10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

Torakx

upthedub wrote: »

How can you make up your mind if you have not read it all??

hehe im glad somebody asked the important question!
obviously nobody is expected to read it all and i doubt anyone in the yes campaign did either. i myself when doing some research before deciding could not even find the actual treaty only amendments to it! and that was a long enough read i can tell you.(from what i read i was horrified)

whats expected is you do what your told and trust the big guys on top to read it for us and tell us what is good.

so ye your supposed to not read it and make up your mind by blindly voting yes and trusting that its gonna be ok

anyway who wouldnt trust the corperations and bankers?

meglome

Torakx wrote: »

hehe im glad somebody asked the important question!
obviously nobody is expected to read it all and i doubt anyone in the yes campaign did either. i myself when doing some research before deciding could not even find the actual treaty only amendments to it! and that was a long enough read i can tell you.(from what i read i was horrified)

whats expected is you do what your told and trust the big guys on top to read it for us and tell us what is good.

so ye your supposed to not read it and make up your mind by blindly voting yes and trusting that its gonna be ok

What exactly were you horrified about?

doonothing

The main thing I don't get is that, for example, all the things on the news after the last referendum: there was people going mad saying "abortion will be affected", "we'll be forced into wars" and "we'll lose some massive amount of power in the EU" and all that ****e. But we were completely guaranteed back then that none of that would be affected, weren't we? I remember hearing that a million times in the run up to the referendum!

Now, I keep hearing the same guarantees, only this time, they're guaranteed... Something just smells fishy! What are these new guarantees about? Why are they different? Were we being lied to the first time? Or wha! I don't mean this as an attack or defence in any direction, just genuinely curious as to what both sides (especially the yes side) make of the "new" guarantees in comparison to the old ones..

Tar.Aldarion

doonothing wrote: »

The main thing I don't get is that, for example, all the things on the news after the last referendum: there was people going mad saying "abortion will be affected", "we'll be forced into wars" and "we'll lose some massive amount of power in the EU" and all that ****e. But we were completely guaranteed back then that none of that would be affected, weren't we? I remember hearing that a million times in the run up to the referendum!

Now, I keep hearing the same guarantees, only this time, they're guaranteed... Something just smells fishy! What are these new guarantees about? Why are they different? Were we being lied to the first time? Or wha! I don't mean this as an attack or defence in any direction, just genuinely curious as to what both sides (especially the yes side) make of the "new" guarantees in comparison to the old ones..

No, as far as I know, these guarantees, are just saying 'those ridiculous things people were saying will not happen, wtf'

Basically to assuage any fears. Not that I have paid attention to this lisbon thing for most of a year now.

Scofflaw

doonothing wrote: »

The main thing I don't get is that, for example, all the things on the news after the last referendum: there was people going mad saying "abortion will be affected", "we'll be forced into wars" and "we'll lose some massive amount of power in the EU" and all that ****e. But we were completely guaranteed back then that none of that would be affected, weren't we? I remember hearing that a million times in the run up to the referendum!

Now, I keep hearing the same guarantees, only this time, they're guaranteed... Something just smells fishy! What are these new guarantees about? Why are they different? Were we being lied to the first time? Or wha! I don't mean this as an attack or defence in any direction, just genuinely curious as to what both sides (especially the yes side) make of the "new" guarantees in comparison to the old ones..

Basically, what Tar says. They're there because the Treaty can't be ratified without an Irish Yes - so if we're afraid of things that aren't in the Treaty, then we're welcome to a legally binding agreement that they aren't, even though it's only guaranteeing that what isn't in there isn't in there. Oh, and a Commissioner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Just curious. How many more of these treatys are going to go before the people. Maastricht, Nice (twice) Lisbon (twice). Maybe time we had a look at our constitution. Im all for transparency but these treatys are divisive.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Just curious. How many more of these treatys are going to go before the people. Maastricht, Nice (twice) Lisbon (twice). Maybe time we had a look at our constitution. Im all for transparency but these treatys are divisive.

I disagree that they are really all that divisive, with the exception of a few weeks around the campaign. Also one of the main goals behind lisbon is so reverse the trend of major treaties every few years. I think it marks the cumulation of a long period of EU reforms begun with Maastricht and this will be the beginning of a relatively long period of EU stability.

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

I disagree that they are really all that divisive, with the exception of a few weeks around the campaign. Also one of the main goals behind lisbon is so reverse the trend of major treaties every few years. I think it marks the cumulation of a long period of EU reforms begun with Maastricht and this will be the beginning of a relatively long period of EU stability.

