UCD Students And The Treaty of Lisbon

Het-Field

It has been reported that Irish people will go to the polls on the 15th June to Vote on the Proposed Lisbon Treaty.

Personally, I am very much in favour of the Treaty. Between 2004 and 2007 we have seen the European Union grow at a most rapid rate. 12 new States have been admitted, and there are more to come. The Treaty attempts to streamline the commission, and offer continuity by having a 2 1/2 year term for President of the Council. The Powers of Petition also offer an avenue for the average punter to engage with the European Union. The Powers or the more or less redundant European Parliment are extended by offering greater powers of scrutiny. It also serves to incorporate the Charter Of Fundamental Rights. The article which ensures that more European Council meetings will be held in public is another factor to be welcomed. Finally the extending of the QMV to over 60 new competencies will allow for more work to be completed.

However, I know that my view is not representative of all people. Furthermore, the wide range of amendments has led to confusion and a lack of knowlege amongst those enfranchised. I would like to know what are the issues which UCD students find most complicated about the treaty, weather Ireland's vote will have any impact, and ultimately weather they will Vote Yes or No.

I have set the ball rolling. Het-Field says YES !

Dave!

I haven't had a chance to familiarise myself with the treaty yet. I've been too busy with essays, assignments, and exams really. AFAIK the referendum will be in June, and I finish my exams on 15th May, so after that I will start reading some of the literature, etc., on it.

From what I gather however, the treaty gives more power to Europe and further reduces our autonomy to some degree. I'm generally in favour of the EU and the idea of European Union, so I'd be okay with giving up a bit of independence for greater cooperation and harmony between European countries.

I'll have to read up on it though before I actually decide to vote for or against it.

Bubs101

I'll probably vote yes. From what I gather it means less representation for the smaller states but as I am half British that doesn't bother me and it'll probably help Europe run smoother

Red Alert

I am voting no. I am passionately pro-European and I love what the EU has done both for Ireland domestically and in opening up a great number of countries to foreign travel without restrictions. I think the ideals of the EU are good, but the never-ending expansionist policy and micro-management will be its downfall. A trend has been started that degrades the idea of bringing local autonomous countries together in favour of an autocratic top-down approach in recent years. This is enough to turn anyone off any more powers to any state-arm of europe.

What I do take issue with is that this treaty is itself a way of avoiding the 'no' vote by France and Holland to the EU constitution. A no vote should mean 'No'. It should not mean 'go back and remove the really outrageous stuff then sneak it back in'. Not that the vote will probably matter anyway, since we were told go back and give the right answer next time with the Nice treaty. That sort of thing better befits the regime Bob Mugabe runs in my opinion.

Debate on the treaty has been in my view deliberately stifled by the government, both in not naming a date and having confusing information on the treaty's content. The only real message the government are interested in getting out is that a 'yes' vote is necessary and mandatory. They are not interested in getting a debate going and seeing how the public really want to react to it.

On a related point the Irish government themselves are very selective about which parts of Europe they 'do', since they have decided that it's not really in our interest to remove VRT on cars from other European member states amongst other policies which inevitably feed into the FF donators' hands.

pretty*monster

June 15th? Where did you hear that?
I shall be in London on that date so won't be voting. If it's held on a different date I'll be voting no based on general Euro-skepticness.

arbeitsscheuer

Red Alert wrote:

Debate on the treaty has been in my view deliberately stifled by the government, both in not naming a date and having confusing information on the treaty's content. The only real message the government are interested in getting out is that a 'yes' vote is necessary and mandatory. They are not interested in getting a debate going and seeing how the public really want to react to it.

Concur absolutely.
And that is a good enough reason alone to vote No imo.

I'm not going to go into all the reasons I'll be voting no, but I'll rattle off a list of a few points that have influence the decision;
*Destruction of workers' rights under the misnomer of "free movement of services" - what the IWU more aptly calls "free movement of exploitation".
*"Common Defence Policy" which demands greater defence spending by all member states, drawing desperately needed funds away from social spending.
*The further removal of national sovereign power and autonomy, strengthening the EU as a political entity while continuing to ignore the democratic deficit inherent in its institutions.

NO all the way.

