Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Elmo

5. The President will be elected by the Council in a similar way to the way the Taoiseach is elected by the Dail and I haven't heard anyone giving out about that. And he will have very little in the way of power either, he'll act more like a mediator/facilitator for Council sittings.

The council of Minister? will elect the president but will the president be elected in an Public election like the Taoiseach.

2. Exactly, they can choose to hold a referendum. It is within their mandate as elected officials to ratify treaties though also. That is what they have done. There is nothing wrong with it. If their electorate don't like it then they should force change in that area. Its a lot like Collins' plenapotentiary (SP?) position given to him by DeV in his negotiations with the English, where he gave him the right to make the decision and then blasted him for making it without consulting him. These people elected their officials to make policy decision for them and are now giving out that they have done just that.

Dev shouldn't have let him have just like Europe shouldn't let their politicans. He made a huge mistake

You can do the same, and dare I say you should do the same.

I have and each of the issues that I raise are valid. My major concern will that we will have to invest (to improve) or just improve our national army, I have no interest in doing either.

4. Why should we vote for a Commissioner if we don't know what position (s)he will be filling? That doesn't make sense.

Why should we vote for TD's when we don't know what positions they will hold until the Taoiseach/Party Leader gives them their Ministerial/Spokesperson role. What doesn't make sense seems to work well in most countries.

ShooterSF

Ok ignoring ifs n buts,
lets get back to a big point. One that if answered should mean people will vote yes. what clear (as in not vague like the veto or defence issues) positive do I the day to day average joe get from voting for change?

And again dont tell me no does not mean no change unless you can back it up with a logical statement of what (again clear) change it will make to something be it our laws etc.

Avoid speculation if it all possible cause that's all I seem to hear in this argument.

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

what clear (as in not vague like the veto or defence issues) positive do I the day to day average joe get from voting for change?

That's always struck me as a strange approach to the issue.

I have a board meeting on Thursday of a company of which I'm a director and shareholder. Should I refuse to support whatever decisions are made at that meeting unless (say) I get a payrise out of them? As a shareholder and director, I'm expected to contribute to making decisions that are good for the company, not just good for me as an individual.

The happy side effect is, of course, that what's good for the company is good for me as a shareholder.

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok ignoring ifs n buts,
lets get back to a big point. One that if answered should mean people will vote yes. what clear (as in not vague like the veto or defence issues) positive do I the day to day average joe get from voting for change?

That's not a big point.

In fact, that's a perverse picture of a democratic decision-making process. As an enfranchised voter, you are expected to consider yourself part of the rational decision-making apparatus of this country. This isn't a case of you selling your vote to the highest bid, or for the greatest amount of personal benefit. That isn't a democracy. That's the whim-satisfaction of the majority, not the rule of the majority.

The answer to that question ought to be irrelevant to whether you vote yes or no. Realistically though, that's impossible. But it certainly oughtn't to be the central factor in your deliberation. You ought to try and minimize egoistic self-interest in your democratic civil duty.

And again, this isn't me telling you what to do. I'm not telling you how you should be voting. I'm outlining to you the doctrinal features of democratic philosophy at all. "Voting" entails these processes. If you don't subscribe to them, you're misusing your vote, and perverting democracy.

molloyjh

Elmo wrote: »

The council of Minister? will elect the president but will the president be elected in an Public election like the Taoiseach....

...Why should we vote for TD's when we don't know what positions they will hold until the Taoiseach/Party Leader gives them their Ministerial/Spokesperson role. What doesn't make sense seems to work well in most countries.

We do not elect our Taoiseach into that position. We elect TDs, who elect a Taoiseach from the TDs, who selects a Cabinet, who are then voted on by the TDs. All we do is vote for the TDs. As part of the same process we do not elect a Minister for Finance. That person is selected from the TDs we elect (to represent our area) by the Taoiseach and voted for by the Dail. We have no say beyond the pool of candidates whio gets either the Taoiseachpost or any Ministerial posts.

