The Lisbon vote

BTW, as an aside, like with the general election and with the last referendum, guess who was the only party to call to my door?

Yep, Sinn Fein.
 
Except the Wiki page, on Google and what invited journalists say...

This is incorrect. I suspect that you know it too.
 

In the UK the Queen (or King) in parliament is sovereign and so a referendum would have no legal status, it would merely be a political cop-out by the elected leaders of the country. The same is the case in most EU countries. Once elected representatives make a decision it is democratic. To suggest that those countries that do not have a constitutional requirement to have referenda are somehow undemocratic is nonsense. Do you think we should have a national vote on every piece of legislation that is voted on in the Dail?
 

Never said it was a constitutional requirement for them to have a refernendum. The point remains that the EU constitution was put to a referendum in those Countries because it was seeing as fundamentally changing the way Europe operates and there was serious concern about it. This treaty is exactly the same but because they voted no the previous time, they decided to call the constitution a treaty and take away the referendum. All I am saying is that if I was a Dutch or French voter who rejected the constitution, I would be very annoyed at not having the right to vote on this treaty.
 
Do you think we should have a national vote on every piece of legislation that is voted on in the Dail?

Exactly. Imagine if we had a referendum on increasing income tax. It would probably be rejected, but should that mean income tax cannot be increased by the elected Govt of the day ?
 

Ok, I can understand that French and Dutch voters might feel annoyed. But we must keep things in perspective. They are not living in dictatorships. I'm sure the people of Zimbabwe would love to have something like that to be annoyed about instead of the problems they have. If French and Dutch voters feel so strongly about this issue then let them organise politically and do something about it. I don't see people on the streets in large numbers protesting and I don't recall it figuring as a key issue in the last French presidential and parliamentary elections.
 
Except the Wiki page, on Google and what invited journalists say...
Maybe it's only a book club but I'm not entirely happy that some of our elected representatives attend such secretive, if not secret, meetings.
This is incorrect. I suspect that you know it too.
Steady now, you may have a different opinion but I am honest above all else. The Referendum Commission leaflet(separate from the booklet) posted to all voters detailing the proposed 28th Amendment to our Constitution, the wording of which won't appear on the ballot, clearly states . . .

10: The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.

11: No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

Perhaps you haven't haven't seen the proposed amendment or maybe you have a different interpretation, although I can't see any other way to interpret it, but please don't accuse me of deceit.
 

In other words the "laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section" are constitutional and given that they are constitutional laws passed at EU level are binding in Ireland. The EU cannot pass laws in certain areas and can pass them in other areas. This is, in effect, just as it has been for years.
This is not a vote for a federal EU. If it was I would still say yes but it ‘aint.

Inference that you were/could be dishonest withdrawn with my apologies.
 
Many EU countries have lower corporation tax than us. The notion that the EU will gang up on us and we will have to fight them all by ourselves is laughable.

I agree it wont be us alone - there are a few eastern European states with low corporation taxes. I do think that it could be the bigger countries versus the samller ones with the bigger countries having most muscle.

The way I think it will happen, and this will be allowed under Lisbon, is through "enhanced cooperation". Here's a scenario. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands & Luxembourg agree to enhanced cooperation in the area of corporate taxation effectively setting up a single corporation tax zone covering their collective territories. They all agree on a common corporation tax of e.g. 30% to apply in their countries. They then collectively invoke the distortion of free market provisions to justify additional VAT to apply on any goods or services imported into their countries from EU countries with lower corporation tax. The effect of this would be to make products and services from Ireland much dearer in those countries, who have of the bulk of EU wealth.

As enhanced cooperation is allowed and countries are free to set their own corporation taxes and VAT rates, then the EU cannot prevent them from doing this. It does not force us to change our corporation tax rate either, but would have the effect of forcing us to change to their rate to be able to effectively trade in those countries.
 
Well, I think we're in agreement, the amendment will allow the Irish government to, on foot of instruction from the EU, enact laws, commit acts and adopt measures that would, in the absence of the amendment, be unconstitutional. It says that nothing in our constitution cannot prevent the imposition of EU law here. Whether one is for or against this amendment I think people should read the actual amendment they are to vote on.
 
