How can Lisbon II be defeated.

[sarahj]

So you think we should vote on absolutely everything? The Budget, national speed limits, financial services regulation? I could go on. Fair enough, your entitled to that opinion. Personally I believe that to be unworkable in the extreme.

Yes I do. It's no more unworkable than allowing a few upper class asses control our whole political and economic system.

[Trampas]

Until such a time as you understand WHY the French and Dutch voted No to THE CONSTITUTION I suggest you leave that point well enough alone.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW MAKE THE EFFORT TO FIND OUT. IF YOU'RE NOT BOTHERED FINDING OUT ABSTAIN.

Your right to vote comes with the moral responsibility to educate yourself about what you are voting on. Voting out of ignorance does nothing for anyone and is a barrier to true democracy, i.e. how can you really know what you want if you don't understand it, therefore how is your view being represented?

It is generally accepted that the French made a massive "effort to find out" and having done so they voted NO. But what matter ?

[molloyjh]

It is generally accepted that the French made a massive "effort to find out" and having done so they voted NO. But what matter ?

They voted No to the Constitution for a variety of reasons such as:

1. The idea of a Constitution, fomalised flag and anthem got their knickers in a twist over sovereignty, which is a big thing in France.

2. There was an economic and political crisis at the time and people used the Constitution to vote against the Government.

3. The No campaign in France latched onto the political issues and used them to twist the realities of the Constitution.

Since then the French have elected a President that advocated Lisbon (in all but name), did not object when the Lisbon Treaty was announced, did not object when Sarkozy announced his plan to ratify it and did not object when he did ratify it. There is no evidence to suggest the French were opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, in fact the only evidence I have seen (not including the above facts) is that they were in favour of the Treaty as of July last year (French Would Support Lisbon Treaty in Vote: Angus Reid Global Monitor). Now if you have any evidence to the contrary by all means present it. If not then please retract what would in that case be a baseless and apparently false statement.

[Trampas]

There is no evidence to suggest the French were opposed to the Lisbon Treaty.....

The French informed themselves in very large numbers. Huge numbers of copies of the Constitutional Treaty were distributed/obtained. They didn't like it.

Now if you have any evidence to the contrary by all means present it. If not then please retract what would in that case be a baseless and apparently false statement.

Now that is what I call a brass neck. Clearly the "evidence" of the French vote means nothing to you people , but of course we knew that.

[FutureTaoiseach]

They voted No to the Constitution for a variety of reasons such as:

1. The idea of a Constitution, fomalised flag and anthem got their knickers in a twist over sovereignty, which is a big thing in France.

2. There was an economic and political crisis at the time and people used the Constitution to vote against the Government.

3. The No campaign in France latched onto the political issues and used them to twist the realities of the Constitution.

The reasons are immaterial to the respect the result of the French referendum deserves. It continues to deserve respect. And if it is indeed the case that the concerns of the French people have been addressed, let them have a referendum on the Treaty. The French President admitted that in a second referendum, there would be a second no vote.

Since then the French have elected a President that advocated Lisbon (in all but name), did not object when the Lisbon Treaty was announced, did not object when Sarkozy announced his plan to ratify it and did not object when he did ratify it. There is no evidence to suggest the French were opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, in fact the only evidence I have seen (not including the above facts) is that they were in favour of the Treaty as of July last year (French Would Support Lisbon Treaty in Vote: Angus Reid Global Monitor). Now if you have any evidence to the contrary by all means present it. If not then please retract what would in that case be a baseless and apparently false statement.

And polls in Ireland last year also suggested the Lisbon Treaty would be carried and of course we all know what happened. Sarkozy referred to a "mini-treaty" but he never made clear that it would be 95% the same in content as the rejected EU Constitution. He has no mandate to ratify Lisbon. The fact that Lisbon is essentially the same in content as the illegitimate and rejected EU Constitution is confirmed by a string of EU leaders/former leaders:

"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK." - French President Nicolas Sarkozy

"Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same."
— Václav Klaus, Czech President, in Hosposarske Noviny, 13th June 2007

"In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way... The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty."
— Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, addressing the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, 17th July 2007

"As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
— Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007

"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK." — Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, The Daily Telegraph, 14th November 2007

"The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left."
— Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, in Jyllands-Posten, 25th June 2007

"They haven't changed the substance - 90 per cent of it is still there."
— Bertie Ahern, Irish Prime Minister, Irish Independent, 24th June 2007

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
— Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007

"There's nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."
— Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23rd June 2007

