UCD Students And The Treaty of Lisbon

gliondar

I'm passionately pro-Europe and pro-EU. Always have been. But this Treaty flies in the face of the proud tradition of democracy and accountability that we have fostered for fifty years.

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.



1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%

2. Foreign Direct Investment would come under the control of the Common Commercial Policy for the first time so that the Irish Government could no longer legislate in this area except with the permission of Brussels.

3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation

4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.

5. The EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition”, a key component of every EU treaty since the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, has been relegated in the Lisbon Treaty by Nicholas Sarkozy, who upon removing the clause asked “what has competition ever done for us?” His idea is to have European business dominated by what he calls “National Champions”. This is code for protection of inefficient state supported industries to the detriment of European entrepreneurship and innovation, the growth companies that produce 80% of all new jobs in Europe.

6. So understanding that we would have our voting weight reduced, the competition clause relegated, surrendering 68 key vetoes, and conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister. Any person familiar with business negotiation might ask, what do we get in return that we don’t already have? Nothing.

I urge everyone to VOTE NO!

The_Minister

Red Alert wrote: »

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.

*Sigh*
Neutral =/= pacifist.
Thats why Switzerland has such a great army.

We allowed Russia to fly planes to Cuba through our airports, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that nearly lead to WWIII. If we turn around now and forbid a different country from doing something that is not nearly as bad, then THAT makes us not neutral. Neutral means that we don't take sides (except where it is clearly in our own interest), it doesn't mean that we stick our head in the sand and everyone leaves us alone. We facilitate all countries, or none. America needs to send troops to another country, we get money for it. That does not in any way break our neutrality, as long as the offer is also open to other countries as well.

We sent condolences when Hitler died thanks to neutrality. We still have a statue up to a man who tried to sell us to the Nazis.
I firnly believe that e should have been opposed to Hitler, not neutral. But, hey, that's just me.

The_Minister

gliondar wrote: »

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

Ok.
Firstly, Germany cannot constitutionately hold a popular referendum, because, well, thats how Hitler got his power, and we all saw how that ended:).
Secondly, the elected representatives of every country in Europe have endorsed this treaty. The reason that it does not need a vote, is quite simply because its not a constitution. They didn't get a vote on any other EU treaty, what is so special about this one. Does the fact that they didn't get to vote on the other Treaties make them invalid IYO?

gliondar wrote: »

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.

1. We have a veto on tax harmonisation, and as long as the Progressive Democrats, Fianna Fail, or Fine Gael are in power, we will use it. The only party that has voted in favour of it (IIRC) was Labour. France tried this before, we smacked them down, we will do so again.
2. We still have the triple-lock. Google it and then tell me how we will not be neutral if it is still in place
3. Streamlining. I have no idea what your problem is here. The treaty is mostly about streamlining, and allowing the Union to fuction with 27 members. The vast majority of the text is solely about this.


I have to do some research before I answer the rest of your points.

Red Alert

The_Minister wrote: »

We sent condolences when Hitler died thanks to neutrality. We still have a statue up to a man who tried to sell us to the Nazis.
I firnly believe that e should have been opposed to Hitler, not neutral. But, hey, that's just me.

And possibly get what was then a young country with big instability problems of its own to get itself into chaos? Ireland at that time had it went to war wouldn't have had sufficient military personnel capacity to both go out fighting and to offer suitable home defence. Compare even the military engineering and support resources the UK had to ours - no contest. Letting the UK use our country as a base would have been unwise since the amount of civil unrest it could have led to. Similarly letting the Germans operate from Ireland would have been a big mistake since it would have led to presumably automatic invasion from Britain. Neutrality was the only sensible option to protect the civilian people in Ireland, and if you say you're neutral you must act neutral. An uncharacteristically wise decision on the part of the government.

Breezer

gliondar wrote: »

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

Other countries do not require these treaties to be ratified by a referendum. It is not in their constitution. It is in ours. Their elected representatives, voted for by them, ratified it on their behalf; we are ratifying it directly because our constitution requires it. In the case of France, Sarkozy made it very obvious during his campaign that he would see this treaty ratified by parliament, and the French voted him in.

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.

Firstly, this is a policy being pushed by France, not by Europe. In any case, we can veto this policy. Forget what any campaign website or newspaper tells you on this, here is what the treaty says:

Article 223.2 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended by Lisbon wrote:

The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.

In other words, if the Taoiseach says no, tax harmonisation won't happen.

1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%

This is a gross over-simplification. Ireland is a nation of 4 million people, France and Germany have (off the top of my head) 50 or 70 million people each. Of course they will have a bigger say. However, the new system of double majority voting will help the smaller states have a bigger say than their populations would dictate - see my earlier posts.

