How can Lisbon II be defeated.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Your issue here then is with Government policy and not Lisbon. We don't have a veto on Justice and Home Affairs, only an opt out. By definition that means we can opt in when it suits us and opt out when it doesn't.

And it is the govt's intention to "review" i.e. surrender that optout and sign us up to QMV in Justice and Home Affairs within 3 years. You are wrong to say it has nothing to do with Lisbon. These provisions were part of the text of the amendment to the Constitution we rejected last June. Will be interesting to see whether the govt tries to slip them in below the radar again in the Lisbon II legislation. The IT says the Referendum Bill will be published next week....watch this space....

Now, returning to our discussion earlier on the implications of the Charter in terms of ECJ interference in our asylum system, I refer you to these comments in "Sanctuary in Ireland, perspectives on asylum law and policy"(2003) by Ursula Fraser, Colin J. Harvey, available to read as a preview on Google Books:



Another deeply disturbing element of the Charter in terms of national sovereignty is the alteration of the preamble to remove limitations on how the courts can interpret it set down at the instigation of the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe in 1999. Note the difference between the old Preamble:



The new Preamble to the Charter no longer contains this proviso, leaving the Charter wide open to interpretation except where the rights coincide with those of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice. The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and the freedom of establishment. To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in a Charter. This Charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of the Community and the Union and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, the Treaty on European Union, the Community Treaties, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Social Charters adopted by the Community and by the Council of Europe and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the European Court of Human Rights. Enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the human community and to future generations. The Union therefore recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out

The Charter is supposed to be interpreted according to Title VII. However, Title VII's proviso is that where the rights referred to in the Charter equate to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, they will be interpreted in the same way. But several rights in the Treaty, including the right to work and the right to asylum, are not present in the Convention. So in that context, it's wide open how the ECJ will interpret them. Are we prepared to entrust the ECJ with such a blank-cheque?

[sarahj]

Go through it as many times as you like Sarah. I really don't give a fiddlers. I provided a link a few pages back quoting a poll showing clear French support for Lisbon as of July 2008. That coupled with the facts that they elected Sarkozy, someone who advocated Lisbon in all but name, and never once made any noises suggesting they didn't want him to ratify it or where unhappy when he did (given the French peoples love of making noise over things they object to) is evidence that their opinion of Lisbon is different to their opinion of the Constitution. I never said it was proof, but it's more up to date and relevant (to Lisbon) than their vote on the Constitution. And noone here, especially not you, have given any evidence to the contrary. It's quite simple really.

As for the smoking "distraction" I was pointing out that peoples perspectives change over time. Saying they opposed the Constitution 4 years ago does not prove anything about what they believe now.

Ooh we're getting a lil narky now are we petal?!

So that it hasn't made national TV that they've taken to the streets in protest against that particular issue proves that they support it yeah?!

Hmmm....so the old NO vote is less relevant than our not hearing about them protesting?

You really need to check out the meaning of the word "evidence".

[molloyjh]

Ooh we're getting a lil narky now are we petal?!

So that it hasn't made national TV that they've taken to the streets in protest against that particular issue proves that they support it yeah?!

Hmmm....so the old NO vote is less relevant than our not hearing about them protesting?

You really need to check out the meaning of the word "evidence".

I'm not getting narky at all actually. I really don't care how much you prattle on. The fact of the matter is my information is more up to date than yours. Obviously you're never going to see it that way purely because you don't want to. That's fine. It doesn't affect me or French ratification of the Treaty one bit. You can have your little tantrum over it all you want, the facts remain. France have ratified Lisbon, opinion polls say the French are in favour of that move and there has been no popular movement against it. You can sh!te on about the Constitution all you want, those are the facts regarding Lisbon whether you like it or not.

[molloyjh]

And it is the govt's intention to "review" i.e. surrender that optout and sign us up to QMV in Justice and Home Affairs within 3 years. You are wrong to say it has nothing to do with Lisbon. These provisions were part of the text of the amendment to the Constitution we rejected last June. Will be interesting to see whether the govt tries to slip them in below the radar again in the Lisbon II legislation. The IT says the Referendum Bill will be published next week....watch this space....

