Why are you voting yes

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Well obviously! the 'European Economic Community' as the EU currently stands have promoted a free market economic system which has benefited many people (some left-wing economists may validly disagree here).

Let's see, the EU as a military power... (which is so nice for unelected eurocrats to have a military force behind them when they don't have a democratic backing).

Well, let's go back to the Iraq war. If a EU military force was as developed as this treaty proposes, a EU force would most likely have been there - representing the EU which we in Ireland are members of - promoting 'peace' and the 'values' which turned out to be an absolute lie leading to the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqies.

True, France was opposed but would it have had the backbone to prevent British, Spanish, Italian and other european countries fighting on behalf of this illegal war under the EU flag. It probably would have *cough* abstained *cough* a bit like our government's policy on EU defence aggression.

The development of the EU is turning into a whirlwind where everyone is afraid to shout stop. Every government seems to be afraid of calling for a pause to reflect on where the EU is heading. When Brian Cowen is threatening to excommunicate members of his party over this issue I think someone (probably unelected) is certainly holding a shotgun to his head.

One of the most amusing contradictions in the No position is the claim that national vetoes are absolutely vital - yet no country has the backbone to use them!

If johnnyq is implying that the French don't "have the backbone" to use a veto he's making what may well be the silliest claim so far in the Lisbon debate.

amused,
Scofflaw

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Let's see, the EU as a military power... (which is so nice for unelected eurocrats to have a military force behind them when they don't have a democratic backing).

Of which Ireland can not partake if it does not full fill the 'triple lock' requirement. So rather that putting our faith in our fellow democratic Europeans, we put our faith in Russia, China and other members of the UN Security Council.

johnnyq wrote: »

Well, let's go back to the Iraq war. If a EU military force was as developed as this treaty proposes, a EU force would most likely have been there - representing the EU which we in Ireland are members of - promoting 'peace' and the 'values' which turned out to be an absolute lie leading to the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqies.

You seem to have a very short memory. Germany, France and many other states were hugely against the war. Without unanimous agreement the EU could not partake as a whole. And even if it did Irish soldiers would not legally be allowed get involved because there was not security council resolution legalising the war.

johnnyq wrote: »

True, France was opposed but would it have had the backbone to prevent British, Spanish, Italian and other european countries fighting on behalf of this illegal war under the EU flag. It probably would have *cough* abstained *cough* a bit like our government's policy on EU defence aggression.

Those states could still fight as individual states, but not under the authority or on behalf of the EU. As they already in fact did. So if the Lisbon treaty was passed before the Iraq war absolutely nothing different would have happened.

johnnyq wrote: »

The development of the EU is turning into a whirlwind where everyone is afraid to shout stop. Every government seems to be afraid of calling for a pause to reflect on where the EU is heading. When Brian Cowen is threatening to excommunicate members of his party over this issue I think someone (probably unelected) is certainly holding a shotgun to his head.

Well that's your interpretation of it, it's certainly not mine or the majority of peoples. Cowen is seeking to solidify his leadership and to cement his power as Taoiseach. I'm pretty certain he wouldn't have said it if he thought anyone was actually going to vote against the treaty.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Of course the citizens of NI would be able to vote on whether they would be 'absorbed' - still can't get over the use of this word, lol, it appears so harmless almost cosy and fuzzy!

Don't forget, Austria didn't have a choice and it's citizens for a second time wont have a choice on whether to become real citizens of this new sprawling entity.

Well we are not citizens of the EC, the EC never had any citizens. It is an economic system which our government agreed to partake in. To say the citizens of the EC didn't agree to merge with the EU is wrong in so many ways it's hilarious to even think it.

sink

It's actually inaccurate to compare the absorbtion of the EC fully into the EU to that of two countries merging into to one. A more accurate analogy would be, a subsidiary of company being merged fully into the parent company.

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

If johnnyq is implying that the French don't "have the backbone" to use a veto he's making what may well be the silliest claim so far in the Lisbon debate.

Oh Scofflaw, how you twist!
I never said the French didn't have a backbone, I was in fact implying that their silence could be traded with concessions on other issues, in a perfect no consequence free market trade.

