Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

full text of lisbon2?

  • 10-05-2009 4:49pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭


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

    thanks.


    hads any definite word been said on possibly when the vote will be held?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    It's due to be held before the end of October but a specific date has not been confirmed. The text of the treaty hasn't changed and the consolidated treaties can be found here. The government has been promised that declarations and clarifications will be made by the Commission, the ECJ and fellow member states before the referendum but this has not happened yet and is still in the formative stage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    http://www.lisbon2.ie/

    so that website is talking crap - in law its the exact same treaty?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    You'll probably get better answers to this in the European Union sub forum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    http://www.lisbon2.ie/

    so that website is talking crap - in law its the exact same treaty?

    The treaty has not changed. Almost all of the issues touted by the no side in the first referendum had very little to do with the treaty. What has been promised is declarations clarifying that these issues are non-issues.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    why vote yes - if nothing has changed

    jesus, talk about misinformation - that site clearly states ''the changes''


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Because the reasons most people voted yes last time have been confirmed to be false.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    why vote yes - if nothing has changed

    jesus, talk about misinformation - that site clearly states ''the changes''

    What you're voting on is changing. The Treaty of Lisbon amends the existing EU treaties (TEC and TEU). What we voted on first time was only the changes in Lisbon. This vote is on Lisbon plus some additional amendments.

    What was agreed after the No were that there would be some additional amendments to the EU treaties if we vote Yes. These will be enacted after Lisbon, though, because they won't happen if we vote No. They'll take the form of additional Protocols amending the EU treaties, just as Lisbon does, and will have exactly the same legal standing as Lisbon. The final form of those extra amendments is to be determined at the June Council of Europe, or immediately afterwards at the start of the Swedish Presidency.

    The vote this autumn, then, is a vote on a different package from the last vote - Lisbon Plus, if you like.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg



    Just stating the obvious but thats not an official site from the EU and I assume its not from the irish government or any of the major parties.


    personnally I keep expecting it to be some tongue in cheek thing because it looks so badly made.

    Most of the text (in about the treaty) seems to be copied word for word from the lisbon information website from during the first campaign. http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    okay

    will anything be published, online or wherever, with..

    a - lisbon
    b - the original two treaties
    c - any excerpts of the irish constitution when refrenced ''blah blah will be whatever in relation to such and such in the constitution''
    d - the changes you mentioned

    basicaly all the voter needs to make a decision - besides vote our way or europe will be mad or vote this way or the bad people in europe will eat your family and friends


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    blitzkrieg or anyone


    where can i find valid texts for all a voter would need to make an informed decision on how to vote

    is this even availible?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    okay

    will anything be published, online or wherever, with..

    a - lisbon
    b - the original two treaties
    c - any excerpts of the irish constitution when refrenced ''blah blah will be whatever in relation to such and such in the constitution''
    d - the changes you mentioned

    basicaly all the voter needs to make a decision - besides vote our way or europe will be mad or vote this way or the bad people in europe will eat your family and friends

    Yeah, they'll be released once they're settled. That should be in either late June or early July, so we should have the summer and early autumn to debate them.

    Are you trying to work out how to vote on Lisbon 2 or the Euro elections?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    well euro elections is seperate - basicaly talk or read up on the candidates

    lisbon2 is a lot more dodgy to get info on - want to read the full text (ammendents etc) and anything added on

    there really should be one place where this is all viewable and explicit refrences to other relevant pieces if/or needed


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    if you want to see the treaty in full that was up for referendum last year

    http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

    and all the prior treaties

    http://europa.eu/abc/treaties/index_en.htm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    well euro elections is seperate - basicaly talk or read up on the candidates

    lisbon2 is a lot more dodgy to get info on - want to read the full text (ammendents etc) and anything added on

    there really should be one place where this is all viewable and explicit refrences to other relevant pieces if/or needed

    There probably will be, once the texts are settled. Until then, you'll usually find that the bureaucrats won't release anything for fear it might have a comma in the wrong place compared to the final version. The time line is definitely set for June/July - that was decided last year in December.

