Govt deception over Lisbon "guarantees" exposed by British ministers

free to prosper

It is blatantly clear that the Irish government are attempting to mislead the Irish people about the effect of the Lisbon 'guarantees'. However this sham has now been exposed by two British ministers who have told fellow MPs that the guarantees which the Irish government has accepted will not change the Treaty of Lisbon one iota.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband during questions at the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee yesterday, said that "Every head of state agrees that these guarantees do not change the Treaty."*

He reiterated the stance of the new Europe Minister, Baroness Glenys Kinnock who confirmed in a House of Lords debate on Wednesday that Ireland will be voting on exactly the same text of the Lisbon Treaty a second time around.

She said: "Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October."

She added: "Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it." Baroness Kinnock is the wife of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock and a Baroness in her own right.
Asked about the legal status of the 'guarantees', she told The House of Lords that they will not be legally-binding until they are written into the EU treaties as a protocol, which will happen after the Irish referendum.

She said: "My Lords, what we have in the guarantees will become binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, which presumably will be when Croatia or Iceland comes in. Before that protocol can be ratified by the UK, Parliament must pass a Bill. As I said, Parliament will rightly have the final say."

However, Foreign Minister David Miliband appeared to contradict Baroness Kinnock what he stressed that "the guarantees are legally-binding in international law... It does not require ratification in order to have legal affect."

This led the Chairman of the Committee, Labour MP Michael Connarty to ask, "If this is a legally-binding decision and doesn't need ratification, why does it need to be put in a protocol?" He asked, "Is it a stitch-up to get around Irish peoples' concerns? I can see why people would be suspicious."

In my view these statements by British ministers show what a sham the so-called 'guarantees' are.

Sources can be checked

http://news.parliament.uk/2009/07/mps-question-foreign-secretary-about-europe/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90701-0001.htm#09070164000464

Mena

Is it perhaps because the guarantees are actually not needed at all, that the Irish electorate was simply misled by the no-campaign and no changes are required because the fears raised were baseless?

View

I wasn't aware that anyone had claimed that the Guarantees had changed the Treaty. Where did you pick up the strange idea that they did?

free to prosper

Lawyer Barrett in the IT this week called the referendum 'Lisbon plus'.

Will you (indeed all Yes voters) then state that the so-called Lisbon "guarantees" do not change the effect or content of the Lisbon Treaty one iota?

This is the view of many involved.

Czech prime minister, Jan Fischer said ,

“It is an explanatory, clarifying text that changes not a dot nor a comma of the Lisbon treaty.”

The EU Presidency confirmed that: “the text of the guarantees explicitly states that the Lisbon Treaty is not changed”.

Gordon Brown said: "The summit conclusions set out the fact that the protocol does not change the relationship between the European Union and the member states, and that the protocol clarifies but does not change the content and application of the Treaty... "


Yet after the December summit last year Minister Micheal Martin promised, "We will not be asking people to vote on the same proposition." Dick Roche made the same pledge: “Our partners understand, I believe, that we cannot and will not put the same package to our people later this year.”

reference:

oscarBravo

The treaty doesn't change.

One of the apparent concerns expressed by the Irish electorate - the reduction in size of the Commission - has been addressed.

Therefore we're voting on a different proposition.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Scofflaw

There are a few points here. First, that the guarantees address concerns about things that weren't in the Treaty in the first place, and therefore require no change to the Treaty.

Second, that the guarantees will be turned into Protocols, which will amend the same treaties that Lisbon amends after Lisbon is ratified, and only if Lisbon is ratified. That will give the guarantees exactly the same status as if they were Protocols attached to Lisbon.

Third, of course, the agreement to retain the Commissioners is a very clear material change, but which again requires no change to the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

free to prosper wrote: »

Will you (indeed all Yes voters) then state that the so-called Lisbon "guarantees" do not change the effect or content of the Lisbon Treaty one iota?

The Guarantees do not change the content of the Lisbon Treaty by one iota.

