a Lisbon question before i decide

[Latrade]

What new international treaty is this?? Furthermore if it exists then why have we not been asked to vote on it too? Smoke and mirrors in my opinion.

With regard to the solemn declaration, I'll take your point. But the fact is that NONE of the so-called guarantees hold any water legally. For them to do so would mean them being written into the Lisbon Treaty as Starlite correctly points out.

I think the guarantee issue needs clarification. In short, they were non-issues to begin with.

Last time we had claims from some sections of the No side, they were wrong. There was no impact on neutrality, there was no capacity to impose common taxes, there was no capacity to impose legalised abortion, etc.

When the government ran its "what went wrong" forum, these issue came up as being part of the reason.

Part of the reason why there has been no change to the text is because there's no need to, they were myths. As an extreme example, this would be akin to writing to the Attorney General for a guarantee that you cannot be imprisoned under Road Traffic Legislation for driving while wearing a Hawaiian Shirt. You'll get the guarantee, because no such provision exists, but the legislation doesn't have to be changed.

And that's what most of these guarantees are solemn statements that the Lisbon Treaty does not impose or affect those issue. They're pretty powerful guarantees too and would give Ireland a lot of weight in terms of any potential court rulings.

So in effect: there's no need for any new Treaty or text.

Some issues will, such as the commissioner one. And Europe did have to tread carefully with these. For example Ireland wanted the Treaty text changed to insist these weren't covered, unnecessary, but it'd look good for the folks back home. Of course states like the UK and Poland were apoplectic, if Ireland gets its way, they'd want their way too.

As for voting on a new Treaty, look out for the ballot, it may contain text there, I'm not sure. However, note that not all treaties require a referendum, the Supreme Court decision only relates to Foreign Policy Co-operation. There's even an argument that Lisbon may not actually need a referendum...

 

[Purple]

Excellent post Latrade

 

[Caveat]

Got a leaflet from this shower yesterday [broken link removed]

The 'information leaflet' is on the top the left of the page on the link.

Anyone know who these clowns are?

 

[VOR]

It's "produced by the Danish, Finnish, French and UK delegations in the EFD Group" Site under construction. http://www.efdgroup.eu/


I prefer this information leaflets. Informative and funny!!!

http://www.jasonomahony.ie/The_Improved_Spoofers_Guide_To_The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

 

[Purple]

Excellent link VOR

 

[secman]

My understanding was that the treaty had to be ratified by all member states for it to be carried ? We were told in the first referendum that we were wrong to vote No, but we were obviously right to do so , as they have made some changes - retaining a commissioner., being one that springs to mind. So how do we know if it is still wrong for us ?

We now have a situation that the recent countries brought in are " yellow pack" members !

We in Ireland still do not avail of several of the "sweeteners " that we are supposed to avail of

E.G VRT - we are being ripped off here big time by our Govt
Cost of pharmacueticasl products

We absolutely sold our fishing rights down the swanney, its pityful to visit our fishing ports.

On a very simple note, I personally would NEVER EVER sign anything that I do not fully understand, yet I am being bullied to do so here. The politicians that are pushing this, I suggest do not fully understand it either.

I am not anti Europe, just am very dubious of this treaty.

I am also aware of the Looney Tune brigade pushing a NO vote, but I completely ignore their red herring arguements.

I would also suggest that if the citizens of U.K, France and Holland got an opportunity to vote on it I would be absolutely amazed if it was carried, we are no different.

Secman

 

[Purple]

I have done quite a bit of reading on this and I am voting yes but I do not have the time to read the treaty itself (I work, I have four kids etc). Therefore I, along with my fellow citizens, employ politicians to spend all of their time on these and other national issues. If I don’t like the job they are doing I vote against them and hope others agree with me. This is called representative democracy. The notion that the voting public has the time or inclination to understand complex international treaties is laughable. This is a case study in why referenda are a bad idea.

BTW, I am anti-neutrality and am in favour of a federal Europe. IMO this treaty goes nowhere near far enough toward a federal state and it copper-fastens our cowardly non-aligned military position. Despite that it’s still better than what’s there now.

 

[michaelm]

Those happy for their lives to be governed by EU politicians and a European Court unaccountable to the Irish people should of course - putting aside any nagging doubts in relation to the way in which the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty is being railroaded through across the EU and turning a blind eye to the No votes in France, Holland and last June's No in Ireland and what that says about our EU political masters view of the people - vote Yes.

