Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

conor2007

yes trade is grand
climate change - great

politicial entity - no - thank you

Scofflaw

conor2007 wrote: »

the unelected law makers

Won't change at Lisbon.

conor2007 wrote: »

the 4 countries needed to block any law (needs a certain % of population but easy to get)

So...? Are you not against EU laws anyway?

conor2007 wrote: »

the overruling of bunreacht na heireann

Er, no. And presuming you mean the clause that protects EU law from being unconstitutional, that's not a Lisbon change either. That's been there since the get-go.

conor2007 wrote: »

the ability to extend the powers of the union in the future without a referendum

Again, no. This one has been debunked repeatedly. The clause in the treaty requires national ratification of any amendment by that nation's means, which in our case is a referendum if the amendment were extending the EU's powers.

conor2007 wrote: »

the fact that 26 countries were denied a vote

No, they voted in their parliaments. It seems odd to worry about the loss of powers to our Dáil while denying the legitimacy of other parliaments.

conor2007 wrote: »

the fact there is no one document that fully states what this treaty innvolves

There's a consolidated version available, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

conor2007 wrote: »

the fact we are being scaremongered into voting yes out of fear of being ''kicked out of europe'' and saying europe created the ''celtic tiger'' and tyo continue it we need europe

That is not the only reason given for voting Yes. More generally, why do you not see the No side's claims of EU armies, mass conscription, total loss of taxational powers, destroyed neutrality etc etc as scaremongering?

regards,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

conor2007 wrote: »

the 4 countries needed to block any law (needs a certain % of population but easy to get)

How is this a bad thing? If anything, that would be likely to help Ireland rather than hinder us.

conor2007 wrote: »

the overruling of bunreacht na heireann

As Scofflaw has pointed out, this treaty does not change the status of our constitution in relation to the EU.

conor2007 wrote: »

the ability to extend the powers of the union in the future without a referendum

Unless I'm very much mistaken the member states have always had the power to define areas in which the EU has competence.

But don't take my word for it, let's look at the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Lisbon Treaty):

Treaty on European Union wrote:

Article 5

1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
   
   The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and
   proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.
   
   The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

In other words, the EU only deals with stuff that is explicitly given to it ("conferral") and even then will deal with those areas to the minimum extent necessary ("proportionality"). Not just that, but it will only act in those areas when it is not possible to effectively act at state, regional or local level ("subsidiarity").

(Off topic: For fun, you can compare and contrast this approach with that of the Irish government.)

conor2007 wrote: »

the fact that 26 countries were denied a vote

By their own governments. Not by any EU-level organisation. If you wish to blame someone for it, blame the governments of those countries, not the EU.

conor2007 wrote: »

the fact there is no one document that fully states what this treaty innvolves

The treaty itself does this. By definition anything else which describes what the treaty does will be an interpretation, most likely written by someone who could have an ulterior motive. Any interpretation of the treaty is (in my skeptical, cynical and possibly paranoid view) untrustworthy.

conor2007 wrote: »

the fact we are being scaremongered into voting yes out of fear of being ''kicked out of europe'' and saying europe created the ''celtic tiger'' and tyo continue it we need europe

Blame our local politicians for this kind of behaviour. Don't just reject the treaty because of their behaviour, read and understand it and make your mind up independently afterwards.

IRLConor

conor2007 wrote: »

anyone who does it for any reason is an idiot
because there is no reason for a yes vote
and i plead with you to proove me wrong

I still haven't made up my mind (although so far I'm leaning towards a yes vote) because I haven't finished reading the treaty.

To say that anyone who votes yes for the treaty is an idiot is grossly unfair. What about the people who will read and understand the treaty, think about the implications and then decide to vote yes?

oscarBravo

conor2007 wrote: »

anyone who does it for any reason is an idiot

What would your reaction be if I said anyone who votes "no" for any reason is an idiot?

Not that it matters, because I'm not going to say that. Because that would be dangerously close to the rule in this forum about insulting other posters.

Wouldn't it?

Chunky Monkey

The EU has done nothing but help Ireland so far. Why do people think it's suddenly going to become the opposite if we vote yes for this treaty?

Are people worried that we might have to do the helping for a change? O_o

Amberman

Scofflaw

You are for the EU. I presume also that you are for Ireland and the Irish people. But you have called 2 Irish elected MEPs lairs (not outright...your're not stupid, but your insinuation is clear).

