Oh I can see most of the benefits.. I mean people think we're being selfish and greedy and I genuinely don't think that's the case... I believe having neutrality in the peoples hands is the only place it should be. Ok there aren't many neutral countries so perhaps only those would know how it feels... but, I dunno about everyone else, I watch soldiers from all the countries heading off to Iraq cos their governments were fucking stupid and AFRAID of America... and I thanked God that our soldiers will never have to do something like that (my brother's in the army)
And it's the personal details like that that will keep neutrality safe in the hands of the Irish people. The brother, the cousin, the friend - the people we never want to see at risk. I don't think the government would have Heineken Harry (sorry, alliteration beckoned ) on their minds if they had the last call on neutrality.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
well, she has the choice, but she doesn't know what the lisbon treaty is, and she will decide what to vote just by reading wikipedia, it seems...
HAH! You serious? You really believe most voters have any clue what they vote for in general???
to be fair mate, most people who vote in any sort of democratic vote know fuck-all about the election, and probably dont even go as far as read wikipedia.
Good snide remark nonetheless.
The Lisbon Treaty is not as easy to implement in Ireland as it is everywhere else in EU due to the fact that we have opt-outs on 2 of the major EU agreements already (one re: border controls, cant remember other one), and the complications with the constitution.
Its understandable if we want to know how it will affect our stance on old agreements, and on future agreements re; same areas.
The Lisbon Treaty is not as easy to implement in Ireland as it is everywhere else in EU due to the fact that we have opt-outs on 2 of the major EU agreements already (one re: border controls, cant remember other one), and the complications with the constitution.
Its understandable if we want to know how it will affect our stance on old agreements, and on future agreements re; same areas.
The UK is not part of the euro project but it didn't seem to create any problems for the pound and the British economy nor for the eurozone country. The UK also opted out of Schengen.
Ireland also opted out on justice and home affairs, but still choose to opt in whenever it wants.
So the opt-outs really do not complicate matters that much. Therefore preservation of Irish neutrality, given the precedent, should be respected and guaranteed as inscribed in the Lisbon Treaty.
I agree... but you're still stuck with them for 4 years til the next election and quite a few of them have been pretty bad right from the beginning.
There are quite a few things I don't agree with that my government does on my behalf... so I am not about to give them such a HUGE power as control over our neutrality.
Am I speaking French or something?
No, I do get what you're saying, just trying to point out the flaws and contradictions for the sake of argument!
You claim the preservation of Irish neutrality is not written in the Lisbon Treaty while all the evidence so far it's to the contrary.
Also, you mention that you don't trust politicians to respect the will of people in a general statement- then you backtrack to say you actually don't trust your government in certain issues only, in particular neutrality.
Then I point out the contradiction of Irish neutrality with Irish peace-keeping deployment. So neutrality is just nominal, not factual. And yes, I imagine it is a controversial issue in Ireland. But by the same token one could argue that during the cold war years, for instance, Ireland enjoyed a free ride. Could it still be possible in a changing world?
You also make an assumption that the Irish people will NEVER EVER in a referendum vote to abolish it. What if Ireland is attacked? Sometimes you can't be neutral in a moving train, right?
Also, in global geo-political terms, do you realise that a stronger EU in the sense of a common voice in foreign and security matters would have been able to make a better stand against the US war-mongering tendencies [supported by the UK]. France and Germany were against going to Iraq, btw.
No, I do get what you're saying, just trying to point out the flaws and contradictions for the sake of argument!
You claim the preservation of Irish neutrality is not written in the Lisbon Treaty while all the evidence so far it's to the contrary.
Where? The Lisbon Treaty in itself does not actually effect our neutrality DIRECTLY... BUT it puts in motion events that COULD lead to it being abolished against the wishes of the people... we can argue this round and round but I'm continually making the same points and I don't think you understand. You keep saying the Lisbon Treaty safeguards Irish neutrality while it actually leaves it as it is BUT takes the choice away from the PEOPLE and gives it to the government. There is NO need for that. To be honest, you sound like our politicians... saying something like it's fact when the evidence suggests otherwise
Also, you mention that you don't trust politicians to respect the will of people in a general statement- then you backtrack to say you actually don't trust your government in certain issues only, in particular neutrality.
That's not backtracking... it was when I actually thought about whether or not I trust my government... and on the day to day decisions YES but not when it comes to protecting our sovereignty... they seem to want us to be people of the world or something rather than Irish people... and I don't think that really goes down well with many of us.
Then I point out the contradiction of Irish neutrality with Irish peace-keeping deployment. So neutrality is just nominal, not factual. And yes, I imagine it is a controversial issue in Ireland. But by the same token one could argue that during the cold war years, for instance, Ireland enjoyed a free ride. Could it still be possible in a changing world?
How does peace keeping effect neutrality? It's PEACE KEEPING... my brother is actually in Kosovo right now... he's served in Lebanon and Liberia also... and most of the neutral nations ARE actually peace keeping nations which makes obvious sense... cos people have no reason to fear them taking over. You keep bringing up the issue of this 'free ride' we had... like we should be guilt tripped into voting for something that is not good for Europe FOR this reason. That's hardly fair. That's like the American attitude of 'it it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German'. Are you saying 'if it weren't for Europe you'd be starving'? One of the main reasons Ireland became so rich was because of all the people who had to go work elsewhere in the 80s... made their money and brought it home.
You also make an assumption that the Irish people will NEVER EVER in a referendum vote to abolish it. What if Ireland is attacked? Sometimes you can't be neutral in a moving train, right?
This is true... but at least it would be our choice. You admit there that nobody can know what will happen in the future which is the main point I've been trying to make all along. Besides, if we attack and we defend ourselves, I don't think that would affect our neutrality as defending yourself is quite different to getting involved in somebody elses conflict.