EDIT: Btw, the date for the vote has been provisionally pencilled in as June 12th. Dunno where the hell you got June 15th from hetfield.

Tom65

I'll probably vote Yes. I've read up on it aubt, and I'm 'pro-Europe' (I don't like that term...more that I recognise that the EU has done a lot of good). I'm still weary of the EU overstepping its boundary as regards autonomy. Diminishing power in Europe was always going to be likely with the accession states a couple of years ago. In order to make the EU, I think the Lisbon Treaty is necessary. Plus, I'd trust Europe a lot more on some issues than I'd trust the Daíl.

In the couple of months until the referendum, I could probably be persuaded to vote No, but as it stands I'm fairly convinced that its worth a Yes vote.

dajaffa

The Refurendum has already been declared for the 12th June, by Bertie just before he announced his resignation...

Breezer

Red Alert wrote: »

Debate on the treaty has been in my view deliberately stifled by the government, both in not naming a date and having confusing information on the treaty's content. The only real message the government are interested in getting out is that a 'yes' vote is necessary and mandatory. They are not interested in getting a debate going and seeing how the public really want to react to it.

Agreed. However, that is not in itself a reason to vote No in my book. Every political party with the exception of Sinn Féin is advocating a Yes vote, not just the Government parties. Fine Gael and Labour have been calling for the Government to set a date and allow the Referendum Commission to start informing the people for months now. I think the issues contained within this treaty are far more important than Bertie's finances and the distraction they have posed to the Government for the past while.

Regarding the 'less representation in Europe' argument, this would appear to centre around the fact that we will not have a seat on the Commission for 5 out of every 15 years. This is not something that will apply solely to Ireland or even to smaller states: every state will be subject to the same system. The logic behind this is that a smaller Commission will function more smoothly. Since the Commissioners are meant to represent the interests of Europe as a whole, and not their own countries' interests, the fact that 1/3 of the countries will not be represented at any one time is not a means of 'silencing' those countries, it is merely the fairest way of reducing the Commission's size to a workable number.

Further, in terms of representation, the new President of the European Council, elected by the Council, will have to be endorsed by the directly elected MEPs, which will ensure that citizens' views will be reflected at the top level. For example, should the majority of MEPs lean to the left, then will not endorse a right-wing President and vice versa.

Regarding the 'this will destroy our neutrality' argument, it should be noted that Lisbon has absolutely no effect on our neutrality. For the EU to act unilaterally, approval from all member states is needed, effectively giving Ireland a veto. For our troops to take part in peace keeping operations, as at present, UN, Government and Dáil approval is needed. We will not be forced into joining an 'EU army' or any equivalent thereof.

I'll leave it there for the moment; there are other points I could make but I don't want to take over the thread, this post is long enough already.

Oh and I'm voting Yes, if people haven't got that yet

Chakar

I'm voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty and will probably be canvassing for a 'Yes' vote after my exams in Dublin South and neighbouring constituencies. I think the referendum has an excellent chance of passing with Brian Cowen due to be elected Taoiseach on 7th May as the voters do take into account the person (Taoiseach) putting the question to the people. That's part of the reason why the referendum on the European Constitution was defeated in France with Jacques Chirac as President.

pretty*monster

arbeitsscheuer wrote: »

EDIT: Btw, the date for the vote has been provisionally pencilled in as June 12th. Dunno where the hell you got June 15th from hetfield.

Hmm, in that case I might be able to belt down to the polling station on my way to the airport.

Red Alert

Chakar wrote: »

I'm voting in favour of the Lisbon Treaty and will probably be canvassing for a 'Yes' vote after my exams in Dublin South and neighbouring constituencies. I think the referendum has an excellent chance of passing with Brian Cowen due to be elected Taoiseach on 7th May as the voters do take into account the person (Taoiseach) putting the question to the people. That's part of the reason why the referendum on the European Constitution was defeated in France with Jacques Chirac as President.

What in a nutshell should make me want to vote yes about the treaty itself as opposed to the 'yes/no' inuendo?

CantGetNoSleep

There is widespread anger in France however at not holding another referendum

Breezer

Red Alert wrote: »

What in a nutshell should make me want to vote yes about the treaty itself as opposed to the 'yes/no' inuendo?