    We will, as usual, do our best here to find what's published!

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    thanks all

    right so if i were to read the links posted above of what was up for last year and then read the ammendments released later

    that would be all of what will be up for referendum vote?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    pretty much yes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    whats the difference between

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2007%3A306%3ASOM%3AEN%3AHTML

    and

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:EN:HTML

    just the later one is the most up to date, beside whats going to be decided on in june to be enacted if we vote yes?

    *spinning head*

    thanks - very much


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    whats the difference between

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2007%3A306%3ASOM%3AEN%3AHTML

    and

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:EN:HTML

    just the later one is the most up to date, beside whats going to be decided on in june to be enacted if we vote yes?

    *spinning head*

    thanks - very much

    Ah - that's the actual Lisbon Treaty and the 'consolidated version' respectively, I think. The former is the actual text, but that consists entirely of amendments to the existing treaties. So it's all "the word 'fish' in paragraph 2 subsection 3 of Article 5 (TEC, renumbered 15 TFEU) is replaced by the word 'marine organism'" - to have any idea what that means you need to go look up the existing treaties and work out what they'd look like if 'fish' were replaced by 'marine organism'.

    The 'consolidated version' is the text of the existing treaties as they would be after being amended by Lisbon - ie with 'fish' actually replaced by 'marine organism'. It's a lot more readable (for a small value of readable), but has the disadvantage that people get worked up over stuff that turns out to already be in the treaties, and nothing to do with Lisbon.

    There is also - just to really make your head spin - a consolidated and annotated version...


    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    the lisbon treaty works by building on top of the prior treaties (something the european constitution was intended to do away with)

    So the lisbon treaty as a legal document refers back to the prior treaties for most of its changes without quoting the prior treaty just providing a reference number (treay of nice article 6 section 4 etc)

    The consoludated version of the lisbon treaty is written as a reference and not a legal document so instead of simply stating the amendement it is referencing it would explain that element.

    So the Lisbon treaty would state that:
    Treaty of Nice article 18 section 4 shall be implemented with a process of rotating commisioners

    The consoludated version:
    As per the Treaty of Nice the number of Commissioners shall be reduced and a process of rotating commisioners will be implemented.

    (both examples are not actual quotes from the treaty btw)

    EDIT: yeah Scafflow explains it better then me :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    right thanks

    so read the consolidated, (does that state or highlight whats new and what was already in effect?) and then take into considerations what is brought in later in june?

    cheers!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 205 ✭✭r14


    right thanks

    so read the consolidated, (does that state or highlight whats new and what was already in effect?) and then take into considerations what is brought in later in june?

    cheers!

    It doesn't highlight what is new/left out so to figure out he changes you will have to compare the original ones to the new one. Just bear in mind the EC Treaty is being renamed the TFEU. Just so you can actually find the original treaty to compare it to.

    I hadn't seen a consolidated version yet having only read the actual Lisbon Treaty. Having had a look I am horrified to find they're renumbering the Articles yet again. I thought it had been agreed that they weren't going to put people through that again. Now I have to learn all the numbers again. (almost enough to make you vote no!!!:p)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    r14 wrote: »
    It doesn't highlight what is new/left out so to figure out he changes you will have to compare the original ones to the new one. Just bear in mind the EC Treaty is being renamed the TFEU. Just so you can actually find the original treaty to compare it to.

    I hadn't seen a consolidated version yet having only read the actual Lisbon Treaty. Having had a look I am horrified to find they're renumbering the Articles yet again. I thought it had been agreed that they weren't going to put people through that again. Now I have to learn all the numbers again. (almost enough to make you vote no!!!:p)

    This is the annotated version. It shows the (consolidated) text introduced by the Constitution and Lisbon, and the text being replaced. It's a little confusing at first, but if you're in any doubt what came from where, this is what you need.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    There's a handy summary of changes between the original two treaties and Lisbon here. I find that using that with the consolidated version gives you all you really need.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    sink wrote: »
    It's due to be held before the end of October but a specific date has not been confirmed.

