For the "If you don't know, vote no" brigade.

oscarBravo · 11-06-2008 10:34am

redspider wrote: »

And voting No will keep the status quo.

For now. And for better or for worse.

If the treaty is an improvement (which I believe it is), the status quo is the worse option. Plus, the treaty makes it clear where we go from here. Change is a given; in the event of a rejection, it's not at all clear what the future changes will be.

I hear a lot of talk of negotiating a better deal, but I haven't heard very many realistic suggestions about what can be improved.

IRLConor · 11-06-2008 10:35am

redspider wrote: »

If we vote NO, we will be expressly giving our government and representatives the instructions and mandate to go and get a better deal for Ireland, for the EU small nations and for the EU as a whole.

So, go on, out with it. What's in this magical "better deal"? Explain also why the other member states would be willing to go along with it.

redspider wrote: »

And voting No will keep the status quo.

It will preserve the legal status quo. That's not the same as the perceived status quo (which may or may not be changed depending on your perception/understanding of the Nice Treaty).

Anyone who is voting no because they don't know enough about the treaty will be trying to preserve what they perceive to be the status quo, not the legal status quo, since they don't know what the legal status quo entails.

redspider wrote: »

Some may perceive that as stalling, but if it did take 8 years to allow us to vote on it, then who are the stallers? Not the Irish people.

Do you think the EU collectively sat on its ass for 8 years? It toook 8 years of work to create this treaty.

seamus · 11-06-2008 11:03am

murphaph wrote: »

The government have nobody but themselves to blame for leaving the debate on Lisbon to so late in the day though Seamus.

Absolutely, and I'm yet to find a "Yes" voter who thinks that FF did all they could. Most people seem to agree that the Government made the exact same mistake that they did with Nice and assumed that so long as they gave it the thumbs up, no-one would disagree.

The problem is that many people are thinking that if they vote "No", then the government will use their psychic mind powers to hear and fix their niche grievance. Then when that grievance is fixed, the Lisbon treaty will be magically ratified without another referendum.

The fact is that if you're voting no, purely to annoy the Government, then you're cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's like rejecting a new contract from your employer because you're upset at the quality of food in the canteen.

djpbarry · 11-06-2008 11:47am

redspider wrote: »

Well I dont think you can get around the fact that the staus quo is now, which is without a Lisbon Treaty, that is the status quo. That is the status quo by definition.

I disagree. The status quo is the present, current, existing state of affairs. Whether Lisbon is ratified or not, the status quo will change.

redspider wrote: »

To state that the member states jointly agreed on the treaty is incorrect. It cant by procedure be agreed by Ireland unless we vote Yes.

The text of the treaty was agreed upon by the 27 states. While the treaty has yet to be ratified, its content has been agreed.

redspider wrote: »

We have a RIGHT to request improvements to the treaty...

What are these wonderful improvements that I keep hearing so much about?

jackal · 11-06-2008 4:24pm

Here is the text of Gilmores ad today.

Yes gets you...
Security for Ireland’s future and economic wellbeing.
Irish tax rates continue to be set in Ireland.
Ireland will have the same representation in the Commission as Germany.
Ireland will have equality in EU decisions, with no loss of power.
Effective action on climate change and its security risks.
Ireland’s military neutrality, as well as Malta, Austria, Cyprus, Finland
and Sweden, remains unchanged.
Foreign investment into Ireland will continue to be secure.
New commitment to full employment, social market economy, fair trade,
humanitarian aid, solidarity with developing countries, and eradication of
poverty, social exclusion and discrimination.
Member States and MEPs make EU laws – not the Commission.
Greater role for TDs and MEPs in making and monitoring of EU decisions.
Ireland is free to choose its own energy sources.
Priority for energy security, renewables, sustainable development.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding and includes the
right to equal treatment in the workplace
New right to personal data protection.
Ban on sexual exploitation of women and children.
Effective action on international crime, drugs and trafficking of women
and children.
The creation of a new Volunteer Humanitarian Aid Corps, open to young
Europeans.
Discrimination on grounds of disability prohibited.
European wide ban on the death penalty and torture.
Cloning of human beings banned throughout Europe.
Promotion of healthy and safe Irish working conditions.
Respect for Irish cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, underpinned.
Automatic help for Irish holiday makers abroad (where there is no Irish
Embassy).
Faster funding and response for humanitarian disasters.
New incentives for education, culture, sport, tourism and public health.
New aim to combat all kinds of domestic violence.
Guaranteed assistance in case of humanitarian crisis or terrorist attack.
Europe continues to be neutral on public versus private ownership.
New safeguards provided for Member State public services.