There is, however, change to the effect of some of the provisions of the post-Lisbon EU Treaties. For instance:
i) the EU Council has committed to using their powers under the post-Lisbon EU Treaties so that each member state will continue to retain the right to nominate a EU Commissioner.
ii) Also, a lot of the other guarantees are explicit statements of what is the actual legal situation in the treaties as understood by the EU leaders who negotiated and signed the Treaty. Since these will be agreed by them and lodged as an international agreement under the Vienna Convention (if I remember the name correctly) and also lodged as an international agreement with the UN, they will have legal force. Should a case related to these issues come before them, the ECJ can quickly settle any confusion in this area by looking at the "Guarantee agreement".
iii) And lastly, any room for doubt and confusion in the mind will be laid to rest as now the No campaign will need to persuade the electorate that not only our Government but also the Governments of the other 26 member states all misunderstand the Treaty they negotiated.

So yes, Lisbon plus is a different package - it's Lisbon with added Guarantees.

Hitman Actual

Again, you have to love the sensationalist spin in the title, which basically amounts to: "GOVERNMENT DECEPTION... EXPOSED!". The "No" propaganda rolls on. No one on the Yes side, including the Government, is saying that the text of the Treaty has changed. No one on this forum has said the text of the Treaty has changed. The only people using it are on the No side, trying to create an issue out of a non-issue, which more and more seems to be the only way they can base their campaigns. It's just harder this time, because the usual vote gatherers of abortion, corporation tax and neutrality are much harder to abuse this time around.

So much for hoping for an honest Treaty-based debate from both sides.

free to prosper

Thanks hitman.
The govt are trying to spin these guarantees as if they was a change to the Lisbon Treaty or that they won huge concessions.
These "guarantees" are simply explanations which will not bind the ECJ at all.
The ECJ will be bound by the Lisbon Treaty.

There is not guarantee going forward that the guarantees will be added to a future treaty - its not certain that Croatia will accede etc etc

Talking about honesty - how about the ruse that IRish people were worried about conscriptions - this is a complete red herring.
There is not one NO side group is said anything approaching this at anytime during the Lisbon debate - not one.
They only people who mentioned the idea were Yes advocates.

Scofflaw

free to prosper wrote: »

Thanks hitman.
The govt are trying to spin these guarantees as if they was a change to the Lisbon Treaty or that they won huge concessions.
These "guarantees" are simply explanations which will not bind the ECJ at all.
The ECJ will be bound by the Lisbon Treaty.

There is not guarantee going forward that the guarantees will be added to a future treaty - its not certain that Croatia will accede etc etc

Talking about honesty - how about the ruse that IRish people were worried about conscriptions - this is a complete red herring.
There is not one NO side group is said anything approaching this at anytime during the Lisbon debate - not one.
They only people who mentioned the idea were Yes advocates.

In fact, the guarantees do represent major concessions from the other member states. The reason there's a debate in the UK Parliament is because all the other 26 countries are considering the possible impact of the guarantees on them, and are obliged to defend the granting of them in their national parliaments.

The accession of Croatia is irrelevant, because the guarantees can enter the treaties on the back of any accession treaty, or as a mini-treaty in their own right.

Finally, none of the campaigns (afair) mentioned conscription. That was something that came out afterwards, in the Millward Brown findings:

An objective measure of knowledge of the Treaty produces a more complex picture. Using the list shown in the chart below, respondents identified loss of Commissioner (for 5 of every 15 years) as top of the list at 65%. Other key elements/themes of the Treaty were also identified. However, the endorsement of ‘ending of Ireland’s right to decide its own corporate tax rate’ – 43%, ‘erosion of Irish neutrality’ – 42%, ‘end of control over abortion’ - 34%, and ‘introduction of conscription to a European army’ – 33% as being elements of the Lisbon Treaty, demonstrates the level of confusion that surrounded the Lisbon Treaty debate

Source.

However, it would not be unreasonable to wonder how 33% ended up believing that conscription would be introduced.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

I find myself forced to point out that not only is the premise of this thread false, but that it has been known and admitted to be false by even the UK press:

Unusually, both the No and the Yes campaign agree on this point. Enda Kenny, the Fine Gael leader, smoothly announced at a press conference on Friday afternoon that it was never the intention of the government to change the treaty.