    Great, I'll be home from my travels then and I can vote!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭Zuiderzee


    The only readable version is here

    You can get a side by side of the official texts here

    Other stuff that I worry about is here
    I will be blogging away at this


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    The only readable version is here

    You can get a side by side of the official texts here

    Other stuff that I worry about is here
    I will be blogging away at this

    Just to point out that Zuiderzee's links are to Jens-Peter Bonde and to OpenEurope, neither of whom are even slightly neutral in the debate. Both are involved with Libertas - the latter are the source of much of Libertas' "research".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭Zuiderzee


    Scofflaw, just want to be clear, I found the Bonde link myself, he contacted me.

    The Open Europe one is the only side by side presentation I could find, downloaded a while ago.

    I have nothing to do with Libertas. I was worried about that.

    citizensimon.blogspot.com makes that very, very, very clear


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    Scofflaw, just want to be clear, I found the Bonde link myself, he contacted me.

    The Open Europe one is the only side by side presentation I could find, downloaded a while ago.

    I have nothing to do with Libertas. I was worried about that.

    citizensimon.blogspot.com makes that very, very, very clear

    I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were involved with Libertas - apologies if it came across that way! No, I'm just making the point that Bonde and OpenEurope are both involved with Libertas - Bonde is one of their 'mentors' and a couple of their UK candidates are actually OpenEurope people.

    The OpenEurope comparative would be more use if it were a comparison of Nice and Lisbon. The question of whether Lisbon is like the Constitution is irrelevant except as a political scoring point.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭Zuiderzee


    S'cool dude, just a little bit concerned about the whole birds of a feather thing.
    Probably too concerned.

    I doing the blog because I am really concerned about this treaty/constitution being rammed through, by just us?
    Does not make sense to me.

    Its just a wierd deja vu feeling, the No to Nice syndrome and the whole Justin Barrett affair back in 2001 feels like its been set up again with Libertas !
    Its just that with the whole pan European thing that Declan Ganley really needs to be very cautious about every single connection he makes.

    But other than the people.ie website is there any other kind of broad base viewpoint opposed to Lisbon that anyone can advise me to take a look at?

    On Facebook, a lot of the groups that were against the Lisbon Treaty seemed to be tied in with UKIP at best, the occasional New World Order Zeitgeist in the middle and pan european BNP/NF types at worst!!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dob74


    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    S'cool dude, just a little bit concerned about the whole birds of a feather thing.
    Probably too concerned.

    I doing the blog because I am really concerned about this treaty/constitution being rammed through, by just us?
    Does not make sense to me.

    Its just a wierd deja vu feeling, the No to Nice syndrome and the whole Justin Barrett affair back in 2001 feels like its been set up again with Libertas !
    Its just that with the whole pan European thing that Declan Ganley really needs to be very cautious about every single connection he makes.

    But other than the people.ie website is there any other kind of broad base viewpoint opposed to Lisbon that anyone can advise me to take a look at?

    On Facebook, a lot of the groups that were against the Lisbon Treaty seemed to be tied in with UKIP at best, the occasional New World Order Zeitgeist in the middle and pan european BNP/NF types at worst!!!!!!


    There you go again attacking the No side instead of reading the treaty.



    Sign the act of Union no thanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭Zuiderzee


    ??? Dude, I was not attacking the the No side!!
    Its just that when the Nice thing happened, all the focus was transferred from politics to personality.

    I thought that was really bad then, and now, again, we see a group with no mandate being promoted as the main opposition by RTE, when there are other groups out there against the Treaty-

    I dont think that is a good thing. RTE should give other groups more exposure


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    ...we see a group with no mandate being promoted as the main opposition by RTE, when there are other groups out there against the Treaty
    Such as?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭Zuiderzee


    Libertas have no mandate, they have no seat on a council or in the Dail.

    The groups like Youth Defence with whom Barrett was involved had no seat on a council or in the Dail. They were not a main stream group - Barrett is someone who I would regard as being on the Lunatic fringe - yet he was promoted as being the main spokesperson against Nice.