Now, returning to our discussion earlier on the implications of the Charter in terms of ECJ interference in our asylum system, I refer you to these comments in "Sanctuary in Ireland, perspectives on asylum law and policy"(2003) by Ursula Fraser, Colin J. Harvey, available to read as a preview on Google Books:



Another deeply disturbing element of the Charter in terms of national sovereignty is the alteration of the preamble to remove limitations on how the courts can interpret it set down at the instigation of the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe in 1999. Note the difference between the old Preamble:



The new Preamble to the Charter no longer contains this proviso, leaving the Charter wide open to interpretation except where the rights coincide with those of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Charter is supposed to be interpreted according to Title VII. However, Title VII's proviso is that where the rights referred to in the Charter equate to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, they will be interpreted in the same way. But several rights in the Treaty, including the right to work and the right to asylum, are not present in the Convention. So in that context, it's wide open how the ECJ will interpret them. Are we prepared to entrust the ECJ with such a blank-cheque?

Just because Lisbon facilitates it doesn't mean we have to do it. It's the Governments apparent policy (not that arsed looking into it as it makes no odds to me one way or another) that you have an issue with. That is not a problem with Lisbon therefore as it does not force us to do what you have taken issue with. It allows us to decide, which is something you keep saying you want more of.

If you have an issue with what the Government plan to do take it up with them, but don't think thats a valid reason for voting down the Treaty. It's not, it's a reason for voting against the Government.

[sarahj]

I'm not getting narky at all actually. I really don't care how much you prattle on. The fact of the matter is my information is more up to date than yours. Obviously you're never going to see it that way purely because you don't want to. That's fine. It doesn't affect me or French ratification of the Treaty one bit. You can have your little tantrum over it all you want, the facts remain. France have ratified Lisbon, opinion polls say the French are in favour of that move and there has been no popular movement against it. You can sh!te on about the Constitution all you want, those are the facts regarding Lisbon whether you like it or not.

I'm not having a tantrum darling, I'm simply continuing to point out that opinion polls are not referenda and the people have made their decision in the referendum.

When there is a new referendum, that demonstrates the French PEOPLE (not govt) are in favour of the Lisbon treaty, THEN you will be right.

Until that YOU ARE WRONG.

Do you need me to go through all the reasons why opinion polls are not good evidence? I'll do so anyway as you don't seem to understand - firstly, they are a SAMPLE of the population and that sample can be taken with any distribution, though it should be designed to be representative. Then you have nonresponse bias (where particular groups of people select themselves out of the poll for various reasons) response bias (where respondents feel under pressure to give a particular answer) coverage bias (like when using telephone sampling or street sampling) and wording bias (which can happen if questions are not psychometrically validated). Media framing of the issue is another serious source of bias in which media only allow public thought to move in between particular parameters.

And of course, the margin of error in these polls is very high given the small number in the sample compared to that of the population.

Does that clear up why a more recent opinion poll is not as valid as a referendum?

[molloyjh]

I'm not having a tantrum darling, I'm simply continuing to point out that opinion polls are not referenda and the people have made their decision in the referendum.

When there is a new referendum, that demonstrates the French PEOPLE (not govt) are in favour of the Lisbon treaty, THEN you will be right.

Until that YOU ARE WRONG.

Do you need me to go through all the reasons why opinion polls are not good evidence? I'll do so anyway as you don't seem to understand - firstly, they are a SAMPLE of the population and that sample can be taken with any distribution, though it should be designed to be representative. Then you have nonresponse bias (where particular groups of people select themselves out of the poll for various reasons) response bias (where respondents feel under pressure to give a particular answer) coverage bias (like when using telephone sampling or street sampling) and wording bias (which can happen if questions are not psychometrically validated). Media framing of the issue is another serious source of bias in which media only allow public thought to move in between particular parameters.

And of course, the margin of error in these polls is very high given the small number in the sample compared to that of the population.

Does that clear up why a more recent opinion poll is not as valid as a referendum?

Opinion polls are often fairly accurate actually. Look at the polls for the referendum her last year for example. They showed the Yes and No pretty much neck and neck with something like 15% undecided. The surveys done after the referendum by respected and professional companies showed that in the end 13% made up their minds on the day and it was these people that swung the result. Either way it is still evidence, not proof admittedly, but then I don't claim to know what the French want. You do.

[sarahj]

Opinion polls are often fairly accurate actually. Look at the polls for the referendum her last year for example. They showed the Yes and No pretty much neck and neck with something like 15% undecided. The surveys done after the referendum by respected and professional companies showed that in the end 13% made up their minds on the day and it was these people that swung the result. Either way it is still evidence, not proof admittedly, but then I don't claim to know what the French want. You do.

Nope I don't claim to know that - what I am saying is that the only declaration of the French people is the last referendum they had. Anything else is just extrapolation from meaningless polls.