"For Austria it was important to keep the essence, to keep the institutional side of it intact, and also to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is the essence, and we were able to safeguard that."
— Ursula Plassnik, Austrian Foreign Minister, BBC 10 o'clock news, 7th September 2007

"A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties."
— José Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, El Pais, 23rd June 2007

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
— Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the Constitution, speech to the London School of Economics, 20th February 2007

[Watcher1]

Until such a time as you understand WHY the French and Dutch voted No to THE CONSTITUTION I suggest you leave that point well enough alone. Like every other EU country the mechanisms to change the way they do things exist the same as here, i.e. through the courts. If noone seeks to change things (and it only takes 1 person) then its safe to assume (as no other conclusion can be reached) that they are happy enough to go without the referendum. Especially seeing as they elected a vocally pro-Lisbon man in Sarkozy and never tried to tell him they were opposed to Lisbon.

As for the "if you don't know, vote NO" line, all I can say is that is a shameful display of the greatest problem with Irish democracy, That should read:

IF YOU DON'T KNOW MAKE THE EFFORT TO FIND OUT. IF YOU'RE NOT BOTHERED FINDING OUT ABSTAIN.

Your right to vote comes with the moral responsibility to educate yourself about what you are voting on. Voting out of ignorance does nothing for anyone and is a barrier to true democracy, i.e. how can you really know what you want if you don't understand it, therefore how is your view being represented?

I actually find your reply to me repugnant for the following reasons:

Telling us there is a court mechanism to change what we find unjust or simply not right is an easy get out clause for people. I dont have that kind of money to stage a court battle, very few people actually have. It's an easy one for you guys to trott out.

Just because they voted in Sarkozy as country leader does not mean they are pro Lisbon. We voted not to Lisbon but we did not vote in Declan Ganley as an MEP. We voted in FF less than 2 years ago and "voted them out" this year.

Actually, if you dont know, the most democratic thing to do is vote for the status quo. The way to do this is to vote against the change. I tried to find out as much as I could the last time (did everything I could bar reading the blasted thing myself which I was told was probably something no sane ordinary Joe on the street should do). The information disseminated by the Yes camp and the Referendum Commission was little or no help and posed more questions than they answered. So, your inference that I couldn't be bothered informing myself is a bit disingenuous and rather, well, condescending really. It is the governments duty to educate us on the changes they want us to make. It is not our duty to find out per se. Yes, we should educate ourselves but we can only do that by obtaining the information the government puts out.

What is even more repugnant is your assertion that the government should be able to call any referendum they want and then leave it up to ordinary voters to seek the information is totally against democracy and shows the contempt for which the political class and yourself shows to the ordinary citizen of this land. You are a disgrace for those comments.

Finally, you and the politicians would only reaslly like people like me to leave the French and Dutch No vote well enough alone wouldn't you? It just goes to show that democracy through Lisbon is a joke.

And I still say, If you dont know, vote NO.

[arnaudherve]

The French did not elect a president who supported the Lisbon treaty. Sarkozy was elected in the first part of 2007, the treaty was drafted only in the second part of 2007.

Sarkozy at the moment of his election supported a "mini-treaty", by which he meant parts I and II of the refused constitution, without part III, the economic part.

During the drafting and ratification of the Lisbon treaty, Sarkozy repeated in public that he didn't want another referendum, because he was certain the ressult would be a No.

--------------

I expect molloyjh and others to present this lie repeatedly, and I suspect this has been decided in an obscure agency somewhere. It has appeared several times during the last few days, which makes me suspicious.

I cannot check every thread every day, so take a note.

[molloyjh]

The French informed themselves in very large numbers. Huge numbers of copies of the Constitutional Treaty were distributed/obtained. They didn't like it.

Now that is what I call a brass neck. Clearly the "evidence" of the French vote means nothing to you people , but of course we knew that.

So you are just going to ignore my points of fact and repeat ad naseum the same tired line? You have no evidence to suggest they did not want Lisbon, you only have evidence that says they voted No to the Constitution. I have provided you with evidence regarding Lisbon. Address that if you wish to debate it, if not then sontinue spouting the out of date information all you want.

The reasons are immaterial to the respect the result of the French referendum deserves. It continues to deserve respect.

And it was respected. The Constitution was dropped, changes were made and now the French seem happy with it. Just because that doesn't suit you don't go getting all high and mighty about it. Why can't you respect the French decision to elect Sarkozy, not challenge him on Lisbon and poll in favour of Lisbon?

