Stupid hypothetical situation

RandomName2

A bit of a rediculous concept, really.

Suppose you are a director of a large company, United Euro. Both you, and the twenty or so other directors of the company have your own firms of solicitors to manage the day-to-day legal nicities involved in the running of the business. One day, the head of your firm knocks on your door,

' Hi. I'm Biffo, head of Dail Law'
' Where's Bart?'
' He... had to resign his post due to tax irregularities. But he appointed me in his place. Anyhoo, I wanted your signiature for a new constitution for the company'
' A new constitution? Who drew it up?'
' Well, Dail Law, along with the firms of your fellow directors'
' I didn't hear anything about it from the other directors'
' Well... you wouldn't have. They weren't consulted'
' What? You are going to ask them for their assent, wont you?'
' God no - not after the last debacle. Don't need to bother anyway, we signed on their behalf. Anyway, I myself wouldn't be here if it didn't explicitly state that I had to ask you in my contract'
' Did you read the constitution?'
' Not... as... such. But I get the gist of it.'
' Jesus. Well, shouldn't I read it?'
' Ohh I wouldn't reccomend it. It's hard going by all accounts. Just sign.'
' I'm not signing something I don't understand'
' You could be forced out of the company by the other firms if you don't sign. Please sign. I won't be able to live it down if you don't. We'll look skeptical!'
' If you don't stop being so melodramatic I might just fire you.'
' Go ahead. There isn't a single respectable solicitor that doesn't hold the same position as myself. Anyway, don't worry, I'll be back - I've had a look at your accounts. You'll be begging to sign it in a year's time.'
' This had nothing to do with my income.'
' Well, being forced out of the company does. See you in September '09!'

turgon

Well the metaphor holds true to some points ... but the Lisbon Treaty is no Constitution. Ooops, forget the No side is in denial about that.

Anyway, so the Irish director of the "company" should rights to force every other director how to manage his business...
Or is it that the company should have the rights to force every director to do business in a certain way?
I mean heaven forbid each director would be able to look after themselves.They need the enlightened Irish to come along and tell them what to do.

Finally, you have a problem with Biffo not reading it and advocating a certain side. I assume then, seeming as your advocating the No side, you have read it in full?

nesf

Thread moved to correct forum.

It's a pretty lousy metaphor tbh.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Worthless analogy is worthless.

Correct thread title is correct.

RandomName2

turgon wrote: »

Well the metaphor holds true to some points ... but the Lisbon Treaty is no Constitution. Ooops, forget the No side is in denial about that.

Anyway, so the Irish director of the "company" should rights to force every other director how to manage his business...
Or is it that the company should have the rights to force every director to do business in a certain way?
I mean heaven forbid each director would be able to look after themselves.They need the enlightened Irish to come along and tell them what to do.

Finally, you have a problem with Biffo not reading it and advocating a certain side. I assume then, seeming as your advocating the No side, you have read it in full?

The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution, or the EU constitution was a treaty, whichever term you prefer [the net result is the same].

As for the Irish telling people what to do... the Irish aren't telling the Germans or Poles how to vote - there wouldn't be much point really as they don't get to vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution, or the EU constitution was a treaty, whichever term you prefer [the net result is the same].

As for the Irish telling people what to do... the Irish aren't telling the Germans or Poles how to vote - there wouldn't be much point really as they don't get to vote.

I hear plenty of Irish people saying the Germans and Poles should vote, and I've yet to hear a German or Pole tell me how to vote.

Your first statement is an out and out lie, the Lisbon Treaty is not a constitution.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I hear plenty of Irish people saying the Germans and Poles should vote, and I've yet to hear a German or Pole tell me how to vote.

Your first statement is an out and out lie, the Lisbon Treaty is not a constitution.

I've yet to hear any Joe Blogg German or Pole who know what the Lisbon Treaty is. If you include the political establishment - then if you have not heard Merkyl urging an Irish 'yes' vote you must be deaf.

on the contrary - your statement is an outright lie. How would you define a consitution? Is it something which:

'is a system, often codified as a written document, which establishes the rules and principles by which an organization, or political entity, is governed. In the case of countries this term refers specifically to a national constitution, which defines the fundamental political principles and establishes the power and duties of each government'

If you don't then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about - or are lying.

