Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Scofflaw

P_ONeil wrote: »

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.

Hmm. I've read the Treaty, and the EU-approved IIEA consolidated version. An EU version is apparently due out next month. If you haven't read it yourself, that's your privilege, but why would you claim that the text is somehow impossible to get hold of? It's extremely easy to find.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

Galliard wrote: »

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.

That's not how I read it. Fair enough, I'll ask my nearest friendly lawyer for an interpretation next time I see him.

Galliard wrote: »

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.

I should probably point out that I'm not ideologically opposed to an EU common defence or to Irish participation in it. I'm also not ideologically opposed to the notion of the EU as a world power.

I've only skimmed the document you linked to but it seems to presume (rightly I guess considering its audience) that any involvement of Ireland in EU common defence or military power is a bad thing. Fair enough, but I'm not quite so black-and-white on that issue.

P_ONeil

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. I've read the Treaty, and the EU-approved IIEA consolidated version. An EU version is apparently due out next month. If you haven't read it yourself, that's your privilege, but why would you claim that the text is somehow impossible to get hold of? It's extremely easy to find.

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Really? I have attended two of the public meetings listed on the governments website (www.forumoneurope.ie) and this was always a point of contention the FF TD's who were there never had a good argument for.

So your saying the FF TD's were wrong? That they lied to everyone in the nation and it is publicly available?

Please, tell us where you got it! Are you a TD? Also, they claimed it was longer than an encyclopedia - how long did it take you to read it and how many pages is it?

But please, first let us know where you got it so we can also have a go at it!

Scofflaw

Galliard wrote: »

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.

I agree with Galliard here - our amendment opts us out of Common Defence, but not the EDA.

"Progressive improvement" of our "military capabilities" is what's in there - "upgrade" is a reasonable way of putting it, I suppose. The intention appears to be to bring Irish defence forces "up to scratch" in terms of being able to work with other EU forces.

That seems reasonable to me, since when Irish troops are on UN-approved missions, they usually have to work with the other EU forces. I don't see that it implies any kind of "increase" in Ireland's defence forces, as some people say.

As to the European Defence Agency, Ireland has something like a 12-year commitment to put €20m into it (hence your €300K figure for 2005). Given that we apparently have a defence budget of over a billion euro a year, this isn't even chickenfeed.

And, really, "answerable" to the EDA? Would you perhaps like to tell us exactly what the punitive capabilities of the EDA are?

Galliard wrote: »

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.

Hmm. I've seen this quoted, with almost exactly the same proviso, elsewhere. Start from page 6, I think you said.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

P_ONeil wrote: »

Really? I have attended two of the public meetings listed on the governments website (www.forumoneurope.ie) and this was always a point of contention the FF TD's who were there never had a good argument for.

So your saying the FF TD's were wrong? That they lied to everyone in the nation and it is publicly available?

Please, tell us where you got it! Are you a TD? Also, they claimed it was longer than an encyclopedia - how long did it take you to read it and how many pages is it?

But please, first let us know where you got it so we can also have a go at it!

Well, you can get the Treaty text, and the IIEA consolidated versions, via Europa. Happy reading!

P_ONeil wrote: »

So your saying the FF TD's were wrong? That they lied to everyone in the nation and it is publicly available?

I don't know what FF TDs may or may not have said, but with a few honourable exceptions I wouldn't take the word of an Irish politician that it was raining. Also, I thought the FF TDs had been rather conspicuous by their absence at the Forum on Europe debates?

No offence, by the way, but you're the second or third person on this thread to pull this tone of pseudo-amazement at any suggestion that Irish politicians might not always be completely right and entirely transparent in their motivations. I'm sorry to say I don't believe you're genuinely amazed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chunky Monkey

Thirdfox wrote: »

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

German transport system definitely. Think I would love the French healthcare system too. Free nanny paid for by the government to come cook my meals and do my laundry when I have a baby? Yes please.

Sponge Bob

I have a bad feeling about the Lisbon Treaty that can only be assuaged by fixing politics.ie so that its inmates can go back to being charming and witty, particularly with each other.

