Yes voters: Once a treaty has been agreed should ratification be mandatory?

hatrickpatrick

Once an EU treaty has been debated about, negotiated, and finalized by the Council of Ministers, should ratification be mandatory in all EU countries? Should it be possible for a state to reject the treaty?
In fact, should we even bother having national ratification, or just let the council ratify on behalf of the states they represent?

Just wondering since a lot of the "arrogant" yes campaigners (which I accept and acknowledge is not all of them) are behaving as if once the treaty was negotiated, ratification of it is simply not an option.

Or should treaties be voted on by majority voting, IE once a certain number of states have ratified it, the treaty becomes law and the rest of the countries don't get any say since the required majority has already been reached? (Since the argument by those same arrogant campaigners is "almost everyone else has ratified so we HAVE to ratify)

Or is it simply that they don't want the people to have a vote? If the Oireachtas had rejected the treaty, would those yes campaigners have accepted their decision? Is it just that they don't approve of the referendum, and not the actual decision reached by the referendum?

(NOTE: As I say, I fully accept that this question does not apply to all yes campaigners, so to those who simply support the treaty and don't treat democracy with contempt, this is not directed at you. Those who it is addressed to... Well, you know who you are.)

thebman

Its a complicated legal document. IMO we shouldn't be voting on it because people won't take the time to understand it properly and instead depend on what others tell them.

Not great considering lies and how these things change when they've gone through 5 people or so and mistakes will inevitably be made.

We should just let our representatives decide for us, thats what they are paid for.

Sam Vimes

Firstly it's not just the council, the whole parliament would be ratifying. Ratification is always mandatory, all that changes is whether it's through parliament or referendum. I would approve of a referendum if all campaigning was banned and only organisations like the referendum commission were allowed explain the treaty, with heavy fines for any other group getting involved and jail time for lying.

Every other country in Europe realised that if this treaty was put to a referendum all the nut jobs and special interest groups would come out and pour lie upon lie upon lie until the people were so terrified of it that they would vote no in their droves. Unfortunately we have to have referendums on EU treaties which has resulted in a no to Nice because of lying extremists, a no to Lisbon because of those same lying extremists and might very well result in another no to Lisbon because of those same extremists. Every day a new member pops up here and says that the guarantees aren't legally binding because Sinn Fein says they're not even though the procedure the guarantees have gone through was good enough for them when the Good Friday Agreement went through the same procedure.We've seen people give the made up 200 billion figure from the Coir posters. You see 1.84 minimum wage posters and lies about military spending all over the country. We see the socialists saying our minimum wage is at risk even though they know for a fact that the ruling they refer to could never be made here because it was based on Sweden having no minimum wage. Take a look at this newspaper from the Maastricht referendum:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg

You might recognise some of the same lies that are being bandied about in this referendum. This is not a way to run a democracy. Issues should not be decided based on how convincing the extremists can make their lies. Governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a hundred times greater than this treaty, our government just borrowed 54 billion from the ECB for NAMA without a referendum. Referendums are great for things like divorce or abortion but massive international treaties full of legal jargon are why we have governments, because the average Joe doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to make an informed choice. All that happens is that lies are repeated so often that people start to believe them and vote beneficial things down because of them.

It basically comes down to: If I want to sign up to a complicated contract and I want to know the best course of action, I'll ask a lawyer, not Betty from Mayo who read on a poster that the contract is bad. If I want to know if the people think divorce should be illegal or not, then I'll ask good old Betty

oscarBravo

It's a treaty. A treaty is a legally-binding agreement between sovereign nation-states. Of course it has to be ratified by all its signatories, according to their respective constitutional requirements. If a sovereign nation-state hasn't ratified a treaty to which it is a signatory, the treaty can't come into effect.

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a treaty. A treaty is a legally-binding agreement between sovereign nation-states. Of course it has to be ratified by all its signatories, according to their respective constitutional requirements. If a sovereign nation-state hasn't ratified a treaty to which it is a signatory, the treaty can't come into effect.

its a sad day when one has to point out the bloody obvious

hatrickpatrick

Ok, so then if Ireland had been the first to torpedo the treaty would that have been ok? If the Dail rejected it, would that have been ok? Or is it just the size of our nation that makes it a problem - if France's parliament had rejected the treaty would that result have been accepted as killing it?

