Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

MarkNL

Hi everyone,

I hope I may ask one minute or so of your precious time (no you do not need to send me or anyone money, though there is no law against it )

I am Mark Meertens from the Netherlands. In 2005 we voted against the Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. We did so because we opposed further power transfers to Brussels (though EU-philes would lie to you and claim we voted on other grounds).

Now they have the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty basically does the same thing as the previous Treaty (which in their arrogance they called constitution). This treaty transfers legislative powers and executive powers FROM the directly elected national parliaments and governments TO unelected EU-crats (Commission/Council, who will act both as a legislature and as an executive, a blatant violation of the separation of powers).

The cunning trick is, they will let the national governments and parliaments exist. But the national governments and parliaments will be virtually powerless rubber-stamp bodies who can do nothing to stop any kind of EU policy or legislation. By doing so, and by having votes for the almost completely powerless EU parliament, they want you to think that the whole set-up is democratic (which it isn't, but its nice to be able to keep up the pretence, isn't it?).

The EU-crats (Barroso, Merkel e.a.) along with Irish politicians such as Ahern who either have or would like to have their snouts in the EU's very generous trough, will lie, intimidate, bully and threaten you to vote yes.

I say, make up your own mind. But do realize: if you vote yes, you are voting for a de facto end to parliamentary democracy. We in the Netherlands, the peoples in Portugal and Britain voted in majority parties who promised referendums. We didn't get them because the EU-crats (particularly Merkel) heavily leaned on our politicians to deny us our referendum.

Former German president Herzog spoke out against the centralization of power in Brussels last year, and got attacked and smeared by Merkel and her crowd.
Here is his piece on how the EU threatens our parliamentary democracies.
http://www.welt.de/politik/article708734/Roman_Herzog_Europaeische_Union_gefaehrdet_die_parlamentarische_Demokratie_in_Deutschland.html

Try some translation site like Babelfish (Altavista) to see what he writes. It is not a perfect translation tool but I checked and I think you people are smart so you will understand.

In short, I am pleading with you, help save 27 parliamentary democracies and vote NO. Please do not be bullied by the EU-crats.

Thank you.

Mark Meertens
markm456@yahoo.com

Thirdfox

Hi Mark,

I have recently shifted my views from quite pro-Europe to mildly Euro-sceptic (as a result of a law course I'm doing). But there are some things that I would like to point out that seems a bit irregular in your statement.

The European parliament has gained more and more power as a direct result of the perception of a "democratic deficit" in the EU legislative system. I see no reason why it will not become more involved in the future. Right now they can block laws from being enacted even if the commission and council voted for the issue. This is what I have learnt so far from my EU law studies.

Indeed it could be argued that while we do not elect the commissioners etc. they are representative of the state of Europe (whether people are comfortable with such a super-state is another issue). The debate over whether Europe needs to be in a bloc to fend off similar blocs in N. America, S. America and Asia can be reserved for another day.

I'm more concerned about some of the legal aspects of European integration (loss of identity/race to bottom quality standards etc.)

I do appreciate the amount of time you must have spent to write this post. And I'm sure that you are completely sincere in your beliefs, however I also believe that the facts of the case is not exactly as you have laid them out to be. (Apologies but I do not have the time to read Mr. Herzog's article - I'm sure it would be very fascinating). Laying out all the facts, it is up to the Irish people to decide on what happens with the Lisbon treaty, while I am aware that many other countries will be affected by our decision I do not believe that they should seek to influence the Irish people on how to vote (instead, if the people of any country felt that strongly about the issue perhaps they should get their local representatives to bring up the issue of a national referendum in their own country?)

Otherwise the people of Ireland should presume that the other citizens of the 26 other EU countries are mostly for this new treaty (as indicated by their respective governments).

edit:
Oh, just to add - in Ireland our separation of powers is rather strange when it comes to legislative/executive. Our executive is not directly elected either (unlike the American system) but rather it is determined on who we voted for the legislative role. In essence, Irish people are quite used to the idea that the executive and legislative are intermingled (members of the legislative make up the executive). That wouldn't be a good reason to put off an Irish person from voting for the Lisbon treaty in my opinion.

