The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

Mick_Grif

Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced

Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.

Scofflaw

Mick_Grif wrote: »

Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????

No, it's an outright lie. The EU has no competence on minimum wage, and the Irish minimum wage is legally binding on all companies in Ireland.

Mick_Grif wrote: »

the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced

The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.

Mick_Grif wrote: »

Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.

Well, ask away, most of the issues have been discussed here, and hopefully you can get an answer without being lied to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Just to get some stuff out of the way

Mick_Grif wrote: »

lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????

No

Mick_Grif wrote: »

the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced

Not true either. All those guarantees do is spell out in very clear language what was, and more importantly what wasn't in the treaty. The treaty was never going to have any effect on taxation and conscription etc, they were simply lies told by anti-EU groups to scare people into rejecting the treaty and unfortunately it worked.

The guarantees are legally binding but they don't even have to be because their sole purpose is to stop people telling lies about those issues. Unfortunately they've just made up a whole bunch of new lies, such as the €1.84 minimum wage

meglome

Mick_Grif wrote: »

Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced

Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.

And ask yourself when have the EU ever lied to us or tried to make us do anything? I've been asking that question for a week or two and not one person has come up with anything.

Mick_Grif

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it's an outright lie. The EU has no competence on minimum wage, and the Irish minimum wage is legally binding on all companies in Ireland.



The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.



Well, ask away, most of the issues have been discussed here, and hopefully you can get an answer without being lied to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to get some stuff out of the way


No

Not true either. All those guarantees do is spell out in very clear language what was, and more importantly what wasn't in the treaty. The treaty was never going to have any effect on taxation and conscription etc, they were simply lies told by anti-EU groups to scare people into rejecting the treaty and unfortunately it worked.

The guarantees are legally binding but they don't even have to be because their sole purpose is to stop people telling lies about those issues. Unfortunately they've just made up a whole bunch of new lies, such as the €1.84 minimum wage

meglome wrote: »

And ask yourself when have the EU ever lied to us or tried to make us do anything? I've been asking that question for a week or two and not one person has come up with anything.

Ok I see now thanks people for clearing that up, its so hard to find the truth these days:rolleyes:

In Chains

Scofflaw wrote: »

The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.

They are a political declaration at the moment without being a treaty document with its own legal status. The intention is that they be attached as a protocol to a future treaty but they are not a treaty today.

marco_polo

In Chains wrote: »

They are a political declaration at the moment without being a treaty document with its own legal status. The intention is that they be attached as a protocol to a future treaty but they are not a treaty today.

Wrong. They are EU Council decision. And will be registered as as an international agreement should Lisbon be passed, thus having full legal status in international law.

But presumeably you know more than all the Lawyers who agree?

In Chains

marco_polo wrote: »

Wrong. They are EU Council decision. And will be registered as as an international agreement should Lisbon be passed, thus having full legal status in international law.

The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.

---

Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

marco_polo

In Chains wrote: »

The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.

---

Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Do you know that you are spreading a mistruth or is it unintentional?

Read and watch this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Or read this
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf

or this

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking40.htm

And come back to me with a convincing argument as to why you are right and they are all wrong.

Scofflaw

In Chains wrote: »

The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.

---

Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Yes, that's true, as is what marco_polo says. They're currently international agreements, but not part of the EU treaties. Attaching them as Protocols to the EU treaties will give them exactly the same standing in EU law as the EU treaties, but that they're not currently attached to the EU treaties doesn't mean they're not international agreements with full legal standing.

They are not a "political declaration". That is false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

In Chains wrote: »

The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.

---

Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

They are doing both.

The guarantees have exact the same legal status (or will if we vote yes) as the Belfast Agreement.

Or is that just a 'political declaration'?

In Chains

Mick_Grif wrote: »

Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.

There are a lot of lies being told on both sides. There are many genuine reasons for voting NO to Lisbon without falling for stunts (which is what the Guarantees are) and scare stories. Above all remember that if Ireland could not say NO in 2008, and is required to keep voting until saying Yes, then democracy has been reduced to questions where you are only allowed to agree with the politicians.