Meanwhile I heard the OFFICIAL spin from the government Press Office (direct) this weekend.

The key spin now is :

IF we reject Lisbon THEN we must leave the Eurozone and THEN the ECB will not save our banks from their inevitable fate.

And yes its BS, the treaty has nothing to do with the Euro !
Expect this line to be spoon fed to some tame journalists and to a couple of FF councillors over the next week in the hope that it will grow organically thereafter but this Sponge has it fresh from the font of all BS :cool:

Chunky Monkey

There are quite a few irritating BS nationalistic lines coming from the no side as well.

Scofflaw

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I have a bad feeling about the Lisbon Treaty that can only be assuaged by fixing politics.ie so that its inmates can go back to being charming and witty, particularly with each other.

Meanwhile I heard the OFFICIAL spin from the government Press Office (direct) this weekend.

The key spin now is :

IF we reject Lisbon THEN we must leave the Eurozone and THEN the ECB will not save our banks from their inevitable fate.

And yes its BS, the treaty has nothing to do with the Euro !
Expect this line to be spoon fed to some tame journalists and to a couple of FF councillors over the next week in the hope that it will grow organically thereafter but this Sponge has it fresh from the font of all BS :cool:

Woah...the government Press Office works Bank Holiday weekends? Scary.

amused,
Scofflaw

Galliard

Rust never sleeps.

irishsaint

The problem with the Lisbon Treaty is that we will never ever be given the chance to vote in a referendum again on EU issues. That for me is my main reason to why i will vote no. As the treaty is self amendable under article 48, we loose all rights to democratic aspects of EU politics. Even if you are not a fan of politics, even if you have no interest in voting on this or even if you are going to vote yes because our leader says thats good.... i will just say this food for thought.... by voting yes, you will take away your childrens, our childrens, future EU generations from ever having a voice in a democratic process on EU affairs. This treaty will in effect give power to countries with Major populations in a centralized EU government to decide whats best for Cashel, Co Tipperary, Tuam, Co Galway, Tramore, Co Waterford, Hospital, Co Limerick, Mayo, Co Mayo, Buncranna, Co Donegal, Dundalk, Co Louth, Carlow, Co Carlow and every other single town, townsland, village and city in Ireland by putting the needs of their own people, their own country and their own political and economic agenda first with the effects here as a simple side effect.

Scofflaw

irishsaint wrote: »

The problem with the Lisbon Treaty is that we will never ever be given the chance to vote in a referendum again on EU issues. That for me is my main reason to why i will vote no. As the treaty is self amendable under article 48, we loose all rights to democratic aspects of EU politics. Even if you are not a fan of politics, even if you have no interest in voting on this or even if you are going to vote yes because our leader says thats good.... i will just say this food for thought.... by voting yes, you will take away your childrens, our childrens, future EU generations from ever having a voice in a democratic process on EU affairs.

If that were the case, voting Yes would be an act of treason, rather than "food for thought". The question is why you think this, when Article 48(4) states quite clearly that any amendments to the Treaty will enter into force only after being ratified by all Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In our case, if the amendment involves any transfer of sovereignty, that will require a referendum.

irishsaint wrote: »

This treaty will in effect give power to countries with Major populations in a centralized EU government to decide whats best for Cashel, Co Tipperary, Tuam, Co Galway, Tramore, Co Waterford, Hospital, Co Limerick, Mayo, Co Mayo, Buncranna, Co Donegal, Dundalk, Co Louth, Carlow, Co Carlow and every other single town, townsland, village and city in Ireland by putting the needs of their own people, their own country and their own political and economic agenda first with the effects here as a simple side effect.

Sigh. You may or may not know this, but that has no relevance whatsoever to the Lisbon Treaty, which does not create such a situation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

It is so sad that some who contribute to boards do so in an effort to dig in and find arguments to back up their opinion, and ignore any arguments which confilict with it. It may be that giving more power to the EU is the right thing to do. It may be that it is not. In another thread this was said;

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

I think Tony Benn best summed up Democracy

"If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."

