Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

partholon

paddy powers dropped his odds to even money on the no vote. so along with ivan the bookies are putting their money where their mouth is on this one.

LostinBlanch

Thirdfox wrote: »

Our EU law class talks about the Directive on EU citizenship of 2004. Here are my notes from the law class:

• Citizenship
o Art 17 EC (ex 8)
 Established citizenship – everyone is a member
o Art 18 EC (ex 8a)
 Citizen’s right to move and reside freely (t&c apply)
o Directive 2004/38 on citizens’ right to move and reside in MS
 Not being fully utilised by citizens 
 Art 2.1 – Union citizens are defined (a la Art 17)
 2.2 Family members:
• Spouse, registered partner (where they are recognised), direct descendants u-21 and those of spouse/partner, ascending dependants and those of spouse/partner
 Art 4 No exit visa required
 Art 5 No entry visa required
 Art 6 Unconditional residence for 3 months
 Art 7 Residence for more than 3 months
• Workers/self-employed
• Self-supporting
• Vocational training (and no burden of state)
 Art 7.3 Rights retained if
• Temporary illness
• Involuntary unemployment after 1 year
• Vocational training (worker – link to job)
 Art 12/13 Family members right to remain
 Art 16 Permanent residence after 5 years
 Art 27-33 Restrictions
• Public policy/security/health reason

As far as I know your Irish passport doubles as an EU passport too. Not certain about that but you are already an EU citizen, Lisbon does not introduce this, it was introduced in 2004 formally.

edit:
looking through my notes it appears that Art 17 of the EC Treaty (formally Art. 8) establishes this:
Art 17 EC (ex 8):
Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a MS shall be a citizen of the Union.

Thirdfox, thanks for letting me know this. My citizens comment was more tongue in cheek than anything else, but I wasn't aware that (from your reading) in 2004 we were voting to specifically formalise citizenship. Not that I'm sure most people would have a problem with that. I wouldn't / didn't since I voted yes, but it would have been nice to have that stated to me before I voted.

It does make me more aware of the fact that clauses with far reaching consequences can be slipped into these treaties without most people noticing. It was a point I brought up in a previous post which was ignored.

Scofflaw

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Thirdfox, thanks for letting me know this. My citizens comment was more tongue in cheek than anything else, but I wasn't aware that (from your reading) in 2004 we were voting to specifically formalise citizenship. Not that I'm sure most people would have a problem with that. I wouldn't / didn't since I voted yes, but it would have been nice to have that stated to me before I voted.

It does make me more aware of the fact that clauses with far reaching consequences can be slipped into these treaties without most people noticing. It was a point I brought up in a previous post which was ignored.

Probably because it's true of any treaty or legal agreement, and is therefore an argument against ever doing anything. Only God sees all ends - and I'm an atheist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

henbane

I'm voting with the centauri unless Bruce Boxleitner says different

Thirdfox

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Thirdfox, thanks for letting me know this. My citizens comment was more tongue in cheek than anything else, but I wasn't aware that (from your reading) in 2004 we were voting to specifically formalise citizenship. Not that I'm sure most people would have a problem with that. I wouldn't / didn't since I voted yes, but it would have been nice to have that stated to me before I voted.

It does make me more aware of the fact that clauses with far reaching consequences can be slipped into these treaties without most people noticing. It was a point I brought up in a previous post which was ignored.

The 2004 directive wasn't actually voted on by people of the member states - a directive is passed through the institutions of the EU (just like an Act of the Oireachtas). Member states then implement this directive after a while.

The point can be made though (if people had concerns about Lisbon introducing citizenship) that we already had it for quite a few years now and it has done no perceptible damage. Citizenship seems to mainly deal with rights of residence and to work in another member state and all the cases seem to be quite reasonable (in fact our lecturer made the point that not enough people made use of this new directive - perhaps lawyers have yet to pick up on it?)

