 dealing with the environment, all add new objectives to the Treaty of Rome which make them additions to the original Treaty which are outside the existing constitutional authorisation.



(4) It is submitted that powers granted to the Council by Articles 18 and 21 of the SEA would enable it by a qualified majority to direct the approximation of laws concerning the provision of services and concerning the working environment, health and safety of workers which amount to new powers outside the existing constitutional authorisation and which could encroach on existing guarantees of fundamental rights under the Constitution. "

It was held that the only issue that required a referendum in the Crotty case was the fact that the Ecomonic Community was branching out into a Political Community by having a new role in foreign policy.

There is nothing anywhere near as significant as that in the Lisbon Treaty which moves outside of existing EU policies and in my view, the changes proposed are more in line with the changes in the SEA pasted above which were held NOT to require a referendum.

To those who argue that its anti-democratic to ratify Lisbon through parliament, we elect politicians to enact all sorts of legislation, provided its constitutional, why not this?

The whole problem with this treaty is the title given to its predecessor (the Constitutional Treaty). It was never actually a constitution but due to the vanity of Valery Giscaird D'Estaing, its chief architect, he wanted to make his treaty sound more significant than it actually was.

(Apologies for probably boring the pants off everyone else on this thread!) :o :o

[John83]

To be honest
{snip}
Sweet mother of God - an informed, considered opinion. What the hell are you doing here?

[d13bohs]

Sweet mother of God - an informed, considered opinion. What the hell are you doing here?


Sorry, I meant 'vote yes or else we're all very bad Europeans' or something...:o Must have been a typo :D

[mypost]

Those federalist No campaigners want France to make all our decisions for us!

:confused: :rolleyes:

That's the result of a Yes vote.

[Dodge]

With all yes/no referenda, that will be the case. It happened with abortion, divorce, Nice, immigration, etc, and here as well.

Not true. Abortion & divorce were argued generally on facts. Immigration a little bit less so. The problem with Nice and Lisbon is that most people don't think it will have any effect on them so allow politicians to argue amongst themselves using the usual huff and bluff tactics.

I voted too lazy in the above poll.

[GavinZac]

:confused: :rolleyes:

That's the result of a Yes vote.

But you're telling us we have to do as France and Holland say, even if the rest of the EU demands differently. You've repeated this ad nauseum.

The Treaty writes 'in stone' that any 3 countries, even if they are France, Germany and the UK (who constitute 2/5ths of the Union's population, as much as all the other countries except Italy put together), cannot push through a motion on their own.

Between politicians gaining by losing power, and having to do as big countries say so that we don't have to do what big countries say about a referendum that stops us from having to do what big countries say... the 'Níl' motion seems a bit confused. Perhaps they're a bit in a tizzy after that whole business with the gun running.

[mypost]

But you're telling us we have to do as France and Holland say, even if the rest of the EU demands differently. You've repeated this ad nauseum.

The people in Europe in general don't want this, that's why it was rejected in two referendums, and would have been rejected in several more if there was the opportunity. But there wasn't. All 26 countries who have "ratified" this joke have done it through parliament, where the outcome was rigged according to party allegiance. Politicians, not people want this, and it's people not politicians who will have to deal with the inevitable uproar and animosity down the line, when the full effects of it are felt.

[jebus]

The people voted in the politicians, they should have questioned where their chosen politician stood on this question before giving them their preference, hence the people are either for this, or incapable of making an informed decision. So if the politicians ratify it then it is the will of the people, if it isn't they will be shown the door at the next local/national elections in said country. There isn't a politician on this planet that would commit career suicide by going completely against the electorate on an issue as important as this one, so I don't see how you can say the majority are against this

[TonyD]

Remember what happened when the electorate voted no in the Nice referendum ? "Um, sorry folks, wrong answer, try again."

[jebus]

Remember what happened when the electorate voted no in the Nice referendum ? "Um, sorry folks, wrong answer, try again."

That's democracy though, here's a thinly veiled smokescreen that masks what we the fat cats want to happen, just deal with it! :)

[mypost]

The people voted in the politicians, they should have questioned where their chosen politician stood on this question before giving them their preference. So if the politicians ratify it then it is the will of the people, if it isn't they will be shown the door at the next local/national elections in said country.

In most countries, there haven't been elections since the thing was signed in Lisbon. Politicians don't listen to their electorate, they make decisions that best serve the people in their eyes, whether that is the case or not.