Also, in global geo-political terms, do you realise that a stronger EU in the sense of a common voice in foreign and security matters would have been able to make a better stand against the US war-mongering tendencies [supported by the UK]. France and Germany were against going to Iraq, btw.
Yes, and I supported their stance in doing so. You make a good point there, although I believe if that were the case we would probably be dealing with cold war part deux. Do you remember how ridiculously anti-French America became at the time?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The UK is not part of the euro project but it didn't seem to create any problems for the pound and the British economy nor for the eurozone country. The UK also opted out of Schengen.
Ireland also opted out on justice and home affairs, but still choose to opt in whenever it wants.
So the opt-outs really do not complicate matters that much. Therefore preservation of Irish neutrality, given the precedent, should be respected and guaranteed as inscribed in the Lisbon Treaty.
im not suggesting it makes it impossible to understand or anything, but whats the problem if people wish to have a clear understanding of exactly how Lisbon will affect our stance on Schengen, policing etc etc etc??? especially because we've opted out of certain things before...."will those opt-outs still exist?" etc etc.... I know the answers are there in Lisbon, but the general public here have not been presented them is all that im saying.
The Contrast i was trying to make was with all other EU states - the citizens there (including you) do not have to vote, so its easier to ignore those issues because you dont have to vote on it.
The opt-outs are not as straightforward as you suggest, they are subject to reviews and clauses which can lead to possible ECJ intervention (the tax area for example). Also Sweden and Denmark have opt-outs too, and their governments have to deal with them. Ireland are not the only country who have to handle that issue, but they are the ONLY one where the people have to vote on it.
Its healthy in my eyes if people want to debate it , and its also a healthy thing to question and test your government. You cant deny that.
And yes, even if that means testing the government of Europe.
Also, in global geo-political terms, do you realise that a stronger EU in the sense of a common voice in foreign and security matters would have been able to make a better stand against the US war-mongering tendencies [supported by the UK]. France and Germany were against going to Iraq, btw.
True. The UK supporting them was such bullshit. The "passengers beside the drunk driver" quote from Ed springs to mind!
Situations like that could be avoided - the US couldnt throw its weight and economic influence over UK & Ireland to influence our governments to aide their Iraq efforts .....(i think that allowing US planes to land in Ireland for fuel was aiding war efforts)...
Where? The Lisbon Treaty in itself does not actually effect our neutrality DIRECTLY... BUT it puts in motion events that COULD lead to it being abolished against the wishes of the people... we can argue this round and round but I'm continually making the same points and I don't think you understand. You keep saying the Lisbon Treaty safeguards Irish neutrality while it actually leaves it as it is BUT takes the choice away from the PEOPLE and gives it to the government. There is NO need for that. To be honest, you sound like our politicians... saying something like it's fact when the evidence suggests otherwise
Therefore you agree that the Lisbon Treaty does not affect Irish neutrality then but it protects it with that clause and proviso? So this is a fact, evidence. So what you are actually objecting to it's not that the Treaty does not preserve Irish neutrality but that the Irish government will no longer need to resort to a popular referendum to abolish it. Therefore this is an internal Irish issue hence the point that the EU project will be halted, if the Irish vote No, for a national issue, not wider EU consideration.
That's not backtracking... it was when I actually thought about whether or not I trust my government... and on the day to day decisions YES but not when it comes to protecting our sovereignty... they seem to want us to be people of the world or something rather than Irish people... and I don't think that really goes down well with many of us.
It is backtracking from your previous sweeping generalisation that you don't trust politicians and government. Then you clarified that you do actually trust them in certain occasions and matters. Btw, you need to consider the whole wide world when you become international partners, therefore the Irish interests must be reconciled with the wider interests. Hence the contention. Politicians, in theory and ideally, should look at the bigger picture and greater good; individuals naturally tend to look after their own interests, whether Irish, professional, etc etc.
How does peace keeping effect neutrality? It's PEACE KEEPING... my brother is actually in Kosovo right now... he's served in Lebanon and Liberia also... and most of the neutral nations ARE actually peace keeping nations which makes obvious sense... cos people have no reason to fear them taking over. You keep bringing up the issue of this 'free ride' we had... like we should be guilt tripped into voting for something that is not good for Europe FOR this reason. That's hardly fair. That's like the American attitude of 'it it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German'. Are you saying 'if it weren't for Europe you'd be starving'? One of the main reasons Ireland became so rich was because of all the people who had to go work elsewhere in the 80s... made their money and brought it home.
Neutrality means not being involved and not taking side in a confrontation. But even in peace-keeping situation you take a side, be that the international community against whatever local insurgents.
I'm not saying if it wasn't for Europe you would be starving or speaking German. What I am saying is that even within the Irish neutrality clause Ireland benefited from protection, military under the NATO umbrella, even if not a member, all these post-WWII years. Economically, since joining the EU with EU subsidies, too.
This is true... but at least it would be our choice. You admit there that nobody can know what will happen in the future which is the main point I've been trying to make all along. Besides, if we attack and we defend ourselves, I don't think that would affect our neutrality as defending yourself is quite different to getting involved in somebody elses conflict.
Of course, one cannot predict the future. Agreed. However, one can PLAN for the future and all the possible scenarios. And yes, if you attack and defend yourself, you are by definition no longer neutral in the world stage. You are intervening, for self-defence or whatever, to protect your interests against another country or group, etc.
Yes, and I supported their stance in doing so. You make a good point there, although I believe if that were the case we would probably be dealing with cold war part deux. Do you remember how ridiculously anti-French America became at the time?
