Bruce Arnold and Gay Byrne say no

mike65

Two big guns of Irelands establishment have come out agin the treaty

Arnold piece

As a people we have existed, perhaps uncomfortably at times, with the living reality of our very real, powerful and protective Constitution. We have watched it change and have accepted such changes. They define us. But in doing so, even with the many changes, they still abide by natural law. The Irish Constitution is a ready reckoner in which citizens can discover how they and their families are defined within the State and by the State, what their duties and rights are, and what their politicians should be doing for them.

Among other things, the Constitution encourages the people to trust the structures which it enshrines. These include the many definitions of how our democracy works. It is a central plank of the document.

The Lisbon Treaty does the precise opposite. There is no definition of anything for anyone. We do not know about any rights from what we are given. We only know that we are voting ourselves into a new system of laws and controls that simply cannot be permanently defined.

For it to work -- if it ever does work in the way a constitution should -- it has to be amendable. Yet that is precisely what is being denied by those who support it. In any area where fears or reservations reside in the minds of citizens, the assurances are given that the Lisbon Treaty offers no threat and that this will not change.

Byrne piece

I'm voting "No" in this Lisbon Referendum. The whole thing is so sneaky, dishonest, under-handed and sinister that I now have neither faith nor trust in the whole approach.

I don't believe a word from the mouths of any of the Yes brigade and I have deep scepticism about any of their promises or undertakings. What we're being asked to vote on is a series of amendments to amendments to revisions to an existing Constitution and I agree with Ulick McEvaddy that the entire thing is unintelligible bilge -- and designed to be so to further obfuscate the issue.

There are 145 pages of this stuff and 132 more of "protocols" plus 50 declarations and -- this is the clincher -- they all supersede every law of the 27 member states.

I am not a member of Libertas or any other grouping of any kind, and I am deeply embarrassed and offended to find myself on the same side as anyone in Sinn Fein about anything, but that's how it is.

It matters little to me, for I'll be dead and gone before this totalitarian superstate really takes over everything, but I feel desperately sorry for my grandchildren that certifiable lunatics in Brussels will dictate every single aspect of their lives. Remember that fat slug, Prodi, when the Irish people voted No to Maastricht? "The Irish voted No? Well, they can go right back and vote again, and keep on voting, until they get it right -- with a Yes!" And when the French and Dutch voted No, remember Mr Verheugen, Commission Vice-President, declared: "We will not give in to blackmail." Blackmail! This is democracy, Europe-style.

One other thing I'll guarantee: within six months of Ireland voting Yes, our special corporate tax rate will be gone, not because of "harmonisation" but because of "competition barriers". And our veto? We'll be none too politely told to stick it you know where and whistle Dixie to it.

It's utterly pointless, useless and pathetic, I know, and it will count for nothing, but this little chap is voting No.

While the names of both will be unlikely to resonate much with the typical boardsie, they are Gold Standard if you are part of that demographic which is the most likely to vote - over 50s.

Mike.

Scofflaw

Bruce Arnold wrote:

When we amended our Constitution in 1972, before joining the EEC the following year, we did so in order to join a "Community" of sovereign states seeking to share in access to a market.

This collective action did not give primacy to EU laws, since it was not the EU, but a community. And we accepted directions about changing the status of existing laws on equality, non-discrimination, food standards and health and safety, outside the federation now proposed. This was reinforced by the European Court of Justice which decided that Community laws were supreme. It was a benignly implemented jurisdiction. Under the wider blanket of European Union supremacy this could represent a quite different legal authority.

That has to be the most specious bit of reasoning I've seen in quite some time (and I argue with Creationists). The EEC exists, the EU exists. For every practical purpose they are the same thing - there is no EEC Commission magically separate from the EU Commission. Yet we are asked by Arnold to believe that somehow, when the name changes, the benignly implemented jurisdiction will, without any change in personnel or institutions, become something completely different.