Later, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, pointed out that the text of the guarantees emphasises this fact. “It is stressed that [the Irish protocol] does not modify in any way the content of the treaty,” he said. This means that none of the other EU countries will have to re-ratify Lisbon.“

The guarantees are simply assurances to the Irish people of what is already implicit in the treaty,” said Gavin Barrett, a senior law lecturer in University College Dublin (UCD). “If the treaty was changed, the other member states would have to vote on it. That is not happening.”

Source: Times

cordially,
Scofflaw

free to prosper

Scofflaw wrote: »

The accession of Croatia is irrelevant, because the guarantees can enter the treaties on the back of any accession treaty, or as a mini-treaty in their own right.

Finally, none of the campaigns (afair) mentioned conscription. That was something that came out afterwards, in the Millward Brown findings:

There are no date or timetable for these "guarantees" to be added to any EU treaty - ever.

Re Conscription - As it was never mentioned by No side group - I believe this canard was just a creative invention or possibly exaggeration of MB.
Govt paid the money and gets the ham.

Hitman Actual

free to prosper wrote: »

Thanks hitman.

Thanks... why? I haven't been agreeing with you. I said, as others did, that the Yes side is not saying that the text of the Treaty has changed.

free to prosper wrote: »

The govt are trying to spin these guarantees as if they was a change to the Lisbon Treaty or that they won huge concessions.

They're not saying the text has changed, but they are saying we're voting on a different 'package', which has been covered well by View above.

free to prosper wrote: »

These "guarantees" are simply explanations which will not bind the ECJ at all.
The ECJ will be bound by the Lisbon Treaty.

They will be added on as Protocols, which will be as legally-binding as any other Article or Protocol in the Treaties (as I'm sure you know, Protocols are part of the Primary Law of the EU). They will be open to interpretation by the ECJ if challenged, but have you anything beyond sensationalist speculation to say that the wording isn't legally watertight? It's not the member state leaders that write the protocols, there is a very legal approach to their composition. From here:

wrote:

The Council of Ministers’ legal service, the Attorney General, Irish diplomats and Czech diplomats are understood to be putting the final touches to the wording of the clarifications on taxation, neutrality, social/ethical issues and workers’ rights.

Also, what reason have you to believe that a member state or EU institution would challenge a Protocol specifically written for a particular member state? Is there any precedent for that.

Basically there are two things here- the Protocols have been written by EU legal experts to be extremely watertight, and there is no valid reason, beyond sensationalist speculation, to believe they would be challenged.

free to prosper wrote: »

There is not guarantee going forward that the guarantees will be added to a future treaty - its not certain that Croatia will accede etc etc

The EC Decision is legally binding in International Law, as pointed out in a post above. Do you believe that another member state will renege on this agreement, especially over Protocols which are not aimed at them? Also, do you believe there will never be another EU Treaty, of any kind?

free to prosper wrote: »

Talking about honesty - how about the ruse that IRish people were worried about conscriptions - this is a complete red herring.
There is not one NO side group is said anything approaching this at anytime during the Lisbon debate - not one.
They only people who mentioned the idea were Yes advocates.

The talk about conscription originated before the first referendum- do you really expect me to believe that it was a myth perpetuated by the Yes side? To what end?

It may have been mentioned by the Yes side in trying to counteract the continuous misinformation from the No campaign, but other than that, it was an issue they were trying (badly) to suppress.

free to prosper

As the commentator, Denis Cooper in the Sunday Times article page remarked re protocol:

"So where is it, then? It doesn't exist, not even as an unratified draft. There's just a non-binding promise of a protocol, some time in the future."

Have you seen a copy yet? But you're expected to vote on it - amazing.

oscarBravo

free to prosper wrote: »

Re Conscription - As it was never mentioned by No side group - I believe this canard was just a creative invention or possibly exaggeration of MB.
Govt paid the money and gets the ham.

You're accusing Millward Brown of completely fabricating poll results?