3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation

So would every state. This is to ensure the commission is a workable size. The commissioners are not supposed to represent their countries anyway, they represent Europe as a whole, so it is not losing 'an Irish voice' in the sense you are making it out to be.

4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.

As would every country. Any of 27 countries vetoing anything they don't like would result in stalemate within the union. The veto is retained in key areas such as the EU budget and common defence; again, see my earlier posts.

conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister.

We currently have an unelected President and 2 unelected Foreign Ministers. These roles will simply be more stable to allow more consistency within the council. Every democracy in the world has unelected officials, including Ireland. See my earlier posts for an explanation as to how, under Lisbon, the President of the European Council will actually be more accountable to the people.

Your other points I will have to look into and respond to later.

Red Alert wrote: »

And possibly get what was then a young country with big instability problems of its own to get itself into chaos? Ireland at that time had it went to war wouldn't have had sufficient military personnel capacity to both go out fighting and to offer suitable home defence. Compare even the military engineering and support resources the UK had to ours - no contest. Letting the UK use our country as a base would have been unwise since the amount of civil unrest it could have led to. Similarly letting the Germans operate from Ireland would have been a big mistake since it would have led to presumably automatic invasion from Britain. Neutrality was the only sensible option to protect the civilian people in Ireland, and if you say you're neutral you must act neutral. An uncharacteristically wise decision on the part of the government.

I accept your point, and agree broadly. However, this is 2008, not 1939. We are no longer a fledgling nation, and are no longer facing threat from the Nazis. WWII has nothing to do with Lisbon.

Het-Field

gliondar wrote: »

I'm passionately pro-Europe and pro-EU. Always have been. But this Treaty flies in the face of the proud tradition of democracy and accountability that we have fostered for fifty years.

The obvious reason to vote no is the disenfranchisement of nearly 500 million people, countless millions of whom are strongly opposed to the Treaty.

At first I had an open mind, but all the lies the government has been telling about no tax harmonisation http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0408/1207602058354.html, neutrality and 'streamlining' are daily being revealed as deceit.



1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%

2. Foreign Direct Investment would come under the control of the Common Commercial Policy for the first time so that the Irish Government could no longer legislate in this area except with the permission of Brussels.

3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation

4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.

5. The EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition”, a key component of every EU treaty since the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, has been relegated in the Lisbon Treaty by Nicholas Sarkozy, who upon removing the clause asked “what has competition ever done for us?” His idea is to have European business dominated by what he calls “National Champions”. This is code for protection of inefficient state supported industries to the detriment of European entrepreneurship and innovation, the growth companies that produce 80% of all new jobs in Europe.

6. So understanding that we would have our voting weight reduced, the competition clause relegated, surrendering 68 key vetoes, and conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister. Any person familiar with business negotiation might ask, what do we get in return that we don’t already have? Nothing.

I urge everyone to VOTE NO!

Uunder the current situation the Commission is not working as a result of the large number of commissioners. I have Irish ministerial testimony to back this up. In fairness, all other countries will have the commissioner for 10 of every 15 years. Thus we are not losing. It would be losing if Ireland were the only, or one of a few countries, to lose a commissioner. However, Germany and France etc will all be forced to contend with this provision

We have always had an unelected President in Europe. However, now the term is just going to last two years longer. Again its a figurehead role, and will not evolve into a US style Presidency, where a Federal Europe will be run at the whim of this evil tyrant

Four-Too

This treaty will take away most of our sover'ty, don't blindly vote "yes" just cause it's Government policy. My advice is go on youtube and watch some videos there, you will be amazed. This treaty is set up by a few European elites, to give them all the power. Under Lisbon, the EU will act to suit itself, it will not operate in Ireland's interests. Interests rates and infation could surge, but we could do nothing as the banks in Brussels would determine all this. Ireland would have to commit 10% each year to military spending, even though we want neutrality.
Our vote is putting the fate of 500million people in our hands. I, for one, don't want Ireland to be just a "state" in the EU, the same as the USA. Our forefather's gave their lives for our indepence...so why should we give it up so easily?

Tom65

Everytime I read or hear something anti-Treaty, it comes across as a simplification and sounds like propaganda. Like Breezer post (well done, by the way), the usual anti-Treaty arguments are countered by the actual wording of the Treaty (as opposed to someone saying "it'll take away our neutrality" etc.).

I'm concerned about neutrality, taxation, and the way the EU works in terms of representation, but I'm yet to see any grounding to fear the Lisbon Treaty in these kinds of areas.

panda100

Tom65 wrote: »

. Like Breezer post (well done, by the way), the usual anti-Treaty arguments are countered by the actual wording of the Treaty (as opposed to someone saying "it'll take away our neutrality" etc.).