Also all three of you missed the point of the question. Obviously when th treaty is agreed it has to be ratified, all I'm asking is should any country have a choice or once a treaty is drawn up should it automatically come into force without putting it to either natinal parliaments or referenda?

What I'm essentially asking is, do the extremists on the yes campaign imply that any country saying no to any treaty is "anti EU" and therefore once a treaty has been agreed by the council of ministers (who produce the final document for ratification), should it just automatically come into force without giving any nation a chance to reject it, in parliament or otherwise?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Also all three of you missed the point of the question. Obviously when th treaty is agreed it has to be ratified, all I'm asking is should any country have a choice or once a treaty is drawn up should it automatically come into force without putting it to either natinal parliaments or referenda?

I'm not sure what point it is you think that's being missed, but any treaty entered into by any sovereign nation must be ratified by that sovereign nation's constitutional mechanisms in order to come into effect.

What you're asking is the equivalent of "once a bill is introduced into the Dáil should it automatically become law?" - it's a meaningless question.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what point it is you think that's being missed, but any treaty entered into by any sovereign nation must be ratified by that sovereign nation's constitutional mechanisms in order to come into effect.

What you're asking is the equivalent of "once a bill is introduced into the Dáil should it automatically become law?" - it's a meaningless question.

Well a lot of yes voters here have argued that we should vote yes "because the council have spent so long coming up with a treaty which should suit everyone and don't want to negotiate another one" - ergo implying that once the treaty text has been agreed, rejecting it is an outrage.

How about this - once a certain number of countries have ratified a treaty should ratification be bypassed everywhere else, since apparently these same campaigners believe that "it's not fair for us to vote no whan most others have already said yes to it"? Should there be a majority rather than unanimity with it comes to ratifying treaties? Would these campaigners like to see that included in a future EU reform?

I'm just trying to get my head around the mentality that the Irish "did something wrong" by rejecting the treaty. It implies that in certain cases a country should simply not have the option to not ratify.

Daftendirekt

Do you mean to ask, should ratification through Parliament be mandatory? Otherwise, that'd be a bit like saying, once two people have drawn up a contract between each other, they're already legally bound by it, even without signing it.


But no, that's up to the various member states. If they want referenda, they should be allowed to have them.

Whether holding referenda on complex documents is a good idea is another debate entirely.

Referenda are a great way of gauging the consensus of a population on single issues that affect everyone. The problem is, they're just too blunt a tool. They don't encourage people to think through the issues, to talk about them, and decide what they like or don't like. The electorate just gives a Yes or No answer on the whole document, ignoring the little nuances of it.

Add to this the fact that an electorate can be extremely easy to manipulate. It seems to be the case, that the more money you can pump into a campaign, the more likely you are to successfully 'buy' the referendum result. This isn't necessarily any reflection on the intelligence of an electorate, just an indication of a general lack of interest in the issues being put to the vote.

This has never been more clear than during this referendum (although in fairness, I only remember the Nice referendum, and I was too young to vote in that). Every day, in this forum, you see people posting that they don't believe the lies of the No campaign, and yet they'll be voting No because they're worried our minimum wage will be reduced, that our voting weight will be halved or that the guarantees aren't legally binding (even though they'll probably also profess to not being concerned about abortion or neutrality). All without any sense of irony.

I think in order for any sort of system of direct democracy to prevail in Ireland, we'd have to have referenda so often that they stop being a novelty, and often enough that nobody could afford to spend huge amounts of money on campaigning.

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well a lot of yes voters here have argued that we should vote yes "because the council have spent so long coming up with a treaty which should suit everyone and don't want to negotiate another one" - ergo implying that once the treaty text has been agreed, rejecting it is an outrage.

No, nobody's put that forward as a reason to vote Yes.

What a lot of Yes voters are saying is that so much effort has been put into negotiating a document that everyone's happy with, that it's perfectly understandable that the member states don't want to scrap it and start again, for no good reason.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sinn Fein says they're not even though the procedure the guarantees have gone through was good enough for them when the Good Friday Agreement went through the same procedure.

