The Official Lisbon Treaty Thread

[Hardy]

"Yes" votes because it was seen as what Europe wanted, when it's quite clear the people of Europe, as opposed to the politicians of Europe don't want it at all, as has been shown by any of the people of Europe who were actually asked.

Bit of a circular argument there, seeing as we were the only people who were asked.

I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

[AZOffaly]

I think Hardy means the previous incarnation of the Lisbon treaty, under guise of the Constitution, when a couple of countries voted it down. Holland and France maybe?

Perhaps they should call it the Galway treaty, or the Cork treaty. Shure we couldn't vote against our own could we?

Edit: Sorry Hardy, you're big enough to explain your own posts.

[deiseach]

I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

There are differences between the two. You may not think they are substantially different but the argument that the only difference is changing the name is self-evidently incorrect.

[Mentalman]

I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

There are differences between the two. You may not think they are substantially different but the argument that the only difference is changing the name is self-evidently incorrect.

Well there was obviously enough difference between them to enable both governments proceed without returning to their citizens for another referendum.

[Farrandeelin]

Yes men say that the treaty was to make Europe more democratic. Why didn't all of Europe get to vote on it then? Could any yesman tell me that? Biteen of a paradox I think!

[Hardy]

I'm including the French and The Dutch on the basis that they rejected this Treaty when it was dressed as  the European Constitution.

There are differences between the two. You may not think they are substantially different but the argument that the only difference is changing the name is self-evidently incorrect.

Well there was obviously enough difference between them to enable both governments proceed without returning to their citizens for another referendum.

Sure that's the nub of the argument - whether they are sufficiently different (a) to fool the people of Europe into believing that the objections of the French and Dutch have been respected and (b) to fool the French and Dutch people into accepting that not only have their objections been respected, but that they have been so fully respected that there's not even a need to ask them if they accept that they've been respected.

[deiseach]

Sure that's the nub of the argument - whether they are sufficiently different (a) to fool the people of Europe into believing that the objections of the French and Dutch have been respected and (b) to fool the French and Dutch people into accepting that not only have their objections been respected, but that they have been so fully respected that there's not even a need to ask them if they accept that they've been respected.

Thankfully we have you to tell us what the French and Dutch people think.

Look, I'm not saying that the French, the Dutch, or any / every other country in Europe would have supported Lisbon. In fact I'm sure a lot of them them wouldn't if they had a referendum on it. But the argument that people were right to vote against Lisbon because the French, the Dutch, or any / every country were in some manner deprived of a direct vote on the matter is lame. What if every country bar, say, Greece had a vote on it and it was passed in the other 25 countries? Would you be arguing that we should vote No because the Greeks were not being given the chance?

[J70]

Yes men say that the treaty was to make Europe more democratic. Why didn't all of Europe get to vote on it then? Could any yesman tell me that? Biteen of a paradox I think!

So our system of having our parliament pass laws isn't democratic then?

[Zapatista]

there were many reasons why people voted no, including 'vote no to keep roscommon hospital' (nutters)

Of course there where many reasons people voted No. It was quite a big treaty covering quite a lot of areas.

The people were right to vote No to save the hospital if this was their priority. The Lisbon treaty would make the implementation of the privatisation of health care much easier and faster. If Lisbon had been passed Mary Harney would have been able to close public hospitals across the country and replace them with private hospitals and blame Europe for it.

and 'save our commissioner' (sinn fein lies)

Lies? Our Comissioner was under threat. Can you explain how this was lies?

and save our neutrality (imagine neutrality is considered a virtue by some even in the face of evil)

Your definition and use for neutrality is very different than mine I'd say. I don't want to be neutral but I certainly don't want the EU to have any part in Irish foreign policy, in particular in relation to the military.

so dont pretend there is a list and if its satisfied/caved into these guys will vote yes. what the eu will do is continue to ratify and then let us deal with our own decision as we see fit...

