The YES side were wrong or lied?

Villain

So now that it’s clear that a second referendum is going to happen with a deal been done to keep our commissioner and get legal declarations on issues that the no side had with the treaty.

But does anyone remember that the YES side in particular Fianna Fail kept telling us over and over that there could be no better deal or renegotiation of the treaty yet now we look set to keep our commissioner and get legal declarations on other issues. So was it they lied to try and scare us into voting yes or were they just wrong in thinking that the EU wouldn’t make changes if we voted NO?

We were told we voted to give up our permanent commissioner in the Niece treaty and that to say voting NO would change that was nonsense, doesn’t look like nonsense now?

So it looks like we were right to vote “NO FOR A BETTER DEAL”

dresden8

Oh dear, the yes side are going to tear you a new ass on that one.

sink

The treaty hasn't been renegotiated. Go find out what the legal term 'declaration' means. On the commissioner read this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055437689

Villain

sink wrote: »

The treaty hasn't been renegotiated. Go find out what the legal term 'declaration' means. On the commissioner read this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055437689

I'm not saying it's been renegotiated but changes are been made to allow us to retain our comissioner for a the medium term at least and there will be legal declarations, which I think to most people would be seen as a "Better Deal" which the YES side said wasn't possible?

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

I'm not saying it's been renegotiated but changes are been made to allow us to retain our comissioner for a the medium term at least and there will be legal declarations, which I think to most people would be seen as a "Better Deal" which the YES side said wasn't possible?

I don't think it's a better deal. I think the retention of a commissioner from every member state is pandering to stupidity and ignorance, and the declarations are tautological restatements of provisions already contained within the treaty.

We squandered thirty years worth of hard-earned political capital for this?

*slow hand clap*

I'm curious how the commissioner thing works - my understanding was that it's not possible given both Nice and Lisbon provisions. I'll have to go research.

sink

Villain wrote: »

I'm not saying it's been renegotiated but changes are been made to allow us to retain our comissioner for a the medium term at least and there will be legal declarations, which I think to most people would be seen as a "Better Deal" which the YES side said wasn't possible?

The commissioner however you perceive it in reality is of no benefit and actually adds to the EU's bureaucracy. The declarations are the equivalent of the EU saying "Yes we really do mean there will be no change to Ireland's abortion laws", "Yes we really do mean that Ireland retains full independent control over her armed forces", "Yes we really do mean Ireland retains full control over her corporation tax" etc., etc.,. They do not change the treaty they just clarify what the treaty does and does not do for everyone who has difficulty understanding it.

Villain

Well imo and many who voted no imo it is a better deal and I will now votes YES, as for thirty years worth of hard-earned political capital thats overrated and once we vote Yes it will be back to normal.

The Yes side still trying to scare people into voting Yes the problem is as our major Political Parties have shown in the past and once again in this instance they can't be trusted to tell you the truth.

Villain

sink wrote: »

They do not change the treaty they just clarify what the treaty does and does not do for everyone who has difficulty understanding it.

Thats all most people wanted imo, to be able read in clear and easy English what the Treaty does and does not do, just like our Constitution

sink

Villain wrote: »

Thats all most people wanted imo, to be able read in clear and easy English what the Treaty does and does not do, just like our Constitution

But then how can you say the government lied?

Villain

sink wrote: »

But then how can you say the government lied?

Because they told us that what was on offer before the first referendum was the last and final offer, i.e. there would be no changes no declarations and our commissioner could not be retained.

That is now not the case?

Moriarty

The only people who have benefited from the Lisbon rejection are euro-sceptics enjoying a political victory. The Irish people and the EU at large have both suffered as a result of it, with absolutely no positive outcome for either.

The only positive I can see which might come out of it is that next time more people might realise how unprofessionally out of touch the campaigners for the lisbon treaty were from the real world. Then again, that's a common symptom of charlatans.

Moriarty

Villain wrote: »

Because they told us that what was on offer before the first referendum was the last and final offer, i.e. there would be no changes no declarations and our commissioner could not be retained.