The negotiation position of Sinn Féinn is completely different, they are trying to get concessions from a colonial power. They are forced to accept what they can get. Perhaps the reason that their opinion on the issue is more credible, is because they have direct experience in the area. Plus they also know that those concessions could be revoked at any stage.

Also, the guarantees that we received do actually say that they will not come into effect until the next ratified treaty, as well as saying they will come into effect after Lisbon is ratified. The fact that they are not legally binding in the form they are in, means that they do not become legally binding after Lisbon is ratified but when the next new treaty is ratified. Therefore they are effectively worthless.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You see 1.84 minimum wage posters

The poster actually says "Minimum wage €1.84 after Lisbon?", the question mark is the key here. They are not suggesting that it will be, rather drawing attention to a decision by the EU courts that allowed a latvian company to pay its workers €1.84 when working in Sweden, simply becuase Sweden did not have a minimum wage. There we have an example of the EU coming down on the side of Business over workers. If we are being asked to consider track records, why not consider this

Sam Vimes wrote: »

lies about military spending all over the country.

The Lisbon Treaty will result in increased military spending, with the call for continual improvements of military capabilities. This is not a lie. It will also lead to an increased militarisation of Europe, and it also gives the EU power to make decisions with regard to "terrorist threats". Britian and the US invaded Iraq under the pretence that there was a "terrorist threat".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We see the socialists saying our minimum wage is at risk even though they know for a fact that the ruling they refer to could never be made here because it was based on Sweden having no minimum wage. Take a look at this newspaper from the Maastricht referendum:

That is a complete misunderstanding of the actual poster. The poster actually asks a question "Minimum wage €1.84 after Lisbon?". What that poster does is draw attention to the Laval case, where workers rights were subserviant to those of the employer. This is the kind of precedent that will be followed in Europe

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You might recognise some of the same lies that are being bandied about in this referendum. This is not a way to run a democracy. Issues should not be decided based on how convincing the extremists can make their lies.

But it is perfectly legitimate for all the major political parties to use empty rhetoric that amounts to lies?

Yes to Jobs: voting yes has nothing to do with increased employment

Yes to Europe: voting yes isn't a vote for or against Europe, it actually is a vote to whether or not you are willing to accept this kind of "democracy".

Yes to Recovery: There is nothing in the Lisbon Treaty that will have a real effect on economic recovery.


If you are going to talk about lies then be sure to examine both sides equally and realise that the manner you claim is no way to run a democracy, is how all the main political parties of thsi country are trying to run this democracy. Voting Yes actually says that this is perfectly fine. The No side have, as far as I can see told absolutely no lies whatsoever, and to think that they would be allowed to do so is naiive.

On the other hand all the main political parties of the country have told what amount to lies, although they are sufficiently vague as to fly under the radar. If you are actually interested in having a say on how the democracy you live in is run, then vote No, because Yes gives the big thumbs up to this deplorable approach to politics from ALL the major political parties in thsi country.

It also gives a big thumbs up to the EU that it doesn't need to seek the approval of its citzens when deciding important matters that materially affect us.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a hundred times greater than this treaty, our government just borrowed 54 billion from the ECB for NAMA without a referendum. Referendums are great for things like divorce or abortion but massive international treaties full of legal jargon are why we have governments, because the average Joe doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to make an informed choice. All that happens is that lies are repeated so often that people start to believe them and vote beneficial things down because of them.

Well if you think we shouldn't have a referendum on it, then you should campaign to change the Irish constitution, because someone saw fit to stand up and say that we have a right to have a say on major legislation that affects us.

It is not the fault of the average Joe that the EU churns out complex legal documents that is unintelligible to us. It is the duty of those people to make it intelligible to us. That is part of the major problem of the EU, decisions are being made and we don't know what they are. Ironically Lisbon claims that it is seeking to improve Transparency, but it is attempting to do so in an extremely covert manner. All of this could have been avoided if there was clear information provided and much, much more open debates.