Galliard

" It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU... Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that a nontransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this."

- Former German President Roman Herzog who is also former president of the German Constitutional Court, in an article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007.

Mark is right. So is Roman Herzog. Everyone who looks can see that.

Victor

Thirdfox wrote: »

edit:
Oh, just to add - in Ireland our separation of powers is rather strange when it comes to legislative/executive. Our executive is not directly elected either (unlike the American system) but rather it is determined on who we voted for the legislative role. In essence, Irish people are quite used to the idea that the executive and legislative are intermingled (members of the legislative make up the executive). That wouldn't be a good reason to put off an Irish person from voting for the Lisbon treaty in my opinion.

Many executives are drawn from legislatures, the UK and Germany being examples. Then you have odd ones like Israel where the executive PM is directly elected in parallel to parliament and parliament elects the president. Of course in the USA, there is a single election for the executive where you get President and VP (head of senate) on one ticket and an un-elected cabinet.

Scofflaw

You can view a Babelfish translation of the Roman Herzog article here. I'm afraid that what he's actually saying seems a good deal more technical than the standard quote suggests. I'm also somewhat surprised to see that he's apparently in favour of QMV on common security.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of the EU, which as a body has no respect for democratic principles. I'll wager that, even if we do for "no" this treaty will come into being anyhow.

The "constitution" was not passed, but the unelected EU people decided to redo it as a treaty instead (and thus bypass French or UK referenda) to get it through. How's that for respecting the wishes of the people?

How can anyone vote to give the EU more powers to its unelected bodies, when the instution is so corrupt and mismanaged that it has not even had any accounts signed off for a number of years due to fraud.

Moriarty

jawlie, if you're going to make claims about the EU scheming to deny people a vote and increase it's powers through nefarious means you need to back that up with facts and links.

Otherwise, you're making baseless accusations. Baseless accusations aren't tolerated here.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I'm afraid you misunderstand the nature of the EU, which as a body has no respect for democratic principles. I'll wager that, even if we do for "no" this treaty will come into being anyhow.

The "constitution" was not passed, but the unelected EU people decided to redo it as a treaty instead (and thus bypass French or UK referenda) to get it through. How's that for respecting the wishes of the people?

What's particularly daft about that claim is that if it were possible for the EU to simply dictate this treaty into being despite non-ratification, they would have done so for the Constitution, and we wouldn't be having this referendum.

And while you're fully entitled to view the EU as evil if you like, I'd agree with Moriarty that the simple unsupported claim is pretty much meaningless, and leaves you with an awful lot to explain. What, for example, was the EU's (presumably) evil plan in giving Ireland huge amounts of money over the last 30 years, exactly?

jawlie wrote: »

How can anyone vote to give the EU more powers to its unelected bodies, when the instution is so corrupt and mismanaged that it has not even had any accounts signed off for a number of years due to fraud.

Actually, it has its accounts signed off every year, to the same standard as any other organisation - indicating that there is a minimal level of fraud. What it doesn't get is a criterion of its own devising which would further certify that not only is there no current fraud, but that the processes are such that there is not even any possibility of fraud - a standard which the EU falls short of only by a small degree. "Overstated assets", as found by the auditors, which represents essentially the maximum amount that could be fraudulent, was €314 million for 2005, 0.5% of the EU's net assets, and roughly the same amount of money as the Port Tunnel 'budget overrun'. You may find this article from Accountancy Age illuminating.

Further, the EU budgets are in fact largely handled by the national governments, and the issues are "mostly with agricultural and redistibutional spending", which it is the responsibility of the national governments to audit and account for. Again, this article from Accountancy Age may be of interest.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Galliard

Moriarty wrote: »

jawlie, if you're going to make claims about the EU scheming to deny people a vote and increase it's powers through nefarious means you need to back that up with facts and links.

Otherwise, you're making baseless accusations. Baseless accusations aren't tolerated here.

