Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

KINGVictor

Toiseach Brian Cowen sent this letter to Britains PM Gordon Brown yesterday .


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0618/breaking70.htm


It is becoming apparent that Brussels and some EU countries are becoming increasingly very wary and skeptical of including the legal guarantees in the Lisbon Treaty beacause it would essentially be a "revised treaty" that has to debated by all EU member countries,which would inevitably lead to the death of the treaty.What are your opinions /Thoughts...

turgon

At the publication of these guarantees I was glad the No-side would now have to base their argument on solely non-Lisbon issues, such as Slovakia's method of ratifying international treaties.

However at this stage it will seem that this Lisbon debate could descend into a dogmatic debate on whether the guarantees are in fact legally binding. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Red Alert

turgon wrote: »

However at this stage it will seem that this Lisbon debate could descend into a dogmatic debate on whether the guarantees are in fact legally binding. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Why should it be avoided? In case there's some nasty surprises in there?

nesf

The first few words amuse me:

I am writing to you in strictest confidence

conchubhar1

that should be avoided? wtf

no it should not be avoided - if they are not legally binding

take a **** on it and give it to biffo to eat..... would be useless besides


'' if i am to call, and win, a second referendum''

---

''I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.'' aww isnt that nice

Red Sleeping Beauty

turgon wrote: »

At the publication of these guarantees I was glad the No-side would now have to base their argument on solely non-Lisbon issues, such as Slovakia's method of ratifying international treaties.

However at this stage it will seem that this Lisbon debate could descend into a dogmatic debate on whether the guarantees are in fact legally binding. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be avoided.

Clever post there. First part essentially means "yeah, the guarantees are here, the 'no side' haven't a leg to stand on now" meaning it's a bait into anyone opposing the treaty to of course point out the obvious.

But then the second is like a sort of disclaimer. "oh them feckers on the 'no side', they're just going to blabber on and on about these guarantees now".

Hitman Actual

Alan Rouge wrote: »

But then the second is like a sort of disclaimer. "oh them feckers on the 'no side', they're just going to blabber on and on about these guarantees now".

It's a valid point though. It will take away from the discussion of the merits of (or lack of) the Treaty itself, and we'll again end up with a misinformed electorate.

conchubhar1

it should not be ignored ^

it should be dealt with appropiately and then get on with the merits or lack of etc of the treaty

Rb

turgon wrote: »

At the publication of these guarantees I was glad the No-side would now have to base their argument on solely non-Lisbon issues, such as Slovakia's method of ratifying international treaties.

Sorry Turgon, but I haven't really seen the Yes side basing their argument solely on the Lisbon text itself, more attempting to debunk the arguments of the "No" side which isn't really an acceptable way to "sell" this treaty to the Irish electorate. Although I'm sure we can discuss that in another thread.

There was nothing unreasonable in An Taoiseach's letter anyway. It doesn't exactly scream that we can trust of our fellow member states though nor that there is security in what they have said in the past.

conchubhar1

ye

its as if he is asking of rock solid gurantees because he thinks they would go back on their word - which is worrying

KINGVictor

nesf wrote: »

The first few words amuse me:

That is what amuses me...because it was the British camp that leaked the letter to the press...it is becoming very confusing!!

conchubhar1

where did you find that out? ^

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye

its as if he is asking of rock solid gurantees because he thinks they would go back on their word - which is worrying

From following this over the last few months, I don't think that's his point at all. It's not about trusting other member states to keep their promise at the next Accession Treaty (or whatever), it's more to ensure that they agree on the Protocols now. The other states are just worried about having to reopen Lisbon ratification.

KINGVictor

Just read this on the Internet:


Britain, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia do not want to agree to provide a protocol because this would require every member state to ratify the legal instrument through their national parliaments - a process that may ignite a debate over the treaty in their home countries.
There are also growing concerns that providing an assurance of a protocol to Ireland, which could be ratified when Croatia joins the Union in 2011 or 2012, could provide the eurosceptic Czech president Vaclav Klaus with more arguments to stop him signing the treaty and completing ratification in the Czech Republic.
Mr Klaus warned yesterday that he believed the legal guarantees provided to Ireland justified starting a new ratification process in the Czech parliament, something which could delay the ratification of Lisbon.
EU diplomats fear any further delays to the ratification of Lisbon could allow Conservative party leader David Cameron to come to power in Britain. Mr Cameron has promised to hold a referendum on the treaty in Britain if he gets elected before the treaty enters into force. Most analysts believe this would fail killing the treaty once and for all.
The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown later refused to be drawn on whether he could support the Taoiseach's call. Speaking to journalists ahead of the meeting he said it "was important to do the right thing by Ireland and Europe" but that he did not want to do anything that would change the treaty in any way.