In the EU we have no mechanism to get rid of the commissioners, or proposed president, where the power lies. That is the reason why we should vote no to this treaty's expansion of the powers of the unelected commissioners and president. We should continue to vote no to any expansion of their powers until such time that they are subject to the democratic will of all of us.

Argue all you will, but until this is the case, arguments for or against this treaty are sideshows and smokescreens.

We need democracy. We are offered a situation where we have no way to get rid of those with power over our lives.

Vote no.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

It is so sad that some who contribute to boards do so in an effort to dig in and find arguments to back up their opinion, and ignore any arguments which confilict with it. It may be that giving more power to the EU is the right thing to do. It may be that it is not. In another thread this was said;

In the EU we have no mechanism to get rid of the commissioners, or proposed president, where the power lies. That is the reason why we should vote no to this treaty's expansion of the powers of the unelected commissioners and president. We should continue to vote no to any expansion of their powers until such time that they are subject to the democratic will of all of us.

Argue all you will, but until this is the case, arguments for or against this treaty are sideshows and smokescreens.

We need democracy. We are offered a situation where we have no way to get rid of those with power over our lives.

Vote no.

Hmm. We elect the Parliament. The Parliament can fire the Commission, and has done so. The Lisbon Treaty makes the Parliament integral to the process of legislation through a huge extension of 'co-decision' - making the approval of the directly elected Parliament necessary for nearly all legislation.

So, while the Treaty may not make things perfect (and what would be perfect, exactly), it is a huge step forward in the accountability of power in the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jawlie

I can only repeat that in the EU we have no mechanism to get rid of the commissioners, or proposed president, where the power lies. That is the reason why we should vote no to this treaty's expansion of the powers of the unelected commissioners and president. We should continue to vote no to any expansion of their powers until such time that they are subject to the democratic will of all of us.

Argue all you will, but until this is the case, arguments for or against this treaty are sideshows and smokescreens.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I can only repeat that in the EU we have no mechanism to get rid of the commissioners, or proposed president, where the power lies. That is the reason why we should vote no to this treaty's expansion of the powers of the unelected commissioners and president. We should continue to vote no to any expansion of their powers until such time that they are subject to the democratic will of all of us.

Argue all you will, but until this is the case, arguments for or against this treaty are sideshows and smokescreens.

The Treaty certainly does expand the powers of the Parliament in respect of EU legislation - but they're directly elected, so I presume you don't hae a problem with that. It doesn't give the EU any new competences, and it reduces the powers of the Commission by requiring legislation to be passed by the Parliament. The President gets a longer term, not new powers.

Perhaps you can tell me what in this treaty "expands the powers" of the Commission? Or the President, for that matter? No offence, but your claims are very large, and you don't seem to be offering any evidence as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

jawlie wrote: »

I can only repeat that in the EU we have no mechanism to get rid of the commissioners,

The Parliament can do this. We elect the Parliament. Hence, there is a mechanism.

jawlie wrote: »

or proposed president,

The Parliament can do this. We elect the Parliament. Hence, there is a mechanism.

Why would you "repeat that in the EU we have no mechanism to get rid of the commissioners"? Do you want a mechanism for the people of the EU to directly remove the commissioners/president without going via the Parliament?

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

The Parliament can do this. We elect the Parliament. Hence, there is a mechanism.



?

I am delighted to learn that there is, in fact, a mechanism for the parliament to get rid of the president and commission. Could you point me to where this legislation is on the statute books and I'd be very interested to read it.?

Additionally, are you saying that you are not in the least concerned that we don not elect the president, or the commissioners, who seem to be "appointed" as a result of political horse trading.

Are you saying that you are not even a little concerned that the president, or the commissioners, (where the real power of the EU lies) are not elected by a single vote?

I'd be grateful if you could remember to point me in the direction of that legislation which includes the power and the authority to the parliament to dismiss a commissioner, or a president.

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

I am delighted to learn that there is, in fact, a mechanism for the parliament to get rid of the president and commission. Could you point me to where this legislation is on the statute books and I'd be very interested to read it.?