Arnold gives no reason why this should be the case - he simply states that it will be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

Byrne wrote:

One other thing I'll guarantee: within six months of Ireland voting Yes, our special corporate tax rate will be gone, not because of "harmonisation" but because of "competition barriers". And our veto? We'll be none too politely told to stick it you know where and whistle Dixie to it.

For that to happen the ECJ would first have to rule that corporate tax is an indirect tax. That would be like ruling that a 4 door 5 litre s class merc is a moped. In other words it's not going to happen. What does he propose to do when he is proven wrong?

And why do so many people argue that we loose out veto in certain areas and this is a tragedy, and somehow turn it around and say our veto's are worthless anyway?

judas101

"Gay Byrne says vote no......vote yes" :pac:

imp

Remember that fat slug, Prodi, when the Irish people voted No to Maastricht?

I know everyone makes mistakes but when he confuses the Maastricht and Nice Treaties he really doesn't lend himself much credibility on this...

Kev_ps3

Fair play to Gay Byrne. I hope he influences a few of the over 50's to vote No. Lets say No to Europe and remain Independent.

sink

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Fair play to Gay Byrne. I hope he influences a few of the over 50's to vote No. Lets say No to Europe and remain Independent.

Even though all the premises he seems to be basing his argument on are false?

Kev_ps3

sink wrote: »

Even though all the premises he seems to be basing his argument on are false?

How are they false?
For example when he says that the treaty is "unintelligible bilge" he is speaking the truth!

sink

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

How are they false?
For example when he says that the treaty is "unintelligible bilge" he is speaking the truth!

The treaty is not supposed to be read on it's own. You have to read the consolidated treaties.

http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33

If you can't read that, it speaks more to your intellegence than anything to do with the treaty.

redspider

Well, Gaybo's opinions dont carry much weight politically or electorally whether his thoughts are right or wrong, so the Yes camp (FF, FG, Lab, PD) can rest on their laurels with that one. Arnold has more kudos however but he wont be a large influencer either. It will take a lot more 'famous' people to go to the No camp before their voices can sway people's votes (ie: change Yes's into No's, or dont knows to No).

The debate on this treaty has barely started. It has been weakly presented to the electorate as a legisltative text changing previous treaties, so it doesnt read at all well. The changes are also relatively large so there is quite a bit to digest.

For Irish voters, they should weigh up the decision-making process keeping the following in mind:

- if a voter has not read the changed treaties in full, can they vote (either Yes or No) with absolute confidence. If they cant vote, should they just vote No to be on the safe side?

- if this Lisbon treaty is merely the previous rejected constitution, redressed so as to avoid 'awkward' and possibly further rejecting referanda in countries such as France and the Netherlands, should we actually allow it pass whether it is right for us and for Ireland. ie: should people vote No that want to uphold the already democratic decision taken?

- if scaremongers among the Yes camp are using the FUD approach (fear, uncertainty and doubt), that Ireland would be taking a step backwards if it voted No (which the Referendum Commision have stated is not the case, the situation would be as it is now, ie: no change, no step backwards, the same). If Yes proponents are using such tactics, should people vote No?

- if scaremongers among the No camp are using FUD as well and claiming that our tax controls will be lost, that miltary aspects will be against our neutrality, etc, is that a reason to vote Yes?

there are many questions ......

I would be very surprised if all of the electorate that vote will be in a position to fathom what the treaty actually means. You will get many that will follow the party line regardless of the referendum, and with cross-party support bar SF (No) and the Green Party (undecided), the Yes camp have everything in their favour (even the date/day) and the No camp have a struggle on their hands. The media and the debate there will play an important part in determining the outcome of this vote.

Vote wisely ....

Redspider

lostexpectation

bruce who?

po0k

It will be a yes vote.
Not that it matters a jot.

I'll be voting no and stocking up for the coming apocalypse.

