Lisbon II - The A&A Thread

pH

No

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Clearly it is. You show up at the Dail with a load of blank placards and chant

What do we want?

Not telling you!

When do we want it?

Not telling you!

Very clever I know, but it's just rhetoric, it *is* possible to be against something without being bullied into saying what you're for.

For example if there was a referendum to introduce amputation as a punishment for theft, it is absolutely acceptable to be against that, what you think the actual punishment for theft should be is not part of that debate.

It is an entirely rational position to just say no to this treaty, if the government (or Europe) would like to introduce an inclusive process in the future to discover what direction the actual populations of Europe would like to go in then fair enough, but I fail to see what that has to do with now.

Dades

No

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I'm on my phone atm so can't get the URL, but I'll put up a link later if no-one else beats me to it.

Save your data allowance.

http://www.generationyes.ie/category/video/

Sam Vimes

No

pH wrote: »

Very clever I know, but it's just rhetoric, it *is* possible to be against something without being bullied into saying what you're for.

For example if there was a referendum to introduce amputation as a punishment for theft, it is absolutely acceptable to be against that, what you think the actual punishment for theft should be is not part of that debate.

It is an entirely rational position to just say no to this treaty, if the government (or Europe) would like to introduce an inclusive process in the future to discover what direction the actual populations of Europe would like to go in then fair enough, but I fail to see what that has to do with now.

I suppose I'll ask you the same question I asked MackDeToaster:

If you vote no to a 300 page document and won't tell anyone why, what do you expect them to do? Should they keep randomly changing articles in the hopes that you'll like it this time?

Or should they just stop making any changes because there's no point putting any time or effort into writing something when you have no idea if it's going to be acceptable to the guy that can stop it in its tracks but won't tell you why he's stopping it?

The treaty is not comparable to punishment by amputation because that is a single issue but the treaty is 300 pages long and you can't possibly object to every single word of it. you have to tell people which parts you object to so they can be renegotiated or removed or you bring the democratic process to a halt.

Zillah

No

pH wrote: »

Very clever I know, but it's just rhetoric, it *is* possible to be against something without being bullied into saying what you're for.

Wasn't it you that basically said you were voting no out of spite for the government rather than actually objecting to the treaty?

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

Wasn't it you that basically said you were voting no out of spite for the government rather than actually objecting to the treaty?

I think there's 4 positions

1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided
4. The belief that the first vote has to count, has to mean something even it was the 'blrrrgghhh no' of a sudden, ignorant zeitgeist.

Robin points out that it is the democratic responsibility of the people to clearly understand the treaty properly (*which they didn't first time out?).
By that logic a re-vote is merited. That logic is fine but then you have to apply it to all other elections and obviously that would be unworkable. The situation then becomes when do you enact a re-vote and when do you accept the first vote and who makes that decision?


*The general consensus of people whose opinion I respect believe this.

Sam Vimes

No

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think there's 4 positions

1. Yes
2. No
3. Undecided
4. The belief that the first vote has to count, has to mean something even it was the 'blrrrgghhh no' of a sudden, ignorant zeitgeist.

Robin points out that it is the democratic responsibility of the people to clearly understand the treaty properly (*which they didn't first time out?).
By that logic a re-vote is merited. That logic is fine but then you have to apply it to all other elections and obviously that would be unworkable. The situation then becomes when do you enact a re-vote and when do you accept the first vote and who makes that decision?


*The general consensus of people whose opinion I respect believe this.

In a democracy no does not mean no, especially when 26 other countries are saying yes. You explain why you said no, negotiations are carried out, a compromise is reached that eliminates the reasons why you said no and you're then asked if you've changed your mind. Nothing undemocratic, nothing illegal, nothing immoral. It's perfectly reasonable.
Only after negotiations if no compromise can be reached do you go back to the drawing board

The fact that the treaty didn't have to be changed in order to address our issues is not a sign of an undemocratic EU, it's a sign that the treaty was mostly rejected because of misconceptions and lies that had nothing to do with the treaty, making a second referendum even more reasonable