You could start here - it'a an introductory page about the EUP from the Irish EU Parliament site. It's nice and clear:

The EP now plays a decisive role in the appointment of the President of the Commission and of the Commission as a whole. It can fire the entire Commission if dissatisfied with its performance. The EP selects the EU Ombudsman and has a growing role in choosing the members of the European Central Bank , the European Court of Auditors and the Directors and certain members of the Management Boards of many EU agencies .

Or this longer run-down of the EUP's powers and responsibilities:

Parliament exercises democratic supervision over the other EU institutions, and in particular the Commission. It has the power to approve or reject the nomination of commissioners, and it has the right to censure the Commission as a whole.

jawlie wrote: »

Additionally, are you saying that you are not in the least concerned that we don not elect the president, or the commissioners, who seem to be "appointed" as a result of political horse trading.

Are you saying that you are not even a little concerned that the president, or the commissioners, (where the real power of the EU lies) are not elected by a single vote?

"Where the real power lies"? Perhaps you might back that up? How is that they have the "real power"?

jawlie wrote: »

I'd be grateful if you could remember to point me in the direction of that legislation which includes the power and the authority to the parliament to dismiss a commissioner, or a president.

May take a little while to dig up the actual treaties, but you're aware, presumably, that in 1999 the Parliament did dismiss the entire Commission?

I've said this before - people don't take MEP elections seriously enough.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

jawlie wrote:

It is so sad that some who contribute to boards do so in an effort to dig in and find arguments to back up their opinion, and ignore any arguments which confilict with it.

Arguments like the Comissioners being answerable to and fireable by the (elected) Parliament?

IRLConor

Since Scofflaw has answered the rest, I'll just address this part:

jawlie wrote: »

Additionally, are you saying that you are not in the least concerned that we don not elect the president, or the commissioners, who seem to be "appointed" as a result of political horse trading.

Are you saying that you are not even a little concerned that the president, or the commissioners, (where the real power of the EU lies) are not elected by a single vote?

We have almost exactly the same system here. Replace "commissioner" with "minister" and "president" with "Taoiseach". We don't vote to select who becomes a minister/Taoiseach (where the real power lies). They're appointed as a result of political horse trading.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily a good way of doing it, simply that it is neither unusual nor particularly dangerous.

Mr. Incognito

It seems to me a lot of people tend to be anti-european as a whole- maybe this harps back to nationalistic tendencies, but those that are anti-european do not seem to be informed on the matters.

The european union is not a faceless boogeyman in brussels. I'm so sick of scare tactics that have nothing to do with the treaties being reguritated over and over again. The treaties, constitution etc have nothing whatsoever to do with:

Ireland's neutrality.
Abortion
Superceding the Irish consitution.

etc.

Can anyone point out to me using a tangible example how joining the EU has been detrimental to ireland:

Economically?
or has led to dissolution of Irelands soverign democratic processes?

Rational thought leads one to believe that future performance is based on past performance. European unionisation has been fantastic for Ireland as a whole and I think the minority begrudgers can raise all the unrealistic scaremongering they like but thankfully anyone with a small bit of research into the matter should be able to make up their own mind.

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

We have almost exactly the same system here. Replace "commissioner" with "minister" and "president" with "Taoiseach". We don't vote to select who becomes a minister/Taoiseach (where the real power lies). They're appointed as a result of political horse trading.

.

The crucial difference is that the Taoiseach, and ministers, are all elected by their constituents, and the mechanism they/we have to get rid of them is through the democratic instrument of the ballot box.

And that is my point, the proposed president, and commissioners, are not.

jawlie wrote: »

I'd be grateful if you could remember to point me in the direction of that legislation which includes the power and the authority to the parliament to dismiss a commissioner, or a president.

I note you have yet to come up with the statute. Perhaps it's unfair to ask for it, but you have made the claim that the parliament has a mechanism to dismiss a president, or a commissioner, and I am not at all sure you are right.

