[oscarBravo]

Originally Posted by P. Breathnach

I suspect that it is a waste of time trying to persuade gizmo555 to vote on the treaty on its merits.

Sure, but it's possible that others could be persuaded by his "arguments" if they're not shown to be rather hollow.

[gizmo555]

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

What's wrong with avoiding referendums? France does not, as a rule, ratify international treaties by referendum. In fact it's fair to say that EU countries do not, as a rule (with the exception of Ireland, and then only in the case of EU treaties) ratify international treaties by referendum.

I asked earlier if you felt that Amsterdam and Nice were somehow invalid because they were not put to referendum in France, and you said they were not. And yet you reject Lisbon because it wasn't put to a referendum?

OK, once again slowly. There is nothing, in general, wrong with avoiding referenda. In this case, however, Lisbon is the same as the constitution already rejected at referenda in Holland and France. And again, don't take my word for it:

"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

What's astonishing is just how brazen they all are about it . . .

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

You've also avoided my questions about what percentage of the Constitution needs to be absent from Lisbon before it becomes acceptable to consider it on its merits,

I ignored it because I assumed it was rhetorical - I could say "X%" and you'd say "prove Lisbon contains more than X% of the Constitution" or maybe "why not Y%?". As if, anyway, the question was amenable to an objective arithmetic calculation.

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

as well as ignoring djpbarry's point about the fact that the French and the Dutch seem less outraged than you are on their behalf.

Again I took this to be rhetorical. There is opposition to Lisbon in both countries. But that's beside the point. As a citizen of an EU country, I'm entitled to express opposition to what I see as wrongdoing by the EU and its members, whether it happens here in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe.

[gizmo555]

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

You're not making sense. Most of the provisions of the Constitution are still retained in Lisbon, yes. The Lisbon treaty is, per se, less readable than the Constitution - yes. But you've still to explain what anyone has to gain from deliberately obfuscating the text, especially when the obfuscation was promptly undone by the publication of consolidated treaties, which are no less readable than the Constitution.

Forgot to address this point. First of all we are not voting on the consolidated treaties - we are voting on the Lisbon Treaty. Maybe the consolidated treaties will be an aid, but at about 500 pages, I can't see many voters managing to get through them.

As for whether obfuscation was deliberate, and what was to be gained:

It was decided that the document must be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it's not constitutional: that was the idea. If you can understand the text at first glance one risked calls for a referendum, beacuse it would be apparent that it was something new.
Giuliano Amato, former vice-president of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable. The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable. The constitution was intended to be clear, but this treaty had to be obscure. It's a success.
Karel de Gucht, Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs

Properly understood, there would be a transfer of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of the public to this fact?
Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg.

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

Once again, the brazenness of these people is astounding. The people are to be led like sheep by the élite who know what's best for them. What they don't know, won't hurt them . . .

[View]

Originally Posted by gizmo555

In this case, however, Lisbon is the same as the constitution already rejected at referenda in Holland and France.

Well, regretful for this argument, there has already been a court case in the UK about it. In that court case an individual claimed to the UK's High Court (their highest court) that Lisbon and the Constitution were the same, however the Judges ruled:

32. There are undoubted differences between the two treaties. Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty does not purport, either by its title or in its terms, to lay down a constitution for Europe. Unlike the Constitutional Treaty, it does not repeal the existing treaties and replace them by a single text, but proceeds by way of amendment of the existing treaties; and it leaves in place the existing entities and institutions (save that the European Community is subsumed into the European Union) rather than replacing them with a new legal entity. We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance.

33. There are also, on any view, differences of substance. Mr Sumption QC referred the court to an analysis by Professor Steve Peers, of the University of Essex, which identified 35 substantive differences between the two treaties. That analysis is not accepted by the claimant and has been the subject of debate between Lord Blackwell and Baroness Ashton (the Leader of the House of Lords) in correspondence that we were shown. Thankfully, detailed argument before us was confined to 5 specific examples which were said by Mr Sumption to be illustrative and were set out in a written schedule, to which Mr Singh helpfully responded in a counter-schedule. They relate in part to matters on which the United Kingdom set down its "red lines" for the negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty. They are as follows:


i) The first concerns the opt-out for the United Kingdom in the area of freedom, security and justice (Protocol 21 to the treaties as amended by the Lisbon Treaty): the opt-out is extended so as to cover matters of policing and criminal law in addition to matters of immigration and civil law which were covered by the corresponding opt-out in the Constitutional Treaty. Mr Singh did not deny that there was an extension, but referred to the existence of opt-in provisions in Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol 21 and submitted that the scope of the extended opt-out was limited by a declaration made by the United Kingdom on Article 75 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the new name given to the EC Treaty by the Lisbon Treaty). Limited though it may be, the extension of the opt-out cannot in our view be dismissed as obviously immaterial.