Are you serious?

Hitman Actual

free to prosper wrote: »

As the commentator, Denis Cooper in the Sunday Times article page remarked re protocol:



Have you seen a copy yet? But you're expected to vote on it - amazing.

Who is this Denis Cooper? That quote looks suspiciously like the one here in the "Have Your Say" section of this article.

"Denis Cooper, Maidenhead, England: So where is it, then? It doesn't exist, not even as an unratified draft. There's just a non-binding promise of a protocol, some time in the future.."

Is he actually a (eurosceptic) journalist for the Sunday Times, or just some English guy giving an opinion on something he doesn't have a clue about. For a start, the agreement isn't non-binding, as mentioned several times above.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Who is this Denis Cooper? That quote looks suspiciously like the one here in the "Have Your Say" section of this article.

"Denis Cooper, Maidenhead, England: So where is it, then? It doesn't exist, not even as an unratified draft. There's just a non-binding promise of a protocol, some time in the future.."

Is he actually a (eurosceptic) journalist for the Sunday Times, or just some English guy giving an opinion on something he doesn't have a clue about. For a start, the agreement isn't non-binding, as mentioned several times above.

lol... I've seen it all now, quoting random commenters on a website as authoritative sources, what next?

As the sky news red button said just the other day...

free to prosper

It clear in my post that it was a commentator

Denis Cooper in the Sunday Times article page remarked

re protocol:

There is no protocol yet.
No date set for it entry into force.

So don't get too excited that you've got something.

Back to issue - Glad to see the Yes siders acknowledge the "Lisbon Guarantees" won't make one iota of difference to the Lisbon Treaty or its intepretation.

Will all the Yesmen promise to point this out to wavering voters as they discuss it with their friends?

Here' hoping.

The Govt have tried to spin these guarantees are something - when in fact - they are meaningless to the Treaty of Lisbon.

oscarBravo

free to prosper wrote: »

It clear in my post that it was a commentator re protocol:

"Commentator" is a bit strong for some randomer that writes to a paper.

Glad to see the Yes siders acknowledge the "Lisbon Guarantees" won't make one iota of difference to the Lisbon Treaty or its intepretation.

Why would they? They're guarantees that the treaty doesn't have certain effects. The treaty didn't have those effects when we first voted on it, and it doesn't have those effects now that the guarantees have been written in block capitals with a crayon on a supplementary sheet.

Are you tacitly accepting that the Lisbon treaty doesn't, in fact, have the implications that some people seemed to worry it would?

Will all the Yesmen promise to point this out to wavering voters as they discuss it with their friends?

Of course - along with the fact that the reason the guarantees are unnecessary is because the treaty didn't have any of the negative implications in the first place.

The Govt have tried to spin these guarantees are something - when in fact - they are meaningless to the Treaty of Lisbon.

They don't alter the effect of the treaty, sure - but they address concerns that people expressed around the first referendum. The fact that the concerns were groundless doesn't mean they haven't been addressed.

djpbarry

free to prosper wrote: »

There is no protocol yet.
No date set for it entry into force.

So don't get too excited that you've got something.

Back to issue - Glad to see the Yes siders acknowledge the "Lisbon Guarantees" won't make one iota of difference to the Lisbon Treaty or its intepretation.

Why are you putting so much emphasis on protocols that you readily accept are meaningless (with regard to the treaty)? If you accept that the protocols don't change the treaty, then why do we need to see the protocols before voting on the treaty?

sink

free to prosper please at least be clear on this point. Do you accept this time round you know for certain that taxation, abortion and neutrality are non-issues, the guarantees put this beyond question. If you voted no first time round because you had doubts about any of the above issues this time you can vote with a firm knowledge that those issues are unaffected by Lisbon. Whether or not there is a material change in the treaty does not change the fact that taxation, abortion and neutrality remain unaffected by Lisbon. You can still oppose Lisbon for other reasons but not for the reasons stated above!

Do you accept that yes or no, and if no, why?

DeVore

If I sought clarification on a document, I wouldnt expect those clarifications to CHANGE that document.