Reverse the trend of future treaties.. Or you could say reverse the results. But thats unimportant at this stage. I do find it unfair that having decided to run a second referendum that the National Forum was closed down in Cowens words "there was a necessity to review all areas of expenditure".
Go figure.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Reverse the trend of future treaties.. Or you could say reverse the results.

I am not sure what you mean?

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

I am not sure what you mean?

Well just the last treaty and Nice treaty. Results were reversed there. I assume by continually running these treaties they can add one or two amendments into the act.
Example over here would be crime bill where certain amendments were "guiloutined" on procedural basis.
What Im saying overall is that because Europe is constantly changing, what applies today doesn't apply tomorrow.
This treaty will be revisited in some form or other in the future.

Spiritoftheseventies

Meanwhile two more links to consider.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/12/obamas-snitch-program-chicago
quoting from link
"Thus, in January 2005, the then so-called "EU Constitution" or, more exactly, Constitutional Treaty was moving through the ratification process and facing potential defeat in upcoming referendums in several EU member states. In order to try to defuse -- or perhaps discredit -- the increasingly evident public opposition to the treaty, a group of pro-Constitution members of the European Parliament announced that they were setting up a "rapid reaction force" to correct "distortions and misrepresentations" of the treaty.

The members of the group would serve as the "watchdogs on utterances about the Constitution," as the news site EUobserver chillingly put it, citing the head of the parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee Jo Leinen. "Within three hours, or at least within the same day, we want to react to lies and distortions about the Constitution," the German MEP told EUobserver. No "snitching" was required by members of the public themselves. Rather, the task of policing public discourse was assigned to the European Parliament offices in each of the member states, which were to "'pick up' any information they consider to be a lie and pass it back to the group."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article504641.ece
quoted from link
"The European Commission has set up a special “communications strategy committee” and is promoting a website to rebut “Euromyths” spread by the British press in the hope of winning the propaganda battle over the next two years.

Eurosceptic MEPs complain that many of the reaction force’s “corrections” will just be pro-constitution opinions dressed as fact. For example, the force will leap to defend the constitution if someone says that it will lead to the creation of an EU president, even though it will indeed lead to the appointment of a new high-profile and powerful president of the European Council for two and a half years.

It will also rebut the accusation that the constitution makes EU law supreme over national law, when national governments have already accepted that fact as necessary to make the EU work.

The constitution will be the first time that any country has signed a treaty making EU law supreme over national law, making it almost impossible for national governments to revoke this principle late"

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well just the last treaty and Nice treaty. Results were reversed there. I assume by continually running these treaties they can add one or two amendments into the act.
Example over here would be crime bill where certain amendments were "guiloutined" on procedural basis.
What Im saying overall is that because Europe is constantly changing, what applies today doesn't apply tomorrow.

Er, yes - the problem there is that you're completely wrong. A treaty isn't like an Act - it can't be amended by Statutory Instrument after the fact. Indeed, it can't be amended at all without ratification by every country.

bayviewclose wrote: »

This treaty will be revisited in some form or other in the future.

Yes - in the form of a new Treaty. Which will need to be ratified.

Let's be entirely clear about this - you can't modify a Treaty after it is signed and ratified except by means that involve another set of ratifications in every signatory country. Treaties are between countries, and countries have armies - so the law on Treaties is extremely strict. Your picture of the treaties sort of changing after we've ratified without any further ratification by us is entirely wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

First of all why not try giving your own opinions on the links you provide. I don't know if you agree or disagree with your quotes, or if you consider them good or bad. I'll assume you agree, and consider whatever the 'EU' does to be some form of 'bad'?

bayviewclose wrote: »

Meanwhile two more links to consider.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/12/obamas-snitch-program-chicago
quoting from link
"Thus, in January 2005, the then so-called "EU Constitution" or, more exactly, Constitutional Treaty was moving through the ratification process and facing potential defeat in upcoming referendums in several EU member states. In order to try to defuse -- or perhaps discredit -- the increasingly evident public opposition to the treaty, a group of pro-Constitution members of the European Parliament announced that they were setting up a "rapid reaction force" to correct "distortions and misrepresentations" of the treaty.

The members of the group would serve as the "watchdogs on utterances about the Constitution," as the news site EUobserver chillingly put it, citing the head of the parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee Jo Leinen. "Within three hours, or at least within the same day, we want to react to lies and distortions about the Constitution," the German MEP told EUobserver. No "snitching" was required by members of the public themselves. Rather, the task of policing public discourse was assigned to the European Parliament offices in each of the member states, which were to "'pick up' any information they consider to be a lie and pass it back to the group."