Leaving aside the fact that baseless allegations have been thrown at certain MEPs by a Yes poster - allegations that have yet to attract your attention Moriarty, here are a few clues for you on what jawlie is referring to:

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'On we go", and if it's a No we will say 'We continue.'"
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and then holder of the EU Presidency, quoted in the Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005



"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments... There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France''. - French President Nicolas Sarkozy 14 November 2007


"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Head of the Convention that drafted the EU Constitution, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007


"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable ... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, FlandreInfo, 23 June 2007

You can add them to my earlier citations from Garrett FitzGerald and former German President Herzog.

Scofflaw

Leaving aside the fact that baseless allegations have been thrown at certain MEPs by a Yes poster - allegations that have yet to attract your attention Moriarty, here are a few clues for you on what jawlie is referring to:

I seem to recall being quite specific about what Jens-Peter Bonde was lying about - his claim that the heads of state who signed the treaty had not read, and could not have read it. Since it certainly is possible to read it, Mr Bonde is lying. Straightforward enough for you, I hope.

If you wish to counter, rather than hiding behind innuendo and standardised No-vote quotes, perhaps you'd like either to prove that no head of state has read the Treaty, or alternatively, that it is in fact, impossible for a career legislator to read it...and in Bertie's case, impossible for a man who has drafted quite impenetrable legislation himself.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to discuss, say, Mary-Lou or Kathy Sinnott's various pronouncements on the treaty, you're welcome (although Mary-Lou's have been discussed before, when "P_ONeill" posted them), although then one once again runs into the problem that if they are "telling the truth about the treaty", nearly every other Irish politician is therefore lying. While I'm not exactly amazed by the idea that politicians lie, I'm not sure why these two are somehow so far above even the suspicion of it that the suggestion provokes such outrage?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galliard

You are probably unique on this thread in making allegations of lying against those you disagree with. You seem completely unable to answer the actual arguments made by the interviewees in the End of Nations video.

You also suggest that people who agree with the two No MEPs must somehow believe the Yes Irish MEPs are liars. Nonsense. Fairminded people realise it is possible to have a genuine difference of opinion over Lisbon, without either party being branded in the way you favour.

But sure stir away boy. When you resort to name calling you have lost the argument.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

You are probably unique on this thread in making allegations of lying against those you disagree with.

Hmm. I have made that "allegation" against 1 (one) MEP - Bonde. It's very specific, and you don't seem to want to even address that, but rather to continue claiming I have made several such allegations of much broader scope.

I see little point in continuing such a discussion. You're welcome to post the arguments made in the video if you wish them discussed.

regards,
Scofflaw

Galliard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. I have made that "allegation" against 1 (one) MEP - Bonde. It's very specific, and you don't seem to want to even address that, but rather to continue claiming I have made several such allegations of much broader scope.

Scofflaw

More claims of 'dishonesty' and 'stupidity' thrown at people in your post 339, page 17. Why?

When you name call, you lose.

Rossibaby

i'll be voting no

simple reasons really,teh arrogance of the EU in saying they won't respect our referendum...it is pro-nucleur power...more tax money will be spent on the military as a result of this treaties policy on our troops having to join this EU idea,which in fact leaves our government unable to decide when and where irish troops go,thus possibly ridding us of our neutrality...it doesnt take a genius to realise this is bad for ireland

can we have a poll on this?

IRLConor

Rossibaby wrote: »

teh arrogance of the EU in saying they won't respect our referendum...

While there are many quotes above from prominent European politicians saying things which could be interpreted as that, I don't remember seeing any official policy of the EU saying that they won't respect our referendum.

Perhaps you could point out the place where the EU made an official statement saying that it won't respect our referendum? I must have missed it.

Rossibaby wrote: »

it is pro-nucleur power...

Do you mean weapons or electricity generation or both?

Rossibaby wrote: »

more tax money will be spent on the military as a result of this treaties policy on our troops having to join this EU idea, which in fact leaves our government unable to decide when and where irish troops go, thus possibly ridding us of our neutrality...