It won't be a cold war part deux scenario becuase there won't be two power blocs with two different ideologies pitted against each other. The situation will be more complex, not only with regard to nation-states involved (China, Russia, etc) but also illegittimate groups (Al Quaeda)
Anyway, my whole point in this debate is to argue all the different points as you seem interested in figuring out the issue.
im not suggesting it makes it impossible to understand or anything, but whats the problem if people wish to have a clear understanding of exactly how Lisbon will affect our stance on Schengen, policing etc etc etc??? especially because we've opted out of certain things before...."will those opt-outs still exist?" etc etc.... I know the answers are there in Lisbon, but the general public here have not been presented them is all that im saying.
The Contrast i was trying to make was with all other EU states - the citizens there (including you) do not have to vote, so its easier to ignore those issues because you dont have to vote on it.
The opt-outs are not as straightforward as you suggest, they are subject to reviews and clauses which can lead to possible ECJ intervention (the tax area for example). Also Sweden and Denmark have opt-outs too, and their governments have to deal with them. Ireland are not the only country who have to handle that issue, but they are the ONLY one where the people have to vote on it.
Its healthy in my eyes if people want to debate it , and its also a healthy thing to question and test your government. You cant deny that.
And yes, even if that means testing the government of Europe.
whoa, you're making a BIG assumption about citizen apathy in other EU countries because they do not have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
And I am not denying that debating and questioning is healthy, especially those in power, as if this mini-debate we're having should prove otherwise!
But in order to have a debate, one also needs to have the facts straight. And this wasn't so evident in this thread.
With regard to the opt-out, these are in place. Whether they could be reviewed and amended is a possibility but it will be up to the national governments, expressing [again in theory] the majority of the will of the people who elected them. It will not be up to the EU to force national governments who opted out in particular areas.
True. The UK supporting them was such bullshit. The "passengers beside the drunk driver" quote from Ed springs to mind!
Situations like that could be avoided - the US couldnt throw its weight and economic influence over UK & Ireland to influence our governments to aide their Iraq efforts .....(i think that allowing US planes to land in Ireland for fuel was aiding war efforts)...
A single EU stance would be hugely beneficial.
Indeed.
And as you pointed out, Ireland neutrality is already compromised in facts by allowing those US planes to refuel in your country.
But in order to have a debate, one also needs to have the facts straight. And this wasn't so evident in this thread.
With regard to the opt-out, these are in place. Whether they could be reviewed and amended is a possibility but it will be up to the national governments,
It will not be up to the EU to force national governments who opted out in particular areas.
i didnt mean to say the people ARE apathetic, i meant they could be if they wanted to do so...in your own words its an issue for their governments.
Yes the opt-outs are in place, and the terms which deal with Irelands opt-outs *HAVE REVIEW CLAUSES* attached which mean they are up for re-negotiation between Ireland & EU in 3 years. So i do have facts straight and it is EU issue.
Therefore you agree that the Lisbon Treaty does not affect Irish neutrality then but it protects it with that clause and proviso? So this is a fact, evidence.
For the last time... NO, I don't agree... cos it doesn't just leave it as it is! Seriously how can I put this any simpler?
Now on to your other points... but please stop saying that I agree that Lisbon protects Irish neutrality... cos the whole point I'm making is that I am voting NO because it DOESN'T protect it.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
i didnt mean to say the people ARE apathetic, i meant they could be if they wanted to do so...in your own words its an issue for their governments.
Yes the opt-outs are in place, and the terms which deal with Irelands opt-outs *HAVE REVIEW CLAUSES* attached which mean they are up for re-negotiation between Ireland & EU in 3 years. So i do have facts straight and it is EU issue.
I was mainly referring to the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish neutrality issue, where it seems we had some confusion.
Also, just wanted to point out that whether the decision is up to the government or directly to voters one can still be informed of the issues; one doesn't exclude the other. On the other hand, you guys have said that you're not being presented with enough information even if you have a referendum and you're expected to cast your vote.
So what you are actually objecting to it's not that the Treaty does not preserve Irish neutrality but that the Irish government will no longer need to resort to a popular referendum to abolish it. Therefore this is an internal Irish issue hence the point that the EU project will be halted, if the Irish vote No, for a national issue, not wider EU consideration.
Ok, I'll take that point... but whether the issue is internal or European, it still exists... and I can't possibly vote FOR it until the issue is rectified (which I would imagine is actually pretty simple... all it needs is a line stating that Irish neutrality can ONLY be changed by a referendum)
It is backtracking from your previous sweeping generalisation that you don't trust politicians and government. Then you clarified that you do actually trust them in certain occasions and matters. Btw, you need to consider the whole wide world when you become international partners, therefore the Irish interests must be reconciled with the wider interests. Hence the contention. Politicians, in theory and ideally, should look at the bigger picture and greater good; individuals naturally tend to look after their own interests, whether Irish, professional, etc etc.
You're forgetting I wasn't BORN when we joined the EU. You bring up the point of electing government officials or NOT electing them if we don't agree with them... shouldn't the EU be the same? Wasn't it initially set up as a common agriculture policy and for easier travel and nice little stuff like that? Now it's changing and it's no longer necessarily something I agree with... I don't HAVE to vote for something I'm completely opposed to just cos some people in other countries will be annoyed if I don't. We're just coming from completely different points of view. You seem to believe that politics should be left to the politicians... I believe in democracy. Lisbon does not allow for democracy.
Neutrality means not being involved and not taking side in a confrontation. But even in peace-keeping situation you take a side, be that the international community against whatever local insurgents.
Ok, I would agree there but I think that's nitpicking to be honest... peacekeeping countries go to HELP and for NO self interests.