I think, that to be taken seriously, you should do more than name call these public servants. How about a little proof?

What have they lied about specifically specifically specifically in your opinion?

Please give time references in the to make thing easier for people to check your statements.

Amberman

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

Scofflaw

You are for the EU. I presume also that you are for Ireland and the Irish people. But you have called 2 Irish elected MEPs lairs (not outright...your're not stupid, but your insinuation is clear).

I think, that to be taken seriously, you should do more than name call these public servants. How about a little proof?

What have they lied about specifically specifically specifically in your opinion?

Please give time references in the to make thing easier for people to check your statements.

Amberman

Hmm. If Kathy Sinnott and Mary Lou (who is not quoted in the video, but whom we will indite on the basis of her other statements about the Treaty) are telling the truth about this treaty, it follows that virtually every other Irish politician is lying about it.

So, why this outrage at the idea that I am calling two Irish politicians dishonest or stupid (and Jens-Peter Bonde a liar), when you are calling the rest of them exactly the same thing? And if you're suggesting somehow that calling Irish elected MEPs is unpatriotic (at least that seems to be the implication), what does that make you?

Do you really not even see the lack of balance in your position?

even-handedly,
Scofflaw

conor2007

no .their opinion , in my opinion , is idiotic

economicially it has been great - i dont want it as a politicial entity/more of one

again , point me out one advantage . . . just one for a start

the people were denied a vote - democracy

even ireland - the eu voted in favour of not giving us a vote - proinseas de rossa even did so
but our constitution is in place do protect us against un democratic things like this

france voted no - but now its govt says yes , altho its basicially the same treaty

how would france and germany or britain and germany/france and a combination of any two other countries with them denying/blocking a law that would be great for us be good for us

how would it be good?

we had more power when we were in the other union in our recent past

who i despise but would gladly reenter if this treaty goes through

IRLConor

conor2007 wrote: »

point me out one advantage . . . just one for a start

Of the EU in general? One consistent voice and hence greater bargaining power on a global scale.

Of the Treaty of Lisbon in particular? The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union becomes binding.

conor2007 wrote: »

how would france and germany or britain and germany/france and a combination of any two other countries with them denying/blocking a law that would be great for us be good for us

how would it be good?

That situation wouldn't be good, obviously. However, it's not a one way street. If we were one of the blocking minority countries it would benefit us.

Think about all the issues where a majority of EU countries think one way and we think another. As I see it, the purpose of the "blocking minority" idea is precisely to allow groups of smaller countries to prevent themselves from being run over by the big ones.

conor2007

the fundamental rights can be brought in seperately

there is no other actual advantage to ireland

eec - good
eu - bad

lisbon treaty (whatever you call it) - criminal and undemocratic

conor2007

london made our laws , and people were wholly against it

now brussels makes some of them

with lisbon it will greatly have say on what we do

how is that fair or how does it make sense

conor2007

the soviet union = the euopean union ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I8M1T-GgRU&feature=related

the new empire - old imperialist powers creating a new empire - no force - but no vote for it either

IRLConor

conor2007 wrote: »

the fundamental rights can be brought in seperately

I would actually prefer if many of the things being brought in by the Lisbon Treaty were presented separately, if only to make it harder for them to be voted down by people who are opposed to the EU.

Unfortunately this is impractical for Ireland because we'd end up with a huge heap of referenda.

conor2007 wrote: »

there is no other actual advantage to ireland

Nonsense, there are loads of advantages which have been laid out in this thread before. Citizens initiative, more power for the European Parliament (and hence citizens directly), QMV preventing selfish vetoes by one state...

conor2007 wrote: »

eec - good
eu - bad

So you think that Ireland would be better off trying to negotiate non-trade-related political deals with other countries if it were outside the EU?

A simple example: after 9/11 the US changed a lot of their security arrangements in regard to air travel. If the EU thinks that those changes are unacceptable to us the US might listen. Would they listen to Ireland? Of course not!

The EU as a single political entity provides a fantastic opportunity for a liberal, "western", democratic, political power outside the US. The world is politically controlled by the big powers and if Ireland doesn't have a say within the EU it won't have a say at all.