I might seek change AFTER I had had my concerns clarified, if I didnt like what I read, but seeking clarification wouldnt and probably shouldnt change the base document...

DeV.

Dazzler88

dont let yourself be convinced by the Crooks who are currently running our country.VOTE NO ON LISBON..

Hitman Actual

free to prosper wrote: »

There is no protocol yet.
No date set for it entry into force.

So don't get too excited that you've got something.

Seeing, as you didn't bother replying to my questions in this post above, I ask you the following-

• Do you have any valid basis to believe that Protocols written by the Council of Minsters legal team and the Attorney General will not be legally watertight?
• Do you have any valid basis to believe that another member state or an EU institution would challenge these Protocols specifically meant for Ireland?
• Have you any valid basis to think that member states will renege on the EC Decision they took under International Law?
• And do you believe that there never will be another EU Treaty?

Scofflaw

free to prosper wrote: »

There are no date or timetable for these "guarantees" to be added to any EU treaty - ever.

Sure - 26 sovereign countries will, in the full glare of publicity, make it clear that their word is completely worthless. Or, you know, not, because this isn't kindergarten.

free to prosper wrote: »

Re Conscription - As it was never mentioned by No side group - I believe this canard was just a creative invention or possibly exaggeration of MB.
Govt paid the money and gets the ham.

So they made up the results, and will now address non-existent problems. You therefore have no worries about the second referendum result.

Once someone reaches this level of paranoia, there are no rational arguments which could possibly convince them.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

Dazzler88 wrote: »

dont let yourself be convinced by the Crooks who are currently running our country.VOTE NO ON LISBON..

You could always follow the lead of FG and Labour and vote Yes.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Dazzler88 wrote: »

dont let yourself be convinced by the Crooks who are currently running our country.VOTE NO ON LISBON..

I... I never thought of it like that before... the scales have dropped from my eyes... thank you for such a well thought out and convincing logical argument... if only all posters were as eloquent and erudite as you...

tonycascarino

Hitman Actual wrote: »

You could always follow the lead of FG and Labour and vote Yes.

Would that be the same Labour Party who's leader said the following after the rejection of the exact same Lisbon Treaty the last time out.;):D

"I think the Lisbon Treaty is dead." - Eamon Gilmore the day after the June 2008 referendum on RTE SixOne News, 13/6/08
RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU


“I don't think there's any question of this Treaty being put a second time to the people” - Eamon Gilmore, RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08 RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU


“People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels” - Eamon Gilmore (RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08)
RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU

Scofflaw

tonycascarino wrote: »

Would that be the same Labour Party who's leader said the following after the rejection of the exact same Lisbon Treaty the last time out.;):D

"I think the Lisbon Treaty is dead. The Lisbon Treaty to be ratified requires 27 Member States to ratify it. The Irish people have now decided in a Referendum that they do not wish to have it ratified therefore Ireland cannot ratify the Lisbon Treaty and therefore the Lisbon Treaty falls" - Eamon Gilmore the day after the June 2008 referendum on RTE SixOne News, 13/6/08
RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU


“I don't think there's any question of this Treaty being put a second time to the people” - Eamon Gilmore, RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08 RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU


“People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels” - Eamon Gilmore (RTE SixOne News on 13/6/08)
RTÉ.ie Media Player: Lisbon result poses question for EU

Yes - that Labour Party. The one that isn't the government, and therefore wasn't in a position to decide whether to hold a second referendum, or negotiate the guarantees required for the second vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tonycascarino

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes - that Labour Party. The one that isn't the government, and therefore wasn't in a position to decide whether to hold a second referendum, or negotiate the guarantees required for the second vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Those guarantees change absolutely nothing from the content of the rejected Treaty, so really they are meaningless. As for Gilmore, he will soon be out campaigning again after saying what he said, talk about contradicting ones self.

P. Breathnach

free to prosper wrote: »

The govt are trying to spin these guarantees as if they was a change to the Lisbon Treaty or that they won huge concessions.

No, they are not. You're making things up.