Sounds to me that some people want to eat their cake and have it!!! You cannot force a second vote on Ireland and not expect to contextually take into account their reservations....that would be IMOH very manipulative and undemocratic...

KINGVictor

conchubhar1 wrote: »

where did you find that out? ^

I watched the Six news on RTE and supposedly the letter was private between Cowen and Brown ,but was leaked to the press this afternoon...the Irish camp have vehemently denied leaking it while the british keep quiet.....

conchubhar1

would that be because they know that re opening ratifiction will give people a chance to air their views and call for a referendum where that is possible

and that might kill the treaty

turgon

Yeah thank you everyone for deliberately misinterpreting my post.

What I meant is that Cowen should have avoided any doubt whatsoever as this issue is likely to take centre stage.

Rb wrote: »

Sorry Turgon, but I haven't really seen the Yes side basing their argument solely on the Lisbon text itself, more attempting to debunk the arguments of the "No" side which isn't really an acceptable way to "sell" this treaty to the Irish electorate.

Yes. Because debating it solely on issues that are completely and utterly unaffected by the out come is the acceptable way.

sink

This all kind of flies in the face of another common argument used during the first referendum particularly by Sinn Fein - That the Ireland had a strong mandate to open up renegotiation of the treaty and that other countries would willingly go along.

conchubhar1

that is what happened?

we should gain garuntees that they are legally binding as fast as possible

then and only then - debate the treaty
because if not people already decided no - these garuntees are a neccessity

(like it or not - debate all you want on how they are obvious blah de blah)

Hitman Actual

turgon wrote: »

Yeah thank you everyone for deliberately misinterpreting my post.

What I meant is that Cowen should have avoided any doubt whatsoever as this issue is likely to take centre stage.

I'm not sure what else he can do though, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. The Protocols/Declaration can't be annexed to Lisbon now without reopening ratification. The only way is to have them included at a later date... Am I missing something?

conchubhar1

he stated some time in the future

he also stated not to be attached to lisbon - as that would cause uneccessary hassle

KINGVictor

turgon wrote: »

Yeah thank you everyone for deliberately misinterpreting my post.

What I meant is that Cowen should have avoided any doubt whatsoever as this issue is likely to take centre stage.



Yes. Because debating it solely on issues that are completely and utterly unaffected by the out come is the acceptable way.

How would Cowen have done that....this is politics...Most of the practitioners dont reveal their real intentions until the last minute...I think the issue is that Cowen should have been proactive and leave no room for any oversight whatsoever...now he looks like an idiot!!!

conchubhar1

he looked like one way before this - irrelevant to the disscussion but hey...

lostexpectation

the no voters didn't ask for half these guarantees, they didn't ask re conscription but about militarisation, didn't ask about school discrimination etc...

g5fd6ow0hseima

conchubhar1 wrote: »

that is what happened?

we should gain garuntees that they are legally binding as fast as possible

then and only then - debate the treaty
because if not people already decided no - these garuntees are a neccessity

(like it or not - debate all you want on how they are obvious blah de blah)

But if we obtain legal bindings wont other states also campaign for those, especially Mr. Klaus, thus making the whole treaty a little less potent.

conchubhar1

no - if other states want garuntees....

wouldnt that be what happened in the original talks

but in other countries it did not come to light - in ireland we had a referendum and read up on it and decided we wanted more
you know making the eu better, like it was all about

Dirk Gently

So it looks like Mr Brown is resisting the Irish guarantees on the basis that it could mean he has to go back to parliment and get it re-ratified. (according to radio report this morning)

Is it an elaborate show of support, projecting some meat and legitmatcy to the Irish document or a genuine conflict between the guarantees and the treaty?

kevteljeur

Asking for legally-binding guarantees now, before a second referendum, is precisely what loses Ireland (as a state) friends in the EU; the Treaty has been agreed and finalised, including by Ireland, and getting legally-binding guarantees now is a renegotiation. It's a terrible gamble by Cowen to try and leverage what he sees as the need by the EU to have Ireland on-board, to get more advantages for Ireland at the expense of the other 26 states.