As I see it, the world in the next few decades will be run by either:

• USA, Russia, China, EU. {India, Iran, Japan as also-rans}
  
  OR
  
  
• USA, Russia, China. {France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, UK as also-rans}

Saying "EU - bad" in an Irish context is tantamount to deciding to opt out of global politics on any meaningful scale.

conor2007

yes , the eec was a trade union not a politicial one - this treaty is making it more politicial

they are unvoted 24 delegates - how is that good?
our mep's have no real say (duh - that was a stupid grammar mistake)

the usa does not listen to europe
russia does not listen to europe

IRLConor

conor2007 wrote: »

yes , the eec was a trade union not a political one - this treaty is making it more political

I don't read it as such, but you are certainly entitled to interpret it that way. As I see it, the EU has been a political union for quite some time now. This treaty merely reforms the political structures in light of that fact.

conor2007 wrote: »

they are unvoted 24 delegates - how is that good?

Who are?

conor2007 wrote: »

are mep's have no real say

[I presume you mean "our" rather than "are". I don't mean to pick at your English, I just want to clarify my interpretation of it.]

They have a say proportional to our population. Is that not fair?

They certainly have more say in the way the EU acts than they would if Ireland wasn't in the EU. (I'm presuming that since you don't like the idea of the EU as a political union then you would advocate Ireland leaving the EU.)

conor2007 wrote: »

the usa does not listen to europe
russia does not listen to europe

Arguably they don't listen because the EU is a loose confederation without either a single, clear voice or a coherent common political position.

conor2007

yes , i dont mind the eu - even as a politicial union
just once they dont affect ireland - in any way - as in on irish soil

climate change - if tehy want an army - hell if they even nwant the flag and anthem
does not affect me - ill still be irish

but i dont see them not making laws that affect us

no they (usa/russia etc) dont listen because they dont need to/dont want to

Moriarty

conor2007: this thread is about debate on the lisbon treaty. If you don't want to discuss the lisbon treaty, don't post in this thread. Please note: "discussion" does not equal repeating "what has the eu done for us?" blindly.

newby.204

can someone please tell me what exactly the treaty means to ireland as in whats gona change?? someone told me it woul eradicate vrt and we could shop outside ireland for car insurance??

IRLConor

newby.204 wrote: »

someone told me it woul eradicate vrt and we could shop outside ireland for car insurance??

Isn't VRT already against EU rules? And isn't it on the way out (just extremely slowly) due to this?

I think we can already shop outside Ireland for car insurance, just no non-Irish insurance company currently offers insurance to Irish drivers. Am I wrong?

From what I've read of the Treaty it shouldn't change the status of VRT or motor insurance. (I haven't read it all yet.)

Moriarty

Threads merged.

Rebel021

Oh well that makes my mind up shopping outside of Ireland for car insurance what a gain,I only have to give my rights and Liberties to an unelected body who take all their laws and Judgements from shadow working groups in essence a shadow government,
WOW I'm on board.

If this treaty goes through we will have been a sovereign state for 87 years.
We make are own laws not unelected officials.

What I want is all the information about this treaty handed over to the people of our country so WE can decide and not be told by politicians that a yes vote is all we need to do.

When the other countries just agreed to this without any referendum apart from Holland and France this should automatically raise questions to the real meaning of the treaty.

Scofflaw

Rebel021 wrote: »

Oh well that makes my mind up shopping outside of Ireland for car insurance what a gain,I only have to give my rights and Liberties to an unelected body who take all their laws and Judgements from shadow working groups in essence a shadow government,
WOW I'm on board.

If this treaty goes through we will have been a sovereign state for 87 years.
We make are own laws not unelected officials.

What I want is all the information about this treaty handed over to the people of our country so WE can decide and not be told by politicians that a yes vote is all we need to do.

I would suggest using Google, or looking through this thread for the several references to such information, then.

Rebel021 wrote: »

When the other countries just agreed to this without any referendum apart from Holland and France this should automatically raise questions to the real meaning of the treaty.

Personally, I am willing to respect the actions of their elected governments, but maybe that's just me.

regards,
Scofflaw

left wing

An EU Constitution:The treaty of lisbon is a revamped version of the treaty which gave the EU it own constitution over and above the constitutions of its member states, but which the peoples of of
france and Holland rejected in referendums in 2005. Instead of accepting the decision the EU prome ministers and Presidents decided to give the EU constitution indirctly rather then directly, but not to call it a constitution, and on no account to hold a referendumson it for faer the people would reject it again.