Remember what happened when the electorate voted no in the Nice referendum ? "Um, sorry folks, wrong answer, try again."

This age-old argument keeps been brought up. :rolleyes: We have done well out of Nice, whereas this offers us no benefit at all.

[GavinZac]

In most countries, there haven't been elections since the thing was signed in Lisbon. Politicians don't listen to their electorate, they make decisions that best serve the people in their eyes, whether that is the case or not.

I wouldn't advise you ever to enter politics; sounds like it'd be a shortlived career.

[jebus]

In most countries, there haven't been elections since the thing was signed in Lisbon. Politicians don't listen to their electorate, they make decisions that best serve the people in their eyes, whether that is the case or not.

Politicians will have sent feelers out to test the mood of the people towards this, if people are as against it as you seem to believe then they will realise that they will not be re-elected in the next elections.

People should still have asked their politician what their policy towards Europe was in their last elections, it's not like this has been sprung out of nowhere

[micls]

Remember what happened when the electorate voted no in the Nice referendum ? "Um, sorry folks, wrong answer, try again."

And what did people do?Voted it through. If people were that bothered they'd just have voted No again.

[GavinZac]

Remember what happened when the electorate voted no in the Nice referendum ? "Um, sorry folks, wrong answer, try again."

"Er, sorry for the confusion folks, we'll write an extra little bit that addresses your concerns about neutrality, and then if that wording suits, we can have another bash off it?"

Even though the EU has constantly bent over to let us assert our neutrality whilst benefiting from security, it is again being raised as an issue in this referendum, despite explicit confirmation of our neutrality. In America they call that "Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)

[mypost]

Politicians will have sent feelers out to test the mood of the people towards this, if people are as against it as you seem to believe then they will realise that they will not be re-elected in the next elections.

There is opposition to this treaty from the 5 main parties. They're all in favour of it, so there's no alternative to vote for.


People should still have asked their politician what their policy towards Europe was in their last elections, it's not like this has been sprung out of nowhere

The public in Ballyremote are more interested in whether their local TD turns up at the GAA club's dinner dance than what his stance on Lisbon is. Some of them probably don't know where Lisbon is. :rolleyes:

[GavinZac]

There is opposition to this treaty from the 5 main parties. They're all in favour of it, so there's no alternative to vote for.
You could vote for the shinners. I'd imagine that's where your vote will go next time, I'd be disgusted if the party i supported was so blatantly in favour of something i was against.

[jebus]

The public in Ballyremote are more interested in whether their local TD turns up at the GAA club's dinner dance than what his stance on Lisbon is. Some of them probably don't know where Lisbon is. :rolleyes:

Then tough cookies to them when the EuroPolice come calling for their first born (isn't that what Sinn Fein and Libertas maintain will happen if the Yes vote win?)

[mypost]

You could vote for the shinners. I'd imagine that's where your vote will go next time.

Wrong again :rolleyes:

I don't have allegiance to any party, and will vote according to my views on the issues concerned.

[micls]

Then tough cookies to them when the EuroPolice come calling for their first born (isn't that what Sinn Fein and Libertas maintain will happen if the Yes vote win?)

Don't be silly..there'l be no first born-they're all gonna be aborted.

No seriously though, I think the people in the 'No' camp who are going around sticking 'A white Ireland for Irish people' posters over the Yes posters are doing the Yes camp more good than any of the political parties. As silly as it seems at least 2 people have said to me that if nothing else they're voting yes simply to distance themselves from people like that.

[GavinZac]

Wrong again :rolleyes:

I don't have allegiance to any party, and will vote according to my views on the issues concerned.
All the other parties are, from your point of view, capable of throwing away our national sovereignty. You might be voting for them?

[mypost]

All the other parties are, from your point of view, capable of throwing away our national sovereignty.

There is of course, more to this referendum than that.:rolleyes:

As already stated, the fact that SF are against it, won't make any difference to my vote.

[GavinZac]

There is of course, more to this referendum than that.:rolleyes: ... go on?

As already stated, the fact that SF are against it, won't make any difference to my vote.
I'm referring, of course, to the next round of elections. Do party policies on issues as important as the future of the EU not come into play?

[jebus]

No seriously though, I think the people in the 'No' camp who are going around sticking 'A white Ireland for Irish people' posters over the Yes posters are doing the Yes camp more good than any of the political parties. As silly as it seems at least 2 people have said to me that if nothing else they're voting yes simply to distance themselves from people like that.

