What the Mainlanders are saying

MIne cost considerably less.

There's Article 45: 1. The European Defence Agency referred to in Article 42 (3) , subject to the authority of the Council shall have as it's task to (a)contribute to identifying the member states.. (b)promote harmonisation ... (c)propose mulitateral ..(d)support defence technology research .. (e) contribute to identifying and ...

So you're saying it wasn't settled even up to the end ? If someone referred to Article such and such on tv or radio then it wouldn't be straightforward to just dip in for a look would it ? ...

That is right Auditor. Even Garret Fitz was using out of date numbering...

My copy was the nice one with yellow and blue showing what came in when - the plain version was cheaper but you could not tell what was new and what had been there all along. Mind you, most of the Yes people from the political world that I saw at public meetings did not even have that. Maybe they had learned it all off. But a lot of them had the little Forum guide, or a DFA briefing. No substitute for the real thing.

How can they justify confusing people yet further with that level of nonsense with the different versioning and renumbering ? You'd literally have to know it off by heart to find the right articles in there.

Feckin hell .

Auditor #9 wrote:

How can they justify confusing people yet further with that level of nonsense with the different versioning and renumbering ? You'd literally have to know it off by heart to find the right articles in there.

Feckin hell .

Perhaps because the vast bulk of the voting population aren't really the slightest bit interested in reading it.

Ibis I won't deny that I'm one of them but if you or Helium Three or Joe Higgins cites an Article then I'd like to be able to find it myself if I wanted to. That wasn't easy with this thing. Can't you see how a sense of distrust could creep in?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ibis I won't deny that I'm one of them but if you or Helium Three or Joe Higgins cites an Article then I'd like to be able to find it myself if I wanted to. That wasn't easy with this thing. Can't you see how a sense of distrust could creep in?

I can. However, there's not much that can really be done about it, because people used earlier versions - and some people referred to the actual Lisbon article numbers, as opposed to the numbers the articles would have in the consolidated text. In some cases that was because they weren't aware there was a consolidated text, or thought that the consolidated text was a summar, and so didn't bother. It's worth remembering that plenty of people claimed that there was to be no EU version - and went right on claiming it after there was one.

So it's ready now anyway for the second referendum in November

From the FT earlier this evening

Quote :

EU faces fresh Lisbon delay

By Tony Barber in Brussels

Published: June 17 2008 21:53 | Last updated: June 17 2008 21:53

European Union leaders who meet for summit talks in Brussels on Thursday are bracing themselves for more delays in the ratification of the bloc’s Lisbon treaty after its rejection last week by Irish voters.

Legal and political complications in the Czech Republic and Poland make it unlikely that the two central European countries will ratify the treaty in time for a scheduled EU summit in October, politicians and diplomats forecast on Tuesday.

LINK

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Helium Three wrote:

I stick with the final system, as used also by Peadar O Broin in his magnum opus, the annotated and consolidated version on the ibec website. My slightly used hard copy cost me €125 and is now rocketing in value as we speak...

€125? Is that how much it costs? We'd break the bank if we nominated that for our MN Book Club.

presume / hope you're all joking there re the 125,-Euro, was about to email iiea.com later today to order a copy.

I am following all the MN EU threads with deep interest this week, all the while listening to t'interweb and making my way thru Norman's Accidental Constitution as part of my crash course in this stuff.

Comments from family back home? - first of all, NO pro-Treaty canvassing or postering in my local area that any of my busy family saw. Despite that, the local town was pro- while the constituency in general was anti, it has a strong SF presence though. None of 'em had heard much of Libertas, I am unashamedly glad to say! .
Secondly, have been truly shaken by the fear and scare-mongering I have heard - had I still been in ireland, am sure i would've been the only member of the family inclined to a "yes" vote. I innocently have a mini-rant about the Brown govt's policy of "Polyclinics" in the NHS and immediately hear concerned questions about what that means for the local hosp. in my home county. I hear about the impact on local builders, the Army ( nothing concrete though, just really vague worries/scares when it's all boiled down) etc etc etc.

I am SO angry about the failure of the Yes side to start the campaign so much earlier. That is inexcusable. I am not going on any ideology here, am purely reacting to what my family have heard and to how adequate or inadequate that flow of info was. but to crown it all, and it should be heard by all politicians, "well, at least we gave them a good kicking, didn't we?".