Again, the No campaign has not told any lies from what I can see, which cannot be said as discernibly for the Yes campaign.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It basically comes down to: If I want to sign up to a complicated contract and I want to know the best course of action, I'll ask a lawyer, not Betty from Mayo who read on a poster that the contract is bad. If I want to know if the people think divorce should be illegal or not, then I'll ask good old Betty

That is not what it boils down to at all. It isn't a simple contractual matter. If someone else was looking to sign a contract on your behalf, but they kept telling you that you wouldn't understand it, or you found out that the reasons they were telling you were false, you wouldn't give a **** what those telling you not to sign it were saying, you would make pretty damn sure that that person did not sign the contract, on your behalf, until such point as you got some pretty clear fcuking answers!

That is what it boils down to!

ghost_ie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well a lot of yes voters here have argued that we should vote yes "because the council have spent so long coming up with a treaty which should suit everyone and don't want to negotiate another one" - ergo implying that once the treaty text has been agreed, rejecting it is an outrage.

How about this - once a certain number of countries have ratified a treaty should ratification be bypassed everywhere else, since apparently these same campaigners believe that "it's not fair for us to vote no whan most others have already said yes to it"? Should there be a majority rather than unanimity with it comes to ratifying treaties? Would these campaigners like to see that included in a future EU reform?

I'm just trying to get my head around the mentality that the Irish "did something wrong" by rejecting the treaty. It implies that in certain cases a country should simply not have the option to not ratify.[/quote]

This annoys me too. It seems to say "others have said yes, so whether you think this is right or wrong you should agree with the majority".

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

The negotiation position of Sinn Féinn is completely different, they are trying to get concessions from a colonial power. They are forced to accept what they can get. Perhaps the reason that their opinion on the issue is more credible, is because they have direct experience in the area. Plus they also know that those concessions could be revoked at any stage.

what about Edinburgh Agreement received by Denmark in their second referendum on EU treaty?

are you gonna wave that off too?

btw they are still looking for more debaters for the NO side

ghost_ie wrote: »

This annoys me too. It seems to say "others have said yes, so whether you think this is right or wrong you should agree with the majority".

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy...


/

hatrickpatrick

So let me just get this clear: If the Dail rejected the treaty would that have been an "acceptable" outcome, even to the people who say that our rejection of it was "the wrong answer"? Is it rejection itself that such people have a problem with, or the fact that it was the people who rejected it?

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So let me just get this clear: If the Dail rejected the treaty would that have been an "acceptable" outcome, even to the people who say that our rejection of it was "the wrong answer"? Is it rejection itself that such people have a problem with, or the fact that it was the people who rejected it?

If they Dáil rejected the Treaty with good reason, then yes, that would've been acceptable.

If the people reject the Treaty with good reason, that will will also be perfectly acceptable.

It's neither the rejection, nor the means of rejection anyone has a problem with. It's idea of rejecting a treaty without any reason to do so. Since if it's rejected with reason, our concerns can be addressed, if we reject it without a good reason, they can't.

hatrickpatrick

Daftendirekt wrote: »

If they Dáil rejected the Treaty with good reason, then yes, that would've been acceptable.

If the people reject the Treaty with good reason, that will will also be perfectly acceptable.

It's neither the rejection, nor the means of rejection anyone has a problem with. It's idea of rejecting a treaty without any reason to do so. Since if it's rejected with reason, our concerns can be addressed, if we reject it without a good reason, they can't.

I'm rejecting it this time with what I consider to be good reasons and I am labelled "insane" by our political establishment and "anti EU" by posters on boards.ie . So clearly rejecting the treaty for any reason is NOT acceptable to the people to whom this thread is addressed.

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm rejecting it this time with what I consider to be good reasons and I am labelled "insane" by our political establishment and "anti EU" by posters on boards.ie . So clearly rejecting the treaty for any reason is NOT acceptable to the people to whom this thread is addressed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're voting because you don't agree with the pooling of sovereignty?

(I might be mistaken, but I think I've seen you explain your reasoning in other threads. Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here.)

Well, try and look at it objectively.

If we vote no, our government has to go back to the Council and explain what is is in the Treaty the Irish people aren't happy with.

If all they can say is, 'The Irish people don't agree with the further pooling of sovereignty' the other members will have to ask 'Okay. So what is it in the text of the Treaty that you think will dilute your nation's sovereignty, so we can rectify the problem and still bring about reform?'

Since there isn't really anything in Lisbon that would in fact be detrimental to Ireland's sovereignty, what can they say here?