Ron DMC

thepoopatorium wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm a music blogger but have wanted to do a kind of idiots guide to the Lisbon treaty for some time, it being pretty jargon heavy and all.

here's my effort:

Idiots Guide to the Lisbon Treaty

hope it helps some people. all the same, would love to hear any feedback, or suggestions from those more in the know.

thanks!

rob

Just read your blog post now. Good stuff. Explains things very well. At least now I think I know what it's about.


Also: Woot! First post in the new E.U. forum.

LostinBlanch

Fair play to whoever set this forum up. I understand the reason for the mega thread but it has become too unwieldy for discussing different aspects of what all agree is a complex treaty. Also not all users have search function enabled so finding specific posts becomes very difficult.

oscarBravo

Now that we have a dedicated EU forum, we're relaxing the restriction on having all conversation in a single thread.

We're going to continue to be strict on soapboxing. This is a discussion forum; if you're not interested in discussion, don't post.

dathi1

I'm years on Boards and as you can see by my past posts always on politics. It always amazes me (even newbie politics mods) how the agenda is set by the mods political stance. Here we go again..bury a Political thread thats not going your way to another dull location


and yes..I know I KNOW!! Take it up with system not here etc etc...I'm off to Politics.ie

oscarBravo

It amazes me how (a) every little thing that we do is perceived as a result of political bias, regardless of the fact that we don't share a common set of political beliefs, and (b) people feel the need to announce that they use another website.

humanji

And it amazes me that someone thinks that a political thread about a EU treaty is being hidden away by being in a EU Politics Forum. Maybe it's the fact that it's hidden in plain view that makes it so underhanded.

Now I'm off to www.filthygirlsandkitchenappliances.com!

ircoha

This is the editorial from the IT last Saturday. Boards is mentioned:)

My point is that if the new constitution is passed then Brussels will do more of this sort of stuff.
In this case the Gov has done the dirty work for them and then widened the provisions to cover most crimes.

The argument that the ISP only need to hold it for 12 months is useless as the data can be held ad infinitum by the stasi once they get it from the ISP.

Moriarty

I think you forgot the link ircoha

marmurr1916

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I heard Kathy Sinnott on Newstalk last week and she saying she was working with a group putting together an easy to read version of the Lisbon treaty but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I know she is against the treaty but she did say that the document was not going to be biased in any way becaue both the yes and no camp could use it.

Anyone else hear about this?

Dunno 'bout that, but there's versions on the Ibec site.

http://www.ibeclisbon.ie/

Choose 'About the Treaty' then 'Guides on the Lisbon Reform Treaty'.

There's about 3 different guides plus the treaties with the proposed changes due to Lisbon are at the bottom of the list.

marmurr1916

RATM wrote: »

I made up my mind on this treaty ages ago and Im not even going to bother reading a single bit of text of it before I go out and vote No.

Why? Im voting no in solidarity with the 400m Europeans who are being denied their democratic rights. Im voting in solidarity with the Dutch and French voters who already shot this down.

This treaty is, by Aherns own admission, 95% the same as the one the French and Dutch sent to the bin.

A No vote is a vote to tell the European elites what we think of their democratic credentials, or lack of them.

What about the Spanish and the people of Luxembourg who voted Yes?

And the Germans aren't allowed to have referendums - their choice, apparently a certain Mr. A Hitler used to rig the results back in the day!

johnnyq

marmurr1916 wrote: »

What about the Spanish and the people of Luxembourg who voted Yes?

And the Germans aren't allowed to have referendums - their choice, apparently a certain Mr. A Hitler used to rig the results back in the day!

What about them?

If any one country rejects the proposal = bin.

Here we had two countries reject it and yet here it is again under a new name.

marmurr1916

johnnyq wrote: »

What about them?

If any one country rejects the proposal = bin.

Here we had two countries reject it and yet here it is again under a new name.

How about we vote for what Irish people want?

thepoopatorium

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Just read your blog post now. Good stuff. Explains things very well. At least now I think I know what it's about.

Thanks Ronny, glad to help!

johnnyq

marmurr1916 wrote: »

How about we vote for what Irish people want?