I'm not saying if it wasn't for Europe you would be starving or speaking German. What I am saying is that even within the Irish neutrality clause Ireland benefited from protection, military under the NATO umbrella, even if not a member, all these post-WWII years. Economically, since joining the EU with EU subsidies, too.
Of course, one cannot predict the future. Agreed. However, one can PLAN for the future and all the possible scenarios. And yes, if you attack and defend yourself, you are by definition no longer neutral in the world stage. You are intervening, for self-defence or whatever, to protect your interests against another country or group, etc.
Isn't that exactly what I'm doing by voting no... planning for the future and all the possible scenarios
It won't be a cold war part deux scenario becuase there won't be two power blocs with two different ideologies pitted against each other. The situation will be more complex, not only with regard to nation-states involved (China, Russia, etc) but also illegittimate groups (Al Quaeda)
Anyway, my whole point in this debate is to argue all the different points as you seem interested in figuring out the issue.
I'm enjoying hearing other points of view on this and learning all along. The point of this thread was to gain information, as I was admitting I knew nothing about Lisbon, and I think I've done that. I don't like the information I'm learning though
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
But in order to have a debate, one also needs to have the facts straight. And this wasn't so evident in this thread.
but I've yet to be convinced that my initial understanding of it is wrong
I'm open for debate or for people to prove me wrong. That's why I started the thread cos I was getting frustrated with all the Lisbon treaty talk and nobody having a clue what it is. Ok, you CAN find it online... but like I said, it's unintelligible and much of it is open to your own interpretation. How many people have read it and understood it?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
And as you pointed out, Ireland neutrality is already compromised in facts by allowing those US planes to refuel in your country.
Yes, it's compromised... let's not destroy it altogether!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Also, just wanted to point out that whether the decision is up to the government or directly to voters one can still be informed of the issues; one doesn't exclude the other. On the other hand, you guys have said that you're not being presented with enough information even if you have a referendum and you're expected to cast your vote.
Agreed: One does not exclude the other, but i never said it did:
- The people who vote here (of course) have a duty to inform themselves.
- The Government here is bound legally to present unbiased information explaining the ramifications of both Yes and No votes before elections.
- There is information in the public domain& A lot of this information is biased
- Re: unbiased info - It is hard to understand all of the legal, political and economic implications of any legal treaty purely by reading it.
- To ignore the fact that Treaties can have unpredictable effects and implications is to ignore history
- To not question your government is narrow-minded
Therefore it is reasonable of us to expect the government to have a better approach than they have taken so far. There are 2 months for them to publish information it, but to leave it this late is not smart.
I am not blaming the government only. The public are not as aware of the treaty as they should be either. But to expect people to read a legal Treaty and understand it is just unrealistic and stupid.
You seem to think that you have completely understood how Lisbon will affect Ireland. The treaty will affect every country and have different impacts in all of them.
I just think you fail to see the possibility that this is not as simple as you think it is:
- in a country where you dont live,
- where you dont see the news, the radio debates,
- you dont hear our politicians saying outrageous things about Lisbon,
- the awful campaigns
- We have different laws & policies.
As similar as European countries are, I think you need to consider that while in theory your points are correct, in reality things are not and will not be that simple. We live on planet earth. The voters of France and Holland didnt live in idealogical utopia and neither do Irish voters.
Ok, I'll take that point... but whether the issue is internal or European, it still exists... and I can't possibly vote FOR it until the issue is rectified (which I would imagine is actually pretty simple... all it needs is a line stating that Irish neutrality can ONLY be changed by a referendum)
Fine. I am not here to convince you one way or the other. I just want to ensure the facts are laid out clearly and point out the contradictions in the various arguments. For some the clause on Irish neutrality which is in the Lisbon Treaty will be enough; for others it is not. That's what democracy is about. The majority rules.
You're forgetting I wasn't BORN when we joined the EU. You bring up the point of electing government officials or NOT electing them if we don't agree with them... shouldn't the EU be the same? Wasn't it initially set up as a common agriculture policy and for easier travel and nice little stuff like that? Now it's changing and it's no longer necessarily something I agree with... I don't HAVE to vote for something I'm completely opposed to just cos some people in other countries will be annoyed if I don't. We're just coming from completely different points of view. You seem to believe that politics should be left to the politicians... I believe in democracy. Lisbon does not allow for democracy.
No - you're totally making the wrong assumption about me. And you're wrong factually both about the origins of the EU, or rather its predecessors the European Cool and Steel Community and the fact that the Lisbon Treaty does not allow for democracy.
There's always been a security and defence aspect to European integration. It's not changing at all. It came about because the original 6 member states wanted to bring PEACE and prosperity in a Europe that for centuries had been plagued by internal wars. Joining that community would mean supporting ALL its objectives.
As for no democracy, I said earlier in the thread that there is no EU government but different EU institutions and different players - national governments, the Commission and more recently the EU parliament. The Lisbon Treaty gives more power to the EU parliament, the only institution where EU citizen DIRECTLY express their votes, not via their governments. This is how you increase democracy in the EU. By rejecting the Lisbon Treaty you also reject this opportunity.
but I've yet to be convinced that my initial understanding of it is wrong
I'm open for debate or for people to prove me wrong. That's why I started the thread cos I was getting frustrated with all the Lisbon treaty talk and nobody having a clue what it is. Ok, you CAN find it online... but like I said, it's unintelligible and much of it is open to your own interpretation. How many people have read it and understood it?
I seem to recall - cannot drudge through the whole thread - that you denied that the Treaty protected Irish neutrality, when in fact it does. You are actually objecting to the fact that it's not specific enough on that regard, right? And then the whole point about opt-out, reviews, will of government, of people, etc etc.
