Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

Will be turned into protocols before we vote and Lisbon is ratified ?

No, you're entirely free to engage in paranoia about the member states "reneging on the deal", but funnily enough, we won't get protocols dealing with stuff in Lisbon unless we vote Yes to Lisbon. That might be because they're pointless if Lisbon can't go ahead, or it might be an Illuminati conspiracy.

amused,
Scofflaw

grundie

Yes the first time, but a no from me this time for many reasons:

The complexity of the document. Surely a document whose contents will affect 350+ million people should be readable by the layman?

To many questions about whether the guarantees are legally watertight.

Article 308

In particular the way the yes side reacted to the first no vote. Disappointment = OK, anger = bad.

Scofflaw

grundie wrote: »

Yes the first time, but a no from me this time for many reasons:

The complexity of the document. Surely a document whose contents will affect 350+ million people should be readable by the layman?

Not really. It should be at least as watertight as an ordinary contract, and they're not famed for their readability. The legalistic terminology is there for a reason. Mind you, I don't find it particularly complex, and it's certainly no more complex than the existing treaties - which would suggest that you would have voted No to each of those too?

grundie wrote: »

To many questions about whether the guarantees are legally watertight.

They are. A lot of effort is currently being put into knocking them, but they're international agreements. They're no less legally watertight than the bilateral tax agreements we have with other countries.

grundie wrote: »

Article 308

Why?

grundie wrote: »

In particular the way the yes side reacted to the first no vote. Disappointment = OK, anger = bad.

Hm.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

grundie wrote: »

Yes the first time, but a no from me this time for many reasons:

The complexity of the document. Surely a document whose contents will affect 350+ million people should be readable by the layman?

To many questions about whether the guarantees are legally watertight.

Article 308

In particular the way the yes side reacted to the first no vote. Disappointment = OK, anger = bad.

OK, I'm lost here.

Has the Treaty you voted yes too got more complex or something?

grundie

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really. It should be at least as watertight as an ordinary contract, and they're not famed for their readability. The legalistic terminology is there for a reason. Mind you, I don't find it particularly complex, and it's certainly no more complex than the existing treaties - which would suggest that you would have voted No to each of those too?

Previous treaties were amendments, this one is a completely new fresh start. The powers that be should have at least provided an explanation booklet going over every single article and clause and explaining it what it means in laymans terms. I spent 6 weeks reading this treaty, it was a struggle and I still don't understand most of it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

They are. A lot of effort is currently being put into knocking them, but they're international agreements. They're no less legally watertight than the bilateral tax agreements we have with other countries.

I'd still rather see them in the treaty. If they aren't in the treaty someone might chance their arm by bringing in a contradictory law or regulation a few years down the line arguing that they overlooked these extra guarantees.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why?

It gives the EU a lot of power to do, well, pretty much what it wants. They might use it, they might not. I'd rather it wasn't there. It's worded too ambiguously for my liking.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hm.

Seeing a government minister appear on TV and be angry with the electorate for daring to vote against the governments wishes does little to make me want to vote with them again. The yes camp freaked out, it bothered me then and it still bothers me now.

It doesn't matter what anyone says to try and convince me otherwise. I'm voting no and I will encourage all my relatives, friends and colleagues to do the same.

grundie

K-9 wrote: »

OK, I'm lost here.

Has the Treaty you voted yes too got more complex or something?

It hasn't, but in hindsight I thought that I would reconsider my previous decision.

K-9

grundie wrote: »

It hasn't, but in hindsight I thought that I would reconsider my previous decision.

Nothing wrong with that.

jhegarty

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, you're entirely free to engage in paranoia about the member states "reneging on the deal", but funnily enough, we won't get protocols dealing with stuff in Lisbon unless we vote Yes to Lisbon. That might be because they're pointless if Lisbon can't go ahead, or it might be an Illuminati conspiracy.

amused,
Scofflaw

Governments change.

It will be different people making the decision by time it comes to enacting these are protocols. The tory part will be in power by time any decisions on protocols are made. Will they keep the labour promise ?

Repeat that question for every country in Europe.

K-9

grundie wrote: »

It doesn't matter what anyone says to try and convince me otherwise. I'm voting no and I will encourage all my relatives, friends and colleagues to do the same.