Elmo wrote: »

Dev shouldn't have let him have just like Europe shouldn't let their politicans. He made a huge mistake

Regardless of whether they should have or shouldn't have, the fact of the matter is that they did and do have.

Elmo wrote: »

I have and each of the issues that I raise are valid. My major concern will that we will have to invest (to improve) or just improve our national army, I have no interest in doing either.

In terms of our military, the point of this is so that if any member state is attacked we all come to help. So in other words if we get invaded we can count on the backing of the other member states. We are in a fortunate position that we are geographically isolated and so this threat is all but non-existant. However that doesn't give us the right to turn to the rest of Europe and say "Screw you, we don't care what benefits we've gained from EU membership, we're not helping". Thats selfish and childish in the extreme. Either we are part of this Union and accept all the benefits and responsibilities associated with it or we pack away our toys and our ball and go home alone.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's always struck me as a strange approach to the issue.

I have a board meeting on Thursday of a company of which I'm a director and shareholder. Should I refuse to support whatever decisions are made at that meeting unless (say) I get a payrise out of them? As a shareholder and director, I'm expected to contribute to making decisions that are good for the company, not just good for me as an individual.

The happy side effect is, of course, that what's good for the company is good for me as a shareholder.

And I cant manage to quote Fionn Matthew directly so
"In fact, that's a perverse picture of a democratic decision-making process. As an enfranchised voter, you are expected to consider yourself part of the rational decision-making apparatus of this country. This isn't a case of you selling your vote to the highest bid, or for the greatest amount of personal benefit. That isn't a democracy. That's the whim-satisfaction of the majority, not the rule of the majority. "

---

Ok sorry, I worded my question slightly wrong. I'm not asking someone to come up and hand me personally 50 quid for my vote. I meant me in a collective as as far as i know "average joe" is the majority and what democracy is supposed to look for.

So again what do we Irish get for voting for change that we don't have by not? Just one clear tangible change that we can go yes that would make my day to day life better?

molloyjh

ShooterSF wrote: »

And I cant manage to quote Fionn Matthew directly so
"In fact, that's a perverse picture of a democratic decision-making process. As an enfranchised voter, you are expected to consider yourself part of the rational decision-making apparatus of this country. This isn't a case of you selling your vote to the highest bid, or for the greatest amount of personal benefit. That isn't a democracy. That's the whim-satisfaction of the majority, not the rule of the majority. "

---

Ok sorry, I worded my question slightly wrong. I'm not asking someone to come up and hand me personally 50 quid for my vote. I meant me in a collective as as far as i know "average joe" is the majority and what democracy is supposed to look for.

So again what do we Irish get for voting for change that we don't have by not? Just one clear tangible change that we can go yes that would make my day to day life better?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310477

Posted this link yet again! I really should countthe number of times I have and let Scofflaw know how handy its come in!

ShooterSF

FionnMatthew wrote: »

That's not a big point.

In fact, that's a perverse picture of a democratic decision-making process. As an enfranchised voter, you are expected to consider yourself part of the rational decision-making apparatus of this country. This isn't a case of you selling your vote to the highest bid, or for the greatest amount of personal benefit. That isn't a democracy. That's the whim-satisfaction of the majority, not the rule of the majority.

The answer to that question ought to be irrelevant to whether you vote yes or no. Realistically though, that's impossible. But it certainly oughtn't to be the central factor in your deliberation. You ought to try and minimize egoistic self-interest in your democratic civil duty.

On rereading this NO sorry man you're wrong here, democracy was set up so that decisions were made based on what majority wanted so say there's 5 of us in a room 3 of us want chicken for dinner 2 want fish. We vote for our "self-interest" and Democracy wins cause more are happy than not and therefore "egoistic self-interest" IS KEY "in your [our] democratic civil duty"

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

So again what do we Irish get for voting for change that we don't have by not? Just one clear tangible change that we can go yes that would make my day to day life better?