In any case, it still does not address the very important point that they are not elected by anyone and not answerable to any electorate.

What is so wrong with democratic accountability that you seem to prefer that the people who hold the reins of power in the EU are not democratically elected or accountable?

oscarBravo

jawlie wrote: »

I note you have yet to come up with the statute. Perhaps it's unfair to ask for it, but you have made the claim that the parliament has a mechanism to dismiss a president, or a commissioner, and I am not at all sure you are right.

Did you miss the fact that it has already happened?

jawlie wrote: »

In any case, it still does not address the very important point that they are not elected by anyone and not answerable to any electorate.

They are answerable to the democratically elected Parliament.

jawlie wrote: »

What is so wrong with democratic accountability that you seem to prefer that the people who hold the reins of power in the EU are not democratically elected or accountable?

Are you of the opinion that every position of power or responsibility must be elected? Should our judges be elected? Or the Garda Commissioner?

You still haven't explained why you believe the commission has the real power.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I note you have yet to come up with the statute. Perhaps it's unfair to ask for it, but you have made the claim that the parliament has a mechanism to dismiss a president, or a commissioner, and I am not at all sure you are right.

Did you miss the fact that it has already happened?

Sigh...I thought jawlie was going to do this, but I was hoping...he's not really interested in reality. If you can't point to the legislation, he will continue to claim that there is "some kind of doubt". A sophistic tactic, which we've seen a lot of in this "debate".

The article in question is Article 201 EC, originally 144: the Treaty of Rome made provision for a motion of censure against the Commission (Article 201 (144) EC). It requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, representing a majority of Parliament's component members, in which case the Commission must resign as a body.

wearily,
Scofflaw

P_ONeil

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, you can get the Treaty text, and the IIEA consolidated versions, via Europa. Happy reading!



I don't know what FF TDs may or may not have said, but with a few honourable exceptions I wouldn't take the word of an Irish politician that it was raining. Also, I thought the FF TDs had been rather conspicuous by their absence at the Forum on Europe debates?

No offence, by the way, but you're the second or third person on this thread to pull this tone of pseudo-amazement at any suggestion that Irish politicians might not always be completely right and entirely transparent in their motivations. I'm sorry to say I don't believe you're genuinely amazed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't put much faith in the words of politicians, especially FF, just looking at the Mahon Tribunal thread you have to put on a pair of wellies to keep the ****e off yer pants.

Back to your first statement about the Treaty being available and the fact you 'read' it -

I checked the site listed. Granted it does have the Treaty there. However, as it has been said by me and others, the Lisbon Treaty is not a treaty but 300 ammendments to other treaties. The document you provided is a complete list of those 300 ammendments, but unless put into context of the treaties they are modifying they don't make any sense.

Claiming you 'read' the treaty and understood it is, well, laughable. It's like reading someones revision notes on a book, without reading the book or even having a copy of the book. They make references to articles and line numbers, and unless you have the full text of the various treaties which each of these new amendments are referring to in front of you, thousands of pages from different treaties, then you have no idea exactly what they are amending nor can you tell what context the proposal is in.

Your assertion that the Treaty was an easy read and is readily available is wrong. It's not available in full, as it would be thousands of pages. They merely have provided the text of the treaty (just the new amendments) and have not included any of the material which is being amended. Unless you have read dozens of other EU treaties and have them on hand when you read this treaty you have no idea what they are talking about.

Like you, I read the Treaty as posted there but unless you have all the other treaties that are being amended in front of you and know what they are amending, the document you provided and the ones going around on the net are pretty much worthless.


As I said, the government has been barred by the EU from releasing a full document of the actually treaties with the new amendments in place until AFTER the referendum.

jawlie

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you miss the fact that it has already happened? They are answerable to the democratically elected Parliament. Are you of the opinion that every position of power or responsibility must be elected? Should our judges be elected? Or the Garda Commissioner?

You still haven't explained why you believe the commission has the real power.

It's a shame that we have to take up such polarised viewpoints and are not able to discuss and learn from each other.