That is now not the case?

There will be no changes. The commission will spell out in big letters with crayons that the treaty didn't impact on any of the things the No campaign used as scare stories in the first campaign.

sink

Villain wrote: »

there would be no changes

There are no changes

Villain wrote: »

no declarations

I don't recall them saying that.

Villain wrote: »

and our commissioner could not be retained.

We lost the commissioner under nice. The Lisbon treaty gives the European Council the power by unanimous agreement to change the size and shape of the commission. So effectively they rescinding the Nice treaty not Lisbon. And btw if Lisbon is not ratified by October 2009 the commission has to downsize under Nice rules.

I should probably just shut up and be happy that you are voting yes.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Moriarty wrote: »

The only people who have benefited from the Lisbon rejection are euro-sceptics enjoying a political victory. The Irish people and the EU at large have both suffered as a result of it, with absolutely no positive outcome for either.

The only positive I can see which might come out of it is that next time more people might realise how unprofessionally out of touch the campaigners for the lisbon treaty were from the real world. Then again, that's a common symptom of charlatans.

Do you really think that voting lisbon in would result in life being better?

All it does is shift power around. It's not magic.

mike65

Hang on you mean we are going to have a second referendum?

Does that mean we were lied to?

By politicans?

Shocking

Villain

Declarations are been added and our Comissioner is been retained and you think there is no difference or no changes??

Well if thats the story the YES side are going to tell I suspect we may well see another NO Vote.

What is it with politicians and admiting they were wrong? If the YES side want a YES vote on the next vote they need to come out and say "ok we have listened and we have got changes on the commisioner and we are getting very clear declaration's on the issue that NO side had, now please vote YES" and ends, don't then go on to say how the no vote has damaged us and anotehr no vote would be a huge crisis and if you vote NO the world will end.

Negative campaigning doesn't work, been stubborn and trying to say you were not wrong and this isn't a better deal will NOT get a YES vote

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious how the commissioner thing works - my understanding was that it's not possible given both Nice and Lisbon provisions. I'll have to go research.

OK, got it:

As from 1 November 2014, the Commission shall consist of a number of members, including its President and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number.

So it is possible - fair enough. I still think it's stupid.

As an aside, it took me about three minutes to find this out from the text of the treaty document itself. So much for convoluted, unreadable, yadda yadda...

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

Declarations are been added and our Comissioner is been retained and you think there is no difference or no changes??

The treaty has not been changed or re-negotiatied. Sticky notes are being attached to it. What's unclear about that?

Negative campaigning doesn't work, been stubborn and trying to say you were not wrong and this isn't a better deal will NOT get a YES vote

I don't think it's a better deal. I think the commissioner provision is stupid.

Do you think I should lie about that in the hope that people will vote the way I'd like them to?

sink

Villain wrote: »

Declarations are been added and our Comissioner is been retained and you think there is no difference or no changes??

Well if thats the story the YES side are going to tell I suspect we may well see another NO Vote.

What is it with politicians and admiting they were wrong? If the YES side want a YES vote on the next vote they need to come out and say "ok we have listened and we have got changes on the commisioner and we are getting very clear declaration's on the issue that NO side had, now please vote YES" and ends, don't then go on to say how the no vote has damaged us and anotehr no vote would be a huge crisis and if you vote NO the world will end.

Negative campaigning doesn't work, been stubborn and trying to say you were not wrong and this isn't a better deal will NOT get a YES vote

Truer advice has never been given. I and all Yes campaigners should learn to hold our tongue.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

The treaty has not been changed or re-negotiatied. Sticky notes are being attached to it. What's unclear about that?

What the people will be asked to vote on has Changed?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think it's a better deal. I think the commissioner provision is stupid.

Do you think I should lie about that in the hope that people will vote the way I'd like them to?