Sink wrote:

Of which Ireland can not partake if it does not full fill the 'triple lock' requirement. So rather that putting our faith in our fellow democratic Europeans, we put our faith in Russia, China and other members of the UN Security Council.

It's funny how we can't trust our own leaders isn't it. Some other country always determines how our representatives act, sigh.

Sink wrote:

You seem to have a very short memory. Germany, France and many other states were hugely against the war. Without unanimous agreement the EU could not partake as a whole. And even if it did Irish soldiers would not legally be allowed get involved because there was not security council resolution legalising the war.

Many states you say, belgium was the only other to have any proper resistance to the war. Again, what's to say that those reservations could have been bought off by other consessions. To abstain is all that is required anyway.
Wow, you really pigeon hole yourself on the Irish troops issue. Remember, we are all EU citizens after the treaty so shouldn't we be interested in all our fellow citizens too? You can't be selective and say that the EU represents you in some areas and not in others you don't like. If EU troops do become engaged in some disaster, they still represent you, there's no getting off the hook saying they're not irish.

sink wrote:

Well that's your interpretation of it, it's certainly not mine or the majority of peoples

At least you're getting the chance to express you're opinion.

sink wrote:

Well we are not citizens of the EC, the EC never had any citizens. It is an economic system which our government agreed to partake in. To say the citizens of the EC didn't agree to merge with the EU is wrong in so many ways it's hilarious to even think it.

The EC ceases to exist on its own after this treaty and it does not have citizens.
The EU as a legal personality begins after this treaty and will have citzens.

The fact is that the 300m plus people living in europe don't even have the choice (it's not that they 'didn't agree' as you say, the point is that they don't have the choice)

It's not hilarious at all:(

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

It's actually inaccurate to compare the absorbtion of the EC fully into the EU to that of two countries merging into to one. A more accurate analogy would be, a subsidiary of company being merged fully into the parent company.

To use the business definition of merge as you gave above;

Merge 'To Financially combine two companies so that only one of the companies survives as a legal entity'.

Hence when the EC 'merges' as you say into the 'EU' then the EC fails to exist 'as a legal entity'.

Even your own analogy shows that giving a legal personality to the EU is a new a substantive change.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

It's funny how we can't trust our own leaders isn't it. Some other country always determines how our representatives act, sigh.

Yes i'm a firm believer that only the elected representatives of our country should have a say on where and what our troops do. I can't see the argument that the 'triple lock' is some how good. A 'double lock' where by approval of the Cabinet and the Dail should be all we need.

johnnyq wrote: »

Many states you say, belgium was the only other to have any proper resistance to the war. Again, what's to say that those reservations could have been bought off by other consessions. To abstain is all that is required anyway.
Wow, you really pigeon hole yourself on the Irish troops issue. Remember, we are all EU citizens after the treaty so shouldn't we be interested in all our fellow citizens too? You can't be selective and say that the EU represents you in some areas and not in others you don't like. If EU troops do become engaged in some disaster, they still represent you, there's no getting off the hook saying they're not irish.

All it requires is one vote such as our own to veto the EU going to war. So if our Taoiseach or minister for defence didn't veto we could vote them out of office next time round as would surely have happened.

johnnyq wrote: »

At least you're getting the chance to express you're opinion.

I agree, I don't think it's right that other countries are not holding referendums, but then I have no legal say over the matter and neither does the EU.

Vinegar Hill

The Irish Times reported we (The Irish) should not be given access to a report on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty until after the vote, because we should not give this argument to the Irish No campaign.

Interesting

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0517/1210971887488.html

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

To use the business definition of merge as you gave above;

Merge 'To Financially combine two companies so that only one of the companies survives as a legal entity'.

Hence when the EC 'merges' as you say into the 'EU' then the EC fails to exist 'as a legal entity'.

Even your own analogy shows that giving a legal personality to the EU is a new a substantive change.

I never said it wasn't a substantial change. If you carry forward my analogy, we the citizens as the owner of the EU would be the owner of the company, the EC is a subsidiary of the EU and is operated independently with it's own employees (civil servants). Merging the subsidiary will allow the parent to eliminate duplicate positions (civil servants) thus cutting costs and bureaucracy and improve communications and control over all aspects of the subsidiary. It can be of immense benefit to a company to merge subsidiaries by improving competitiveness just as I see it will improve the EU.

sink

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

The Irish Times reported we (The Irish) should not be given access to a report on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty until after the vote, because we should not give this argument to the Irish No campaign.

