convince me to vote yes on the lisbon Treaty

CtrlSource

So i'm just home from work, getting out of the car and this tallish elderly lady is walking up my driveway clutching a handful of election bumph. i make eye contact and start towards here and she hands me some Yes propaganda on behalf of my local Labour County Councillor. i thank her. As she begins to back away, she quietly asks "will you be voting Yes?"

What do i say to this lady? She looks like a wise woman who's lived a lot of her life already, she's well dressed, softly spoken and smiling. Not an ounce of arrogance or pushiness about her. Almost naturally, i replied: "Yes I am" and with that a gentle wave of guilt washed over me as i approached my front door and went inside. What had i done? Lied to the old dear about my voting intentions so as not to disappoint her, and perhaps even to avoid a potential debate (not that she looked like the argumentative sort)?

Well, there's some truth in that. But really it was more of a reaction to the creeping doubts i've been having over the past few days about my previously staunch 'No' position.

i can't quite put my finger on the reason(s) for this self-questioning so close to the vote, but i know that i will have to give Lisbon some more serious thought over the coming week. This might have something to do with the tidal wave of support for a 'Yes' vote across the political divides, or maybe i'm listening to the farmers?

Whatever the reason for falsely reassuring the canvasser at my door this evening, i know one thing - i've slipped into the 'undecided' category for the first time

johnnyq

CtrlSource wrote: »

Whatever the reason for falsely reassuring the canvasser at my door this evening, i know one thing - i've slipped into the 'undecided' category for the first time

I wouldn't feel guilty for being polite. How many times have people told others what they want to hear?

I feel very sorry for canvesors. You know that 100% of people in a party don't take the party line just because the leaders say so. But in FF, they must support it or face expulsion.

A simple question you must ask yourself -
Ireland loses 30+ vetos in exchange for what?

I have yet had a canvessor answer that question honestly without descending into the Ireland will burn in hell etc... type of responses.

There is nothing wrong with being pro-europe and voting no or asking for a better deal. It's what any reasonable person would do.

Sauron

I concur with everything Summer Glau and mollyjh said about Mattman's post, but I just want to deal briefly with this one point:

mattman wrote: »

we voted on last referendum ..we rejected ..they re voted(and won)

People often seem to have a problem with this second referendum thing. They seem to think it was some sort of sneaky tactic to push the Nice treaty forceably on the Irish people.

I remember being at a debate and someone made reference to it, and asked "Now, is this democracy?"

Well, the answer I'd give is yes; in fact it's a kind of "double democracy" if you want. A proposal was put to the electorate and it failed. The proposal was put again and it passed.

The difference was that the second time, voter turnout was much higher, so more people had a say. Surely if the electorate was so widely opposed to the treaty, and if it was such a bad thing, it would have failed again; but it didn't. There was nothing to stop another no vote, but it passed.

So yes, I guess, "they" won; if by "they" you mean the majority of voters, which is usually the case with referenda. There were people, and not just politicians who wanted that treaty to pass.

Finally, and on a vaguely related note, many people seem to make reference to the fact that the French and the Dutch voted no to the constitution (while, of course, ignoring the fact that many more voted yes). Aside from the obvious point that this doesn't say anything substantial about the treaty itself, I find it quite amusing that the same people who have posters saying "don't be bullied", also have posters saying "Follow the French and the Dutch" (essentially: "Be a sheep").

Considering the chronic misinformation that's being propagated coming up to this referendum, I'm not surprised that at least one country voted against the constitution. No one seems to know exactly why the French and the Dutch voted no, but they're obsessed with the fact that they did.

I find it bewildering that people seem to ignore the fact that the treaty was ratified in every other European country; not one said no. People forget the fact that every single parliament, after a debate, ratified it. Yet people think it's inherently evil, just because the French and Dutch voted no.

My 2c,

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

A simple question you must ask yourself -
Ireland loses 30+ vetos in exchange for what?

You have to take into account that we're not the only ones loosing veto's everyone is. That means that legislation that benefits the large majority (and most of the time that will be us) will be able to pass more easily without being blocked by a minority with a special interest. That is why no-one having a veto over certain areas is a good thing. Why do we need a veto over issues like cutting carbon emission, funding science and exploration and similar. We are unlikely to use our veto over such issues but countries like Germany with large heavy industries like car manufacturing could block environmental legislation because of special interests, or France could block science legislation unless it gets support for the EIT university of excellence. Veto's for everyone else are not necessarily a good thing for us either.

