Lisbon Treaty ratified

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Giz

"simply a repackaged version" = "same"

(Unless we are into semantics...)

Yet the High court did not come to this conclusion nor did many other courts in other EU countries.

[Uzzy]

Lets try again. Here's Valéry Giscard d'Estaing explaining in the Independent as to why the EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution. He should know, given how he wrote the damn thing.

Quote:

In terms of content, the proposed institutional reforms – the only ones which mattered to the drafting Convention – are all to be found in the Treaty of Lisbon. They have merely been ordered differently and split up between previous treaties. There are, however, some differences. Firstly, the noun "constitution" and the adjective "constitutional" have been banished from the text, as though they describe something inadmissible. At the same time, all mention of the symbols of the EU have been suppressed, including the flag (which already flies everywhere), and the European anthem (Beethoven's Ode to Joy).

I suppose they aren't the same. The Lisbon Treaty doesn't include a reference to the EU flag!

[icerat]

Originally Posted by INRM

No, the fact that when they voted no, they kept holding referendum after referendum, until they said yes, and the fact that they put a lot of pressure on them to say yes, telling them that it wouldn't be good for them if they said no.

It was only two wasn't it? And from what I understand the first NO was primarily over various concerns which were addressed before the amended treaty went to the second referendum. The 2nd one therefore wasn't on the same treaty as the first one.

[Uzzy]

In other interesting news, the decision of the high court? This is an excerpt from it. Source.

Quote:

"There are undoubted differences between the two treaties. Unlike the constitutional treaty, the Lisbon treaty does not purport, either by its title or in its terms, to lay down a constitution for Europe. Unlike the constitutional treaty, it does not repeal the existing treaties and replace them by a single text, but proceeds by way of amendment of the existing treaties; and it leaves in place the existing entities and institutions (save that the European Community is subsumed into the European Union) rather than replacing them with a new legal entity. We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance."

From that, it doesn't seem like they'd disagree too much with the 'repackaged' argument. Only the degree of it. I'd dismiss the differences of form as immaterial to the major point, which is that the major institutional reforms are to be found in both the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

Lets try again. Here's Valéry Giscard d'Estaing explaining in the Independent as to why the EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution. He should know, given how he wrote the damn thing.

...snip...

Yet as I've said not only has the UK High court decided it is not the same so have other courts in the EU reached the same conclusion, even "constitutional courts" have decided that they are not the same.

This is not matter of semantics - it's a matter of considered legal judgement across many different legal systems.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

In other interesting news, the decision of the high court? This is an excerpt from it. Source.



From that, it doesn't seem like they'd disagree too much with the 'repackaged' argument. Only the degree of it. I'd dismiss the differences of form as immaterial to the major point, which is that the major institutional reforms are to be found in both the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.

Talk about selective quoting from your own source! From your link, a sentence in bold in the article:

"But the judges rejected the idea that the constitutional treaty was the same as the Lisbon treaty."

And then from the judgement itself (highlight and bold by me):

Quote:

"The claimant's first difficulty, as it seems to us, is that the promise related specifically to the constitutional treaty and not to the Lisbon treaty, which, on any view, is a distinct treaty, agreed more than three years later than the constitutional treaty and stemming from a separate mandate and set of intergovernmental negotiations.

"There are undoubted differences between the two treaties. Unlike the constitutional treaty, the Lisbon treaty does not purport, either by its title or in its terms, to lay down a constitution for Europe. Unlike the constitutional treaty, it does not repeal the existing treaties and replace them by a single text, but proceeds by way of amendment of the existing treaties; and it leaves in place the existing entities and institutions (save that the European Community is subsumed into the European Union) rather than replacing them with a new legal entity. We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance."

With all due respect to your personal opinion on this matter I will form my opinion based on the judgement of an independent court that had no political or other vested interest in making such a determination.

[Uzzy]

It seems I'm not the only one guilty of selective quoting here. The High Court came to the judgement that the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were different because the Lisbon Treaty did the same things the Constitution did, but just in a different manner. While the Constitution would overwrite all the previous treaties that had formed the EU, the Lisbon Treaty amended them. The end result, in terms of institutional change, is exactly the same. This, funnily enough, is what Giscard said.

You seem to think that those differences make a big change between the two. I, personally, think that the institutional changes are the important thing, and should have been voted on in a referendum, no matter what form they took.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

It seems I'm not the only one guilty of selective quoting here.

...snip...

My quotes are from the article you linked to....

Originally Posted by Uzzy

The High Court came to the judgement that the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty were different because the Lisbon Treaty did the same things the Constitution did, but just in a different manner.

...snip...