For convenience sake I have made a second version which removes everything we already have and will keep in the event of a no vote, such as the ban on torture and death penalty and the ban on discrimination against people with disabilities.

Yes gets you...
Security for Ireland’s future and economic wellbeing.
Irish tax rates continue to be set in Ireland.
Ireland will have the same representation in the Commission as Germany.
Ireland will have equality in EU decisions, with no loss of power.
Effective action on climate change and its security risks.
Ireland’s military neutrality, as well as Malta, Austria, Cyprus, Finland
and Sweden, remains unchanged.
Foreign investment into Ireland will continue to be secure.
New commitment to full employment, social market economy, fair trade,
humanitarian aid, solidarity with developing countries, and eradication of
poverty, social exclusion and discrimination.
Member States and MEPs make EU laws – not the Commission.
Greater role for TDs and MEPs in making and monitoring of EU decisions.
Ireland is free to choose its own energy sources.
Priority for energy security, renewables, sustainable development.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding and includes the
right to equal treatment in the workplace
New right to personal data protection.
Ban on sexual exploitation of women and children.
Effective action on international crime, drugs and trafficking of women
and children.
The creation of a new Volunteer Humanitarian Aid Corps, open to young
Europeans.
Discrimination on grounds of disability prohibited.
European wide ban on the death penalty and torture.
Cloning of human beings banned throughout Europe.
Promotion of healthy and safe Irish working conditions.
Respect for Irish cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, underpinned.
Automatic help for Irish holiday makers abroad (where there is no Irish
Embassy).
Faster funding and response for humanitarian disasters.
New incentives for education, culture, sport, tourism and public health.
New aim to combat all kinds of domestic violence.
Guaranteed assistance in case of humanitarian crisis or terrorist attack.
Europe continues to be neutral on public versus private ownership.
New safeguards provided for Member State public services.

And removed anything which is simply wishy washy vague assurances and/or commitments

Yes gets you...
Security for Ireland’s future and economic wellbeing.
Irish tax rates continue to be set in Ireland.
Ireland will have the same representation in the Commission as Germany.
Ireland will have equality in EU decisions, with no loss of power.
Effective action on climate change and its security risks.
Ireland’s military neutrality, as well as Malta, Austria, Cyprus, Finland
and Sweden, remains unchanged.
Foreign investment into Ireland will continue to be secure.
New commitment to full employment, social market economy, fair trade,
humanitarian aid, solidarity with developing countries, and eradication of
poverty, social exclusion and discrimination.
Member States and MEPs make EU laws – not the Commission.
Greater role for TDs and MEPs in making and monitoring of EU decisions.
Ireland is free to choose its own energy sources.
Priority for energy security, renewables, sustainable development.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding and includes the
right to equal treatment in the workplace
New right to personal data protection.
Ban on sexual exploitation of women and children.
Effective action on international crime, drugs and trafficking of women
and children.
The creation of a new Volunteer Humanitarian Aid Corps, open to young
Europeans.
Discrimination on grounds of disability prohibited.
European wide ban on the death penalty and torture.
Cloning of human beings banned throughout Europe.
Promotion of healthy and safe Irish working conditions.
Respect for Irish cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, underpinned.
Automatic help for Irish holiday makers abroad (where there is no Irish
Embassy).
Faster funding and response for humanitarian disasters.
New incentives for education, culture, sport, tourism and public health.
New aim to combat all kinds of domestic violence.
Guaranteed assistance in case of humanitarian crisis or terrorist attack.
Europe continues to be neutral on public versus private ownership.
New safeguards provided for Member State public services.

Not a whole lot in there to be enthused about. Sure the "aims" and "commitments" to curb domestic violence, achieve 0% unemployment and promote effective action on crime are nice and all, but they are just words, and we all know the ration of words versus actions with politicians.

When you remove all the rubbish, and the stuff we will keep in the event of this going through, there is very little reason why we could not change what needs to be changed with the EU in smaller more manageable parts.

VoidStarNull · 11-06-2008 4:37pm

jackal wrote: »

Here is the text of Gilmores ad today.
For convenience sake I have made a second version which removes everything we already have and will keep in the event of a no vote, such as the ban on torture and death penalty and the ban on discrimination against people with disabilities.

Fair enough, although since the NO campaign have put forward negatives such as "EU law becomes superior to Irish law" which was in place since 1973, it's only fair to allow the YES campaign to put forward positives which were also already in place.