You might point to the move to QMV. But if this is the case, what areas do you see as being a problem? Also, since we've never needed to use our veto, how can this be seen as a loss of sovereignty?

hatrickpatrick

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're voting because you don't agree with the pooling of sovereignty?

(I might be mistaken, but I think I've seen you explain your reasoning in other threads. Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you here.)

Well, try and look at it objectively.

If we vote no, our government has to go back to the Council and explain what is is in the Treaty the Irish people aren't happy with.

If all they can say is, 'The Irish people don't agree with the further pooling of sovereignty' the other members will have to ask 'Okay. So what is it in the text of the Treaty that you think will dilute your nation's sovereignty, so we can rectify the problem and still bring about reform?'

Since there isn't really anything in Lisbon that would in fact be detrimental to Ireland's sovereignty, what can they say here?

You might point to the move to QMV. But if this is the case, what areas do you see as being a problem? Also, since we've never needed to use our veto, how can this be seen as a loss of sovereignty?

Do you mind if I argue these points in the "Lisbon & Sovereignty" topic later? They are of course perfectly valid points which I will debate with from my point of view, but as always I'm anxious not to turn this actual thread into yet another debating topic. this particular thread is to find out just what it is that the "voting no is the 'wrong' answer" crowd have a problem with - the fact that it's Ireland rejecting it, the fact that it's the people rejecting it, or just the fact that an EU treaty can be rejected after its text has been established.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you mind if I argue these points in the "Lisbon & Sovereignty" topic later? They are of course perfectly valid points which I will debate with from my point of view, but as always I'm anxious not to turn this actual thread into yet another debating topic. this particular thread is to find out just what it is that the "voting no is the 'wrong' answer" crowd have a problem with - the fact that it's Ireland rejecting it, the fact that it's the people rejecting it, or just the fact that an EU treaty can be rejected after its text has been established.

Or that it's the 'wrong answer' for Ireland because the Lisbon Treaty is good for Ireland?

Can't think why you didn't include that option.

amused,
Scofflaw

Daftendirekt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you mind if I argue these points in the "Lisbon & Sovereignty" topic later? They are of course perfectly valid points which I will debate with from my point of view, but as always I'm anxious not to turn this actual thread into yet another debating topic. this particular thread is to find out just what it is that the "voting no is the 'wrong' answer" crowd have a problem with - the fact that it's Ireland rejecting it, the fact that it's the people rejecting it, or just the fact that an EU treaty can be rejected after its text has been established.

No prob.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or that it's the 'wrong answer' for Ireland because the Lisbon Treaty is good for Ireland?

Can't think why you didn't include that option.

amused,
Scofflaw

Because that's a valid opinion and as I said I'm not debating about those. I'm posting this question to the people who are simply saying "We have no right to derail the treaty". I'm wondering do they refer to the people or the country? Are they saying that the people don't have the right to refuse because the politicians know better, or that Ireland doesn't have the right to refuse because we're such a small country?

I'm not talking about treaty-related reasons, Scofflaw - I'm talking about the "The only acceptable answer is yes and if it's not a yes we must explain why and vote again" attitude. Take Sarkozy for example - "The Irish must vote again". Would he rather that states simply did not have the opportunity to shoot down a treaty, or is it just because it was Ireland that voted no? If the German parliament had rejected the treaty, would he have said "The German parliament must vote again"?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because that's a valid opinion and as I said I'm not debating about those. I'm posting this question to the people who are simply saying "We have no right to derail the treaty". I'm wondering do they refer to the people or the country? Are they saying that the people don't have the right to refuse because the politicians know better, or that Ireland doesn't have the right to refuse because we're such a small country?

I'm not talking about treaty-related reasons, Scofflaw - I'm talking about the "The only acceptable answer is yes and if it's not a yes we must explain why and vote again" attitude. Take Sarkozy for example - "The Irish must vote again". Would he rather that states simply did not have the opportunity to shoot down a treaty, or is it just because it was Ireland that voted no? If the German parliament had rejected the treaty, would he have said "The German parliament must vote again"?

As usual, I can't answer for a random quote from a politician, particularly one that has necessarily been translated.