ii) The second example was presented in terms of the conferment of additional powers on national parliaments to delay or resist EC legislation by reference to principles of subsidiarity. The point turns on a new provision, in Article 7(3) of Protocol 2 to the treaties as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, whereby the Commission must review a measure if there is a majority of votes from national parliaments that the measure does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. In addition, the period of response for national parliaments has been extended from 6 weeks to 8 weeks. Mr Singh made the cogent point that it is unlikely in practice that a majority of national parliaments will respond with the required reasoned opinions even within an 8 week time-frame, and that even if they do it alters the procedure but not necessarily the outcome. Again, however, we do not think that the change can be dismissed as obviously immaterial.

iii) The third example relates to changes with regard to the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the United Kingdom. The Charter formed an integral part of the Constitutional Treaty, whereas under the Lisbon Treaty the position is more complex. The Charter is not part of the treaties, but the amended Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union provides that the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter "which shall have the same value as the Treaties". However, Article 1 of Protocol 30 provides that the Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice or national courts to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms; and in particular, that nothing in Title IV of the Charter (concerning economic and social rights) creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom "except in so far as … the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law". The precise legal consequences of those provisions will have to be worked out by the courts. Again, however, we take the view that the differences in this respect between the two treaties cannot be dismissed as obviously immaterial.

iv) The fourth example concerns an amendment by the Lisbon Treaty to Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union, which provides inter alia that the Union shall respect the essential state functions of member states, "including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security". As a result of the amendment this is followed by an additional sentence: "In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State". Mr Singh submitted that the addition of that sentence did not amount to a substantive change, both in the light of the preceding sentence, which was contained in identical form in the Constitutional Treaty, and in the light of the further provision in Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, that Title V of Part Three (on the area of freedom, security and justice) "shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security": that provision, too, was contained in identical form in the Constitutional Treaty. Although the additional sentence in Article 4(2) does seem relatively minor, we do not think it possible to conclude that an express statement that national security remains the "sole" responsibility of the member states is of no materiality.

v) The final example concerns Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty. The article confers residual powers for the adoption of measures necessary for the attainment of treaty objectives where the treaties have not otherwise provided the necessary powers. Article 352(4) provides that the article "cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives pertaining to the common foreign and security policy and that any acts adopted pursuant to this Article shall respect the limits set out in Article 40, second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union". No such limitation was contained in the corresponding provision of the Constitutional Treaty. Mr Singh submitted that the limitation is likely to have limited, if any, substantive significance. In our view, however, one cannot dismiss as obviously immaterial a provision of this kind limiting the scope for European Union measures in the field of foreign and security policy.

Also, the judges quote in their ruling some evidence from the defence in the case which cites a report from the Dutch Council of State:

36. The defendants, on the other hand, point to the advice given by the Dutch Council of State on 12 September 2007 on the mandate of the intergovernmental conference that led to the Lisbon Treaty. The Council of State reached this conclusion at section 3.5:

"The Council concludes that the proposed Reform Treaty will be a treaty whose content, methodology and goals are in keeping with the EU's constitutional development as described in Section 3.1 Taken individually, many of the differences between the proposed Reform Treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe amount in strictly legal terms to shifts in emphasis, changes of form and abolition of symbols; the same was true, but in reverse, of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in relation to earlier treaties. Taken together, more far-reaching significance should be attached to changes such as the abandonment of the idea of a single written constitution, the decision not to include the whole of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the sharper delimiting of the Union's competences (including those in the protocol on services of general interest and of general economic interest) and the decision not to include the symbols of European unification.

The purpose of all these changes is to rid the proposed Reform Treaty as far as possible of the elements from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe which could have formed a basis of the development of the EU into a more explicit state or federation. This means that the proposed
Reform Treaty is substantially different from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe."

The full ruling is here.

Unless you are going to argue that the judges don't possess the necessary legal skill to determine whether two legal texts are the same or different, the ruling contradicts your claim that the two treaties are the same. Hence the "We all must vote no, because Lisbon has already been rejected" argument is irrelevant.