Why a irish referendum?: A referendum must be held in Ireland however because the Supreme Court laid down in the 1987 Crotty case that the sovereignty in this state rests with the irish peopleand that only thay can surrender sovereignty to the EU by referendum, or else refuse to surrender it as the case maybe.The purpose of the referendum would be to change the irish constitution so as to make EU law superior to irish law in the area set out in the lisbon treaty.

Lisbon give the EU a Constitution indirectly rather then directly : The two current basic European treaties are call "The treaty on European Union" (TEU) and " The traety on the Functioning of the Union" (TFEU). These two documents include all the previous treaties from the 1957 Rome Treaty to the 2002 Nice Treaty. The EUConstitution which the French and Dutch rejected would have repealed these two treaties and replaced them with a document called "A Constitution for Europe". The Lisbon Treaty implements 96% of the legal content of this "Constitution of Europe" by proposing amendments to the two basic EU treaties and thereby turning them effective into the Constitution of the new federal EU that Lisbon would bring about.

The following are the main changes Lisbon would make in the EU's two constituent treaties:

1. Lisbon make the EU Constitution superior to the irish constitution in all areas of EU Law: We would still keep the irish constitution, but "Delaration 17 concerning primacy", which is attached to Lisbon, makes clear that the EU Law would have pramacy over end be superior to the irish constitution and laws in any case between the two.The ne2 treaty would place more law in the hand of unelected commission in the EU, and take power away from the dail and from irish citizen who elect the dail.

IRLConor

left wing wrote: »

1. Lisbon make the EU Constitution superior to the irish constitution in all areas of EU Law: We would still keep the irish constitution, but "Delaration 17 concerning primacy", which is attached to Lisbon, makes clear that the EU Law would have pramacy over end be superior to the irish constitution and laws in any case between the two.The ne2 treaty would place more law in the hand of unelected commission in the EU, and take power away from the dail and from irish citizen who elect the dail.

EU law is already "superior" to Irish law, the Lisbon treaty will not change this.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Article 29, Section 4, Subsection 10º of our constitution:

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.

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

EU law is already "superior" to Irish law, the Lisbon treaty will not change this.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Article 29, Section 4, Subsection 10º of our constitution:

"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."

What that seem to be saying is that, even if we all vote no to the Lisbon treaty, so long as the EU goes on to enact it, then our vote is irrelevent and we subject to all the provisions anyhow?

IRLConor

jawlie wrote: »

What that seem to be saying is that, even if we all vote no to the Lisbon treaty, so long as the EU goes on to enact it, then our vote is irrelevent and we subject to all the provisions anyhow?

My understanding is "yes" although I'm not sure what the EU would do if our referendum was to return a no vote.

Thirdfox

The EU can't enact it without the member states agreeing (therefore the need for our referendum).

Oh and the issue of supremacy in some MS countries hasn't been fully decided yet (the German constitutional court basically says we recognise supremacy because our Constitution recognises you - subject to change).

The same happens here - we give EU law supremacy because of that Art 29. We could revoke Art 29 and our Constitution would reign supreme again (subject to the ECHR (totally different entity to the EC/EU)).

IRLConor

Thirdfox wrote: »

The same happens here - we give EU law supremacy because of that Art 29. We could revoke Art 29 and our Constitution would reign supreme again (subject to the ECHR (totally different entity to the EC/EU)).

Indeed we could (although hopefully not all of Article 29! ). I would be interested to see the EU's reaction if we did!

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

jawlie wrote: »

EU law is already "superior" to Irish law, the Lisbon treaty will not change this.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Article 29, Section 4, Subsection 10º of our constitution:

"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."

What that seem to be saying is that, even if we all vote no to the Lisbon treaty, so long as the EU goes on to enact it, then our vote is irrelevent and we subject to all the provisions anyhow?

My understanding is "yes" although I'm not sure what the EU would do if our referendum was to return a no vote.

Hmm. While our Constitution allows EU law to be superior to Irish law, neither it, not any other instrument, makes EU law superior to EU law...and EU law states that unanimous national ratification is required to allow the Treaty to be enacted.

If Ireland returns a No at referendum, then the Dáil cannot ratify the Treaty, the Treaty is then not unanimously ratified by all member states, and therefore cannot be enacted.

cordially,
Scofflaw