You'd rather lies went unchallenged? Is that only if they come from a source with whose ends you agree?

bayviewclose wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article504641.ece
quoted from link
"The European Commission has set up a special “communications strategy committee” and is promoting a website to rebut “Euromyths” spread by the British press in the hope of winning the propaganda battle over the next two years.

Eurosceptic MEPs complain that many of the reaction force’s “corrections” will just be pro-constitution opinions dressed as fact. For example, the force will leap to defend the constitution if someone says that it will lead to the creation of an EU president, even though it will indeed lead to the appointment of a new high-profile and powerful president of the European Council for two and a half years.

So they moan that when they make a false claim, that is similarly worded to the truth, they are pulled up on it. Boo hoo for them.

bayviewclose wrote: »

It will also rebut the accusation that the constitution makes EU law supreme over national law, when national governments have already accepted that fact as necessary to make the EU work.

The constitution will be the first time that any country has signed a treaty making EU law supreme over national law, making it almost impossible for national governments to revoke this principle late"

What? They might want to read the Irish constitution then, and prepare themselves to be shocked.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

First of all why not try giving your own opinions on the links you provide. I don't know if you agree or disagree with your quotes, or if you consider them good or bad. I'll assume you agree, and consider whatever the 'EU' does to be some form of 'bad'?


You'd rather lies went unchallenged? Is that only if they come from a source with whose ends you agree?



So they moan that when they make a false claim, that is similarly worded to the truth, they are pulled up on it. Boo hoo for them.



What? They might want to read the Irish constitution then, and prepare themselves to be shocked.

My opinion. They challenge distortions but then put out a booklet which only tells half the story. One group tells lies, another only tells half the truth.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

My opinion. They challenge distortions but then put out a booklet which only tells half the story. One group tells lies, another only tells half the truth.

What's the half they are leaving out, out of curiosity?

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, yes - the problem there is that you're completely wrong. A treaty isn't like an Act - it can't be amended by Statutory Instrument after the fact. Indeed, it can't be amended at all without ratification by every country.



Yes - in the form of a new Treaty. Which will need to be ratified.

Let's be entirely clear about this - you can't modify a Treaty after it is signed and ratified except by means that involve another set of ratifications in every signatory country. Treaties are between countries, and countries have armies - so the law on Treaties is extremely strict. Your picture of the treaties sort of changing after we've ratified without any further ratification by us is entirely wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What Im saying is that most treaties are merely extensions of the last one. Do you think they are going to put out a treaty that is completely new. As i said because Europe is changing all the time, what applies today may not apply tomorrow.

jonny rotten

Paste this in browser, have a look and then decide. <snip>

meglome

bayviewclose wrote: »

Just curious. How many more of these treatys are going to go before the people. Maastricht, Nice (twice) Lisbon (twice). Maybe time we had a look at our constitution. Im all for transparency but these treatys are divisive.

If we were all having an open and honest discussion about the real life merits or lack thereof of these treaty's then fine. However every time we have a referendum the far left and right crawl out of the woodwork and start making things up. I mean how the hell did abortion become an issue with the Lisbon treaty, it's nonsense that Lisbon allows for abortion. I mean Cóir are still objecting to Lisbon based on it will bring in abortion, even after the legal guarantees that categorically state it doesn't and never would. Some of these groups have suspiciously large sums of money at their disposal for fringe elements. I would argue they have a way larger (negative) effect on the treaty's than they should have given their actual support base. Until we can out some of these people, show their true face and where they're funded from all our referenda are going to be painful.

Scofflaw

jonny rotten wrote: »

Paste this in browser, have a look and then decide. *snip*

If we haven't made it clear enough that this sort of post isn't 'discussion', let jonny rotten's ban stand as a reminder.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Edit,

cordially,
nesf

Spiritoftheseventies

meglome wrote: »

If we were all having an open and honest discussion about the real life merits or lack thereof of these treaty's then fine. However every time we have a referendum the far left and right crawl out of the woodwork and start making things up. I mean how the hell did abortion become an issue with the Lisbon treaty, it's nonsense that Lisbon allows for abortion. I mean Cóir are still objecting to Lisbon based on it will bring in abortion, even after the legal guarantees that categorically state it doesn't and never would. Some of these groups have suspiciously large sums of money at their disposal for fringe elements. I would argue they have a way larger (negative) effect on the treaty's than they should have given their actual support base. Until we can out some of these people, show their true face and where they're funded from all our referenda are going to be painful.