Remember, the negotiations for the Lisbon Treaty have already happened and are finished, Ireland as a State (regardless of the referendum result) declared itself happy with the treaty which was subsequently signed off by the other signatories, we can't go back and renegotiate them. In that case, it's very close to opening up the treaty for renegotiation by everyone else too, in which case the EU is back at square one. I can't imagine there not being sanctions against Ireland in one form or another if that were to happen.


Being the most economically unstable state in the Eurozone doesn't strengthen Ireland's hand here either. This latest move is going to look like sheer arrogance.



.

conchubhar1

well it got rejected

there are two options - look for garuntees
leave it be - loose the whole treaty

not a gamble really..... a neccessity

i despise this loosing friends in the eu business - it is supposed to be great and democratic and not a mens club
but that attitude tends to show it as voting for friends on a you help us we will help you basis

bull**** - if we do loose friends in the eu over this, feck them. but it wont happen, it cant happen

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i despise this loosing friends in the eu business - it is supposed to be great and democratic and not a mens club
but that attitude tends to show it as voting for friends on a you help us we will help you basis

That's a very naive attitude. It's politics, on a multi-national scale. I think I've said this a few times now, but we still have to negotiate with our EU partners on funding, future Treaty reform, etc. Also, our Council ministers still have to regularly negotiate with other ministers- You think any of this makes it any easier for Brendan Smith to negotiate Ireland's position on CAP reform (which is going to be a huge EU issue in the next decade), or Tony Killeen to negotiate on Fisheries issues?

conchubhar1

so you are saying

the other commissioners or whoever would vote on something to spite ireland? or to give ireland a worse deal?

come on

conorhal

Could somebody enlighten me. I always thought that after a referendum had been held that there was a legal requirement for a 3 year moratorium on putting the same question to the people again?

I always thought that Nice2 and any subsequent Lisbon2 referendum required at least a minor change to the treaty to allow the government to circumvent this requirement and put the (essentially) same question to the people again within that time frame.

If that is the case, and we receive no changes to the treaty, surely the government can't put the Lisbon Treaty to a vote again for another two years. So if Brown is worried now about passing Lisbon through the British parliament again, how does he think it will fare in another couple of years?

gizmo555

conorhal wrote: »

Could somebody enlighten me. I always thought that after a referendum had been held that there was a legal requirement for a 3 year moratorium on putting the same question to the people again?

There is no such requirement. The government can effectively re-run referenda as often as it likes, if it is prepared to run the risk of annoying the voters.

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so you are saying

the other commissioners or whoever would vote on something to spite ireland? or to give ireland a worse deal?

Not to that extent, no (or at least I'd hope not!). But it may make other member states less amenable to the requests of the Irish- it basically makes our negotiating position a lot tougher. This is not obvious, no?

conchubhar1

no its not obvious

the eu is set up to make it for the good of the whole

yes, there are other areas of bargaining and political hoo-haw but i still dont think it would make us any weaker

were the french and the dutch weaker?
are the czechs weaker?
would the uk be if it is to hold a referendum - (which will fail there). ?
are the polish weaker? altho they agree put are just waiting

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no its not obvious

the eu is set up to make it for the good of the whole

yes, there are other areas of bargaining and political hoo-haw but i still dont think it would make us any weaker

It's standard politicking. If you don't believe all this BS affects us, fine. I disagree.

conchubhar1

how could you defend such an organisation that doesnt accept when a people say no (as in let it die or accept the changes that the irish people feel are neccessary without being angered or using it against us at a later date)

then they come looking to see what they can change so we vote yes

then be angered that we accepted this extra items and held it up?

nonsense really

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

how could you defend such an organisation that doesnt accept when a people say no (as in let it die or accept the changes that the irish people feel are neccessary without being angered or using it against us at a later date)

You need to look at it from the point of view of the other member states. They negotiated a treaty in good faith, and assumed that we did too. It took a long time to arrive at a consensus that 27 countries felt they could agree to.