And removed anything which is simply wishy washy vague assurances and/or commitments

Disagree that these are just vague assurances. For example the articles on climate change would prevent the EU from pursuing a course similar to that of the US in the future. That is a real change. Ditto for most of the others.

Not a whole lot in there to be enthused about. Sure the "aims" and "commitments" to curb domestic violence, achieve 0% unemployment and promote effective action on crime are nice and all, but they are just words, and we all know the ration of words versus actions with politicians.

We also know that there is never action without words. Voting against these items will delay or entirely prevent the day when the EU gets to do anything positive about them. If you agree that the items on Gilmore's list are positives you should vote YES to Lisbon to accelerate the time when they become realities.

When you remove all the rubbish, and the stuff we will keep in the event of this going through, there is very little reason why we could not change what needs to be changed with the EU in smaller more manageable parts.

How about 10 Lisbon referenda instead of one? No thanks!

jackal · 11-06-2008 4:55pm

Most of the stuff would not need a referendum. Why is all this stuff, which I would be happy to see happen (action on climate change, ban on cloning etc) mixed into this treaty?

The main problem that people have with the treaty is what exactly are the implications for our sovereignty. We hear assurances, counter-claims, shouting matches. I tried to read the text. Its very difficult to get a clear picture from it what the ramifications down the line will be. How much power are we giving up? We are a very small fish in a big pond which is getting bigger... The yes campaign has simply failed to answer those questions. I really do not like some of the people on the no "campaign", and to be honest I don't give any credibility to most of them.

A simplified, clear version of this treaty was rejected a few years ago. Its back, its much the same, and it is being shoved down our throats by the incumbents, and some foreign politicians also. Not happy about the way we have been treated, not happy that the treaty is clear enough, not happy with the wide range of things addressed in the treaty. Strip out all the things, as I have done, and we can have a proper campaign and debate. Remove the good - but ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary - stuff about human rights, policing etc, and let us decide on the part that really puts the ****s up people... the loss of power.

djpbarry · 11-06-2008 5:47pm

jackal wrote: »

The main problem that people have with the treaty is what exactly are the implications for our sovereignty.
...
How much power are we giving up?
...
...let us decide on the part that really puts the ****s up people... the loss of power.

I don't believe we are giving up much power, if any at all. To take just three examples; under Lisbon:

All our key vetoes will remain in place (e.g. in matters relating to direct taxation and defence).
The European Parliament (and hence our MEP's) will have far more influence.
Absolute equality is guaranteed at the commission, i.e. every nation has exactly one commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years.

jackal wrote: »

Remove the good - but ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary - stuff about human rights, policing etc...

I really don't think you can just dismiss these elements so easily and deem them insignificant. What you consider to be significant? What changes would you make if it were up to you?

jackal · 12-06-2008 10:44am

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't believe we are giving up much power, if any at all. To take just three examples; under Lisbon:
All our key vetoes will remain in place (e.g. in matters relating to direct taxation and defence).

The European Parliament (and hence our MEP's) will have far more influence.

Absolute equality is guaranteed at the commission, i.e. every nation has exactly one commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years.

I really don't think you can just dismiss these elements so easily and deem them insignificant. What you consider to be significant? What changes would you make if it were up to you?

What I am trying to say is many of the items (worthy or otherwise), do NOT require a referendum to change the Irish constitution.

Why have they made a bloated, confusing amended treaty, covering multiple areas, confusing people as to what the treaty is and is not?

I dont think many people would have a problem with much of the proposals in the treaty, but when someone opposes the treaty due to the requirement to change our constitution, then all the good stuff is thrown in their face... "Oh so you dont want to see europe tackle climate change, domestic abuse, crime etc"

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 1:12pm

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I disagree. You don't vote no based on the notion that you're not sure what would happen if you voted yes. You shouldn't make a decisive judgement either way if you don't understand the subject, because it affects others. If you don't understand the material, you shouldn't vote. If you want to vote, you should make very sure you know the material to qualify yourself to add your voice to the decision which affects far more people than just you.

Who have an equal right to vote. Again defining informed is the problem with this text. Are you informed if like some here get lectures that explain it simply to you?... what if they have an agenda or even misread the complicated text themself? Only way is to read itself any YES it is in english in black and white but as proven by the different sides it is very open to debate what each part specifically means.

Oh and to the O.P always read and understand something you agree to and if you cant you dont do nothing and let someone else decide for you you say no i'm not accepting this it's too open to manipulation!

