Can someone please clarify the following points about the Lisbon treaty from Libertas

sink · 29-05-2009 12:41pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

OK - let me rephrase my answer.

Different enough that the previously mentioned European politicians don't feel able to go on the record saying the two are in all essentials identical.

I'm curious what particular areas do you think should be changed?

gizmo555 · 29-05-2009 12:47pm

sink wrote: »

I'm curious what particular areas do you think should be changed?

I don't think any areas should be changed - I voted in favour of the EU Constitution and as I say, Lisbon is essentially the same thing.

However, France and Holland voted against it, so it's up to their governments and the EU to address the reasons for that and either change the Constitution or convince the French and Dutch to change their minds in a rerun, as we are being asked to do with Lisbon.

Instead, what they have done and admit to having done is to make purely cosmetic changes to the Constitution with the main aims of being able to pretend it's not a constitution and to avoid, where possible, having to put it to a referendum.

RandomName2 · 29-05-2009 12:50pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Factually inaccurate. Factually inaccurate.

The Constitution was not ratified by the French and Dutch governments, so this is factually inaccurate.

Are you a member of Libertas? If not, you should join up, you'd fit right in.

You may well have. It doesn't answer the questions I asked.

Thanks, if this is actually the view held by Libertas, then that belies the arguments that they are a neo-nazi movement. Unless, of course, you thought what I said was fascist, in which case you have a very eccentric view of fascism.

And yes, the Constitution, in effect, has been ratified by proxy in France and Holland, albeit with so much servings of word salad that you can say that it hasn't until the cows come home.

ionix5891 · 29-05-2009 12:51pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

I don't think any areas should be changed - I voted in favour of the EU Constitution and as I say, Lisbon is essentially the same thing.

However, France and Holland voted against it, so it's up to their governments and the EU to address the reasons for that and either change the Constitution or convince the French and Dutch to change their minds in a rerun, as we are being asked to do with Lisbon.

Instead, what they have done and admit to having done is to make purely cosmetic changes to the Constitution with the main aims of being able to pretend it's not a constitution and to avoid, where possible, having to put it to a referendum.

whats the alternative?

* drop Lisbon and wait another 10 years for a new treaty to be renegotiated while paying all the beuracracy to keep up the show? more than likely a new Treaty would be less favorable to Ireland as the world has changed in the last decade and our negotiators pretty much written the treaty

* leave the EU?

RandomName2 · 29-05-2009 12:58pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

whats the alternative?

* drop Lisbon and wait another 10 years for a new treaty to be renegotiated while paying all the beuracracy to keep up the show? more than likely a new Treaty would be less favorable to Ireland as the world has changed in the last decade and our negotiators pretty much written the treaty

* leave the EU?

A quick ratification process of individual legislation would probably be better - or otherwise a swift rejection of such individual reforms. I don't know if that would be possible with all the red tape currently in the EU at the moment though.

ionix5891 · 29-05-2009 1:01pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

A quick ratification process of individual legislation would probably be better - or otherwise a swift rejection of such individual reforms. I don't know if that would be possible with all the red tape currently in the EU at the moment though.

ironic aint it?

Lisbon would cut a lot of red tape

and the 1million signatures clause to start a debate is very democratic (directly)

gizmo555 · 29-05-2009 1:08pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

whats the alternative?

* drop Lisbon and wait another 10 years for a new treaty to be renegotiated while paying all the beuracracy to keep up the show? more than likely a new Treaty would be less favorable to Ireland as the world has changed in the last decade and our negotiators pretty much written the treaty

* leave the EU?

There are some pretty questionable premises in here:

(1) Do you seriously believe Lisbon or any other treaty will reduce the cost of EU bureaucracy while we still have such farces as the European Parliament moving house from Brussels to Strasbourg and back several times a year to keep France happy?

(2) Why do you assume a new treaty would be less favourable to Ireland?

(3) The idea that "our negotiators pretty much written the treaty" is the type of unverifiable propaganda our politicians like to spread about how "influential" little Ireland is in the EU. Do you really think that, say, France, Germany or the UK would allow Ireland to write a treaty on their behalf?

(4) Regardless of what the outcome of the referendum is, we cannot be made to leave the EU and we certainly wouldn't agree to voluntarily.

sink · 29-05-2009 1:09pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

A quick ratification process of individual legislation would probably be better - or otherwise a swift rejection of such individual reforms. I don't know if that would be possible with all the red tape currently in the EU at the moment though.

