To everyone who says "a vote against Lisbon is a vote against the EU itself"...

hatrickpatrick

...or some such garbage about leaving the EU or whatever:

Would you apply that to every treaty in the EU's history? Rejecting it is rejecting the organization or is a sign that we should leave the organization?

Because if we're in an EU where once a treaty has been drawn up every country is obliged to pass it just to show that they're "pro EU", that's a very scary and dangerous road to be on.

Can you imagine if we had an internal constitutional change here which had to be voted on, and the government said "if you vote no to this, you're anti Ireland"? There'd be outrage. Except of course from the people who want to see the thing pass, of course - they'd jump on this and repeat it ad nauseam.

Seriously, just think about this for a second. Are you actually suggesting that every treaty the EU draws up is good for the EU and must be passed?

Should we, for example, just do away with any type of vote whatsoever, and just have a new system whereby once the wording of a treaty is finalized, there is no ratification at all and it automatically comes into force?

PopeBuckfastXVI

A vote against Lisbon is not necessarily a vote against the EU, but absent of the opportunity to do so, the vast, vast majority of those who would vote against the EU will vote against the Lisbon treaty, and cajole, fool and implore others to do the same.

ei.sdraob

who exactly is this "everyone"

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...or some such garbage about leaving the EU or whatever:

Would you apply that to every treaty in the EU's history? Rejecting it is rejecting the organization or is a sign that we should leave the organization?

Because if we're in an EU where once a treaty has been drawn up every country is obliged to pass it just to show that they're "pro EU", that's a very scary and dangerous road to be on.

Of course Treaties do not just fall from the sky and demand that every state should ratify it. All member states are involved in agreeing the terms of a treaty unanimously and once they are satisfied with the outcome so it would be a curious thing indeed if they did not want to ratify the treaty.

Can you imagine if we had an internal constitutional change here which had to be voted on, and the government said "if you vote no to this, you're anti Ireland"? There'd be outrage. Except of course from the people who want to see the thing pass, of course - they'd jump on this and repeat it ad nauseam.

But the Governement have not said anything like this. And we don't know who the everybody you are referring to is.

Seriously, just think about this for a second. Are you actually suggesting that every treaty the EU draws up is good for the EU and must be passed?

Again this rather neglects the fact that the only member states are involved in the negotiations, treaties are not handed down by the EU to member states by any higher authority, 'the EU' only exists in as a consequence of the agreements between all member states.

Should we, for example, just do away with any type of vote whatsoever, and just have a new system whereby once the wording of a treaty is finalized, there is no ratification at all and it automatically comes into force?

No.

hatrickpatrick

Look around this board for the 'everyone' I'm talking about. I don't have time now, just going out, but if you like later on I'll quote every post I can find where someone said something along the lines of "maybe if we don't vote for Lisbon we should just leave the EU"

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Look around this board for the 'everyone' I'm talking about. I don't have time now, just going out, but if you like later on I'll quote every post I can find where someone said something along the lines of "maybe if we don't vote for Lisbon we should just leave the EU"

I'd be interested in seeing that, and the proportion posts from 'no' voters claiming that it's said to the number of posts from 'yes' voters actually saying it.

Might make for interesting reading...

nesf

It's a straw man:

1) Some Yes voters say that voting No to Lisbon II could negatively affect Ireland's position in the EU. (which has a grain of truth in it)

2) This is repeated by some No voters as Yes voters saying that Ireland will be kicked out of the EU. (which is highly unlikely)

3) This is then repeated by some No voters as Yes voters saying that a No vote will bring about the economic end times. (which is even more unlikely)


This is equivalent to:

1) A poll saying that 73% of No voters voted No because they didn't understand parts of the treaty. (I'm making up the percentage)

2) Yes voters then saying that 73% of No voters didn't understand any of the treaty. (which isn't what the survey found)

3) Yes voters then saying that 73% of No voters didn't understand anything of how the EU works. (which is getting very very far away from what the survey found)


In both cases what you see is a game of Chinese whispers where the claim grows bigger and bigger and less connected to the evidence with each repetition. This is pretty standard stuff in a political debate, there is always the strong urge to undermine the opposition by exaggerating their claims but it is always wrong.

In both cases, it's a lot easier to argue against 3) than it is to argue against 1) which is why people are more likely to (intentionally or unintentionally) choose that particular point to argue against. You can see it on the main forum with the thread where the OP thought people were saying that everyone drawing the dole were spongers when in reality almost everyone was at worst saying that only life long dole drawers were spongers.

Freeborn John

marco_polo wrote: »

Again this rather neglects the fact that the only member states are involved in the negotiations...

Incorrect. All the details of the EU Constitution were agreed by the EU Convention before governments got to look at the text. The EU Convention deliberately included pro-integration forces from the EU Commission, EU Parliament and notorious federalists as chairman and vice-chairmen to tip the playing field away from national governments and towards supporters of as much integration as possible.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Just in case anyone is wondering who the EU convention are...