Apart from of course that the quotes from the article you linked to do not support that interpretation.

Originally Posted by Uzzy

While the Constitution would overwrite all the previous treaties that had formed the EU, the Lisbon Treaty amended them. The end result, in terms of institutional change, is exactly the same. This, funnily enough, is what Giscard said.

...snip...

Similar but not the same.

Originally Posted by Uzzy

You seem to think that those differences make a big change between the two. I, personally, think that the institutional changes are the important thing,

As I said it is not what I think - it is what the High Court judges who had to make that decision concluded (and other courts throughout the EU).

Originally Posted by Uzzy

and should have been voted on in a referendum, no matter what form they took.

That may well be your view but let me remind you what you originally said:

Originally Posted by Uzzy

Most of the British electorate voted for parties that pledged a referendum on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Funny how that didn't happen. ...snip...

As far as I am aware none of the parties in the current Westminster Parliament were elected on a promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

(And as has been pointed out referendum are not the way we usually deal with treaties so I don't see why this one should be treated any differently.)

[Uzzy]

I rather dislike line by line nitpicking.

Now, you seem to selective quote from the article I linked by ignoring the fact that the major differences the high court found are those of form, rather then substance. The key institutional changes found in the EU Constitution are also found within the Lisbon Treaty. The only change between the two is that the EU Constitution superseded previous treaties, replacing them with the all encompassing Constitution, whereas the Lisbon Treaty amended previous treaties. The end effect is the same. Both the High Court and the author of the Constitution admitted this.

Of course none of the parties currently in Westminster were elected on the basis of a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty. It'd be very odd if they did, given that the Lisbon Treaty didn't exist in 2005. The Constitution, however, did exist, and all the parties promised a referendum on it. Given that the only differences between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are those of form rather then substance, I feel, and so do a majority of British People, if opinions polls are to believed, that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty should have been held.

[funk de fino]

Pretty ironic seeing the English getting their knickers in a twist about referendums. Certain English based (and run) parties want to halt the Scots getting a referendum on some small matter.

Now they want democracy?

Geez a break

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

Pretty ironic seeing the English getting their knickers in a twist about referendums. Certain English based (and run) parties want to halt the Scots getting a referendum on some small matter.

Now they want democracy?

Geez a break

Mmm. Not as if the Scots have had a referendum on certain small matters recently, right?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

I rather dislike line by line nitpicking.

Now, you seem to selective quote from the article I linked by ignoring the fact that the major differences the high court found are those of form, rather then substance.

...snip...

Yet that is not what the court said - it said that:

..We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance..."

It is a fact that the High court disagrees with your assessment on the two treaties being the same.

Originally Posted by Uzzy

...snip....

Of course none of the parties currently in Westminster were elected on the basis of a referendum for the Lisbon Treaty. It'd be very odd if they did, given that the Lisbon Treaty didn't exist in 2005. The Constitution, however, did exist, and all the parties promised a referendum on it. Given that the only differences between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are those of form rather then substance, I feel, and so do a majority of British People, if opinions polls are to believed, that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty should have been held.

A conclusion that the High Court disagrees with.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

Mmm. Not as if the Scots have had a referendum on certain small matters recently, right?

So you are concerned for democracy for some and not others then?

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by Darat

Yet that is not what the court said - it said that:

..We see no basis for dismissing such differences as obviously immaterial even if they are treated as differences of form rather than of substance..."

It is a fact that the High court disagrees with your assessment on the two treaties being the same.

A conclusion that the High Court disagrees with.

Yes. I think those differences are immaterial. I disagree with the High Courts ruling in this case. I believe the lack of changes in the institution reform between the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty to be far more important then the differences in how those reforms are made. The High Court thinks that the differences in how those reforms are a good enough excuse to dismiss the court action (though I feel they were looking for any reason to do so, as they wouldn't want to get into politics).

And Fink, funnily enough I'd support a referendum on Scottish Independence. I'd hope the matter is defeated, but I think it's time for a referendum on in.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

I wonder how many people who oppose the Lisbon Treaty have any idea what the hell it does, besides their idea that it creates some all-powerful President Blair.

There's a good deal of doubt that Tony Blair stands much chance at all of being picked.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Uzzy

And Fink, funnily enough I'd support a referendum on Scottish Independence. I'd hope the matter is defeated, but I think it's time for a referendum on in.

I am glad, its a pity more of the hypocrites in your country did not think the same.

It especially galls me to see the attitudes towards the former Soviet bloc countries and the encouraging from the EU and US to move away from Russia influence and control.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

There's a good deal of doubt that Tony Blair stands much chance at all of being picked.

Most reports now seem to be not even mentioning Blair as a contender