The problem here is Lisbon is a negotiated document between 27 parties and so it is finely balanced. Some parties benefit more from certain provision and others loose out on certain provisions but everyone compromised for the overall benefit. You can't split out provisions and ratify them one by one as not all provisions are equally sought after by individual states. For instance the reformed QMV in the council give more power to Germany but actually take power from France and Britain to better reflect their populations (historically Germany has been under-represented next to France and Britain). The QMV will not pass in France and Britain if it is taken in isolation. In the Lisbon package there are other benefits for France and Britain to counterbalance the negatives.

oscarBravo · 29-05-2009 1:10pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

However, France and Holland voted against it, so it's up to their governments and the EU to address the reasons for that and either change the Constitution or convince the French and Dutch to change their minds in a rerun, as we are being asked to do with Lisbon.

The French and Dutch governments did address the reasons for it, and changes were made accordingly.

What it seems to come down to is that you believe having rejected the old version in a referendum, that the revised version can have no validity unless it, in turn, is accepted by referendum. I can accept that reasoning, but if the French and Dutch voters don't seem too worried, I don't see why we should worry on their behalf.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Thanks, if this is actually the view held by Libertas, then that belies the arguments that they are a neo-nazi movement. Unless, of course, you thought what I said was fascist, in which case you have a very eccentric view of fascism.

I never mentioned neo-nazism, or fascism. You're a dab hand with the straw men.

And yes, the Constitution, in effect, has been ratified by proxy in France and Holland, albeit with so much servings of word salad that you can say that it hasn't until the cows come home.

No, the constitution was not ratified. The replacement treaty - Lisbon - was ratified.

You can dress your factual inaccuracies up in "word salad", to use your own phrase, until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that you are saying things which are not true.

RandomName2 wrote: »

A quick ratification process of individual legislation would probably be better - or otherwise a swift rejection of such individual reforms. I don't know if that would be possible with all the red tape currently in the EU at the moment though.

Ironically, it will be possible if Lisbon is ratified.

ionix5891 · 29-05-2009 1:10pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

There are some pretty questionable premises in here:

(1) Do you seriously believe Lisbon or any other treaty will reduce the cost of EU bureaucracy while we still have such farces as the European Parliament moving house from Brussels to Strasbourg and back several times a year to keep France happy?

(2) Why do you assume a new treaty would be less favourable to Ireland?

(3) The idea that "our negotiators pretty much written the treaty" is the type of unverifiable propaganda our politicians like to spread about how "influential" little Ireland is in the EU. Do you really think that, say, France, Germany or the UK would allow Ireland to write a treaty on their behalf?

(4) Regardless of what the outcome of the referendum is, we cannot be made to leave the EU and we certainly wouldn't agree to voluntarily.

I cant find the link (can someone help there was a thread on it. from tcd i believe) but there was a very good PDF on possible outcomes of another No Lisbon vote

it would answer all of the above after you read it

Scofflaw · 29-05-2009 1:11pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

A quick ratification process of individual legislation would probably be better - or otherwise a swift rejection of such individual reforms. I don't know if that would be possible with all the red tape currently in the EU at the moment though.

The much maligned Article 48 of Lisbon would allow individual amendments, but there's currently no mechanism for amending the treaties except by a full amending treaty like Lisbon.

I'm not sure the treaties really qualify as 'red tape' - they bind the EU to certain arrangements and functions, but an unbound EU would be a very bad idea (and not for the obvious hysterical reasons).

regards,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 29-05-2009 1:16pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

(1) Do you seriously believe Lisbon or any other treaty will reduce the cost of EU bureaucracy while we still have such farces as the European Parliament moving house from Brussels to Strasbourg and back several times a year to keep France happy?

Ironically, Lisbon would have reduced some of the cost by reducing the unwieldy size of the Commission. Thanks (in large part) to Libertas FUDmongering, that won't now happen.

(2) Why do you assume a new treaty would be less favourable to Ireland?

Ireland negotiated Lisbon from a position of substantial goodwill. That goodwill is eroding fast, and will have eroded futher if we reject Lisbon again.

Why do you think a new treaty would be more favourable?

(3) The idea that "our negotiators pretty much written the treaty" is the type of unverifiable propaganda our politicians like to spread about how "influential" little Ireland is in the EU. Do you really think that, say, France, Germany or the UK would allow Ireland to write a treaty on their behalf?