Whether one is for or against this amendment I think people should read the actual amendment they are to vote on.

Fully agree.

With this particular amendment, it means that we may have to adopt unconstitutional conditions of membership of the EU which dont currently exist, but may exist in the future. Even stuff that isnt currently on the radar.

Ireland has quite a unique sovereignty set-up. This is one of the reasons we alone are having a referendum. It is not comparible with anything else in the EU. In lay mans terms, each Irish citizen is an equal and absolute Sovereign (i.e. King/Queen of Ireland) with a devine right to rule as Sovereign - a bit like when the UK had King William & Queen Mary as joint monarchs instead that we have 4 million equal instead of 2 equal. Our President is a Sovereigns representative with power of attorney to perform Sovereigns admin tasks. In most EU countries, the President is a full Sovereign who is elected and the people have no sovereign rights. In monarchies such as UK, Netherlands, the King/Queen alone is the Sovereign and the people are subjects of the Sovereign. This all may seem a bit strange, but it does have fundamental effects on personal rights. This treaty could change or relationship with the EU as a Sovereign to non-sovereign body - the Sovereign always has primacy in any dealings to one where our Sovereignty rights are extinguished in all dealings with the EU and we are dealing with them as equals as opposed to having primacy.

Example of where personal rights may be affected. A Sovereign has an absolute right to sue any other entity INCLUDING another Sovereign in the event of personal injury (in legal terms rather than someone getting injured). A non-Sovereign does not have an absolute right to sue - must be provided in law with the consent of the Sovereign. We may be restricting the rights of our citizens to sue the EU by agreeing to this treaty.
 
The No posters are better. I like the one with monkeys on it but the one telling us not to vote for another turkey is clever IMHO.
 
Fully agree.

With this particular amendment, it means that we may have to adopt unconstitutional conditions of membership of the EU which dont currently exist, but may exist in the future. Even stuff that isnt currently on the radar.

The Constitution already has this wording (Art 29.4) ...
10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the
Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or
by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties
establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State

Read the amendment in context with the rest of the wording ... http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ReferendumWordingEnglish.pdf
 

This looks like your own "analysis". The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.

Articles 23 - 27 concern diplomatic protection, qualified majority voting in the council, citizens rights (petition, Ombudsman, languages), and the shared competence of the Internal Market. Somehow from this ragbag you're drawing conclusions that don't bear any relation to what's in the Treaty.
 
This looks like your own "analysis". The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.

The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.
And I absolutly reject your claim.

I have sought to give an analysis based on my reading of the treaty. If it is similar analysis to Sinn Fein so it be.

It is my own analysis. Make of it what you will.

And as for the Sinn Fein point. I despise their hypocracy on a lot of issues. i have never voted for them and never will.
 
if we vote no to this treaty,a few in the EU may be a bit miffed for a while...but in a few months the will have to come back to us and re negotiate a more favourable deal. thats how these things usually work. the thing to remember is we are in the driveing seat here.....so lets not sell ourselves short
 

And we can reject it a second time to get even better etc. etc. The problem is we can overplay that card and IMHO we have reached the end of the tether having already rejected Nice.
 

Why do people (from the no side) presume we will get a better deal if we vote no. It took along time for the current treaty to be agreed. There are 27 countries in the EU. That is alot of different opinions to satisfy. We are not the only small country in the EU. We consistently punch above our weight in my opinion. We are not the only country going to lose a commissioner (everyone will at some stage). European law is already superior to Irish law. The No side seem to be trying to not only renegotiate this treaty but also previous treaties.
 
And we can reject it a second time to get even better etc. etc. The problem is we can overplay that card and IMHO we have reached the end of the tether having already rejected Nice.

EU will continue to function if we vote no. All this talk of crisis is Scaremongering.

however there will be a yes vote. A bit like the general election where it looked bad for fianna fail and then peoples opinions turned late on.
.