Build your bunker now.

oscarBravo

redspider wrote: »

- if a voter has not read the changed treaties in full, can they vote (either Yes or No) with absolute confidence. If they cant vote, should they just vote No to be on the safe side?

Only if they're certain that "no" is a safe vote, which is very much open to discussion.

- if this Lisbon treaty is merely the previous rejected constitution, redressed so as to avoid 'awkward' and possibly further rejecting referanda in countries such as France and the Netherlands, should we actually allow it pass whether it is right for us and for Ireland. ie: should people vote No that want to uphold the already democratic decision taken?

It's not the constitution (although it is broadly the same), which would seem to render the question void.

- if scaremongers among the Yes camp are using the FUD approach (fear, uncertainty and doubt), that Ireland would be taking a step backwards if it voted No (which the Referendum Commision have stated is not the case, the situation would be as it is now, ie: no change, no step backwards, the same). If Yes proponents are using such tactics, should people vote No?

- if scaremongers among the No camp are using FUD as well and claiming that our tax controls will be lost, that miltary aspects will be against our neutrality, etc, is that a reason to vote Yes?

I would say the answer to both is no - but it seems to me that the "no" camp have the "yes" camp beaten hands-down in the FUD stakes.

cathalgarvey

Some Myths:

This is not unlike something I wrote just last night on my blog, but here goes again. At least I've some fresh silliness to address from Gay Byrne et al.

It's a Rebranded Constitution - No, it's not. The constitution amalgamated all the existing treaties that define the union. The Lisbon treaty only redefines their relationship with one another. We'd have been better off with the former, but it got rejected so it can't really be done now.

It's removing power from Ireland's Constitution - No, it's not. Any power referenced in these no-vote arguments has already been ceded. The wording regarding our constitution in the Lisbon Treaty is already in our constitution; we already allow the EU to have a say over local government. However, if you're wondering why this hasn't arisen as an issue try reading about the Principal of Subsidiarity. Why would the other EU states want to govern Ireland, anyway? That was never the point of the EU, any more than we joined to govern other countries.

We're gonna be conscripted!!!1 - No, Ireland is not signing these portions of the treaty at all. Our military status will remain completely unchanged. We'll still help the Americans invade third world countries, because we're assholes that way.

We'll Lose our Taxation! - Not likely. Others have argued the processes of this, and done it better than I might. However I'll point out that Ireland's success over the last decade is due largely to A) Handouts from the EU and Undercutting the EU average tax. Although the obvious fear is that we'll lose the power to undercut the average (which isn't true), consider that Lisbon will permit more efficient management of the EU, which will translate to a more successful union, which translates to more money for those Northwestern Irish Bastards when foreign investment moves here to take advantage of that growth. Without Lisbon, we retain status quo or lose out. With Lisbon, we keep our tax and reap the benefits when the treaty benefits Europe.

It's deliberately trying to obfuscate everything! - No, Mr. Byrne, it's not. It's legalese because it's a legal document, and it's harder to understand because it's trying to cover the laws and preferences of almost 30 countries. It's not supposed to be easy to read, it's supposed to be a well-made legal document. It was our government's job to make the ins-and-outs easy for us to get, and they failed until now. And because they're late in doing so, people think it's a conspiracy.

We're gonna lose jobs to Lisbon! - I'm not even sure where this came from. Lisbon doesn't have much to say on national labour markets at all. When it comes to mobility of labour, that being the only thing I can think of that this myth might reference, Lisbon makes provisions for a fourth "Freedom" of Academic knowledge. I'm not sure if this applies to employment, rather to a flow of information and paper publishing. In any case, there's nothing wrong with competitive labour. It helps mitigate inflation and leads to a more skilled workforce.

Lisbon can't be amended! - This is the daftest thing I've heard yet. Why would the EU make a document that ties its own hands? Why would it make a document that's part of a roadmap the end of the road? What on earth was running through the mind of whoever came up with this? The Lisbon Treaty, like all the treaties before it, ends in a full stop. But like all those before it, it can be amended. That's how law and government works, particularly in a growing society like Europe.

