Important factors surrounding Lisbon

simplistic

This is a thread about factors surrounding lisbon and not specifically to do with the treaty itself.

The reason being that the factors are just as if not more Important than the treaty it self.

Like if your being offered a contract by a company you may want to know if the company has good credit, is ethical etc

or if you an employer it would be important to do a background check to see if the prospective candidate is a criminal rather than just looking at his C.V.

Here is my take on the lisbon in a simple analogy and a few questions that maybe you guys could clear up for me.

Lets role play, Im a door to door sales man and your a pospective customer.

Salesman: *Knock knock*

Customer: Oh Hello.

Salesman: here sign this 270 page contract!

Customer: What...whoaaa hold on there why, what do I get?

Salesman: I dont know it doest really make sense to me...but Im told youll make more money and there will be more jobs in your community and stuff.

Customer: Well what did my neighbours do?

Salesman: eh, oh well they didnt get to decide it was forced on them but forget about them you get to decide?

Customer: Your not a great salesman are you?

Salesman: Im not paid to care about my customers.

*sound of a slamming door*

1 year later

*knock knock*

Customer: oh not you again!

Salesman: Wait sign this please,

Customer : Is that the same contract ?

Salesman : eh,uh,eh...


Question 1, Why if the treaty is supposed to increase democracy when other democratic countrys not allowed to vote?And why are we forced to vote again. ( seems like a massive contradiction to me)

Question 2, Since we know that politicians act out of self interest before anyone else and we can apply this rule to everybody why are they so egar to pass this? So whats in it for them???

nesf

simplistic wrote: »

Question 1, Why if the treaty is supposed to increase democracy when other democratic countrys not allowed to vote?And why are we forced to vote again. ( seems like a massive contradiction to me)

Not a good analogy to start with. The above question has been answered multiple times already on this forum. Please do a search before asking questions.

simplistic wrote: »

Question 2, Since we know that politicians act out of self interest before anyone else and we can apply this rule to everybody why are they so egar to pass this? So whats in it for them???

This on the other hand is an excellent question. If the only people telling you to vote one way are politicians then you should definitely be very wary of doing so. There are a few things about this though. Generally if the Opposition agree with the Government this is definitely something that deserves some thought. Generally the Opposition parties will take every opportunity to throw digs at the Government and when they're agreeing with them it indicates that something is up (i.e. it's either a pay increase for Politicians or something that'll be good for the country or the consequences of voting No aren't good for the country).

The second point is that it isn't just politicians campaigning for a Yes. Companies, IBEC, unions, etc etc from across the political spectrum are calling for a Yes. This is a very strong indication that something is a good idea (rarely will Unions and IBEC agree on anything and so on).

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

Companies, IBEC, unions, etc etc from across the political spectrum are calling for a Yes. This is a very strong indication that something is a good idea (rarely will Unions and IBEC agree on anything and so on).

Unions are also calling for a no.

Regarding companies - If a company can profit at the expense of the workers, why wouldn't they endorse it? The people's voice is the only voice that should carry weight.

The Treaty was rejected, and it seems that the only correct answer for this treaty is "Yes". We all knew that if we rejected the Treaty, it would just come back again, and again, and again, and again - Until the Irish public voted yes on it.

What happens if the public votes no again - then what? It will be still ratified, because it's the will of the politicians, and not necessarily the will of the people (as evident by the failure to ratify the treaty by way of a public referendum). It's not democratic. A demoratic nation should respect the voie of the people, and not ignore it until the correct voice is heard.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

Unions are also calling for a no.

Indeed, some are calling for Yes, some for no. My point was that any time a union and IBEC are in agreement that something worth careful inspection is up.

The rest of your post has been dealt with over and over again. It's perfectly within the right of any Government to put a question twice to the public in a referendum. It's only undemocratic if a Government ignores the will of the people and imposes a Treaty or decision against the will of the public. Asking the public again is not the equivalent of this.

dlofnep

nesf wrote: »

The rest of your post has been dealt with over and over again. It's perfectly within the right of any Government to put a question twice to the public in a referendum. It's only undemocratic if a Government ignores the will of the people and imposes a Treaty or decision against the will of the public. Asking the public again is not the equivalent of this.

So what happens if it's rejected again? Do we get a third referendum?

And while being within their rights - would you have told the no-voters to get lost if they asked for a second referendum if it passed? Can you see why some voters are annoyed with the whole situation?

Steviemak

dlofnep wrote: »

Unions are also calling for a no.