[ShooterSF]

This is one side on the no argument I don't agree on. It's as annoying as the whole how dare 4 million hold back 500 million crap the yes side spout out. We vote on the treaty in a "is it what's best for Ireland" mindset. Let the other countries look after their own issues.

[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by gizmo555

There is opposition to Lisbon in both countries. But that's beside the point. As a citizen of an EU country, I'm entitled to express opposition to what I see as wrongdoing by the EU and its members, whether it happens here in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe.

It's not beside the point, because you have as yet failed to demonstrate that anyone has been wronged. Would it not be reasonable to assume, in the absence of any mass protest, that the majority (if not the overwhelming majority) of Dutch and French voters are quite happy for their respective governments to ratify the treaty on their behalf? If there was obvious opposition to the ratification of the treaty without a referendum in a particular state, then you might have a point. But I would still not factor this into my decision when voting on the treaty, as the means by which the treaty is ratified in a particular state is a matter to be decided by the government and people of that particular state. Your collection of sound-bites does not change that.

[turgon]

Bear in mind that although the Lisbon Treaty contains 95% of the Constitutional Treaty, it is the 5% which changed - the flag, anthem, motto etc, that makes a lot of a difference.

[gizmo555]

Originally Posted by djpbarry

It's not beside the point, because you have as yet failed to demonstrate that anyone has been wronged.

Well I think have, you don't accept that, so we'll have to agree to differ. So far, so good.

Originally Posted by djpbarry

Would it not be reasonable to assume, in the absence of any mass protest, that the majority (if not the overwhelming majority) of Dutch and French voters are quite happy for their respective governments to ratify the treaty on their behalf?

First of all I don't accept the premise that the absence of mass protest proves no-one has been wronged. Secondly, it's one reasonable possible explanation - it's by no means the only one.

Our Department of Foreign Affairs commissioned a poll after the 1st Lisbon treaty. It found, inter alia, that:

The main reason cited for voting No was ‘lack of knowledge/information/ understanding’ at 42%. There can be little doubt that this emerged as the primary reason for people voting No.

and

The main reason for abstaining in this referendum was lack of understanding/knowledge (46%), which is far in excess of any other voluntary or circumstantial reason given for not voting.

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/...ngs_sept08.pdf

If the French and Dutch peoples' responses to the Lisbon Treaty are anything like ours, it is equally reasonable to assume the lack of protest is due to mass incomprehension. This would be unsurprising, since as we have seen one of the key aims of the Lisbon Treaty was to be incomprehensible. It turns out that the drafters were too clever for their own good - if they had produced a more transparent and readable text they would have stood a much better chance of getting approval for it from Irish voters. (This poll also gives the lie to the proposition that the consolidated treaties were of any significant assistance to voters in understanding what they were being asked to vote on.)

Originally Posted by djpbarry

Your collection of sound-bites does not change that.

Yeah, well since you can't gainsay them, I guess all you can do is dismiss them in this facile way.

[turgon]

Originally Posted by gizmo555

This would be unsurprising, since as we have seen one of the key aims of the Lisbon Treaty was to be incomprehensible.

Please explain this.

Also, if it so "incomprehensible," why can you go up to most libraries and peruse the consolidated treaties easily?

[sink]

If it's so incomprehensible, how can I read it and understand it? What's incomprehensible is the asinine gibberish you've been spouting. Particularly this comment.

Originally Posted by gizmo555

First of all we are not voting on the consolidated treaties - we are voting on the Lisbon Treaty. Maybe the consolidated treaties will be an aid, but at about 500 pages, I can't see many voters managing to get through them.

The consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon ARE THE RESULT of the Lisbon treaty, you have to be feckin thick to not pay attention to the consolidated treaties, they are the only thing that matters. This just goes to show you're not interested in the changes Lisbon will make you're opposed to the idea of the Lisbon Treaty, it doesn't matter what the treaty contains. Judging by the latter part of your comment you don't want any form of political union in Europe, for any political union of individual sovereign states requires by default a large body of rules to govern it and a couple of hundred pages is about as concise as one can reasonably expect. Even the constitution was a few hundred pages long.

[djpbarry]

Originally Posted by gizmo555

Well I think have, you don't accept that, so we'll have to agree to differ.