I seem to recall - cannot drudge through the whole thread - that you denied that the Treaty protected Irish neutrality, when in fact it does. You are actually objecting to the fact that it's not specific enough on that regard, right? And then the whole point about opt-out, reviews, will of government, of people, etc etc.
No, it DOES NOT protect Irish neutrality *bangs head off brick wall one more time *. It implies that it will not force us into change... however that's the wording in the document! Another thing we're voting for is to take away our right to HAVE a referendum on these things. Put both of them together and they effectively cancel eachother out cos while they actually CAN say 'it won't effect neutrality' and not REALLY be lying, they are actually changing the way Irish neutrality can be changed and they're taking the power out of our hands. I've said this about 200 times now and tried to explain it... and I don't quite understand why you keep denying it when the proof is IN hte treaty. I'm not objecting that it's not specific enough, where did I say that? I'm objecting that while Lisbon itself cannot effect our neutrality... it is taking that power out of our hands and giving it to our government... therefore Lisbon CAN effect our neutrality!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Agreed: One does not exclude the other, but i never said it did:
- The people who vote here (of course) have a duty to inform themselves.
- The Government here is bound legally to present unbiased information explaining the ramifications of both Yes and No votes before elections.
- There is information in the public domain& A lot of this information is biased
- Re: unbiased info - It is hard to understand all of the legal, political and economic implications of any legal treaty purely by reading it.
- To ignore the fact that Treaties can have unpredictable effects and implications is to ignore history
- To not question your government is narrow-minded
Therefore it is reasonable of us to expect the government to have a better approach than they have taken so far. There are 2 months for them to publish information it, but to leave it this late is not smart.
I am not blaming the government only. The public are not as aware of the treaty as they should be either. But to expect people to read a legal Treaty and understand it is just unrealistic and stupid.
You seem to think that you have completely understood how Lisbon will affect Ireland. The treaty will affect every country and have different impacts in all of them.
I just think you fail to see the possibility that this is not as simple as you think it is:
- in a country where you dont live,
- where you dont see the news, the radio debates,
- you dont hear our politicians saying outrageous things about Lisbon,
- the awful campaigns
- We have different laws & policies.
As similar as European countries are, I think you need to consider that while in theory your points are correct, in reality things are not and will not be that simple. We live on planet earth. The voters of France and Holland didnt live in idealogical utopia and neither do Irish voters.
You seemed to imply that only if you could vote in a referendum you could be aware of the various European issues and I pointed out that that people could still be aware regardless and that besides even if you vote those issues could still not be clear at all, for whatever reason - your government not providing enough info or the complexity of the info available, etc.
I am perfectly aware of the complexities between theory and practice not only within the various European countries and but also within the EU institutions. I am not sure it is clear for others, especially on how the EU works.
Similarly - as i have stated several times in this thread - I am aware that voters will focus on specific issues that interests them the most, regardless of the wider bigger picture [the CAP reform in France, the budget rebate in the UK, Irish neutrality seems to be the key issue in Ireland]
You seemed to imply that only if you could vote in a referendum you could be aware of the various European issues and I pointed out that that people could still be aware regardless and that besides even if you vote those issues could still not be clear at all, for whatever reason - your government not providing enough info or the complexity of the info available, etc.
I am perfectly aware of the complexities between theory and practice not only within the various European countries and but also within the EU institutions. I am not sure it is clear for others, especially on how the EU works.
Similarly - as i have stated several times in this thread - I am aware that voters will focus on specific issues that interests them the most, regardless of the wider bigger picture [the CAP reform in France, the budget rebate in the UK, Irish neutrality seems to be the key issue in Ireland]
fair enough! . all cleared up now!
what id tried to say about voters being aware was that people who are not voting in a referendum do not have to be aware, not that they couldnt be aware...but u understand the point anyway so it doesnt matter
i had said that the words of the Treaty say theyll guarantee neutrality but dnt back it up with legal prowess of how it could be done....so dont go lose your cool at poor auld lgt !!
No, it DOES NOT protect Irish neutrality *bangs head off brick wall one more time *. It implies that it will not force us into change... however that's the wording in the document! Another thing we're voting for is to take away our right to HAVE a referendum on these things. Put both of them together and they effectively cancel eachother out cos while they actually CAN say 'it won't effect neutrality' and not REALLY be lying, they are actually changing the way Irish neutrality can be changed and they're taking the power out of our hands. I've said this about 200 times now and tried to explain it... and I don't quite understand why you keep denying it when the proof is IN hte treaty. I'm not objecting that it's not specific enough, where did I say that? I'm objecting that while Lisbon itself cannot effect our neutrality... it is taking that power out of our hands and giving it to our government... therefore Lisbon CAN effect our neutrality!
OK, this is really getting nowhere!!! The Treaty says it will preserve Irish neutrality. I posted the link before. By specific I mean HOW it will be preserved. Currently it is with the popular referendum but with the Treaty the Irish government will decide, and this is what you're objecting to.
So yes, the Treaty can affect your neutrality but I also pointed out there are other factors that are already affecting your neutrality, ie the peace-keeping activities, the US planes refuel, so in a sense your neutrality is just nominal even if it's in the hands of the people.
OK, this is really getting nowhere!!! The Treaty says it will preserve Irish neutrality. I posted the link before. By specific I mean HOW it will be preserved. Currently it is with the popular referendum but with the Treaty the Irish government will decide, and this is what you're objecting to.
So yes, the Treaty can affect your neutrality but I also pointed out there are other factors that are already affecting your neutrality, ie the peace-keeping activities, the US planes refuel, so in a sense your neutrality is just nominal even if it's in the hands of the people.