You've stated that you're very pro-Europe, and that you respect the work the Union has done in the past. The EU is a lot larger now than it was then, and in order for the EU to continue doing work like this, structural change needs to happen.

For example, at the moment, many decisions taken at EU level require unanimity among member states. This was practical and desirable in a 6, 12 or even 15 member union. However, in a 27 member union made up of people of many different backgrounds and beliefs, it becomes impractical (one might say impossible) to achieve unanimity on many issues.

The new system will replace the requirement for unanimity with double majority voting. This means that for a decision to be made, it must be agreed upon by 55% of the member states (i.e. 15 in a 27 member union) which represent 65% of the Union's population. This a fair system which ensures that neither a small number of large states nor a large number of small states alone can push a decision through. There needs to be a reasonable amount of agreement across the board, without the need for unanimity which could lead to a stalemate.

On several very important issues, such as the issues of the EU budget and taxation, social security, foreign policy and common defence, unanimity will still be required.

Additionally, in areas where unanimity was not required before, the new double majority system will replace the current qualified majority system, whereby each state has a certain number of votes relative to its population. Currently, larger states such as Germany and France have up to 29 votes each, whereas Ireland has 7. This means that if the 12 largest states want to push through a decision, they can. Under the new system, 15 states will be needed, which benefits smaller states such as Ireland. In this way we will have more influence, not less.

You could argue that the EU has expanded too much; however, this amounts to trying to turn back the clock. We voted to allow further expansion in the Treaty of Nice, and now it is essential that we allow the expanded union to function properly.

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

There is widespread anger in France however at not holding another referendum

Sarkozy explicitly stated during his election campaign that he was in favour of drawing up a shortened version of the EU Constitution, with references to flags etc. removed, that would be ratified by the French parliament. That is exactly what happened. The French got what they voted for.

EamonnKeane

Breezer wrote: »

Sarkozy explicitly stated during his election campaign that he was in favour of drawing up a shortened version of the EU Constitution, with references to flags etc. removed, that would be ratified by the French parliament. That is exactly what happened. The French got what they voted for.

People say a lot during campaigns; little of it is ever heard again

Breezer

EamonnKeane wrote: »

People say a lot during campaigns; little of it is ever heard again

So are you saying that by sticking to a campaign promise, Sarkozy misled the people, and that they really voted for him because they expected him to do the opposite of what he said? I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument.

Raphael

Hmm, June 12th? That's annoying, I'll be in America. Wonder if there;s any form of absentee ballot I can sort out...

tywy

Breezer wrote: »

Agreed. However, that is not in itself a reason to vote No in my book. Every political party with the exception of Sinn Féin is advocating a Yes vote, not just the Government parties. Fine Gael and Labour have been calling for the Government to set a date and allow the Referendum Commission to start informing the people for months now. I think the issues contained within this treaty are far more important than Bertie's finances and the distraction they have posed to the Government for the past while.

Regarding the 'less representation in Europe' argument, this would appear to centre around the fact that we will not have a seat on the Commission for 5 out of every 15 years. This is not something that will apply solely to Ireland or even to smaller states: every state will be subject to the same system. The logic behind this is that a smaller Commission will function more smoothly. Since the Commissioners are meant to represent the interests of Europe as a whole, and not their own countries' interests, the fact that 1/3 of the countries will not be represented at any one time is not a means of 'silencing' those countries, it is merely the fairest way of reducing the Commission's size to a workable number.

Further, in terms of representation, the new President of the European Council, appointed by the Commission, will have to be endorsed by the directly elected MEPs, which will ensure that citizens' views will be reflected at the top level. For example, should the majority of MEPs lean to the left, then will not endorse a right-wing President and vice versa.

Regarding the 'this will destroy our neutrality' argument, it should be noted that Lisbon has absolutely no effect on our neutrality. For the EU to act unilaterally, approval from all member states is needed, effectively giving Ireland a veto. For our troops to take part in peace keeping operations, as at present, UN, Government and Dáil approval is needed. We will not be forced into joining an 'EU army' or any equivalent thereof.