Honestly, before I had read a thing about the Lisbon Treaty I asked who was for and against it. When I found out that the 'No Camp' consisted of a shady group called Libertas, the Church, Sinn Fein and the Anti-War Movement (?) I immediatly said 'sold! one vote for the yes camp', I should really stop talking to myself as a game show host though

[mypost]

I'm referring, of course, to the next round of elections. Do party policies on issues as important as the future of the EU not come into play?

No.

There is one issue in referendums. There are 50 in elections. The difference between the two is black and white.


When I found out that the 'No Camp' consisted of a shady group called Libertas, the Church, Sinn Fein and the Anti-War Movement (?) I immediatly said 'sold! one vote for the yes camp',

:o

Every bit as shady, as one coalition partner in favour of it, in order to stay in government.

[GavinZac]

There is of course, more to this referendum than that.:rolleyes:
There is one issue in referendums.Which is it?

[mypost]

Which is it?

This referendum is about the EU. The election is about issues ranging from health-education-transport-infrastructure-economy, etc, etc, etc.

Clearer now?? :confused: :rolleyes:

[jebus]

Every bit as shady, as one coalition partner in favour of it, in order to stay in government.

Not really, the public can vent their frustration at said coalition partner for misleading them if thats how they feel. Libertas on the other hand, well who the hell are they? They look and sound too much like a US lobby group for my liking, and they lie about issues like our neutrality and taxes

[TonyD]

This age-old argument keeps been brought up. :rolleyes: We have done well out of Nice, whereas this offers us no benefit at all.

No, it's not an age old argument, nor an argument about Nice as such (though I voted No twice) more a comment on the "democratic" process involved. I haven't studied this one at all, and therefore am stuck somewhere between undecided and lazy. After all, if they ain't gonna take no for an answer, you'd have to wonder whats the point ? If I do vote, it'll probably be "No" , just to be perverse. (Certainly not because I'd agree with the "white Ireland" crowd.) As for Neutrality/Security, I happen to value our Neutrality and I am suspicious about a common "defence" policy. I'd also love to know in what way we've benefitted from common "security" Lots of people lining up to attack us, are there ?

[jebus]

Ireland's neutrality is not affected, Ive included a link to the Fianna Fail website but if you google Lisbon Treaty + Irish Neutrality there is umpteen sites with the same info. When Libertas or whoever says we will be part of a European Army they are just lying

http://www.fiannafail.ie/article.phpx?topic=129&id=8934&nav=Local%20Item

[GavinZac]

No, it's not an age old argument, nor an argument about Nice as such (though I voted No twice) more a comment on the "democratic" process involved.Letting the people vote is undemocratic?

After all, if they ain't gonna take no for an answer, you'd have to wonder whats the point ? I gather you're going to ignore what I said about Nice. Did the redrafting to suit the issues that were of concern to us go over your head? Some would've called it a victory.

As for Neutrality/Security, I happen to value our Neutrality and I am suspicious about a common "defence" policy.De fence is something you're sitting on. As for defense, this specifically excludes us from any offensive, or even defensive military action. It recommends that we should do our best to help out in times of crisis e.g. flooding/terrorist attacks - i.e. if bin Laden is broadcasting from Moyross we're expected to try to round him up.

I'd also love to know in what way we've benefitted from common "security" Lots of people lining up to attack us, are there ?Do you think many other countries would get away with having next to no armed forces? At one point a few years ago every armoured vehicle we have was on one street for a parade. If not having to bother our arses, so much so that we can afford to let Willy O'Dea in charge of it, isn't a benefit, I don't know what is.

[jebus]

You'll take that back about Willie when he's called in to map out the Moyross raid before Operation Do Something About Osama You Irish Idiots

[DaveyCakes]

Letting the people vote is undemocratic?


No, but ignoring the result of that vote is.

[GavinZac]

You'll take that back about Willie when he's called in to map out the Moyross raid before Operation Do Something About Osama You Irish Idiots

Sounds like a series of 24.
Willy O'Dea has 24 hours to track down Usama before the Hillary/McCain 08 ticket nukes the south west.
The twist is when Galway fans try to scupper the operation.

[GavinZac]

No, but ignoring the result of that vote is.
When did this happen?