Obni

Not going to vote

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...
The fact that the treaty didn't have to be changed in order to address our issues is not a sign of an undemocratic EU, it's a sign that the treaty was mostly rejected because of misconceptions and lies that had nothing to do with the treaty, making a second referendum even more reasonable

The main reason the treaty is being re-submitted without change is to avoid having to ratify the treaty again in all other member states. If the EU are unwilling to do that, then it is because
(1) Cowen et al. have ensured them that it won't be needed, just a few non-binding guarantees that can later be ignored as required.
AND/OR
(2) The main players in the EU have no intention of stalling the process any longer, regardless of the result of our referendum. It would be far quicker to have the other 26 governments vote on an amendment to the treaty removing Ireland's participation in the treaty, than to face further negotiations and ratifications with the risk of another rejection. Having to drop the Lisbon Treaty after the EU constitution debacle would be a body blow to the EU project.

Húrin

No

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

More generally speaking, I think the vetoes have to go. It is insane that Malta could veto the wishes of the rest of the union. I can also envisage that a situation where, say, Ireland, Malta and Poland might veto something the rest agreed on because of Catholic influence.

The people of Poland, Ireland and Malta are as much part of the union as anybody else. Consensus should take account of their views. Dismissing their views just because they appear to be motivated by religion is unfair.

sink wrote: »

It's obviously another yes from me. I find it interesting that A&A leans so staggeringly towards Yes side camp. Maybe Atheist & Agnostics have a better bull**** filter then the general population.

Maybe the demographic profile of this forum is further up the class ladder? I remember last time, yes and no votes were divided along class lines in Dublin.

Zillah wrote: »

It, or some variety of it, needs to go through eventually. We can't just keep sitting here off Western Europe, soaking up titanic amounts of EU funding, while sullenly refusing to toe the line.

I expect that if there had been some changes made to the treaty, then people wouldn't complain about being asked to vote again.

I mostly agreee with your other points.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hurín, like most of the NO side, seems to be fabricating reasons to vote NO.

I'm not fabricating reasons to vote no. When I started posting in this thread I was undecided and I just played devil's advocate to some of what I saw as outlandish or exaggerated pro-treaty claims. I have now decided to vote yes, in order to get it out of the way so climate change can be addressed faster on the international level.

Sam Vimes

No

Obni wrote: »

The main reason the treaty is being re-submitted without change is to avoid having to ratify the treaty again in all other member states. If the EU are unwilling to do that, then it is because
(1) Cowen et al. have ensured them that it won't be needed, just a few non-binding guarantees that can later be ignored as required.
AND/OR
(2) The main players in the EU have no intention of stalling the process any longer, regardless of the result of our referendum. It would be far quicker to have the other 26 governments vote on an amendment to the treaty removing Ireland's participation in the treaty, than to face further negotiations and ratifications with the risk of another rejection. Having to drop the Lisbon Treaty after the EU constitution debacle would be a body blow to the EU project.

Your number 2 is not the situation at all. Your number 1 is closer but still wrong. Cowen assured the other countries that a change in the treaty wouldn't be needed..........wait for it.........because it wasn't needed :eek:

3 independent surveys were done and they all found that the biggest issue by far was lack of understanding which cannot be rectified by a change in the treaty and below that there was a plethora of non-issues and vagueries. No one had a clue what was in the treaty so they believed the lies and rejected it out of fear

Also, I suggest you look up the legal context of the guarantees before you continue to falsely say they can be ignored

Sam Vimes

No

On your second point, while it's not the situation and you only have to look at the surveys or boards to see that very very few people have a problem with a correct interpretation of something in the treaty, it is a possible scenario

The reality is that the Irish people rejected the treaty for no good reason, it was almost exclusively lies, fear and non-issues, so there is pretty much no point in them negotiating changes with the government because there is no way of knowing if those changes will be satisfactory. A prime example is your false claim that the guarantees aren't binding. I'm sure you believe it and that is the problem. That lie has been repeated so often that it has been almost universally accepted to have at least a grain of truth. It has no such grain but there is a distinct possibility that that lie will result in a second no.

