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

molloyjh

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

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

A quick look at that wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005#Reasons_for_rejection), which lets face it isn't exactly gospel anyway, says:

30 % of the Constitution's opponents used the referendum as an opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, instead of confining their deliberations to the contents of the treaty that was put before them

It follows on to say:

Some matters relating to the European Union that motivated the "No" vote were also not strictly connected to the provisions of the Constitution.

Then:

Furthermore, the Netherlands had not held a referendum on the euro, and amidst concern that its adoption had led to an increase in the cost of living (combined with Dutch citizens' status as the largest net per capita contributors to the EU), around 30 % of the voters took the opportunity to "take revenge" on the political establishment for seeking to advance European integration in a manner that did not engage the public to the extent that it could have done.

These all before the point that you quote. And following on from that point that you have is the fact that the Yes campaign clearly got carried away by predicting an increased chance of war in Europe if it wasn't ratified, which turned people off. It's great to see how selective you are with the information you are providing. It seems all you are interested in is what you want to be interested in. If there's inconvenient facts there you just ignore them. There's hardly any point in having a discussion if that is the case.

It is obvious that a good proportion of the Dutch people that did vote No did so for reasons outside of the Constitution. Therefore it is very difficult to identify exactly what issues the Dutch people had with the thing itself. Which in turn makes it all but impossible to identify whether their concerns were addressed. One way to guage it, and I'll admit its not exactly proof positive, is that there was no significant protest in the Netherlands when Lisbon was ratified. This would lead me to believe that they really aren't that upset over it, and that either their concerns were addressed or there weren't really any relevant concerns anyway. I'm still waiting for any form of evidence from anyone to suggest otherwise.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

That would be fair enough if I just said they voted for Sarkozy end of story. I didn't though. I also pointed out that there was no popular resistance to Lisbon in France, just like in the Netherlands. If the French really didn't want it I think we can be fairly confident that we would all have heard about it. It's hardly like they are shy when it comes to protesting or striking or anything like that. The fact that they didn't do that after electing Sarkozy would lead me to believe, as with the Dutch, that there is no major opposition to Lisbon in France. Again any evidence to the contrary would be more than welcomed, but this debate has been going for 12 months now and I've been asking that question for most of those 12 and I've yet to get anything!

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

Please point out - concrete examples now - where I said Irish power should be curtailed. If I'm not mistaken I believe I said we shouldn't get special treatment. I'd rather you didn't completely twist/make-up what I said thanks.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

Nice placed the limitation on the number of states because it was obvious that the beauracracy in the EU could only handle so many member states. Until such a time as that stumbling block could be dealt with (and dealing with it was always on the cards) that limitation was needed. Lisbon attempted to tackle this issue thus removing the need for a cap on member states.