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 1:15pm

Is it true that the Lisbon Treaty awards 10,000 Euros to every European citizen every year for life?

No it isn't. But if you haven't informed yourself what's in the treaty, how do you know that you are not shooting yourself and your country in the foot by voting NO?

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 1:19pm

Yeah like the you are the millionth visitor to this site banners. Sure they're probably lies but if you don't click you might miss out on millions!!

And what about those random lotteries we win every so often even though we never entered them... Im off to send my bank details and collect my winnings

Phototoxin · 12-06-2008 1:23pm

I've read it. I understand English. I'm still voting no because IN MY *informed* OPINION that is the choice I have made and a referendum is about the opinion of the population as determined by popular vote. I'm sick of the Yes 'side' saying 'people are voting no because they don't understand/are lazy/the no campaign are liars/et cetera' No one there seems to think that one might think differently from them.

seamus · 12-06-2008 1:32pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yeah like the you are the millionth visitor to this site banners. Sure they're probably lies but if you don't click you might miss out on millions!!

And what about those random lotteries we win every so often even though we never entered them... Im off to send my bank details and collect my winnings

That's not what he was talking about though.

Think of it more like your employer offering you a new contract. Would you say "no" before reading it, because you're happy with the way things are?

No one there seems to think that one might think differently from them.

I think we accept that. The big problem is that the bulk of "no" voters I've spoken to and heard on the radio or online are voting no because they don't understand the treaty or because they have a list of reasons which are 100% incorrect, that they've heard from Libertas and the likes.

There are of course a good deal of No voters who've read the treaty and the amendments and decided to vote no. Good for them. But they're in a minority.

I've yet to hear someone say that they're voting yes because they don't understand the treaty or for some spurious misinformed reason. I accept completely that many people will be voting "yes" because their mammy told them to or because Bertie's team says it's the right thing to do.

javaboy · 12-06-2008 1:34pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

I've read it. I understand English. I'm still voting no because IN MY *informed* OPINION that is the choice I have made and a referendum is about the opinion of the population as determined by popular vote. I'm sick of the Yes 'side' saying 'people are voting no because they don't understand/are lazy/the no campaign are liars/et cetera' No one there seems to think that one might think differently from them.

Fair play. I voted yes btw but you voted no for the right reasons by the sounds of it.

In fairness, absolutely everyone I've talked to who is voting no is voting no because they don't understand the treaty and haven't tried. From what I've seen, you're one of the few.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 1:39pm

seamus wrote: »

That's not what he was talking about though.

Think of it more like your employer offering you a new contract. Would you say "no" before reading it, because you're happy with the way things are?

Actually I can relate to that one if you meant employee I fought withmy own HR over and won because part of a new contract I was offered would have turned me into a general worker able to be made do any task in this business. My co-workers signed out of fear of getting fired. But as I proved when they did nothing you can't legally exclude someone because one person doesn't agree with a new contract because there was already an old one in place. There was nothing per se wrong with the contract it was just worded vaguely and a lot of my co-workers without even noticing lost their right to say "that's not my specific job".

Realistically there will be plenty of informed no any yes voters and plenty of ill informed ones voting either out of fear of how vague the treaty seems to them or equally out of fear of backlash from other eu states (another less pointed out scare tactic!)

O'Morris · 12-06-2008 1:43pm

seamus wrote: »

There are of course a good deal of No voters who've read the treaty and the amendments and decided to vote no. Good for them. But they're in a minority.

Is there any reason to believe that it's any different on the other side?

seamus · 12-06-2008 1:47pm

O'Morris wrote: »

Is there any reason to believe that it's any different on the other side?

The general experience seems to be that if you haven't read the thing, you'll probably vote no. Which implies that there are more uninformed "No"'s than "Yes"'s.

As I say, most No voters I've interacted with don't seem to be able to back up their vote. Most yes voters do. But perhaps that's because I don't challenge the latter.

sink · 12-06-2008 1:47pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually I can relate to that one if you meant employee I fought withmy own HR over and won because part of a new contract I was offered would have turned me into a general worker able to be made do any task in this business. My co-workers signed out of fear of getting fired. But as I proved when they did nothing you can't legally exclude someone because one person doesn't agree with a new contract because there was already an old one in place. There was nothing per se wrong with the contract it was just worded vaguely and a lot of my co-workers without even noticing lost their right to say "that's not my specific job".

Do you realise that that is part of the reason our health service is such a mess.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 1:49pm

sink wrote: »

Do you realise that that is part of the reason our health service is such a mess.