You will be voting for a long time to come, maybe 60 years or more, so ask yourself if you would like all the votes you make in that time to be genuine choices or the charade of a ballot paper with effectively only one box on it where you can say tick to indicate you agree with whatever the politicians think is best (for them).

ixtlan

In Chains wrote: »

The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.

Yes, but because the Irish were so paranoid we insisted that all the states agree to lodge the declaration as an international treaty with the UN (assuming approval of Lisbon).

So before the accession treaty is signed with the guarantees included, as soon as Lisbon is passed, a separate treaty between all the states will legally agree that the guarantees will go into that next treaty.

For those who argue that this treaty is worth less than an EU treaty... well if you feel that states will breach this treaty then there's no reason to believe they would honour an EU treaty anyhow.

I'm sure some diplomats spent a lot of time coming up with this airtight scenario. Then I saw Cowen on TV talking about the guarantees and he didn't even mention it...

Ix.

Scofflaw

In Chains wrote: »

There are a lot of lies being told on both sides. There are many genuine reasons for voting NO to Lisbon without falling for stunts (which is what the Guarantees are) and scare stories. Above all remember that if Ireland could not say NO in 2008, and is required to keep voting until saying Yes, then democracy has been reduced to questions where you are only allowed to agree with the politicians.

You will be voting for a long time to come, maybe 60 years or more, so ask yourself if you would like all the votes you make in that time to be genuine choices or the charade of a ballot paper with effectively only one box on it where you can say tick to indicate you agree with whatever the politicians think is best (for them).

The OP asked for facts. What you've posted there is a piece of political soapboxing instead. Not only that, but you're making factually incorrect statements about the guarantees.

This is a warning to (a) stay on topic, and (b) stick to facts.

moderately,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Mick_Grif wrote: »

Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced

Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.

The general rule is to inform yourself. Each side of the campaign will be naturally biased so it's best to avoid the blurb from either side initially.

Reading a board is one way but depending on who is on or who is reading and posting back you might not get what you want. Some threads can get quite long and it can be difficult to pick out the nuggets. I thought I had the hang of the minimum wage thing but alas... back to the drawing board.

The complication with issues like the minimum wage is that it can be challenged in the courts and what you thought the treaty or constitution says becomes something different. The quick answer is that until it is challenged we really don't know. We can make educated guesses but once it gets to court it's all about interpretation.

Search engines are good. There are consolidated versions of the treaties that will be amended by the Lisbon Treaty and comparisons between the Treaties and the failed EU constitution. This can help get a better handle on what's involved.

After that you're into blogs, boards, editorials what the latest journalistic reports. Who knows, maybe a vested interest will say something interesting that might sway you one way or tother.

Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

The general rule is to inform yourself. Each side of the campaign will be naturally biased so it's best to avoid the blurb from either side initially.

Reading a board is one way but depending on who is on or who is reading and posting back you might not get what you want. Some threads can get quite long and it can be difficult to pick out the nuggets. I thought I had the hang of the minimum wage thing but alas... back to the drawing board.

The complication with issues like the minimum wage is that it can be challenged in the courts and what you thought the treaty or constitution says becomes something different. The quick answer is that until it is challenged we really don't know. We can make educated guesses but once it gets to court it's all about interpretation.

Search engines are good. There are consolidated versions of the treaties that will be amended by the Lisbon Treaty and comparisons between the Treaties and the failed EU constitution. This can help get a better handle on what's involved.

After that you're into blogs, boards, editorials what the latest journalistic reports. Who knows, maybe a vested interest will say something interesting that might sway you one way or tother.

Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.

There is no way of interpreting the Lisbon treaty as affecting the minimum wage in Ireland, it is a national competency.

If any articles could be interpreted that way, Coir should show us them, but they aren't there, so they can't.

What you're saying is akin to the 'teach the controversy' attitude to Evolutionary Biology in the US.

There is no 'controversy' here, there is a lie, and there is the truth.

With apologies to the OP for straying off-topic.

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

The general rule is to inform yourself. Each side of the campaign will be naturally biased so it's best to avoid the blurb from either side initially.

