Europe has a “Plan B” if Ireland rejects Lisbon Treaty

[hibernia_free]

Lads in all fairness Lisbon is a Plan B to the constitution. Try to keep up, will ya?

The general public are being kept in the dark that Lisbon is Plan B.
We all know on this forum that we're talking about a brewing Plan C here.


Point is why not get the very best deal possible for Ireland?
Why such a rush to sellout and give the EU it's full wishlist?

I'd be happy if Ireland got to keep it's corporate tax rate and
it's right to decide whether or not to legalise abortion and euthanasia.

Why not strike a better deal for Ireland? We'll gain more respect
from Europe. If we say "Yes" to Lisbon now then Europe will treat us
with the same value that our leaders are giving us, very little indeed.

[ibis]

Can anyone point out what amendments were made to the Nice Treaty after our initial rejection?

The Seville Declarations were annexed to the Treaty. Most legal experts believe they carried the force of law.

They're not amendments to the Treaty, though - they're clarifications of what was in it. Interestingly, I don't see what's changed in Lisbon to invalidate them.

[silvamuppet]

I emailed her office for some supporting documents. In the meantime can you provide links showing how she has lied in the past? While we're waiting for that, here's a link to a video exposing the misleading statements of the Pro-Treaty politicians (incl. Msr. Cowen) during the Nice Treaty. They have not been held accountable for their misleading statements on how Ireland would not be overrun by immigrants thanks to the Nice Treaty II. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67hDcCrB ... h_response How can these same liars be trusted today??

I think what politicalnewbie meant was that she's quite specifically spread misinformation and half truths so far in this campaign. There is no reason not to assume this isn't another "We'll lose a commissioner , abortion will be brought in, we'll be forced to raise our corporation taxes" kind of thing that she has done on her pamphlets.
I'd treat anything she says with a pinch of salt at this point (admittedly I now treat anything anybody says about lisbon, yes or no, with a unhealthy dose of salt )

[no autism]

try this:

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/eu ... asp#P5_163

[FutureTaoiseach]

Can anyone point out what amendments were made to the Nice Treaty after our initial rejection?

The Seville Declarations were annexed to the Treaty. Most legal experts believe they carried the force of law.

They're not amendments to the Treaty, though - they're clarifications of what was in it. Interestingly, I don't see what's changed in Lisbon to invalidate them.

Well they are quasi-amendments. They have the force of law, so to all intents and purposes their effect is arguably the same as if they were amended.

[ibis]

Can anyone point out what amendments were made to the Nice Treaty after our initial rejection?

The Seville Declarations were annexed to the Treaty. Most legal experts believe they carried the force of law.

They're not amendments to the Treaty, though - they're clarifications of what was in it. Interestingly, I don't see what's changed in Lisbon to invalidate them.

Well they are quasi-amendments. They have the force of law, so to all intents and purposes their effect is arguably the same as if they were amended.

Nope. They are clarifications, as you can see by the form. The EU was declaring what was true about the Treaty - necessitated, funnily enough, by the amount of lying about it done by the 'No to Nice' campaign.

Clarifications are not amendments. Not a single line of the Nice Treaty was amended between Nice I and Nice II - and the statement in the OP clearly suggests the same this time. Sorry - the glorious "plan B" Kathy Sinnott has latched onto appears to be a rerun of the referendum, not a renegotiation of the Treaty - and who are the French to say what we will do (you don't have to answer that, since I know you think the French should dictate the results of our referendums anyway).

[Trampas]

Not a single line of the Nice Treaty was amended between Nice I and Nice II

Correct. Voters fell for those smear campaigns and that line about removing the final brick from the Berlin wall. We also voted Yes safe in the knowledge that when 75 million people from post-soviet economies joined the EU only 2,000 per year "would choose our distant shores."

[seabhcan]

Lads in all fairness Lisbon is a Plan B to the constitution. Try to keep up, will ya?

They look pretty similar to me , and if it is a plan B why don't the Dutch and French voters get a second go at voting on it to see if its a good plan b ?

For a DEMOCRATIC Europe . Vote No

That is exactly why I'm voting Yes. The EU isn't ready to go the full federalist, democratic route. In a "Democratic" EU, Ireland would have 1% of the vote and no vetos on any issues.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Can anyone point out what amendments were made to the Nice Treaty after our initial rejection?

The Seville Declarations were annexed to the Treaty. Most legal experts believe they carried the force of law.

They're not amendments to the Treaty, though - they're clarifications of what was in it. Interestingly, I don't see what's changed in Lisbon to invalidate them.

Well they are quasi-amendments. They have the force of law, so to all intents and purposes their effect is arguably the same as if they were amended.

Nope. They are clarifications, as you can see by the form. The EU was declaring what was true about the Treaty - necessitated, funnily enough, by the amount of lying about it done by the 'No to Nice' campaign.

Clarifications are not amendments. Not a single line of the Nice Treaty was amended between Nice I and Nice II - and the statement in the OP clearly suggests the same this time. Sorry - the glorious "plan B" Kathy Sinnott has latched onto appears to be a rerun of the referendum, not a renegotiation of the Treaty - and who are the French to say what we will do (you don't have to answer that, since I know you think the French should dictate the results of our referendums anyway).

It was an amendment in the sense that it wasn't there before Nice II.

[ibis]

[quote=FutureTaoiseach]

Can anyone point out what amendments were made to the Nice Treaty after our initial rejection?

The Seville Declarations were annexed to the Treaty. Most legal experts believe they carried the force of law.

They're not amendments to the Treaty, though - they're clarifications of what was in it. Interestingly, I don't see what's changed in Lisbon to invalidate them.

Well they are quasi-amendments. They have the force of law, so to all intents and purposes their effect is arguably the same as if they were amended.

Nope. They are clarifications, as you can see by the form. The EU was declaring what was true about the Treaty - necessitated, funnily enough, by the amount of lying about it done by the 'No to Nice' campaign.

Clarifications are not amendments. Not a single line of the Nice Treaty was amended between Nice I and Nice II - and the statement in the OP clearly suggests the same this time. Sorry - the glorious "plan B" Kathy Sinnott has latched onto appears to be a rerun of the referendum, not a renegotiation of the Treaty - and who are the French to say what we will do (you don't have to answer that, since I know you think the French should dictate the results of our referendums anyway).

It was an amendment in the sense that it wasn't there before Nice II.[/quote:i8jkuk0n]

Which is to say not actually an amendment. A clarification does usually tend to come after the event.