Different debate

I could equally say it has to do with all the extra military spending

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 3:01pm

Phototoxin wrote: »

I've read it. I understand English. I'm still voting no because IN MY *informed* OPINION that is the choice I have made and a referendum is about the opinion of the population as determined by popular vote.

Well to be fair, your reason for voting no amounted to because it "is the choice I have made and a referndum is about the opinion of the population as determined by popular vote". After reading information about it you are voting no because of that?

javaboy · 12-06-2008 4:03pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Well to be fair, your reason for voting no amounted to because it "is the choice I have made and a referndum is about the opinion of the population as determined by popular vote". After reading information about it you are voting no because of that?

That's not fair really. Phototoxin said they read the treaty and understood it and based on that they decided to vote no.

diydan · 12-06-2008 4:08pm

Just a quick question.

If the Treaty requires ratification by each and every country in the EU, and considering that France & Holland have already voted No, why all the fuss?

If a Yes vote is not passed the first time round, will we be asked to vote on it again?

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 4:09pm

javaboy wrote:

That's not fair really. Phototoxin said they read the treaty and understood it and based on that they decided to vote no.

Well I dunno, would it not be fair to expect that after someone says "I'm voting no because", they give a reason. How is stating that it is the choice he has made a reason? Or stating what a referendum is? I dunno, it just seems odd the way he says it, maybe I misunderstood what he meant.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 4:12pm

diydan wrote: »

If the Treaty requires ratification by each and every country in the EU, and considering that France & Holland have already voted No, why all the fuss?

They haven't voted No.

If a Yes vote is not passed the first time round, will we be asked to vote on it again?

We don't know. Nobody knows.

seamus · 12-06-2008 4:13pm

diydan wrote: »

If the Treaty requires ratification by each and every country in the EU, and considering that France & Holland have already voted No, why all the fuss?

Holland & France voted No last year to adopting the constitutional treaty. This is a different treaty.

We never voted on the constitutional treaty because the French and Dutch had already rejected it.

diydan · 12-06-2008 4:19pm

seamus wrote: »

Holland & France voted No last year to adopting the constitutional treaty. This is a different treaty.

We never voted on the constitutional treaty because the French and Dutch had already rejected it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But again, if the Treaty requires a Yes vote from each and every member state, would you agree that the Yes camp, at European level, have a very poor chance of victory. Isn't it similar to an acumulator bet in Paddy Powers.

For the record, I haven't voted yet but would consider a yes vote, simply because we wouldn't be where we are today without the help of the ECC/ EU.

turgon · 12-06-2008 4:22pm

seamus wrote: »

Holland & France voted No last year to adopting the constitutional treaty. This is a different treaty.

Yes, but is it not the educated opinion of those who drafted the treaty that the two are 95% the same?

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 4:27pm

turgon wrote: »

Yes, but is it not the educated opinion of those who drafted the treaty that the two are 95% the same?

I would have thought it blindingly obvious, but "95% the same" == "different".

turgon · 12-06-2008 4:29pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would have thought it blindingly obvious, but "95% the same" == "different".

Well consider that if 55% of people vote Yes today = whole country votes yes.

seamus · 12-06-2008 4:31pm

It is. Still makes it a different treaty. It also has a very different implication - this treaty will not be adopted as a European constitution.

But again, if the Treaty requires a Yes vote from each and every member state, would you agree that the Yes camp, at European level, have a very poor chance of victory. Isn't it similar to an acumulator bet in Paddy Powers.

Not entirely. As someone mentioned on another thread, the EU doesn't come up with random suggestions and then just throw them out there to see what the member states think. This treaty involved negotiation from all of the member states and the document that was received is the document that all of those member states could reach a consensus on.
So it's expected that if a member state is relatively in agreement with the document that was produced, they should be able to convince their parliaments to roll with it.

It's because we have a referendum, that the voters have to be convinced from scratch - the voters didn't see the negotiations that took place and the issues that were discussed, so they're coming from a massive deficit of information.

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 4:32pm

Just because they are both percentages doesn't mean you can compare the way a referendum works and the contents of a treaty while maintaining any credibility.
You're trying to use the fact that a majority carrying a decision in a referendum proves that 95% is the same as 100% similarity between the treaty and constitution.

turgon · 12-06-2008 4:35pm

No I am simply stating that the Lisbon Treaty is mostly the same as the Constitution. So for every person that voted no to the constitution, 95% were voting No because of measures that are currently in Lisbon. At least that would seem to be a reasonable statement.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 4:40pm

turgon wrote: »

At least that would seem to be a reasonable statement.

