Is the Lisbon Treaty just the EU constittion in disguise?

roosh

Apologies, I felt the need to start a new thread on this, and no offence to yourself Daftendirekt, but I am honestly only interested in having all the information, and making sure everyone else has it.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Seventhly, when the Dutch and French voted down the Constitution, they were able to explain their concerns to the other member states, and have them addressed. Hence, the Lisbon Treaty. If we vote No on Lisbon becasue of the above reasons, or similar reasons, we will not be in the same position as the French or Dutch after their rejection of the Constitution.

The above suggests that the Lisbon Treaty is merely the EU Constitution in disguise. Apparently it is the result of the French and Dutch reasons for voting No to it. So it was changed and instead of giving the French and the Dutch the opportunity to vote on it again, and approve the changes that were made as a result of their feedback, it was instead sent through the backdoor, so that they couldn't muck it up again. The problem is the new fly in the ointment is Ireland.

"and they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for our pesky constitution".

The real acid test of the Lisbon Treaty would have been to put it to a vote in France and Holland. This didn't happen. It would also make you question the guarantees that we received. Here the constitution was actually changed, in response to Dutch and French voters concerns, yet they didn't get to vote on it. Our concerns aren't in the Treaty, and won't come into effect until the next new treaty, which may not happen for quite some time.


EDIT: Could the mods change the spelling of the word Constitution in the thread title, if possible, cheers

Dinner

As most no voters will gleefully point Lisbon is 80/90/95/99% (or if you believe Nigel Farage 100%) the same as the EU Constitution. This isn't the big secret that they would have you believe.

After the French and Dutch rejected it, the parts that they objected to were removed (state like language etc.) some additional parts were added at the request of the Dutch Government. Because many people objected to the whole idea of a constitution, the constitutional format was dropped. Instead it became and amendment treaty much like any other treaty.

As has been pointed out in another thread, there was no legal requirement for France and Holland to hold a referendum for the Constituion that the amendment treaty was able to circumvent.

So while Lisbon contains most of the reforms that were in the Constitution, it's not exactly in disguise because a) nobody is trying to hide the fact that they are similar and b) they're not trying to dodge and laws or requirements for referenda.

BlitzKrieg

Its also important to understand context aswell as content

The steps the EU constitution took were extensive in how it was to be implemented. Up until now the vast majority of treaties were amendment treaties, they worked on or alongside previous treaties to create the European Union. Maastricht was the last time the whole system was pulled up and redone. THe EU Constitution is the same it was going to remove all the previous treaties and place down a new system in the form of a constitution treaty as the basis of European Law.


Countries that were putting the constitution to referendum did so either because their courts recognised that it was no longer simply a international treaty but in how it was laid out a european wide constitution (Dutch) or because it was a complete revamp of the relationship between member state and EU that it needed referendum approval (France, who's history in having referendums ties to two issues, new member states joining (1972) and complete revamp of the relationship (Maastricht).

In comparison to Lisbon the context of the two documents is very different. Lisbon does not abandon the prior treaties, it does completely change the relationship between member state and the EU (it still works under the role as international treaty) it uses the same process and layout as laid out in Maastricht. It is an amendment Treaty.

And for those in Holland and France who wanted the constitutional elements removed, it was exactly the process needed, putting Lisbon as an amendment treaty firmly sticks in a system that already identifies the EU as a predominantly inter governmental system.


Lisbon is ot the EU constitution, the change in context is imense. Content is similar but strangely enough people dont seem to complain as much about the content as they do about everything else.

The real acid test of the Lisbon Treaty would have been to put it to a vote in France and Holland.

As discussed in the other thread referendums in France and Holland are subject to specifics. In the case of Holland they dont have them. Before the EU constitution they hadnt had a referendum in 200 years and those were on the creation of its own constitution, they were advised by a national council that due to the EU constitution's layout that a referendum was recommended. That same council then advised with Lisbon that because it was an amendment treaty and the constitutional elements were removed, a referendum was no longer needed.

France only has referendums when the whole system has been changed (Maastricht) or when there is Accession. Their Constitution does not define a specific requirement until the EU constitution and even then it only requests a possible referendum in the case of accession treaties. Lisbon is not a accession treaty. Again Context of the treaty is the reason for why there is no referendums in France or Holland.

MrMatisse

Exactly the same.

See the article in my SIG.

An interview with the man who came up with the treaty who admits such.

oscarBravo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Exactly the same.

You could at least pretend you're interested in affecting some semblance of credibility, and pull one of the 95%-esque figures out of the air.

MrMatisse

They changed the wording a bit so Oscar Bravo and his ilk can cheerlead it without people saying, not sure we should be voting on something that was already rejected twice.

Kinda flies in the face of democracy.

oscarBravo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Exactly the same.

Really-Stressed wrote: »

They changed the wording a bit...

Make up your mind.

Kinda flies in the face of democracy.

Only if you make up new definitions of "democracy" to suit your agenda.

sceptre

Without meaning to be trite, that human DNA has 93% commonality with a rhesus monkey and 98% with a chimpanzee doesn't make humans either rhesus monkeys or chimpanzees[1]. Or all that close from a higher application point of view.

So even if it's so in the case of the aborted Constitution and the current Treaty... do I really need to develop this point? I'd prefer that we all have the capacity to get it without the dot-connection because otherwise we're closer to the chimps than I hoped. They may be able to ride bikes but they sure as hell can't design one.

So, as I was saying...


[1] Of course given the sheer length of the human and chimpanzee DNA sequences, even a 2% difference in base pairs is a lot of difference. Then again the Lisbon treaty and the preceding constitution are pretty long too...

BlitzKrieg

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Exactly the same.

See the article in my SIG.

An interview with the man who came up with the treaty who admits such.

same man same topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vTLnLci6MQ