Those opposed to a Federal EU model should or concerned with democratic principle should, IMHO, vote No.

People should not be bullied or frightened into voting Yes, the sky will not fall in if Lisbon is defeated.

 

[Purple]

Those happy for their lives to be governed by EU politicians and a European Court unaccountable to the Irish people

They are just as accountable to an Irish person as any other EU citizen and more accountable to an Irish citizen than Irish courts.

 

[Latrade]

Those happy for their lives to be governed by EU politicians and a European Court unaccountable to the Irish people should of course - putting aside any nagging doubts in relation to the way in which the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty is being railroaded through across the EU and turning a blind eye to the No votes in France, Holland and last June's No in Ireland and what that says about our EU political masters view of the people - vote Yes.

Those opposed to a Federal EU model should or concerned with democratic principle should, IMHO, vote No.

People should not be bullied or frightened into voting Yes, the sky will not fall in if Lisbon is defeated.

Apologies in advance for being blunt but: pure hyperbolic nonsense.

First, you've stated before about the Federal State. Now give me one quote from the Treaty that provides for this, references it or even hints that this might be possible. Just one tiny quote.

If you do find one, then explain to me how this means a Federal State. You see the problem with that argument is that there is no new power given to Europe outside the stuff already agreed via previous referendums. So if we currently have sovereignty, how does that change when the text is the same as the stuff we already said yes to?

Before you use emotive language such as railroading at least pay some respect to what actually happened. There was proposed Constitution. Two states said No and guess what? They dropped it and removed it. How is that railroading? To me that’s respect for the democratic decisions of two states.

Then look at the old Constitution and the Treaty and understand the difference in language and content. Don’t assume, don’t guess and don’t buy into any of the myths put about by extremes on the left and right. Read it.

Those opposed to a Federal Europe is every one. Do you honestly think countries that fought long and bloody wars to be independent would suddenly just decide to hand over power to another dictatorship? Honestly? Is your own blinkered view so clouded?

In other posts you’ve stated that you think we should have Europe for trade and movement of people. And, well, that’s all we do have in the main . The problem is to have trade and movement of people, you need rules and organisation. To not have standards and harmonisation would be like having a “passing of wind” section in a lift or a “urination” section of a swimming pool: utterly useless.

That’s why legislation stretches outside of standard stuff to do with bananas and into important stuff to do with employment law and standards, environment, etc. Largely because if one state has good standards, then other states can (and did) have no standards and affect competition. Same standards for everyone, equal trade.

And then we open up the borders. This doesn’t just mean we get to take the OH on a weekend break to make up for the state we got into at the stag do the other month, it means we then get problems relating to marriage, divorce, children, crime, terrorism. Again, to have it so we can take advantage of a Ryan Air offer, we have to have other rules.

Your utopia is a complete unrealistic pipe dream. And if you do think we’d be better off, then wind back the clock 20 or 30 years. Then tell me we’d be better off without the EU. It’s like someone feeding off the benefit for the last 20 years for everything they can claim for, winning the lotto and suddenly deciding that they’re disgusted with all these benefit scroungers and they should just get off their bums and into work…

People shouldn’t be mislead by pure nonsensical paranoid rants either. It’s simple, don’t just give opinion, give some facts to support it and then maybe it’s a better more reasoned debate.

 

[bb12]

the 'yes' campaign is purely based on fear and shoring-up the gravy train for failed eu policy makers everywhere.

As in favour as i am of ireland continuing to be at the heart of europe (believe it or not i do actually think so) the lisbon treaty is an inequitable way forward for us which will erode our sovereinty further and push us into second class status within the eu.

The eu has utterly no respect for democracy otherwise it would have respected our first vote. Equally our elected officials have no respect for us. They are going to sell our small island down the river and, when they've done that, they are going inflict nama on us to save their mates from the galway tent and all the greedy bankers at the expense of us,our kids and our grandkids. A spectacular double whammy which you are advocating. For shame!

+1

 

[michaelm]

Apologies in advance for being blunt . .

Knock yourself out.

You see the problem with that argument is that there is no new power given to Europe outside the stuff already agreed via previous referendums. So if we currently have sovereignty, how does that change when the text is the same as the stuff we already said yes to?