I'll leave it there for the moment; there are other points I could make but I don't want to take over the thread, this post is long enough already.

Oh and I'm voting Yes, if people haven't got that yet

w00t! Another Yes vote from me!

PS I hate those Libertas ads, how irritating...

Breezer

Raphael wrote: »

Hmm, June 12th? That's annoying, I'll be in America. Wonder if there;s any form of absentee ballot I can sort out...

I think you're out of luck in this case Raphael. While technically you can register for a postal vote if you're studying full time away from home, you need to make the application within two days of the date for the referendum being set. Also there's no provision for voting from abroad unless you're a diplomat on service there.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/registering-to-vote/?searchterm=postal%20voting

Raphael

Bollocks, thanks anyway Breezer

Chakar

Red Alert wrote: »

What in a nutshell should make me want to vote yes about the treaty itself as opposed to the 'yes/no' inuendo?

I've already informed myself regarding the treaty and my post was not intended to describe the treaty itself. I was reflecting on the chances of the Treaty passing.

Anyway this document I'm linking to is titled 'True Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon' by British MEP Andrew Duff of the ALDE group in the European Parliament and Liberal Democrat politician. It's only 14 pages in all, I'd recommend that you have a look.

http://www.alde.eu/fileadmin/files/Download/True-Guide-NEW.pdf

This document also has the full text of the Treaty of Lisbon relating to previous treaties so amended if ratified by the Member States. It's 272 pages.

http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/FileCache/PUBPDF/FXAC07306ENC/FXAC07306ENC_002.pdf

This document is The White Paper on the Reform Treaty by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It's 104 pages and goes through each article and section explaining the implications of such.

http://www.reformtreaty.ie/eutreaty/pDF08-White-paper_6.pdf

Here also is a guide to the Reform Treaty. This is smaller at 22 pages.

http://www.reformtreaty.ie/eutreaty/guide-english.pdf

panda100

Breezer wrote: »

. Every political party with the exception of Sinn Féin is advocating a Yes vote, not just the Government parties.

Your wrong there Breezer,the socialist party,people before profit(SWP) and many individual members of Labour and the Greens will be advocating a No vote. Take Patricia Mc Kenna for example a former Green party MEP ,who is rigurously opposing the treaty.

Breezer wrote: »

. Further, in terms of representation, the new President of the European Council, appointed by the Commission.

And who appoints the commission Breezer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Barroso ,This guy the president of the European council

"In 2003, Barroso hosted U.S President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar in the Portuguese Island of Terceira, in the Azores, in which the four leaders met and finalised the controversial U.S-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under Barroso's leadership, Portugal became part of the coalition of the willing for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "
So the man who commisioned the killing of a million innocent Iraqis and sent hundreds of US and British soldiers of to their deaths in a war over oil will be in charge of commisoning the majority of our laws form hereon in.


There are many reasons im voting No to the Lisbon treaty.Here are just a few.
Firstly,the question of democracy. As red alert has already said France and other countries have already rejeceted the treaty and the fact that all members states are not being allowed vote on it for me is wholly undemocratic.
I dont agree that non- elected EU individuals should be able to make laws for us . It will be the end of our veto as It will be the EU court of Justice that decides our fate and 90% of cases they rule in favour of private ownership intrests over public intrests.
Also I am vehmnetly opposed to the increasing militrisation of Europe. The treaty demans that each member states increases their military spending by 3%. This means deflecting money from already strapped services such as health and education.
I dont agree with the need for the increase in military spending as it says in article2 for the 'fight against terrorism' and for 'peace enforcing'. This is not the language of peace keeping or peace making language,it is the language of war and enforcment.

Read any 'Yes' vote material,like the propogande left by fine gael in the arts block last week and its just full of buzzwords about the EU and moving forward. The yes side have yet to inform people of the content of the treaty and thats for a good reason. Its beacuse its not in our favour to vote yes to this treaty.

Chakar

All right first of all Breezer meant that all parties represented in the Dáil with the exception of Sinn Féin are supporting the passing of the Lisbon Treaty.

The competencies allowing the European Union to legislate for on an European level is not simply the ceding of our sovereignty, it is the pooling of sovereignty within the European sphere to better tackle the challenges of an enlarged European Union such as in the policy field of Justice and Home Affairs, which is especially important with a 'borderless Union' as created by the Schengen agreement which was enlarged to a further nine Member States two weeks ago.

That Fine Gael pamphlet is only a promotion for their public meeting on the Lisbon Treaty chaired by Gay Mitchell with Alan Dukes as an guest speaker. Fair play to them anyway.

There will be detailed guides sent to every household in the country so voters can inform themselves such as the recent White Paper on the Reform Treaty released by the Department of Foreign Affairs last Wednesday. I have provided a link to the document above among others of interest.

Breezer

panda100 wrote: »

Your wrong there Breezer,the socialist party,people before profit(SWP) and many individual members of Labour and the Greens will be advocating a No vote. Take Patricia Mc Kenna for example a former Green party MEP ,who is rigurously opposing the treaty.

As Chakar said, I was referring to the major political parties represented in the Dáil. In any case, this is taking my point out of context. My aim was to point out that voting No because the Government wants you to vote Yes is not a valid argument, and the Government's major critics are putting that aside to encourage a Yes vote.

Patricia McKenna also opposed the Green Party entering into Government with Fianna Fáil. Fair play to her, she is entitled to air her views, but they do not necessarily reflect those of the party leadership or indeed the grassroots membership.

And who appoints the commission Breezer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Barroso ,This guy the president of the European council

Sorry, there was an inaccuracy in my original post. The President will be elected by the European Council, not the Commission. In any case, you are again quoting half of my sentence out of context. My point was that the new President, who will not necessarily be Barroso, will have to be endorsed by the MEPs directly elected by the people of Europe. They will have the authority to decline the endorsement if the President's views do not match their own, and hence the people's.

So the man who commisioned the killing of a million innocent Iraqis and sent hundreds of US and British soldiers of to their deaths in a war over oil will be in charge of commisoning the majority of our laws form hereon in.

The President of the European Council is not the 'President of Europe;' it is largely a figurehead role: he or she will 'give a face to Europe,' represent Europe abroad and chair the Council's work, much as the current rotating presidents do. The difference is that this is a more stable position which will allow for focus to remain on projects that cannot be rushed through and allow them to be worked on over a period of time (2 and a half years is a presidential term).

Firstly,the question of democracy. As red alert has already said France and other countries have already rejeceted the treaty and the fact that all members states are not being allowed vote on it for me is wholly undemocratic.

No country in Europe is a dictatorship. Every country voted to join Europe, and they voted in the governments that have ratified the treaty by parliament. Their constitutions do not require ratification by referendum; ours does. Democracy is being observed in all these cases. What would be undemocratic would be for us to tell these countries that adhering to their own constitutions is wrong - we do not have that right IMO.

In the case of France, Nicolas Sarkozy explicity stated in his recent electoral campaign that he would see a reduced form of the EU Constitution ratified by the French parliament. This was his Europe policy, and the French electorate voted for it. The notion that this is somehow undemocratic does not wash with me.

I dont agree that non- elected EU individuals should be able to make laws for us . It will be the end of our veto as It will be the EU court of Justice that decides our fate and 90% of cases they rule in favour of private ownership intrests over public intrests.

If you are referring to the commission, this is currently the case anyway. In fact, under Lisbon there will be less 'unelected officials.' I should point out that in every democracy there are unelected officials either making or executing laws, our own Seanad for example. While the Irish Seanad's powers are quite weak, this is not the case for the Upper House in many other countries. In fact, neither the US President nor the candidates who run for that position are directly elected by the people.

We will still have a veto in many key areas I have outlined above. In cases where we will not, no state will, and under the double majority system Ireland will have more of a say than it currently does on issues which we cannot veto. It is impractical and unworkable that any state in a 27 member union would be able to veto anything it likes.

Also I am vehmnetly opposed to the increasing militrisation of Europe. The treaty demans that each member states increases their military spending by 3%. This means deflecting money from already strapped services such as health and education.
I dont agree with the need for the increase in military spending as it says in article2 for the 'fight against terrorism' and for 'peace enforcing'. This is not the language of peace keeping or peace making language,it is the language of war and enforcment.