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 2008 will, if passed, add the following to our constitution: (bits in braces are mine)

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to -

1. Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section {Nice Treaty}, or
2. Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of this section {Lisbon Treaty},

where that common defence would include the State.

which by my understanding preserves our current status and allows us to opt out of the common defence bits.

Rossibaby wrote: »

can we have a poll on this?

Yes. We're having one in June.

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote:

More claims of 'dishonesty' and 'stupidity' thrown at people in your post 339, page 17. Why?

When you name call, you lose.

I take it then that you mean:

"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."

I stand by that that statement...I accept that there is certainly room for disagreement, but that those who I have stated as lying about specific things are lying about them...and I see that you don't actually disagree, but prefer instead to imply that I am accusing someone here of lying. If that's what you actually mean, please say so - otherwise this is, as I've already said, argument by innuendo.

It's exactly what I've just said above. Do you have anything substantive to discuss, or is this all there is to your position? No disrespect intended, but is this what passes for "substantive" discussion on politics.ie (I'm going on your join date there - feel free to state that it's coincidental)?

regards,
Scofflaw

Galliard

You leave out the actual part of your post 339 that accuses two identified people of being dishonest or stupid. I suppose you think that makes it easier to defend the bit of that post you quote above?

Stick to the issues, leave personal attacks out of it.

Moriarty

Galliard, either contribute to the thread and stop sniping at posters or don't post. Scofflaw has explained his position more than adequately.

I won't tollerate you dragging the thread off topic.

If you've a problem with this, take it up in Feedback as the politics charter outlines and I'll be happy to engage with you there about the moderation of this forum. Any discussion of moderating decisions posted in this thread will get the poster a ban, just so we're clear. This is to prevent it being derailed.

Rossibaby

IRLConor wrote: »

While there are many quotes above from prominent European politicians saying things which could be interpreted as that, I don't remember seeing any official policy of the EU saying that they won't respect our referendum.

Perhaps you could point out the place where the EU made an official statement saying that it won't respect our referendum? I must have missed it.



Do you mean weapons or electricity generation or both?



The Twenty-Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 2008 will, if passed, add the following to our constitution: (bits in braces are mine)



which by my understanding preserves our current status and allows us to opt out of the common defence bits.



Yes. We're having one in June.

so i assume your a yes vote??grrr:D

nucleur power my friend,and thats not really a good thing in my mind.with us having less power and such on decisions i would not like to think an uprise in nuclear reactors would take place in EU countries

with regard to the troops i believe there is something in teh constitution which means we'll need a referendum to decide on the subject of where they are sent etc....but ia rgue this to you,if this referendum did take place wouldn't there be similar calls for it not to be respected,plus our current government would would no doubt beg us to vote yes on that and not feed us proper information...imo this treaty does not serve the people fo ireland...

the bookies are saying it will be a landslide yes vote for sure,i saw 1/8 in celtic bookmakers,i hope it doesnt work out like this....does anyone know if its just a straigth vote where we need to win to get the no vote or do we just need a 1/3 of the vote which i heard....most likely the first scenario i think ya?

Moriarty

Jawlie's post deleted. Take it up on feedback. Last warning to everyone.

dlofnep

My biggest concern with this treaty is that the Yes camp are stating that if we vote no, then we are one step away from exiting the EU. This is absolutely false. We will still be a member of the EU, and always will be. We do not have to be the Yes-man for anybody. Ireland is nobody's toy, and we have every right to make a stand against something not in our interests.

The EU is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. But the Lisbon treaty has many bad aspects, which we can change to suit Ireland better. We should look at our own personal interests first and foremost.

I will personally be voting no, and nothing anyone can say or do will change it. I won't tell anyone else how to vote, and all that I would ask is that people be at least aware of the pros and cons of this treaty and to make up their mind on their own accord, instead of being led by either the Yes or No camps.

This is a very interesting thread btw - it's great to read the contrasting opinions.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

My biggest concern with this treaty is that the Yes camp are stating that if we vote no, then we are one step away from exiting the EU. This is absolutely false. We will still be a member of the EU, and always will be. We do not have to be the Yes-man for anybody. Ireland is nobody's toy, and we have every right to make a stand against something not in our interests.