These "guarantees" are simply explanations which will not bind the ECJ at all.
The ECJ will be bound by the Lisbon Treaty.

More making things up.

There is not guarantee going forward that the guarantees will be added to a future treaty - its not certain that Croatia will accede etc etc

Jaysus! Is the EU an evil-minded conspiracy against us? Anyway, if they are as meaningless as you suggest (and on that I can largely agree with you, because the protocols merely affirm what is already there) then it matters not a whit if they are tacked into a future treaty.

Talking about honesty - how about the ruse that IRish people were worried about conscriptions - this is a complete red herring.
There is not one NO side group is said anything approaching this at anytime during the Lisbon debate - not one.
They only people who mentioned the idea were Yes advocates.

Were you in Ireland at the time of the last referendum? You're making things up again.

There were Europhobes, Eurosceptics, right-wing loons, political opportunists, and troublemakers telling lies and making unreasonable claims in the last referendum campaign (facilitated, it must be said, by an amazingly inept yes campaign). That is why we needed the protocols: to give the lie to claims that people were conned into believing.

free to prosper, making things up was a standard technique of the no campaign last time around. Are we going to see the same again?

Hitman Actual

tonycascarino wrote: »

Would that be the same Labour Party who's leader said the following after the rejection of the exact same Lisbon Treaty the last time out.

Luckily, in a democracy (see, we can casually throw that word around too), he's free to change his mind. Eamonn Gilmore seems satisfied that the concerns of the Irish have been dealt with.

Scofflaw

tonycascarino wrote: »

Those guarantees change absolutely nothing from the content of the rejected Treaty, so really they are meaningless. As for Gilmore, he will soon be out campaigning again after saying what he said, talk about contradicting ones self.

The guarantees guarantee that certain things claimed to be in the Treaty aren't in there. That's why they don't change the Treaty itself. The substantive change - retention of the Commissioner - doesn't require any change to the Treaty, but does require the Treaty.

As for Gilmore, Hitman's link allows him to speak for himself:

Eamonn Gilmore wrote:

I said at the beginning that democracy is a two-way conversation. Last June the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty, because they were concerned about how it would affect the Irish Constitution, Irish tax policy, Irish neutrality and workers’ rights. We now have guarantees that the Lisbon Treaty did not, and does not, affect Ireland’s ability to provide its public services, decide on ethical issues, preserve its low corporate tax rates or to remain neutral, and that, in the case of workers’ rights, the Lisbon Treaty actually strengthens them.

In the autumn, the people will get a chance to respond: to look again at what the Lisbon Treaty offers Ireland, and what Ireland offers the European Union. Ireland’s position within the European Union must be restored with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, so that we are part of a Union that is good for business, good for workers, and good for our citizens.

Note "conversation" - which suggests an evolving dialogue. No campaigners prefer the idea that the dialogue stopped after they'd had their say. Tough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tonycascarino

Scofflaw wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn Gilmore
''I said at the beginning that democracy is a two-way conversation. Last June the people rejected the Lisbon Treaty, because they were concerned about how it would affect the Irish Constitution, Irish tax policy, Irish neutrality and workers’ rights. We now have guarantees that the Lisbon Treaty did not, and does not, affect Ireland’s ability to provide its public services, decide on ethical issues, preserve its low corporate tax rates or to remain neutral, and that, in the case of workers’ rights, the Lisbon Treaty actually strengthens them.

In the autumn, the people will get a chance to respond: to look again at what the Lisbon Treaty offers Ireland, and what Ireland offers the European Union. Ireland’s position within the European Union must be restored with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, so that we are part of a Union that is good for business, good for workers, and good for our citizens.''



Note "conversation" - which suggests an evolving dialogue. No campaigners prefer the idea that the dialogue stopped after they'd had their say. Tough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for that. That just highlights my point that he has contradicted himself from what he said before.

Scofflaw

tonycascarino wrote: »

Thanks for that. That just highlights my point that he has contradicted himself from what he said before.