This is a point I've made a few times on these boards but once more won't hurt. There is pretty much no point in ever having another treaty as long as Ireland is a member of the EU. The contents of the treaty don't matter in the slightest, all that matters is how convincing the lies are. Unfortunately they've proved to be convincing twice and now they might just be a third time

And as you say, this situation will not be allowed go on forever. The rest of Europe wants to make these changes and the misinformed Irish can't hold them back forever. They can and should opt us out of future treaties so we can keep our precious 'sovereignty' while all our big businesses move out to countries that want the same things as the rest of the EU and they can all move on with the greatest international project in history. Everybody's happy

Handsome Bob

No

I didn't think this warranted a new thread in the EU Forum so I'll say it here. I'm really glad that the government are taking some direct action, specifically I'm referring to Dermot Ahern's piece in The Daily Star on Monday. It was simple and straightforward, but to the point and effective. More of the same is needed in order to reach the masses.

Sam Vimes

No

Húrin wrote: »

I expect that if there had been some changes made to the treaty, then people wouldn't complain about being asked to vote again.

Which parts could have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner?

Turtwig

No

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which parts could have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner?

Pfft,
What they should have done is added those bits into the treaty the first time around. So that the NEXT time around they could actually remove them and then the NO side would have nothing to physically complain about as by then it would be well documented in the media..simple really.

stevejazzx

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In a democracy no does not mean no, especially when 26 other countries are saying yes. You explain why you said no, negotiations are carried out, a compromise is reached that eliminates the reasons why you said no and you're then asked if you've changed your mind. Nothing undemocratic, nothing illegal, nothing immoral. It's perfectly reasonable.
Only after negotiations if no compromise can be reached do you go back to the drawing board

The fact that the treaty didn't have to be changed in order to address our issues is not a sign of an undemocratic EU, it's a sign that the treaty was mostly rejected because of misconceptions and lies that had nothing to do with the treaty, making a second referendum even more reasonable

Ok Sam. You are right and I do agree with you almost in full. My point is that this logic (I've bolded the relevant bit above) now carries to all other decisions decided by general vote? That's not going to happen is it? That's why we have a problem. I'm not saying that a re-vote is some massive liberty of democracy, I'm saying that 're-voting', once enacted initially has to be standardised across the board to all decisions.

Tarobot

No

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok Sam. You are right and I do agree with you almost in full. My point is that this logic (I've bolded the relevant bit above) now carries to all other decisions decided by general vote? That's not going to happen is it? That's why we have a problem. I'm not saying that a re-vote is some massive liberty of democracy, I'm saying that 're-voting', once enacted initially has to be standardised across the board to all decisions.

No, this is not the case. Sam Vimes was explaining why a second referendum is not undemocratic but you also have to factor in the desire of the government to have the Lisbon Treaty passed if you want to fully explain why we're having Lisbon II.

According to our constitution, it is the reserved right of the Oireachtas to call a referendum or general election but it is up to the people to pass their judgement. Just as the government does not call for a second general election when it get the result it wants (obviously because they are now in government and want to stay there), nor would it call for a second referendum when it gets the result it wants.

You may not agree with it but that is a crucial part of our democratic system. If you don't agree with it, that's what the Supreme Court is for!

stevejazzx

Tarobot wrote: »

No, this is not the case. Sam Vimes was explaining why a second referendum is not undemocratic but you also have to factor in the desire of the government to have the Lisbon Treaty passed if you want to fully explain why we're having Lisbon II.

According to our constitution, it is the reserved right of the Oireachtas to call a referendum or general election but it is up to the people to pass their judgement. Just as the government does not call for a second general election when it get the result it wants, nor would it call for a second referendum when it gets the result it wants (primarily because they are now in government and want to stay there).

You may not agree with it but that is a crucial part of our democratic system. If you don't agree with it, that's what the Supreme Court is for!

What? The part in bold does not make sense to me. It seems like you're saying they do do what they want (or at least what suits them, or what a greater polictical will desires) from that sentence which was kind of my issue? Perhaps we're at cross purposes?

Sam Vimes

No

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok Sam. You are right and I do agree with you almost in full. My point is that this logic (I've bolded the relevant bit above) now carries to all other decisions decided by general vote? That's not going to happen is it? That's why we have a problem. I'm not saying that a re-vote is some massive liberty of democracy, I'm saying that 're-voting', once enacted initially has to be standardised across the board to all decisions.

That sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy to me. A revote should be carried out if it is determined that there is a legitimate reason to have one and/or if there's a campaign to have one that makes a valid point (as opposed to Coir etc who simply lie). Just because there's a good reason for one here doesn't mean you have to allow revotes on everything. A case has to be made for a revote, at the very least suggesting good reasons why they think the result might be different next time. Otherwise it's just a waste of time and money
. The case for this one is that most of the major issues people had were addressed through guarantees that their fears were unfounded, we got to keep our commissioner and the biggest reason for rejection was lack of understanding which is not a problem with the actual text of the treaty. All it takes to solve that problem is education

If Lisbon goes through and it turns out to be a disaster there will be a significant number of people in many countries campaigning for its provisions to be changed. At that point the governments will not only have to listen to the people but they'll be eager to because if the the dire predictions actually come true they won't be spared any more than us. 'unratifying' a treaty is a bit of a nightmare but it could be further amended to remove the offending articles. And if the government won't have a referendum you can vote one in that will, if you'd like to see Gerry Adams as Taoiseach

But if none of the dire predictions come true, which they of course won't because they're lies, then there is no valid reason to hold another referendum. Satisfying naysayers who live in a fantasy land where the EU is an evil dictator and whose dire predictions consistently fail to materialise is not a reason

Tarobot

No

stevejazzx wrote: »

What? The part in bold does not make sense to me. It seems like you're saying they do do what they want (or at least what suits them, or what a greater polictical will desires) from that sentence which was kind of my issue? Perhaps we're at cross purposes?

Sorry I fixed that mistake. My point is that calling a second referendum is not undemocratic - it's written into our constitution that the government has the right to call a referendum. But we, the people, make the final call.

What I was trying to explain above is that the government clearly will only call a second referendum if and when it wants to.

Erm, clearer?

Obni

Not going to vote

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, I suggest you look up the legal context of the guarantees before you continue to falsely say they can be ignored

'Ignored' was a poor choice of word, consider it withdrawn. I was attempting to convey the inconsequentiality of the guarantees. I am aware of the legal context of the 'guarantees'. In about two years, following the accession of Croatia (and probably Iceland) they will become an official protocol attached to the treaty, and in the meantime the 'Decision' has been granted the same status as a treaty, and elements are valid under contract law from June 2009 until they are officially adopted due to the intent expressed by those involved. I don't suggest that the guarantees could then be contravened without consequences in a court of law, simply that they are clarifications (being presented by the government as concessions) that are of no consequence to the EU.

Guarantee (A) covers any area which was always going to be legislated at a state rather than federal level, just like the US model.
Guarantee (C) is rather like UEFA allowing my over 35's five-a-side team to abstain from any future Champion's League. I don't think Ireland's participation was ever a critical planning issue.

Guarantee (B) is the only one that is of real interest to me, and though I hate to admit it, the retention of unanimity for taxation policy was an admirable achievement during Lisbon negotiations. My conspiracy-nut spidey-sense did start tingling when I saw the how tersely the guarantee stated when compared to the others.

Anyway, if the guarantees do appease the 14% of No voters that expressed concerns on those matters (6% each for neutrality and tax, 2% for abortion, gay marraige, etc..), then it should swing the vote enough to edge a Yes result.

The Yes camps main fear must be the anti-Government (4%) and anti-politician (6%) share might grow.

Sam Vimes

No

Obni wrote: »

'Ignored' was a poor choice of word, consider it withdrawn. I was attempting to convey the inconsequentiality of the guarantees. I am aware of the legal context of the 'guarantees'.

Fair enough. As long as you're not one of those depressing people who won't accept that they are binding

Obni wrote: »

Guarantee (B) is the only one that is of real interest to me, and though I hate to admit it, the retention of unanimity for taxation policy was an admirable achievement during Lisbon negotiations. My conspiracy-nut spidey-sense did start tingling when I saw the how tersely the guarantee stated when compared to the others.