    People with mandates like the SF TD's and MEPs, Finian McGrath TD, Neil Clarke, Catherine Connolly, Betty Doran, Bronwen Maher, Seosamh Ó Cuaig and Chris O'Leary - whether you agree with them or not, they have been elected by people to represent them.

    No one has ever elected Mr. Ganley to represent them, yet he is projected by RTE as the main anti Lisbon driving force.

    Like I said - a broader base would be a good thing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Zuiderzee wrote: »
    Libertas have no mandate, they have no seat on a council or in the Dail.

    The groups like Youth Defence with whom Barrett was involved had no seat on a council or in the Dail. They were not a main stream group - Barrett is someone who I would regard as being on the Lunatic fringe - yet he was promoted as being the main spokesperson against Nice.

    People with mandates like the SF TD's and MEPs, Finian McGrath TD, Neil Clarke, Catherine Connolly, Betty Doran, Bronwen Maher, Seosamh Ó Cuaig and Chris O'Leary - whether you agree with them or not, they have been elected by people to represent them.

    No one has ever elected Mr. Ganley to represent them, yet he is projected by RTE as the main anti Lisbon driving force.

    Like I said - a broader base would be a good thing

    I think that's a fair point. Libertas were by no means the only, or even main, people on the ground on the No side.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    just read the text - because 95% of the time one side will skew it depending on their outlook, intentionally or not...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭Dankoozy


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Lisbon Plus, if you like.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I'm waiting for the Lisbon Treaty Expansion pack, maybe the Return of Lisbon and Lisbon Forever which will take 10 years to write and never actually be released.

    Maybe Lisbon forever will mandate GPS tags on everyone that can be used to inject poison into disobedient citizens remotely but if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldnt be worried right? and besides vodafone will get the deal for providing communication to with these tags which is good news for all vodafone employees. Maybe they'll use Orbcomm or Iridium and there will be no escape even if you leave Europe.

    </rambles>


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    Zuiderzee wrote: »

    No one has ever elected Mr. Ganley to represent them, yet he is projected by RTE as the main anti Lisbon driving force.

    Like I said - a broader base would be a good thing

    Actually the lack of a broad base of no support is something that should (and I think does) trouble you.

    It suggests IMHO that the yes side is the more balanced view. I don't think anyone can dispute that. The no side consists of people on the far-right and far-left of politics with very few in the middle. It's reasonable to ask why that is.

    Ix.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    just read the text - because 95% of the time one side will skew it depending on their outlook, intentionally or not...

    The problem with your advice to just read the text of the treaty was succinctly explained by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in Le Monde in October 2007:

    Le traité de Lisbonne se présente ainsi comme un catalogue d'amendements aux traités antérieurs. Il est illisible pour les citoyens, qui doivent constamment se reporter aux textes des traités de Rome et de Maastricht, auxquels s'appliquent ces amendements.

    (The Lisbon Treaty is presented as a catalogue of amendments to earlier treaties. It is unreadable for citizens, who must constantly refer to the texts of the Rome and Maastricht treaties to which these amendments apply.)


    Later in the same piece, he explained the reason for the Lisbon treaty being drafted in this way:

    Le texte des articles du traité constitutionnel est donc à peu près inchangé, mais il se trouve dispersé en amendements aux traités antérieurs, eux-mêmes réaménagés. On est évidemment loin de la simplification. Il suffit de consulter les tables des matières des trois traités pour le mesurer ! Quel est l'intérêt de cette subtile manoeuvre ? D'abord et avant tout d'échapper à la contrainte du recours au référendum, grâce à la dispersion des articles, et au renoncement au vocabulaire constitutionnel.

    (The text of the constitutional treaty [i.e., the one rejected in referenda in France and Holland] is therefore almost unchanged, but is found dispersed among the amendments to previous treaties, themselves reorganised. It is evidently far from simplification! It's enough to consult the tables of contents of the three treaties to gauge this. What is the purpose of this subtle manouevre? First and foremost to escape the requirement for a referendum, thanks to the dispersion of the articles and the renunciation of constitutional vocabulary.)