You can get a (free) PDF copy of the annotated treaties from here. The EU's own consolidated version, along with the Charter, the Treaty text itself, and the current (post-Nice) consolidated treaties can be found here.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ibis I won't deny that I'm one of them but if you or Helium Three or Joe Higgins cites an Article then I'd like to be able to find it myself if I wanted to. That wasn't easy with this thing. Can't you see how a sense of distrust could creep in?

I can. However, there's not much that can really be done about it, because people used earlier versions - and some people referred to the actual Lisbon article numbers, as opposed to the numbers the articles would have in the consolidated text. In some cases that was because they weren't aware there was a consolidated text, or thought that the consolidated text was a summar, and so didn't bother. It's worth remembering that plenty of people claimed that there was to be no EU version - and went right on claiming it after there was one.

It wasn't exactly announced with a fanfare. As far as I can remember in February not only was there no consolidated version available but the word was that there wasn't going to be one.

I see the Indo yesterday saying shock horror 70% of people thought the Treaty could be renegotiated. The Referendum Commission information including the brochure supplied to each house stated unequivocally that the Treaty could not proceed if Ireland voted No.
Has the Referendum Commission anything to say now?
Does the Commission stand over its advice?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Ibis I won't deny that I'm one of them but if you or Helium Three or Joe Higgins cites an Article then I'd like to be able to find it myself if I wanted to. That wasn't easy with this thing. Can't you see how a sense of distrust could creep in?

I can. However, there's not much that can really be done about it, because people used earlier versions - and some people referred to the actual Lisbon article numbers, as opposed to the numbers the articles would have in the consolidated text. In some cases that was because they weren't aware there was a consolidated text, or thought that the consolidated text was a summar, and so didn't bother. It's worth remembering that plenty of people claimed that there was to be no EU version - and went right on claiming it after there was one.

It wasn't exactly announced with a fanfare. As far as I can remember in February not only was there no consolidated version available but the word was that there wasn't going to be one.

I see the Indo yesterday saying shock horror 70% of people thought the Treaty could be renegotiated. The Referendum Commission information including the brochure supplied to each house stated unequivocally that the Treaty could not proceed if Ireland voted No.
Has the Referendum Commission anything to say now?
Does the Commission stand over its advice?

I would think so. Nice wasn't renegotiated either - 70% of people are simply wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Saying a Treaty cannot proceed and saying a Treaty cannot be renegotiated are two different things. Which one did Refcom say ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Saying a Treaty cannot proceed and saying a Treaty cannot be renegotiated are two different things. Which one did Refcom say ?

Hmm. Time for my coffee, I think! You're right - the RefComm brochure said the Treaty couldn't proceed. 70% of people thought the Treaty could be renegotiated. These two facts aren't contradictory.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Saying a Treaty cannot proceed and saying a Treaty cannot be renegotiated are two different things. Which one did Refcom say ?

From the Referendum Commission website:

Quote :

What Happens if you Vote NO?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into effect only if it is ratified by all Member States. The EU would continue to operate under its present rules.

The No voters are now being widely criticised as fools for thinking that was the case.

The Referendum Commission did not refer either way to renegotiation so far as I am aware.

It remains to be seen whether there will be renegotiation regarding Lisbon. It certainly can't pass into EU law unchanged unless Ireland voted for that in a second Referendum, which seems highly unlikely.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/images/overview_header.jpg

The answer is simple: They are making it up as they are going along



The yesses are also saying that this Treaty was 7 years in the making and how could such work be abandoned etc. Wasn't the EDA set up in 2004 ?

cactus flower wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Saying a Treaty cannot proceed and saying a Treaty cannot be renegotiated are two different things. Which one did Refcom say ?

From the Referendum Commission website:

Quote :

What Happens if you Vote NO?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into effect only if it is ratified by all Member States. The EU would continue to operate under its present rules.

The No voters are now being widely criticised as fools for thinking that was the case.

Well, from my point of view it would be more a case of them ignoring the realpolitik - setting aside the idea that the rest of the EU might decide to leave Ireland behind. If you remember, anyone who mentioned that possibility was denounced for scaremongering and bullying.