It's hyperbole to say that we "pretty much wrote" the treaty, but it has been widely acknowledged that we had a strong, even disproportionate, input into it.

(4) Regardless of what the outcome of the referendum is, we cannot be made to leave the EU and we certainly wouldn't agree to voluntarily.

I don't subscribe to the naive view that, should we throw a spanner into the works of EU reform, that the EU will continue to function on the basis of the Nice treaty forever. The outcome may not be expulsion from the EU, but I can't imagine that our influence in Europe will be enhanced by refusing to ratify a treaty that we had a large part in negotiating.

sink · 29-05-2009 1:18pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

I cant find the link (can someone help there was a thread on it. from tcd i believe) but there was a very good PDF on possible outcomes of another No Lisbon vote

it would answer all of the above after you read it

It's no longer available for free by download unfortunately. You have to buy it

.

http://www.iiea.com/publications/irelands-future-after-lisbon-issues-options-and-implications

gizmo555 · 29-05-2009 1:18pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

I cant find the link (can someone help there was a thread on it. from tcd i believe) but there was a very good PDF on possible outcomes of another No Lisbon vote

Oh, well if it's in a PDF from TCD it must be right so.

ionix5891 · 29-05-2009 1:20pm

sink wrote: »

It's no longer available for free by download unfortunately. You have to buy it .

http://www.iiea.com/publications/irelands-future-after-lisbon-issues-options-and-implications

Hmm interesting

i found the link anyways its from UCD, me bad

http://www.ucd.ie/dei/DEI_report_to_Oireachtas_12_Nov_08_FINAL.pdf

gizmo555 wrote: »

Oh, well if it's in a PDF from TCD it must be right so.

right or wrong thats an exercise left to the reader, they outline the facts and figures and then work from there, which is more than can be said of Libertas; who just lie and spin

.

sink · 29-05-2009 1:26pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

Hmm interesting didn't read the above

i found the link anyways its from UCD, thats the one that was a disturbing read

http://www.ucd.ie/dei/DEI_report_to_Oireachtas_12_Nov_08_FINAL.pdf

I had forgotten about that report, which is quiet informative. I had gotten it confused with eh IIEA report which is also very informative and used to be free, then they changed their whole website and started charging.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 29-05-2009 2:00pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

Simple answer is yes - it will effectively be, if Lisbon comes into effect.

I don't know what to say to that!? That's just blatantly not true, in the objective sense I mean, really and absolutely not true.

Wow!

molloyjh · 29-05-2009 2:32pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

And the Irish vote ain't hollow apparently :rolleyes:. The only thing is we can't vote no.

That's funny, I thought we had?

And how exactly do you propose they are going to stop us voting whatever way we want? Give the drama a break!

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's pretty much how it worked when the French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution. They got the Lisbon Treaty instead - which is essentially the Constitution minus a few symbolic bells and whistles like an official European flag and anthem.

gizmo555 wrote: »

However, France and Holland voted against it, so it's up to their governments and the EU to address the reasons for that and either change the Constitution or convince the French and Dutch to change their minds in a rerun, as we are being asked to do with Lisbon.

Funny that eh. The French voted no to the Constitution, then Lisbon was drawn up and they elected a man (Sarkozy) who said he had every intention of ratifying Lisbon. Then when he did the French didn't protest, which lets face it the French are fond of (and good at) doing. Yes that's definietly sinister stuff alright!

I don't suppose you ever found out why the French and Dutch said no did you? If so then you can tell us how their concerns were not addressed in Lisbon and show us clearly that it wasn't different enough. Of course if you can't show us that then doesn't that make your point rather hollow?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you a member of Libertas? If not, you should join up, you'd fit right in.

Just a very quick point on that, I've noticed Libertas are very clever in their presentation of many things. They rarely actually lie as such. They give you a fact, isolated from all other facts and phrased in such a way as to present the issue in the worst possible light. For example they say that the EU would have the power to change our corporate tax. This is a fact, from a certain point of view. If we charge different rates for different member states they can tell us that is not permitted (basic principles of the EU being equality in those areas) and we must charge the same rate to all. So while they can't tell us what to change it to, from a certain point of view they can force it to change in certain circumstances. While the truth is nothing at all like Libertas are painting it, their statement can still be deemed factual given a certain perspective and scenario. This just shows the important distinction that should be made between fact and truth.