It would be, if the reasons for voting "no" were distributed across the entire Constitution treaty according to a statistically normal bell-curve, assuming that the only reasons for the "no" vote were valid reasons based on the content of the treaty.

Unless you can demonstrate that this is the case, I don't think relying on probability distributions is reasonable at all, no.

turgon · 12-06-2008 4:42pm

Well what other way could you possibly gauge it??

heyjude · 12-06-2008 4:43pm

seamus wrote: »

The general experience seems to be that if you haven't read the thing, you'll probably vote no. Which implies that there are more uninformed "No"'s than "Yes"'s.

As I say, most No voters I've interacted with don't seem to be able to back up their vote. Most yes voters do. But perhaps that's because I don't challenge the latter.

The reason why this is "the general experience" is that many people who intend to vote YES do not seem to believe that there is any rational reason why anyone should think differently to them by voting NO, so if they meet someone who intends to vote NO they launch into an interrogation as to why and won't accept as valid whatever reasons are given. However, as you say, if someone says they intend to vote YES, then there are no questions, obviously that person fully understands every line of the treaty, has read it from cover to cover and has reached the only obvious decision. :rolleyes:

YES voters seem to be able to get away with general explanations for their voting choice, such as "Europe has been good for us", "the other countries have agreed to it too", "all the main political parties support it" and "it will improve the efficiency of the EU".

The counter argument might say that past performance is no guarantee of future performance(i.e. just because something has been good to us in the past doesn't mean that has to be true in the future), I don't worry about what other countries are doing as they have to decide for themselves(just because something is right for Greece or Portugal doesn't automatically make it right for us), the main political parties have made careers out of lying to the electorate and also have a history of mismanagement and poor decision making, so they aren't necessarily the best judges of what is right and finally if I wanted to improve the efficiency of the EU I would cut a few thousand civil servants from the bureaucracy that runs the EU and cut several thousand pages from all the rules, regulations etc that the EU has produced and continues to produce annually. If we want increased efficiency, then you cut the bloated bureaucracy not add to it and reducing a few EU commissioners won't put a dent in EU inefficiency.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 4:45pm

turgon wrote: »

Well what other way could you possibly gauge it??

Well, you could always have the governments of the two countries that rejected the original treaty take the concerns that were expressed by their people back to the negotiating table, and negotiate a new treaty that specifically addresses those particular concerns.

But maybe that's just crazy talk.

seamus · 12-06-2008 4:47pm

heyjude wrote: »

If we want increased efficiency, then you cut the bloated bureaucracy not add to it and reducing a few EU commissioners won't put a dent in EU inefficiency.

So you've clearly read it then?

turgon · 12-06-2008 4:49pm

And who is the judge of whether their issues have been dealt with? Its great and all that we can give out, but you are saying then that we are not the judges of whether what we have given out about has been fixed, rather the people that have attempted the fixing (in the way they want). This doesn't make sense. If I give out that a street lamp is broken, I will see for myself that is is back on again. I would not merely take the word of the politician I asked to get it fixed.

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 4:53pm

turgon wrote: »

Well what other way could you possibly gauge it??

1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall enslave you.

And now one that is 95% the same as above

1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall never enslave you.

So you see there can be big differences in that 5%.

turgon · 12-06-2008 4:57pm

Not necessarily. You have only considered the removal of an extreme sentence, and on purpose to support you point. If the sentence removed was say "The EU shall make steps to make the Euro the main reserve currency" I doubt many people would change their minds. It is impossible to discern what effect the missing 5% had.

murphaph · 12-06-2008 5:02pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, you could always have the governments of the two countries that rejected the original treaty take the concerns that were expressed by their people back to the negotiating table, and negotiate a new treaty that specifically addresses those particular concerns.

.....and then put it back to the people to see if they agree that the changes are sufficient to vote yes? But maybe that's just crazy talk.

As I said in another thread-why did they rip the constitution up and go with a load of amendments to previous treaties (Lisbon) instead of fixing the broken bits of the constitution and sticking it back to the french and dutch for their appraisal?

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 5:03pm

turgon wrote:

That's not fair really. Phototoxin said they read the treaty and understood it and based on that they decided to vote no.

Yea but you're the one arguing that 95% the same is effectively 100% the same. All I'm saying is that there can be a lot of important stuff in that 5% so don't judge it on percentages how similar they are.

