The Lisbon vote

[shanegl]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

I will be voting YES.

Practically every aspect of our ionvolvement with the EU over the years has been positive:

1. Huge income gains to farmers via the CAP

2. Boost to our human capital via the ESF.

3. Huge improvements to our infrastructure from the ERDF.

4. Huge gains to trade, from the single market.

5. Single currency is a success.

6. Environmental improvements encouraged or forced by the EU.


And many, many more.

The above is the problem with the Yes campaign. Instead of arguing the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty, they instead argue the past and future benefits of EU membership. Voting No to the Treaty won't remove these benefits at all, we'll still be a member of a single market and single currency. This isn't a vote on EU membership.

I need to sit down and actually find out what this Treaty is all about before I vote. I suspect there will be a solid No vote though.

 

[shnaek]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

I agree that the EU has been very positive for Ireland, and I would trust it in many cases more than I would trust our own elected officials and civil servants.

However, we do need to ask exactly what Europe we want to live in. Do we want a federation of states? Do we want economic union? Do we want seperation of taxes? Do we want European Law to overrule our constitution? Do we want a Europe which expands further eastwards? Do we want a military union? Do we want accountability?

These are the questions people need to be asking. I am pro Europe. I have lived and worked in other EU countries in the past. But as for trusting a document which purports to interpret the treaty - that is quite a serious matter when we are signing a legally binding document.

The argument on the YES side - "trust us".

And if it turns out that the interpretation of the treaty was incorrect - who is to blame?

I haven't decided how I am going to vote. In the past I voted YES. This time I am not sure.

 

[Madangan]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

Although it disturbs me greatly to find myself on the same side as lunatics like Sinn Fein and the Socialist Worker's Party, when I cannot find a convincing reason to vote "yes" for something, I vote "no".

Me too! Also Ulick McEvaddy a very successful businessman and certainly no Lunatic or Shinner.

 

[GeneralZod]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

The Lisbon Treaty

* Defines the limits of EU responsibilities

* Reforms EU institutions into more effective decision makers for 27+ members

* Strengthens EUs ability to act together as a common bloc in areas of mutual interest for greater effect:
Further economic development
Environmental protection & global warming mitigation
Sustainable energy policy
Combatting illegal immigration

* Increases the role of elected MEPs in EU decision making where they'll get co-decision powers in 95% of the areas within the EU remit.

* Gives Ireland greater say in Regional Policy (Cohesion & Structural funds) and tourism

* Provisions promoting: Full employment, greater social inclusion & children's rights

* EU Charter of fundamental rights which can be invoked through Irish and EU courts

* Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
Set our tax rates
Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
Decide our citizenship laws
Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
Change our abortion laws

* All states have equal right of representation on EU commission irrespective of their size. (10 out of every 15 years)

 

[bond-007]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

* All states have equal right of representation on EU commission irrespective of their size. (10 out of every 15 years)

Explain the 10 out of every 15 years please? Will there now be 27 commissioners, i.e. 1 from each member state?

 

[ninsaga]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

The Lisbon Treaty

* Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
Set our tax rates
Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
Decide our citizenship laws
Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
Change our abortion laws

This being the case then there is no concern - my understanding though (albeit very little on the treaty) is that the treaty does allow for provisions to be made in the future on any of these aspects which may be 'enforceable' in Ireland.

Right now France is making undertomnes on tax harmonisation that could change our corporation tax rates & thus when pushed upwards will make Ireland lass favourable for foreign investment.

 

[GeneralZod]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

Explain the 10 out of every 15 years please? Will there now be 27 commissioners, i.e. 1 from each member state?

After 2014 it reduces the number of commissioners from 27 to 18 as there isn't enough real work for 27 of them to do. So at any one time 1/3 of the EU countries will not have a commissioner. It should be noted here that commissioners are expected to act in the EU's as a whole interest. 10 out of 15 years is to ensure that no country goes without a commissioner for too long.

Right now France is making undertomnes on tax harmonisation that could change our corporation tax rates & thus when pushed upwards will make Ireland lass favourable for foreign investment.

This is also a concern to me but my understanding is that there's nothing in the Lisbon treaty making it any more likely the French will get their way. If the treaty is voted down they'll still pursue it. Within a common framework we're more likely to be able to block the French than under the more bilateral situation without it.

 

[shnaek]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

* Nothing in the Treaty allowing the EU to:
Set our tax rates
Change our stance on neutrality (triple lock remains). Any change requires another referendum
Decide our citizenship laws
Make foreign policy decisions without unanimity
Change our abortion laws

And if this turns out not to be the case, what happens then? Will it be like the time they abolished Duty Free, with a promise to Ireland that we would be exempt. We weren't. Nothing happened.