But their Federations are calling for a yes to safeguard workers rights -

ICTU calling for a yes and representing 57 unions and 550,000 workers in ireland

ETUC calling for a very strong yes and representing 34 countries and 60 million workers across europe

Dinner

First off, congratulations on the worst and most loaded analogy I have ever seen. You just be so proud.

I'll indulge your questions.

simplistic wrote: »

Question 1, Why if the treaty is supposed to increase democracy when other democratic countrys not allowed to vote?And why are we forced to vote again. ( seems like a massive contradiction to me)

How other countries choose to ratify treaties has nothing, again, nothing to do with the EU. It is up to each individual country to decide how to ratify it in. In Ireland, we have referenda. In Italy, referenda on International treaties are forbidden by their constitution. In Holland, binding referenda are illegal.

This treaty increases democracy in the EU. But if you feel that all other countries are doing democracy wrong, then you should contact some groups in that country and demand that they demand that their government change their constitutions. But then you would be interfering in their business, something which Irish people don't appreciate and get all stubborn if there's a hint that someone is telling us what to do.

We are not being forced to vote again. The elected government of Ireland is staging another referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but this time with added guarantees that address the issues uncovered through statistical analysis of surveys.

I know that many people in the no camp see this has a heinous breach of democracy, but it's not. The issues were there, they were not fabricated by a reputable polling company so that the EU could satisfy concerns that didn't exist.

simplistic wrote: »

Question 2, Since we know that politicians act out of self interest before anyone else and we can apply this rule to everybody why are they so egar to pass this? So whats in it for them???

Is it possible, and I know that this will be hard for you, but is it possible that they genuinely believe that this is in the best interest of Europe as a whole?

Whats in it for them? A less bureaucratic Europe? A more democratic Europe? A better EU? I've even heard rumours that politicians, actually live in the EU. Imagine that!

Steviemak

dlofnep wrote: »

So what happens if it's rejected again? Do we get a third referendum?

There will be no 3rd referendum. Europe will most likely be turned in a two speed europe with us and UK on the sidelines. We'll be looking for help from the UK and the tories won't give a toss.

The future of Europe is way too important to leave us working under the rules of Nice. The world has moved on and Europe will soon be passed out if we don't adapt.

Stagnate and die or change and prosper.

dlofnep

Steviemak wrote: »

But their Federations are calling for a yes to safeguard workers rights -

ICTU calling for a yes and representing 57 unions and 550,000 workers in ireland

ETUC calling for a very strong yes and representing 34 countries and 60 million workers across europe

And of course, this is certainly worth considering.. But we are discussing Ireland (maidir le ETUC), Unite which represents 60,000 people is advocating a no vote. What you must ask yourself is - Is there merit behind it?

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

So what happens if it's rejected again? Do we get a third referendum?

And while being within their rights - would you have told the no-voters to get lost if they asked for a second referendum if it passed? Can you see why some voters are annoyed with the whole situation?

That question has also been answered repeatedly - yes, of course we can see why some voters are annoyed, but that doesn't render a second referendum illegal, immoral, outrageous, undemocratic, or any of the other terms that have been used. It's not even, let's face it, unexpected.

I don't like data retention legislation, or software patents, but I have to put up with the fact that when a proposal for one or the other is struck down, it won't be the last I've heard of it, because my views on the matter don't command sufficient support to make it an open and shut case for not trying it again. My only choice is to keep plugging away, and keep harassing my TDs and MEPs, and vote for the ones with the best records on the matter. That's how it is in a democracy - some issues come up over and again. The price of liberty, as they say, is eternal vigilance - not "a brief period of vigilance followed by a nice relaxing holiday".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

And of course, this is certainly worth considering.. But we are discussing Ireland (maidir le ETUC), Unite which represents 60,000 people is advocating a no vote. What you must ask yourself is - Is there merit behind it?

That's been asked on another thread, in fact. So far, nobody's really sure whether they've got something specific, or it's just an IFA-style bargaining tactic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

So what happens if it's rejected again? Do we get a third referendum?

It doesn't matter! When the Government implements the treaty without a Yes vote then we'll have a breach of democracy but until then it's perfectly legitimate for them to put the question to the electorate again.

This has been thrashed out dozens of times already on this forum. Seriously, there's no need to raise it as a point of debate!