On the question, I don't really know - I presume that there are people who believe that we have no right to vote No because the rest of the member states have ratified it, just as there are people who believe we have no right to vote Yes because some other member states voted No to this treaty's predecessor. However, I doubt very much you'll find any here, which makes it a bit of a difficult topic to actually have a debate on.

By the way, I'm impressed with the fact that the Oireachtas personally declared you 'insane'. Much kudos.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sdanseo

thebman wrote: »

IMO we shouldn't be voting on it because people won't take the time to understand it properly and instead depend on what others tell them.

Right, off you go and tear up Bunreacht na hÉireann so, there won't be many behind you.

We're voting to amend the constitution, we can't ratify anything without that. The govermnent can't just change that as they please - the only saving grace we have at the minute.

thebman

sdonn wrote: »

Right, off you go and tear up Bunreacht na hÉireann so, there won't be many behind you.

We're voting to amend the constitution, we can't ratify anything without that. The govermnent can't just change that as they please - the only saving grace we have at the minute.

I know that is our present situation, I'm saying in general I think its stupid to ask people to vote on something most don't understand.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

As usual, I can't answer for a random quote from a politician, particularly one that has necessarily been translated.

On the question, I don't really know - I presume that there are people who believe that we have no right to vote No because the rest of the member states have ratified it, just as there are people who believe we have no right to vote Yes because some other member states voted No to this treaty's predecessor. However, I doubt very much you'll find any here, which makes it a bit of a difficult topic to actually have a debate on.

By the way, I'm impressed with the fact that the Oireachtas personally declared you 'insane'. Much kudos.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well to be fair I'm polling boards.ie itself here since many of the views I refer to have been posted here over the last few months.

And in all fairness they never actually called me insane (although they probably would if they knew me, hehe) but it's certainly been implied by yes campaigners that no voters are "stupid" and that "intelligent people vote yes"...

Anyway, where would you stand on it Scofflaw? If the Dail had rejected the treaty would you have accepted that? If another country had rejected it, through either parliament or referendum? Or do you view non ratification as unacceptable, period, and any treaty ratified by almost everyone miust be ratified by everyone?

marco_polo

Who exactly would you envisage has the power to make ratifications mandatory?

Nothing wrong with rejecting a treaty if you have good reason to. However would be unusual for a country to sign up to the terms of a treaty and not subsequently ratify it, excepting that there had been a change of leadershipp in the meantime. As surely to sign the treaty in the first place is a good indication that they were happy with the terms agreed.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

The negotiation position of Sinn Féinn is completely different, they are trying to get concessions from a colonial power. They are forced to accept what they can get. Perhaps the reason that their opinion on the issue is more credible, is because they have direct experience in the area. Plus they also know that those concessions could be revoked at any stage.

Also, the guarantees that we received do actually say that they will not come into effect until the next ratified treaty, as well as saying they will come into effect after Lisbon is ratified. The fact that they are not legally binding in the form they are in, means that they do not become legally binding after Lisbon is ratified but when the next new treaty is ratified. Therefore they are effectively worthless.

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

mangaroosh wrote: »

The poster actually says "Minimum wage €1.84 after Lisbon?", the question mark is the key here. They are not suggesting that it will be, rather drawing attention to a decision by the EU courts that allowed a latvian company to pay its workers €1.84 when working in Sweden, simply becuase Sweden did not have a minimum wage. There we have an example of the EU coming down on the side of Business over workers. If we are being asked to consider track records, why not consider this

If I personally insulted you on this forum and put a question mark in front of it, do you think that would stop me getting banned and do you think it should?

Also, that's an example of the ECJ coming down on the side of the rule of law. Sweden had no legal minimum wage and attempting to enforce one would far exceed the court's authority.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty will result in increased military spending, with the call for continual improvements of military capabilities. This is not a lie. It will also lead to an increased militarisation of Europe, and it also gives the EU power to make decisions with regard to "terrorist threats". Britian and the US invaded Iraq under the pretence that there was a "terrorist threat".