For the most part, that's not what you're being asked to determine in determining whether to vote yes or no to the treaty. It's a category mistake to ask the question.

You should really be assessing the treaty as a second-order document, which changes around current arrangement in significant ways. It's about whether the incumbent procedure passes your vote of approval or not, not whether it has any immediate consequences. It's about changing the rules of the game, not changing the score.

For instance, it makes changes to how cross-border crime is dealt with. You should assess the proposed changes on the basis of whether you believe the incumbent system is better than the existing one.

This simply isn't, for the most part, about tangible, immediate benefits.

ShooterSF

"Posted this link yet again! I really should countthe number of times I have and let Scofflaw know how handy its come in!"

Thanks man. I had actually read it but I agree with one of the replies it's still not clear they just mention an article which says nothing like what they just said.

Oh and one thing struck me, a positive was we retain our tax veto. Now this is where my logic goes haywire. Thats a gain? Don't we already have a tax veto? If I vote NO wont we still have one> So thats not a positive its an irrelevant!

VoidStarNull

ShooterSF wrote: »

Oh and one thing struck me, a positive was we retain our tax veto. Now this is where my logic goes haywire. Thats a gain? Don't we already have a tax veto? If I vote NO wont we still have one> So thats not a positive its an irrelevant!

I doubt if the status quo ante is available as an option. If we vote NO, then we force the EU governments to find another way to reform the institutions. They will not be left to continue as they are today, since everyone feels they do not work well with 27 members.

If we vote YES, then we get a deal in which Ireland continues to punch above its weight at EU level and we retain safeguards/vetos on several issues of concern to us (neutrality/abortion/tax).

If we vote NO, then we will in time get a different deal. No knowing yet what it will be.

ShooterSF

FionnMatthew wrote: »

For the most part, that's not what you're being asked to determine in determining whether to vote yes or no to the treaty. It's a category mistake to ask the question.

You should really be assessing the treaty as a second-order document, which changes around current arrangement in significant ways. It's about whether the incumbent procedure passes your vote of approval or not, not whether it has any immediate consequences. It's about changing the rules of the game, not changing the score.

For instance, it makes changes to how cross-border crime is dealt with. You should assess the proposed changes on the basis of whether you believe the incumbent system is better than the existing one.

This simply isn't, for the most part, about tangible, immediate benefits.

Fair enough man but surely to vote on such an abstract thing with a clear concise informed decision the language for those changes would need to be simple and clear e.g "Ireland will retain its tax veto". I know that's impossible as we'd end up with a treaty bigger than the bible. However why can't they go down the abortion route and go ok here's what we want to change the score to and here are the rules and only those rules to make it happen.Then we'd have tangible relevant things to vote on Then if later we need to change more we'll come back to you the people to decide?

ShooterSF

VoidStarNull wrote: »

I doubt if the status quo ante is available as an option. If we vote NO, then we force the EU governments to find another way to reform the institutions. They will not be left to continue as they are today, since everyone feels they do not work well with 27 members.

If we vote YES, then we get a deal in which Ireland continues to punch above its weight at EU level and we retain safeguards/vetos on several issues of concern to us (neutrality/abortion/tax).

If we vote NO, then we will in time get a different deal. No knowing yet what it will be.

And if its not better we vote no again. Problem?

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

On rereading this NO sorry man you're wrong here, democracy was set up so that decisions were made based on what majority wanted so say there's 5 of us in a room 3 of us want chicken for dinner 2 want fish. We vote for our "self-interest" and Democracy wins cause more are happy than not and therefore "egoistic self-interest" IS KEY "in your [our] democratic civil duty"

On the contrary, that is the most banal, jaundiced erroneous conception of democracy available. It's the lowest common denominator view of democracy. Historically, it is seen as the rot that sets in in democratic societies.