We get that you wanted people to vote YES first time around that didn't happen, now we are getting changes which will help people vote YES but you don't want the changes their stupid in your opinion, so do you not want the changes, you want people to asked to vote on the exact same thing? Because I would bet you would get another NO in that case whereas as making this "stupid" change will help get more people to vote YES.

Why do you not want a change made to keep our commisioner?

sink

Villain wrote: »

Why do you not want a change made to keep our commisioner?

Because it will be of no benefit and increase EU bureaucracy. The commission does not represent national interests and individual commissioners risk losing their job if they show national bias. Ever heard the expression 'Too many chefs spoil the broth'? Anyway there is no point in arguing this now since the commission will stay at it's present size if Lisbon passes which I gather is what we both want.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

What the people will be asked to vote on has Changed?

The treaty hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed in reality is a commitment to use a provision within the treaty not to reduce the size of the commission in six years' time.

We get that you wanted people to vote YES first time around that didn't happen, now we are getting changes which will help people vote YES but you don't want the changes their stupid in your opinion, so do you not want the changes, you want people to asked to vote on the exact same thing? Because I would bet you would get another NO in that case whereas as making this "stupid" change will help get more people to vote YES.

Oh, I get that it may help achieve the result I want. I'll still vote "yes", even though I disagree with the retention of the size of the commission - on balance, it's still a good treaty. What's stupid is that we've squandered political capital and created a great deal of fuss and bother, all in order to secure declarations that simply repeat what's already in the treaty.

Why do you not want a change made to keep our commisioner?

He's not "our" commissioner, he's Europe's.

sink

oscarBravo wrote: »

He's not "our" commissioner, he's Europe's.

It's more accurate to say all 27 commissioners are "our" commissioners as we are all Europeans.

ben bedlam

Lisbon 2 will be another NO vote. The Irish Government simply won't be able to sustain a yes campaign after it becomes blatently apparent that not a single comma of the treaty will be changed and the EU "assurances" will not be legally binding. Coupled with this, I think many people will use Lisbon 2 to oust Cowen, as his position as Taoiseach will become untenable after another rejection.

sink

ben bedlam wrote: »

the EU "assurances" will not be legally binding.

Technically yes but they do make it legally impossible for the articles in question to be interpreted any other way.

humanji

ben bedlam wrote: »

Lisbon 2 will be another NO vote. The Irish Government simply won't be able to sustain a yes campaign after it becomes blatently apparent that not a single comma of the treaty will be changed and the EU "assurances" will not be legally binding. Coupled with this, I think many people will use Lisbon 2 to oust Cowen, as his position as Taoiseach will become untenable after another rejection.

I think that's a sad truth. The Yes side are really going to have to pull out their A-game to win over the people.

Villain

ben bedlam wrote: »

Lisbon 2 will be another NO vote. The Irish Government simply won't be able to sustain a yes campaign after it becomes blatently apparent that not a single comma of the treaty will be changed and the EU "assurances" will not be legally binding. Coupled with this, I think many people will use Lisbon 2 to oust Cowen, as his position as Taoiseach will become untenable after another rejection.

Thats possible but hopefully people will use the Local elections to vent their anger at the Government, the opposition will need to be very strong in their campaign.

Villain

Micheál Martin says that the Government have responded to the NO posters saying "vote No to keep your commissioner" despite saying before the first vote this wasn't possible!

jhegarty

Villain wrote: »

the opposition will need to be very strong in their campaign.

Unless they see it as a chance to kick the government when they are down.

niceirishfella

jhegarty wrote: »

Unless they see it as a chance to kick the government when they are down.

+1

And we'll see a General Election over this. Cowan will be shafted after they loose again. Its going to happen.

WooPeeA

Villain wrote: »

But does anyone remember that the YES side in particular Fianna Fail kept telling us over and over that there could be no better deal or renegotiation of the treaty yet now we look set to keep our commissioner

No. Ireland will lose commissioner under current treaty anyway. Treaty of Lisbon won't make any change in that issue.

and get legal declarations on other issues. So was it they lied to try and scare us into voting yes or were they just wrong in thinking that the EU wouldn’t make changes if we voted NO?