As far as I can recall, the government ok'ed refueling the American planes without any kind of popular vote. So taking that as a precedent of their attitude towards our neutrality, I'd say rather than convincing me that our neutrality isn't worth much anyway, it convinces me that I can't trust our government to decide for me.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
As far as I can recall, the government ok'ed refueling the American planes without any kind of popular vote. So taking that as a precedent of their attitude towards our neutrality, I'd say rather than convincing me that our neutrality isn't worth much anyway, it convinces me that I can't trust our government to decide for me.
Absolutely, I think that was where my distrust of our government towards our neutrality stemmed from. There was no vote, no consulting the people, a decision was made by the government and that was it. When the neutrality issue was brought up I think the government even QUESTIONED how neutral we actually are :eek: Isn't it up to them to make sure we are since it's in our beloved constitution?
As far as I can remember, so much was the popular opinion AGAINST the governments decision, that when some protesters at Shannon were in court for vandalising some US planes... a jury let them go as they basically proved the planes being there was illegal. I could be completely wrong and I'm going to have to look that up... but the only person I've ever spoken to who actually thought the government were right is my brother. I love him to bits but he's as right wing as you can get
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Absolutely, I think that was where my distrust of our government towards our neutrality stemmed from. There was no vote, no consulting the people, a decision was made by the government and that was it. When the neutrality issue was brought up I think the government even QUESTIONED how neutral we actually are :eek: Isn't it up to them to make sure we are since it's in our beloved constitution?
As far as I can remember, so much was the popular opinion AGAINST the governments decision, that when some protesters at Shannon were in court for vandalising some US planes... a jury let them go as they basically proved the planes being there was illegal. I could be completely wrong and I'm going to have to look that up... but the only person I've ever spoken to who actually thought the government were right is my brother. I love him to bits but he's as right wing as you can get
How does your brother feel about our neutrality, in general? (If that isn't too prying.:o)
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
How does your brother feel about our neutrality, in general? (If that isn't too prying.:o)
No that's ok... he thinks it's a pile of crap and that it's basically non-existent. Basically that if we were attacked we've no means of defending ourselves like the other neutral countries (some of the countries with the BEST defence systems in the world are neutral) but the RAF would be here in minutes to help us. TBH I think its the very very very LEAST they could do though!
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Comments
And it's the personal details like that that will keep neutrality safe in the hands of the Irish people. The brother, the cousin, the friend - the people we never want to see at risk. I don't think the government would have Heineken Harry (sorry, alliteration beckoned
HAH! You serious? You really believe most voters have any clue what they vote for in general???
to be fair mate, most people who vote in any sort of democratic vote know fuck-all about the election, and probably dont even go as far as read wikipedia.
Good snide remark nonetheless.
The Lisbon Treaty is not as easy to implement in Ireland as it is everywhere else in EU due to the fact that we have opt-outs on 2 of the major EU agreements already (one re: border controls, cant remember other one), and the complications with the constitution.
Its understandable if we want to know how it will affect our stance on old agreements, and on future agreements re; same areas.
The UK is not part of the euro project but it didn't seem to create any problems for the pound and the British economy nor for the eurozone country. The UK also opted out of Schengen.
Ireland also opted out on justice and home affairs, but still choose to opt in whenever it wants.
So the opt-outs really do not complicate matters that much. Therefore preservation of Irish neutrality, given the precedent, should be respected and guaranteed as inscribed in the Lisbon Treaty.
No, I do get what you're saying, just trying to point out the flaws and contradictions for the sake of argument!
You claim the preservation of Irish neutrality is not written in the Lisbon Treaty while all the evidence so far it's to the contrary.
Also, you mention that you don't trust politicians to respect the will of people in a general statement- then you backtrack to say you actually don't trust your government in certain issues only, in particular neutrality.
Then I point out the contradiction of Irish neutrality with Irish peace-keeping deployment. So neutrality is just nominal, not factual. And yes, I imagine it is a controversial issue in Ireland. But by the same token one could argue that during the cold war years, for instance, Ireland enjoyed a free ride. Could it still be possible in a changing world?
You also make an assumption that the Irish people will NEVER EVER in a referendum vote to abolish it. What if Ireland is attacked? Sometimes you can't be neutral in a moving train, right?
Also, in global geo-political terms, do you realise that a stronger EU in the sense of a common voice in foreign and security matters would have been able to make a better stand against the US war-mongering tendencies [supported by the UK]. France and Germany were against going to Iraq, btw.
Where? The Lisbon Treaty in itself does not actually effect our neutrality DIRECTLY... BUT it puts in motion events that COULD lead to it being abolished against the wishes of the people... we can argue this round and round but I'm continually making the same points and I don't think you understand. You keep saying the Lisbon Treaty safeguards Irish neutrality while it actually leaves it as it is BUT takes the choice away from the PEOPLE and gives it to the government. There is NO need for that. To be honest, you sound like our politicians... saying something like it's fact when the evidence suggests otherwise
That's not backtracking... it was when I actually thought about whether or not I trust my government... and on the day to day decisions YES but not when it comes to protecting our sovereignty... they seem to want us to be people of the world or something rather than Irish people... and I don't think that really goes down well with many of us.
How does peace keeping effect neutrality? It's PEACE KEEPING... my brother is actually in Kosovo right now... he's served in Lebanon and Liberia also... and most of the neutral nations ARE actually peace keeping nations which makes obvious sense... cos people have no reason to fear them taking over. You keep bringing up the issue of this 'free ride' we had... like we should be guilt tripped into voting for something that is not good for Europe FOR this reason. That's hardly fair. That's like the American attitude of 'it it wasn't for us you'd be speaking German'. Are you saying 'if it weren't for Europe you'd be starving'? One of the main reasons Ireland became so rich was because of all the people who had to go work elsewhere in the 80s... made their money and brought it home.