That bothers me.

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

Governments change.

It will be different people making the decision by time it comes to enacting these are protocols. The tory part will be in power by time any decisions on protocols are made. Will they keep the labour promise ?

Repeat that question for every country in Europe.

The governments are signing up to agreements, which bind their successors in the same way that any international agreement does. They can break those agreements unilaterally, with all the usual penalties such an act has. Since the guarantees are guarantees that things that aren't in Lisbon aren't in Lisbon, there's nothing in breaking the agreements that benefits any of the other governments.

These aren't "promises", they're signed agreements. It's the difference between verbally agreeing to do something, and signing a contract to do it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

grundie

K-9 wrote: »

That bothers me.

Why?

I am merely exercising my democratic right. You can't deny me my right to express an opinion about an important public matter simply because my view differs from yours.

Scofflaw

grundie wrote: »

Previous treaties were amendments, this one is a completely new fresh start. The powers that be should have at least provided an explanation booklet going over every single article and clause and explaining it what it means in laymans terms. I spent 6 weeks reading this treaty, it was a struggle and I still don't understand most of it.

Hold up a moment. This treaty is not a completely new fresh start. It is a bog-standard amending treaty just like Nice or Amsterdam.

grundie wrote: »

I'd still rather see them in the treaty. If they aren't in the treaty someone might chance their arm by bringing in a contradictory law or regulation a few years down the line arguing that they overlooked these extra guarantees.

I'm not even sure how that would work. The guarantees will go into the EU treaties at the next accession treaty as Protocols, which gives them exactly the same legal force as the treaties.

grundie wrote: »

It gives the EU a lot of power to do, well, pretty much what it wants. They might use it, they might not. I'd rather it wasn't there. It's worded too ambiguously for my liking.

It isn't there. No government would be stupid enough to put it in there, and the governments write the treaties.

grundie wrote: »

Seeing a government minister appear on TV and be angry with the electorate for daring to vote against the governments wishes does little to make me want to vote with them again. The yes camp freaked out, it bothered me then and it still bothers me now.

It doesn't matter what anyone says to try and convince me otherwise. I'm voting no and I will encourage all my relatives, friends and colleagues to do the same.

It's a free vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jhegarty

Scofflaw wrote: »

The governments are signing up to agreements, which bind their successors in the same way that any international agreement does. They can break those agreements unilaterally, with all the usual penalties such an act has. Since the guarantees are guarantees that things that aren't in Lisbon aren't in Lisbon, there's nothing in breaking the agreements that benefits any of the other governments.

These aren't "promises", they're signed agreements. It's the difference between verbally agreeing to do something, and signing a contract to do it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I could be wrong here, but I didn't think the protocol bit was part of the written guarantees.

Can someone clarify ?

K-9

grundie wrote: »

Why?

I am merely exercising my democratic right. You can't deny me my right to express an opinion about an important public matter simply because my view differs from yours.

Ah, that isn't what I quoted.

grundie

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hold up a moment. This treaty is not a completely new fresh start. It is a bog-standard amending treaty just like Nice or Amsterdam.

Does it not establish a 'new EU'. A new treaty to supersede all previous treaties?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not even sure how that would work. The guarantees will go into the EU treaties at the next accession treaty as Protocols, which gives them exactly the same legal force as the treaties.

Why not put them in now?

Scofflaw wrote: »

It isn't there. No government would be stupid enough to put it in there, and the governments write the treaties.

If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.

I read that as "If we want to do something that requires a treaty clause and it's not there, we can get the EU parliament to give us permission. There's no need to go and get another treaty". I'm no solicitor, but I think the intent of that article is pretty clear.

grundie

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, that isn't what I quoted.

Was it the fact that I won't change my mind? I was inclined to vote yes until I got the post card, that turned me in to a staunch no voter.

A little card with a few lines of text is hardly the best way to communicate such important information. It was almost as if they were saying "You got your ruddy guarantees. Happy now? Vote Yes!"

Scofflaw

grundie wrote: »

Does it not establish a 'new EU'. A new treaty to supersede all previous treaties?

No, it doesn't. The Constitution would have done, because the Constitution would have replaced the existing treaties. Lisbon is an amending treaty instead.

grundie wrote: »

Why not put them in now?