Then one of those countries fails to ratify. Why? Because people said they didn't understand what they were being asked, or believed the FUD that the treaty's more dishonest opponents spouted, or whatever.

Let's try an analogy again: 27 people sit down to negotiate a holiday destination that they will bring their respective families to. Each family has agreed that their representative has the authority to do this negotiation. It takes weeks of intensive discussion, research, argument and compromise, but eventually they have worked out an itinerary.

Then, a few days later, one of them comes back and says "sorry guys, the kids don't want to go there." He can't say for sure why not, other than that some of them don't know enough about the destination; some have heard bad things about it from a friend (although that friend is a pathological liar), and one just doesn't like going on holidays and always kicks up a fuss.

Do you really think it's unreasonable that the other 26 would be slightly miffed at having to re-open negotiations, having already sold the idea to their own families?

conchubhar1

ye ye

but when they sat down they knew it had to be ratified by all states - they knew ireland had to put it to a referendum

they knew - ireland was democratic and had to make sure the grandparents and kids agreed as they were not there in discussing it

the changes pretty much only affect ireland
all the countries have to do is push it through again

if this causes hassle, would it be that people are questioning why they dont get a vote?
or why wpuld they be peeved?

relativelt simply to push it through a second time, we have to have a 2nd referendum
they cant push it through parliments again?

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

how could you defend such an organisation that doesnt accept when a people say no (as in let it die or accept the changes that the irish people feel are neccessary without being angered or using it against us at a later date)

then they come looking to see what they can change so we vote yes

then be angered that we accepted this extra items and held it up?

nonsense really

Last word on this, because there's only so many ways to make a point. Take a look at the current situation, which is all a result of Ireland's No vote (which of course we were entitled to do, but that's beside the point). We're already 6 months behind from when the Treaty should have come into force, which creates institutional problems in itself. Also, the delay has created problems in The Czech Republic, since the collapse of their government and Klaus having a stranglehold on the ratification process. In Poland, the President Lech Kaczynski is holding off ratification in a bid to gain more power for his office. In the UK, there's a big problem for Gordon Brown with pressure from the Conservatives pledging to hold a referendum. In Spain, they're pissed off because there is uncertainty about the extra MEPs they are due to get with the ratification of Lisbon.

Now, considering that government officials across the EU are very pro-EU/Lisbon (borne out by the big majorities in ratifying Lisbon in Parliaments across Europe), do you really think other member state ministers are going to greet our ministers with open arms, like you suggest? Again, I'm not saying that other member states will be vindictive in their relationship with the Irish, but it does make the negotiating position of the Irish a lot tougher. It's very naive to not understand that.

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye ye

Thank you for that well-reasoned rebuttal.

but when they sat down they knew it had to be ratified by all states - they knew ireland had to put it to a referendum

they knew - ireland was democratic and had to make sure the grandparents and kids agreed as they were not there in discussing it

Leaving aside the suggestion that other member states are un-democratic: yes, they knew Ireland would have to put it to referendum. The Irish negotiators believed that they had negotiated a good deal for Ireland, and that it would be acceptable to the electorate.

For what it's worth, I think they did. I think the "assurances" are redundant, and I think the decision not to reduce the size of the Commission is a big mistake.

the changes pretty much only affect ireland
all the countries have to do is push it through again

The changes affect every member state. Why do you think some of them are reluctant to agree to the declarations?

if this causes hassle, would it be that people are questioning why they dont get a vote?
or why wpuld they be peeved?

relativelt simply to push it through a second time, we have to have a 2nd referendum
they cant push it through parliments again?

The question they're asking is, why should they have to re-ratify? It means re-opening the debate in each member state.