RandomName2 wrote: »

A quick ratification process of individual legislation would probably be better - or otherwise a swift rejection of such individual reforms. I don't know if that would be possible with all the red tape currently in the EU at the moment though.

This Treaty is not the same as EU legislation. It is an agreement between member states as to how they will approach their union. Therefore each agreement is a treaty by nature. There is currently no way to "update" an existing treaty. All these "individual reforms" would have to be individual treaties, all of which would have to reference any other relevant treaty. And that would lead us to a large number of treaties all referencing each other, i.e. a big bloody mess.

Lisbon attempted to move away from that model by allowing for modifications to it's text without the need for additional treaties. Ratification of these changes would take place as normal, the only difference being that Lisbon itself would be updated and there would no longer be a need for more treaties.

Either way each individual reform was part of intense negotiations over the best part of a decade between the member states. Even if going down your suggested road was a feasible option in terms of the treaty business, getting agreement on them all would take decades!

RandomName2 · 29-05-2009 3:17pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

There are some pretty questionable premises in here:

(1) Do you seriously believe Lisbon or any other treaty will reduce the cost of EU bureaucracy while we still have such farces as the European Parliament moving house from Brussels to Strasbourg and back several times a year to keep France happy?

(2) Why do you assume a new treaty would be less favourable to Ireland?

(3) The idea that "our negotiators pretty much written the treaty" is the type of unverifiable propaganda our politicians like to spread about how "influential" little Ireland is in the EU. Do you really think that, say, France, Germany or the UK would allow Ireland to write a treaty on their behalf?

(4) Regardless of what the outcome of the referendum is, we cannot be made to leave the EU and we certainly wouldn't agree to voluntarily.

(2) It's back to the same old idea that Ireland should be eternally grateful for being in the EU, and that it is a miracle that we have exerted as much influence as we have done up until now. The image of Brian Cowan cringing and appologising for the Irish 'no' vote was just terrible. The fact that no real efforts were made to get a good a deal for Ireland as possible before the vote was even worse (there was no provisos for Ireland and all political changes directly affecting Ireland made her individual voice weaker in Europe)

(3) The idea that constitutional change requires this mammoth movement of beuorcrats is not altogether reasonable. Nice was a small treaty, almost solely limited to the issue of new states that could join the EU (which will be overturned in Lisbon)

(4) If Libertas is good with threats and lies, they are certainly matched by the mainsteam parties who predicted unmittigated disaster if we voted no in the first referendum (and have since tried to imply that the collapse of the Irish economy was caused to come extent by our 'Euro-skepticism')

In terms of the French choosing to ratify Lisbon by electing Sarkozy... does anybody have any proof that Royal was anti-Lisbon? Perhaps you could say Le Pen was anti-Lisbon. Are you (oscarbravo) saying that the only way that the French could avoid ratification of the Lisbon treaty was to elect a neo-fascist?

gizmo555 · 29-05-2009 3:47pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't know what to say to that!? That's just blatantly not true, in the objective sense I mean, really and absolutely not true.

Wow!

These guys apparently disagree with you:

gizmo555 wrote: »

"The substance of the Constitution is maintained. That's a fact"
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor.

"We have not abandoned a single essential point of the Constitution"
José Luis Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister.

"There is nothing from the original institutional package which has been changed."
Astrid Thors, Finnish Foreign Minister.

"It is positive that the symbolic elements have been removed and that which is really of importance - the heart - remains."
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister.

"The whole Constitution is there. Nothing's missing!".
Jean-Louis Bourlanges MEP, former member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, drafting body of the Constitution.

"It's essentially the same proposition as the old Constitution."
Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner.

and finally

"In terms of content, the propositions are largely unchanged, they're just presented in a different way."

"The reason for this is the new text mustn't appear too much like a constitutional treaty. The European Governments are agreed on cosmetic changes to the Constitution to make it easier to swallow."

Our old friend Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, before the Constitutional Affairs Commission of the European Parliament.

http://www.grappebelgique.be/article.php3?id_article=665

Scofflaw · 29-05-2009 4:01pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

(2) It's back to the same old idea that Ireland should be eternally grateful for being in the EU, and that it is a miracle that we have exerted as much influence as we have done up until now. The image of Brian Cowan cringing and appologising for the Irish 'no' vote was just terrible. The fact that no real efforts were made to get a good a deal for Ireland as possible before the vote was even worse (there was no provisos for Ireland and all political changes directly affecting Ireland made her individual voice weaker in Europe)

It's not a miracle - we did it by hard work, negotiating ability, and not having any hereditary enemies. What it eared us was credibility, which in turn made us more influential, and what our No damaged was our credibility.