Lisbon takes power from the Irish Government!! - As if the objective facts weren't enough to debunk this, consider that all the leading parties in Irish government are in support of Lisbon. Why would they hand over all their power? Don't we usually accuse them of hoarding it all too much?

It's easy to shake a fist at heaven and claim we're being screwed by "The Man". The EU is a community of countries trying to forge an economic and social union that will exemplify responsible government for everyone under it. It's a union, not a top-down empire, so we should stop thinking it's the big guy up top: we're part of the EU. Since we're already invested completely in the EU, let's improve our lot by improving the EU at no cost to ourselves.

And, if you're not satisfied when Lisbon passes, you can always use the new rights it gives you and complain about Lisbon with a Lisbon-empowered petition.

democrates

sink wrote: »

The treaty is not supposed to be read on it's own. You have to read the consolidated treaties.

http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33

If you can't read that, it speaks more to your intellegence than anything to do with the treaty.

That kind of elitist put-down seems to be quite common among 'yes' proponents.

I agree with Gay Byrne's reservations about the EU political elite. These facts are undeniable:

1. When we voted No to Nice, we were asked to vote again.
2. The French and Dutch voted against the Constitution, this time around for Lisbon those citizens don't get to vote
3. 27 member states have the option of calling a referendum on this Lisbon treaty which we're told is extremely important to all of us, so important in fact that only the Irish get to vote on it, as our constitution requires (thanks DeValera).

What does that tell you about belief in democracy among the national politicians who are the EU establishment players? Sure smells like elitism to me, it suggests that the EU is a cohort of national politicians who wish, or can be coerced, to deny their people a say in plans cooked up in Brussels, plans which affect our lives, we, "the little people" of Europe.

The trend is clear to see over the last few treaties - asking the people what they want is no longer the way the EU wants to do business, now the approach to citizen opinion is as Brian Cowan said in another context "if in doubt, leave them out".

I am actually in favour of EU enlargement and closer integration, I think for example all members could reduce government spending if we collaborate on say bulk purchase of cement for public works etc. Of course, the EU could have done that and lots of similar things years ago. Why not? Could it be that big business comes first?

The next treaty I want to see is one which guarantees that all EU citizens will get a vote on future EU treaties on an opt-in/opt-out basis. That would preserve a Europe of sovereign states who co-operate only where we agree to co-operate, and otherwise remain free to do our own thing. Why can't we do that?

Some countries have the Euro, some do not. Some countries co-operate on foreign military exercises, others do not. Some countries accepted immigrants immediately from Romania and Bulgaria, others did not. The list goes on, diversity of co-operation works for individual states.

The only people such national freedom doesn't work for are those who want to move us treaty by treaty toward a central federal government, a single point of failure system which has power centralised in such a way that individual member states can have laws imposed which the majority of it's citizens would never accept. Why on God's blue marble should we have that?

On the upside, the proposed EU Petition is a step in the right direction, more transparency is welcome (assuming something is then done about what is exposed in dark corners), a charter of rights is good, and looking back, the EU has done a lot of good over the years, but on countless occasions narrowly avoided heinous things, thanks to vetos.

It is not necessary to bundle all of the measures in Lisbon into one great all or nothing treaty, in fact I view that methodology and the "no plan B" type warnings as a deliberate strategy to scare people into a yes.

Many improvements can be introduced separately, but this treaty is designed in such a way that we might be fooled into thinking we have to accept the whole kit and caboodle otherwise there can never be a charter of rights, or citizen petition, and that the EU will retain it's lack of transparency.

No.

Give us what we want first: get your house in order with transparency, put citizen democracy into practice, then we can consider where else we can co-operate.

Scofflaw

Give us what we want first: get your house in order with transparency, put citizen democracy into practice, then we can consider where else we can co-operate.