Reading a board is one way but depending on who is on or who is reading and posting back you might not get what you want. Some threads can get quite long and it can be difficult to pick out the nuggets. I thought I had the hang of the minimum wage thing but alas... back to the drawing board.

The complication with issues like the minimum wage is that it can be challenged in the courts and what you thought the treaty or constitution says becomes something different. The quick answer is that until it is challenged we really don't know. We can make educated guesses but once it gets to court it's all about interpretation.

Search engines are good. There are consolidated versions of the treaties that will be amended by the Lisbon Treaty and comparisons between the Treaties and the failed EU constitution. This can help get a better handle on what's involved.

After that you're into blogs, boards, editorials what the latest journalistic reports. Who knows, maybe a vested interest will say something interesting that might sway you one way or tother.

Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.

There is no issue with the minimum wage.

What has changed since yesterday?

marco_polo wrote: »

It appears you have fundamentally misunderstood the implications of the Laval and Rüffert rulings. There are no circumstances where anyone can be employed on less than the Irish minimum wage in this country . And in the cases of industries where a collective agreement has been registered with the Labour court the terms as set out in that agreement as the legal minimum standards in those industries.

The problem has only arisen thus far in countries where there is no statutory minimum wage and that countries collective bargaining structures which outline the minimum legal rates are not legally binding or contained legal loopholes that were exploited.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Thanks marco-polo, I stand corrected and will endeavor to complete the homework in future.

Still voting No though - for other reasons

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.

There's no way I could possibly disagree more strongly with this.

If your vote is reduced to a coin toss, do your country a service and don't vote.

StealthRolex

marco_polo wrote: »

There is no issue with the minimum wage.

What has changed since yesterday?

I found it is more complicated than that.

I understand there are rules in this forum. Are there rules on cross-posting from other threads? It just complicates things.

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I found it is more complicated than that.

I understand there are rules in this forum. Are there rules on cross-posting from other threads? It just complicates things.

Care to elabourate?

What could be less complicated than the value of the Irish minimum wage, which is over eight euros and the fact that nobody working in the state can be employed for less than that under any circumstances? And that nothing in the Lison treaty changes this fact.

Feel free to use the big report post button in the corner.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no way I could possibly disagree more strongly with this.

If your vote is reduced to a coin toss, do your country a service and don't vote.

You are quite right and I will modify that statement. However I disagree with the sentiment that not voting is a viable option. Turnout is an important factor and not voting can be as damaging as voting the wrong way.

So what's the right way to vote?

if you agree with the treaty and want our Constitution amended accordingly vote Yes.

If you disagree with the treaty and want no change to our constitution vote No.

If you are undecided then you have a choice. Vote Yes on a blind bet or Vote No to keep the constitution unchanged.

Not voting one what or the other is a cop out. This is our constitution and either you want it changed or you don't.

Voting No because you don't understand what's being asked is equally valid to voting No because you don't like what's being ask and just as valid as voting Yes because you do.

Suggesting that someone does not vote is irresponsible. It's bad enough that those of us who have to live overseas or those of us who are out of the country on the day are disenfranchised without encouraging the doubtful to throw away votes.

A coin toss gives it a 50/50. The alternative is "if you don't know, vote no".

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

You are quite right and I will modify that statement. However I disagree with the sentiment that not voting is a viable option. Turnout is an important factor and not voting can be as damaging as voting the wrong way.

So what's the right way to vote?

if you agree with the treaty and want our Constitution amended accordingly vote Yes.

If you disagree with the treaty and want no change to our constitution vote No.

If you are undecided then you have a choice. Vote Yes on a blind bet or Vote No to keep the constitution unchanged.

Not voting one what or the other is a cop out. This is our constitution and either you want it changed or you don't.

Voting No because you don't understand what's being asked is equally valid to voting No because you don't like what's being ask and just as valid as voting Yes because you do.

Suggesting that someone does not vote is irresponsible. It's bad enough that those of us who have to live overseas or those of us who are out of the country on the day are disenfranchised without encouraging the doubtful to throw away votes.