RandomName2 wrote: »

(3) The idea that constitutional change requires this mammoth movement of beuorcrats is not altogether reasonable. Nice was a small treaty, almost solely limited to the issue of new states that could join the EU (which will be overturned in Lisbon)

Nice was hardly small - much of what is being argued about in Lisbon is actually in Nice (or, of course, Maastricht). I don't think that's an argument that will impress those of us who have seen more than one other EU treaty go by.

RandomName2 wrote: »

(4) If Libertas is good with threats and lies, they are certainly matched by the mainsteam parties who predicted unmittigated disaster if we voted no in the first referendum (and have since tried to imply that the collapse of the Irish economy was caused to come extent by our 'Euro-skepticism')

"The others are no better" is not actually a defence. FF are going to be hammered at the polls - are you pleading for equal treatment?

RandomName2 wrote: »

In terms of the French choosing to ratify Lisbon by electing Sarkozy... does anybody have any proof that Royal was anti-Lisbon? Perhaps you could say Le Pen was anti-Lisbon. Are you (oscarbravo) saying that the only way that the French could avoid ratification of the Lisbon treaty was to elect a neo-fascist?

Segolene Royal promised a referendum, Sarkozy promised not to have one. Not having a referendum has complete democratic legitimacy in France, because it's a political decision, not a legal one, and the candidate standing for not holding one won the election.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI · 29-05-2009 4:28pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

These guys apparently disagree with you:

None of them say they think Lisbon enacts a constitution, so no, they don't.

sink · 29-05-2009 4:37pm

Ok lets get back to the fundamental differences between the Constitution and the Consolidated Lisbon treaty.

The constitution was an attempt for purely political purposes to create a centralised document governing a reborn European Union. The reborn Union was envisioned was to have vestiges of a state (Constitution, Flag, Anthem), which legally would have little impact but would be profound both politically and culturally. It was a statement of unity, it attempted to reshape the way Europe thought about itself by asserting the European dimension of our national identities and projecting it outward upon the rest of the world. It was a significant departure from all previous European treaties in that it placed the emphasis upon citizens of the EU rather that national governments, moving away from a supra national organisation towards a confederation of states, not in legal terms but in the collective consciousness of the people of the world.

The Lisbon treaty dropped all of the grandstanding and the symbolism, all of the ambition. It is a bog standard treaty with little to set it apart from all the other treaties that have gone before, and is a good deal less significant than Rome and Maastricht in it's implications. It contains roughly 90% of the institutional reforms that were the Constitution but that is not what made the constitution significant.

It can be argued that the Lisbon treaty is the same as the Constitution because of their similarities, but by the same logic it can also be argued that a Chimpanzee is the same as a Homo-sapien in that they share 97% of their DNA and they are both great apes. But you fail to take into account the small differences that have a big impact.

gizmo555 · 29-05-2009 4:41pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

None of them say they think Lisbon enacts a constitution, so no, they don't.

No, but they all say that it is essentially the same thing as the Constitution. That's precisely the point - it's a constitution, but it can't be called a constitution.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 29-05-2009 4:46pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, but they all say that it is essentially the same thing as the Constitution. That's precisely the point - it's a constitution, but it can't be called a constitution.

Here's where you are incorrect. It is not a constitution, the bulk of the difference between Lisbon and the Constitution, is that the things that made it a constitution have been stripped away.

See the post above yours, it was probably posted while you were typing yours, it explains pretty well the difference between a/the constitution and the Lisbon treaty.

AFAIK the French and Dutch electorates voted down a constitution for Europe, i.e. they didn't want a constitution, and were probably agnostic about the institutional reform, and competency extensions which have been moved into Lisbon.

Evidence of this would be electing Sarkozy, who promised to ratify Lisbon.

They said 'No' to a constitution, and so there is no constitution. Maybe one day, but not today, and not in Lisbon.