    In other words, the Lisbon Treaty was deliberately drafted so as to be unintelligible to the ordinary citizen and the reason for this was to circumvent and subvert the democratic decisions of the French and Dutch voters.

    In this context, the actual content of the Lisbon Treaty and whether it's a "good" or "bad" thing overall are irrelevant, unless we are prepared to accept that democratic principles are to count for nothing in the new Europe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    ... In other words, the Lisbon Treaty was deliberately drafted so as to be unintelligible to the ordinary citizen and the reason for this was to circumvent and subvert the democratic decisions of the French and Dutch voters.

    In this context, the actual content of the Lisbon Treaty and whether it's a "good" or "bad" thing overall are irrelevant, unless we are prepared to accept that democratic principles are to count for nothing in the new Europe.

    What Giscard d'Estaing said is not material (except to tell us that he himself is a questionable character, and that's not new information); what is material is what the treaty provides.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    What Giscard d'Estaing said is not material (except to tell us that he himself is a questionable character, and that's not new information); what is material is what the treaty provides.

    I note you do not attempt to refute any of the points he made, but instead resort to an ad hominem attack on him for making them.

    It is a fact that the Lisbon Treaty is incomprehensible unless you have the other treaties to hand and constantly refer between them, and at that you'd need a long time and very good powers of concentration.

    Even Brian Cowen admitted during the last referendum campaign that he himself had not read the treaty he was urging us all to vote for.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    I note you do not attempt to refute any of the points he made, but instead resort to an ad hominem attack on him for making them...

    I pointed out that what he said didn't actually matter. Why should I have to refute something that doesn't matter?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    I pointed out that what he said didn't actually matter. Why should I have to refute something that doesn't matter?

    Why does it not matter that the Lisbon Treaty was deliberately drafted to be unreadable and so as to get around the democratic decisions of the French and Dutch peoples?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Why does it not matter that the Lisbon Treaty was deliberately drafted to be unreadable and so as to get around the democratic decisions of the French and Dutch peoples?

    Because the readability of the treaty is not core to its effects. I have actually read it, and done an amount of the checking across other treaties that is needed in order to make sense of it (at the time of the first referendum, so it's not fresh in my mind now). It is ultimately coherent. It is quite possible, as a technical exercise, to re-express it as a consolidated treaty (I'm trusting that the same applies to the versions in other languages).

    It is not for me to decide how people in other EU states ratify the treaty. Sarkozy claims, with considerable justification, to have a mandate to ratify it for France. I don't know a great deal about Dutch politics, which is something that I think I have in common with many Irish "no" campaigners who claim to be representing the interests of the Dutch electorate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    I note you do not attempt to refute any of the points he made, but instead resort to an ad hominem attack on him for making them.

    It is a fact that the Lisbon Treaty is incomprehensible unless you have the other treaties to hand and constantly refer between them, and at that you'd need a long time and very good powers of concentration.

    That is the nature of an amending treaty for it amends a previous treaty/treaties. All the EU treaties we voted on have been of similar structure, here is the treaty of nice. You don't have to read it in raw format for many institutions have gratuitously provided the consolidated version of the treaties as amended by Lisbon. Here is one provided by the Council of the European Union.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Even Brian Cowen admitted during the last referendum campaign that he himself had not read the treaty he was urging us all to vote for.

    He didn't read the entire 400 page treaty nor did he read the all the 1000+ paged consolidated treaties. What he did read was the DFA white paper which is the executive summary, and all pertinent information is contained within. It's all anyone needs to read to have a good grasp on the Lisbon treaty.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Why does it not matter that the Lisbon Treaty was deliberately drafted to be unreadable and so as to get around the democratic decisions of the French and Dutch peoples?

    Not to upset you or anything, but the idea that Lisbon was drafted as a series of amendments - as per the quote:
    The Lisbon Treaty is presented as a catalogue of amendments to earlier treaties. It is unreadable for citizens, who must constantly refer to the texts of the Rome and Maastricht treaties to which these amendments apply.

    in order to "be unreadable and so as to get around the democratic decisions of the French and Dutch peoples" isn't even slightly tenable.