[jebus]

Sounds like a series of 24.
Willy O'Dea has 24 hours to track down Usama before the Hillary/McCain 08 ticket nukes the south west.
The twist is when Galway fans try to scupper the operation.

Galway fans! Please God let Hilary drop that nuke

[mypost]

Not really, the public can vent their frustration at said coalition partner for misleading them if thats how they feel.

Can't do anything for another 4 years.

[jebus]

Can't do anything for another 4 years.

So? They'll never be able to do anything against Libertas for misleading them

[DaveyCakes]

When did this happen?

You know as well as anyone else when it happened

[GavinZac]

You know as well as anyone else when it happened

Someone who says something untrue through ignorance is misinformed. Someone who says something untrue despite awareness of the truth, is a liar.

The Nice Treaty was rejected in Ireland because of the ambiguity surrounding our neutrality. Once rejected, the EU leaders went ahead and rewrote it, clarifying that we retained our traditional neutral status. With the Nice treaty modified as we had democratically asked for it to be, it was then put before the people again, and this time passed. If there's a case that they should use to teach children about the beauty of the democratic process, its the Nice treaty.

You are informed. Now, when did anyone ignore the result of a vote?

[mypost]

The Nice Treaty was rejected in Ireland because of the ambiguity surrounding our neutrality. Once rejected, the EU leaders went ahead and rewrote it, clarifying that we retained our traditional neutral status.

The Nice Treaty failed for 2 reasons;


Government arrogance
Record low turnout.


The Nice Treaty wasn't re-written, a declaration was drafted stating Ireland's neutrality.

The EU Constitution, when ratified will render the Nice and all previous treaties, obsolete.

[d13bohs]

The EU Constitution, when ratified will render the Nice and all previous treaties, obsolete.

That is a strange statement given that the Treaty is only readable in the context of the existing Treaties (i.e. "Article X of the Treaty on Eurpean Union will be amended by the addition of the words.....).

How exactly does it render all previous Treaties obsolete, given that the two Treaties (EC and EU) will remain (albeit with one renamed)?

[TonyD]

Letting the people vote is undemocratic?
I gather you're going to ignore what I said about Nice. Did the redrafting to suit the issues that were of concern to us go over your head? Some would've called it a victory. I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the fine detail of the Nice treaty, but as far as I can remember the 2nd referendum was pushed through mainly on the fear of somehow threatning our prosperity. And I'd also guess that the Nuetrality issue was only one of a number of factors in the No vote.De fence is something you're sitting on. As for defense,
Really ? We have a Minister for, and Department of, Defence. Maybe you're American ? I'll stick with the Irish version of the word if you don't mind. If you're going to correct someones spelling to try to make yourself look big and clever, then it's probably a good idea to make sure you're right.
this specifically excludes us from any offensive, or even defensive military action. It recommends We're obliged to assist, with no definition of what form this assistance would take, according to the Referendum Commission Handbook that we should do our best to help out in times of crisis e.g. flooding/terrorist attacks - i.e. if bin Laden is broadcasting from Moyross we're expected to try to round him up.
Do you think many other countries would get away with having next to no armed forces? I have no idea, but maybe it would be no bad thing. I ask again, do you think there's a que forming to invade Ireland ? At one point a few years ago every armoured vehicle we have was on one street for a parade. If not having to bother our arses, so much so that we can afford to let Willy O'Dea in charge of it, isn't a benefit, I don't know what is.

PS - Osama wouldn't go near Moyross. No way is he hard enough. :p

[pete]

Still trying to find a credible organisation that is backing a No vote. So far there options are Shinners preaching about Militarisation, Bible Bashers warning against democracy (Three Monkeys posters), Former Commies warning against sovereignty, Shady organisation probably backed by US Military interests warning against democracy, abortion & neutrality. How can any of these organisations be taken seriously?

At least on the Yes side it is obvious why the organisations want the Treaty passed.

From what I have read the Lisbon Treaty (based on EU Constitution) has been created based on the biggest consultation process ever undertaken in Europe.

[mypost]

Still trying to find a credible organisation that is backing a No vote. At least on the Yes side it is obvious why the organisations want the Treaty passed.

And we're still looking for the Yes side to come up with A credible reason why this treaty benefits Ireland. :confused:

It doesn't really matter who is "for" or "against" it, the constitution is about substance, or lack of it, and with 5 parties obliged to support it, someone has to take up the case for the no side.