You're right, in a way; we have little sovereignty left at this stage. We no longer have control of our own currency or our interest rates, the vast majority of our laws are handed down from Europe and Tax is next. Under Lisbon, as under Nice, we further dilute our voting weight while, at the same time, ceding more areas to QMV(68 more under Lisbon). Would you not consider that a loss of sovereignty?

Those opposed to a Federal Europe is every one. Do you honestly think countries that fought long and bloody wars to be independent would suddenly just decide to hand over power to another dictatorship? Honestly? Is your own blinkered view so clouded?

If you believe that the end point of the EU project is not a Federal State and that Lisbon is not another step in that direction then perhaps it is you who is blinkered.

I expect Lisbon to be carried. If so, I hope the claims by the Yes camp are proved correct . . that Lisbon is a benign tidy-up exercise that will create jobs, bring the recovery, fix global warming, protect workers wages and conditions, fight crime, terrorism and inequality, amongst other things . . and of course, put Ireland at the heart of Europe . . all the while Ireland's tax and social policies escape the attention of the ECJ. I hope, but I doubt it.

 

[Latrade]

....Tax is next.

In your opinion or can you find the bit in the Treaty that states this? Or does the actual text that means we retain control of our own text mean nothing? It’s just that the No camp point to some sections of the Treaty and say “this means we’ll all be conscripted”, but when you point to the bits in the same Treaty that categorically state this isn’t the case, we’re told not to believe those bits.

Mind, given the involvement of some fundamentalist religious organisations in the No camp, I suppose it’s only consistent that they tell us to have blind faith in certain parts of a text, but ignore the parts of the text that are contradictory to their position.

Under Lisbon, as under Nice, we further dilute our voting weight while, at the same time, ceding more areas to QMV(68 more under Lisbon). Would you not consider that a loss of sovereignty? If you believe that the end point of the EU project is not a Federal State and that Lisbon is not another step in that direction then perhaps it is you who is blinkered.

Nice stat that “68” more, but have you checked what those 68 include? There are actually on 5 areas where Europe has complete competence (i.e. it alone makes the decisions). All relate to trade and competition. However, as already pointed out, there are plenty of safety valves in place as a result of the new systems.

In addition, nothing here is new. Since the very first referendum, we gave Europe the rights to enact laws on these issues. Are we to now disrespect the democratic process of previous years where we said Yes? And as explained, even in your utopia of Ireland on it’s own with only a trade and travel arrangement, these laws are necessary because of the can of worms opened by just those two things.

The hang up on 4 million people having a proportionate voting weight out of 500 million really is clutching at straws. It makes for a fairer system, it means a better democracy.

On the federal state business. I’m not daft, I know there are some states who would love a complete federal state. But there’s so many who don’t that it can’t happen even by the back door. As I said, there is no way those newly accented states after all their battles and history under the Soviet Union are going to relinquish all this to a centralised state. Same for the Brits, same for us, same for France, Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, or any other nation with a sense of sovereignty.

I expect Lisbon to be carried. If so I hope the claims by the Yes camp are proved correct . . that Lisbon is a benign tidy-up exercise that will create jobs, bring the recovery, fix global warming, protect workers wages and conditions, fight crime, terrorism and inequality, amongst other things . . and of course, put Ireland at the heart of Europe . . all the while Ireland's tax and social policies escape the attention of the ECJ. I hope, but I doubt it.

What’s the ECJ got to do with this? Again which part of the opt outs or explicit statements relating to Ireland (and all other Member States) setting their own rules on these things isn’t clear enough?

 

[Pique318]

...put Ireland at the heart of Europe.

What right do we have to be at the 'Heart of Europe' ?
We have no defence forces worth a hoot, no industry - indigenous or otherwise, no manufacturing, no natural reserves (apart from a bit of gas that we sold to a private entity already), no political muscle, no financial sector with any reputation...and yet we hope - nay, expect, to be at the heart of Europe and dictate to the rest that this is the way it's gonna be, 'cos we said so.

Please !!