I won't pretend this. Don't you pretend that the Lisbon treaty is a list that should satisfy the people of Europe. I do believe that if some of the issues are addressed enough people will change their mind and pass the Treaty at another referendum. Infact I think this is logical. If the rest of the EU implement the Lisbon treaty they are acting illegally. They are breaking their own rules. The EU would be showing its true colours. How can we trust the EU if they will do what they want when they want irrespective of those they repersent and their own rules. It is not a democracy and those in power are intent on a power grab and the creation of a super state.

[Hardy]

Sure that's the nub of the argument - whether they are sufficiently different (a) to fool the people of Europe into believing that the objections of the French and Dutch have been respected and (b) to fool the French and Dutch people into accepting that not only have their objections been respected, but that they have been so fully respected that there's not even a need to ask them if they accept that they've been respected.

Thankfully we have you to tell us what the French and Dutch people think.

Look, I'm not saying that the French, the Dutch, or any / every other country in Europe would have supported Lisbon. In fact I'm sure a lot of them them wouldn't if they had a referendum on it. But the argument that people were right to vote against Lisbon because the French, the Dutch, or any / every country were in some manner deprived of a direct vote on the matter is lame. What if every country bar, say, Greece had a vote on it and it was passed in the other 25 countries? Would you be arguing that we should vote No because the Greeks were not being given the chance?

First I'm not telling you what the French and Dutch think and I fail to see how you could have construed from my posts that that was what I was doing. The French and the Dutch (in as far as a referendum with a low turnout can do so) told us themselves what they thought.

Your second paragraph  may all be true, but if it's meant as a rebuttal of anything I said, it misses the mark because it rebuts an argument which would indeed be lame, but which I didn't make.

[magickingdom]

for it.

and 'save our commissioner' (sinn fein lies)

Lies? Our Comissioner was under threat. Can you explain how this was lies?

sinn fein canvessed 'vote yes to save our commissioner' knowing full well that if lisbon was not passed the rules governing commissioners were the ones under the nice treaty. under the nice treaty we can lose our commissioner in the next few years

[Zapatista]

sinn fein canvessed 'vote yes to save our commissioner' knowing full well that if lisbon was not passed the rules governing commissioners were the ones under the nice treaty. under the nice treaty we can lose our commissioner in the next few years

I think you will find SF were canvassing for a better deal and not to maintain the Neice treaty. It turns out the retention of a comissioner is being considered. If this turns out to be the case then SF were right about that.

Today-   Paragraph 9
http://www.france24.com/en/20080715-sarkozy-france-eu-ireland-referendum-lisbon

[Mentalman]

sinn fein canvessed 'vote yes to save our commissioner' knowing full well that if lisbon was not passed the rules governing commissioners were the ones under the nice treaty. under the nice treaty we can lose our commissioner in the next few years

I think you will find SF were canvassing for a better deal and not to maintain the Neice treaty. It turns out the retention of a comissioner is being considered. If this turns out to be the case then SF were right about that.

Today-   Paragraph 9
http://www.france24.com/en/20080715-sarkozy-france-eu-ireland-referendum-lisbon

Ah sure nothing to worry about there Zap, Dick Roche says Mr. Sarkozy has no preconcieved ideas as to how Ireland should proceed.

"Hold on Dick, what are you doing? Pissing down my back!?!?!? What's that Dick? Oh it's only raining? Sure that's alright then."

And John Bruton reckons it's only natural Mr. Sarkozy would make such pronouncements, with France holding the presidency of the EU and all.

It must just be me, I must the one fcuked in the head, to think there is something fundamentally wrong with the President of one state making pronouncements on the demorcatic decisions of another, and how they should proceed following that decision. Someone should tell him Ireland is not Algeria or Vietnam - and btw they got shot of the French too.

When he comes over next week, if I was Brian Cowen, the very least I would be saying, very diplomatically of course, was that his pronouncements are most unhelpful, and in fact detrimental, to having Lisbon passed at some future date - i.e. keep 'er zipped big fella.

[magpie seanie]

i.e. keep 'er zipped big fella

Or "shut up you little fart".

[Zapatista]

i.e. keep 'er zipped big fella

Or "shut up you little fart".

Mind our French seanie.