    Why not? Because all the other treaties bar the Constitution and the Treaty of Rome were also drafted that way. They're amending treaties, so they consist of amendments.

    That's why there's a consolidated version, which shows the text as it would be finally adopted, and which was released by the EU in early April last year, well before the referendum. There is no need for the citizen to "constantly refer to the texts of the Rome and Maastricht treaties to which these amendments apply". Just read the consolidated version - you can get one here, since you seem to be unaware of its existence.

    There's also an annotated version, produced by the EU-funded (partly) IIEA, which shows the differences between the treaties as amended by Lisbon, as they would have been under the Constitution, and as they currently are following Nice. I have a download link to it on this thread - you're welcome to a copy. That also came well before the referendum.

    It's bizarre to claim that by writing an amending treaty as an amending treaty the EU is somehow up to something sinister - particularly when they have also released and/or funded consolidated and annotated versions.

    As to d'Estaing's comments about how the same tools are found in Lisbon as in the Constitution, but dispersed through the text - that's a technical issue, because an amending treaty necessarily deals with the various bits where they currently occur in the existing text, whereas the Constitution grouped them more logically. That much of the Constitution was kept through to Lisbon is something the Irish government, amongst others, actually fought for, because it represented the best probable deal. On the Commissioners, for example, the big countries preferred an alternative deal which would have seen them getting permanent Commissioners and everyone else rotating. Again, none of this was hidden - it's in the DFA White Paper.

    If you're happy to be in the dark, that's one thing - claiming that other people are keeping you there is false, though.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Not to upset you or anything, but the idea that Lisbon was drafted as a series of amendments - as per the quote:



    in order to "be unreadable and so as to get around the democratic decisions of the French and Dutch peoples" isn't even slightly tenable.

    Not to upset you or anything, but that is not just my opinion, but is the thrust of the views expressed by Giscard d'Estaing in the article which I cited. He served as President of the Convention on the Future of Europe which drafted the Constitution rejected in the French and Dutch referenda. He is therefore very well qualified to comment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Not to upset you or anything, but that is not just my opinion, but is the thrust of the views expressed by Giscard d'Estaing in the article which I cited. He served as President of the Convention on the Future of Europe which drafted the Constitution rejected in the French and Dutch referenda. He is therefore very well qualified to comment.

    Indeed he is, except that the comment was taken completely out of context, as he said himself here:
    The former French president became a key figure during last year’s referendum campaign after anti-treaty group Libertas quoted him as saying the treaty meant that “public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly”.

    The quotation was taken from an interview carried in French newspaper Le Monde, but the next paragraph made clear that he believed that such an approach would be “unworthy” and only confirm European citizens “in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats”.


    Anything that Libertas says needs to be checked and rechecked. Don't believe a word they say.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Not to upset you or anything, but that is not just my opinion, but is the thrust of the views expressed by Giscard d'Estaing in the article which I cited. He served as President of the Convention on the Future of Europe which drafted the Constitution rejected in the French and Dutch referenda. He is therefore very well qualified to comment.

    So a stupid comment by one politician with a questionable record should be regarded as more significant than what the treaty actually says? And I rather suspect that he didn't read the entire treaty, either.

    I intend to vote "yes" again, for what I see as the good of Ireland, and the good of Europe. The French and the Dutch can run their own affairs according to their own procedures. I have no right to make decisions on their behalf.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ... Anything that Libertas says needs to be checked and rechecked. Don't believe a word they say.

    Save time: just disbelieve it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Did anyone see the last episode of questions and answers? One of the candidates said that the Lisbon Treaty should have been 6-8 pages long, a demand he held to be totally reasonable.

    So, an international Treaty amending two other international treaties and incorporating a charter of human rights, that will govern an intergovernmental organisation composed of 27 European nations and 500 million people, should be 6 to 8 pages long.

    What planet do these guys live on?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement