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
full text of lisbon2?
Options
Comments
-
??? 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 exposure0 -
-
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 thing0 -
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,
Scofflaw0 -
just read the text - because 95% of the time one side will skew it depending on their outlook, intentionally or not...0
-
Advertisement
-
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>0 -
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.0 -
conchubhar1 wrote: »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.0 -
... 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.0 -
P. Breathnach wrote: »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.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »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?0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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,
Scofflaw0 -
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.0 -
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:Valéry Giscard d’ wrote: »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.0 -
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.0 -
Hitman Actual wrote: »... Anything that Libertas says needs to be checked and rechecked. Don't believe a word they say.
Save time: just disbelieve it.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
I disagree thet your 'other words' accurately summarize what was being said.
You are stating that the text was drafted this way 'so as to be unintelligible'. This is an incorrect interpretation of what he is saying. If you read his words, using your translation what he said was: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.)
Note: He does not tie the intent of the presentation to the fact that it is Unreadable, they are even 2 separate sentences. No mention of the intent being to make it unreadable, merely a recognition that it is unreadable due to the presentation. Which is acknowledgeable to an extent, depending on your definition of 'unreadable'. Your interpretation that it was drafted this way to make it unreadable is not backed up by the source material, and is just your unsubstantiated opinion.
Moving on, as to the actual intent of the draft.What is the purpose of this subtle manouevre? First and foremost to escape the requirement for a referendum
So there's the actual intent, a constitution requires a referendum, but the people don't want a constitution, in fact they rejected it. So in order to continue the institutional reform we must amend previous treaties, in such a way that won't affect the constitutions of the member states (barring Ireland of course), and thereby won't require referenda.
Nothing to do with making it unreadable, merely to avoid referenda. The notion that it is unreadable, if indeed it is, is a mere side effect, not the *reason* it doesn't require a referendum.
There's an extremely subtle, but important difference between your paraphrasing and the original quote. Your paraphrasing falsely attributes the intention of the draft to keeping the citizen in the dark, when the intention of the draft is in fact, to remove the traits of a (rejected) constitution, and instead to parcel up the institutional reforms as a normal amending treaty.
Edit:
Just to say I'm correcting your interpretation of his opinion, not endorsing it.0 -
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 quote - even an out of date and out of context one which has been misused (according to Giscard himself) - trumps reality?
Well, there we go, I suppose. You are happier to stay in the dark.
amused and disappointed,
Scofflaw0 -
I think it's worth pointing out that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was practically villified during the first Lisbon debate, and made out to be a scheming manipulator by taking his comments out of context.
It's also worth noting that the yes side went along with this, choosing to portray him as irrelevant rather than seeking to put his words into context.
He was just pointing out that the constitutional treaty was a more coherent document. Considering that he was very involved in the constitutional treaty I'm sure it was very annoying to him that it was basically chopped up and inserted into ammendments. While the balance of the changes were inserted into Lisbon I think the main difference in a way is the tone. Yes, this avoided the need for referenda, but it avoided the need because it was different in the sense that it maintained more of a national division between the states, and it was considered that that is what people wanted. So something would say the member states agree by reference to previous agreements rather than the combined EU agrees. You can argue this is a semantic difference, but some people find such distinctions important.
I'm open to correction on this. I have not carefully reviewed the old constitutional treaty but this is what I've come to understand.
Ix0 -
I think it's worth pointing out that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was practically villified during the first Lisbon debate, and made out to be a scheming manipulator by taking his comments out of context.
It's also worth noting that the yes side went along with this, choosing to portray him as irrelevant rather than seeking to put his words into context.
He was just pointing out that the constitutional treaty was a more coherent document. Considering that he was very involved in the constitutional treaty I'm sure it was very annoying to him that it was basically chopped up and inserted into ammendments. While the balance of the changes were inserted into Lisbon I think the main difference in a way is the tone. Yes, this avoided the need for referenda, but it avoided the need because it was different in the sense that it maintained more of a national division between the states, and it was considered that that is what people wanted. So something would say the member states agree by reference to previous agreements rather than the combined EU agrees. You can argue this is a semantic difference, but some people find such distinctions important.