If it were the case that a terrorist group took issue with Ireland and started bombing us, would you think it fair that we ask Europe to come to our aid because we didn't want to spend on our own military? While I think that this is an unlikely scenario in the short term, we cannot rule it out. In fact, it has already been threatened, though as I said I would take those threats with a pinch of salt at present.

There are many examples of wasted resources in this country: e-voting, Bertie's make up, a Tribunal excessively prolonged by the unco-operation of same politicians who set it up, excessive levels of beurocracy in the HSE. I do not agree that increasing our military budget is a waste of resources. In fact, even if all it does is increase safety in military vehicles to prevent soldiers getting spinal injuries in crashes on the M50, then I would consider it money well spent.

Read any 'Yes' vote material,like the propogande left by fine gael in the arts block last week and its just full of buzzwords about the EU and moving forward. The yes side have yet to inform people of the content of the treaty and thats for a good reason. Its beacuse its not in our favour to vote yes to this treaty.

Admittedly I didn't see this. However, Fine Gael have presented what I believe to be a very strong case for ratifying this treaty, and have rubbished the myths being propogated by the No camp. See the link in my signature, and related links on the Fine Gael website, for more details.

Het-Field

panda100 wrote: »

Your wrong there Breezer,the socialist party,people before profit(SWP) and many individual members of Labour and the Greens will be advocating a No vote. Take Patricia Mc Kenna for example a former Green party MEP ,who is rigurously opposing the treaty.



And who appoints the commission Breezer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Barroso ,This guy the president of the European council

"In 2003, Barroso hosted U.S President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar in the Portuguese Island of Terceira, in the Azores, in which the four leaders met and finalised the controversial U.S-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under Barroso's leadership, Portugal became part of the coalition of the willing for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "
So the man who commisioned the killing of a million innocent Iraqis and sent hundreds of US and British soldiers of to their deaths in a war over oil will be in charge of commisoning the majority of our laws form hereon in.


There are many reasons im voting No to the Lisbon treaty.Here are just a few.
Firstly,the question of democracy. As red alert has already said France and other countries have already rejeceted the treaty and the fact that all members states are not being allowed vote on it for me is wholly undemocratic.
I dont agree that non- elected EU individuals should be able to make laws for us . It will be the end of our veto as It will be the EU court of Justice that decides our fate and 90% of cases they rule in favour of private ownership intrests over public intrests.
Also I am vehmnetly opposed to the increasing militrisation of Europe. The treaty demans that each member states increases their military spending by 3%. This means deflecting money from already strapped services such as health and education.
I dont agree with the need for the increase in military spending as it says in article2 for the 'fight against terrorism' and for 'peace enforcing'. This is not the language of peace keeping or peace making language,it is the language of war and enforcment.

Read any 'Yes' vote material,like the propogande left by fine gael in the arts block last week and its just full of buzzwords about the EU and moving forward. The yes side have yet to inform people of the content of the treaty and thats for a good reason. Its beacuse its not in our favour to vote yes to this treaty.

For a start Patricia McKenna is the Mary White (FF Senator) or Dick Roche of the Green Party i.e. a laughing stock. She is a no hoper who is a fringe of a fringe. Furthermore, it was the rules of the Green Party Constitution which prevented the majority view from being implemented The Socialist Party and the People Before Profit are unrepresented save one or two councellors, while The Labour Party have agreed to support the ratification of the Treaty, save one or two.

One could equally say Panda that Sarkozy promised a mini treaty as party of his Presidential Campaign last summer, and the people of France ratfified his programme by voting him in. I would also ask weather it is democratic for a Country of 3million to be capable of vetoing the Treaty, over the wishes of the other democratically elected national parliments who have chosen to ratify the treaty.

To use the word "increased militarisation" is scaremongering. It is purely to do with cooperation for benevolent mission, such as that in Chad. If the Socialist Party and the rest of the left wish to view that as negative, then its their right. However, I dont believe it.