This is true... but at least it would be our choice. You admit there that nobody can know what will happen in the future which is the main point I've been trying to make all along. Besides, if we attack and we defend ourselves, I don't think that would affect our neutrality as defending yourself is quite different to getting involved in somebody elses conflict.
Yes, and I supported their stance in doing so. You make a good point there, although I believe if that were the case we would probably be dealing with cold war part deux. Do you remember how ridiculously anti-French America became at the time?
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
im not suggesting it makes it impossible to understand or anything, but whats the problem if people wish to have a clear understanding of exactly how Lisbon will affect our stance on Schengen, policing etc etc etc??? especially because we've opted out of certain things before...."will those opt-outs still exist?" etc etc.... I know the answers are there in Lisbon, but the general public here have not been presented them is all that im saying.
The Contrast i was trying to make was with all other EU states - the citizens there (including you) do not have to vote, so its easier to ignore those issues because you dont have to vote on it.
The opt-outs are not as straightforward as you suggest, they are subject to reviews and clauses which can lead to possible ECJ intervention (the tax area for example). Also Sweden and Denmark have opt-outs too, and their governments have to deal with them. Ireland are not the only country who have to handle that issue, but they are the ONLY one where the people have to vote on it.
Its healthy in my eyes if people want to debate it , and its also a healthy thing to question and test your government. You cant deny that.
And yes, even if that means testing the government of Europe.
True. The UK supporting them was such bullshit. The "passengers beside the drunk driver" quote from Ed springs to mind!
Situations like that could be avoided - the US couldnt throw its weight and economic influence over UK & Ireland to influence our governments to aide their Iraq efforts .....(i think that allowing US planes to land in Ireland for fuel was aiding war efforts)...
A single EU stance would be hugely beneficial.
Therefore you agree that the Lisbon Treaty does not affect Irish neutrality then but it protects it with that clause and proviso? So this is a fact, evidence. So what you are actually objecting to it's not that the Treaty does not preserve Irish neutrality but that the Irish government will no longer need to resort to a popular referendum to abolish it. Therefore this is an internal Irish issue hence the point that the EU project will be halted, if the Irish vote No, for a national issue, not wider EU consideration.
It is backtracking from your previous sweeping generalisation that you don't trust politicians and government. Then you clarified that you do actually trust them in certain occasions and matters. Btw, you need to consider the whole wide world when you become international partners, therefore the Irish interests must be reconciled with the wider interests. Hence the contention. Politicians, in theory and ideally, should look at the bigger picture and greater good; individuals naturally tend to look after their own interests, whether Irish, professional, etc etc.
Neutrality means not being involved and not taking side in a confrontation. But even in peace-keeping situation you take a side, be that the international community against whatever local insurgents.
I'm not saying if it wasn't for Europe you would be starving or speaking German. What I am saying is that even within the Irish neutrality clause Ireland benefited from protection, military under the NATO umbrella, even if not a member, all these post-WWII years. Economically, since joining the EU with EU subsidies, too.
Of course, one cannot predict the future. Agreed. However, one can PLAN for the future and all the possible scenarios. And yes, if you attack and defend yourself, you are by definition no longer neutral in the world stage. You are intervening, for self-defence or whatever, to protect your interests against another country or group, etc.
It won't be a cold war part deux scenario becuase there won't be two power blocs with two different ideologies pitted against each other. The situation will be more complex, not only with regard to nation-states involved (China, Russia, etc) but also illegittimate groups (Al Quaeda)
Anyway, my whole point in this debate is to argue all the different points as you seem interested in figuring out the issue.
whoa, you're making a BIG assumption about citizen apathy in other EU countries because they do not have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
And I am not denying that debating and questioning is healthy, especially those in power, as if this mini-debate we're having should prove otherwise!
But in order to have a debate, one also needs to have the facts straight. And this wasn't so evident in this thread.
With regard to the opt-out, these are in place. Whether they could be reviewed and amended is a possibility but it will be up to the national governments, expressing [again in theory] the majority of the will of the people who elected them. It will not be up to the EU to force national governments who opted out in particular areas.
You still going in circles with it? ....
Indeed.
And as you pointed out, Ireland neutrality is already compromised in facts by allowing those US planes to refuel in your country.
Not circles, but baby steps forward if Helen admitted that the Lisbon Treaty preserves Irish neutrality!
i didnt mean to say the people ARE apathetic, i meant they could be if they wanted to do so...in your own words its an issue for their governments.
Yes the opt-outs are in place, and the terms which deal with Irelands opt-outs *HAVE REVIEW CLAUSES* attached which mean they are up for re-negotiation between Ireland & EU in 3 years. So i do have facts straight and it is EU issue.
Now on to your other points... but please stop saying that I agree that Lisbon protects Irish neutrality... cos the whole point I'm making is that I am voting NO because it DOESN'T protect it.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I was mainly referring to the Lisbon Treaty and the Irish neutrality issue, where it seems we had some confusion.
Also, just wanted to point out that whether the decision is up to the government or directly to voters one can still be informed of the issues; one doesn't exclude the other. On the other hand, you guys have said that you're not being presented with enough information even if you have a referendum and you're expected to cast your vote.