The other member states, who are giving the guarantees, don't want to re-ratify the treaty. There's an assumption that parliamentary ratification is a
cost-free exercise, but it isn't.

grundie wrote: »

I read that as "If we want to do something that requires a treaty clause and it's not there, we can get the EU parliament to give us permission. There's no need to go and get another treaty". I'm no solicitor, but I think the intent of that article is pretty clear.

If your reading of it were correct, there would be no need for Lisbon, since there's a very similar article in the current treaties. However, there's a very large caveat at the beginning of the article:

If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.

That's a very long way from a carte blanche, since the policies defined in the Treaties are the competences of the EU. It applies where the EU has competence, so that it cannot simply be argued that while the EU has competence over, say marine conservation, it has not been specifically given the power to identify marine conservation areas, and therefore cannot do so. It can be given that power, by unanimous consent of the member states (the Council), and with the consent of the Parliament and the Commission as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

grundie wrote: »

Was it the fact that I won't change my mind? I was inclined to vote yes until I got the post card, that turned me in to a staunch no voter.

A little card with a few lines of text is hardly the best way to communicate such important information. It was almost as if they were saying "You got your ruddy guarantees. Happy now? Vote Yes!"

Well, the Referendum Commission booklet was too complicated for some. So the Lisbon for Dummies version wasn't simple enough.

Really, take it up with the section of the electorate that are either too dumb to read a small booklet or aren't bothered enough and wanted an easier version.

The white paper is now stickied and I'll be telling people to read it, if they're bothered.

Scofflaw

grundie wrote: »

Was it the fact that I won't change my mind? I was inclined to vote yes until I got the post card, that turned me in to a staunch no voter.

A little card with a few lines of text is hardly the best way to communicate such important information. It was almost as if they were saying "You got your ruddy guarantees. Happy now? Vote Yes!"

I think you may find that you get more information than that between now and October. The postcard seems to just be about the guarantees.

cordially,
Scofflaw

solice

grundie wrote: »

Was it the fact that I won't change my mind? I was inclined to vote yes until I got the post card, that turned me in to a staunch no voter.

A little card with a few lines of text is hardly the best way to communicate such important information. It was almost as if they were saying "You got your ruddy guarantees. Happy now? Vote Yes!"

So you are voting No, not because of the content of the treaty but because you havent been told enough about it....GROW UP!!!!!

Download the treaty and read it yourself. Vote for it or vote against it on the merits of the treaty itself, not the way it is presented or the (only) way you choose to find out about it!

PopeBuckfastXVI

In fairness Solice, admonishing someone to 'grow up' rarely helps bring them round to your position.

Grundie, I'm not sure which postcard you got, I haven't seen one myself, but if it's from the Referendum Commission then your beef is with them, not the treaty itself. There are any number of sources of (factual) information about the treaty. You could start with the DFA white paper above, maybe work through the EU's microsite on Lisbon here http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm, you can read the consolidated versions of TEU and TFEU as amended by Lisbon (which is way easier then just sitting down and ploughing through Lisbon itself).

Also feel free to ask any questions of the well informed and helpful (generally!) residents of this forum.

Please don't vote no from a lack of information though, there's plenty to be had, and I think once you find out a bit more about the treaty, and about the myths surrounding it, it'll only confirm your original inclination to vote 'yes'.

P. Breathnach

solice wrote: »

So you are voting No, not because of the content of the treaty but because you havent been told enough about it...

Last time round, many people voted no on the basis of messages even briefer than would fit on a postcard, poster slogans like "Vote No -- Save our Commissioner".

It seems to me that some people want to vote no for reasons similar to the motives of vandals: they can do something damaging, and they can get away with it. The satisfaction of spoiling things for others exceeds the cost to them of spoiling things for themselves. Then they scrabble around trying to find a justification, and any nonsense will do.

P. Breathnach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

...Grundie, I'm not sure which postcard you got, I haven't seen one myself ...

It's a government thing, issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It lists the matters covered by the guarantees and it gives two pathways to get more information, a phone number (lo-call 1850 211 602) and an url (www.lisbontreaty.ie).