We're the little kid in the gang, who really does nothing to help the others that they couldn't do themselves but we get money from our richer mates anyway. We won't fight off bullies out of principle but yet we expect our mates to do it on our behalf. People outside our gang like us 'cos we're good craic and non-offensive but they live too far away for us to join their gang instead. However, if we keep telling the rest of our gang what they can & can't do, sooner or later the money stops coming and then they give us a good thump and tell us to STFU and cop ourselves on.

 

[michaelm]

In your opinion or can you find the bit in the Treaty that states this?

Come on, it's all opinion/interpretation, my view and yours.

What’s the ECJ got to do with this?

We a signing up to an EU Charter of Rights which will supplant our Irish charter, our Constitution. The ECJ will interpret this new Charter (as it has already done in various cases e.g. allowing a Polish company to employ Polish workers in Germany at less than the German minimum wage). We have no mechanism/power to undo any spurious ECJ decisions, political promises notwithstanding. Don't think these things happen? In 1983 we provided for the right to life of the unborn in our Constitution, the dogs in the street knew what it meant - a ban on abortion; but in 1992 the Supreme Court decided it in fact meant abortions for all. That I have concerns about the ECJ and you don't might just mean that I'm not a free-thinking or progressive as you.

 

[Latrade]

Come on, it's all opinion/interpretation, my view and yours.

Ordinarily on forums yes, that would be the case. But not here, there’s text in place that’s pretty explicit and not open to interpretation and that relates to security, social policy, taxation and others remaining under individual member state control.

It really cannot be more explicitly laid out in text.

We a signing up to an EU Charter of Rights which will supplant our Irish charter, our Constitution. The ECJ will interpret this new Charter (as it has already done in various cases e.g. allowing a Polish company to employ Polish workers in Germany at less than the German minimum wage). We have no mechanism/power to undo any spurious ECJ decisions, political promises notwithstanding. Don't think these things happen? In 1983 we provided for the right to life of the unborn in our Constitution, the dogs in the street knew what it meant - a ban on abortion; but in 1992 the Supreme Court decided it in fact meant abortions for all. That I have concerns about the ECJ and you don't might just mean that I'm not a free-thinking or progressive as you.

We already are signed up to the Charter and it does not under any remit whatsoever impact our Constitution. It means that any legislation from Europe and member states must attain certain human rights. As we already subscribe to it, it means we go on as we are.

The issue on abortion is a non-issue, there Europe has included in numerous texts that Ireland has the right to decide on that issue. The ECJ cannot affect, there is nothing in the Charter that can either. I’m not sure how many times the EU can reiterate this point over the last 26 years.

Yes we get dummy decisions from the courts, we get dummy ones here in the Supreme Court as you say (though that’s the Supreme Court making a decision not the ECJ). Yes they made the decision regarding the Polish workers (one for the employers), but they’ve also set ones for employees (such as a recent decision on Working Time). Again, courts are like that, some you win some you lose. It’s no different to our own Courts other than adding an avenue to appeal.

 

[csirl]

I voted No the first time around because I consider the EU to have democratic deficit. The fact that we are being told to vote again on the issue because we didnt vote Yes proves this.

We should be championing democracy not eroding it. People conveniently forget that most of our EU partners are only a generation or less removed from dictatorship and a lot of them still have unelected heads of State. They don't value democracy as much as they should.

 

[Pique318]

People conveniently forget that most of our EU partners are only a generation or less removed from dictatorship
...
They don't value democracy as much as they should.

How in the world can these 2 statements be linked?

 

[Latrade]

We should be championing democracy not eroding it. People conveniently forget that most of our EU partners are only a generation or less removed from dictatorship and a lot of them still have unelected heads of State. They don't value democracy as much as they should.

What? Are you serious? Here's the list of Member States, please indicate which ones have unelected heads of state (bearing in mind that democratically elected representative bodies is one of the core requirements of membership to the EU).

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
[FONT=Arial,Arial]United Kingdom
[/FONT]

 

[secman]

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
[FONT=Arial,Arial]United Kingdom
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]When you actuall look at the above list of countries ,[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial]the diversities of them just make my mind up, we are trying to have a one fix rule for all ! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]We are taking a model too far for its own good. There are already "yellow pack" members, how does this stack up with the treaty ?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]I have 2 simple rules for life and often preach them to the kids[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Don't do to others what you would not like done to you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Too much of anything is bad for you .[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]The treaty is failing the rules ! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial]Secman
[/FONT]