 

[bond-007]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

And if this turns out not to be the case, what happens then? Will it be like the time they abolished Duty Free, with a promise to Ireland that we would be exempt. We weren't. Nothing happened.

Reason enough to vote no.

 

[cjh]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
In which case it's open to legal challenge?
And we don't really know what we're being asked to vote on?

 

[bond-007]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
In which case it's open to legal challenge?
And we don't really know what we're being asked to vote on?

It's Nice all over again. If they get a no vote they will keep rerunning it under they get a yes.

 

[shnaek]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

Am I correct in thinking that the document we're being given to read is an 'interpretation' of the Treaty and not the actual Treaty itself?
In which case it's open to legal challenge?
And we don't really know what we're being asked to vote on?

That is exactly the point. The real treaty is apparently unreadable. I haven't yet heard of anyone who has been able to read it. It refers to paragraphs in lots of other treaties, some of which couldn't be obtained by Vincent Browne when he went looking for them.
So we are being asked to vote on an interpretation, with no one responsible if that interpretation turns out to be wrong.

Perhaps more credibility would be gained if the political parties on the YES side said they would resign en-masse if it turns out that their interpretation is wrong. Now that would be a sign of confidence.

But without anyone taking responsibility for this interpretation we could end up with a health service style - 'Yeah, we made a mess of it but nobody is responsible' scenario - in the event of the interpretation turning out to be wrong.

 

[cjh]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

So our (Irish) 'interpretation' could be different from the French/Italian etc 'interpretation'.....so we don't really have a treaty at all?
How reasonable/democratic is it to ask people to vote on something that has been acknowledged by both sides to be unintelligible?

Could this be deliberate?

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

ALL laws and treaties are written in technical, complicated language. Try reading the Taxes Acts

 

[bond-007]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

Who produced this interpretation? The Irish Government or the EU commission?

 

[Purple]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

So our (Irish) 'interpretation' could be different from the French/Italian etc 'interpretation'.....so we don't really have a treaty at all?
How reasonable/democratic is it to ask people to vote on something that has been acknowledged by both sides to be unintelligible?

Good point. That’s why we elect representatives to look at these sorts of things for us.
It’s also why referendums on these sort of issues are a bad idea.

 

[ninsaga]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

That is exactly the point. The real treaty is apparently unreadable. I haven't yet heard of anyone who has been able to read it. It refers to paragraphs in lots of other treaties, some of which couldn't be obtained by Vincent Browne when he went looking for them.
So we are being asked to vote on an interpretation, with no one responsible if that interpretation turns out to be wrong.

Well thats it exactly.... I took a look at it & it is difficult to follow as it does cross reference other documents stating the likes of one paragraph replacing another or phrases to be inserted/amending other documents.

 

[bond-007]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

It’s also why referendums on these sort of issues are a bad idea.

Explain?

 

[cjh]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

ALL laws and treaties are written in technical, complicated language. Try reading the Taxes Acts

I can understand this....


Article 1
The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable,
indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form
of Government, to determine its relations with other
nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and
cultural, in accordance with its own genius and
traditions.

http://tinyurl.com/39u8v9

 

[csirl]

Re: Lisbon yes or no?

Even though I am a fan of the aims of the EU, I will be voting NO on this treaty. My reasons include the following:

1. There is a huge democratic deficit in the EU. This treaty does not address this and in fact solidifies some undemocratic principals. I know the current EU has a democratic deficit, but this should be solved before we move the EU project forward. This does not seem to be a big deal in many EU countries, mainly because many are not that long out of dictatorship and some even have unelected heads of state.

2. It is pushing ahead with new stuff when many of the existing EU countries (and those beyond) are not up to speed with the current stuff. All countries should have the EU currency. All should have free movement. All should be in Shengen. Those countries such as Norway & Switzerland who have benefits of freedom of movement & trade, yet none of the responsibilities and liabilities of EU membership should be told to either join the club or be on the outside - not a halfway house. We cannot have a pick and chose the bits you like type of EU membership. Everyone should accept the good and the bad on the basis that the overall package is good.

3. Interpretation points made on this forum are good. I've read the treaty and the english used is very bad and easily misinterpreted.

4. Language. Following on from 3. above. The EU needs to accept that it should only operate in 1 language - English. Otherwise we have the babels tower of misinterpretation etc. The big barrier to this is France. They must accept that the world does not revolve around them and nobody is interested in speaking French in the EU. The rest of the EU needs to tell them where to go with regard to bilingualism.