Just to be clear, you know that we were always going to retain unanimity for taxation policy right? That it was never at risk?

Obni wrote: »

Anyway, if the guarantees do appease the 14% of No voters that expressed concerns on those matters (6% each for neutrality and tax, 2% for abortion, gay marraige, etc..), then it should swing the vote enough to edge a Yes result.

The Yes camps main fear must be the anti-Government (4%) and anti-politician (6%) share might grow.

It's more than that, you didn't include the commissioner figures. And lets not forget that the major reason for rejection was lack of understanding at 42%. After having years to learn about it that number will be significantly reduced and the polls are saying it is

I'm sure you'll agree that there's nothing in the treaty that can be changed to address anti-government and politician sentiment. They just have to hope that the numbers aren't significant

But anyway, given that at least 14% of no voter's issues have been addressed and in reality a lot more, well more than enough to swing it, can you see the justification for a second referendum? And more importantly can you see that there was no ulterior motive for not changing the treaty, it was simply unnecessary because more than enough of the reasons for rejection could be addressed without any change?

Húrin

No

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which parts could have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner?

Removing all references to the European Defence Agency from the treaty would probably have helped. This is the first treaty that enshrines that institution in law.

Sam Vimes

No

Húrin wrote: »

Removing all references to the European Defence Agency from the treaty would probably have helped. This is the first treaty that enshrines that institution in law.

So you're saying that something that does not effect our neutrality should be removed in case the Irish people think it does?

Tarobot

No

Húrin wrote: »

Removing all references to the European Defence Agency from the treaty would probably have helped. This is the first treaty that enshrines that institution in law.

That is incorrect. the EDA has been a codified, legal body since 2004.

To put things in perspective, the budget of the EDA in 2007 was €21m and Ireland's contribution was c. €300k.

And here is a list of all the missions that the ESDP have been involved in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_European_Union

The vast majority have been civilian operations, involving activities like monitoring ceasefires, protecting civilians and very often working with the UN.

stevejazzx

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy to me. A revote should be carried out if it is determined that there is a legitimate reason to have one and/or if there's a campaign to have one that makes a valid point (as opposed to Coir etc who simply lie). Just because there's a good reason for one here doesn't mean you have to allow revotes on everything. A case has to be made for a revote, at the very least suggesting good reasons why they think the result might be different next time. Otherwise it's just a waste of time and money

Define good reason? People were wrong first time out? Sounds like every general vote from the perspective of the minority, which please remember can be as high as 49%. Can you even make a case for a re vote after a general election? This logic is a bit maddening tbh, you must see that you are applying a double standard? It doesn't matter if you are right about Lisbon, what matters is consistency and fairness of the overall system.

SV wrote:

The case for this one is that most of the major issues people had were addressed through guarantees that their fears were unfounded, we got to keep our commissioner and the biggest reason for rejection was lack of understanding which is not a problem with the actual text of the treaty. All it takes to solve that problem is education

You can't be serious on this point, if we had to solve the education issue befroe an election/referendum we'd never have one.
There is always a lack of understanding. A yes vote in October will more likely be a reactionary result of the current zeitgeist rather than the majority of peope actually sitting down and getting themselves educated.

robindch

No

stevejazzx wrote: »

Can you even make a case for a re vote after a general election?

Not in the Irish system, but it could certainly be amended to make it fairer.

In the case of the vote next week, you could ask people to confirm, under threat of perjury, to declare on the ballot that they have read the Constitution Amendment and the Treaty itself, and discard votes where people fail to confirm

Or do what the Russians do -- or used to do, since I think that Putin stopped it -- and put a "None of the above" option on the ballot, and if that option wins, then you rerun the election. More useful for general and local elections, but it could have its uses in a constitutional referendum too.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Not in the Irish system, but it could certainly be amended to make it fairer.
In the case of the vote next week, you could ask people to confirm, under threat of perjury, to declare on the ballot that they have read the Constitution Amendment and the Treaty itself, and discard votes where people fail to confirm

It'll really be nitpicking on my behalf if I criticise that right!
I don't think people will be honest but it is a step in the right direction IMO.

robindch wrote:

Or do what the Russians do -- or used to do, since I think that Putin stopped it -- and put a "None of the above" option on the ballot, and if that option wins, then you rerun the election. More useful for general and local elections, but it could have its uses in a constitutional referendum too.