Que?

I believe that some Yes campaigners may view that as parish politics and say that we should be voting for the wider considerations since we are all europeans.

Remember, we should be voting for a more democratic Europe, even though that means Ireland will have less say in it.

Alas, some European heads of state have already rejected the democratic notion of listening to what the voters have to say

partholon

interesting turn up for the books today as both the times and the examiner report that 73% of members of ISME polled said they'll vote "NO" to lisbon based on a lack of information.

a staggering 90% plus said they dont have a clue what'll mean for their business'es.

ok its a pathetic turnout. ISME emailed 1500 members and less that 300 replied but still , its a shocking result.

are we witnessing the yes camp splintering? first the farmers now the small and medium businesses.

heyjude

IRLConor wrote: »

Giving the EU a single legal personality does not confer statehood upon it.

Perhaps, but if this legal personality/entity can confer citizenship, has a single president and Foreign Affairs minister to represent it on the world stage, has a single currency used by the majority of its population, has its own parliament, has its own court that is binding in many matters over national courts and now (see http://www.independent.ie/business/european/eu-makes-grab-for-more-power-with-embassy-plan-1366086.html ) plans to open its own embassies across the world, then many would suggest that this legal personality/entity seems to possess most of the characteristics of a state. Indeed it almost had its own constitution too, until it was defeated by the French and Dutch voters, so it had to be re-badged as a Treaty, though even Yes proponents admit that in its present form its 95% of the former EU Constitution.

IRLConor

heyjude wrote: »

Perhaps, but if this legal personality/entity can confer citizenship, has a single president and Foreign Affairs minister to represent it on the world stage, has a single currency used by the majority of its population, has its own parliament, has its own court that is binding in many matters over national courts and now (see http://www.independent.ie/business/european/eu-makes-grab-for-more-power-with-embassy-plan-1366086.html ) plans to open its own embassies across the world, then many would suggest that this legal personality/entity seems to possess most of the characteristics of a state. Indeed it almost had its own constitution too, until it was defeated by the French and Dutch voters, so it had to be re-badged as a Treaty, though even Yes proponents admit that in its present form its 95% of the former EU Constitution.

Defining what does or does not constitute a "state" is a difficult task. (Probably because doing so would force people to recognise/not recognise Israel/Taiwan/Sealand/wherever against their will.)

That said, I don't really care whether the EU is a state or not. I care whether or not it's useful/helpful/better than not being there.

Scofflaw

heyjude wrote: »

Perhaps, but if this legal personality/entity can confer citizenship, has a single president and Foreign Affairs minister to represent it on the world stage, has a single currency used by the majority of its population, has its own parliament, has its own court that is binding in many matters over national courts and now (see http://www.independent.ie/business/european/eu-makes-grab-for-more-power-with-embassy-plan-1366086.html ) plans to open its own embassies across the world, then many would suggest that this legal personality/entity seems to possess most of the characteristics of a state. Indeed it almost had its own constitution too, until it was defeated by the French and Dutch voters, so it had to be re-badged as a Treaty, though even Yes proponents admit that in its present form its 95% of the former EU Constitution.

It'd be an interesting kind of state that has no powers of direct taxation, no powers of imprisonment, no police force, an army (such as it is) smaller than ours (3,000 in the 2 battlegroups, compared to our 11,000) for a population a hundred times larger, that is not legally superior to its constituent parts, does not have an internal monopoly of currency, or legislative powers, and whose institutional changes are at the mercy of a tiny fraction of "its" electorate.