.

(Art 28). The treaty stipulates that “all member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities”. We are required “to make civilian and military capabilities available for the implementation of EU defence policy” (Art 28).

The treaty says the common security and defence policy shall include “joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories” (Art 28B).

Still think it wont take away our neutrality?

Tom65

panda100 wrote: »

(Art 28). The treaty stipulates that “all member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities”. We are required “to make civilian and military capabilities available for the implementation of EU defence policy” (Art 28).

The treaty says the common security and defence policy shall include “joint disarmament operations, military advice and assistance tasks and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories” (Art 28B).

Still think it wont take away our neutrality?

No, I don't. No crisis management task can be launched without unanimous vote in the Council. Ireland can also retain the right to take part in any mission. It also says that the obligation to assist a country which has been attacked "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States" (Article 28). As far as the Common Security and Defence Policy goes, I don't see it as any different to the UN Peacekeepers, which Ireland has been a part of for 50+ years.

The_Minister

Four-Too wrote: »

Under Lisbon, the EU will act to suit itself, it will not operate in Ireland's interests.

It does this anyway, because *Shock* its an alliance of 27 countries, so it doesn't act just to suit just one country.

Four-Too wrote: »

Interests rates and infation could surge, but we could do nothing as the banks in Brussels would determine all this.

Already happening for years, I've yet to be hit by a piece of falling sky.

Four-Too wrote: »

Ireland would have to commit 10% each year to military spending, even though we want neutrality.

Neutrality =/= Pacifist. We have an army, and we send it around the world for peacekeeping, and it does brilliantly, despite the fact that we underfund it.
Also, you haven't said 10% of what.

Four-Too wrote: »

Our vote is putting the fate of 500million people in our hands. I, for one, don't want Ireland to be just a "state" in the EU, the same as the USA. Our forefather's gave their lives for our indepence...so why should we give it up so easily?

This does not make us a federal state.
Our forefathers did not fight for our independence from other countries. They fought to allow us to choose who we interacted with, and who we shared sovereignty with. Even the most extreme proponants of independence always knew that we would be dependant on Britain for trade, they just wanted it to be by our choosing.

Breezer

panda100 wrote: »

Still think it wont take away our neutrality?

Yes, I do, because you're still selectively quoting. In order to avoid repeating this, I have quoted the entire article you refer to below, and highlighted the parts which refute your argument in bold, using red for extra emphasis when necessary. Due to the source I am using being the Treaty on European Union as it would read when amended by Lisbon, I am referring to this as Articles 42 and 43 of the amended Treaty on European Union:

Treaty on European Union, as amended by Lisbon wrote:

Article 42

1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

2. 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.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military
capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development,
research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union’s values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

7. 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.

Article 43

1. The tasks referred to in Article 42(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

2. The Council shall adopt decisions relating to the tasks referred to in paragraph 1, defining their objectives and scope and the general conditions for their implementation. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy, acting under the authority of the Council and in close and constant contact with the Political and Security Committee, shall ensure coordination of the civilian and military aspects of such tasks.

In other words, Ireland will have a veto on any aspect of common defence it does not agree with, and any military operations we participate in will be subject to the triple lock as defined in our constitution.

Panda, I may be wrong here, but I'm getting the impression that you are opposed to the military in general on point of principle. If that's the case then fine, I can respect that, but voting No to Lisbon is not going to take our army away, and voting Yes is not going to take our neutrality away.

The_Minister

I've added a poll, as requested, to this thread. I was a little facetious with the options, as this isn't the politics forum, so we don't have to be super-serial here, but if people are *really* offended (and I mean a significant number) then I'll change it.
I would ask, to ensure that this thread doesn't get moved to politics, that people try to in some way reference students or UCD now and again. Not every post, but considering that the new Europe-wide SU has brought out a big chunky booklet giving reasons that students should support the treaty, I don't see why student-specific issues should not be discussed, as well as the bigger picture.

Breezer

I like it The thread in politics is a little, em, long at this stage (yes I'm not at my most verbose at this hour) so I think it's worthwhile having this here to make it a bit more accessible to UCD students who are interested. Given that students tend to be a bit more radical as well I think it's interesting to see the different views. I'll try come up with some student-specific issues at a less ungodly hour though.

Red Alert

Just as a matter of interest has the treaty been a talking point in any politics lectures/tutorials or the like?

Chakar

Red Alert wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest has the treaty been a talking point in any politics lectures/tutorials or the like?

In European politics modules it has been dealt with in context of developments in the Union.

Het-Field

Red Alert wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest has the treaty been a talking point in any politics lectures/tutorials or the like?