A coin toss gives it a 50/50. The alternative is "if you don't know, vote no".

I'd rather people who didn't know either find out, or didn't vote, either way.

In Chains

marco_polo wrote: »

And come back to me with a convincing argument as to why you are right and they are all wrong.

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.

Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

PopeBuckfastXVI

In Chains wrote: »

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.



Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

Supposing that were true. Which of the guarantees worries you the most?

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

You are quite right and I will modify that statement. However I disagree with the sentiment that not voting is a viable option. Turnout is an important factor and not voting can be as damaging as voting the wrong way.

The only "wrong way" to vote is to vote carelessly without understanding the issues.

Voting No because you don't understand what's being asked is equally valid to voting No because you don't like what's being ask and just as valid as voting Yes because you do.

No, it's not. A yes/no question has three possible answers: yes, no and I don't know. The only responsible mapping for the "I don't know" answer is not to vote.

Suggesting that someone does not vote is irresponsible. It's bad enough that those of us who have to live overseas or those of us who are out of the country on the day are disenfranchised without encouraging the doubtful to throw away votes.

If an important issue like this can be decided on coin tosses, maybe we should have a bingo machine with a "yes" and a "no" ball in it instead of a referendum.

Democracy isn't summed up simply by the act of showing up at a polling station and making a mark on a piece of paper. Democracy, if it's done right, involves making informed choices. The right to vote is balanced by the moral duty to vote intelligently.

"If you don't know, vote no" is as morally bankrupt a position as "if you don't know, vote yes" would be - and the suggestion to toss a coin is no better than either.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'd rather people who didn't know either find out, or didn't vote, either way.

Apathy is dangerous and does not help democracy. I agree that if you don't know you should inform yourself. However I cannot agree with not voting because you don't know.

We did fight a civil war for this constitution and it deserves to be treated with respect.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Apathy is dangerous and does not help democracy. I agree that if you don't know you should inform yourself. However I cannot agree with not voting because you don't know.

We did fight a civil war for this constitution and it deserves to be treated with respect.

Purposeful abstention is not apathy, voting without finding out what the consequences of that vote may or may not be very much is, and I consider it far more disrespectful to the constitution, and the very notion of democracy.

Also, there was no civil war for this constitution.

finbar10

In Chains wrote: »

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.



Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

This is not a straightforward question.
One could ask whether the guarantees and the EU treaties could actually conflict. The guarantees themselves state that they only state what's in the treaties. Ignoring this question, let's suppose there was a conflict between the guarantees and the EU treaties.

The guarantees are international agreements. As the referendum commission has pointed out though they don't have an enforcement mechanism. The EU treaties have been ratified at constitutional level in Ireland (they are indeed effectively superior to our constitution for practical purposes). If there was a conflict between an international agreement made by our executive and the EU treaties, the ECJ's opinion on this would be what matters.

The ECJ would likely take the agreement made by the EU members into account. But it wouldn't have to. The guarantees have been signed up to by the member countries of the EU but not the EU itself. The ECJ wouldn't necessarily be bound by the guarantees. All EU countries are signatories to the European convention on human rights. But the ECJ nevertheless felt it didn't have the power to allow the EU therefore to sign up to it (something Lisbon addresses).

The governments have agreed to incorporate the guarantees into a future protocol. They would then have the full force of European law. That's likely to happen sometime in the future. But nothing is ever certain. For example what if the Tories come to power next year and put the issue of our guarantees to a referendum and it lost?

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

A yes/no question has three possible answers: yes, no and I don't know. The only responsible mapping for the "I don't know" answer is not to vote.

A yes \no question only has two possible answers. Yes or No.

I hate teaching anyone to suck eggs but this is our Constitution. If you do not understand the changes a Yes vote will bring you are morally obliged to force the hand of those asking the question.

There is no "I don't know" option on the ballot.

The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.

Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Also, there was no civil war for this constitution.

Fair point. I was getting confused with a different Treaty. We did however fight a war to get the right to have a constitution. And then fought a civil war because some of us didn't like the treaty.

We have a vote. It can be used or thrown away.

marco_polo

In Chains wrote: »

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.



Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

What is the legal status of the Decision? Legal authors agreed at the time that the 1992 agreement was legally binding; that it formed a type of simplified international treaty; that it did not amend the main Treaties (since it was not adopted in the form of a Treaty amendment); and that therefore in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence

As there can be no conflict between the guarantees and the treaties your second point is mute.

Scofflaw

In Chains wrote: »

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.



Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

No, you're again completely wrong, and you've taken up Peers completely wrong too, and quoted him only partially. As I said in my post, the guarantees are legally binding international agreements:

What is the legal status of the Decision? Legal authors agreed at the time that the 1992 agreement was legally binding; that it formed a type of simplified international treaty;

And also as I said, it has not amended the treaties:

that it did not amend the main Treaties (since it was not adopted in the form of a Treaty amendment);

And that within the sphere of the ECJ, however, they are member state commitments, not treaty commitments, until they are turned into protocols attached to the treaties:

and that therefore in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence.

They are therefore not the equivalent of the Treaties, but that does not mean they are not legally binding, as you keep claiming.

Peers' final conclusion with respect to their validity you have also left out:

The crucial question is then whether there is a conflict between the Decision and the Treaties. The quick answer is that there is no conflict. This will be explained in detail in the second analysis of the guarantees.

...

The 2009 Decision is legally binding but is subordinate to the Treaties in the event of conflict. However, there does not appear to be any conflict between the Treaties and the Decision.

If the 2009 Decision is turned, as promised, into a Protocol to the Treaties, it will be as binding as the rest of the Treaties and cannot be struck down by the EU courts in the event of any conflict with the rest of the Treaties (or for any other reason).

Now, please drop the false claim that the guarantees are "political assurances".

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

StealthRolex wrote: »

The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.

On what basis can you justify that?

Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.

So making a random choice of yes or no is moral, but deciding not to vote because you are undecided is not moral?

meglome

In Chains wrote: »

The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.

Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."

The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.

You know I'm amazed by this discussion. I don't know much about international law so I can't say for sure if these guarantees are legally binding our not. However enough experts are saying they are to make me reasonably confident. But even if the guarantees weren't legally binding the EU have never tried to force anything on us. I asked this question a few times now and I haven't been able to get anyone to point out where the EU has even tried to make us do something since 1973. So I have an organisation that doesn't lie to us and does everything through negotiation, why wouldn't I believe them?

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

We have a vote. It can be used or thrown away.

Actually it can be used, abused or thrown away.

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

A yes \no question only has two possible answers. Yes or No.

I hate teaching anyone to suck eggs but this is our Constitution. If you do not understand the changes a Yes vote will bring you are morally obliged to force the hand of those asking the question.

There is no "I don't know" option on the ballot.

The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.

Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.

Are you planning on addressing the minimum wage in Ireland again? You stated it was "more complicated than that" and have yet to expand on this point.

Or was it just an effort to throw a little more FUD into the debate and move swiftly along.

T-rev

meglome wrote: »

And ask yourself when have the EU ever lied to us or tried to make us do anything? I've been asking that question for a week or two and not one person has come up with anything.

they are trying to make us vote yes in this referendum. look at what they said the last time we voted. "we will press on withotu ireland" "ireland will pay the price", pay the price for what exactly? being a democracy and voting no?

it shows the EU's true colours when the only answer acceptable in a referendum in a democracy is a yes.

Sam Vimes

T-rev wrote: »

"ireland will pay the price", pay the price for what exactly? being a democracy and voting no?

That's not what he said, he said all of Europe, including Ireland, will pay the price because no one will be able to take advantage of the benefits the treaty will bring

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not what he said, he said all of Europe, including Ireland, will pay the price because no one will be able to take advantage of the benefits the treaty will bring

Here is what Barroso actually said:

If there was a 'No' in Ireland or in another country, it would have a very negative effect for the EU, we will all pay a price for it, Ireland included, if this is not done in a proper way

So we'll all pay a price for there being a 'No' in any country, because the EU as a whole would be negatively affected.