Fundamentally, my point is that our reasons for rejecting the treaty were bad ones. I actually outlined this in the analogy that you dismissed with a hand-waving "ye ye".

conchubhar1

several states have changed posistions slightly - that should be ignored

klaus was elected - that is democratic
conservatives if elected - can do what they like

we are entitled to do it - that is far from ''not the point''

again

france and holland
czech republic
uk
ireland
poland
spain

yes, the eu will be mad at us - all those countries

do you mean barrossa and sarcozy will be mainly angered?

they should have given eneough time as a no vote was and should have been taken into consideration

so the problems that its late - holds little grounds - that should have been debated and used in the negotiations

conchubhar1

no i saw your analogy

i never debated that a large chunk voted for the wrong reasons - in the past.
we have to move on and deal with what is happening now

---

so you would want next time for when they agree a treaty - it is in the interest of their states and europe

and screw the ratification and vote - sure a ''yes'' was and is the only right answer

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we are entitled to do it - that is far from ''not the point''

From the point of my post, it wasn't relevant. And I'm done arguing this, because it's pointless.

TheSpecialOne

why are we having another vote?!i voted yes first but now will vote no we must respect democracy!this is a farce!

oscarBravo

TheSpecialOne wrote: »

why are we having another vote?!i voted yes first but now will vote no we must respect democracy!this is a farce!

What an intriguingly and refreshingly new and different perspective to bring to the debate.

We're voting again because the governments of the other member states of the Union still feel that the EU requires reform, as does our own government. The need for reform didn't go away just because we voted the treaty down for a variety of largely irrelevant reasons.

Max Power1

everyone seems to be missing the most basic of points here. WE HAVE ALREADY REJECTED THIS TREATY!!!!!

If the vote last time was a yes, do you think the no side would have been afforded a second go at it? NO

This treaty should now be scrapped and sent back to the drawing board. As for the so called "guarantees", they are about as reliable as our Taoiseachs dietician.

oscarBravo

Max Power1 wrote: »

everyone seems to be missing the most basic of points here. WE HAVE ALREADY REJECTED THIS TREATY!!!!!

...and now we're being afforded the opportunity to change our minds.

Straight question for you: do you honestly, genuinely believe it's more democratic to ask someone a question and then permanently hold them to their answer, than to ask them the same question again?

I'll throw in another analogy. I know it's a waste of time, because it will be dismissed with another "ye ye" type of response, but I can't help it: I love analogies.

"Would you like a cup of tea?"

"Ew, no, that's disgusting."

"Oh. OK."

"Wait a sec, did you say 'pee' or 'tea'?"

"Tea."

"Oh, I'd love a cup, ta."

"Sorry, you said no, and NO MEANS NO. I respect your original decision, whether you still do or not."

conchubhar1

ye ye - haha j/k

a verbal conversation and a long ammending treaty of a huge political union on how it should be changed to work better that needed a referendum which was backed by most of irish politicians and had media coverage, booklets, campains, posters and a commission to put an unbiased view forward

are hardly the same thing? analogy or not

also - on a cup of tea (i know you dumbed it down but still) is a simple thing most would just go ye or no and pay little heed

the referendum wasnt like this - it had time, discussion and media coverage etc
it wasnt taken lightly

Max Power1

But we are not simply being, as you put it, "afforded the opportunity to change our minds", the referendum is only being re-ran because the government was not satisfied with the result from the previous referendum.

Your analogy about the tea is redundant. We heard exactly what was being decided upon. (not from libertas i might add). This was shot down.

I will ask another question. As the results of the recent local and european elections were not to the liking of the government, surely they should re run those too? What is the difference? It is still ignoring the voice of the people.

oscarBravo

Max Power1 wrote: »

But we are not simply being, as you put it, "afforded the opportunity to change our minds", the referendum is only being re-ran because the government was not satisfied with the result from the previous referendum.

Of course they weren't satisfied. They want the treaty ratified. You seem to be labouring under the standard delusion that once something has been rejected at referendum that it can never, ever be asked again - thankfully you're wrong, as otherwise we'd never have divorce here.

Your analogy about the tea is redundant.

There's a surprise.

We heard exactly what was being decided upon. (not from libertas i might add). This was shot down.

I guess that explains why a substantial percentage said that they voted "no" because they didn't understand the treaty. Oh wait, it doesn't.

I will ask another question. As the results of the recent local and european elections were not to the liking of the government, surely they should re run those too?

Sure - all you have to do is show how there's a constitutional mechanism for the government to do that. Otherwise, to borrow a phrase, your analogy is redundant.