Lisbon Treaty

[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.

[dahamsta]

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.

I thought you were talking about plain-englishing the legalese rather than just not plain-englishing the basics. If you do this politicians will take advantage of it. It's what they do.

[pete]

...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.

The Lisbon Treaty puts in legal mechanism to leave the EU. Ironically this means that anti-EU people should vote Yes to Lisbon.

[Dodge]

I thought you were talking about plain-englishing the legalese rather than just not plain-englishing the basics. If you do this politicians will take advantage of it. It's what they do.

And by politicians, you mean people. None of them are there without votes...

[HomeBrewPlease]

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.

Why should we? We didnt write a blank cheque for them to do what they want when we joined the EU. I still dont think they should do so.

Its not about being pro-EU or anti-EU. Its about the type of EU we want. If they want to make significant changes to the EU, as with this treaty which is in reality the EU constitution, then we should have a vote in whether we want that or not. In fact, I think each country should hold referenda on such treaties. The EU should be more democratic not less.

There seems to be an argument building that if legislation is too complicated for the average man to understand, it's bad legislation.

I havent heard that argument being made. Who done so? There is an argument though that politicians might make legislation and treaties deliberately complicated in ordeer to deliberately try to confuse people if they want to sneak something through.

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.

But why give politicians that power considering many of them may not and dont understand much legislation either. Brian Cowen and Mary Coughlan didnt even read the Treaty the last time so they cant claim to understand the fine detail of it. Why should they have any say over it as opposed to the ordinary person in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe?

[Mr A]

From my point of view:

Rerunning the vote is a bit dodgy, but it did genuinely seem that many people voted on the basis of totally spurious conceptions. I heard quite a few people saying that if this went through that we'd all be conscripted into a European army. There was a lot of scare-mongering going on.. mostly from people who have opposed each and every Euro treaty and their doomsday predictions have never come to pass. Europe in general has been fantastic for this country.

On the treaty itself it seems to me to be some long overdue reform of the way things work. I think the concession we got on retaining a commissioner was actually a backwards step- there's going to be too many and they're strictly barred from favouring their own countries anyway. I have yet to hear any arguments that I found really credible or powerful to make me vote no.

[Sheridan]

From my point of view:

Rerunning the vote is a bit dodgy, but it did genuinely seem that many people voted on the basis of totally spurious conceptions. I heard quite a few people saying that if this went through that we'd all be conscripted into a European army.

Joe Higgins has repeatedly made the point that absolutely no-one he spoke to was under that impression, and that it appears to have entirely a fabrication on behalf of the media. Since the establishment reserves the right to tell us how to vote, it's hardly surprising that they also presume to tell us why we rejected their invitation.

[Dodge]

Joe Higgins has repeatedly made the point that absolutely no-one he spoke to was under that impression, and that it appears to have entirely a fabrication on behalf of the media. Since the establishment reserves the right to tell us how to vote, it's hardly surprising that they also presume to tell us why we rejected their invitation.

I posted the report on a previous page on why people voted no.

Whether or not it was because of conscription, there's no denying that there was a significant campaign based on that

[Sheridan]

From whom?? Certainly not the left opposition, and I don't even remember Agent Ganley making that case. I suspect wild extrapolations are being made on the basis that militarisation and the compulsion to militarise were opposed strongly, and correctly. It's a lot easier to construct a straw man from those issues than actually deal with what people read and rejected in the treaty provisions.

[HomeBrewPlease]

I posted the report on a previous page on why people voted no.

Whether or not it was because of conscription, there's no denying that there was a significant campaign based on that

No there wasnt. The only people spouting about conscription was the government themselves.

[pete]

Spurious No to Lisbon claims.