To call Lisbon a constitution is quite simply factually inaccurate.

ionix5891 · 29-05-2009 4:59pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

(4) If Libertas is good with threats and lies, they are certainly matched by the mainsteam parties who predicted unmittigated disaster if we voted no in the first referendum (and have since tried to imply that the collapse of the Irish economy was caused to come extent by our 'Euro-skepticism')

lucky for us the Europeans are still buying our government bonds and are letting us get deeper into debt

lets just say "euro" skepticism from these people would cause the country to collapse if they every decide that buying Irish debt is risky

where will the 40billion a year to fund the public sector gravy train and the dole come from??

Scofflaw · 29-05-2009 5:15pm

ionix5891 wrote: »

lucky for us the Europeans are still buying our government bonds and are letting us get deeper into debt

Over €120 billion in lending from the ECB so far, apparently. Still, what's money, eh?

ionix5891 wrote: »

lets just say "euro" skepticism from these people would cause the country to collapse if they every decide that buying Irish debt is risky

where will the 40billion a year to fund the public sector gravy train and the dole come from??

Apart from being stuff we don't have enough of, that is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh · 29-05-2009 7:28pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

(2) It's back to the same old idea that Ireland should be eternally grateful for being in the EU, and that it is a miracle that we have exerted as much influence as we have done up until now. The image of Brian Cowan cringing and appologising for the Irish 'no' vote was just terrible. The fact that no real efforts were made to get a good a deal for Ireland as possible before the vote was even worse (there was no provisos for Ireland and all political changes directly affecting Ireland made her individual voice weaker in Europe)

I'm sorry, but what the hell gives us the right to have special treatment? We're a fraction of 1% of the entire population and you want us to have sections of the treaty specifically looking after us? Full of your own self importance much? We have received disproportionatly more from the EU than we've lost and still you think we should be getting little favours, because what, we're Irish? We're charming? We're more important? The EU is about member states acting together for mutual benefit, a partnership as such. What you're getting at is very Animal Farm in that we seem to be more equal than others in your view! :mad:

Our voting weight dropped by less than 1%. An insignificant drop in anyones book. And well Cowan should apologise for the result of the referendum. Didn't he and his crowd do a terrible job of promoting it after spending years working hard to create it. It made our Government look like a bunch of idiots and they were rightly ashamed when they went back to Brussels.

RandomName2 wrote: »

(3) The idea that constitutional change requires this mammoth movement of beuorcrats is not altogether reasonable. Nice was a small treaty, almost solely limited to the issue of new states that could join the EU (which will be overturned in Lisbon)

I have no idea what you're getting at in this point? What constitutional change are you referring to? The one we have to make? I really don't understand that bit.

Nice was not a small Treaty, as per Scofflaws post. And what is it they are overturning in the Lisbon Treaty? Are they kicking the Acession states out now?????

RandomName2 wrote: »

(4) If Libertas is good with threats and lies, they are certainly matched by the mainsteam parties who predicted unmittigated disaster if we voted no in the first referendum (and have since tried to imply that the collapse of the Irish economy was caused to come extent by our 'Euro-skepticism')

So? Politicians and greedy business men lie, I think we all know that. What's your point?

RandomName2 wrote: »

In terms of the French choosing to ratify Lisbon by electing Sarkozy... does anybody have any proof that Royal was anti-Lisbon? Perhaps you could say Le Pen was anti-Lisbon. Are you (oscarbravo) saying that the only way that the French could avoid ratification of the Lisbon treaty was to elect a neo-fascist?

See Scofflaws post re Sarkozy advertising not holding a referendum. And still no sign of you being able to tell us why the French or Dutch said no to the Constitution so I think it only fair that you drop that point until you can substantiate it with something.

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, but they all say that it is essentially the same thing as the Constitution. That's precisely the point - it's a constitution, but it can't be called a constitution.

See sinks post above yours. Sums it all up perfectly.

And as a helping hand with the reasons the French said no, seeing as it ties in directly to this point, they did so because of the notion of a Constitution led directly to a notion of an EU state. And the French are very, very proud of their sovereignty and got really spooked by this move. This wasn't helped by the fact that at the time France was going through a political and economic crisis where the Governments word was not held in high esteem and people wanted to teach them a lesson while also being influenced more by the extremists due to the various issues of the day.

So by removing the state-like elements from the Constitution and leaving it simply as a Treaty the EU removed one of the greates stumbling blocks it faced in France. This was obviously difference enough for the French to then happily elect Sarkozy - and they were very happy to do so if I remember right.

