Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
Amazin. Is there a single thing you've said that is true and relevant to the Treaty? Let's have a look:Under this treaty, which is the EU Constitution all over again - this time the name changed as to keep EU members from holding a referendum. It was agreed, quite publically by many EU leaders, that the only way to get these new 'laws' passed was to do it without the input of the people it will govern. That right there should be a clear warning sign that it is not in the best interests of the people to support this treaty.
All our laws are passed by our elected government, as they are in nearly all countries - are you saying that elected governments do not represent the people who elected them?Some of the major issues that are top of the list of why this should not be passed:
1. It requires Ireland increase defense spending exponentially in a way Ireland has never before. It forces Ireland to create a larger standing army and pay for large chunks of guns and bombs which will be dropped on whoever the EU doesn't like at the time. We no longer will be neutral - our country will be tied to the decision made by the UK and other countries which do not share in our values or beliefs. The funding for this will come directly from social programmes currently in Ireland. We lose the right NOT to go to war, AND will sacrifice services in our social/health budget to pay for this as well.
As claimed by Sinn Fein at every single EU referendum, and as untrue at every referendum. Nothing whatsoever in the treaty does any of the above. We are committed to making our defence forces better capable of carrying out missions with the EU that are approved by our triple lock mechanism. Sacrifice services in our social/health budget to pay for this as well...? What utter tripe.2. Economic and trade related matters will be handled by the EU - NOT Ireland. We have no say in tariffs or other trade mechanisms. The EU will govern this, and our own legislature will be secondary to the laws enacted by the EU.
EU laws have had primacy over Irish law since we joined in 1972. Trade external to the EU is already handled by the EU, which gives us much larger clout than we would have by ourselves. To quote from somewhere else, we get an 8% tariff exporting a particular product to the Chinese on something the New Zealanders get a 36% tariff on. That 28% difference is the added clout the EU gives us.3. It gives 105 new powers to the EU to govern areas that are currently not there. That means in 105 new areas (from climate change, to our roads, to discrimination, and more) we lose the right to establish our own laws in this areas. All current law will be nullified if it conflicts with EU law. In 60 of these new areas we lose the right to protest changes even if they direclty effect our nation in an adverse way.
Total bull. Absolutely no new areas of competence are added in this treaty - none, zip, zero, nada. 33 areas are going from unanimity to QMV, and that's all.4. Under this treaty we lose half of our current representative in the EU plus we lose our Commisioner. This means 2 out of every 3 years we will be without someone in the EU who will be able to work on our behalf. If another EU nation wants to pass legislation that would damage Ireland, they only need wait a year or two then can pass said legislation and there is no recourse for Ireland to contest the legislation.
Yeah, except waiting for them to be out while we're in and pissing in their cornflakes. I appreciate Sinn Fein would actually do it, of course - something that's helped keep Northern politics so repetitive.
Every country will be 'away from the table' in turn, and to exactly the same degree. If another EU nation "wants to pass legislation that would damage Ireland" (why do they hate us exactly?), they will have to get it passed by a set of other countries who will be quite aware that they will be just as vulnerable in turn.If another EU nation wants to pass legislation that would damage Ireland5. Under this treaty if a million signatures are gathered on a petition, the EU must *consider* the proposal. They by no means have to even have a vote on it - they merely have to say they considered it, then can easily toss it out - with no recourse for real action.
Currently, we don't have any such mechanism. I regard this as an improvement - and it could be beefed up later.6. This treaty lays the foundation of a new EU police force, which will have powers in every EU nation. Irish citizens will be subject to arrest and prosecution based on laws outside of Ireland.
Again, this is just outright babble. No such force is created - and Ireland has an opt-out on the justice provisions.7. All Irish law will become secondary to EU law. The High Court is no longer the highest court in the land - all of our laws will be subject to review by EU courts and challenges denied at the High Court can be taken to the EU court which will be able to overturn the High Courts decisions.
Been the case since 1972. Do you really not know this?8. Nuclear power will be forced on us. The treaty calls for forced investment and development in nuclear power. This means funds for other green alternatives (such as wind and solar) will be channeled into setting up nuclear power plants in Ireland.
Codswallop. Euratom is a nuclear research agency. It does not bind anyone to use nuclear power - and in any case has been in exsitence for 20 years or more.9. This treaty sets up an EU superstate - a corporate entity like America which has no oversight or accountability. The leaders will be directly shielded from prosecution. The leaders do not have to act on behalf of the member states, and the member states and their peoples have little to no power in shaping or changing courses of action taken by the leaders of the new EU superstate.
I'm not sure where this alarming fantasy comes from - it doesn't appear in the treaty anywhere.10. This treaty removes the ability for member states to hold referendums on ALL future treaties. IF THIS TREATY IS PASSED, we lose the right to call ANY referendums on ANY future treaties. This means any new treaties, which may not be in the interests of Ireland, will be rubber stamped and passed without ANY input from the Irish people.
You've been reading Libertas - and eve they've rowed back on that argument, because it turned out to be...you guessed it, bunkum. We'll get referendums when our constitution says so.I could go on for hours about other minor things that this treaty does, but these are some of the biggest.
Anyone want some scenarios of how this will directly effect Irish communities?
I think you've successfully proven that you have no idea what's in the treaty, or how it is likely to affect Ireland. You're simply repeating discredited slogans from Sinn Fein and Libertas - many of which have been used at every single EU referendum since time began. Your post was a complete waste of page.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
The attached document to the previous post has detailed information from the treaty with article references to prove everything I posted.
You however refused to post *any* links to where you gathered your information. You also failed to post *any* evidence to back up any of the claims you made.
Your simple assertion that 'this isn't true' is tripe. If you have a counter point, then please feel free to cite where you find a discrepancy, else your post of 'this is wrong' is nothing more than you own personal, uneducated and unresearched opinion.
I was able to back up my post, anyone who wants to check my facts can read the attached document or visit the site with more detailed information.
I don't see you offering any substantive evidence of anything you claim is 'bunk', just the random assertions of someone who doesn't seem to have any real knowledge of this treaty...0 -
P ONeil (what an original user name!)
My advice to you is to go and read the treaty itself
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/index.htm#founding
Actually while you are there - go and read all the treatys from the beginning from 1957 - given the breath of knowledge and wisdom you demonstrated in your opening post.
Read the treaties - not somebody else interpretation of them , either from the No camp or the Yes camp - just the treaties themselves - they are there in a very user-friendly format and easily accessible.
Once you have done that and educated yourself on the topic you are lecturing the rest of us on - then you will be ready to debate it with us.
Good man0 -
Hi Edo - just to add to your suggestion... it may be necessary to read the leading case law on the interpretation of Treaty articles too since how the ECJ interprets the Treaty is just as important as the wording of the Treaty itself.
Remember the Van Gend en Loos case? The ruling from the ECJ shocked many EC members at the time when they found out they signed up for something that was not in their contemplation (vertical and horizontal direct effect of treaty regulations).0 -
Lets break down some of your arguments here...All our laws are passed by our elected government, as they are in nearly all countries - are you saying that elected governments do not represent the people who elected them?
Look at France and the Netherlands. Both rejected the EU Constitution. This referendum IS the same document. In fact, if you visit the governments pro-treaty website you will find the documents they have there supporting the Lisbon Treaty are the documents supporting the EU Constitution. They didn't even bother to change to titles or wording.
Therefore, if the governments of France and the Netherlands passed this treaty AFTER their people voted by majority to reject the EU Constitution, it's safe to say those governments are not acting on behalf of the people.
It's also safe to say if our government acts in a manner without input from the people they also will be behaving in the same manner.As claimed by Sinn Fein at every single EU referendum, and as untrue at every referendum. Nothing whatsoever in the treaty does any of the above. We are committed to making our defence forces better capable of carrying out missions with the EU that are approved by our triple lock mechanism. Sacrifice services in our social/health budget to pay for this as well...? What utter tripe.
This treaty calls for a larger standing army and more military contributions. First, where exactly do you think the monies to fund these increases in military spending are going to come from? Are you arguing millions of euro will just 'magically' appear? Where exactly do you think the government is going to get the newly mandated military budget increases from?
Secondly, under this treaty there is *no* veto system, there is *no* opt out when it comes to the military. Contrary to your assertion about triple locks and what not, this treaty gives unequivocal power to the EU over our military and keeps Ireland from being able to say NO to a military action being taken on our behalf.EU laws have had primacy over Irish law since we joined in 1972. Trade external to the EU is already handled by the EU, which gives us much larger clout than we would have by ourselves. To quote from somewhere else, we get an 8% tariff exporting a particular product to the Chinese on something the New Zealanders get a 36% tariff on. That 28% difference is the added clout the EU gives us.
Apples and oranges mate. Sure, the EU power to regulate trade outside of the EU will be in our benefit, that being said we lose the power to keep other EU members from flooding Irish markets with low cost imports. If Spain or Poland can produce or grow something that we also have here in Ireland, there will be no controls to stop them from flooding our markets. Sure the EU might stop the Chinese from doing the same, but we are wide open when it comes to a threat from within the union.Total bull. Absolutely no new areas of competence are added in this treaty - none, zip, zero, nada. 33 areas are going from unanimity to QMV, and that's all.
Again, where exactly did you come up with this? There are 105 NEW areas, listed in the Treaty that the EU will now govern. As far as QMV, you are AGAIN wrong - 68 areas which are currently competencies of the EU will move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) at the European Council. That means the big EU nations will have direct control over 68 areas - they will be able to pass legislation based on majority vote NOT unanimous vote. That means we will be at the mercy of 51% of the EU. Considering UK/Spain/Germany with a smattering of small members could make a majority, they could pass whatever they want and we would be forced to go along. For example, these countries have all backed America on the Iraq War. Had this treaty been in place prior to the US invasion, you could bet Irish troops would be there right now.Every country will be 'away from the table' in turn, and to exactly the same degree. If another EU nation "wants to pass legislation that would damage Ireland" (why do they hate us exactly?), they will have to get it passed by a set of other countries who will be quite aware that they will be just as vulnerable in turn.
Why would other nations want to hurt Ireland? Are you serious? Either your acting thick, or you are thick. Other EU members wouldn't want to 'hurt' Ireland. They would however want to make sure their economies are taken care of and would prioritise this over the needs of the Irish economy. If an economical move by a member state were to benefit itself and hurt Ireland, do you think they would just ignore their own people for our benefit?
Also, under this Treaty we LOSE our voting strength on the Council of Ministers by half. This means we will have less power within the EU - how exactly can you defend that?Currently, we don't have any such mechanism. I regard this as an improvement - and it could be beefed up later.
Currently, we have a Commissioner to protect our interests - are you not familiar with how this works?Again, this is just outright babble. No such force is created - and Ireland has an opt-out on the justice provisions.
Again, another bit of misinformation on your part mate. Ireland has NO-OPT OUT clause. ONLY Denmark has that clause included. We are at the mercy of the EU and we have no opt out on anything.Been the case since 1972. Do you really not know this?
Once again, the EU is getting powers in 105 new areas. This means 105 new areas where Irish law will become obsolete and play second fiddle to the EU mandates.Codswallop. Euratom is a nuclear research agency. It does not bind anyone to use nuclear power - and in any case has been in exsitence for 20 years or more.
...and? If we are mandated to investing Euratom, are you seriously arguing this won't effect current government investment in other energy sources? If we are going to be spending millions a year in nuclear energy, are you arguing our country won't be using it?I'm not sure where this alarming fantasy comes from - it doesn't appear in the treaty anywhere.
This has been discussed extensively on the news and in public forums throughout Europe - did you miss out on this?
http://www.era.int/web/fr/html/nodes_main/4_1649_459/4_2153_462/5_1625_6358.htm
The Lisbon Treaty, due to come into force at the beginning of 2009 after ratification by all EU Member States, will pave the way for the future establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU. As a further step, its competence could be extended in the future to other serious crimes.
Once the EU is given these new powers under the Treaty, they by majority vote, can decide what is a crime under EU law. This means again, if UK/Spain/Poland/etc. get together and decide what they think should be illegal, the people of Ireland are forced to abide by said law. They could easily make Sinn Fein, the Basque Movement, and other political groups illegal over-riding the laws of the member nation and then arrest members of said groups, prosecute them, and stick them in jails outside of their own country.You've been reading Libertas - and eve they've rowed back on that argument, because it turned out to be...you guessed it, bunkum. We'll get referendums when our constitution says so.
No, I've been reading the treaty. If passed, it gives all EU members the power to pass all future treaties without referendum. EU law is higher than Irish law, which means that if we try to argue for a referendum, our voices will be outweighed by the EU law adopted in this Treaty, if it's passed.
[quote=Scofflaw;55318176
I think you've successfully proven that you have no idea what's in the treaty, or how it is likely to affect Ireland. You're simply repeating discredited slogans from Sinn Fein and Libertas - many of which have been used at every single EU referendum since time began. Your post was a complete waste of page.[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing about your post. Added to the fact you provided no substance, no links, and not one bit of evidence to back *any* of the claims you made, its safe to say your regurgitating the FF/FG baseless arguments without even looking into the Treaty yourself.
Heres another link to back up my claims...again...
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/23479
If you want a link thats not from a SF site, then feel free to Google: lisbon treaty ireland.
http://www.google.ie/search?num=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=lisbon+treaty+ireland&btnG=Search
You will find page after page from various news sources backing up everything I have posted. Also note, none of the stuff you claim is 'bunk' is listed as 'bunk' anywhere on the net or any other news source for that matter outside of your post.
But please, if you think something I said is wrong, feel free to cite articles from the Treaty that prove my claims wrong. At least post a link or *some* evidence to back up all the assertions you have made thus far. I await your retort.0 -
Advertisement
-
Absolutely ThirdFox - interpretation and the establishment of precedent via ECJ is vital to this - Because of the difficulties of getting larger and larger groups to agree on issues - all of the treaties have areas of vagueness and possible ambigiouity when first laid out and it is only thru the testing the limits and definitions do these become apparent - a process not unique to the EU by any means and is always ongoing.
for those wondering about the Van Gend en loos case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_effect0 -
-
Lets break down some of your arguments here...
Look at France and the Netherlands. Both rejected the EU Constitution. This referendum IS the same document. In fact, if you visit the governments pro-treaty website you will find the documents they have there supporting the Lisbon Treaty are the documents supporting the EU Constitution. They didn't even bother to change to titles or wording.
Therefore, if the governments of France and the Netherlands passed this treaty AFTER their people voted by majority to reject the EU Constitution, it's safe to say those governments are not acting on behalf of the people.
It's also safe to say if our government acts in a manner without input from the people they also will be behaving in the same manner.
This only works if the treaty is identical to the constitution - are you claiming they are 100% the same? Otherwise you're talking about two different documents.
Now, the French, who riot for almost anything, voted for a man who said he would be ratifying the Lisbon Treaty through the French parliament - and has done so, with no sign of any civil unrest whatsoever - which suggests that your claims he has gone against the will of the French people simply means that you prefer the earlier result.
One either respects how the French ratify treaties, or one doesn't. You, apparently, don't, when it doesn't match your preferred outcome.This treaty calls for a larger standing army and more military contributions. First, where exactly do you think the monies to fund these increases in military spending are going to come from? Are you arguing millions of euro will just 'magically' appear? Where exactly do you think the government is going to get the newly mandated military budget increases from?
My problem is that no such clause is anywhere in the treaty - indeed, that's my general problem with all your claims. Yes, your claims are repeated in the Clare Sinn Fein and No2Lisbon material, but I'm not voting on either of those - I'm voting on the Lisbon Treaty.Secondly, under this treaty there is *no* veto system, there is *no* opt out when it comes to the military. Contrary to your assertion about triple locks and what not, this treaty gives unequivocal power to the EU over our military and keeps Ireland from being able to say NO to a military action being taken on our behalf.
Exactly the same phrase has been in every EU treaty since Maastricht, the "without prejudice" phrase known as the "Irish clause" because it covers our neutrality. The phrase is there in the Lisbon treaty as usual - and I think you'll find that the amendment we make will reiterate that commitment for those who your hysteria is making nervous.Apples and oranges mate. Sure, the EU power to regulate trade outside of the EU will be in our benefit, that being said we lose the power to keep other EU members from flooding Irish markets with low cost imports. If Spain or Poland can produce or grow something that we also have here in Ireland, there will be no controls to stop them from flooding our markets. Sure the EU might stop the Chinese from doing the same, but we are wide open when it comes to a threat from within the union.
We're an export-led economy. We don't survive on selling stuff to each other (except houses, recently), so lower internal EU tariffs have been a godsend to us.Again, where exactly did you come up with this? There are 105 NEW areas, listed in the Treaty that the EU will now govern.
List them, then, and show me where they are in the Treaty. You are referring to the Treaty, aren't you?As far as QMV, you are AGAIN wrong - 68 areas which are currently competencies of the EU will move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) at the European Council. That means the big EU nations will have direct control over 68 areas - they will be able to pass legislation based on majority vote NOT unanimous vote. That means we will be at the mercy of 51% of the EU. Considering UK/Spain/Germany with a smattering of small members could make a majority, they could pass whatever they want and we would be forced to go along. For example, these countries have all backed America on the Iraq War. Had this treaty been in place prior to the US invasion, you could bet Irish troops would be there right now.
Blah blah blah - same point as above - show us where they are in the Treaty.Why would other nations want to hurt Ireland? Are you serious? Either your acting thick, or you are thick. Other EU members wouldn't want to 'hurt' Ireland. They would however want to make sure their economies are taken care of and would prioritise this over the needs of the Irish economy. If an economical move by a member state were to benefit itself and hurt Ireland, do you think they would just ignore their own people for our benefit?
In an EU of 27 states, there's no move that could benefit one state and hurt Ireland alone, or even benefit everyone else except Ireland and hurt Ireland - so your scenario is a little fantasy.Also, under this Treaty we LOSE our voting strength on the Council of Ministers by half. This means we will have less power within the EU - how exactly can you defend that?
I would defend it as fairer for the French, whose democratic rights you claim to respect so much. The same argument was raised at Nice, of course - it turned out to make little difference then either.Currently, we have a Commissioner to protect our interests - are you not familiar with how this works?
It appears I am, and you are not. The job of the Commissioner is not to defend his country's interests. You can look up their job on Wikipedia, since you appear to be completely in the dark about their actual responsibilities.
More generally, since you worry about such things, I suggest doing a little arithmetic - you'll discover that Ireland's proportionate influence on the Commission is entirely unchanged.Again, another bit of misinformation on your part mate. Ireland has NO-OPT OUT clause. ONLY Denmark has that clause included. We are at the mercy of the EU and we have no opt out on anything.
You really know sod-all, don't you. Ireland is not bound by the EU directives in this area, but can opt in to any particular measure voluntarily. References here, here, and even here.Once again, the EU is getting powers in 105 new areas. This means 105 new areas where Irish law will become obsolete and play second fiddle to the EU mandates.
Once again, I suggest you actually demonstrate this to be a fact. You're claiming 105 areas - list, and treaty references, please. Further, I suggest you read up on how EU directives become national law....and? If we are mandated to investing Euratom, are you seriously arguing this won't effect current government investment in other energy sources? If we are going to be spending millions a year in nuclear energy, are you arguing our country won't be using it?
Yup, because there's no such provisions anywhere at all. At no time in the last 20 years has Euratom magically forced nuclear power on us, and there's no changes to what Euratom does in the treaty. However, the research will help make Sellafield safer.This has been discussed extensively on the news and in public forums throughout Europe - did you miss out on this?
http://www.era.int/web/fr/html/nodes_main/4_1649_459/4_2153_462/5_1625_6358.htm
And world domination by the lizard people is extensively discussed on the David Icke forums - that doesn't make those fantasies fact either. Frankly, it looks like everyone you've discussed this with has either been as ignorant as you, or has been shouted down by you.The Lisbon Treaty, due to come into force at the beginning of 2009 after ratification by all EU Member States, will pave the way for the future establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU. As a further step, its competence could be extended in the future to other serious crimes.
Once the EU is given these new powers under the Treaty, they by majority vote, can decide what is a crime under EU law. This means again, if UK/Spain/Poland/etc. get together and decide what they think should be illegal, the people of Ireland are forced to abide by said law. They could easily make Sinn Fein, the Basque Movement, and other political groups illegal over-riding the laws of the member nation and then arrest members of said groups, prosecute them, and stick them in jails outside of their own country.
Only if you're engaged in "financial crime, fraud and counterfeiting at European level"...oh, wait. Sinn Fein, you say? Well, I can see why you might be worried then.
Again, this is a ridiculous travesty of what's actually on the table. The proposed position would be able only to deal with financial crimes that affect the stability of the euro, or fraud at a European level - which is something we should probably welcome.No, I've been reading the treaty. If passed, it gives all EU members the power to pass all future treaties without referendum. EU law is higher than Irish law, which means that if we try to argue for a referendum, our voices will be outweighed by the EU law adopted in this Treaty, if it's passed.
Since EU law has had precedence over Irish law since 1972, and we're having a referendum, you are demonstrably talking out the wrong end.I was thinking the same thing about your post. Added to the fact you provided no substance, no links, and not one bit of evidence to back *any* of the claims you made, its safe to say your regurgitating the FF/FG baseless arguments without even looking into the Treaty yourself.
Heres another link to back up my claims...again...
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/23479
If you want a link thats not from a SF site, then feel free to Google: lisbon treaty ireland.
http://www.google.ie/search?num=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=lisbon+treaty+ireland&btnG=Search
You will find page after page from various news sources backing up everything I have posted. Also note, none of the stuff you claim is 'bunk' is listed as 'bunk' anywhere on the net or any other news source for that matter outside of your post.
But please, if you think something I said is wrong, feel free to cite articles from the Treaty that prove my claims wrong. At least post a link or *some* evidence to back up all the assertions you have made thus far. I await your retort.
Since you have yet to post anything from the Treaty itself, I'll wait. You've made some very large claims - please back them up. Pointing out that other muppets agree with you is not backing up your argument, though.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Just heard on the news, the Dail will be holding a debate on the treaty after the Easter holidays.0
-
Here ye go...
Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.” This is a major change to the legal basis of the EU because it transforms it from an arena of co-operation between democratically-elected nation states to a legal entity in its own right.
‘Legal personality’ would enable the EU to operate in the international area like a state, which it currently does not have the power to do. It could have its own diplomatic corps, negotiate and sign international trade agreements, incorporate existing international treaties into its own law and seek a seat
Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.
Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty removes member states’ automatic right to an EU Commissioner. It also reaffirms the “independence” of the Commission: “The Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.”
As the Commission is responsible for drafting EU legislation and has what is known as the “power of initiative”, such “independence” simply means a complete absence of accountability from any elected body, whether at a national or at an EU level.
Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.
Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity, without any process of national ratification. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any recourse to a referendum.
The Lisbon Treaty contains a further eight articles which enable the European Council to extend specific powers in specified policy areas, including moving Common Foreign and Security Policy from unanimity to qualified majority voting, harmonisation of criminal law, and extending the powers of the European Public Prosecutor.
The Lisbon Treaty further consolidates the right-ward direction of economic policy while simultaneously undermining public services and workers’ rights.
The European Union and the Lisbon Treaty do not talk about public services. Rather they divide services into two categories: (1) Services of General Economic Interest, and (2) Services of General Interest. While there is no definition of Services of General Interest, current EU case law defines economic activity as the offering of any goods or services on the market. By this definition, all current public services would fit into the Services of General Economic Interest rather than Services of General Interest. Article 16 of the Lisbon Treaty places new “economic and financial conditions” on the provision of Services of General Economic Interest (these are detailed in Articles 86 and 87 of the existing treaty). These conditions mean that services – including health care and education services for example – would be subject to the rules of competition.
Protocol 6 of the Lisbon Treaty mandates the EU to ensure that “competition is not distorted”. This provides the EU with a mandate to remove “distortions” from the provision of services. Such “distortions” could include state aid, public funding, protective markets, health, environmental and workers’ rights regulations and state “monopolies”. Combined, this complex procedure allows for the complete undermining of the welfare state and the Social European Model. In its place it promotes deregulation and privatisation.
Social democratic defenders of the Lisbon Treaty point to its Protocol 9, arguing that this excludes public services from such rules. However, as there is no definition of Services of General Interest in this protocol or anywhere else in the treaty this is clearly not the case.
Article 2/2 introduces “price stability” as an aim of the European Union for the first time. While no one could object to measures to curb inflation, if the inclusion of price stability is used as a tool to limit member states’ public spending, or to restrict member states’ budget deficits, then clearly it could have a negative economic role.
Equally, if price stability were to conflict with other aims such as full employment or social progress, it would be the European Court of Justice who would determine which aim has precedence rather than democratically-elected member state governments. While it is unclear, at this stage, the inclusion of price stability could have the impact of forcing member states to reduce public spending, further undermining the provision of public services and other policy tools aimed at combating poverty and inequality.
Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
Article 11 mandates: “The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security.” Article 27 mandates for the “progressive framing of a common Union defence policy [that] will lead to a common defence” (Article 28b). While decisions on matters of foreign, security or defence policy will be taken by unanimity, Article 17 specifically allows the European Council to act by qualified majority voting in foreign and security policy. Like the internal market before it, this is the beginning of the transfer of control of foreign, security and defence policy to the EU.
Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.
Article 28/7 reaffirms that “commitments and co-operation” in the area of common security and defence “shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. This effective alignment to NATO is not balanced with any commitment to protect the neutrality of member states such as Ireland.
Article 2a gives the EU exclusive competence over commercial policy, including the negotiating of international trade agreements. Article 10a mandates the “progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade” to be one of the EU’s guiding principles in its interaction with non-EU member states.
At present, the EU is seeking to force developing world countries to abolish what are known as “beyond borders controls” such as tendering restrictions and environmental or workers’ rights regulations, irrespective of the consequences of removing such controls. Taken together, these two elements signal a significant backward step in the EU’s approach to tackling global poverty and inequality.
Protocol 12 of the Lisbon Treaty, dealing with the European Atomic Energy Commission, states that the treaty “should continue to have full effect”. One of the primary goals of this treaty (knows as EURATOM) is the promotion of nuclear energy. Irish people reject nuclear energy. The Lisbon Treaty, like its predecessors, mandates the EU to promote nuclear energy.
Defenders of the Lisbon Treaty argue that it will make the EU more efficient and democratic. They argue that it gives more power to national parliaments and citizens and greater human rights protections. They say that a post-enlargement EU cannot function under its present system. All of these arguments are untrue.
The provisions dealing with national parliaments and citizens are cosmetic and are completely diluted by the massive transfer of power to the EU level detailed above. The Charter of Fundamental Rights adds no new human rights protections and its application is heavily circumscribed by national and EU law. The EU has continued to function without crisis or collapse since enlargement. These arguments are being used to distract attention from the 19 points listed above.
Defenders of the treaty also argue that rejecting the Lisbon Treaty will see Ireland isolated and marginalised within the EU. This is an attempt to bully the Irish electorate into accepting the treaty despite its dangers. In 2005, the people of France and the Netherlands rejected the same text. These countries were not isolated or marginalised; nor would Ireland be if we voted no.
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/234790 -
Advertisement
-
Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.” This is a major change to the legal basis of the EU because it transforms it from an arena of co-operation between democratically-elected nation states to a legal entity in its own right.
‘Legal personality’ would enable the EU to operate in the international area like a state, which it currently does not have the power to do. It could have its own diplomatic corps, negotiate and sign international trade agreements, incorporate existing international treaties into its own law and seek a seat
The European Union is already is a Legal Personality - all this treaty is doing is changing the official name of the door from EC to EU, cleaning up and putting the various articles in connection with this into 1 article.
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/eu-treaty-of-lisbon-legal-personality.html
End result - Do Sinn Fein have any legal advice at all? - this is a no brainer - and shows total ignorance of the Treaty and the EU at large. - the EU has been a legal entity since 1957 and we knew that when we joined in 72. Once again SF show they are anti Europe - not anti Lisbon treaty.
Im come back to the rest of this when I get a moment - "P O Neil" is obviously a username set up to disseminate propaganda and disinformation from SF and an phoblacht as He/She has yet to show that they possess any original thought that has not already been printed word for word in SF's or its press outlets literary resources and as such is abusing the privilges here in using it as a noticeboard as opposed to discussion board.0 -
The European Union is already is a Legal Personality - all this treaty is doing is changing the official name of the door from EC to EU, cleaning up and putting the various articles in connection with this into 1 article.
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/eu-treaty-of-lisbon-legal-personality.html
End result - Do Sinn Fein have any legal advice at all? - this is a no brainer - and shows total ignorance of the Treaty and the EU at large. - the EU has been a legal entity since 1957 and we knew that when we joined in 72. Once again SF show they are anti Europe - not anti Lisbon treaty.
Im come back to the rest of this when I get a moment - "P O Neil" is obviously a username set up to disseminate propaganda and disinformation from SF and an phoblacht as He/She has yet to show that they possess any original thought that has not already been printed word for word in SF's or its press outlets literary resources and as such is abusing the privilges here in using it as a noticeboard as opposed to discussion board.
Indeed - his 'post' there is a copy-paste of the An Phoblacht article he refers to. Still, he hasn't hidden that.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I particuarily like this quoteP_ONeil wrote:Sure, the EU power to regulate trade outside of the EU will be in our benefit, that being said we lose the power to keep other EU members from flooding Irish markets with low cost imports. If Spain or Poland can produce or grow something that we also have here in Ireland, there will be no controls to stop them from flooding our markets. Sure the EU might stop the Chinese from doing the same, but we are wide open when it comes to a threat from within the union.
You obviously have no clue how damaging stopping this would be to the Irish economy. We would go from one of the wealthiest countries in Europe to one of the poorest in a very short space of time. Virtually everything we produce in this country apart from the goods and services that support that production is exported. In turn we can use the money earned exporting to import cheaper goods and services than can be porduced here, thus driving down the cost base of producing here in the first place adding to our wealth.
The protectionist argument that jobs will be lost to cheaper workers overseas is completely true. However it fails to take into account that while a few people will loose jobs everyone will benefit by paying less for those goods and services. The jobs that are lost can then be replaced by higher income jobs which would otherwise be unsustainable. Pick up a book on modern economics and educate yourself.0 -
P_ONeil: Contributers to this forum are expected to respond directly to any claims they make. Continuing to post material which has been called into question without any response from yourself addressing other posters points is severely frowned upon and will eventually get you banned for being a time waster.
If you're going to quote other publications it's also expected that you clearly highlight that it is indeed a quote from elsewhere with, if possible, a link to the original source.
Please fully familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting again.0 -
You lost me atclaresinnfein.com
These are the people that make me wanna vote yes. Even though my natural suspicion wants me to vote no.....
Scofflaw and OscarBravo are slowly but surely thrashing out all the inconsistencies in the No argument, in a very logical rational manner.
I commend you.
Still haven't a bean which way to cast it though....Maybe Pat Rabitte will have some good arguments/comments on it, For some reason I really respect him.0 -
"It is understood that the Attorney General has advised the new coalition that because the new treaty amends existing treaties that Ireland endorsed in previous referenda, the government is constitutionally bound to hold a new poll on the deal reached this weekend."
As far as I know, there was quite some doubt over whether a referendum was required for this one, but the AG's advice leaned on the side of a referendum ratification. The case was not clear-cut.
Scofflaw
You have a source to back up what you say about the Attorney General's confidential advice to government?0 -
This google video says a few disturbing things that ordinary people might be able to understand.
The Laval ruling is a pretty interesting part, especially for wealthy Ireland where construction is under such pressure. Now Irish construction companies can open Latvian companies, ship skilled latvian labour over, and put them to work for the minimum wage....yikes! Presumably so could hi tech companies.
Feel free to critique it, I havent made my mind up but it paints a pretty disturbing picture.
Amberman
PS - Nice shot of Bertie with the Council of foreign relations background....any wonder he's in favour...its a CFR agenda.0 -
You have a source to back up what you say about the Attorney General's confidential advice to government?
Guardian article, last June.This google video says a few disturbing things that ordinary people might be able to understand.
The Laval ruling is a pretty interesting part, especially for wealthy Ireland where construction is under such pressure. Now Irish construction companies can open Latvian companies, ship skilled latvian labour over, and put them to work for the minimum wage....yikes! Presumably so could hi tech companies.
Feel free to critique it, I havent made my mind up but it paints a pretty disturbing picture.
I have to admit, I have sent that one to people as a joke (along with the No2Lisbon song). I'm not sure how to do an honest critique of it, because to take anything it says on board, you need to first accept that the EU is actually a vast warmongering conspiracy intent on world domination as soon as it gets the citizenry of Europe firmly under its jack-booted heel.
If one does believe that, I can say two things - first, that video (Protocols of the Elders of the EU, it might be called, or perhaps EU: the Empire Strikes Back) still bears no relation whatsoever to what's actually in the treaty; second, that one has probably had no noticeable dealings with the EU, who I personally have generally found to be a well-meaning bureaucracy, with all the faults that that implies. If you enjoyed the video, you should check out other "We Are Change Ireland" videos, where you will learn all about the New World Order.
Frankly, the funniest thing about this kind of video is that the EU won't challenge it, because above all else, the EU is afraid to offend people - which, of course, is rather the reverse of how it's portrayed in videos like these.
Out of interest, has anyone here been crushed under the jackbooted heel of the EU oppressor?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Now Irish construction companies can open Latvian companies, ship skilled latvian labour over, and put them to work for the minimum wage....yikes! Presumably so could hi tech companies.
It must be remembered that a lot of companies are non-unionised to begin with. Going on my experience and word of mouth in the technology sector in general, unions are a pretty rare occurrence for this sector and I've never heard of a wage structure having been agreed with a union. I'd imagine the same applies for a number of other sectors.
If it's really that big a deal - which I honestly don't think it is - and there's enough support the law can always be changed.0 -
Technology sector workers are generally a competitive bunch and wouldn't want to be held back by a union anyway. Talented people get paid decent wages, talentless people don't and the talented ones would not want to have a wage agreement which limits their income potential. So there never will be a union in that sector for the forseeable future. This is just my opinion speaking as an ICT worker.0
-
Advertisement
-
Guardian article, last June.
I have to admit, I have sent that one to people as a joke (along with the No2Lisbon song). I'm not sure how to do an honest critique of it, because to take anything it says on board, you need to first accept that the EU is actually a vast warmongering conspiracy intent on world domination as soon as it gets the citizenry of Europe firmly under its jack-booted heel.
If one does believe that, I can say two things - first, that video (Protocols of the Elders of the EU, it might be called, or perhaps EU: the Empire Strikes Back) still bears no relation whatsoever to what's actually in the treaty; second, that one has probably had no noticeable dealings with the EU, who I personally have generally found to be a well-meaning bureaucracy, with all the faults that that implies. If you enjoyed the video, you should check out other "We Are Change Ireland" videos, where you will learn all about the New World Order.
Frankly, the funniest thing about this kind of video is that the EU won't challenge it, because above all else, the EU is afraid to offend people - which, of course, is rather the reverse of how it's portrayed in videos like these.
Out of interest, has anyone here been crushed under the jackbooted heel of the EU oppressor?
cordially,
Scofflaw
I have no idea about anything like this...but I do know a little about history, and Hitlers jackboot didn't come down until he had all the legal mechanisms in place...and that took him 6 years after he got elected. He was exactly the same as every tyrant who ever lived. Its always been that way which is why you need to be so careful about giving up national self determination...they might not be tyrants now, but without the ability to vote the leaders and lawmakers in or out...(they are a bureaucracy as you said, not a democracy) history shows us that a tyrant will apprear at some point. I think if there was such an issue with the EU in this treaty, people will be coerced or frightened into it or would go into it to "protect the fatherland from teh evil XXXXXX....it vill make uz STRONG!" The draconian legislation in the US post 911 is a good example of this.
The Uk did the same thing then. It has always struck me as strange that they hadnt felt the need to legislate to such a liberty robbing extent when the IRA was blowing the hell outta London. But as I say, I dont know much about these things.
If there is some ulterior motive in the Lisbon treaty (and the fact that they didnt want ordinary people to have a say makes my sit up and take notice) the ordinary people on the ground in EU jobs wouldnt be privy to it...thats the way its always been in the past...so I completely could see that your fellow EU bureaucrats would be very pleasant people...people generally are. Its the tyrants you need to watch out for.0 -
Technology sector workers are generally a competitive bunch and wouldn't want to be held back by a union anyway. Talented people get paid decent wages
I have hired tech people from Eastern Europe through elance, and you arent close to being as competitively as they are. This new Laval ruling opens the door for them to come over to Ireland and work for a lot less than you currently do...so its people who are in high paying wage jobs who are threatened by this ruling, not minimum wage people, since the ruling says that foreign companies must pay the minimum wage if one exists, to foreign contract workers. If you earn 30 or 40 euros an hour...watch out. They can come and earn minimum wage and its still worth their while.
Isnt the money saving aspect of Ireland a key reason that tech companies are here right now? Now the big corporations can have an english speaking democracy, great corporation tax rates AND bring in skilled foreigners for low low rates....if I was running a tech corporation right now, Id be flicking through the Latvian yellow pages as we speak....wouldnt you?0 -
P_ONeil wrote:Article 46 of the Lisbon Treaty states: “The Union shall have a legal personality.” This is a major change to the legal basis of the EU because it transforms it from an arena of co-operation between democratically-elected nation states to a legal entity in its own right.
‘Legal personality’ would enable the EU to operate in the international area like a state, which it currently does not have the power to do. It could have its own diplomatic corps, negotiate and sign international trade agreements, incorporate existing international treaties into its own law and seek a seat
The EEC, of which we are also members, currently has a legal personality, and does those things. The EU is taking over that legal personality, with very similar restrictions (neither France, nor Britain, wish to lose their permanent UN set). The EU becoming a legal entity in its own right certainly doesn't change the fact that the EU is an arena of co-operation between democratically-governed nation states, because the EU continues to have only those powers the member states choose unanimously to give it - a fact which is explicit in the Treaty.P_ONeil wrote:Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its [the Union’s] values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.
Since the Council (the heads of the member states) has all along provided the major impetus for the direction of the EU, it seems rather reasonable to give some formal recognition that it's part of the EU...and I somehow doubt that simply by virtue of that recognition, the heads of the member states will magically stop looking out for national advantage. It should also be clear that the idea that the body that provides the overall direction of the EU is certainly going to consider the good of the EU, and within the scope of the treaties (such as the Charter), but it can hardly be, as you say, bound by existing and future EU law in the direction it considers.P_ONeil wrote:Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty removes member states’ automatic right to an EU Commissioner. It also reaffirms the “independence” of the Commission: “The Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.”
As the Commission is responsible for drafting EU legislation and has what is known as the “power of initiative”, such “independence” simply means a complete absence of accountability from any elected body, whether at a national or at an EU level.
Member states retain their 'automatic right' - are you suggesting that we will have to apply to have a Commissioner, perhaps, and maybe be refused? You know that is not the case - what is the case is that we will have exactly the same level of representation as every other state, and exactly the same level of representation as now (1 of 18 two-thirds of the time = 3.7% = 1 of 27 100% of the time), except that the "Irish" Commissioner will only sit 2/3 of the time.
Which leads to the second point: accountability, and the independence of the Commission - first, it's clear from what you're saying that someone in Sinn Fein understands that the "Irish" Commissioner is no such thing, but an EU Commissioner who happens to be from Ireland. He's not a representative of the Irish government, which rather makes the whole furore over the "loss" of "our" Commissioner rather transparently fake.
Second, you may not know that the Commission is accountable to our elected MEPs - the Parliament has the power to fire the whole Commission, and has done so. Take the European elections more seriously in future!P_ONeil wrote:Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.
Until now, revisions of EU treaties required these three stages, ensuring that national governments and, in the case of Ireland, national populations are involved in the decision-making process. Article 48 dispenses with this and allows the European Council to make amendments by unanimity, without any process of national ratification. This means that, in the future, significant changes could be made to the structure, procedures or competencies of the EU without any recourse to a referendum.
Actually, the sole difference is that it allows for amendments to be presented singly, rather than requiring the whole drawn-out inter-governmental process that currently results in a treaty. Any amendment that impacts our sovereignty will have to be ratified by referendum, but every amendment must be ratified.
From the Treaty:Treaty of Lisbon wrote:The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.
...
That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.
In our case, 'respective constitutional requirements' is either Dáil ratification or referendum, depending on what's involved in the proposed amendment, and following the various judgments like Crotty. I doubt it will mean a referendum on every single amendment, but it will certainly be an improvement on the current 'big bang' approach of wrapping up all the amendments as a treaty and having to ratify or not all together. Of course, that may make it easier for the EU to move forward without Sinn Fein being able to pretend Irish neutrality (or the sovereignty of the Republic it doesn't really recognise) is under threat every single time.P_ONeil wrote:The Lisbon Treaty contains a further eight articles which enable the European Council to extend specific powers in specified policy areas, including moving Common Foreign and Security Policy from unanimity to qualified majority voting, harmonisation of criminal law, and extending the powers of the European Public Prosecutor.
We have a specific provision currently opting us out of Common Foreign and Security Policy - which by all accounts will be renewed in this amendment. As to the rest, yes, some areas are moving from unanimity to QMV. Feel free to argue why any specific area should not be so moved.P_ONeil wrote:The Lisbon Treaty further consolidates the right-ward direction of economic policy while simultaneously undermining public services and workers’ rights.
The European Union and the Lisbon Treaty do not talk about public services. Rather they divide services into two categories: (1) Services of General Economic Interest, and (2) Services of General Interest. While there is no definition of Services of General Interest, current EU case law defines economic activity as the offering of any goods or services on the market. By this definition, all current public services would fit into the Services of General Economic Interest rather than Services of General Interest. Article 16 of the Lisbon Treaty places new “economic and financial conditions” on the provision of Services of General Economic Interest (these are detailed in Articles 86 and 87 of the existing treaty). These conditions mean that services – including health care and education services for example – would be subject to the rules of competition.
Protocol 6 of the Lisbon Treaty mandates the EU to ensure that “competition is not distorted”. This provides the EU with a mandate to remove “distortions” from the provision of services. Such “distortions” could include state aid, public funding, protective markets, health, environmental and workers’ rights regulations and state “monopolies”. Combined, this complex procedure allows for the complete undermining of the welfare state and the Social European Model. In its place it promotes deregulation and privatisation.
Social democratic defenders of the Lisbon Treaty point to its Protocol 9, arguing that this excludes public services from such rules. However, as there is no definition of Services of General Interest in this protocol or anywhere else in the treaty this is clearly not the case.
I'm sure it will amaze you to discover that the question of what constitutes services of general economic interest has actually been considered.
As to the rest of that twisted logic, I personally usually point to this bit of the Treaty:
"Without prejudice to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 73, 86 and 87, and given the place occupied by services of general economic interest in the shared values of the Union as well as their role in promoting social and territorial cohesion, the Union and the Member States, each within their respective powers and within the scope of application of the Treaties, shall take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions, particularly economic and financial conditions, which enable them to fulfil their missions. The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish these principles and set these conditions without prejudice to the competence of Member States, in compliance with the Treaties, to provide, to commission and to fund such services."
In other words, public services first and foremost must be able to fulfill their missions - which in the case of some public services (universal health care, for example) requires that they be a monopoly. Again, you appear to be suggesting that the other European states, nearly all of which, unlike Ireland, do have monopolistic (and decent) public services, are bizarrely conspiring to force upon Ireland something they themselves consider anathema.
In a more general sense, I find that both the far left and the far right detest this treaty equally - the socialists for its "neo-liberalism", the neo-liberals for its "socialism" - which suggests to me that a reasonable balance has been struck.P_ONeil wrote:Article 2/2 introduces “price stability” as an aim of the European Union for the first time. While no one could object to measures to curb inflation, if the inclusion of price stability is used as a tool to limit member states’ public spending, or to restrict member states’ budget deficits, then clearly it could have a negative economic role.
Equally, if price stability were to conflict with other aims such as full employment or social progress, it would be the European Court of Justice who would determine which aim has precedence rather than democratically-elected member state governments. While it is unclear, at this stage, the inclusion of price stability could have the impact of forcing member states to reduce public spending, further undermining the provision of public services and other policy tools aimed at combating poverty and inequality.
Really reaching there. Outwith the limits imposed by euro membership, the EU does not have the powers necessary to fulfill your fantasy.P_ONeil wrote:Articles 10 to 28 of the Lisbon Treaty advance EU control over foreign, security and defence policy, increasing the militarisation of the EU and further eroding Irish neutrality.
I do like 'eroding', since previous claims that Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Nice all "ended Irish neutrality" can now be recycled as "erosions".P_ONeil wrote:Article 11 mandates: “The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security.” Article 27 mandates for the “progressive framing of a common Union defence policy [that] will lead to a common defence” (Article 28b). While decisions on matters of foreign, security or defence policy will be taken by unanimity, Article 17 specifically allows the European Council to act by qualified majority voting in foreign and security policy. Like the internal market before it, this is the beginning of the transfer of control of foreign, security and defence policy to the EU.
Do quote the whole of articles:
"The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
So, first, it has to be unanimous - which is to say Ireland has a veto on a common security policy. Second, in accordance with our constitutional requirements - we will have a referendum.P_ONeil wrote:Article 28c mandates: “Member states shall undertake to improve their military capabilities.” Taken with the “start-up fund” and “specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations... for urgent financing of [unspecified] initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy” (detailed in Article 28d), member states will be obliged to increase their financial contributions to the military capabilities of the EU.
Er, no. A does not imply B. B actually implies that people will need to make the money available on time when needed, not increase the amount of money, which has a specified budget (Ireland's contribution is €20m over five years, out of an annual Defence budget of €1.2bn). A implies nothing more than making sure that Irish troops have decent equipment.P_ONeil wrote:Article 28/7 reaffirms that “commitments and co-operation” in the area of common security and defence “shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”. This effective alignment to NATO is not balanced with any commitment to protect the neutrality of member states such as Ireland.
Actually it is - in the preceding sentence, which you have not quoted. Clause in full:
"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.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation."
The first bolded statement is called the "Irish clause", and was introduced back at Maastricht as a treaty guarantee respecting the neutrality of those member states which are neutral (us, Austria, Sweden). The second is important in the light of your claim above - the phrase you quote as "effective alignment to NATO" is nothing more than a treaty guarantee respecting the NATO commitments of NATO members.P_ONeil wrote:Article 2a gives the EU exclusive competence over commercial policy, including the negotiating of international trade agreements. Article 10a mandates the “progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade” to be one of the EU’s guiding principles in its interaction with non-EU member states.
At present, the EU is seeking to force developing world countries to abolish what are known as “beyond borders controls” such as tendering restrictions and environmental or workers’ rights regulations, irrespective of the consequences of removing such controls. Taken together, these two elements signal a significant backward step in the EU’s approach to tackling global poverty and inequality.
Really? How so? Also, Article 2a is pretty sensible, when you consider that it means that the EU negotiates as one very big bloc, and someone like China can't get around the EU's clout.P_ONeil wrote:Protocol 12 of the Lisbon Treaty, dealing with the European Atomic Energy Commission, states that the treaty “should continue to have full effect”. One of the primary goals of this treaty (knows as EURATOM) is the promotion of nuclear energy. Irish people reject nuclear energy. The Lisbon Treaty, like its predecessors, mandates the EU to promote nuclear energy.
Euratom is a research body. It's been in existence all along, and at no point has the EU attempted, via Euratom or any other means, to force nuclear power on Ireland - and the Treaty changes none of Euratom's goals. A really pathetic argument, since without Euratom and the EU, that dirty big pile at Sellafield would be a good deal more likely to accidentally bring Ireland some nuclear energy.P_ONeil wrote:Defenders of the Lisbon Treaty argue that it will make the EU more efficient and democratic. They argue that it gives more power to national parliaments and citizens and greater human rights protections. They say that a post-enlargement EU cannot function under its present system. All of these arguments are untrue.
The provisions dealing with national parliaments and citizens are cosmetic and are completely diluted by the massive transfer of power to the EU level detailed above. The Charter of Fundamental Rights adds no new human rights protections and its application is heavily circumscribed by national and EU law. The EU has continued to function without crisis or collapse since enlargement. These arguments are being used to distract attention from the 19 points listed above.
I really think you need to use true and untrue in their usual senses. Virtually all the arguments you have given are factually incorrect, rely on twisting the sense of the treaty, and frequently involve other claims that are demonstrably false.
The EU will not break down if Lisbon is not passed, but it will function better with it. It will also be a bit more democratic, and a bit more accountable.P_ONeil wrote:Defenders of the treaty also argue that rejecting the Lisbon Treaty will see Ireland isolated and marginalised within the EU. This is an attempt to bully the Irish electorate into accepting the treaty despite its dangers. In 2005, the people of France and the Netherlands rejected the same text. These countries were not isolated or marginalised; nor would Ireland be if we voted no.
We certainly won't be thrown out of the EU, and we won't be subject to any formal repercussions, but the informal repercussions will be quite large - both on Irish negotiators getting things done in Brussels, and for the FDI business community, who see us as fully, and stably, involved in the EU. Of the two English-speaking countries, we are the Euro-friendly one, and that's done us a lot of good. It's funny how it's Sinn Fein who are suggesting we ape the euroscepticism of our neighbour, and thereby lose one of our unique selling points for the multinationals (the point has been made by the American Chamber of Commerce here, as well as the IDA).
I appreciate it looks like bullying to point these consequences out, but I don't think we should pretend that voting No will have no unpleasant consequences.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I have hired tech people from Eastern Europe through elance, and you arent close to being as competitively as they are. This new Laval ruling opens the door for them to come over to Ireland and work for a lot less than you currently do...so its people who are in high paying wage jobs who are threatened by this ruling, not minimum wage people, since the ruling says that foreign companies must pay the minimum wage if one exists, to foreign contract workers. If you earn 30 or 40 euros an hour...watch out. They can come and earn minimum wage and its still worth their while.
Isnt the money saving aspect of Ireland a key reason that tech companies are here right now? Now the big corporations can have an english speaking democracy, great corporation tax rates AND bring in skilled foreigners for low low rates....if I was running a tech corporation right now, Id be flicking through the Latvian yellow pages as we speak....wouldnt you?
Hmm. The point of the Laval ruling is that the right to strike does not take precedence over the right to movement of labour - hence the point about tech companies not usually having unions. That means that tech companies are unlikely to be affected by the Laval ruling, because they are not usually unionised.
One has been able to hire cheap Eastern European tech people for at least a decade - and of course, call centres in India. Gamal here had cheap Turkish labour on their building sites before Laval, so this one again strikes me as a bit of a song-and-dance routine.
Quite aside from anything else, you can hardly claim the Laval judgment is a result of a treaty which hasn't been ratified.Amberman wrote:If there is some ulterior motive in the Lisbon treaty (and the fact that they didnt want ordinary people to have a say makes my sit up and take notice) the ordinary people on the ground in EU jobs wouldnt be privy to it...thats the way its always been in the past...so I completely could see that your fellow EU bureaucrats would be very pleasant people...people generally are. Its the tyrants you need to watch out for.
I rather resent the assumption that because I say I have had dealings with the EU I am therefore an EU bureaucrat. I'm not - I'm a self-employed ex-scientist.
When you describe the EU as if it had a potential tyrant at its heart, you would need to realise that there are roughly 30,000 EU bureaucrats total (a lot less than the Irish civil service), no EU army, no EU police force, and that the heads of the EU are the heads of the member states.
Further, the idea of unifying Europe in anything beyond the bureaucratic functions that have been delegated to the EU is frankly hilarious - lining up the French, the Germans, the English, the Spanish, etc etc behind a banner that says what? And will it say it in all 27 languages?
Nationalism is the passion that breeds tyrants and war - the EU runs counter to both that passion and its symptoms, and was set up on the ashes of a Europe that had suffered terribly under both, and in the hopes that it would not have to suffer them again. So far, it's done a very good job - the possibility of another European war has receded so far from our thoughts that people can afford to hyperventilate over the minutia of a common multinational bureaucracy instead.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
You make it sound so benign and that concerns me when it clearly is exactly the opposite. Few tyrants have ever built up their forces until after the legal framework has been put in place...otherwise everyone would see it coming. People aren’t THAT stupid. That’s a simple, factual lesson from history.
The point of the Laval ruling may be the right to strike, but it's implications are much wider. Unions don’t have anything to do with the implication of that ruling, but they do have something to do with the point of it. I didn’t hook it into the treaty, but mentioned it as an example of something mentioned in the video I highlighted about the negative bureaucratic encroachment for the Irish people who are among the wealthiest in Europe and who stand to lose a great deal from these types of “implications”.
You’re right, you have been able to hire cheap labour in India etc... it’s called outsourcing...but not to legally sit at the desk next to you... not bringing entire foreign companies over here to take your highly paid highly skilled job and force your wages down...2 completely different things , and it's not aimed at the manual jobs, but at the middle class skilled jobs.
I don’t know about the Turkish, but id say that they were brought in because Irish people wouldn’t work for a day on building sites for minimum wages like the Turks. The point I’m making is that it opens the door for skilled foreigners to come in on wages based on their home country legal and wage structures, thus forcing wages in Ireland down. Thats why the Laval ruling ended up in court, though I believe they were foreigners who worked in a non minimum wage host country and so weren’t protected by a minimum wage agreement and so worked for 2 euros an hour much to the dismay of the unions. This is my understanding from the Irish MEP on that video.
I don’t know you or your job, so I apologise to you...I’d be offended too if someone likened me to an EU bureaucrat.
What else is there apart from bureaucratic integration? That definition covers almost everything...policing, food standards, health care, farm subsidies, fisheries policy, taxation, chemical and pharmaceutical standards, public policy and lawmaking, monetary policy, (a real big one) human rights, trade, eventually taxation...the only thing that will soon be decided at a local level is what day your bins are emptied!
While Ireland was enjoying low interest rates and booming house prices, the Germans were being crucified by the high cost of their exports, but they were powerless to act. It could happen In Ireland in a different area.
To be honest, if you don’t think that the EU is on the way to becoming a united states of Europe, I don’t know what to say. All the heads of state want this, which is why they won’t risk a referendum. Their powers are vastly increased over our lives...and politicians love power. That’s why they play the politics game, with a few notable exceptions. At the top level of the EU, they are masters at justifying the unjustifiable, defending the indefensible, manipulating, diverting, postulating and spinning...that’s how they got there!
The video I highlighted showed Irish MEPs. If you would like to point out inaccuracies in that video, Id be happy to listen.
I know who the heads of the EU are...but didn’t Nikolas Sarkozy recently nominate Tony Blair as the president when that post becomes available?? He isn’t a head of state, he took the west to an illegal war and he will have EXECUTIVE power if he gets in under the treaty. The head of the trade commission , Peter Mandelsohn, was TWICE kicked out of the UK cabinet. Like most other commissioners, he isn’t elected either.
The laws are made by 3000 unelected focus groups and your MEPs have power to suggest only changes to the legislation and cannot suggest any legislation of their own. They are dogs with no teeth and big muzzles. The Irish will have no commissioner in 5 out of every 15 years according to an Irish MEP. Based on population, the Irish vote will count for squat in the general scale of things...Poland will have about 15 times more weight in the voting structure.
I remember a recent war in the Balkans, 2 gulf wars that included European forces, one in the Falklands, one in Afghanistan, one soon to be in Iran, Syria, and prob N Korea, all called a war on terror and 2 super states at war for about 40 years since WW2. Still, as long as it's not in my back yard, eh. Being a super state doesn’t remove the threat of war, it just means that we all play with bigger guns when disagreement arise, which they will if history is a guide.
Explain this to me...how will you, or everyone together in Ireland, be able to exercise your democratic right against this bureaucracy if a law is passed that you, and everyone in Ireland, to a man, doesn’t like? What mechanism will allow you to change things?0 -
We certainly won't be thrown out of the EU, and we won't be subject to any formal repercussions, but the informal repercussions will be quite large - both on Irish negotiators getting things done in Brussels, and for the FDI business community, who see us as fully, and stably, involved in the EU. Of the two English-speaking countries, we are the Euro-friendly one, and that's done us a lot of good. It's funny how it's Sinn Fein who are suggesting we ape the euroscepticism of our neighbour, and thereby lose one of our unique selling points for the multinationals (the point has been made by the American Chamber of Commerce here, as well as the IDA).
I appreciate it looks like bullying to point these consequences out, but I don't think we should pretend that voting No will have no unpleasant consequences.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Pointing out that there will be unpleasant consequences...dictatorship 101. You have the inside track and you seem been "convinced" and seem somehow vested in selling this idea. Its never free to take a stand, but its usually good value. It looks like bullying because it IS bullying. Do as we say, or else. As I pointed out in an earlier post....It vill make uz STRONG! Hitler speak.
I for one wont be intimidated. Im voting NO.0 -
Explain this to me...how will you, or everyone together in Ireland, be able to exercise your democratic right against this bureaucracy if a law is passed that you, and everyone in Ireland, to a man, doesn’t like? What mechanism will allow you to change things?
3 million signatures on a sheet of paper? As far as I can see, you will have a referendum if it has any effect on our constitution, They aren't taking over the country. Although I would like to know where the line is exactly or is that left to interpretation ?0 -
As far as I know, there was quite some doubt over whether a referendum was required for this one, but the AG's advice leaned on the side of a referendum ratification. The case was not clear-cut.
Scofflaw
Have you anything to back up what you say about the AG's confidential advice to the government? The Guardian link you posted when I asked you the first time does not do that.0 -
You make it sound so benign and that concerns me when it clearly is exactly the opposite. Few tyrants have ever built up their forces until after the legal framework has been put in place...otherwise everyone would see it coming. People aren’t THAT stupid. That’s a simple, factual lesson from history.
Ah yes...after all, there's absolutely no way on earth it could possibly sound benign because it's an international treaty rather than the plot of a movie.Pointing out that there will be unpleasant consequences...dictatorship 101.
Leaving aside the obvious jokes about you crossing roads, haven't you just spent several posts pointing out the highly unpleasant consequences you claim follow from voting Yes?You have the inside track and you seem been "convinced" and seem somehow vested in selling this idea. Its never free to take a stand, but its usually good value. It looks like bullying because it IS bullying. Do as we say, or else. As I pointed out in an earlier post....It vill make uz STRONG! Hitler speak.
I for one wont be intimidated. Im voting NO.
My "inside track" consists of having informed myself (and entirely from what's available online!). My "vested interest" is in combating the kind of New World Order drivel you're peddling, and the lies and misinformation Sinn Fein are peddling.
I have no interest in trying to persuade you to vote yes, but I do have an interest in pointing out that there are consequences to voting No as well as Yes, and that nearly everything you've said about the Treaty suggests that you know virtually nothing about it, but have convinced yourself that the EU is some kind of bogeyman. If you believe the whole New World Order schtick, there is no rational argument that is likely to change your mind.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Have you anything to back up what you say about the AG's confidential advice to the government? The Guardian link you posted when I asked you the first time does not do that.Scofflaw wrote:As far as I know, there was quite some doubt over whether a referendum was required for this one, but the AG's advice leaned on the side of a referendum ratification. The case was not clear-cut.
No, I remember reading it at some point, which is why I qualified it with "as far as I know".
cordially,
Scofflaw0
Advertisement