Sauron

Agree w/ sink and just have this to add from the BBC. The final paragraph (essentially sink's point) is one of the most salient passages I've yet to read on the issue.

It it deals with the idea that:

The treaty surrenders dozens of national vetoes.

A national veto disappears when member states agree that decisions that have hitherto been taken by a unanimous vote, can in future be taken by a majority vote. Opponents of European integration talk about surrendering vetoes, supporters prefer to talk about about pooling sovereignty - but neither side disputes that the Reform Treaty takes this step in somewhere between 45 and 70 policy areas.

This is numerically larger than in earlier treaties. However, that does not necessarily mean the net effect is greater, as some of the new areas which the treaty makes subject to majority voting are quite arcane - such as, in Tony Blair's words, "The council review of general rules on the composition of the Committee of the Regions, and the Comitology Committee, whatever that might be". Other examples are decisions on the methods used for gathering statistics in the eurozone, and on transport subsidies to the territories formerly in East Germany.

Other changes are more significant. The Maastricht Treaty was the first to open up the possibility of majority voting for the implementation of foreign policies - though the policies themselves had to be decided by unanimity. The Reform Treaty mirrors this by allowing majority voting on the new high representative's proposals for implementing unanimously agreed policies. There are one or two other exceptions, but in general the veto is preserved in the area of foreign policy.

Unanimity will be given up in regard to social security for migrants, though here there will be an "emergency brake" allowing a government to demand a unanimous vote at an EU summit, if it is strongly opposed to a piece of legislation.

The most important veto abolition probably comes in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), where police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters will now be subject to majority voting, as asylum and immigration and some other policies already are. (The UK has negotiated the right to pick and choose whether to take part in JHA legislation - but it will of course choose to opt in, in some cases.)

The number of vetoes given up is often regarded as a key measure of powers transferred from member states to the union, but again it's not an entirely straightforward issue. Without a veto it is more difficult for a member state to block legislation that it dislikes, but its ability to push through legislation it wants to see adopted is correspondingly increased. It's often argued that the single market would never have come into existence if member states had wielded a veto in this area.

For anyone who's interested,

The BBC's look at Lisbon is an excellent and balanced assessment.

molloyjh

johnnyq wrote: »

A simple question you must ask yourself -
Ireland loses 30+ vetos in exchange for what?

In exchange for a more effecient and transparent EU for starters. Given the benefits we've gotten so far from being a part of the Union thats nothing but a good thing.

johnnyq

molloyjh wrote: »

In exchange for a more effecient and transparent EU for starters. Given the benefits we've gotten so far from being a part of the Union thats nothing but a good thing.

Okay let's take your three points:

Efficient:
Wouldn't it be more 'efficient' if the Irish people didn't have a public vote for the Lisbon treaty - since legal experts have been saying that Ireland didn't actually need to have one this time. 'Efficiency' at the expense of accountability is not a good thing.

Transparent:
Lol, do you call the 300+ pages of the unitelligable Lisbon Treaty transparent? What a good starting point for a more transparent Europe!!!
Since Lisbon is already a smokescreen 96% of the Constitution which was already rejected, this doesn't hail much for your argument of transparency.

Benefits of the EU:
Yes there have been benefits and because we contribute MORE from now on, Europe's investment will be repaid. That's the give take nature of the EU.
BUT that does not mean we have to sell our democracy in the process and turn the EU into an unaccountable militarisated state.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Okay let's take your three points:

Efficient:
Wouldn't it be more 'efficient' if the Irish people didn't have a public vote for the Lisbon treaty - since legal experts have been saying that Ireland didn't actually need to have one this time. 'Efficiency' at the expense of accountability is not a good thing.

Who said we didn't need a referendum and on what basis?

Transparent:Lol, do you call the 300+ pages of the unitelligable Lisbon Treaty transparent? What a good starting point for a more transparent Europe!!!
Since Lisbon is already a smokescreen 96% of the Constitution which was already rejected, this doesn't hail much for your argument of transparency.