Those who told you that Ireland will keep commissioner if you vote NO lied you.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

Micheál Martin says that the Government have responded to the NO posters saying "vote No to keep your commissioner" despite saying before the first vote this wasn't possible!

Who said it was not possible?

the_syco

Moriarty wrote: »

There will be no changes. The commission will spell out in big letters with crayons that the treaty didn't impact on any of the things the No campaign used as scare stories in the first campaign.

Font size 72 will be needed, I think.

molloyjh

WooPeeA wrote: »

No. Ireland will lose commissioner under current treaty anyway. Treaty of Lisbon won't make any change in that issue.

Strictly speaking thats not actually the case. The Nice Treaty stated that the Commission was to be reduced by 2009 but never specified any details as to how that would happen and who would "lose" out. The initial plan, which was then renegotiated as part of Lisbon, was to have the larger states retain permanent places on the Commission and the remaining states to have an equal rotation system. However, and if I'm not mistaken our Government played a large part in the renegotiation, the larger states agreed to the Lisbon method as part of the negotiations in part due to the fact that the "all politics is local" fear has been reduced significantly due to years of partnership within the Union.

jhegarty

WooPeeA wrote: »

Those who told you that Ireland will keep commissioner if you vote NO lied you.

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

sink

jhegarty wrote: »

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

As things stand now the commission is to be reduced at the end of Oct 2009 under the terms agreed to in the Nice treaty. The only way to change that is to ratify the Lisbon treaty which gives power to the European Council to change the size and shape of the Commission by unanimous agreement. So in essence the no vote last time did not guarantee our right to nominate a commissioner but a yes vote next referendum will.

molloyjh

jhegarty wrote: »

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

Again strictly speaking we don't have a Commissioner. There is currently an Irish person in a Commission position, but his job is to represent all of the EU in matters relating to his department, i.e. Internal Market and Services. He does not represent Ireland. And no decisions have been made regarding the Commission, although it is looking like they will be keepig all Commissioners. Its a bad idea IMO and could leave the door open for other nations to hold the EU to ransom in a similar way in future.

Oh and I never even realised that point sink, re voting Yes to Lisbon is the only way to prevent the Commission reduction. Duh!

WooPeeA

jhegarty wrote: »

Really ?

So is Cowan now lying at us getting to keep a commissioner ?

I wouldn't give better answer than Sink and Molloyjh, right below your question.

T runner

Hindsight is a great thing, but now I'm sure the Yes side would have wished they thought of using declarations before the first referendum now.

I wonder will pre-emptive declarations be used with future EU referendums?

Villain

WooPeeA wrote: »

Those who told you that Ireland will keep commissioner if you vote NO lied you.

Really? Micheal Martin stated that because we voted no Ireland went back to the other EU Countries have got agreement on us keeping our Commisioner.

I think the NO side were spot on and the YES saying that there was no better deal if we voted no were wrong or lied

passive

Villain wrote: »

Really? Micheal Martin stated that because we voted no Ireland went back to the other EU Countries have got agreement on us keeping our Commisioner.

I think the NO side were spot on and the YES saying that there was no better deal if we voted no were wrong or lied

You seem so intent on thinking that is the case that you're ignoring all evidence to the contrary, so you might as well let the thread be closed.

sink

Villain wrote: »

I think the NO side were spot on and the YES saying that there was no better deal if we voted no were wrong or lied

A 'better deal' is a highly subjective thing. In my view this is a worse deal for Europe for in 10 years or so there will be 34 commissioners. That is 7 new portfolios that have to be invented or split off from others without any added benefit but with all the extra costs both in monetary terms and stifling bureaucracy.

sink

You think legislation on wonky fruit is pointless wait until you see what comes out of a commission of 34 where half the members have nothing to do all day but stroke their own egos. There really only needs to be 12-15 commissioners to do the job of the commission.