My feelings on this are very adequately conveyed in this article - The EU, Lisbon, and ineffective leadership:

If the Treaty is adopted, every moment of every meeting of the Council of Ministers will have this potential for drama. Ways of doing things which worked behind closed doors for half a century will have to change. It will require new skills and those skills will have to be tried out and developed in the public forum itself. This is bad news for Government Ministers and civil servants in their day to day work. It is good news for democracy - for that form of government in which those who govern must face that drama of uncertainty, which makes the governed sit up and take notice and want to make that uncertainty continue.

Voting No to Lisbon in the name of democracy is very much a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

cordially,
Scofflaw

redspider

oscarBravo wrote: »

Only if they're certain that "no" is a safe vote, which is very much open to discussion.

But a person doesnt have to be certain that a 'No' vote is a 'safe vote', as they already know by immersion and living within the EU what the current status quo is. eg: the Treaty of the EC has been around for a long time. A 'No' vote is voting for the status quo.

Unless a voter knows the full consequences of a 'Yes' vote, then they are not voting with full knowldege but are taking a blind leap of faith.

I'm not saying which way to vote, but its clear to most analysts that most people will not know the full consequences of a 'Yes' vote. And its questionable whether the Referendum Commision should be asking the people to vote on a subject which they do not fully understand (on average).

It's not the constitution (although it is broadly the same), which would seem to render the question void.

I think even those that wrote the failed EC constitution would agree that this treaty is just another format of putting into place the same thing. There is no significant difference so de facto people are voting for that same EC constitution. Broadly in this case is 99.9%.

Now given that France and the Netherlands voted against that document and for this treaty their governments could have given them the opportunity to vote but didnt (in case they lost), doesnt that seem like a backwards step for democracy. Democracy is eroded and avoided in many ways and the Lisbon Treaty would seem to be another example of that, whether the points within it are 'good' or 'bad'.

Redspider

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

My feelings on this are very adequately conveyed in this article - The EU, Lisbon, and ineffective leadership:

Voting No to Lisbon in the name of democracy is very much a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mostly a good article, but for all the leadership bashing he is making a big assumption:

Edmond Grace SJ wrote:

When the European Convention produced the Constitutional Treaty, it was an elephantine, uninspiring document which was singularly ill-suited to rallying ordinary citizens behind the European ideal.

(My emphasis) The whole point is we're not all agreed on what that European ideal is, more importantly, how it is implemented in practice, ie. should Ireland subjugate the Irish Ideal and the same for the other 26. I reject the notion that we must cede legislative sovereignty to the union to the extent that Europhiles prescribe.

Edmond Grace SJ wrote:

There are lots of ways of showing disquiet and frustration, but there’s only one way to open up the Council of Ministers to public scrutiny - a yes vote for Lisbon.

This is not true, at best he's mistaken, at worst egregiously disingenuous. The only offer on the table at the moment for gaining transparency in the Council of Ministers is the Lisbon Treaty. There's no reason why this can't be done separately. This is exactly the do or die, all or nothing tactic which smacks of subterfuge.

If we vote no, then 'No plan B' only applies to the treaty currently framed as a big package of disparate measures, but it can encourage the EU establishment to face up to the challenge of allowing citizens to be involved in decisions affecting our lives instead of playing these insulting elitist games.

The backdrop of admitted lack of transparency means that despite all the existing treaty documents we can read we still don't know how business is conducted behind closed doors. We don't actually know what the EU really is today, let alone what it might be after Lisbon. So we're asked to vote yes based on what, "trust us we're politicians", and "give us what we want and then you can see what we're up to"?