2 points (1) It's never been disputed that 90% plus of what was in the consitution document is in the treaty-However the surperflous and contentious parts have been removed or modified.
(2)Theres a considerable amount of legalese in all of our bills before the Dáil prior to they becoming law.
We don't dispute those.
There is a reason for the legalese,it's to make the articles work legally.
The same applies to Dáil bills.
It's unfortunate from an understanding the thing point of view that what is being put in front of the people this time contains a lot of legalese that normally could be translated in the actual document as opposed to being explained outside the document in this case.

Benefits of the EU:
Yes there have been benefits and because we contribute MORE from now on, Europe's investment will be repaid. That's the give take nature of the EU.
BUT that does not mean we have to sell our democracy in the process and turn the EU into an unaccountable militarisated state.

The unaccountability that you mention is a soundbyte.
Explain it please.
It's disingenous to use it otherwise.
I'll be interested to see how you can argue that an elected EU parliament and a council of ministers who are elected democratically in each of their countries is unaccountable.
But hey be my guest-show me..

As for militarisation.We have nothing to do with that without the triple lock ie,the government,the Dáil and the UNSC agree'ing.
You've claimed to have conceded that in other threads-why are you repeating it here?
As mentioned thousands of times,theres nothing we can do about other members of the EU wanting militarisation.Thats their choice not ours.

molloyjh

johnnyq wrote: »

Okay let's take your three points:

Efficient:
Wouldn't it be more 'efficient' if the Irish people didn't have a public vote for the Lisbon treaty - since legal experts have been saying that Ireland didn't actually need to have one this time. 'Efficiency' at the expense of accountability is not a good thing.

Transparent:
Lol, do you call the 300+ pages of the unitelligable Lisbon Treaty transparent? What a good starting point for a more transparent Europe!!!
Since Lisbon is already a smokescreen 96% of the Constitution which was already rejected, this doesn't hail much for your argument of transparency.

Benefits of the EU:
Yes there have been benefits and because we contribute MORE from now on, Europe's investment will be repaid. That's the give take nature of the EU.
BUT that does not mean we have to sell our democracy in the process and turn the EU into an unaccountable militarisated state.

Efficient:
What does us having a referendum have to do with whether the Lisbon Treaty will successfully make the EU more efficient or not? And where is this reduced accountability you reckon we’re going to get with this? Surely when the doors to the Council get opened to public view (the Council currently sits behind closed doors, this will change with the introduction of Lisbon) it will be far easier to get accountability. I have no idea what you’re getting at with this point at all, it makes very little actual sense.

Transparent:
I never said the Treaty itself was transparent. Very few are any better or worse, its kind of the nature of the beast really. That has nothing to do with what I said anyway, which was that the workings of the EU will become more transparent than they currently are, with the opening of the Council to public scrutiny and clearer roles for MEPs etc.
As for this issue with it being a re-hash of the old Constitution, well I must ask 2 very simple questions – How many countries rejected it? And of the 2 that did can you be sure they rejected the whole thing or did they object to parts of it? If they objected to only parts (which is the case) then I see nothing wrong with re-hashing a lot of it and removing/modifying the contentious parts. After all that’s what happens in politics every single day.

Benefits of the EU:
Europe will be repaid? You say that like Europe is a totally separate entity, like you and your bank. That is simply not the case. We are a part of the EU therefore we’re putting money into a fund that we benefit from directly. And we’re putting it in relative to our ability to do so, meaning the bigger countries will be contributing more than us, as currently happens. As for “selling our democracy”, would you go on out of that. That’s total rubbish. If anything the EU is getting more democratic, not less. You’ll complain that we’re losing a few undemocratic veto powers one minute and how its wrong that it should be majority rules, the next you’re trying to suggest that the Treaty is doing away with democratic measures. Your points are full of holes and contradictions. I can only end by saying that the unaccountable militarised state that you seem to think Lisbon is creating is a laughable idea that is, as Black Briar has already said, nothing more than a sound-byte.

sink

molloyjh wrote: »

Surely when the doors to the Commission get opened to public view (the Commission currently sits behind closed doors, this will change with the introduction of Lisbon) it will be far easier to get accountability.