Would you term the EU constitution as a constitution? If you don't then perhaps you might be able to establish some consistency - even if you are wrong.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

on the contrary - your statement is an outright lie. How would you define a consitution? Is it something which:

It's an amending treaty which updates some of the rules by which the European Union is run.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

I've yet to hear a German or Pole who know what the Lisbon Treaty is.

on the contrary - your statement is an outright lie. How would you define a consitution? Is it something which:

'is a system, often codified as a written document, which establishes the rules and principles by which an organization, or political entity, is governed. In the case of countries this term refers specifically to a national constitution, which defines the fundamental political principles and establishes the power and duties of each government'

If you don't then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about - or are lying.

Would you term the EU constitution as a constitution? If you don't then perhaps you might be able to establish some consistency - even if you are wrong.

So is it your opinion that the Treaty of Maastricht (TEU) and Treaty of Rome (TEC) are constitutions?

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's an amending treaty which updates some of the rules by which the European Union is run.

Thus, it changes the constitution by which the EU is run.

Is something which makes constitutional amendments a constitution or not?

turgon

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty is a constitution, or the EU constitution was a treaty, whichever term you prefer [the net result is the same].

As for the Irish telling people what to do... the Irish aren't telling the Germans or Poles how to vote - there wouldn't be much point really as they don't get to vote.

You have a problem with Biffo not reading it and advocating a certain side. I assume then, seeming as your advocating the No side, you have read it in full?

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So is it your opinion that the Treaty of Maastricht (TEU) and Treaty of Rome (TEC) are constitutions?

Yes, they clearly changed the political infrastucture of the EEC.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So is it your opinion that the Treaty of Maastricht (TEU) and Treaty of Rome (TEC) are constitutions?

There's certainly a stronger case to be made than for Lisbon.

Under RandomName2's watered down definition of a constitution, which he is deliberately using to confuse people into thinking Lisbon is a European Constitution (as in the one rejected by France et al), then Lisbon would be more accurately described as an amendment.

He's a mountebank, out to deliberately mislead people, and his lies will not go unchallenged on this forum.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Thus, it changes the constitution by which the EU is run.

Is something which makes constitutional amendments a constitution or not?

No more than an amendment to the standing orders of the Dáil is a constitution.

RandomName2

turgon wrote: »

You have a problem with Biffo not reading it and advocating a certain side. I assume then, seeming as your advocating the No side, you have read it in full?

It is not my job to read it in full.

It is his job to read it in full - as Gene Kerrigan pointed out at length.

I am not providing a blanket opposition to the Treaty. Cowen has provided unmittigated support for the Treaty - with little explanation.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

There's certainly a stronger case to be made than for Lisbon.

Under RandomName2's watered down definition of a constitution, which he is deliberately using to confuse people into thinking Lisbon is a European Constitution (as in the one rejected by France et al), then Lisbon would be more accurately described as an amendment.

He's a mountebank, out to deliberately mislead people, and his lies will not go unchallenged on this forum.

How 'watered down'? I gave you the fundamental principles in the English language by which a consitution is defined. But by your book anything can mean anything - nice doublespeak.

There are some insignificant differences between the EU constitution and Lisbon. Do you want to petition for the use of the EU national anthem?

Will Lisbon II be sizeably different from Lisbon I ? - shall we rename it for the sake of sensibility? [might be a bit tricky though - might need to get it ratified across Europe all over again]

Sorry for confusing you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

How 'watered down'? I gave you the fundamental principles in the English language by which a consitution is defined. But by your book anything can mean anything - nice doublespeak.

There are some insignificant differences between the EU constitution and Lisbon. Do you want to petition for the use of the EU national anthem?

Will Lisbon II be sizeably different from Lisbon I ? - shall we rename it for the sake of sensibility? [might be a bit tricky though - might need to get it ratified across Europe all over again]

Sorry for confusing you.