As I've pointed out in the previous post, the EU trend has developed into excluding citizens from decision-making, and that aspect of the European Ideal needs to be rejected so it can be corrected. Fix that fundamental flaw, adopt transparency, then we can move forward on the rest of it based on facts.

menoscemo

Democrates:
Finally someone with exactly the same viewpoint as me on this.
Thank you man for expressing my Ideas more clearly than i can (even though I have tried!!)

ircoha

Democrates:

Much obliged for setting out in clear ,easily understood language some excellent thoughts on why to vote NO in a constructive way.

It is scarey to see all mainstream parties trying to browbeat us into voting Yes.

The fact that the EU accounts have not been audited for 7 or eight years due to unquantifiable fraud levels in th CAP and related projects is another reason to sort out the transparency first.

cathalgarvey

@democrates:

Your argument is a fair one from your perspective, and it's well made. Essentially you argue that the Libon treaty seems to be a confusing and suspicious document spiced with a few niceties to pass it by the average citizen.

It's easy to see how this viewpoint can come about, and in fact if you read the Lisbon Treaty document that arrived on doorsteps, it inadvertently explains why; many of the amendments proposed by the Lisbon Treaty are intended to allow Parliament and the Council to make certain small decisions without making a huge affair of it and having some countries have to make referendums on things that really aren't that serious.

In other words, the reason so many things are bundled together in Lisbon, and in previous documents before it, is that if they'd proposed them individually then we'd have been asked to referendum each and every one, which would have set back the whole affair of actually running the Union by decades.

The idea that voting no to Lisbon will just maintain a status quo is fallacious for this reason as well; the Lisbon treaty in many ways represents the work of the status quo to improve itself. If it's rejected, then the status quo was worth nothing.

The EU is a work in progress, and part of that functioning is in integrating so many different countries so that they can work under a common framework without losing individuality and power.

The Lisbon Treaty proposes a transparent ministry, a veto for each national parliament, a voting structure that actually empowers Ireland with a 25% veto power, empowered citizenship through mandatory action on citizen petitions, and a structure that will allow greater ability to adapt the EU without forcing Ireland to do anything it would rather not.

Yes, the Lisbon Treaty allows the EU to make some decisions without an Irish referendum. But this explicitly doesn't apply to matters of Irish popular interest; taxation, defence, and further constitutional changes. And, in any case where Ireland mightn't benefit from a decision, our empowered veto in Parliament and our Government's new veto will allow Ireland to opt out.

It strikes me that the people who should want it most, seem to want it least.

democrates

cathalgarvey wrote: »

@democrates:

Your argument is a fair one from your perspective, and it's well made. Essentially you argue that the Libon treaty seems to be a confusing and suspicious document spiced with a few niceties to pass it by the average citizen.

That is one point ok, but I made others too.

cathalgarvey wrote: »

It's easy to see how this viewpoint can come about, and in fact if you read the Lisbon Treaty document that arrived on doorsteps, it inadvertently explains why; many of the amendments proposed by the Lisbon Treaty are intended to allow Parliament and the Council to make certain small decisions without making a huge affair of it and having some countries have to make referendums on things that really aren't that serious.

In other words, the reason so many things are bundled together in Lisbon, and in previous documents before it, is that if they'd proposed them individually then we'd have been asked to referendum each and every one, which would have set back the whole affair of actually running the Union by decades.

The idea that voting no to Lisbon will just maintain a status quo is fallacious for this reason as well; the Lisbon treaty in many ways represents the work of the status quo to improve itself. If it's rejected, then the status quo was worth nothing.

I've no issue with the fact that much of the documentation is volumnous, that's largely unavoidable, but it doesn't require a referendum to include a table of contents and index in downloadable treaty documents and to have a simple "search this document" facility, the use of expand/collapse or left/right versions to highlight the old/new in consolidated online versions so they are readily navigated and apprehended.

Also I'm not suggesting a referendum on every little thing, but on such a major treaty as Lisbon, there absolutely should be referenda in all member states, this lack of say is a thundering disgrace.