If you think that's what democracy is, you don't understand it, and you really should educate yourself before you go into a polling station, because you are damaging, in your ignorance, the political fabric of the country (like so many others), and you are demeaning everyone else's vote too.

In a democratic state, the onus is on you to become involved in the decision making process, and to abstract from your own personal circumstances in most situations, in order to decide as impartially as you can what is best for the demos as a whole. This necessitates educating yourself, researching, investigating, thinking hard, and making it one of your full-time duties. Having things spoon-fed to you, and thinking of it all as one big egoistic game a betrayal of your civic duty. This stuff is supposed to be hard.

1. It's not something you ought to be doing for a week or two every few years.
2. It's not something you ought to just look after yourself in the pursuit of.

The person who does thinks it is both (1) and (2) is not a democrat. The Greeks originally invented the word "idiot" for exactly this sort of person.

Etymology

Middle English < Old French idiote < Latin idiota < Greek ιδιώτης (idiotes) "a private citizen", "individual", also "one who has no professional knowledge, layman" and "unpractised, unskilled" < ίδιος (idios) "one's own, pertaining to oneself, private"; used derisively in ancient Athens to refer to one who declined to take part in public life.

Hotblack Desiato

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Ninja900, I made a concession to the man by explicitly stating that it was only in my opinion that you were naive. In any case, it oughtn't really to faze you that someone thinks you're naive. I'm sure you've a thicker skin than that. I don't mean it in any derogatory sense.

I don't think you understand what I meant. It's against the rules here to say a poster is naive, etc. and saying it's just your opinion is unlikely to cut any ice with the mods. You can say pretty much whatever you like about someone's posts however (provided you can back it up of course - otherwise it's the equivalent of going into the Soccer forum and posting "Spurs are crap." and defending that by saying it's just your opinion.)
That said, apology accepted.

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough man but surely to vote on such an abstract thing with a clear concise informed decision the language for those changes would need to be simple and clear e.g "Ireland will retain its tax veto". I know that's impossible as we'd end up with a treaty bigger than the bible. However why can't they go down the abortion route and go ok here's what we want to change the score to and here are the rules and only those rules to make it happen.Then we'd have tangible relevant things to vote on Then if later we need to change more we'll come back to you the people to decide?

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

VoidStarNull

ShooterSF wrote: »

And if its not better we vote no again. Problem?

Voting NO this time blocks all member states from proceeding with reform. That's why we were able to negotiate such a good deal.

Voting NO next time may simply mean that we don't proceed with reform, while everyone else does.

ShooterSF

FionnMatthew wrote: »

On the contrary, that is the most banal, jaundiced erroneous conception of democracy available. It's the lowest common denominator view of democracy. Historically, it is seen as the rot that sets in in democratic societies.

If you think that's what democracy is, you don't understand it, and you really should educate yourself before you go into a polling station, because you are damaging, in your ignorance, the political fabric of the country (like so many others), and you are demeaning everyone else's vote too.

In a democratic state, the onus is on you to become involved in the decision making process, and to abstract from your own personal circumstances in most situations, in order to decide as impartially as you can what is best for the demos as a whole. This necessitates educating yourself, researching, investigating, thinking hard, and making it one of your full-time duties. Having things spoon-fed to you, and thinking of it all as one big egoistic game a betrayal of your civic duty. This stuff is supposed to be hard.

1. It's not something you ought to be doing for a week or two every few years.
2. It's not something you ought to just look after yourself in the pursuit of.

The person who does thinks it is both (1) and (2) is not a democrat. The Greeks originally invented the word "idiot" for exactly this sort of person.

Wow now Im getting into a debate on democracy!

Ok we can all agree (I hope) a democracy is government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

Ok so what you suggest I do is take in the people as a whole in our nation and decide which it would help more by voting. Makes logical sense I guess.
As long as the majority (over many demos) benefited...

I suggest everyone (in all demos) vote how it helps them therefore we get "what is best for the demos as a whole" as the majority of people would benefit by voting whats best for the demo they can comprehend best (their own) Is that not a logical solution?