I think the point raised is more that we will definitely move away from our current position very close to the central flow of the EU, and may be perceived as more similar to the UK in terms of attitude.

dlofnep wrote: »

The EU is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. But the Lisbon treaty has many bad aspects, which we can change to suit Ireland better. We should look at our own personal interests first and foremost.

OK - why? And why do you think we can renegotiate the treaty to "suit Ireland better"? Nice wasn't renegotiated to suit Ireland - our proposed amendment was changed. There's a very limited amount of room for movement when the interests of 27 countries are at stake.

dlofnep wrote: »

I will personally be voting no, and nothing anyone can say or do will change it. I won't tell anyone else how to vote, and all that I would ask is that people be at least aware of the pros and cons of this treaty and to make up their mind on their own accord, instead of being led by either the Yes or No camps.

I agree entirely. There is a pretty low signal to noise ratio in the debate so far.

dlofnep wrote: »

This is a very interesting thread btw - it's great to read the contrasting opinions.

Out of interest, what would the bad points of the Treaty be, in your opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

Rossibaby wrote: »

so i assume your a yes vote??grrr:D

Not yet, I haven't read it all. If you, I or anyone else finds a piece of the treaty that makes it worth voting against then I'm perfectly willing to vote no.

If someone held a gun to my head and made me vote now I'd probably vote yes since everything I've read in the treaty so far makes sense and is a good thing for the EU in general.

Rossibaby wrote: »

nucleur power my friend,and thats not really a good thing in my mind.with us having less power and such on decisions i would not like to think an uprise in nuclear reactors would take place in EU countries

I'm not against nuclear power generation on principle. It's a tricky technology and the failure effects are quite scary but I'm reasonably convinced that there's a lot of scaremongering that goes on around nuclear power. It doesn't help that Irish people typically only ever think of Sellafield or Chernobyl when nuclear power is mentioned.

I don't think the treaty will require us to open nuclear power plants in Ireland. If you're worried about other member states opening nuclear power plants well then there's not a lot to talk about. The EU won't force them to open nuclear power plants, they'll decide for themselves. It's a matter for the people and governments of other states, there's sod all we can do about it and your vote on the Lisbon Treaty will make no difference to their decisions.

Rossibaby wrote: »

with regard to the troops i believe there is something in teh constitution which means we'll need a referendum to decide on the subject of where they are sent etc....but ia rgue this to you,if this referendum did take place wouldn't there be similar calls for it not to be respected,plus our current government would would no doubt beg us to vote yes on that and not feed us proper information...imo this treaty does not serve the people fo ireland...

There is no requirement in the constitution for a referendum on the use of military force or on the participation in a war. The bit you're probably thinking of is:

War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

In practice, as a matter of policy, the state will only participate in a conflict if there is the consent of the government, the Dáil and the UN Security Council. This is often referred to as the "triple lock". To the best of my knowledge this is merely policy and not law, hence the government is not required to follow it. All they need is "the assent of Dáil Éireann" which I assume means a majority of the Dáil.

Rossibaby wrote: »

the bookies are saying it will be a landslide yes vote for sure,i saw 1/8 in celtic bookmakers,i hope it doesnt work out like this....does anyone know if its just a straigth vote where we need to win to get the no vote or do we just need a 1/3 of the vote which i heard....most likely the first scenario i think ya?

A simple majority is all that is required. See Article 47 of the constitution.

dlofnep

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think the point raised is more that we will definitely move away from our current position very close to the central flow of the EU, and may be perceived as more similar to the UK in terms of attitude.

We will not suffer from voting no. We will not be expelled from the EU. It doesn't matter how we are perceived - the people of the EU are not all in favour of this. We may shine bright to many of them. We are voting for us and nobody else however, which is why it's irrelevant how other states perceive us.

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK - why? And why do you think we can renegotiate the treaty to "suit Ireland better"? Nice wasn't renegotiated to suit Ireland - our proposed amendment was changed. There's a very limited amount of room for movement when the interests of 27 countries are at stake.