Previous referenda defeats and near defeats have resulted in EU heads admitting that there is a lack of transparency, a distance from the people etc, and therefore a lack of trust. Part of the blame for this lies with national media ignoring the new power centre - eg. when is the last time you saw an EU Parliament debate covered effectively on RTE? We elected those MEP's directly and are shelling out for tv licences which should buy us relevant news coverage.

One obvious measure for the EU on noting the trust deficit (EG we rejected Nice seven years ago) was to introduce transparency as an urgent priority, eg a free EU tv/internet channel, open up the council of ministers meetings, and get Eddie Hobbs in to sort out the accounts which auditors have refused to sign off for the last 13 years.

Even if national referenda were required to introduce transparency measures, this would be relatively quick to negotiate and put forth and a dead cert to gain popular support, that could have been done and dusted by 2004 and by now we'd have a decent idea of how the EU actually does business.

But, instead, they chose to keep up their auld sins behind closed doors and now ignore the citizens as much as they can in introducing this major treaty which besides some moves on transparency has a whole host of measures largely transplanted from the EU Constitution which was rejected twice. In short, this is a pure, unadulterated, "you'll get what you're given" attitude, uninspiring to say the least.

cathalgarvey wrote: »

The EU is a work in progress, and part of that functioning is in integrating so many different countries so that they can work under a common framework without losing individuality and power.

The Lisbon Treaty proposes a transparent ministry, a veto for each national parliament, a voting structure that actually empowers Ireland with a 25% veto power, empowered citizenship through mandatory action on citizen petitions, and a structure that will allow greater ability to adapt the EU without forcing Ireland to do anything it would rather not.

Yes, the Lisbon Treaty allows the EU to make some decisions without an Irish referendum. But this explicitly doesn't apply to matters of Irish popular interest; taxation, defence, and further constitutional changes. And, in any case where Ireland mightn't benefit from a decision, our empowered veto in Parliament and our Government's new veto will allow Ireland to opt out.

It strikes me that the people who should want it most, seem to want it least.

I know what I want, the problem is I don't know what the EU is, or what it would be after Lisbon thanks to lack of transparency, and unless you've had an inside line on council of ministers meetings, neither do you!

I've heard the guarantees from our politicians on Lisbon, and with the greatest respect I must remain sceptical, because we also heard guarantees from our politicians that Shannon-Heathrow was not at risk, that privatising eircom was best for ireland, that e-voting was the way to go, that de-centralisation was the right thing yet now with the HSE it's a 180° turn on policy to centres of excellence. Sometimes they get important things plain wrong.

What I'd like to hear is guarantees from certain fellow European politicians that they will cease and desist from attacks on our interests, but in fact what we hear from some is the opposite, they are gung ho for tax harmonisation etc. which suggests that they have reason to believe these will be achievable. This leaves us with the question who's right, our politicians or French etc politicians? Hardly the level of certainty one would prefer on such a crucial treaty.

Monotype

Bruce Arnold makes some good points. Gay Byrne makes some good ones too but he kind of makes a mess of what he is saying.

cathalgarvey wrote: »

We'll Lose our Taxation! - Not likely. Others have argued the processes of this, and done it better than I might. However I'll point out that Ireland's success over the last decade is due largely to A) Handouts from the EU and Undercutting the EU average tax.

Not that it's relevent, but a lot of the money came from selling off government assets. Eg., hotels and other stuff.

Lisbon can't be amended! - This is the daftest thing I've heard yet. Why would the EU make a document that ties its own hands? Why would it make a document that's part of a roadmap the end of the road? What on earth was running through the mind of whoever came up with this? The Lisbon Treaty, like all the treaties before it, ends in a full stop. But like all those before it, it can be amended. That's how law and government works, particularly in a growing society like Europe.

THIS is the part that worries me most - A "Self amending treaty". I never agree to anything unless I know what it is. This seems to portray a dynamic treaty as determined by the council and we probably won't be asked to vote on any updates as the council will amend the treaty as they see fit!
I think the point that it can't be amended is that we won't have a say in it.