The first and only politician to do so! Ah well, he's a big lad, he can look after himself - personally, I won't be voting on the basis of what any public figure, be they politicians or footballers, says.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

Note "conversation" - which suggests an evolving dialogue. No campaigners prefer the idea that the dialogue stopped after they'd had their say.

While the yes campaigners can be confident that the dialogue will stop when the vote eventually goes their way.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

While the yes campaigners can be confident that the dialogue will stop when the vote eventually goes their way.

Nope. The dialogue continues. Contrary to what some "no" campaigners seem to be trying to tell us, there will be more EU treaties.

BlitzKrieg

While the yes campaigners can be confident that the dialogue will stop when the vote eventually goes their way.

We are?

I was under the impression that when the vote goes our way we would have a long road ahead of us implementing these changes, observing them, discussing their impact and debating the next step after this one, when situations such as the much hated Turkey issue, further enlargment, etc.

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Nope. The dialogue continues.

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

This conversation ends when I get my way.

BlitzKrieg wrote:

We are?

Yes, you are. If the result of the next referendum is a yes there'll be no more dialogue or two-way conversation about the Lisbon treaty.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

Are you kidding? There are people who are still talking about Rome, never mind Lisbon.

BlitzKrieg

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

It continues because the no vote has pretty much failed to provide a satisfactory alternative

If the result of the next referendum is a yes there'll be no more dialogue or two-way conversation about the Lisbon treaty.

The same way there was no more dialogue about Nice which didnt result in certain aspects of that treaty being rewritten or expanded in Lisbon...


oh wait.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Not about the Lisbon treaty it won't. It will continue if the people vote no but not if they vote yes.

This conversation ends when I get my way.

Yes, you are. If the result of the next referendum is a yes there'll be no more dialogue or two-way conversation about the Lisbon treaty.

The dialogue will continue either way, since the Lisbon Treaty is not a thing in itself, but a set of amendments to the EU's constitutional treaties - that constitution, the direction of the EU, further developments, enlargement, etc etc, will continue to be live issues for at least some of us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

tonycascarino wrote: »

Thanks for that. That just highlights my point that he has contradicted himself from what he said before.

There is no contradiction. For most people, the ability to change your opinion over time based on changing circumstances is usually regarded as a positive value. Not of course by fanatics or zealots but for most people.

After all, if prior to last election Eamonn said he favoured tax cuts, should he still favour them now giving the horrendous state of the public finances?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

The treaty doesn't change.

One of the apparent concerns expressed by the Irish electorate - the reduction in size of the Commission - has been addressed.

Therefore we're voting on a different proposition.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

There is no mention in the European Council decisions of the retention of the Irish Commissioner. In that context, this matter is not closed in my opinion.

Blitzkrieg wrote:

It continues because the no vote has pretty much failed to provide a satisfactory alternative

The status-quo is an alternative and there is neither the legal-mechanism or political-will to force Lisbon through without unanimity. The politicians are going to have to learn that it is the satisfaction of the people that counts, not just that of themselves. Furthermore, there are questions surrounding what becomes of the promised Protocol if Croatia rejects EU membership or Slovenia vetoes their accession on grounds of the maritime-border dispute. The gap between the yes and no sides in Croatia is approx 8%. We know from our own experience of referenda in this country that it's too close for comfort for the yes side. Furthermore, self-confessed "militant federalist" Liberal Democrat UK MEP Andrew Duff says adding an Irish Protocol to an accession treaty may violate EU law and be subject to challenges in the courts.

Andrew Duff MEP wrote:

Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts

The Irish Times says:

he added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state's accession to be dealt with.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is no mention in the European Council decisions of the retention of the Irish Commissioner. In that context, this matter is not closed in my opinion.

That's a really bizarre statement. No offence, but is your impression of what's happening important in some way?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The status-quo is an alternative and there is neither the legal-mechanism or political-will to force Lisbon through without unanimity. The politicians are going to have to learn that it is the satisfaction of the people that counts, not just that of themselves.