Interesting

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0517/1210971887488.html

I wouldn't read too much into it. After all releasing the report now would be like a judge ruling on a case before a law has been passed by the dail. Or a party leader declaring his cabinet before the election.

Galliard

sink wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into it. After all releasing the report now would be like a judge ruling on a case before a law has been passed by the dail. Or a party leader declaring his cabinet before the election.

More like telling us what we can expect if we vote for this. Basic courtesy.

johnnyq

Galliard wrote: »

More like telling us what we can expect if we vote for this. Basic courtesy.

I concur, since in sink's words we the citizens are 'the owner of the EU'.

But wait, it looks like the patients are running the asylum and the owners are not allowed have a say in their future.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

I agree, I don't think it's right that other countries are not holding referendums, but then I have no legal say over the matter and neither does the EU.

But why are you willing to settle for that?

The french and dutch voters rejected 95% of the same document and now because of Brussells bullying it will be bound upon them regardless of their views. How is that fair or justifyable? How can you vote yes to that?

Shouldn't it be the case that we the citizens of Europe are respected and that further european integration should start at the base level.

This treaty is a 'substantive change'. To claim it is only administrative housekeeping not worthy of a public vote is so untrue that you really have to question the motives of politicians who promulgate this view.

Are you happy that Ireland is required to increase military capabilities (as are all other countries)under the treaty? Shouldn't we be able to determine our own military strategy? We are not in NATO for a reason. Why are we standing idlely by as the EC (a most admirable and successful project) is brought down the road of military and arms aggression? Unless you think that a gun in every home is the best way to promote peace, then really further miltiary expansion must be stopped. The anti-military lobby groups are against the treaty for this reason.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

But why are you willing to settle for that?

I'm not settling for anything, I don't have the power to influence the British, Dutch or French governments. I don't believe voting no will force them to give their citizens a vote. I just believe it will force them to make changes to the existing treaty, and considering I think the constitution was a better deal, why would I vote against Lisbon and possibly get an even worse deal.

johnnyq wrote: »

The french and dutch voters rejected 95% of the same document and now because of Brussells bullying it will be bound upon them regardless of their views. How is that fair or justifyable? How can you vote yes to that?

That is eurosceptic propaganda. There is no evidence of any downward pressure from Brussels not to hold a referendum. There was upward pressure from their citizens, which their governments ignored. And who do you think Brussels is? The most powerful people in Brussels are the individual heads of government, so are you saying they were putting pressure on themselves?

johnnyq wrote: »

Shouldn't it be the case that we the citizens of Europe are respected and that further european integration should start at the base level.

In a supranational organisation how is any change going to come from the base level? In fact the Lisbon treaty increases the ability of citizens to push forward change through the 'citizens initiative'.

johnnyq wrote: »

This treaty is a 'substantive change'. To claim it is only administrative housekeeping not worthy of a public vote is so untrue that you really have to question the motives of politicians who promulgate this view.

I agree, but I can read the treaty myself so I don't need to be influenced by any politicians motive.

johnnyq wrote: »

Are you happy that Ireland is required to increase military capabilities (as are all other countries)under the treaty? Shouldn't we be able to determine our own military strategy? We are not in NATO for a reason. Why are we standing idlely by as the EC (a most admirable and successful project) is brought down the road of military and arms aggression? Unless you think that a gun in every home is the best way to promote peace, then really further miltiary expansion must be stopped. The anti-military lobby groups are against the treaty for this reason.

It asks members states to improve their military capabilities. If you are strongly against giving our troops more capabilities and improving their equipment, then that is a good reason to vote no. The treaty quiet clearly states we don't have to get involved in any military ventures, so voting no because you don't want to join an imperialistic army is not a good reason to vote no.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

In fact the Lisbon treaty increases the ability of citizens to push forward change through the 'citizens initiative'.

Crumbs in comparison to true democracy and accountability.:(

Galliard

as sink says, there is upward pressure from citizens in other EU countries for a referendum and their governments are ignoring them. If we want to take our EU citizenship seriously we might think about this - we can help our fellow EU citizens to get what they want. This is a chance for some real grassroots active citizenship, EU style.