And if it is indeed the case that the concerns of the French people have been addressed, let them have a referendum on the Treaty.

I wouldn't mind if they did have a referendum. Unfortunately that is not my choice or yours to make. The French people themselves have made that choice by not seeking a referendum on it the way Crotty sought referenda here. Now can you please respect their decision on the matter.

The French President admitted that in a second referendum, there would be a second no vote.

So Sarkozy can tell the future with absolute certainty eh!? That must be handy!

And polls in Ireland last year also suggested the Lisbon Treaty would be carried and of course we all know what happened.

Actually some pre-referendum polls suggested a No victory, and those that put the Yes vote ahead only did so by a tiny margin, with a large undecided element:

Irish Say No Way to Lisbon | Irish News | IrishCentral
FT.com / Brussels - Irish PM makes final push for Lisbon treaty

I actually find your reply to me repugnant for the following reasons:

Telling us there is a court mechanism to change what we find unjust or simply not right is an easy get out clause for people. I dont have that kind of money to stage a court battle, very few people actually have. It's an easy one for you guys to trott out.

Just because they voted in Sarkozy as country leader does not mean they are pro Lisbon. We voted not to Lisbon but we did not vote in Declan Ganley as an MEP. We voted in FF less than 2 years ago and "voted them out" this year.

Actually, if you dont know, the most democratic thing to do is vote for the status quo. The way to do this is to vote against the change. I tried to find out as much as I could the last time (did everything I could bar reading the blasted thing myself which I was told was probably something no sane ordinary Joe on the street should do). The information disseminated by the Yes camp and the Referendum Commission was little or no help and posed more questions than they answered. So, your inference that I couldn't be bothered informing myself is a bit disingenuous and rather, well, condescending really. It is the governments duty to educate us on the changes they want us to make. It is not our duty to find out per se. Yes, we should educate ourselves but we can only do that by obtaining the information the government puts out.

What is even more repugnant is your assertion that the government should be able to call any referendum they want and then leave it up to ordinary voters to seek the information is totally against democracy and shows the contempt for which the political class and yourself shows to the ordinary citizen of this land. You are a disgrace for those comments.

Finally, you and the politicians would only reaslly like people like me to leave the French and Dutch No vote well enough alone wouldn't you? It just goes to show that democracy through Lisbon is a joke.

And I still say, If you dont know, vote NO.

I'm sorry but if you can't be arsed informing yourself I don't think you should be voting at all. It's not that hard, it just requires a little bit of time and a little bit of effort. It is nothing short of stupidity to be against something because you know nothing about it.

And you are yet another person screaming and shouting to respect the French vote, yet you do not respect their decision to allow Lisbon through, and it was a decision. It doesn't take that much to challenege the Government in the courts. Crotty did it here, why can't a group of individuals elsewhere band together to do something in France or the Netherlands. You are letting your laziness deteermine your view in more ways than one and I find that repugnant. To use some of FTs drama, people did not fight and die for democracy and independance so that people like you could cover your eyes and your ears and sit on your backside and shout "No, no, no" over and over. Grow up, cop on and educate yourself on topics before attempting to discuss or pass judgement on them.

[molloyjh]

The French did not elect a president who supported the Lisbon treaty. Sarkozy was elected in the first part of 2007, the treaty was drafted only in the second part of 2007.

Sarkozy at the moment of his election supported a "mini-treaty", by which he meant parts I and II of the refused constitution, without part III, the economic part.

During the drafting and ratification of the Lisbon treaty, Sarkozy repeated in public that he didn't want another referendum, because he was certain the ressult would be a No.

--------------

I expect molloyjh and others to present this lie repeatedly, and I suspect this has been decided in an obscure agency somewhere. It has appeared several times during the last few days, which makes me suspicious.

I cannot check every thread every day, so take a note.

Where have I lied? Sarkozy was advocating the changes in Lisbon during his campaign, albeit not calling it Lisbon due to the fact that it hadn't happened. The French elected him. The French didn't attempt to stop him negotiating or ratifying Lisbon as it stands. The French were polled less than 12 months ago as being in favour of the Lisbon Treaty by a far larger margin than the Yes side ever enjoyed over here. If you have evidence of a lie in that then please show me.

This in contrast to the numerous and disgrace lies presented by FT and others.....

[arnaudherve]

The Constitution was dropped, changes were made and now the French seem happy with it.

During the drafting and ratification of the Lisbon treaty, Sarkozy repeated in public that he didn't want another referendum, because he was certain the ressult would be a No.

molloyjh, you are a gross liar.