As to legal personality - the Universal Postal Union has it, as does my company. My concerns about them becoming states are limited.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the-island-man

I feel that this Treaty is very dodgy as in the last month we've watched all the mainstream political parties come out in favour of this Treaty but not one of them have gone into detail on why we should vote yes! Since i have watched the following link i have realised how distructive a yes vote for us would be:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

For the reasons given in the link i am voting NO.:D

Scofflaw

the-island-man wrote: »

I feel that this Treaty is very dodgy as in the last month we've watched all the mainstream political parties come out in favour of this Treaty but not one of them have gone into detail on why we should vote yes! Since i have watched the following link i have realised how distructive a yes vote for us would be:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

For the reasons given in the link i am voting NO.:D

That's...what, the tenth time that video has been posted? Amazingly influential, considering how very little truth and how very much propaganda there is in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

is_that_so

I am currently undecided. I am wading my way through the consolidated treaty and can see little to worry about in the 20 articles or so I have read. Most of it is just "housekeeping" and perfectly understandable , IMO, for a far larger Union.
Qualified majority in the EU Council is one I would have concern about but the balance of at least four members in a minority blocking is a reasonable compromise IMO. (Article 16).

I am really not sure why there is such a fuss about us losing one MEP , in an election we generally don't bother voting in anyway, other than the fact is it can be used as big stick by the No side. I would say many of us would be hard pushed to say what any of our MEPs, apart from generate enormous expenses.

Much of what goes on in the EU parliament is through the alliances of various blocks and even our MEPs split at least three ways.

Scofflaw

is_that_so wrote: »

I am currently undecided. I am wading my way through the consolidated treaty and can see little to worry about in the 20 articles or so I have read. Most of it is just "housekeeping" and perfectly understandable , IMO, for a far larger Union.
Qualified majority in the EU Council is one I would have concern about but the balance of at least four members in a minority blocking is a reasonable compromise IMO. (Article 16).

I am really not sure why there is such a fuss about us losing one MEP , in an election we generally don't bother voting in anyway, other than the fact is it can be used as big stick by the No side. I would say many of us would be hard pushed to say what any of our MEPs, apart from generate enormous expenses.

Much of what goes on in the EU parliament is through the alliances of various blocks and even our MEPs split at least three ways.

True - people assume that our MEPs vote "for Ireland", whereas our MEPs, like everyone else's, vote on EP lines.

I'm also unsure why such a fuss is being made about losing an MEP - because, again, like the Commission reduction, this is in Nice. The Protocol on the Enlargement of the EU, Article 2:

‘The number of representatives elected in each Member State shall be as follows:
Belgium 22
Denmark 13
Germany 99
Greece 22
Spain 50
France 72
Ireland 12
Italy 72
Luxembourg 6
Netherlands 25
Austria 17
Portugal 22
Finland 13
Sweden 18
United Kingdom 72’.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the-island-man

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's...what, the tenth time that video has been posted? Amazingly influential, considering how very little truth and how very much propaganda there is in it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You probably are right about that video. I agree that it is very biased but at the same time even the fact that two thirds of MEP's voted not to respect the Irish referendum shows that the E.U parliment do not respect democracy as much as they should! Even our very own Proinsias De Rossa voted not to respect the irish referendum. On this reason alone the E.U in my opinion deserve to get a slap in the face!

Scofflaw

the-island-man wrote: »

You probably are right about that video. I agree that it is very biased but at the same time even the fact that two thirds of MEP's voted not to respect the Irish referendum shows that the E.U parliment do not respect democracy as much as they should! Even our very own Proinsias De Rossa voted not to respect the irish referendum. On this reason alone the E.U in my opinion deserve to get a slap in the face!

And Sinn Fein (the authors of that EP amendment) voted against the Referendum Bill here - what does that tell you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

the-island-man

To be honest i don't care what sinn fein does! I just feel the E.U can't be trusted on this treaty. It just doesn't make sense that a treaty apparently so straight foward according to the goverment that they won't let all of europe decide on it, just us because they have to. I also watched a clip of the leader of a party called UKIP(United Kingdom Independant Party) speaking about the members of the E.U commission and its made me even more scared to give this organisation any more power than it has:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ
Maybe if the goverment make it clearer in weeks to come they might persuade me to vote the other way but at the moment it doesn't seem likely that i'd even consider voting yes. I am unsure about this treaty and its better to vote no and have them come back again and change it and explain it than vote yes and chance regretting your decision in years to come in my opinion.