Of course! Elected politicians don't care at all about what the electorate thinks! Thanks heavens for that - otherwise they might make poor decisions on the basis that they're popular. That would never do, and presumably doesn't happen in your world? You're not in the middle of an enormous global recession caused by short-sighted but "popular" policies?

halfway between amazement and laughter,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote:

Of course! Elected politicians don't care at all about what the electorate thinks! Thanks heavens for that - otherwise they might make poor decisions on the basis that they're popular. That would never do, and presumably doesn't happen in your world? You're not in the middle of an enormous global recession caused by short-sighted but "popular" policies?

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

When the Irish people elect representatives, it is in the context that the politicians make act within the parameters set down by the Constitution, but that changing those parameters is the sole prerogative of the Irish people. As such, most of us will vote for parties with whom we do not always agree. The evidence since 1987 has been that even those opposed to closer European integration have continued voting for integrationist-parties. This has to be seen, however, in the context of the electorate being aware of the emergence-brake provided by the Constitution, whereby the political-class must defer directly to the people on certain matters, including large-scale European integration.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

There is usually always a hard core of 15/20% who will always vote NO. Usually SF voters, extreme Nationalists and xenophobic types amongst others. Democracy means that hard core are usually ignored.

I'd be amazed if an EU Referendum was a 95% Yes.

The question is: why did the other 30% vote No?

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

There is usually always a hard core of 15/20% who will always vote NO. Usually SF voters, extreme Nationalists and xenophobic types amongst others.

I'd be amazed if an EU Referendum was a 95% Yes.

The question is: why did the other 30% vote No?

In my personal opinion it reflects primarily a desire to retain national sovereignty. Other concerns include the democratic-deficit, the race to the bottom and in some cases unhappiness with EU policies such as the Common Fisheries Policy. Being asked to foist provisions on the French and Dutch peoples that they rejected also didn't sit well with voters' consciences.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

In my personal opinion it reflects primarily a desire to retain national sovereignty.

We'll see if the assurances and hopefully a better campaign, on all sides, will make a difference.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

That comment would have some weight if you could show that the 53% No vote was decided directly on Lisbon/EU issues.

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

In my personal opinion it reflects primarily a desire to retain national sovereignty. Other concerns include the democratic-deficit, the race to the bottom and in some cases unhappiness with EU policies such as the Common Fisheries Policy. Being asked to foist provisions on the French and Dutch peoples that they rejected also didn't sit well with voters' consciences.

And following on from my first point: That may be your personal opinion, but you're well aware from polls that the No vote wasn't primarily due to the reasons you just outlined. A large percentage of the No vote was determined from either lack of knowledge of the Treaty, or on issues that were not affected by the Treaty. You say that 'the people' and the pro-Lisbon parties are at odds on this, but the only reason they are is that the electorate weren't voting in a FUD-free environment. I think you know full well that if you took the misinformation out of the debate, there is no way the Treaty would have been rejected first time around.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish political-system is based on a framework whereby it is recognised, through the referendum provisions required to amend the Constitution, that politicians can get out of touch and need to be kept on a constitutional leash whereby they can be reined in by the public. There is something to be said for the proposition that when 53% of the public are on one side on a constitutional change, while 95% of the elected national politicians are on the opposite side, that our direct-democracy provisions of the Irish Constitution are vindicated. It is not usually healthy for democracy, which thrives on choice, for a political-class to be this out of touch with public opinion.

When the Irish people elect representatives, it is in the context that the politicians make act within the parameters set down by the Constitution, but that changing those parameters is the sole prerogative of the Irish people. As such, most of us will vote for parties with whom we do not always agree. The evidence since 1987 has been that even those opposed to closer European integration have continued voting for integrationist-parties. This has to be seen, however, in the context of the electorate being aware of the emergence-brake provided by the Constitution, whereby the political-class must defer directly to the people on certain matters, including large-scale European integration.

The referendum isn't the constitutional leash on which we hold politicians - that's elections. Referendums protect the Constitution from political meddling, but do not have any direct impact on politicians at all. Nor was the Constitution intended as an emergency brake on the powers of the government to make international treaties, as demonstrated by the fact that the government constantly makes such treaties without any reference to the electorate.


cordially,
Scofflaw