Or you could tell us who has been so grievously wronged that you feel compelled to vote ‘No’ on their behalf?

Originally Posted by gizmo555

First of all I don't accept the premise that the absence of mass protest proves no-one has been wronged.

Neither do I; I said it was “reasonable to assume”, not “prove”.

Originally Posted by gizmo555

Secondly, it's one reasonable possible explanation - it's by no means the only one.

I would argue it is the most probable explanation. If you tell somebody that you’re going to do something and they do not object, then I think it is reasonable to assume that this person is not all that bothered about whatever it is you’re going to do (assuming they are a rational individual of sound mind).

Originally Posted by gizmo555

If the French and Dutch peoples' responses to the Lisbon Treaty are anything like ours, it is equally reasonable to assume the lack of protest is due to mass incomprehension.

If the French and Dutch people do not understand the treaty, then they obviously have not spent a great deal of time attempting to understand it, which is further evidence (as if it were needed) that they really don’t care all that much. Unless of course you are trying to imply that the people of Europe are too stupid to understand the text?

Originally Posted by gizmo555

This would be unsurprising, since as we have seen one of the key aims of the Lisbon Treaty was to be incomprehensible.

If true, then the treaty’s authors have failed miserably, as the consolidated version of the text in particular is quite accessible.

Originally Posted by gizmo555

Yeah, well since you can't gainsay them, I guess all you can do is dismiss them in this facile way.

I’m dismissing them because, as far as I’m concerned, they’re irrelevant. I prefer to base my vote on the actual content of the treaty rather than meaningless sound-bites translated from an obscure website.

[View]

Originally Posted by gizmo555

If the French and Dutch peoples' responses to the Lisbon Treaty are anything like ours, it is equally reasonable to assume the lack of protest is due to mass incomprehension.

Well, you are probably right about the mass incomprehension part. Let's face it, the referendum campaign wasn't dominated by lawyers discussing the finer legal nuances of the treaty, elucidating the existing situation and highlighting the subtle changes that would occur if it were passed. Instead, it frequently featured outright scare mongering.

As such, the citizens of most EU states are quite happy to leave it to their Parliaments to ratify treaties. It saves them the hassle of having to wade through the sort of nonsense that characterised our referendum campaign. They regard ratification by Parliament as being totally democratic.

Only in Ireland has the idea that is somehow "undemocratic" for a democratically-elected Parliament to ratify treaties bizarrely taken hold.

[cat&mouse]

Q. where, and when, can i get the full text of the ammended text?

Might pick up information from:
Next Sunday on THE BBC TV @ 6.00 pm a descussion on the Lisbon Treaty was just announced on Qestiontime (I think that is the name of the programme, its Dimbely the presenter )BBC parliament. It will be having European MEP'S and local politicians.

[oscarBravo]

Originally Posted by gizmo555

OK, once again slowly. There is nothing, in general, wrong with avoiding referenda. In this case, however, Lisbon is the same as the constitution already rejected at referenda in Holland and France. And again, don't take my word for it:

I won't, because it is factually untrue. It is, quite simply, demonstrably false to claim that they are the same. Therefore, any argument based on the assertion that they are the same is intrinsically flawed.

I ignored it because I assumed it was rhetorical - I could say "X%" and you'd say "prove Lisbon contains more than X% of the Constitution" or maybe "why not Y%?". As if, anyway, the question was amenable to an objective arithmetic calculation.

If it's not amenable to an objective arithmetic calculation, what is it amenable to?

It's not a rhetorical question; it's one to which I'd like an answer. The Lisbon Treaty is different from the Constitution - to state otherwise is factually untrue. So the problem seems to be that it's not different enough. I want to know just how different it needs to be before you'll assess it on its merits, and how you measure that difference.

Originally Posted by gizmo555

Forgot to address this point. First of all we are not voting on the consolidated treaties - we are voting on the Lisbon Treaty.

That's a laughable bit of sophistry, as pointed out by sink.

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by cat&mouse

Q. where, and when, can i get the full text of the ammended text?

The European Commission Irish Representation has a page of Lisbon downloads which has been there since at least April to my knowledge. It has the actual text (hard to read, consisting of the amendments), the consolidated text (much easier, being the treaties as amended), and the text of the Charter.

This is the annotated consolidated version, which shows the text as amended, as well what text has been amended (ie you can see the previous text and the new text side by side).

cordially,
Scofflaw