ShooterSF

molloyjh wrote: »

Again strictly speaking we don't have a Commissioner. There is currently an Irish person in a Commission position, but his job is to represent all of the EU in matters relating to his department, i.e. Internal Market and Services. He does not represent Ireland. And no decisions have been made regarding the Commission, although it is looking like they will be keepig all Commissioners. Its a bad idea IMO and could leave the door open for other nations to hold the EU to ransom in a similar way in future.

Oh and I never even realised that point sink, re voting Yes to Lisbon is the only way to prevent the Commission reduction. Duh!

Sooo if you're for keeping all the commissioners this time you vote Yes and if you're against you vote No?

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sooo if you're for keeping all the commissioners this time you vote Yes and if you're against you vote No?

Basically, yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

I dunno if its been getting coverage in Ireland, but the way it was announced over here was that the EU hoped to clear the way for a second referendum in Ireland.

There were several countries opposed to the change to the number of Comissioners...and as OB has pointed out, that one requires unanimity.

PHB

I'd argue this is a worse deal for Ireland personally.

What will happen now with commissioners is that we will continue to have 27/29 when new people join.
Some commissions are just more important than others, multilingualism for example. In a 15 body commission, all the commissions would be of pretty significant important. In a 27/29 member commission, there will be upper and lower commissioners. There however is no rotation system in place at all to ensure that people get fair representations.
IMO it will be worse for Ireland. And that's why quite a few countries will have serious problems with it, smaller countries rather than bigger ones, because they think that they'll be the ones with the crappy positions.

Beyond that, the legal smudge that will allow this commissioner deal to go through was only thought up after the No vote. I doubt FF were even aware of this.

This isn't a better deal. The protocols which will be attached to the treaty through the Croation assession are just assurances, but in reality, there was no chance of the stuff they talked about happening anyway, so its like getting an assurance that Germany wouldnt invade us.

Hattrick

Episode II - The Union Strikes Back
http://explicit.ie/union-strikes-back.jpg

I was heavily involved with the yes campaign and did a website for one of the major organisations pushing for a yes vote.

I cannot say if I'll be doing the same again as I am appalled by the response to the referendum by FF. Their reaction to the result was that the people voted wrong and we are going to change this. They immediately stated that the Treaty will not be renegotiated as Europe wasn't interested. For the sake of keeping face let's make a roadmap to say we "consulted" the people, staple on a few concessions but overall bring back the exact same document!

Some how I think we may just all vote yes anyway as we will be voting on it until the people get it "RIGHT"!

WooPeeA

Hattrick wrote: »

They immediately stated that the Treaty will not be renegotiated as Europe wasn't interested.

Why should Europe be interested in renegotiation? They were negotiating the final text for 3 years.

I don't even know which article could they renegotiate.. About voting? About common security? About what?

None of them was the reason for Irish to reject it. Of course some of "No" voters had some reasons, but I would risk to say that most of undecided had no reason or have believed in lies.

Hattrick

If Lisbon I was the best possible deal that could be achieved, does this mean we were lied to if they are now saying Lisbon II is better?

I'm not sure how I will vote this time but I do believe that the Government is being rushed into this by Europe. As a person who was heavily involved in the Yes campaign, I'm now seeing myself lean more towards the No side...

molloyjh

Hattrick wrote: »

If Lisbon I was the best possible deal that could be achieved, does this mean we were lied to if they are now saying Lisbon II is better?

I'm not sure how I will vote this time but I do believe that the Government is being rushed into this by Europe. As a person who was heavily involved in the Yes campaign, I'm now seeing myself lean more towards the No side...

I haven't heard anyone claim anything about the Treaty being "better". All the statements I have heard thus far talk about clarifying points and getting guarantees on existing points etc, which by definition mean no change to the Treaty itself.

I have a dis-similar view to yours though regarding who is pressuring who. We have managed to get agreement from the EU in a short few weeks regarding the Commission that goes against years of negotiation, all so that we can ensure a greater chance of a Yes vote. Our Government and the EU are pandering to a non-issue and could be opening up a totally different can of worms for themselves for the future......