RandomName2 · 29-05-2009 10:16pm

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm sorry, but what the hell gives us the right to have special treatment? We're a fraction of 1% of the entire population and you want us to have sections of the treaty specifically looking after us? Full of your own self importance much? We have received disproportionatly more from the EU than we've lost and still you think we should be getting little favours, because what, we're Irish? We're charming? We're more important? The EU is about member states acting together for mutual benefit, a partnership as such. What you're getting at is very Animal Farm in that we seem to be more equal than others in your view! :mad:

Our voting weight dropped by less than 1%. An insignificant drop in anyones book. And well Cowan should apologise for the result of the referendum. Didn't he and his crowd do a terrible job of promoting it after spending years working hard to create it. It made our Government look like a bunch of idiots and they were rightly ashamed when they went back to Brussels.

I have no idea what you're getting at in this point? What constitutional change are you referring to? The one we have to make? I really don't understand that bit.

Nice was not a small Treaty, as per Scofflaws post. And what is it they are overturning in the Lisbon Treaty? Are they kicking the Acession states out now?????

So? Politicians and greedy business men lie, I think we all know that. What's your point?

See Scofflaws post re Sarkozy advertising not holding a referendum. And still no sign of you being able to tell us why the French or Dutch said no to the Constitution so I think it only fair that you drop that point until you can substantiate it with something.

See sinks post above yours. Sums it all up perfectly.

And as a helping hand with the reasons the French said no, seeing as it ties in directly to this point, they did so because of the notion of a Constitution led directly to a notion of an EU state. And the French are very, very proud of their sovereignty and got really spooked by this move. This wasn't helped by the fact that at the time France was going through a political and economic crisis where the Governments word was not held in high esteem and people wanted to teach them a lesson while also being influenced more by the extremists due to the various issues of the day.

So by removing the state-like elements from the Constitution and leaving it simply as a Treaty the EU removed one of the greates stumbling blocks it faced in France. This was obviously difference enough for the French to then happily elect Sarkozy - and they were very happy to do so if I remember right.

You make several points, but I won't treat them in order. First about the Constitution, here's a Wiki explanation of why the Dutch rejected it,

'A larger group of voters, however, voted "No" for reasons that were connected to the Constitution itself. 48 % thought the new Constitution was worse than the existing treaties, and 44 % cited the declining influence of the Netherlands in the EU, with the treaty as an important motivation. Linked to this was a fear of being dominated by the powerhouses of the European Union (particularly the United Kingdom, France and Germany). The perception of an aggressive and ruthless style on the part of the "Yes" campaign also put off many.'

As far as I can see, this has not been addressed in any way, but then again, I'm not Dutch. In terms of the French voting for Sarcozy; I voted for Fianna Fail, PDs, and Fine Gael in the last election - does this mean that I approved of the Lisbon treaty? Whilst Sarcozy did make it clear that he would not provide a referenda on Lisbon, if I were French I may still have voted for him, despite my objection to the Lisbon treaty. Like the Lisbon treaty itself, there were so many issues at stake in the French Presidential election that you can not single out the issue of Lisbon as an affirmation from the French public.

Your first point was a reiteration of what I said, although you seem to think that Irish power should be curtailed, or at least, that it is a necessary evil.

Nice is being overturned insofar that it placed a cap on the number of new states that could enter the EU, and this cap is being removed. And Nice was a small treaty in that, in relation to Ireland at least, it dealt almost exclusively with the introduction of the Acession states and the loss of Commissioner.

View · 30-05-2009 12:14am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Now, the reasons why a party might not be founded that would represent a general consensus is a more problematic subject,

There is nothing problematic about it - anybody anti-EU is free to set up a political party anytime they want. If they are too lazy to bother, nobody else it going to set one up for them.

RandomName2 wrote: »

but in terms of representation, the government is meant to represent the majority of the electorate.

It does - in the last general election, which took place 6 months before Lisbon was finalised, an overwhelmingly majority of the electorate voted to return pro-EU TDs/parties to the Oireachtas. Under the terms of Bunreacht na hEireann, whichever parties form the Government are the only people entitled to negotiate treaties on behalf of the Irish people. This they duly did and we now have the Lisbon treaty.

Unfortunately though, people like you are unwilling to accept the provisions of Bunreacht na hEireann and seem to be under the delusion that you have some sort of a "right" to dictate what the Government can negotiate on behalf of the people who elected them.

Can someone please clarify the following points about the Lisbon treaty from Libertas

Comments