It's a separate discussion to go off on a tangent and discuss whether Judges or the Garda commissioner should be elected, and I'd be delighted to discuss that in another thread.

I am not aware that it has ever happened that the parliament has ever dismissed a president, and I am not aware of a case where the parliament has ever dismissed a commissioner.

I am aware that the EP has the power of censure under Art 201 by which the EP can, by two thirds majority, force the resignation of the commission as a whole. I am not aware of the statute by which it can dismiss a single commissioner.

The claim has been made that the parliament has the power to dismiss a president or a commissioner, and I have asked those who make that claim to back it up as I am genuinely interested to read the statute that gives them that power. Hectoring each other or being abusive really doesn't add to the discussion.

To answer your point about the commission; The commission draws up the EU budget, and the EP may only suggest "modifications" to what is deemed to be compulsory expenditure, and may propose amendments to non-compulsory expenditure. The council has the power to reverse the EP's modifications to the compulsory expenditure.

Additionally, the commission proposes new policies and initiates legislation, the commission is the watchdog concerning infringements of EU law, it enacts delegated legislation and acts as the executive of the EU. It has the power to represent the EU in external relations also. In fact, the commission acts in many ways like our own cabinet.

The EP has the power to reject the budget as a whole and has done this twice in its history.

To imply, as you seem to, that the commissioners and president have no power, and consequently that it is of no consequence whether or not they are elected, is disingenious. They control the budget of the EU and we can all decide for ourselves whether or not this gives them power.

oscarBravo wrote: »

They are answerable to the democratically elected Parliament.

It may be that you are satisfied that they are "answerable" (whatever that means) to the EP. I simply don't know what "answerable" means, as the term "answerable" is more commonly associated with a politician to his electorate.

I have never before heard anyone argue that our Taosieach and his cabinet should not have to stand for election and be elected by universal sufferage, but instead should be appointed by a panel of about 20 citizens. Furthermore, I have never heard it argued that they should not be answerable to the electorate which they are there to serve.

It is so ridiculous that no one would stand for it in Ireland. Yet this is exactely what we are being asked to accept at EU level. It seems extraordinary that not only do you seem to think it an acceptable way to appoint our EU commissioners and president, but you also actively oppose calls to have them democratically elected by the people.

Why? What is so wrong with democracy?

Scofflaw

P_ONeil wrote: »

I don't put much faith in the words of politicians, especially FF, just looking at the Mahon Tribunal thread you have to put on a pair of wellies to keep the ****e off yer pants.

Back to your first statement about the Treaty being available and the fact you 'read' it -

I checked the site listed. Granted it does have the Treaty there. However, as it has been said by me and others, the Lisbon Treaty is not a treaty but 300 ammendments to other treaties. The document you provided is a complete list of those 300 ammendments, but unless put into context of the treaties they are modifying they don't make any sense.

Claiming you 'read' the treaty and understood it is, well, laughable. It's like reading someones revision notes on a book, without reading the book or even having a copy of the book. They make references to articles and line numbers, and unless you have the full text of the various treaties which each of these new amendments are referring to in front of you, thousands of pages from different treaties, then you have no idea exactly what they are amending nor can you tell what context the proposal is in.

Your assertion that the Treaty was an easy read and is readily available is wrong. It's not available in full, as it would be thousands of pages. They merely have provided the text of the treaty (just the new amendments) and have not included any of the material which is being amended. Unless you have read dozens of other EU treaties and have them on hand when you read this treaty you have no idea what they are talking about.

Like you, I read the Treaty as posted there but unless you have all the other treaties that are being amended in front of you and know what they are amending, the document you provided and the ones going around on the net are pretty much worthless.

Did you miss the link to the IIEA consolidated versions? Those show the texts of the treaties that Lisbon amends as they would read after Lisbon. That's this link, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and each of the treaty documents that Lisbon amends is shown as it will be amended. There's only 4, not dozens, and none of them run to thousands of pages.

I'm not claiming it's fun to read, and I'd certainly like an annotated version, but it's quite possible to read it if you've read legislation or legal contracts before.