I did an essay on the Crotty v Ireland (1987) decision up in Kings Inns. I have posed the question has Crotty (for those who dont know, is the case which has stimulated referenda on Massatrich/Amsterdam/Nice and Lisbon) bastardised democracy ? Should a country of just over three million people be capable of vetoing the workings and decisions of other democratically elected parliments.

In the past three years I have come to view the EU's relationship with Ireland, as similar to that which is apparent between the members of UCD Students Union and the Union of Students in Ireland. Its a vicarious relationship, and its left up to those that we democratically elect (Local level sabbatical officers, and the elected USI Officers) to look after our interests on this level. If we were to reduced the USI to the views of each and every student in affiliated colleges no work would be done. Thusly, if we look at the European Union, as what can Ireland get out of it, we are not going to guarantee any success.

Four-Too

There is no democracy in this Lisbon Treaty. So many EU countries, and their leaders have decided themselves to sign up to it, the people were given no choice. Ireland is the only country where the people we allowed to vote. We are heading for dictatorship like it or not, and I will not support it. A future EU lead by some tyrannical rascal!

Red Alert

I'd have been much less suspicious of this overall if every country in the EU had a popular vote on it. If it's so good then what are they afraid of?

panda100

Was walking up grafton street yesterday and was confronted with young fine gaels vote yes to Lisbon posters: Take a look http://www.yfg.ie/


What does breast size and penis size have to do with the Lisbon treaty??

Red Alert

So basically they've to appeal to that to get a yes vote - why can't the 'advantages' of the treaty speak for themselves?

The_Minister

Red Alert wrote: »

So basically they've to appeal to that to get a yes vote - why can't the 'advantages' of the treaty speak for themselves?

I assure you, most of the Yes side are banging their heads off their desks at this pathetic campaign. As soon as I saw it I groaned and sighed.

Also, as for the popular vote, Germany can't have one (as I said above), because that is what allowed Hitler to rise to power.
None of the other European referendums required a popular vote to pass in any other country other than Ireland, why do you think that it should be different this time?

Red Alert

Change the constitution if you don't like it. We are required to have one by Bunreacht na hEireann so it's not an option, nor should we apologise for it or treat it as a mere formality.

Het-Field

panda100 wrote: »

Was walking up grafton street yesterday and was confronted with young fine gaels vote yes to Lisbon posters: Take a look http://www.yfg.ie/


What does breast size and penis size have to do with the Lisbon treaty??

"

As im sure you know well Panda, that poster spoke volumes to me. Who doesnt want things bigger. Remember when Jordan ran in the british general election 2001 under the slogan "for a Bigga and Betta Future

The_Minister

Red Alert wrote: »

Change the constitution if you don't like it. We are required to have one by Bunreacht na hEireann so it's not an option, nor should we apologise for it or treat it as a mere formality.

Oh, I don't mind Ireland having one (I like politics, and arguing about it), I'm just saying that other countries not having one, does not make the Treaties any less valid. We didn't vote to adopt the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, but the Irish government still did (although it will only become law when the treaty passes), should they not have?
Other countries do not constitutionally need a referendum, so they don't have one. That is how they make their decisions, just because it is different from ours does not mean it is less valid.

panda100

Het-Field wrote: »

"
As im sure you know well Panda, that poster spoke volumes to me. Who doesnt want things bigger.

Im sorry Het-field unfortunatly for you the lisbon treaty wont make your brain size bigger;only your penis and breast size gets enlarged with this treaty

The_Minister

panda100 wrote: »

Im sorry Het-field unfortunatly for you the lisbon treaty wont make your brain size bigger;only your penis and breast size gets enlarged with this treaty

Pssst.
Psst.
Panda.
That's a good thing

imp

Is anybody else bothered by the fact that this treaty would (rightly) bind Ireland and most EU countries to important human rights legislation while specifically allowing Britain and Poland an opt-out?

Breezer

The_Minister wrote: »

I assure you, most of the Yes side are banging their heads off their desks at this pathetic campaign. As soon as I saw it I groaned and sighed.

And that includes some YFG members. What were they thinking?! :mad:

Red Alert wrote:

Change the constitution if you don't like it. We are required to have one by Bunreacht na hEireann so it's not an option, nor should we apologise for it or treat it as a mere formality.

Could that logic not equally be applied to other countries who are not having a popular referendum? If they don't like the way EU treaties are ratified in their countries, change their constitution to require one. I know it's only one example, but again I point out that the French people effectively voted to have this treaty ratified by parliament.

Tom65

The_Minister wrote: »

I assure you, most of the Yes side are banging their heads off their desks at this pathetic campaign. As soon as I saw it I groaned and sighed.

It is an awful, awful campaign poster. It's not clever or funny in the least. I honestly can't believe they used it.