On a side point, its shocking how Fine Gael continue to put themselves forward as the main proponents of the treaty. They must realise that Win or Lose, it will not effect the willingness of the Irish people to vote for them. It would be a micro victory, with very hollow ramifications for FG's attempts at breaking the Monopoly of power which has existed. Plus if the Lisbon Treaty is to be rejected, it will have very negative impacts on the party who have had the most prominant activisim vis a vis the treaty

Breezer

Het-Field wrote: »

On a side point, its shocking how Fine Gael continue to put themselves forward as the main proponents of the treaty. They must realise that Win or Lose, it will not effect the willingness of the Irish people to vote for them. It would be a micro victory, with very hollow ramifications for FG's attempts at breaking the Monopoly of power which has existed. Plus if the Lisbon Treaty is to be rejected, it will have very negative impacts on the party who have had the most prominant activisim vis a vis the treaty

I agree with everything you have said bar this. I'm not entirely sure what else you expect Fine Gael to do. Their TDs were elected to represent the interests of the people of Ireland, and they believe that this treaty is in Ireland's interest. Likewise, their MEPs (the largest group of Irish MEPs) were elected to represent Ireland in Europe, and they believe that the new structures brought in by Lisbon will help them to do that. Of course they're going to support the treaty.

Not every Irish political party are proponents of Mé Féinism, some genuinely believe in doing their best for this country (and I'm not just referring to Fine Gael). Of course FG could go out and score cheap points against the Government and attempt to bring Lisbon down in order to embarrass FF, but that's not in line with the view the party takes on Europe. This treaty isn't about short term gain in Dáil Éireann; whether you're for it or against it, it's about the future of our country and 26 others.

Het-Field

Breezer wrote: »

I agree with everything you have said bar this. I'm not entirely sure what else you expect Fine Gael to do. Their TDs were elected to represent the interests of the people of Ireland, and they believe that this treaty is in Ireland's interest. Likewise, their MEPs (the largest group of Irish MEPs) were elected to represent Ireland in Europe, and they believe that the new structures brought in by Lisbon will help them to do that. Of course they're going to support the treaty.

Not every Irish political party are proponents of Mé Féinism, some genuinely believe in doing their best for this country (and I'm not just referring to Fine Gael). Of course FG could go out and score cheap points against the Government and attempt to bring Lisbon down in order to embarrass FF, but that's not in line with the view the party takes on Europe. This treaty isn't about short term gain in Dáil Éireann; whether you're for it or against it, it's about the future of our country and 26 others.

I completely agree with you. Fine Gael are a party of high public standards, and in terms of campaigning for the treaty have the publics best interests at heart. This is in direct contradication of many in Fianna Fail, who have used public officer for personal gain. I am a firm opponent of allowing Fianna Fail join the ELDR/ALDE, and OGRA join the Youth Wing called LYMEC. For a start, Fianna Fail are not a Liberal Party, and just because they have no proper home in terms of a European Grouping, its becomes annoying to see them try and slither their way into the ELDR. I would hate to see Ogra hacks use LYMEC's bureau as a way of playing MEP

However Fine Gael have a firm home in the EPP, and I thin they Ireland's strongest European Party. I didnt mean to sound like I was condemning FIne Gael's Campaign, as a proponent of the treaty, I am most welcoming of it. However, I do believe that there are factions within Fine Gael, who believe a yes vote, is a fine gael victory. Its important that Fine Gael move on, once the electorat vote on this, and look to domestic policy, which has been mediocre from a FG perspective.

Chakar

Het-Field I accept your opinion but a lot has changed since 2004 and we don't want to join ELDR/ALDE political parties in the European Parliament. We're content to remain within the UEN group of which Brian Crowley is co-President. The UEN group allows us a greater say in the decision-making process where in another grouping we would be outnumbered by other national delegations.

The policy and political differences between Fianna Fáil and the other European political parties also make it difficult for us to contemplate a move in practice. The one substantive policy difference ruling out our move to the ALDE/ELDR parties is their position on abortion.

Red Alert

There's another discussion on Irish neutrality vs the Lisbon treaty here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055269445

It's the elephant in the room that isn't being discussed by the mainstream parties on for a yes vote.

The_Minister

The triple lock will remain in place if the Treaty is signed meaning that our neutrality is protected.
Even if it is a awful policy.

Red Alert

It's an awful policy to say we're neutral and not protect it by examining what's going in and out of the country.