The EU is not a state - it is a voluntary association. Therefore, Ireland leaving it is not unthinkable, and other EU states going ahead and doing something without Ireland is not unthinkable either. Schengen was created without us (and the UK), by arrangement amongst all the other states - it wasn't created through the EU.

Lucinda Creighton is on now having a go at Fianna Fáil and McCreevey/Cowen's revelations that they hadn't read it . Wow - she's a right strident young one ...

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/livewebcast/Web-Live.htm&CatID=83&m=o

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Saying a Treaty cannot proceed and saying a Treaty cannot be renegotiated are two different things. Which one did Refcom say ?

From the Referendum Commission website:

Quote :

What Happens if you Vote NO?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into effect only if it is ratified by all Member States. The EU would continue to operate under its present rules.

The No voters are now being widely criticised as fools for thinking that was the case.

Well, from my point of view it would be more a case of them ignoring the realpolitik - setting aside the idea that the rest of the EU might decide to leave Ireland behind. If you remember, anyone who mentioned that possibility was denounced for scaremongering and bullying.

The EU is not a state - it is a voluntary association. Therefore, Ireland leaving it is not unthinkable, and other EU states going ahead and doing something without Ireland is not unthinkable either. Schengen was created without us (and the UK), by arrangement amongst all the other states - it wasn't created through the EU.

1. Is it the Referendum Commission that was ignoring it or those silly voters ?

2. I don't remember the Yes side saying that the EU would adopt Lisbon without Ireland. Perhaps you have some links? I do remember the No side drawing attention to a vote in the EP that decided not to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum. Now I'm aware that you consider that the context made that excusable, but I also remember that it was the Yes side that accused the No side of hysteria and scaremongering in suggesting an Irish vote would not be respected.

3. Please Ibis, pleeeaase. What voluntary association does not have an out-clause?
It is held together by binding treaties and law. It is not the local Tidy Towns.

Quote :

The EU is not a state - it is a voluntary association. Therefore, Ireland leaving it is not unthinkable, and other EU states going ahead and doing something without Ireland is not unthinkable either. Schengen was created without us (and the UK), by arrangement amongst all the other states - it wasn't created through the EU.

Am I wrong in assuming that it is Lisbon that has the option-to-leave clause? And that without Lisbon there is no mechanism for leaving the EU (assuming we were daft enough to want to do that)?

There is no formal mechanism for leaving the EU for the same reason there is no formal mechanism for leaving a business partnership - because the association is entirely voluntary. Having a formal exit mechanism in a voluntary association means that the association, once started, is no longer purely voluntary.

For example, there is no formal leaving mechanism for a relationship, but there is for marriage. That is because relationships are entirely voluntary, whereas only the entry to marriage is voluntary - it is a binding commitment once entered into.

In fact, if you look at the Lisbon exit clause, it is not about the conditions of leaving - any country may do so at any time - but about the negotiation of the continuing relationship.

You're aware that Greenland left the EU?

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

The EU is not a state - it is a voluntary association. Therefore, Ireland leaving it is not unthinkable, and other EU states going ahead and doing something without Ireland is not unthinkable either. Schengen was created without us (and the UK), by arrangement amongst all the other states - it wasn't created through the EU.

Am I wrong in assuming that it is Lisbon that has the option-to-leave clause? And that without Lisbon there is no mechanism for leaving the EU (assuming we were daft enough to want to do that)?

I think the question of leaving came up on another thread, here or on P.ie. Yes, Lisbon sort of provides an out, although it is not in the power of the country leaving to set the terms of leaving.

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

The EU is not a state - it is a voluntary association. Therefore, Ireland leaving it is not unthinkable, and other EU states going ahead and doing something without Ireland is not unthinkable either. Schengen was created without us (and the UK), by arrangement amongst all the other states - it wasn't created through the EU.

Am I wrong in assuming that it is Lisbon that has the option-to-leave clause? And that without Lisbon there is no mechanism for leaving the EU (assuming we were daft enough to want to do that)?

I think the question of leaving came up on another thread, here or on P.ie. Yes, Lisbon sort of provides an out, although it is not in the power of the country leaving to set the terms of leaving.

There are no "terms of leaving". It is not up to the leaving country to unilaterally set the terms of the continuing relationship, and the treaties they have signed continue to apply for a two year period.

There is always Ard-T's Defenestration Chamber.

Treaty approved by HL tonight as expected -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7461918.stm