In addition to its Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, the Convention is composed of:
* 15 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States (one from each Member State),
* 13 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the candidate States (1 per candidate State),
* 30 representatives of the national parliaments of the Member States (two from each Member State),
* 26 representatives of the national parliaments of the candidate States (two from each candidate State),
* 16 members of the European Parliament,
* 2 representatives of the European Commission.

http://european-convention.eu.int/organisation.asp?lang=EN

Website is referring to the EU15 here, but you get the idea...

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Just in case anyone is wondering who the EU convention are...



http://european-convention.eu.int/organisation.asp?lang=EN

Those evil doers! undemocracy

oscarBravo

Freeborn John wrote: »

All the details of the EU Constitution were agreed by the EU Convention before governments got to look at the text.

This would be the EU Convention that consisted of over a hundred members drawn from national parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission, and representatives of heads of state and government? The one that held its plenary sessions in public?

Sounds like a closed-door conspiracy, alright.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

It's a straw man:

1) Some Yes voters say that voting No to Lisbon II could negatively affect Ireland's position in the EU. (which has a grain of truth in it)

2) This is repeated by some No voters as Yes voters saying that Ireland will be kicked out of the EU. (which is highly unlikely)

3) This is then repeated by some No voters as Yes voters saying that a No vote will bring about the economic end times. (which is even more unlikely)


This is equivalent to:

1) A poll saying that 73% of No voters voted No because they didn't understand parts of the treaty. (I'm making up the percentage)

2) Yes voters then saying that 73% of No voters didn't understand any of the treaty. (which isn't what the survey found)

3) Yes voters then saying that 73% of No voters didn't understand anything of how the EU works. (which is getting very very far away from what the survey found)


In both cases what you see is a game of Chinese whispers where the claim grows bigger and bigger and less connected to the evidence with each repetition. This is pretty standard stuff in a political debate, there is always the strong urge to undermine the opposition by exaggerating their claims but it is always wrong.

In both cases, it's a lot easier to argue against 3) than it is to argue against 1) which is why people are more likely to (intentionally or unintentionally) choose that particular point to argue against. You can see it on the main forum with the thread where the OP thought people were saying that everyone drawing the dole were spongers when in reality almost everyone was at worst saying that only life long dole drawers were spongers.

I've pointed this out a few times lately. Usually it is ok but a few times lately it has gone to absurd lengths.

Eg. The EU played a part in our economic success so therefor it must have played a part in our economic failure in the 70 & 80's.

tlev

I don't think it is a vote against the EU itself but I don't think the EU will be overjoyed with another No vote. That isn't to say that Ireland will be kicked out of Europe or anything but I think it will dent Ireland's already tarnished reputation in Europe. Especially the leadership ability of our government.

At the same time you mention this 'everyone', there may be an 'everyone on continental Europe' who believes that a vote against Lisbon IS a vote against the EU.

hatrickpatrick

tlev wrote: »

I don't think it is a vote against the EU itself but I don't think the EU will be overjoyed with another No vote. That isn't to say that Ireland will be kicked out of Europe or anything but I think it will dent Ireland's already tarnished reputation in Europe. Especially the leadership ability of our government.

At the same time you mention this 'everyone', there may be an 'everyone on continental Europe' who believes that a vote against Lisbon IS a vote against the EU.

So why haven't the reputations of France and the Netherlands been "tarnished" then?

Also, I'm assuming everyone obviously thinks that the majority of the French and Dutch people are also anti EU, and that therefore France and the Netherlands should also leave the EU?

I mean Lisbon, as has already been pointed out, is essentially the constitution with enough omitted to be able to bypass the citizenry of those countries...

tlev

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So why haven't the reputations of France and the Netherlands been "tarnished" then?

Also, I'm assuming everyone obviously thinks that the majority of the French and Dutch people are also anti EU, and that therefore France and the Netherlands should also leave the EU?

I mean Lisbon, as has already been pointed out, is essentially the constitution with enough omitted to be able to bypass the citizenry of those countries...

Ireland is a small country getting uppity in the face of the EU. They have been one of the main beneficiaries of EU monies, moreso than France or the Netherlands. The EU isn't in an amazing position as it is and the EU feels that this what will be best for the EU as a whole moving forward.

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So why haven't the reputations of France and the Netherlands been "tarnished" then?

They didnt vote on Lisbon Treaty ....

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

They didnt vote on Lisbon Treaty ....

Let's not get into this side argument again. Even pro Lisbon parties have admitted that the treaty is a slightly watered down version of the Constitution. As far as I remember, it had just enough taken out to be able to ignore the voters in those countries and pass it through national parliaments instead.

K-9

tlev wrote: »

Ireland is a small country getting uppity in the face of the EU. They have been one of the main beneficiaries of EU monies, moreso than France or the Netherlands. The EU isn't in an amazing position as it is and the EU feels that this what will be best for the EU as a whole moving forward.

Yep, this was a common reaction to the vote.