The Russians? - ah jaysis Robin things ain't got that bad (or good) just yet.:)

robindch

No

stevejazzx wrote: »

robindch wrote:

you could ask people to confirm, under threat of perjury, to declare on the ballot that they have read the Constitution Amendment and the Treaty itself, and discard votes where people fail to confirm

It'll really be nitpicking on my behalf if I criticise that right! I don't think people will be honest but it is a step in the right direction IMO.

I don't think everybody will be honest, but it will -- I think -- perhaps make enough people think about what they're doing to make it worthwhile.

Sam Vimes

No

stevejazzx wrote: »

Define good reason? People were wrong first time out? Sounds like every general vote from the perspective of the minority, which please remember can be as high as 49%. Can you even make a case for a re vote after a general election? This logic is a bit maddening tbh, you must see that you are applying a double standard? It doesn't matter if you are right about Lisbon, what matters is consistency and fairness of the overall system.

A good reason is determined on a case by case basis. For example the knowledge that only about 5-10% of no voters (being generous) voted on an issue that had something to so with the treaty is a good reason. We've got all those issues clarified now so they shouldn't be a problem, although they seem to still be a problem because people won't believe the guarantees.

Or for the divorce referendum about ten years passed which was enough time for mindsets to change on their own. I'm sure you're glad we had a second referendum there?

edit: about the revote after a general election, you might recall Enda Kenny calling for a vote of no confidence after the abysmal performance in the local elections and lots of people calling for an election because of NAMA. It was argued that we didn't vote them in to do this so they have no mandate. So yes a revote in a general election is feasible. We do it every 5 years remember.

stevejazzx wrote: »

You can't be serious on this point, if we had to solve the education issue befroe an election/referendum we'd never have one.
There is always a lack of understanding. A yes vote in October will more likely be a reactionary result of the current zeitgeist rather than the majority of peope actually sitting down and getting themselves educated.

That's unfortunately probably true which is why I keep saying I wish we'd followed the rest of Europe in not having a referendum on this issue. A 277 page complex legal document that's so easy to twist into something it's not if you have ulterior motives it's not isn't really suitable for interpretation by Betty from Mayo

mewso

No

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's unfortunately probably true which is why I keep saying I wish we'd followed the rest of Europe in not having a referendum on this issue. A 277 page complex legal document that's so easy to twist into something it's not if you have ulterior motives it's not isn't really suitable for interpretation by Betty from Mayo

Thats the crux of it for me. We have to stop having a referendum on these things. We vote in our MEPs and lets leave them to deal with this kind of stuff which is, whether people like it or not, relatively harmless but complex enough to allow people generate threats out of nothing. Wasn't Nice supposed to make us French or something?

stevejazzx

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A good reason is determined on a case by case basis. For example the knowledge that only about 5-10% of no voters (being generous) voted on an issue that had something to so with the treaty is a good reason. We've got all those issues clarified now so they shouldn't be a problem, although they seem to still be a problem because people won't believe the guarantees.

Or for the divorce referendum about ten years passed which was enough time for mindsets to change on their own. I'm sure you're glad we had a second referendum there?

edit: about the revote after a general election, you might recall Enda Kenny calling for a vote of no confidence after the abysmal performance in the local elections and lots of people calling for an election because of NAMA. It was argued that we didn't vote them in to do this so they have no mandate. So yes a revote in a general election is feasible. We do it every 5 years remember.



That's unfortunately probably true which is why I keep saying I wish we'd followed the rest of Europe in not having a referendum on this issue. A 277 page complex legal document that's so easy to twist into something it's not if you have ulterior motives it's not isn't really suitable for interpretation by Betty from Mayo

OK, I must admit your have produced some solid enough reasoning and I am aware you understand what I'm saying so now onto Lisbon...I'm still not voting though, I lost my political religion long ago; I see nothing but the lurking inevitability of corruption, a mild conspiratorialist I seek refuge in anarchy.