Now a problem I have with yours is it requires me to put myself in peoples shoes I simply can't due to lack of experience e.g the elderly etc. Also how am I supposed to know exactly how many are in a demo? Afterall democracy is about majority. So say, hypotethically, it's a good thing for single moms but a bad thing for accountants how do I know which is the larger (majority) demo?

Again, a democracy is government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

ShooterSF

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Voting NO this time blocks all member states from proceeding with reform. That's why we were able to negotiate such a good deal.

Voting NO next time may simply mean that we don't proceed with reform, while everyone else does.

My head is getting sore banging it off the wall here.EVEN in that situation we would still have said veto as we wouldnt have reformed. rrrgghhh.

djpbarry

ShooterSF wrote: »

And if its not better we vote no again. Problem?

The problem is that it is highly unlikely that we can get a better deal in any subsequent negotiation if we vote 'No' to Lisbon; this is about as good as it's going to get, in my opinion. It is a blatant propaganda exercise for groups such as Libertas and Sinn Féin to say "Ah, sure we'll just vote 'No' and go and negotiate something that suits us better. The EU will give us what we want". Unless I am very much mistaken, neither has detailed precisely how the treaty could be improved upon.

For example; anybody watch Questions & Answers last night? Enda Kenny confronted Mary Lou McDonald on this so-called "better deal" that could be secured at a future negotiation. He was referring specifically to the proposed changes to the commission. He asked her how she would like the commission to operate in future; of course, she didn't answer. We have already agreed (under the Nice treaty) that the commission is to be reduced in size; there is no fairer system than to rotate the commissioners equally between each of the member states. To claim that Ireland can do better than equality is a complete fallacy.

ShooterSF

djpbarry wrote: »

The problem is that it is highly unlikely that we can get a better deal in any subsequent negotiation if we vote 'No' to Lisbon; this is about as good as it's going to get, in my opinion. It is a blatant propaganda exercise for groups such as Libertas and Sinn Féin to say "Ah, sure we'll just vote 'No' and go and negotiate something that suits us better. The EU will give us what we want". Unless I am very much mistaken, neither has detailed precisely how the treaty could be improved upon.

For example; anybody watch Questions & Answers last night? Enda Kenny confronted Mary Lou McDonald on this so-called "better deal" that could be secured at a future negotiation. He was referring specifically to the proposed changes to the commission. He asked her how she would like the commission to operate in future; of course, she didn't answer. We have already agreed (under the Nice treaty) that the commission is to be reduced in size; there is no fairer system than to rotate the commissioners equally between each of the member states. To claim that Ireland can do better than equality is a complete fallacy.

Sorry man, ya caught that quote out of context. I was discussing how the tax veto should not be listed by FF as a positive if we vote yes as we already have it and still would if we vote no. Then he said we might not get a better option after so again just to prove the irrellevance of FF's tax piont I said so we just vote no again. In other words voting yes does NOT HELP us keep our tax veto. So it's not a gain as FF put it its an IRRELLAVANCE (Apologies for spelling getting aggitated repeating myself here)

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

...getting aggitated repeating myself here

Dude, welcome to my world.

VoidStarNull

ShooterSF wrote: »

My head is getting sore banging it off the wall here.EVEN in that situation we would still have said veto as we wouldnt have reformed. rrrgghhh.

The problem is that saying NO repeatedly will not preserve the status quo - it would lead eventually to us leaving the EU. It wouldn't be fair for us to hold up the other 26 indefinitely and they won't leave that option on the table for much longer. The deal available today is a good one for us and we should take it.

ShooterSF

That's just your opinion. And fair enough. What i was saying about the tax veto still stands!

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok so what you suggest I do is take in the people as a whole in our nation and decide which it would help more by voting. Makes logical sense I guess.
As long as the majority (over many demos) benefited...

