amendments to lisbon treaty.

suimhneas

ok, so we voted no last time well i did, then the government goes off to the big boys in europe and asks them if its ok to add a few ammendments to the lisbon treaty. who asked for these particular ammendments? im hearing over and over again that these are the very things that prompted the irish to vote no last time, who actually asked us why we voted no?

none of the stupid reasons outlined in the new amendments are the reason i voted no.

also if i remember the polls right last time around the polls before the vote always had the yes side winning i think whoever they are polling are obviously the wrong people.

im off to place my bet with paddy power

PopeBuckfastXVI

There were no amendments, you are mistaken.

Now ask yourself, what else might you be mistaken about...

suimhneas

god your attitude, you know full well what i am talking about the "additional legal guarantees and assurances " you will see who is mistaken by the end of this week.

K-9

suimhneas wrote: »

ok, so we voted no last time well i did, then the government goes off to the big boys in europe and asks them if its ok to add a few ammendments to the lisbon treaty. who asked for these particular ammendments? im hearing over and over again that these are the very things that prompted the irish to vote no last time, who actually asked us why we voted no?

none of the stupid reasons outlined in the new amendments are the reason i voted no.

also if i remember the polls right last time around the polls before the vote always had the yes side winning i think whoever they are polling are obviously the wrong people.

im off to place my bet with paddy power

OK, firstly sorry if your reasons aren't addressed.

The Govt. commissioned polls and there was a Oireactas Committee set up.

AFAIK, not understanding enough was a big reason and Abortion, Euthanasia, Taxation etc. did come up as concerns.

If the majority don't agree with this, the Treaty will be rejected.

Unfortuantely, they cannot address all concerns.

prinz

suimhneas wrote: »

im hearing over and over again that these are the very things that prompted the irish to vote no last time, who actually asked us why we voted no?
none of the stupid reasons outlined in the new amendments are the reason i voted no.

So what were your reasons?

Nozebleed

prinz wrote: »

So what were your reasons?

the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.

Dinner

Nozebleed wrote: »

the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.

It's not unreadable, many people in this very forum have read it. It's boring, yes but not unreadable.

And just because a number of our government ministers didn't read it doesn't mean that they didn't know whats in it. some of them even helped write it. Others consulted their paid legal advisors whose job it is is to read complex legal documents such as Lisbon and highlight key areas.


And I don't really understand your last point.

marco_polo

Nozebleed wrote: »

the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.

Many people seem to be capable of reading it.

The second sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.

prinz

Nozebleed wrote: »

the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.

Are you suimhneas?

Do you read the Finance Act? The Criminal Justice Acts? etc. Have you read the Lisbon Treaty? It's there for you if you want to read it....

O, and the guarantees exist.

squod

prinz wrote: »

.......and the guarantees exist.

These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot, and are so not conditional................blah, blah, blah.

Another of the hundred times this is brought up.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Many people seem to be capable of reading it.

The second sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.

It's quite obvious.

Nozebleed voted No in the first referendum, because he travelled forward in time and discovered the politicians would provide guarantees to address the concerns of the people, and when the country presumably voted 'yes' in the second referendum, it turned out they had lied about the guarantees. Perhaps the EU at that point, sometime in the future, introduced abortion into Ireland.

Which sort of begs the question, if he had been to the future and learned all this, why did he bother to vote at all?

marco_polo

squod wrote: »

These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot, and are so not conditional................blah, blah, blah.

Another of the hundred times this is brought up.

???

K-9

squod wrote: »

These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot, and are so not conditional................blah, blah, blah.

Another of the hundred times this is brought up.

It could be debated and it has.

The reality is the No campaigners have to question the guarantees, otherwise Neutrality, Abortion, Euthanasia, Taxation, Health and Education become null and void points.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot

Neither will the treaty

Nozebleed

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's quite obvious.