YOU are the one claiming that "respected and professional" companies' opinion polls are as valid (or perhaps more valid than) a referendum.

That is not the case. The ONLY evidence of the opinions of the French people is a referendum or a scientific study by an independent group, NOT an opinion poll carried out by a company (who obv has vested interests given the free market provisions in the treaty).

[molloyjh]

Nope I don't claim to know that - what I am saying is that the only declaration of the French people is the last referendum they had. Anything else is just extrapolation from meaningless polls.

YOU are the one claiming that "respected and professional" companies' opinion polls are as valid (or perhaps more valid than) a referendum.

That is not the case. The ONLY evidence of the opinions of the French people is a referendum or a scientific study by an independent group, NOT an opinion poll carried out by a company (who obv has vested interests given the free market provisions in the treaty).

1. I never said "respected and professional" companies' ran the opinion polls. I was talking about Gallups survey done after the referendum there. Please read my posts properly would you?

2. I never said opinion polls were as or more valid that a referendum. I did say that a No to the Constitution 4 years ago does not mean the French were opposed to Lisbon last year. I then presented the facts as they stand from the time of the referendum there and July of last year and came to a logical conclusion. That does not mean the conclusion is fact, however your only evidence to the contrary is a 4 year old referendum on something slightly different. I've factored that into my case. You haven't factorred anything but that into yours. Therefore my case contains more facts than yours, and is likely more accurate as a result. You don't have to agree, I really don't care. But you can't say I'm wrong any more than I can say definitively that I'm right. Yours is a conclusion based on a fact, mine a conclusion based on a number of facts including yours, the others being more recent.

[sarahj]

1. I never said "respected and professional" companies' ran the opinion polls. I was talking about Gallups survey done after the referendum there. Please read my posts properly would you?

2. I never said opinion polls were as or more valid that a referendum. I did say that a No to the Constitution 4 years ago does not mean the French were opposed to Lisbon last year. I then presented the facts as they stand from the time of the referendum there and July of last year and came to a logical conclusion. That does not mean the conclusion is fact, however your only evidence to the contrary is a 4 year old referendum on something slightly different. I've factored that into my case. You haven't factorred anything but that into yours. Therefore my case contains more facts than yours, and is likely more accurate as a result. You don't have to agree, I really don't care. But you can't say I'm wrong any more than I can say definitively that I'm right. Yours is a conclusion based on a fact, mine a conclusion based on a number of facts including yours, the others being more recent.

1. I did read it. Here's the quote so you can't deny it:

The surveys done after the referendum by respected and professional companies .

2. I've already gone through this. Opinion polls are not valid data sources for coming to conclusions on the preferences of the public. A referendum is a valid data source. In order to find out the French people's current preference, we need a NEW referendum.

OK?

[molloyjh]

1. I did read it. Here's the quote so you can't deny it:

Ok Sarah, read it again now. Carefully. The quote says "surveys done after the referendum", not opinion polls. The two are different. My point was that the opinion polls before the referendum and the surveys run after seem to have extremely similar figures and serve to back each other up. The surveys run after the referendum are statistically accurate as this is done by "respected and professional companies" such as Gallup. They run these surveys so that they are representative of the peoples opinions, selecting sample sizes and groups to ensure that level of accuracy.

2. I've already gone through this. Opinion polls are not valid data sources for coming to conclusions on the preferences of the public. A referendum is a valid data source. In order to find out the French people's current preference, we need a NEW referendum.

OK?

In your opinion maybe. Opinion polls are valid in terms of trying to guage opinion. They are certainly not precise and they are most certainly not binding, but neither should they be discounted completely, as with all the other points of fact I have raised.

In order to find out for definite the French peoples current opinion then yes we probably do need a referendum. But then they have already ratified so it's too late now. Either way I never said my conclusion was definitive. I said it was just that, a conclusion garnered from looking at a number of factors. At the end of the day you are limiting the factors you are looking at to suit your position. I have not done that at all and so my conclusion, though not fact, is more considered and likely more balanced overall than yours.

Obviously we can disagree on the overall conclusion. That's fine by me, as I said it doesn't affect me or the French ratification of Lisbon. But you can't say your conclusion is any more or less "right" than mine, because you simply don't know. Additionally my conclusion, given that it is based solely on facts, deserves as much respect as yours so the refusal to recognise that is, in essence, undemocratic. You are refusing to recognise that I am allowed to have a different opinion to yours after all. Aren't you, darling, petal, my little flower? Eh!?