P_ONeil wrote: »

As I said, the government has been barred by the EU from releasing a full document of the actually treaties with the new amendments in place until AFTER the referendum.

First, the list-of-amendments is the full document. For comparison, here's the Nice Treaty text itself - also just a list of amendments. Second, the IIEA produced their consolidated version with EU funding - and it's linked from the EU site I directed you to. Third, I actually went into the EU after that Vincent Browne article, and as far as they know the EU themselves are bringing out a version next month.

For someone who "doesn't put much faith in the words of politicians", you appear to be putting a lot of faith in the claims of a particular set of them. I recommend looking for yourself - the truth, as they say, is out there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

jawlie wrote: »

It's a shame that we have to take up such polarised viewpoints and are not able to discuss and learn from each other.

It's a separate discussion to go off on a tangent and discuss whether Judges or the Garda commissioner should be elected, and I'd be delighted to discuss that in another thread.

I am not aware that it has ever happened that the parliament has ever dismissed a president, and I am not aware of a case where the parliament has ever dismissed a commissioner.

I am aware that the EP has the power of censure under Art 201 by which the EP can, by two thirds majority, force the resignation of the commission as a whole. I am not aware of the statute by which it can dismiss a single commissioner.

The claim has been made that the parliament has the power to dismiss a president or a commissioner, and I have asked those who make that claim to back it up as I am genuinely interested to read the statute that gives them that power. Hectoring each other or being abusive really doesn't add to the discussion.

To answer your point about the commission; The commission draws up the EU budget, and the EP may only suggest "modifications" to what is deemed to be compulsory expenditure, and may propose amendments to non-compulsory expenditure. The council has the power to reverse the EP's modifications to the compulsory expenditure.

Additionally, the commission proposes new policies and initiates legislation, the commission is the watchdog concerning infringements of EU law, it enacts delegated legislation and acts as the executive of the EU. It has the power to represent the EU in external relations also. In fact, the commission acts in many ways like our own cabinet.

The EP has the power to reject the budget as a whole and has done this twice in its history.

To imply, as you seem to, that the commissioners and president have no power, and consequently that it is of no consequence whether or not they are elected, is disingenious. They control the budget of the EU and we can all decide for ourselves whether or not this gives them power.



It may be that you are satisfied that they are "answerable" (whatever that means) to the EP. I simply don't know what "answerable" means, as the term "answerable" is more commonly associated with a politician to his electorate.

I have never before heard anyone argue that our Taosieach and his cabinet should not have to stand for election and be elected by universal sufferage, but instead should be appointed by a panel of about 20 citizens. Furthermore, I have never heard it argued that they should not be answerable to the electorate which they are there to serve.

It is so ridiculous that no one would stand for it in Ireland. Yet this is exactely what we are being asked to accept at EU level. It seems extraordinary that not only do you seem to think it an acceptable way to appoint our EU commissioners and president, but you also actively oppose calls to have them democratically elected by the people.

Why? What is so wrong with democracy?

I must say I admire this post as a piece of rhetoric - why do we hate democracy?

As to the substantive points....making it about the power to dismiss a single commissioner or the President alone, not the Commission and its President is interesting, but not exactly comparative...we don't have the power to dismiss single Ministers either. As to the "appointed by 20 people", our Senators can be appointed by the Taoiseach alone, or elected by very limited franchises.

It's extremely easy to say "well, why shouldn't we hold out for exactly what we want" - indeed, making such empty promises is the stock in trade of politicians. The Treaty does increase the democratic accountability of the EU, and it is the result of negotiations between 27 countries. The idea that we should refuse it in favour of this or that 'ideal' setup without any idea whether such an ideal could even be negotiated into existence seems highly questionable to me.

One can certainly vote No on the basis that the Treaty doesn't measure up to some ideal or other, but it's not a reality-based position.

regards,
Scofflaw

bren2002

I'll currently be voting No for the treaty because I don't fully understand it and the Govt. has not mandated the Referendum Commission to publish balanced For and Against arguments as they have done in the past.