Red Sleeping Beauty

I think a big(ger) question is what specific input did Bertie Ahern's Fianna Fail govt. have into the Lisbon Treaty ? Was there any, or did they just see the Lisbon Treaty as the Constitution under a different guise/name therefore not requiring any new negotiation. What input did your/our MEPs have into it ? Did you talk to your local MEP about it while either text was being drafted ?

When electing politicians to the European Parliament in 2004 was the EU constitution an important issue for you ? Same goes for the 2007 general and the recent European elections. It's probably a bit late though a few weeks before the referendum when the treaty is back in the headlines to say "but where's my voice?" . We're told the other 26 member states either have or will ratified it in accordance with their constitutional requirements but just how much input has the person on the street really had into this Treaty ?


Ireland's voting again because the EU wants this thing passed and so does the Irish govt. After the rejection last year a poll was done to see why people voted no, from this, the govt. told us some people voted no for reasons that treaty didn't affect, then they got some "guarantees" that those reasons weren't/aren't in the treaty which they gives them the justification for a second referendum.

So that's why we're voting on it again.

Martin 2

Alan Rouge wrote: »

..... Ireland's voting again because the EU wants this thing passed and so does the Irish govt. After the rejection last year a poll was done to see why people voted no, from this, the govt. told us some people voted no for reasons that treaty didn't affect, then they got some "guarantees" that those reasons weren't/aren't in the treaty which they gives them the justification for a second referendum.

So that's why we're voting on it again.

You forgot to mention that Ireland and all other member states will now be able to have a permanent commissioner (if the treaty is passed)

nesf

Alan Rouge wrote: »

After the rejection last year a poll was done to see why people voted no, from this, the govt. told us some people voted no for reasons that treaty didn't affect, then they got some "guarantees" that those reasons weren't/aren't in the treaty which they gives them the justification for a second referendum..

"Guarantees"? Claiming they're not binding are we?

marco_polo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I think a big(ger) question is what specific input did Bertie Ahern's Fianna Fail govt. have into the Lisbon Treaty ? Was there any, or did they just see the Lisbon Treaty as the Constitution under a different guise/name therefore not requiring any new negotiation. What input did your/our MEPs have into it ? Did you talk to your local MEP about it while either text was being drafted ?

When electing politicians to the European Parliament in 2004 was the EU constitution an important issue for you ? Same goes for the 2007 general and the recent European elections. It's probably a bit late though a few weeks before the referendum when the treaty is back in the headlines to say "but where's my voice?" . We're told the other 26 member states either have or will ratified it in accordance with their constitutional requirements but just how much input has the person on the street really had into this Treaty ?

Ireland's voting again because the EU wants this thing passed and so does the Irish govt. After the rejection last year a poll was done to see why people voted no, from this, the govt. told us some people voted no for reasons that treaty didn't affect, then they got some "guarantees" that those reasons weren't/aren't in the treaty which they gives them the justification for a second referendum.

So that's why we're voting on it again.

By all accounts our position was that we were happy with the content of the orignal constitution. We secured some additional opt out on Justice and Home security primarly because the UK did likewise (First link).

Other wise it appears our main goals were (Second link):

In these negotiations, Ireland succeeded in achieving our key priorities including:
- Maintaining unanimous decision-making on tax matters;
-Ensuring balance in the Union’s institutions and equality with regard to membership in the Commission
- Protecting Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Government_Press_Office/Taoiseach%27s_Speeches_Archive_2007/D%C3%A1il_Statement_by_the_Taoiseach,_Mr_Bertie_Ahern,_T_D_,_on_the_outcome_of_the_European_Council_21-23_June_on_Wednesday,_27_June,_2007_at_12_00_noon.html

http://euaffairs.ie/publications/Key-Features-of-the-Reform-Treaty.doc

tolosenc

Hilarious analogy, mate. Top notch.

simplistic wrote: »

Question 1, Why if the treaty is supposed to increase democracy when other democratic countrys not allowed to vote?And why are we forced to vote again. ( seems like a massive contradiction to me)

For the 1000th time in this forum, it is none of our concern as to how other countries ratify international treaties.

Germany doesn't have federal referenda ever. This is because the last leader of Germany to use such a method to seek a mandate for policies was none other than Adolf Hitler.

You are not being forced to vote again. You can abstain if you wish. In fact, if you object to a second referendum, please do.

Question 2, Since we know that politicians act out of self interest before anyone else and we can apply this rule to everybody why are they so egar to pass this? So whats in it for them???

To be honest, if the only people opposing a treaty are virulent lefties, religious nuts and Sinn Féin, that's a pretty good sign that there's very little of actual concern.