Ok, I'll take that point... but whether the issue is internal or European, it still exists... and I can't possibly vote FOR it until the issue is rectified (which I would imagine is actually pretty simple... all it needs is a line stating that Irish neutrality can ONLY be changed by a referendum)
You're forgetting I wasn't BORN when we joined the EU. You bring up the point of electing government officials or NOT electing them if we don't agree with them... shouldn't the EU be the same? Wasn't it initially set up as a common agriculture policy and for easier travel and nice little stuff like that? Now it's changing and it's no longer necessarily something I agree with... I don't HAVE to vote for something I'm completely opposed to just cos some people in other countries will be annoyed if I don't. We're just coming from completely different points of view. You seem to believe that politics should be left to the politicians... I believe in democracy. Lisbon does not allow for democracy.
Ok, I would agree there but I think that's nitpicking to be honest... peacekeeping countries go to HELP and for NO self interests.
Isn't that exactly what I'm doing by voting no... planning for the future and all the possible scenarios
I'm enjoying hearing other points of view on this and learning all along. The point of this thread was to gain information, as I was admitting I knew nothing about Lisbon, and I think I've done that. I don't like the information I'm learning though
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I'm open for debate or for people to prove me wrong. That's why I started the thread cos I was getting frustrated with all the Lisbon treaty talk and nobody having a clue what it is. Ok, you CAN find it online... but like I said, it's unintelligible and much of it is open to your own interpretation. How many people have read it and understood it?
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Agreed: One does not exclude the other, but i never said it did:
- The people who vote here (of course) have a duty to inform themselves.
- The Government here is bound legally to present unbiased information explaining the ramifications of both Yes and No votes before elections.
- There is information in the public domain& A lot of this information is biased
- Re: unbiased info - It is hard to understand all of the legal, political and economic implications of any legal treaty purely by reading it.
- To ignore the fact that Treaties can have unpredictable effects and implications is to ignore history
- To not question your government is narrow-minded
Therefore it is reasonable of us to expect the government to have a better approach than they have taken so far. There are 2 months for them to publish information it, but to leave it this late is not smart.
I am not blaming the government only. The public are not as aware of the treaty as they should be either. But to expect people to read a legal Treaty and understand it is just unrealistic and stupid.
You seem to think that you have completely understood how Lisbon will affect Ireland. The treaty will affect every country and have different impacts in all of them.
I just think you fail to see the possibility that this is not as simple as you think it is:
- in a country where you dont live,
- where you dont see the news, the radio debates,
- you dont hear our politicians saying outrageous things about Lisbon,
- the awful campaigns
- We have different laws & policies.
As similar as European countries are, I think you need to consider that while in theory your points are correct, in reality things are not and will not be that simple. We live on planet earth. The voters of France and Holland didnt live in idealogical utopia and neither do Irish voters.
Fine. I am not here to convince you one way or the other. I just want to ensure the facts are laid out clearly and point out the contradictions in the various arguments. For some the clause on Irish neutrality which is in the Lisbon Treaty will be enough; for others it is not. That's what democracy is about. The majority rules.
No - you're totally making the wrong assumption about me. And you're wrong factually both about the origins of the EU, or rather its predecessors the European Cool and Steel Community and the fact that the Lisbon Treaty does not allow for democracy.
There's always been a security and defence aspect to European integration. It's not changing at all. It came about because the original 6 member states wanted to bring PEACE and prosperity in a Europe that for centuries had been plagued by internal wars. Joining that community would mean supporting ALL its objectives.
As for no democracy, I said earlier in the thread that there is no EU government but different EU institutions and different players - national governments, the Commission and more recently the EU parliament. The Lisbon Treaty gives more power to the EU parliament, the only institution where EU citizen DIRECTLY express their votes, not via their governments. This is how you increase democracy in the EU. By rejecting the Lisbon Treaty you also reject this opportunity.
I seem to recall - cannot drudge through the whole thread - that you denied that the Treaty protected Irish neutrality, when in fact it does. You are actually objecting to the fact that it's not specific enough on that regard, right? And then the whole point about opt-out, reviews, will of government, of people, etc etc.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
You seemed to imply that only if you could vote in a referendum you could be aware of the various European issues and I pointed out that that people could still be aware regardless and that besides even if you vote those issues could still not be clear at all, for whatever reason - your government not providing enough info or the complexity of the info available, etc.
I am perfectly aware of the complexities between theory and practice not only within the various European countries and but also within the EU institutions. I am not sure it is clear for others, especially on how the EU works.
Similarly - as i have stated several times in this thread - I am aware that voters will focus on specific issues that interests them the most, regardless of the wider bigger picture [the CAP reform in France, the budget rebate in the UK, Irish neutrality seems to be the key issue in Ireland]
fair enough! . all cleared up now!
what id tried to say about voters being aware was that people who are not voting in a referendum do not have to be aware, not that they couldnt be aware...but u understand the point anyway so it doesnt matter
i had said that the words of the Treaty say theyll guarantee neutrality but dnt back it up with legal prowess of how it could be done....so dont go lose your cool at poor auld lgt !!
we've all made our points at this stage i think!
OK, this is really getting nowhere!!!
So yes, the Treaty can affect your neutrality but I also pointed out there are other factors that are already affecting your neutrality, ie the peace-keeping activities, the US planes refuel, so in a sense your neutrality is just nominal even if it's in the hands of the people.
As far as I can recall, the government ok'ed refueling the American planes without any kind of popular vote. So taking that as a precedent of their attitude towards our neutrality, I'd say rather than convincing me that our neutrality isn't worth much anyway, it convinces me that I can't trust our government to decide for me.
As far as I can remember, so much was the popular opinion AGAINST the governments decision, that when some protesters at Shannon were in court for vandalising some US planes... a jury let them go as they basically proved the planes being there was illegal. I could be completely wrong and I'm going to have to look that up... but the only person I've ever spoken to who actually thought the government were right is my brother. I love him to bits but he's as right wing as you can get
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
How does your brother feel about our neutrality, in general? (If that isn't too prying.:o)
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you