No. Look. "Demos" simply means "all of the people together, as a collective political body." There is only ever one demos. The "demos" is "the people." It's not "the majority." It also includes whatever minority is described by whatever majority you are considering. That's why democracy is so often characterized as "the will of the majority with the consent of the minority."

So democracy isn't rule of the majority. It's rule of all of the people together, as a collective body.

And the "rule" part is important, too. Because in order to rule, the demos has to act as one collective body, rather than an aggregate of so many constituent bodies. The demos should rule with (as close to) one mind (as possible.) Ideally, if people all abstract away from each other, and consider what is the best choice to make as a collective body, for the benefit of the collective body, then, in theory, we will agree more than if we're all just looking after ourselves (which deteriorates into mob rule - which is not democracy). If everyone in a democracy is just looking after themselves, it's the collective equivalent of a schizophrenic autocrat. No rational decision can be made. Elections are won and lost on the basis of arbitrary alignments of the whims of random people. That's not rule.

So that's not what I suggest. What I suggest is that you consider how the treaty would be best for the collective body of people, as a whole. Whether the net benefit of voting 'yes' is preferable to the net benefit of voting 'no', and whether it outweighs the negative effects of so voting. It's nothing to do with what individual people want. It's to do with what all of the people in Ireland, if they were one person, would want for itself.

I suggest everyone (in all demos) vote how it helps them therefore we get "what is best for the demos as a whole" as the majority of people would benefit by voting whats best for the demo they can comprehend best (their own) Is that not a logical solution?

No.

It would be far better to vote for what is best for the demos as a whole first, before consideration of individual interests. It's wrong to assume that everyone just voting in their own personal interest will result in a majority vote in the best interest of the nation. In some cases, yes, the aggregate of personal preferences will manifest as the collective benefit, but not necessarily, and in many cases, not at all.

And besides this, there are few, if any, tangible immediate benefits to individual people to be had from ratifying this treaty. So it is incoherent to ask people to vote how it helps them individually. The only rational way to approach this treaty is to look at it on a societal scale, and to consider it under the aspect of principles of political practice, and to determine which is best in the long run.

Now a problem I have with yours is it requires me to put myself in peoples shoes I simply can't due to lack of experience e.g the elderly etc.

It doesn't require you to put yourself in people's shoes. It requires you to, as best as you can, deploy all of your rational and investigative faculties in service of putting yourself in the driver's seat of the nation. You must say to yourself, "If I ruled Ireland, and I were to take my job seriously, and wished to make the best possible decision for all of Ireland, which would I choose?" This means that, yes, you will have to consider the needs of certain segments of the population, and you will have to evaluate different courses of action. Is that too hard? Well, that's the responsibility of a democratic citizen. Nobody said it should be easy. It's not.

Also how am I supposed to know exactly how many are in a demo? Afterall democracy is about majority. So say, hypotethically, it's a good thing for single moms but a bad thing for accountants how do I know which is the larger (majority) demo?

The demos is coextensive with the electorate. So however many people are registered to vote... that's how many comprise the demos.

If it's a good thing for single moms but a bad thing for accountants, you must make a decision as to which good is most significant on a societal scale, with respect to how a single person would decide which parts of their body require more medical attention. If you have a toothache, or a heart problem, those things take precedence over grazes and backache. It's up to you to make a choice as to whether fiscal prosperity outweighs gender equality, or, indeed, whether either of those truly apply to the situation you are being asked to negotiate. If all of this sounds like hard work, then maybe you're not responsible enough to take your vote in hand, and perhaps the most dutiful thing you can do is not vote at all.

Again, a democracy is government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

This is actually a vaguely erroneous piece of information. At best, it's completely ambiguous. You'd be much better off looking into the philosophy of democracy, so that you understand. It's not something you ought to try to pick up by osmosis.