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 5:05pm

In my opinion, the main effect of the change from the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty is that it stopped a trend which seemed to making the EU into a state, rather than an inter-governmental organization.

Under the Constitution, the EU would have had a flag and an anthem which all member states would have been required to recognize. It would have had a Constitution (obviously), and EU directives etc. would have been renamed as "EU laws".

These issues were not particularly substantive. But they were obviously intended to create the idea in people's minds that the EU was on the road to becoming a state. They have now been removed, and the EU under Lisbon will remain a boring old inter-governmental organization.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 5:10pm

murphaph wrote: »

.....and then put it back to the people to see if they agree that the changes are sufficient to vote yes? But maybe that's just crazy talk.

Maybe. What changes to the constitution would have been sufficient to satisfy the (apparently very substantial) percentage of the electorate that voted against the proposal simply as a protest against the government?

As I said in another thread-why did they rip the constitution up and go with a load of amendments to previous treaties (Lisbon) instead of fixing the broken bits of the constitution and sticking it back to the french and dutch for their appraisal?

...as well as having to stick it back to those countries that had already ratified it, because now that treaty has changed. Starting to get complicated...

In all honesty, I reckon the main reason for scrapping the constitution and replacing it with an amending treaty was to avoid the need for referenda. I realise that statement will kick off the usual foaming at the mouth about democratic deficits et al, but it's a perfectly pragmatic move.

The previous treaties were ratified through parliamentary process in most member states. It worked. None of those states burst into flames. The jackbooted EU secret police haven't kicked down any doors that I've heard about.

Then a new type of treaty comes along, and suddenly the whole process of EU evolution gets greatly complicated by referenda in countries that are not used to having them for this purpose, and chaos ensues. People vote for reasons unrelated to the treaty itself. The whole process grinds to a halt.

Is it really so unreasonable that the EU collectively looked at its experiences and said, this approach works; this one doesn't?

murphaph · 12-06-2008 5:45pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe. What changes to the constitution would have been sufficient to satisfy the (apparently very substantial) percentage of the electorate that voted against the proposal simply as a protest against the government?

None. I suggest they govern better to avoid their people protesting at the poor performance of their governance though.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...as well as having to stick it back to those countries that had already ratified it, because now that treaty has changed. Starting to get complicated...

With respect, that's a nonsense argument OB. It is no more complicated than creating an entirely new process of amendment (Lisbon) which needs ratification by ALL member states, even those who already ratified the proposed constitution! It is FAR LESS complicated in fact as it only involves tweaking the constitution to remove (what the YES side claim) are the silly symbolic things that caused the constitution to fail at both french and dutch referenda.

oscarBravo wrote: »

In all honesty, I reckon the main reason for scrapping the constitution and replacing it with an amending treaty was to avoid the need for referenda. I realise that statement will kick off the usual foaming at the mouth about democratic deficits et al, but it's a perfectly pragmatic move.

Thanks for your honesty. It is blindingly obvious that the political elite chose this convoluted path to keep the essence of the constitution rolling while bypassing the referendum method of ratification in as many states as possible. I never thought I'd thank dev for his silly Bunreacht but I do now. You call it pragmatism.....I think there's something more sinister in it and the political elite do not want to engage with the ordinary european public on any of this. It's not good enough to say "people vote for their governments and give them a mandate to do x, y and z" because this issue is of greater importance than any national or local one. It deserves proper europe-wide debate and it hasn't happened.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The previous treaties were ratified through parliamentary process in most member states. It worked. None of those states burst into flames. The jackbooted EU secret police haven't kicked down any doors that I've heard about.

You may scoff at those of us who believe there are higher powers at play here but some day you may realise there are. I may be completely wrong of course and what you see is what you get but I don't think so.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then a new type of treaty comes along, and suddenly the whole process of EU evolution gets greatly complicated by referenda in countries that are not used to having them for this purpose, and chaos ensues. People vote for reasons unrelated to the treaty itself. The whole process grinds to a halt.

....or perhaps because people WANT the process to grind to a halt? Or is 'The European Project' a runaway train whose brakes cannot be applied by its citizens? The more I think about this the more I pray we get a NO result to send a clear message (seeing as the french and dutch messages weren't clear enough) to the political elite that we are not happy the way things are 'progressing'.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is it really so unreasonable that the EU collectively looked at its experiences and said, this approach works; this one doesn't?

Who is the EU? It's not me or you. You mean the political elite of the EU? It is unreasonable that 'they' looked at their experiences with annoying people like french and dutch citizens voting against their proposals and then carefully orchestrating future treaties to minimise the 'risk' of the citizens of Europe putting a spanner in the works.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 5:56pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall enslave you.