We do that if we Vote No until everyone has the same right to have a say as we do.

sink

Galliard wrote: »

as sink says, there is upward pressure from citizens in other EU countries for a referendum and their governments are ignoring them. If we want to take our EU citizenship seriously we might think about this - we can help our fellow EU citizens to get what they want. This is a chance for some real grassroots active citizenship, EU style.

We do that if we Vote No until everyone has the same right to have a say as we do.

I agree with your sentiment but I don't know if rejecting the treaty will have the desired effect. If there was a guarantee that the same treaty would be put to all EU citizens then I would vote no. But since there is not and I agree with everything in the treaty I'll be voting yes.

Galliard

sink wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment but I don't know if rejecting the treaty will have the desired effect. If there was a guarantee that the same treaty would be put to all EU citizens then I would vote no. But since there is not and I agree with everything in the treaty I'll be voting yes.

I won't wait for a guarantee of success before I do what little I can to help my fellow EU citizens in their struggle against their cynical governments. There are no guarantees in life except the one that says if you are not in you cannot win.

sink

Galliard wrote: »

I won't wait for a guarantee of success before I do what little I can to help my fellow EU citizens in their struggle against their cynical governments. There are no guarantees in life except the one that says if you are not in you cannot win.

I'm too wary of unintended consequences. There might be no more political will left in Europe to advance. We could be left with inefficient, half built structures for some time to come.

Galliard

sink wrote: »

I'm too wary of unintended consequences. There might be no more political will left in Europe to advance. We could be left with inefficient, half built structures for some time to come.

If you say these are inefficient half built structures I will remind you they were designed built and sold to us by the same people who wrote Lisbon. Looks like you think they are a bunch of incompetents too then?

Kill two birds with one Non. A leg up to our brothers and sisters under oppressive regimes and a bit of overtime for the dodgy builders.

sink

Galliard wrote: »

If you say these are inefficient half built structures I will remind you they were designed built and sold to us by the same people who wrote Lisbon. Looks like you think they are a bunch of incompetents too then?

Kill two birds with one Non. A leg up to our brothers and sisters under oppressive regimes and a bit of overtime for the dodgy builders.

They're half built because the European project is not yet complete. Every treaty since Maastricht has been building up to this one. You have to do these things in small steps at a time. The Lisbon will complete the final step in shaping the bulk of EU institutions. Once Lisbon is passed I don't see the EU making any more radical changes except in the area of foreign policy and defence. Which won't happen until we agree to it and that may take decades, half a century or more.

thebman

lol, that's not the message voting no will send IMO.

We are the privileged nation in Europe that has the right to vote and we should vote on the contents of the treaty itself. It is up to other EU countries to get their governments to allow them to vote.

We can't change that but we can let it be known through the press and media in general and online blogs etc... that we want and support a vote in all countries.

Lets use logic people, voting no if you agree with most of the treaty is bad for Ireland not good for Europe.

triple h

I will vote yes to lisbon, here are the 10 points of the Lisbon Treaty , I agree with 8 out of 10. The other two points 6 and 8 ( i marked X) i can see why the no people don't like them, but i do not see it as a big deal.

1)---- A politician will become president of the EU along with an EU council for two and half years, so no more governments ruling for six months.
2)

---

Human Rights ---, the EU will draw up a list of human rights and if anyone brakes them, god love them.
3)

---

Peoples rights,--- If one million people from any country sign and bring any proposal to the EU it will be dealt with and considered.
4)--- Parliaments decide, --- All new EU laws will be run by all the governments first and if some reject it, it may be dumped, redone or passed.
5)---- Commissioners, ---- the EU will have 18 commissioners instead of 27. Everyone gets a fair share. It rotates every 5 years. So the 9 countries that lose out one time will be in the next time. Its the same for everyone.
X6)----Dropping MP’s in the EU --- Ireland will have 12 MP’s instead of 13.
7)

---

EU to help Governments ,---- the EU parliament will set out a list of areas ( with each country) on where they will help with matters of government, for exmple health, sport, education and so on.
X8)---- Passing new laws

---

All new EU laws will be passed (from 2014) if (a)55% of countries pass it OR (b) 65% of the EU population pass it OR (c)if only 4 counries reject it.
9)

---

Majority votting instead of unanimity, --- Ireland is a special case here, we have the power to opt out of any case. – Anyway, majority voting on policies on the new EU council will pass. Policies like policing, immigration, crime, asylum and border control. Defence is not a policy here.
10)

---

Irelands neutrality is safe.--- The EU can never ever bully ireland or any country ( after the new law passing system) into going to war unless we decide ourselves. We can go on peace keeping missions like we always did.