Well abortion became an issue in last refererendum because of confusion of what position the European Court of Justice takes on this matter.
If you research the whole issue particularly and particularly to cases in America its a legal minefield.
And outside of Abortion, rulings are made everyday in regards to issues like workers rights by ECJ. Its open to interpretation.
The charter cuts out a lot of confusion now but expect to hear a lot more about the ECJ's role in years to come.
It will play a very important role in shaping EU law in years to come.

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What's the half they are leaving out, out of curiosity?

I would like this point elabourated on as well.

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

I would like this point elabourated on as well.

It was mentioned yesterday. The loss of the Veto on a lot of issues which Patricia McKenna highlighted.
Again Ill say it again but it makes no mention of the ECJ and its role in shaping laws. Anyone reading the booklet can see it talks up the European Institutions.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Oh wait, I've misread... may I have a link to this booklet please?

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What's the half they are leaving out, out of curiosity?

Sorry can I clarfy this. They are talking up the treaty thats fine. But lets be honest,its four pages long. Its not the full thing. Before that in the summer they sent out a postcard outlining the guarantees on abortion etc. Again its fine but not the full story.
As already mentioned the National Forum on Europe was closed due to cuts in expenditure.
This was a chance for existing government to properly debate these issue and yet they chose to close it down.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

It was mentioned yesterday. The loss of the Veto on a lot of issues which Patricia McKenna highlighted.
Again Ill say it again but it makes no mention of the ECJ and its role in shaping laws. Anyone reading the booklet can see it talks up the European Institutions.

Because the role of the ECJ has been established for decades and does not change under Lisbon. It has always been the supreme authority on EU law since its inception. So why would it be in the booklet about the Lisbon treaty referendum?

In the two links to the lisbon booklets Lisbon you posted yesterday, I found reference to changes in the council voting method on both of them.

I also note that Patricia McKenna has yet to initiate her threatened proceedings or release the legal advice she has supposedly recieved.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry can I clarfy this. They are talking up the treaty thats fine. But lets be honest,its four pages long. Its not the full thing. Before that in the summer they sent out a postcard outlining the guarantees on abortion etc. Again its fine but not the full story.
As already mentioned the National Forum on Europe was closed due to cuts in expenditure.
This was a chance for existing government to properly debate these issue and yet they chose to close it down.

Who are you talking about here? Are you no longer talking about the 'misinformation reaction' group in your links above?

So you have no problems with any 'misinformation reaction' groupings I take it?

Onward to 'half truths' from the DFA in their booklet. You want their booklet, which was about the guarantees, to cover the Lisbon treaty, but that's refcoms job.

The DFA negotiated guarantees and released a booklet about them. If you want to know about the full treaty go to refcom.

I'm not sure what your complaint is here, except that perhaps every item of literature related to the Lisbon treaty in any way, should also contain the full treaty?

Can you explain to me how the ECJ's role in shaping laws changes under Lisbon?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Actually, reading back over the thread I'm even more confused.

BVC, you mentioned some EU misinformation reaction grouping, then went on to accuse them of telling only half truths in their booklet.

I'm not aware of their booklet or it's contents, can you please either tell me where I can find a copy of their booklet, or clarify if you're not talking about booklets from those misinformation reaction groupings?

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

Because the role of the ECJ has been established for decades and does not change under Lisbon. It has always been the supreme authority on EU law since its inception. So why would it be in the booklet about the Lisbon treaty referendum?

In the two links to the lisbon booklets Lisbon you posted yesterday, I found reference to changes in the council voting method on both of them.

I also note that Patricia McKenna has yet to initiate her threatened proceedings or release the legal advice she has supposedly recieved.

yes there were references to changes. But it didnt say "loss of veto". It outlined the voting procedure.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry can I clarfy this. They are talking up the treaty thats fine. But lets be honest,its four pages long. Its not the full thing. Before that in the summer they sent out a postcard outlining the guarantees on abortion etc. Again its fine but not the full story.
As already mentioned the National Forum on Europe was closed due to cuts in expenditure.
This was a chance for existing government to properly debate these issue and yet they chose to close it down.

They are not "talking up' the treaty, it is a simple summary of the main issues.

And now you seem to be implying there is something they are not telling us about abortion as well?

The FUD is well and truely flying today

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

yes there were references to changes. But it didnt say "loss of veto". It outlined the voting procedure.

Is there any other reasonable way moving from unanimous to majority voting could be interpreted?