STOP THREATENING ME BARROSO!!!! :rolleyes:

source:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/vote-yes-or-well-all-pay--price-eu-chief-warns-1388158.html

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

A yes \no question only has two possible answers. Yes or No.

Are there two cars parked in my driveway right now? Yes or no?

There is no "I don't know" option on the ballot.

The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.

Answering "no" to a yes/no question isn't rejecting the question; it's answering it.

Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.

What's the "morally valid" option for voting in an election when you have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for?

StealthRolex

marco_polo wrote: »

Are you planning on addressing the minimum wage in Ireland again? You stated it was "more complicated than that" and have yet to expand on this point.

Or was it just an effort to throw a little more FUD into the debate and move swiftly along.

The minimum wage is a non-issue for me as I don't earn minimum wage. Also I accept the rebuttals that the treaty will not affect minimum wage and that is an answer for those that do.

The complication in regards to wages is not from this treaty but from earlier changes in EU law regarding the employment of foreign nationals. I have nothing against this however I do have objections to the way this is applied and implemented - especially by employers. As this has no bearing on the current treaty I see little point in discussing them.

What has happened is that I have examined this treaty and without any Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt I have decided that regardless of what the No campaign presents I do not like the fact that this is the next best thing after the EU Constitution. It is a fudge to get around the French and Dutch rejections.

I didn't like the EU constitution and would have voted against it had we had the chance.

The EU constitution was clear. There were things in it that a lot of people didn't like just as many people did like. Democracy had its day. The French and The Dutch were given no second chance.

It is my opinion that this treaty is designed to benefit politicians, their mandarins, lawyers, big business and the military and contains little of benefit to the ordinary civilian, here, or elsewhere in Europe, and is in reality a Stealth Constitution.

Picking on little bits of the treaty or side issues like minimum wage, common defense, taxes, the environment area FUDs on both sides just as Yes for Europe and Yes for Jobs are. None of the arguments presented on the posters or by the talking heads for either side has anything to do with the meat and bones of the treaty and what it implies.

This treaty is not easily read or understood. I can spend hours poring over elements of it until I grasp what it actually means by my interpretation only to find someone else has an equally vaild but different point of view that negates my own. I cannot accept that this is the type of document that will dictate my future, your future, my childrens future or anyone elses future.

We deserve better. We pay enough for our politicians and civil servants. They are supposed to serve us. It's not supposed to be the other way around.

This is not the Europe I accepted in 1973. I want a better Europe and I don't see how this treaty is making it better.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are there two cars parked in my driveway right now? Yes or no? Answering "no" to a yes/no question isn't rejecting the question; it's answering it. What's the "morally valid" option for voting in an election when you have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for?

vote only for independents and avoid like the plague anyone who looks gormless or has big blubbery lips

T-rev

Okay I didnt get the quote exactly right. My bad.

Its still scaremongering whatever way he said it.

Was looking at the "yes" posters on the way back to work. Are they having a laugh, lol.

"Yes to jobs" Some stupid people would think if we vote yes loads of people will get jobs. Its an absolute farce.

StealthRolex

T-rev wrote: »

"Yes to jobs" Some stupid people would think if we vote yes loads of people will get jobs. Its an absolute farce.

Loads of people will get jobs. Just not people like us.

This treaty is a lawyers wet dream.

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I cannot accept that this is the type of document that will dictate my future, your future, my childrens future or anyone elses future.

As opposed to the Nice treaty, which was much clearer and dictated a much better future for us all?

StealthRolex wrote: »

vote only for independents and avoid like the plague anyone who looks gormless or has big blubbery lips

Toss a coin in referenda, and judge candidates on their looks in elections - this is your idea of morally valid choices?

We'll have to agree to differ on the very definition of "moral", I see.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Asserting that the treaty is open to wild interpretation does not make it fact.

It is no more complex than Nice.

Give me an example of Nice having been wildly interpreted by 'lawyers' and I might take your argument more seriously.

Should be easy, they've had 10 years, and according to you there's loads of money in it for them, being a 'wet dream' and all...

Sam Vimes

T-rev wrote: »

Okay I didnt get the quote exactly right. My bad.