SECURITY AND DEFENCE wrote:

The Union's action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the obligations of any Member State.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

mangaroosh wrote: »

That is a complete misunderstanding of the actual poster. The poster actually asks a question "Minimum wage €1.84 after Lisbon?". What that poster does is draw attention to the Laval case, where workers rights were subserviant to those of the employer. This is the kind of precedent that will be followed in Europe

It draws attention to something that could not possibly happen in this country because it would be illegal but can happen in another country because it was legal there. I can see the headline now: "EU in countries have different laws shocker!!"

mangaroosh wrote: »

But it is perfectly legitimate for all the major political parties to use empty rhetoric that amounts to lies?
Yes to Jobs: voting yes has nothing to do with increased employment

No it doesn't amount to lies, the context of that statement has been explained to you before, that 90% of businesses, 91% of economists and the majority of trade unions agree that a yes vote will help the economy, and your continued ignoring of this fact will not make it go away

mangaroosh wrote: »

If you are going to talk about lies then be sure to examine both sides equally and realise that the manner you claim is no way to run a democracy, is how all the main political parties of thsi country are trying to run this democracy. Voting Yes actually says that this is perfectly fine. The No side have, as far as I can see told absolutely no lies whatsoever, and to think that they would be allowed to do so is naiive.

You have been given irrefutable proof of many lies from the no side. The statement in bold is so detached from reality that I have decided that this will be my last response to yourself. If you truly believe that then I'd be better off trying to convince a creationist of evolution and if you don't well then you're not being genuine and there's little point in talking to you.

hatrickpatrick

One and a half ages we lasted until this turned into a Lisbon treaty debate. The sad thing is, that's actually not bad going compared to other threads here

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well to be fair I'm polling boards.ie itself here since many of the views I refer to have been posted here over the last few months.

And in all fairness they never actually called me insane (although they probably would if they knew me, hehe) but it's certainly been implied by yes campaigners that no voters are "stupid" and that "intelligent people vote yes"...

Anyway, where would you stand on it Scofflaw? If the Dail had rejected the treaty would you have accepted that? If another country had rejected it, through either parliament or referendum? Or do you view non ratification as unacceptable, period, and any treaty ratified by almost everyone miust be ratified by everyone?

No, I'm on the side of unanimous ratification being required. If some form of 'majority ratification' were allowed, it would be possible to negotiate a Treaty that was known in advance to be entirely unacceptable to a small minority of countries.

Would I have accepted a Dáil refusal of the Treaty? Presumably thus precluding a referendum? I'd have had to accept it as constitutionally valid, certainly - and from an emotional point of view I would be unlikely to feel so strongly about such a result as I do about Lisbon now. That, of course, is one of the major advantages of referendums - that they involve far more people than a Dáil vote does, because you can have a practical impact on the outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, I'm on the side of unanimous ratification being required. If some form of 'majority ratification' were allowed, it would be possible to negotiate a Treaty that was known in advance to be entirely unacceptable to a small minority of countries.

Would I have accepted a Dáil refusal of the Treaty? Presumably thus precluding a referendum? I'd have had to accept it as constitutionally valid, certainly - and from an emotional point of view I would be unlikely to feel so strongly about such a result as I do about Lisbon now. That, of course, is one of the major advantages of referendums - that they involve far more people than a Dáil vote does, because you can have a practical impact on the outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well what I actually meant was if it has just been parliamentary ratification as in other countries, would you have accepted the result?
Remember that this question is directed only at the people who say "Ireland refusing to ratify is simply not an option, we gave the wrong answer and have no choice but to say yes." I'm gathering from this thread that you are not one of these people, therefore the questions posed don't really apply to your position on it... If you know what I mean?

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Remember that this question is directed only at the people who say "Ireland refusing to ratify is simply not an option, we gave the wrong answer and have no choice but to say yes."

No one says that

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well what I actually meant was if it has just been parliamentary ratification as in other countries, would you have accepted the result?

I prefer referendums, but if that had been constitutionally acceptable, there's no reason for me to object.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Remember that this question is directed only at the people who say "Ireland refusing to ratify is simply not an option, we gave the wrong answer and have no choice but to say yes." I'm gathering from this thread that you are not one of these people, therefore the questions posed don't really apply to your position on it... If you know what I mean?

It might be nice if you could actually give an example of such a person. At the moment, they seem a little nebulous - hypothetical, even.

cordially,
Scofflaw