The word consitution as most often used on this forum is referring to the capital C Constitution, or the European Constitution, your use of the word flicks between this usage, as above, and the usage of a constitution as no more than something like the rulebook of the GAA. I challenge that you are deliberately trying to confuse people by *within the same sentence* referring to Lisbon as a constitution, and to the failed European Constitution

Even under the looser definition of a constitution as a rule book, Lisbon *still* fails to qualify as a constitution as it is an amending treaty, which changes the 'rulebook', but doesn't establish it. Something which I pointed out above, and you ignored because it blows your whole Lisbon = Constitution claim out of the water, how inconvenient for you.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The word consitution as most often used on this forum is referring to the capital C Constitution, or the European Constitution, your use of the word flicks between this usage, as above, and the usage of a constitution as no more than something like the rulebook of the GAA. I challenge that you are deliberately trying to confuse people by *within the same sentence* referring to Lisbon as a constitution, and to the failed European Constitution

Even under the looser definition of a constitution as a rule book, Lisbon *still* fails to qualify as a constitution as it is an amending treaty, which changes the 'rulebook', but doesn't establish it. Something which I pointed out above, and you ignored because it blows your whole Lisbon = Constitution claim out of the water, how inconvenient for you.

Then the EU Constitution shouldn't have been called the EU Constitution - it should have been called the EU Amending Treaty.

The amendment is to the consitution of the EU. Is is thus an EU Consitutional Amendment Treaty - and a pretty big one at that. Noone suggests that it founds the EU consitution [as the EU is already in existence].

Still... Lisbon = Consitution.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, they clearly changed the political infrastucture of the EEC.

Okay, I'll bite. From wikipedia (I feel a bit dirty, but you used that as your source as well):

wrote:

The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the Union's member states which sets out the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). They establish the various EU institutions, their procedures and the EU's objectives.

So while the Treaties do set out a constitutional basis (according to this), it is much more accurate to describe them as multilateral treaties, established in compliance with International Law. Everything else is just meaningless wordplay on your part. Even if you do consider the Treaties to be a constitution, does it matter? We've been doing alright under these "constitutions".

BlitzKrieg

Thus, it changes the constitution by which the EU is run.

The EU is already running by a constitution?

wow must have missed that one?

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Noone suggests that it founds the EU consitution [as the EU is already in existence].

Still... Lisbon = Consitution.

So I guess that's why the treaty founding it was called 'The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe'?

Guess what that did? It threw out the previous treaties and replaced them with a single document.

oops!

So really, Lisbon != Constitution...

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So while the Treaties do set out a constitutional basis (according to this), it is much more accurate to describe them as multilateral treaties, established in compliance with International Law. Everything else is just meaningless wordplay on your part. Even if you do consider the Treaties to be a constitution, does it matter? We've been doing alright under these "constitutions".

No, it doesn't matter a jot.

The whole argument is nonsense. There is an absurd amount of opposition to the idea that the EU Constitution and Lisbon are the same only because of the implication that Lisbon is not democratic due to the lack of referenda in France and the Netherlands.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, it doesn't matter a jot.

The whole argument is nonsense. There is an absurd amount of opposition to the idea that the EU Constitution and Lisbon are the same only because of the implication that Lisbon is not democratic due to the lack of referenda in France and the Netherlands.

lol, why are we arguing so?

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

lol, why are we arguing so?

Quite...

Now whether the previous 'constitutions' were good or not, I am of the opinion that Maastricht was a bad constitution in many ways and that anything wrong with Lisbon is really a reflection of Maastricht [even if Lisbon does fix some flaws] - but that's a whole other can of worms.

My major objection to Lisbon is not in relation to the changes it makes [although I think there are major problems with its amendments] - but the manner in which it is being ratified. It will inevitably be ratified, but the methods used to force it through is going to generate an unprecedented resentment as the government, and entire edifice of the EU, seems to be acting without legitimacy in order to enact Lisbon.

gizmo555

turgon wrote: »

Well the metaphor holds true to some points ... but the Lisbon Treaty is no Constitution. Ooops, forget the No side is in denial about that.

It ain't just the No side . . . leaving aside the flag and the anthem, there is no difference according to these guys:

gizmo555 wrote: »

"The substance of the Constitution is maintained. That's a fact"
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor.