If everyone adopted that attitude, one man would rule this world. How about we let the people decide, and if it's rejected - we will see what happens? You are already conceding defeat before we have even had a say. Our voice is important, and it should not be silenced because of X chance of the treaty not being amended. This is supposed to be a democracy. I don't see the democracy in giving in to pressure.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Out of interest, what would the bad points of the Treaty be, in your opinion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have a problem with the common security and defense policy. I do not believe that every war fought by a single EU entity is of Ireland's best interests. I also object to increasing our military expenditure. We have much more important issues to address in Ireland, and much better areas to spend our tax on than increasing the military of a so-called neutral state, which is not addressed.

I don't believe the EU treaty is democratic. I believe it is moving from more balanced power to centralised power, evident by a reduction in voting strength, national vetoes on various policies, lack of a commissioner to address policies that may not benefit us and so forth.

I'm not a fan of nuclear energy and believe we should be investing heavily into natural resources like wind and sea, rather than pump endless euros in support of Euratom for a nuclear Europe. While it may benefit large countries like France, Ireland has alternatives. And while some studies claim that it is safe and not hazardess to health, some other studies have proven otherwise - (1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9210727?dopt=Abstract) & (2. http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/lahague.html) - And while I'm not a medical professional, I do believe it's something we should at least consider. Not including, possible terrorist attacks on nuclear plants from those who have become fearful of a "stronger" and more united Europe. It may never happen, but who's to say?

I'll respond further tomorrow, it's 2:30am and I need to get some rest.

IRLConor

dlofnep wrote: »

I have a problem with the common security and defense policy. I do not believe that every war fought by a single EU entity is of Ireland's best interests. I also object to increasing our military expenditure. We have much more important issues to address in Ireland, and much better areas to spend our tax on than increasing the military of a so-called neutral state, which is not addressed.

The section which I think people are referring to when they say that we will end up increasing military expenditure is Article 42.3 (paragraph 2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Lisbon Treaty):

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

The 28th amendment to our constitution (the one which we'll be having the referendum on in June) explicitly opts us out of this section.

If we increase military spending it will be because our government decides to do it, not due to any obligation with the EU.

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm not a fan of nuclear energy and believe we should be investing heavily into natural resources like wind and sea, rather than pump endless euros in support of Euratom for a nuclear Europe.

Unless I'm very much mistaken the Lisbon Treaty will not increase the funding for EURATOM. Since the funding of EURATOM comes out of the EU general budget there should be no change in the amount of Irish money going to EURATOM (it's about €2 million of the ~€165 million EURATOM budget from the figures I've seen). We've been funding it for years and will continue to fund it whether or not we approve of the Lisbon Treaty.

In short I don't believe nuclear power has anything to do with the Lisbon Treaty and hence has no bearing on the way I should vote.

Galliard

IRLConor wrote: »

The section which I think people are referring to when they say that we will end up increasing military expenditure is Article 42.3 (paragraph 2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Lisbon Treaty):



The 28th amendment to our constitution (the one which we'll be having the referendum on in June) explicitly opts us out of this section.

You are mistaken Conor. The amendment (which you helpfully quoted earlier) opts us out of something called common defence, and that only. This is quite tricky language so your mistake is understandable, but the opt out has no bearing on our duty to abide by Article 42.3 para 2. We will be obliged to upgrade our military, and we will be answerable to the Defence Agency of the EU if we fall short.

BTW even thought the Defence Agency was not even mentioned in any previous Treaty, it has been set up already and we are paying money to it - close on half a mill at the moment I think (last official figure I found was €300k in 2005). Lisbon will give the Agency an official Treaty-based status and expand its powers.

For more detail from an Irish perspective on the military side of Lisbon there is a very good research paper written by the former senior Green researcher Carol Fox on the Pana site at http://pana.ie/download/Irish-Independence-PANA.pdf. The first few pages are written by someone else and you can take or leave them but her stuff is excellent and accurate. Which is important in this area.

P_ONeil

A few things I wanted to address from a few pages back...