I'm open to correction on this. I have not carefully reviewed the old constitutional treaty but this is what I've come to understand.
Ix
Lisbon didn't really 'avoid the need for referenda', though, because there was no such requirement. The changes proposed in the Constitution weren't anything that of themselves required a referendum, and the majority of countries that agreed to have one did so as a political gesture - hence the holding of non-binding referenda.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Hitman Actual wrote: »Indeed he is, except that the comment was taken completely out of context, as he said himself here:So a quote - even an out of date and out of context one which has been misused (according to Giscard himself) - trumps reality?
You're both mistaken - the quote Libertas used and Giscard repudiated was, as the Irish Times piece states, from an interview with Le Monde, published I think in June 2007. The article I referenced was not the one Libertas quoted , but was written in its entirety by Giscard d'Estaing himself and published in October 2007. As for the context, the piece is rather lengthy, but if you want I'll happily post all of it. I can't link directly to it, as Le Monde charge for access to their archive.
Giscard is on the record as supporting both the original EU Constitution
and the Lisbon Treaty, so there is no reason to suspect him of bias against the treaty in these comments. I also don't see why a comment made just 19 months ago should be considered "out of date", when the treaty under discussion is unchanged in the interim.P. Breathnach wrote: »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 think this falls into the categories of name calling and mere speculation as opposed to reasoned argument.P. Breathnach wrote: »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.
I intend to vote no as I believe it is for the good of Ireland and Europe that democratic decisions of the people shouldn't be subverted in this way. If it was the turn of the French and Dutch now, it could be ours next time.
That's all I have to say on the matter.0 -
You're both mistaken - the quote Libertas used and Giscard repudiated was, as the Irish Times piece states, from an interview with Le Monde, published I think in June 2007. The article I referenced was not the one Libertas quoted , but was written in its entirety by Giscard d'Estaing himself and published in October 2007. As for the context, the piece is rather lengthy, but if you want I'll happily post all of it. I can't link directly to it, as Le Monde charge for access to their archive.
Giscard is on the record as supporting both the original EU Constitution
and the Lisbon Treaty, so there is no reason to suspect him of bias against the treaty in these comments. I also don't see why a comment made just 19 months ago should be considered "out of date", when the treaty under discussion is unchanged in the interim.
The quote is essentially the same, though, so I don't think it really matters whether the source was Giscard or Giscard. The point either way is the same - that the interpretation put on the quotes by people like your good self is not something Giscard actually said, and not something he stands over. That leaves the quote in the curious realm of stuff you agree with because it can be read as agreeing with you, no matter the original intent. Have a look in the Christianity forum for the Creationist thread, and you'll see the technique used over and over again.
By the way, you've failed to address at all the fact there is a consolidated version - making nonsense of your interpretation of the first quote - and that an amending treaty will always consist of a series of amendments that follow the form and arrangement of the existing text - making nonsense of your interpretation of the second quote.That's all I have to say on the matter.
And highly inaccurate repetition it was too.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
0
-
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »Shouldn't you vote based on the content of the Treaty?
What a novel idea!
Seriously though, we might as well decide to ratify or reject EU treaties by drawing Lotto numbers because the results of doing so would be only marginally less relevant to the contents of the treaties as the reasons given by most people for voting yes or no in the last referendum.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »Shouldn't you vote based on the content of the Treaty?
No.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Let's be clear: "this context" was your misinterpretation of the words and/or motives of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. It has been pointed out to you that Giscard d'Estaing himself has rejected your interpretation of his words, but you insist that you know better than he did what he meant.In this context...
Now that we're clear on the context:
This is a typically meaningless, Euroskeptic, "No" campaign soundbyte. Democratic principles mean as much in the "new" Europe as they do in the "old" Europe....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.
If the content of the treaty is irrelevant, then you're just coming from a position of Euroskepticism. You could at least be forthright enough to say so.0
Advertisement