Nozebleed voted No in the first referendum, because he travelled forward in time and discovered the politicians would provide guarantees to address the concerns of the people, and when the country presumably voted 'yes' in the second referendum, it turned out they had lied about the guarantees. Perhaps the EU at that point, sometime in the future, introduced abortion into Ireland.

Which sort of begs the question, if he had been to the future and learned all this, why did he bother to vote at all?

yeah its true...i voted no. and obviously im voting no again. why because its the same treaty. word for word. except for the guarentees..they're a bonus.

Sam Vimes

Nozebleed wrote: »

yeah its true...i voted no. and obviously im voting no again. why because its the same treaty. word for word. except for the guarentees..they're a bonus.

you may have mentioned this before but which parts of the treaty do you think should have been changed?

Nozebleed

i dont think it should be changed...it should be scrapped.

prinz

Nozebleed wrote: »

i dont think it should be changed...it should be scrapped.

You want it scrapped for no other reason than you haven't bother to read it?

Daftendirekt

Nozebleed wrote: »

i dont think it should be changed...it should be scrapped.

Why?

Nozebleed

prinz wrote: »

You want it scrapped for no other reason than you haven't bother to read it?

it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

Daftendirekt

Nozebleed wrote: »

it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

Doesn't it undermine democracy even more to claim that people should never be allowed to change their minds?

Edit: And incidentally, do you think we should ban divorce, since it took two referendums to make it legal?

Dinner

Nozebleed wrote: »

it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

Should Divorce be repealed? Should we never have a vote on abortion again?

After all, the people said no and if there's one thing I've learned from reading this forum, it's that NO MEANS NO!

Sam Vimes

Nozebleed wrote: »

it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

Which part undermines democracy?

You can say that the re-vote undermines democracy (you'd be wrong though, as the supreme court ruled) but why vote no in the first place?

ixtlan

K-9 wrote: »

The reality is the No campaigners have to question the guarantees, otherwise Neutrality, Abortion, Euthanasia, Taxation, Health and Education become null and void points.

On the primetime special last week when Pat Cox was debating Mary-Lou McDonald, he finished by pointing out that the Good Friday agreement was an international treaty just as the current guarantees are.

Unfortunately there was no time for her to respond.

As Pat was saying this I could see on her face ... embarrassment... She knew that she was pushing a lie in calling the guarantees worthless. It seems for Sinn Fein the end justifies the means.

Ix.

Sam Vimes

Dinner wrote: »

Should Divorce be repealed? Should we never have a vote on abortion again?

After all, the people said no and if there's one thing I've learned from reading this forum, it's that NO MEANS NO!

Also we voted in Fianna Fail so we should keep them forever. The people have spoken right?

prinz

Nozebleed wrote: »

it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

But a while back you said you voted no because it was unreadable.

Now either (A) you read the unreadable Treaty and you find it undermines democracy or (B) readability is irrelevant because someone else told you it undermines democracy or (C) you're clutching at straws and regurgitating soundbites you got from Mary Lou McDonald etc without any actual reasoning behind any of the objections. Which is it?

PopeBuckfastXVI

So you vote No for no particular reason, other than you weren't bothered to read the treaty and expect that people will pay attention to your wishes? Why, you haven't bothered paying attention to the question, so I think the government are absolutely right to not pay attention to your answer.

Meanwhile, out in the grown up world, people will continue to find out each others wishes and attempt to build a consensus around them.

P. Breathnach

Dinner wrote: »

Should Divorce be repealed? ...

Yeah, repeal it. I don't want Herself to escape my desperate clutches.

Nozebleed

Dinner wrote: »

Should Divorce be repealed? Should we never have a vote on abortion again?

After all, the people said no and if there's one thing I've learned from reading this forum, it's that NO MEANS NO!

are you aware that a yes vote cannot be repealled? your points on divorce and abortion are irrelevant. pointless in fact.

Sam Vimes

Nozebleed wrote: »

are you aware that a yes vote cannot be repealled? your points on divorce and abortion are irrelevant. pointless in fact.