Lisbon takes power from the Irish Government!! - As if the objective facts weren't enough to debunk this, consider that all the leading parties in Irish government are in support of Lisbon. Why would they hand over all their power? Don't we usually accuse them of hoarding it all too much?

It's much easier to go with the flow. They're under tremendous pressure to vote yes.

Baggio

Forgive any inaccuries here on my first post on this....

didnt i read last week that these bums in Europe already bypassed every state in Europe and alowed police access to all known dna records without seeking any permission from member states??

Not sure how accurate that is,,,,but how on earth does anyyyone in this country or Europe trust these bums????,,,their soo dammm sneaky about it all,,,
I remember cowen and his cronies on the last referendum was it niece we had a vote on??....yeahh on good ol questions and answers and he talking a guy from the audience down and basically tellin the guy this will be passed and that is that!!,....it was rejected with a small vote shortly thereafter......I couldnt help but think of the arrogance of that sap that night./....man oh man how stupid can a general public be if they cant see how sneaky and underhanded and basically undemocratic the whole thing is becoming,,,,,,,,
Say what ya like about Gaybo etc.....but.ffs - how can prodi's remarks be defended in any way!!?....their a bunch of power grabbers in Brussells and the slobs we have in the dail will be walked into the ground first time they half object to anything!...their ( our alledged leaders! )under pressure?..from whom and whats the pay back if we say no?...doesnt that smell of political threats/blackmail.....i dunno but surely any basic instinct can smell the bucket of rats that this thing contains...vote no alll the way.......

forgive my colourful remarks etc...just the whole dammm thing makes me seeeth with anger at the damm arogance of them all and the dweeebs we have here playing the part of asswipes etc

ciao' amigos...Baggio....

Scofflaw

Monotype wrote: »

Bruce Arnold makes some good points. Gay Byrne makes some good ones too but he kind of makes a mess of what he is saying.

Not that it's relevent, but a lot of the money came from selling off government assets. Eg., hotels and other stuff.

Compared to the billions from corporate tax and the billions from the EU it doesn't amount to that much.

Monotype wrote: »

THIS is the part that worries me most - A "Self amending treaty". I never agree to anything unless I know what it is. This seems to portray a dynamic treaty as determined by the council and we probably won't be asked to vote on any updates as the council will amend the treaty as they see fit!
I think the point that it can't be amended is that we won't have a say in it.

Those who cite this clause as "the end of referendums" fail to include the bit that says that amendments must be ratified by the member states in the usual way:

Article 48.4 Lisbon(TEU) wrote:

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Essentially, the "self-amending" clause is nothing of the kind. It simply means that the Treaties can then be changed by single amendments - exactly as we amend our Constitution. Not all such amendments would legally require a referendum here - some might be ratifiable purely by the Oireachtas - but (a) any significant change would require a referendum for exactly the same reasons we're having one now, and (b) it's probably that the government would go to referendum anyway, as being politically safer.

Personally, I'm hugely in favour of being able to amend the EU treaties bit by bit, rather than this big bang approach where you have to vote on a whole raft of changes all together.

Monotype wrote: »

It's much easier to go with the flow. They're under tremendous pressure to vote yes.

They negotiated the ruddy thing. Cowen got the original Constitution draft through under Bertie's EU Presidency. It's generally thought to be pretty close to the best possible deal for Ireland. So it would also be fair to say that our government is extremely keen on a Yes because, to a greater extent than in any other country, it's "our" Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Monotype

Scofflaw wrote: »

Personally, I'm hugely in favour of being able to amend the EU treaties bit by bit, rather than this big bang approach where you have to vote on a whole raft of changes all together.

Why don't they do that then? - Hold referenda frequently. It might cost a lot but at least you'd have people's trust.
A couple of items to vote on (i.e., a few sets of paragraphs, vote on each set) once a year would get stuff done.