Lisbon Treaty?

lgt · May 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen · May 2008

lgt wrote:

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!

lgt · May 2008

JordyWordy wrote:

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]

JordyWordy · May 2008

lgt wrote:

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

JordyWordy · May 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

*bangs head off brick wall one more time *.

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!

lgt · May 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

lgt wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

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)

Heineken Helen · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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!

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

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!

There's the right-wing/left-wing divide - he worries about what we do when we get attacked, we figure there's no reason for anyone to attack us if we stay neutral.
But I respect that he's serving the country, and for his sake, I hope his stance on neutrality isn't too widespread.

JordyWordy · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

he worries about what we do when we get attacked, we figure there's no reason for anyone to attack us if we stay neutral.

Anyone remember when Madrid got bombed?
Was that to do with Spanish troops being deployed in Afghanistan or something? i cant remember 2 well...but i remember thinking
shit, if they cud be seen as assisting the US by al-qaeda then so could we....

Good point about the well-defended neutral countries

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

JordyWordy wrote:

Anyone remember when Madrid got bombed?
Was that to do with Spanish troops being deployed in Afghanistan or something? i cant remember 2 well...but i remember thinking
shit, if they cud be seen as assisting the US by al-qaeda then so could we....

Good point about the well-defended neutral countries

I certainly remember that thought being raised, I don't know if it was actually the case though.

The key thing is, like Helen said, England won't want us being attacked anymore than we do. Because once we're attacked... they're probably next. And while it's probably not the most reliable of safety nets, it's certainly a lot better than abandoning our neutrality, and spending billions on arming ourselves to the teeth.

JordyWordy · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I certainly remember that thought being raised, I don't know if it was actually the case though.

The key thing is, like Helen said, England won't want us being attacked anymore than we do. Because once we're attacked... they're probably next. And while it's probably not the most reliable of safety nets, it's certainly a lot better than abandoning our neutrality, and spending billions on arming ourselves to the teeth.

*agreed*

Heineken Helen · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

There's the right-wing/left-wing divide - he worries about what we do when we get attacked, we figure there's no reason for anyone to attack us if we stay neutral.
But I respect that he's serving the country, and for his sake, I hope his stance on neutrality isn't too widespread.

very well said. My brother is probably THE most intelligent person I know... he literally knows everything

but not in an arrogant way... he just knows stuff! So I really respect his opinion and he talks sense on most topics. Even with this one, I can see where he's coming from, but like you said we're both looking at it from completely different angles.

And... thank you

Me too!

Heineken Helen · May 2008

I see Gay Byrne has come out in support of the no vote... that's very very very good news. It's a sad state of affairs but he's a very influential man amongst the age group I would have imagined to be in the yes camp.

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

I see Gay Byrne has come out in support of the no vote... that's very very very good news. It's a sad state of affairs but he's a very influential man amongst the age group I would have imagined to be in the yes camp.

I'd rather people listen to Gay Byrne than Brian Cowen.

Heineken Helen · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I'd rather people listen to Gay Byrne than Brian Cowen.

me too! He's been speaking a lot of sense the past few years... maybe it's just cos I'm getting old. I couldn't stand the man when he had his chat show.

Rhinocerous Surprise · May 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

me too! He's been speaking a lot of sense the past few years... maybe it's just cos I'm getting old. I couldn't stand the man when he had his chat show.

I liked him doing the Late Late Show. He came - and still comes - across as a real gentleman.

God, now I sound old.

Heineken Helen · May 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I liked him doing the Late Late Show. He came - and still comes - across as a real gentleman.

God, now I sound old.

nah I hated the late late show... and one memory that sticks out for me was his treatment of Annie Murphy. He was quite old fashioned... and I didn't like the fact that I was FORCED to watch it every Friday night :mad: but he seems to be mellowing in his old age and I have to admit he was a fucking excellent interviewer and not afraid of controversy either.

Lisbon Treaty?

Comments

Categories