If you want to see where i got my info, it was here http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

Scofflaw

X6)----Dropping MP’s in the EU --- Ireland will have 12 MP’s instead of 13.

Hmm. This one, like (5), is already part of Nice. However, we should be getting the 13th MEP back at the next population review.


cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

triple h wrote: »

X8)---- Passing new laws

---

All new EU laws will be passed (from 2014) if (a)55% of countries pass it OR (b) 65% of the EU population pass it OR (c)if only 4 counries reject it.

You've got this almost right. It should be

if (a)55% of countries pass it *AND* (b) 65% of the EU population pass it. (c) at least 4 countries must vote against to block it.

As Ireland only has 0.8% of EU population we almost have no influence for part (b), where we have power is part (a) as all countries have 1 vote here, and every country is equal.

Gobán Saor

Galliard wrote: »

Anyone thinking about voting on Lisbon might like to have a look at this analysis by Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of the National Platform Research Centre. ...

Lisbon: a major historical moment

...
The second sentence of the constitutional amendment would then give the constitution of this post-Lisbon union supremacy over the Irish Constitution: "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State."

Coughlan is not the first "vote no" advocate to point to this sentence with shock and horror. What he doesn't point out is that this provision has been in the Irish Constitution since we joined the EEC (as it then was) way back in 1973. Since then EU law has always had supremacy over Irish law, including Irish Constitutional law. This has been reiterated by the Irish Supreme Court time and time again.

From this, we can deduce either:
a) he doesn't know this
or
b) he does know but he is deliberately not mentioning it thus trying to create the impression that the supremacy of EU law is a new "threat" brought about by Lisbon.

If a, he is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
If b, he's a fraud.

Either way, he is not to be taken seriously.

The rest of his analysis is up to this (not) high standard and can similarly be taken to pieces. But, yawn, its late on a Sunday evening.......

sink

sink wrote: »

if (a)55% of countries pass it *AND* (b) 65% of the EU population pass it. (c) at least 4 countries must vote against to block it.

I should point out that (c) is there so that if Germany, France and the UK all vote against together, even though they represent over 35% of the population they can't block it.

cathalgarvey

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Coughlan is not the first "vote no" advocate to point to this sentence with shock and horror. What he doesn't point out is that this provision has been in the Irish Constitution since we joined the EEC (as it then was) way back in 1973. Since then EU law has always had supremacy over Irish law, including Irish Constitutional law. This has been reiterated by the Irish Supreme Court time and time again.

Thank you for this, I'll likely be passing the word. I've heard a lot of this from friends I've spoken to about the treaty, along with all the rest of the "No" propaganda. It bothered me so much I was moved to start a blog about the whole Lisbon affair, and began it with a breakdown of the Lisbon Treaty and Ireland.

Funny, the first thing on most people's minds is either the military/defence thing, which Ireland is entirely opting out of, or the "Ahh we're losing our power of self-governance", which wouldn't be worth worrying about even if the subsidiarisation of the Irish constitution was a new thing: the EU has and continues to have a strong policy of local government, and in fact this is explicitly written into the Lisbon Treaty again, despite having been written many times before.

It's called the Principal of Subsidiarity, and it means that wherever a something can be done without EU intervention, or which does not involve the EU as a whole, it should be done by the country in question. In other words, the EU has no interest in tangling itself in the micromanagement of every individual state. Why it would want to is anyone's guess.

sink

cathalgarvey wrote: »

start a blog about the whole Lisbon affair

This link is not working btw, I think you've got an 's' after 'letter' where there shouldn't be one.

cathalgarvey

sink wrote: »

This link is not working btw, I think you've got an 's' after 'letter' where there shouldn't be one.

Thank you! Duly amended!