Its still scaremongering whatever way he said it.

No, it's scaremongering the way you said it but a recognition that rejecting the treaty is bad for Europe the way he actually said it. It was deliberately misquoted by no campaigners (not you personally) to make it look like a threat

T-rev wrote: »

Was looking at the "yes" posters on the way back to work. Are they having a laugh, lol.

"Yes to jobs" Some stupid people would think if we vote yes loads of people will get jobs. Its an absolute farce.

Lisbon will help restore Ireland's reputation after the rejection of a treaty due to fear whipped up by extremists. Businesses don't want to invest in a country that is seen to be fighting against the neighbours that are trying to help it for no good reason. Since our banks are about to go and get ~€50 billion from the ECB we are biting the hand that feeds us.

They're not just going to completely drop their plans because a few hundred thousand people in one country have been tricked into rejecting them. We won't be kicked out of the EU but we will be left behind. Lots of the Lisbon treaty can go ahead without us.

A yes vote will also show businesses that we want to be fully involved in the European project going into the future. If the other 26 countries are pulling one way and we're pulling another, it's better to set your business up in one of the other 26.

And the new energy policies will create green jobs.

T-rev

Why didnt every joe soap in every country get a vote on it so if it really is going to do that much for the people of Europe?

Because it would be shot down by a lot more than the Irish. Thats why.

This treaty is about governments best interests, not countries and peoples interests.

Sam Vimes

T-rev wrote: »

Why didnt every joe soap in every country get a vote on it so if it really is going to do that much for the people of Europe?

Because it would be shot down by a lot more than the Irish. Thats why.

This treaty is about governments best interests, not countries and peoples interests.

Firstly, I refer you to this post. Now, those countries generally don't have referendums on these issues. The only reason we're having one is because of the Crotty judgement. The governments of Europe, including Ireland, make decisions every day that have implications far greater than the Lisbon treaty, that's what governments do.
You are suspicious of the motives of these countries for not having referendums, you think it's because the treaty would be voted down and I think you're right, but for different reasons. You think that people will see that it's bad for them and rightly reject it but the reality is that this treaty is so big that, as you know yourself, it's far too easy for extremists to spread lies about it and almost impossible for people to prove them wrong.

It's not that the governments want to ignore the will of the people, it's that the governments know that if it's put to a referendum the extremists will get their way by burying this benign and beneficial treaty under a massive pile of bullsh!t. It will be rejected not because it is damaging but because the extremists will lie so persistently as to trick people into thinking that it's damaging. This is exactly the reason that referendums are illegal in Germany. Referendums are good for social issues like divorce and abortion where there is no right and wrong but with issues like the Lisbon treaty it will inevitably result in the mess of lies, misinformation and mudslinging that has happened in Ireland. I would rather it wasn't put to a referendum here.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

As opposed to the Nice treaty, which was much clearer and dictated a much better future for us all?

Toss a coin in referenda, and judge candidates on their looks in elections - this is your idea of morally valid choices?

We'll have to agree to differ on the very definition of "moral", I see.

I was disenfranchised for Nice being a refugee from the previous recession at the time so no comment as I did not vote.

Toss what you like when you vote.
I vote yes if I accept it and no if I don't. And if I don't understand it I vote No in case no-one else does.
If anyone else wants to toss in a booth feel free

As for candidates looks - make of it what you will - what I said was I vote independent and I don't care what they look like.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

And if I don't understand it I vote No in case no-one else does.

Five questions:

1. What if it would be beneficial for you?
2. What if a no vote would have consequences? A no vote is not necessarily a vote for no change.
3. You've had two years to learn about it. Do you not think you should understand it by now?
4. And by extenstion, do you not think you should leave the decision to the people who made the effort to understand it instead of denying them something they want because you're afraid to pass something you don't understand but not motivated enough to try to understand it?
5. Since the EU has been extremely beneficial to Ireland, turning us from a backwards hole into one of the richest countries in the world and is currently bailing us out of our recession, why default to rejecting something they've asked for? Do you not think that the default response should be yes unless you have a good reason to say no?