A yes vote can indeed be repealed, it would just be a bit of a procedural mess. I don't really see how the points on abortion and divorce are irrelevant. We had two referendums on divorce and many people want one on abortion. Was the seond divorce one undemocratic and would a second abortion one be undemocratic?

Also would you mind answering my question:

Which part undermines democracy?

You can say that the re-vote undermines democracy (you'd be wrong though, as the supreme court ruled) but why vote no in the first place?

turgon

Nozebleed wrote: »

are you aware that a yes vote cannot be repealled? your points on divorce and abortion are irrelevant. pointless in fact.

No they're not. They are merely inconvenient to the point you are trying to make.

In any case, I voted No last time and will be voting Yes this time. Am I not allowed change my mind? Must I stick by my one frame of mind forever?

MrMatisse

The treaty is the same. There have been no amendments to it. The text is the same.

We have got gurantees which are not in the text of the treaty and in the opinion of the referendum comission these are legally binding.

prinz

Nozebleed wrote: »

are you aware that a yes vote cannot be repealled? your points on divorce and abortion are irrelevant. pointless in fact.

(a) Of course it can. By referendum. I don't know where you got that from.

(b) If we vote yes and the EU moves in a way we don't like, the Lisbon Treaty actually provides the 'escape route' to leave the Union should we wish. As it is, any attempt to withdraw from the EU would be a nightmarish mess.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

The treaty is the same. There have been no amendments to it. The text is the same.

We have got gurantees which are not in the text of the treaty and in the opinion of the referendum comission these are legally binding.

In the opinion of the referendum commission? Firstly do you not think that they might have looked it up first?

Now, they're also binding in the opinion of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament, all 27 member state parliaments and the UN. But I'm sure Sinn Fein are right :rolleyes:

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In the opinion of the referendum commission? Firstly do you not think that they might have looked it up first?

Now, they're also binding in the opinion of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Parliament, all 27 member state parliaments and the UN. But I'm sure Sinn Fein are right :rolleyes:

That is their legal opinion?

The thing includes judges and such. I have full confidence in them. No need to make an argument for arguments sake due to how i structured a sentence.

Nozebleed

prinz wrote: »

(a) Of course it can. By referendum. I don't know where you got that from.

(b) If we vote yes and the EU moves in a way we don't like, the Lisbon Treaty actually provides the 'escape route' to leave the Union should we wish. As it is, any attempt to withdraw from the EU would be a nightmarish mess.

ok...so we've all voted yes...and now we dont like the way things have worked out..so we have a referendum to revoke the treaty...everybody is in agreement, lets annull the treaty...so the people speak. voting to revoke the treaty..but hang on the government say...no..believing its not in the interest of the country...so they force us to have another referendum..and then we have another referendum..until they get the answer they want...does this sound farmiliar to anyone?

marco_polo

Nozebleed wrote: »

ok...so we've all voted yes...and now we dont like the way things have worked out..so we have a referendum to revoke the treaty...everybody is in agreement, lets annull the treaty...so the people speak. voting to revoke the treaty..but hang on the government say...no..believing its not in the interest of the country...so they force us to have another referendum..and then we have another referendum..until they get the answer they want...does this sound farmiliar to anyone?

So a government, who don't want to revoke the treaty, repeatedly call a referendum on whether to revoke the treaty or not?

Nozebleed

marco_polo wrote: »

So a government, who don't want to revoke the treaty, repeatedly call a referendum on whether to revoke the treaty or not?

yes until they get the answer they want. ignoring the wishes of the people. just like lisbon 1.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

So a government, who don't want to revoke the treaty, repeatedly call a referendum on whether to revoke the treaty or not?

Apparently.

I've asked this question before, and never received an answer:

Would we have even gotten the first referendum on Lisbon if we had elected a government who were against it, or would they have simply rejected it on our behalf at the negotiation table?

meglome

Really-Stressed wrote: »

That is their legal opinion?

The thing includes judges and such. I have full confidence in them. No need to make an argument for arguments sake due to how i structured a sentence.

Maybe this guy might know.