And now one that is 95% the same as above

1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall never enslave you.

So you see there can be big differences in that 5%.

Just to be horribly annoying Jimmy

you'll find that's 50% not 5%

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 6:27pm

murphaph wrote: »

None. I suggest they govern better to avoid their people protesting at the poor performance of their governance though.

Quite. I don't see how it addresses the problem of what to do about the rejected treaty, though.

With respect, that's a nonsense argument OB. It is no more complicated than creating an entirely new process of amendment (Lisbon) which needs ratification by ALL member states, even those who already ratified the proposed constitution! It is FAR LESS complicated in fact as it only involves tweaking the constitution to remove (what the YES side claim) are the silly symbolic things that caused the constitution to fail at both french and dutch referenda.

I respectfully disagree.

Suppose the constitution had been tweaked to address French and Dutch concerns. It then goes back to the countries that voted for it, for re-ratification. They then decide they're unhappy with some of the provisions, so while France and Holland are voting yes, the original 'yes' countries vote no. So now you've got to find a change that addresses the concerns of both countries. Worse still, the countries that previous accepted it have decided they have a problem with their government, and reject what they had previously accepted as a protest vote.

What's the logical approach? Figure out what's actually broken, and fix it. In this case, it's clear that parliamentary ratification was working, and popular ratification isn't, so you make the necessary changes to allow parliamentary ratification again (where possible).

Thanks for your honesty. It is blindingly obvious that the political elite chose this convoluted path to keep the essence of the constitution rolling while bypassing the referendum method of ratification in as many states as possible. I never thought I'd thank dev for his silly Bunreacht but I do now. You call it pragmatism.....I think there's something more sinister in it and the political elite do not want to engage with the ordinary european public on any of this. It's not good enough to say "people vote for their governments and give them a mandate to do x, y and z" because this issue is of greater importance than any national or local one. It deserves proper europe-wide debate and it hasn't happened.

I think the very use of the phrase "political elite" betrays a perspective that's unlikely to be happy with pretty much any treaty negotiated between 27 governments.

You may scoff at those of us who believe there are higher powers at play here but some day you may realise there are. I may be completely wrong of course and what you see is what you get but I don't think so.

I reserve the right to be skeptical for a simple reason: we've been told the political elite are scheming to take over our lives with every single EU treaty to date. The New World Order (Euro edition) has thus far stubbornly refused to materialise.

Mild sarcasm aside, there's nothing - nothing - in my reading of the treaty to suggest that anything untoward is being planned.

....or perhaps because people WANT the process to grind to a halt? Or is 'The European Project' a runaway train whose brakes cannot be applied by its citizens? The more I think about this the more I pray we get a NO result to send a clear message (seeing as the french and dutch messages weren't clear enough) to the political elite that we are not happy the way things are 'progressing'.

I guess all those mass protests, riots, barricades etc. that we've been seeing in France as a result of their parliamentary ratification of the treaty is a clear indicator of just how unhappy they are with the direction Europe is heading, yeah?

Who is the EU? It's not me or you.

It's an organisation of countries.

You mean the political elite of the EU?

No, I usually mean what I say.

It is unreasonable that 'they' looked at their experiences with annoying people like french and dutch citizens voting against their proposals and then carefully orchestrating future treaties to minimise the 'risk' of the citizens of Europe putting a spanner in the works.

I'll direct you to FionnMatthew's excellent posts on the topic of responsible citizenry, and the civic duties it imposes. When I believe that people will vote for or against the merits of a proposal that's put to them, I'll agree that the people should decide.

Do you think it's acceptable that an international treaty should be rejected for reasons that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the contents or intentions of the treaty itself?

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 6:30pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Just to be horribly annoying Jimmy you'll find that's 50% not 5%

The texts are 95% the same, which is what is said about the constitution and the lisbon treaty I thought.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 6:35pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

The texts are 95% the same, which is what is said about the constitution and the lisbon treaty I thought.

Sorry man, was just teasing over the mathematics of a very specific quote,
"1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall enslave you.

And now one that is 95% the same as above

1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall never enslave you.

So you see there can be big differences in that 5%."

In that 50% has changed, but I guess you mean only one word has changed.

Though I doubt that's whats meant about the constitution. Id imagine it's 95% of the changes not the actual words, if it were god they might be identical.

For the "If you don't know, vote no" brigade.

Comments