First, the new 'Treaty' isn't new at all. It is in fact the EU constitution - 96% of the treaty is the same, no changes at all. In fact, if you visit the governments own website (www.forumoneurope.ie), you will see the the documents on the main page they have there for the treaty are the same documents they had supporting the constitution. They didn't even bother editing or renaming them - the governments pro-treaty documents still say 'constitution' and have the title 'eu constitution' on them - they didnt even bother making up new materials.

Lets look at a few quotes from the past few months on the treaty from a few names you might recognise...

“The negative results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands were a setback, but this has no bearing whatever on whether or not we need a Constitution. I say yes, we need the constitutional Treaty” -Angela Merkel, May 2006

“The rejection of the Constitution was mistake which will have to be corrected...” - Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Feb 2006

“In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way...” - Valery Giscard d'Estaing, July 2007

“90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to what was agreed back in 2004” - Bertie Ahern, June 2007

“France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all member states if they have a referendum...A referendum now would bring Europe into danger.” - Nicolas Sarkozy, November 2007

So the question then is, if this is the same thing that they voted against in the Netherlands and France, then how is it better for the people if the governments force it upon them even though they voted against it? The comments by the government leaders implying that the people 'made a mistake' is pretty telling here. I mean, what sort of a leader says he knows better than the people? What sort of leader claims the people 'made a mistake' when voting? How exactly does one make a mistake when exercising their democratic rights? Are these leaders seriously implying they know whats best for the people and that the people should not have the power to vote democratically because they will 'get it wrong'? I mean, this reeks of old school monarchies here - an elite group of few claiming they know whats best for the masses and that the masses should not have input into the affairs of the government.

It bothers me that any group of leaders would call the vote of their people 'wrong'. It bothers me that a group of leaders has taken it upon themselves to override the will and democratic right of the people. But what bothers me the most is that these facts are being left out of the discussion around this. Lets not forget EVERY other EU nations has had this treaty forced down their throat without any discussion, without any democratic input from the people. The two nations who did vote on 96% of the same treaty were deemed 'wrong' and then forced to accept it anyway. Is this what we have to look forward to? Having the democratic will of the people deemed 'wrong' and legislation forced upon us, whether we like it or not?

Another fact here for ye. The 'Treaty' isn't really a treaty at all. It's a collection of over 300 amendments to other existing treaties. Also, did you know the government hasn't produced a copy of this treaty? The EU has told the Irish government that they cannot produce copies of the entire treaty until AFTER the referendum is passed. What sort of treaty is it that they have to hide it from the people and make the people vote on it without ever having access to it?

I mean, if you were asked to sign a document you never saw, but merely had your local TD assure you it was in your best interest to sign, would you sign it? If you would be skeptical about doing such, then why would you vote for a treaty that you are not given access to? What sort of organisation forces people to vote on a treaty but denies those who are governed by the treaty access to the actual document?

This does not pass the proverbial 'sniff-test'. People are arguing the pros and cons of a document which no one has access to. People are being forced in some countries to accept legislation which they voted in majority against. Leaders are telling the people they know better than the masses, and are ignoring the will of the people. Leaders are actively saying that democracy is bad and that somehow, people given the right to a democratic vote can make a 'wrong' choice.

The discussion on what the treaty entails is still being debated, and will be for a while. Whether your for or against the treaty does not change the obvious abuse of democracy and lack of democratic principles surrounding the treaty that are not being mentioned.

Galliard

European Parliament is having its own troubles at the moment, according to the Sunday Business Post. I'd be wary of trusting that institution with any more power over us if this story is true.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqm=nav-qqqid=31270-qqqx=1.asp

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

European Parliament is having its own troubles at the moment, according to the Sunday Business Post. I'd be wary of trusting that institution with any more power over us if this story is true.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqm=nav-qqqid=31270-qqqx=1.asp

Because our own politicians are so clean and transparent about their finances?

amused,
Scofflaw

Thirdfox

^ Indeed - if we could have the German public transport system I'd be forever grateful (or the Swedish healthcare system).