'No' claims have no basis in law

Monday September 28 2009

THROUGHOUT the referendum campaign certain groups advocating a 'No' vote have been making statements regarding the Lisbon Treaty that have no basis in law or in fact.

Certain 'No' groups claim that the guarantees secured by the Government in June are worthless. This is wrong.

The outcome of the deliberations in June could not be any clearer regarding the guarantees on taxation, abortion and neutrality. These decisions give legal guarantees to the Irish people, are fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and are legally binding.

To suggest otherwise is to mislead the Irish people.

...

Declan J Walsh
Lecturer in Eu Law
University College Cork

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-claims-have-no-basis-in-law-1898157.html

prinz

Nozebleed wrote: »

yes until they get the answer they want. ignoring the wishes of the people. just like lisbon 1.

Sorry was the Lisbon Treaty ratified against our will after the first vote when I wasn't looking or something?

MrMatisse

meglome wrote: »

Maybe this guy might know.



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-claims-have-no-basis-in-law-1898157.html

Im an independent irish citizen.

There are lies on both sides.

marco_polo

Nozebleed wrote: »

yes until they get the answer they want. ignoring the wishes of the people. just like lisbon 1.

You said:

ok...so we've all voted yes...and now we dont like the way things have worked out..so we have a referendum to revoke the treaty...everybody is in agreement, lets annull the treaty...so the people speak. voting to revoke the treaty..but hang on the government say...no..believing its not in the interest of the country...so they force us to have another referendum..and then we have another referendum..until they get the answer they want...does this sound farmiliar to anyone?

If the government did not want to revoke the treaty resulting from this hypothetical yes, then why would they call this referendum in the first place?

Nozebleed

marco_polo wrote: »

You said:



If the government did not want to revoke the treaty resulting from this hypothetical yes, then why would they call this referendum in the first place?

i dont know...public outcry?

marco_polo

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Im an independent irish citizen.

There are lies on both sides.

Ok how about this guy

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0918/1224254794759.html

Or this guy

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

Or this guy:

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

PopeBuckfastXVI

Nozebleed wrote: »

i dont know...public outcry?

I think it would work better if you had described the following scenario:

We elect a government (say Sinn Féin) that are opposed to the Lisbon changes. They hold a referendum to reverse them, but the people vote 'No'. They then try to persuade the people to vote 'Yes' and ask them again a year and a half later.

That's more or less analogous with the current situation.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

That is their legal opinion?

The thing includes judges and such. I have full confidence in them. No need to make an argument for arguments sake due to how i structured a sentence.

Fair enough. As long as there is no doubt that they're binding

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Fair enough. As long as there is no doubt that they're binding

None, i have no legal experience so i base it on the commissions view.

moogester

The government failed in the overwhelming majority of the amendments it tried to make to the original text during negotiations in Brussels in 2002 to 2004.

Dick Roche, the Irish government’s representative to the European Convention, made 149 proposed amendments to the text, of which only 36 resulted in changes to the Treaty.
113 were unsuccessful, giving a success rate of only 24%.

I found a list of the proposed amendments here.

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/irishamendments.pdf

marco_polo

moogester wrote: »

The government failed in the overwhelming majority of the amendments it tried to make to the original text during negotiations in Brussels in 2002 to 2004.

Dick Roche, the Irish government’s representative to the European Convention, made 149 proposed amendments to the text, of which only 36 resulted in changes to the Treaty.
113 were unsuccessful, giving a success rate of only 24%.

I found a list of the proposed amendments here.

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/irishamendments.pdf

Pretty meaningless unless the percentages of other delegates to compare against. I don't expect the euroskeptics at openeurope got around to doing any more delegates though?

An success rate of 24% for a country with 0.9% of the population of the EU doesn't look too bad at all. What was it 107 delegates present or something like that?

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Neither will the treaty

FFS!

Another hundred times?

You are voting on the same treaty.

These guarantees are not in the treaty.

These guarantees are not a condition of your vote.

End of.