The url leads to huge amounts of information, including the White Paper. I didn't try the phone number.

solice

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

In fairness Solice, admonishing someone to 'grow up' rarely helps bring them round to your position.

I know what you mean and I totally agree with you. But I find this attitude completly frustrating. I have no problem with people voting no as long as their reason for voting no is based on the content of the treaty itself.

Martin 2

jhegarty wrote: »

a) I disagree


c) I don't see a point here. Yes the euro has saved us from another Iceland. But we are not voting on maastricht* , we are voting on Lisbon.

* Which I would have voted yes for

Unlike a lot of European countries, in Ireland we export virtually everything we produce and import virtually everything we need (cars, clothing, furniture, most foods), but we are currently unique in Europe in that over 80% of our exports are due to foreign multinationals, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, HP, IBM, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis etc etc, a simple search on Google (also has a big operation in Ireland) will confirm this.

It is the tax revenue from these exports, (and multinational employees & wider community) that’s helping to keep us from national bankruptcy at the moment. The multinational sector strongly supports a YES vote, I know of no multinational that supports a NO; of course they do tend to echo government policy but they are still mainly motivated by the bottom line and economic survival. Voting no again, will possibly kill Lisbon completely this time, and this will create a very negative impression (isolationist, anti European) in the business community both at home and abroad, in addition it creates uncertainty about our future role in EU, all this discourages further investment, especially if we become the only country to reject Lisbon.


For example Intel have come out very strongly in favour of Lisbon (check Jim O’Hara, Intel), they employ ~5000 people in my own county alone (also have operation in Co. Clare), HP down the road slightly less (~4000?), not forgetting all the people in the wider community dependent on those jobs. How is it going to help those employees by voting NO? it’s very risky to assume it will have no effect.



Martin


Ps. FutureTaoiseach (or his fellow ‘friend’ from politics.ie) will probably respond to this with a completely spurious and false analogy with another country, if he does it has been completely debunked in this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055608639&page=3

Martin 2

grundie wrote: »

Was it the fact that I won't change my mind? I was inclined to vote yes until I got the post card, that turned me in to a staunch no voter.

A little card with a few lines of text is hardly the best way to communicate such important information. It was almost as if they were saying "You got your ruddy guarantees. Happy now? Vote Yes!"

Hi Grundie,


The card has a website highlighted on front in the bottom right hand corner, www.lisbontreaty.ie .....a lot more details there.


Printed information for those without internet access will probably come later… I pity the poor postmen:)

Martin

suimhneas

skearon wrote: »

A definate Yes, there are no logical reasons to vote No, only ones that damage the country and its future.

the logical reason for voting no this time is that the no campaing won last time and it was ignored, the government has shown total contempt for the majority of the voters and said we will keep pushing this treaty on the electorate till we get the answer we want.

Hitman Actual

suimhneas wrote: »

the logical reason for voting no this time is that the no campaing won last time...

No, that's completely illogical.

suimhneas wrote: »

...and it was ignored, the government has shown total contempt for the majority of the voters...

It wasn't ignored; the Constitution wasn't changed and the instruments of ratification weren't deposited in Rome. And the Government sought and received legally-binding clarifications on issues of importance to Irish voters.

suimhneas wrote: »

...and said we will keep pushing this treaty on the electorate till we get the answer we want.

You have a source for someone saying this?

Scofflaw

suimhneas wrote: »

the logical reason for voting no this time is that the no campaing won last time and it was ignored, the government has shown total contempt for the majority of the voters and said we will keep pushing this treaty on the electorate till we get the answer we want.

There's a huge difference between "asking again to get the answer they want" and "asking again in the hopes of getting the answer they want". You're not being forced to vote Yes - obviously - and neither is anyone else. It's a free vote, and it's happening because the government want a Yes, can't force a Yes, and can't go ahead with ratification if they don't have a Yes. Rightly or wrongly, the government (and the opposition) feel that Lisbon is the right thing for the country. Rightly or wrongly, our Constitution allows them to ask again, and they are doing so. Voting No "because that was the vote last time" would be like voting FF again in the event of a snap general election "because that was the vote last time".

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Martin 2 wrote:

The multinational sector strongly supports a YES vote

What's your source for this?