"We have not abandoned a single essential point of the Constitution"
José Luis Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister.

"There is nothing from the original institutional package which has been changed."
Astrid Thors, Finnish Foreign Minister.

"It is positive that the symbolic elements have been removed and that which is really of importance - the heart - remains."
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister.

"The whole Constitution is there. Nothing's missing!".
Jean-Louis Bourlanges MEP, former member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, drafting body of the Constitution.

"It's essentially the same proposition as the old Constitution."
Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner.

and finally

"In terms of content, the propositions are largely unchanged, they're just presented in a different way."

"The reason for this is the new text mustn't appear too much like a constitutional treaty. The European Governments are agreed on cosmetic changes to the Constitution to make it easier to swallow."

Our old friend Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, before the Constitutional Affairs Commission of the European Parliament.

http://www.grappebelgique.be/article.php3?id_article=665

turgon

Yes, the "heart," the "substance" the "essential" elements remain, that does not mean theyre the same.

RandomName2

Yes, yes, they're pretty much identical. The paint-job given to the EU Constitution is mostly that - a superficial cosmetic difference. However, the difference in appearance between the two treaties highlights the change in attitude by their proponents - whereas the Constitution was an idealistic ambition as well as a turgid legalistic matter, Lisbon has been stripped back to its legalistic core. Indeed, this makes the 'heart', the 'substance', the corporeal interior of the treaty of even more importance, as it is all that is left.

Which is a bit sad really. Not that the Constitution was perfect. It wasn't. It wasn't even good. But what has been lost has not only been the more candid nature of supranational statecraft, but any pretence in the e pluribus unam nature of the agreement in the first place. The attempts by the Yes side to say that the Constitution, Lisbon I, and Lisbon II are all vastly different entities, in contradiction to fact or reason, is one of the chief characteristics of an organisation that does not espouse truth. It does not hold the public in high regard - or any regard at all. When proponents of the treaty scream that the public must agree that 2 + 2 = 5, and that if they do not they are traitors to the European Project, I do not know what limits there are to the agenda that is being pursued.

turgon

The reason they say the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution are different is because the reasons the Constitution was rejected in France and Netherlands are taken to be principally dissatisfaction with the EU becoming a full state with anthem etc. So get rid of these and you have Lisbon, which is different.

Lisbon I and Lisbon II arent different. Its just because of the lies the No-campaign spread it was necessary to spell it out in assurances.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

The attempts by the Yes side to say that the Constitution, Lisbon I, and Lisbon II are all vastly different entities, in contradiction to fact or reason, is one of the chief characteristics of an organisation that does not espouse truth.

But who is saying that they're vastly different? Even here, it was acknowledged before the referendum last year that Lisbon and the Constitution are about 90% identical in substance. And it shouldn't be an issue, as it means all the important reform elements have been kept, but the sensitive 'state-like' parts have been dropped.

However, technically speaking, the Constitution and Lisbon are not identical, whereas in the Lisbon I and II referendums, the Treaty itself won't have technically changed (assuming the new Protocols and Declaration are not included until the next Accession Treaty). But that doesn't mean we'll be voting on the same thing in two referendums- The Lisbon II vote will be on the Lisbon Treaty itself plus the Protocols/Declaration to be included in the next Accession Treaty. I hope the Yes campaign doesn't try to confuse the issue on this (although I don't see how they can).

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Now whether the previous 'constitutions' were good or not, I am of the opinion that Maastricht was a bad constitution in many ways and that anything wrong with Lisbon is really a reflection of Maastricht [even if Lisbon does fix some flaws] - but that's a whole other can of worms.

You're opposed to the Lisbon Treaty because you're opposed to the Maastricht Treaty, even though Lisbon fixes some of the problems you have with Maastricht?

I suppose it makes as much sense as anything else you've said.

My major objection to Lisbon is not in relation to the changes it makes [although I think there are major problems with its amendments] - but the manner in which it is being ratified.

It's being ratified in the same way every other EU treaty has been ratified: in accordance with the member states' respective constitutional requirements.