The most disgusting thing about all of this is that most of the electorate seems to need elementary lessons on the nature of democracy. Nobody seems to have anything but the most nebulous idea of what it is.

sink

Great post Fionn. I think the government should teach civic duty in school. This really should be taught by parents but unfortunately parents don't know this themselves.

job3

I’ve been reading up on the treaty all day and I just want to make sure I haven’t misinterpreted anything.

· Europe can force us to change our corporate tax because every state has a veto. It can only be changed by our government.

· We only have a commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years but so do all the other member states. The commissioners must act in the interest of all member states and not just their own. They propose policies and laws which will only be implemented if passed by the new QMV method. (Who actually chooses the commissioner?)

· Arrangements will be made to maintain Ireland’s neutrality. All military action must be agreed by all member states and in accordance with the UN. Ireland does not have to increase our military spending but we have an obligation to aid and assist other member states if is the victim of armed aggression. (What exactly does it mean by obligation? Do we have to assist them or can we decide not to and everyone else just gets a little mad with us? Does it state how we must assist them? i.e. With money, soldiers, medical supplies)

If anything I’ve written is incorrect please point it out.

Thanks.

IRLConor

job3 wrote: »

I’ve been reading up on the treaty all day and I
just want to make sure I haven’t misinterpreted anything.

Fair play! It's great to see more people reading up on the treaty.

job3 wrote: »

Europe can't force us to change our corporate tax because every state has a veto. It can only be changed by our government.

I presume that was a typo, if so you're correct. Scofflaw has a pretty good post on the matter here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56207163&postcount=32

job3 wrote: »

We only have a commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years but so do all the other member states.

Correct.

job3 wrote: »

The commissioners must act in the interest of all member states and not just their own.

Correct.

job3 wrote: »

They propose policies and laws which will only be implemented if passed by the new QMV method.

Some things are passed by QMV (there are several methods, I have a post detailing the various voting methods) and some are by unanimity.

job3 wrote: »

(Who actually chooses the commissioner?)

The governments of the member states.

job3 wrote: »

Arrangements will be made to maintain Ireland’s neutrality.

True. There's a specific opt out in the constitutional amendment that we're voting on and decisions on a common defence are still subject to unanimity. Hence, Ireland has a veto.

job3 wrote: »

All military action must be agreed by all member states and in accordance with the UN.

It is subject to unanimity.

The UN part, well operations outside the UN need to be "in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter". That doesn't necessarily require a UN mandate although for Ireland to be involved there would need to be one.

job3 wrote: »

Ireland does not have to increase our military spending

There's no hard requirement on increasing military spending. The requirement is that "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". That probably will mean more spending, but it could also mean re-organising what we already have to improve the efficiency of our military. It could mean buying new kit or it could mean something like training more of our soldiers in language skills for languages used in likely peace-keeping areas.

job3 wrote: »

but we have an obligation to aid and assist other member states if is the victim of armed aggression. (What exactly does it mean by obligation? Do we have to assist them or can we decide not to and everyone else just gets a little mad with us? Does it state how we must assist them? i.e. With money, soldiers, medical supplies)

What it says is:

"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

I read this as:

"If one of the others gets attacked send everything you can that's allowed by your national policy"

In reality there are two main types of scenario where we'd be called upon to help under this clause:

1. An EU country gets attacked. The UN Security Council produces a resolution authorising the use of military force. Ireland's "triple lock" would then be satisfied if the government wanted to send troops.
2. An EU country gets attacked. The UN Security Council fails to make a resolution because either Russia, China or the USA (the non-EU permanent members) vetoed it. The world is now on its way to hell in a handbasket. The government would reconsider the "triple lock" in a situation like this and we would act accordingly.

sink

Tbh this guy sounds like he was never a europhile, he's clearly a xenophobe with an agenda.

VoidStarNull

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's just your opinion. And fair enough. What i was saying about the tax veto still stands!

My point is that the choice you are trying to set up (Lisbon versus the status quo) is a false choice. And I think my point still stands.