I'm on your side but I just want to correct you. The European council and the council of ministers will have to meet in public. The commission will still meet in private. The commission is a bit like a cabinet. Our cabinet doesn't meet in public I wouldn't expect the commission to either.

molloyjh

sink wrote: »

I'm on your side but I just want to correct you. The European council and the council of ministers will have to meet in public. The commission will still meet in private. The commission is a bit like a cabinet. Our cabinet doesn't meet in public I wouldn't expect the commission to either.

Cheers Sink....:o

sink

sink wrote: »

The EEC was founded to be a purely economic union with no other mandate than to make the single market work to it's best ability.

This is completely incorrect.

sink wrote: »

Many European Leaders recognised that co-operation in other areas could bring greater results than individual states acting alone. For example cross border organised crime, negotiating foreign treaties, improved defence capabilities, ensuring energy security, tackling climate change and the list goes on. In all these areas countries which act alone have little or no impact, but in acting together problems which looked almost insurmountable could be tackled efficiently and effectively.

Again this completely omits the HUGE influence the fear of the Communist block played in creating a stable Europe. The initial purpose of what is now the EU was to give over control of the building blocks of war (coal, steel and nuclear energy) to a supra-national body so no single country could attack another as had been done before. The economic component was a corollary which ended up becoming far more effective.

Since the expansion of the European Union has continued beyond the bureaucratic capabilities of the current Treaty framework it has been necessary to re-design the Union. However, it's purpose is truly becoming clear now. The original name suggested for the EEC was the United States of Europe. More and more this model, that of a federal, supra-national body, has become the ultimate purpose of those who are committed to the European project.

The world is becoming increasingly polarised. America, China, Russia, India and, if things continue as they are, Europe will exist in a multi-polar world. In order for Europe to continue to exert it's current global influence it will have to act with one voice and with one central authority. The EU now has ambassadors, an anthem and at one point a patron saint was suggested for Europe (St. Columbanus was the front runner as a matter of fact). More and more the true purpose and destination of the European Project is becoming clear.


This Treaty is not a simple re-organisation of European decision making. It is the beginning of the federalisation of European power. This is an undemocratic treaty designed to circumvent the power of the people of France and the Netherlands and it is reprehensible for that alone.

However, what is really at stake in this treaty is not the running of the EU, but what the EU will be 15 years from now. Will have have a Union of European states, aiming for a common goal, or a United States of Europe, existing as a common entity?

murphaph

Sauron wrote: »

I find it bewildering that people seem to ignore the fact that the treaty was ratified in every other European country; not one said no. People forget the fact that every single parliament, after a debate, ratified it. Yet people think it's inherently evil, just because the French and Dutch voted no.

With respect Sauron.....I have much more faith in the people of France and the Netherlands than their (or our) political leaders. Rumour has it that the Danish PM has been promised a cushy EU job for keeping the treaty in the parliament and away from the people of Denmark. Would anyone be surprised if that were true?

Blazer

The governments ratified it not the people.
They were denied a vote on it. Ireland are the only exception to this.
What's the betting anyhow if it fails is that Brian Cowen comes out with " You didn't understand it so we'll hold it again until we get a yes vote".
And when you start to hear of certain things like the EU army which has now been proved correct (leaked yesterday) and that French/Polish etc is pushing for 6% of GNP to be spent on military arms (guess who Europe's top weapons exporter is? and who doesn't care who they sell to?) then you can understand why more and more people are deciding to vote no.
But most of all I hate is the Government smearing these people as extremists and anti-eu etc.Nothing could be further from the truth.
And we're guaranteed that our corporate tax rate will go up. All other European countries are raging when US companies pick Ireland over theirs due to this.
When ours is brough in line with the rest of Europe then it's only going to take one company like Dell/Intell leaving to put the nail and kickstart the recession with a vengeance. Then it's back to the 80's for the young people and off to the US etc. The simple facts are that we are now in mild-medium recession and this is impossible to deny.

pietercleppe

The author of this post said:

"maybe it's just me but the more i look into this the more I don't like the treaty."

THAT is exactly what happened in France and the Netherlands in 2005. People in France for example got sended a copy of the Constitution. There was plenty of debate and no wonder that certain things became all to clear:

- That the EU is corrupt (the Court of Auditors has been refusing for years to sign off the accounts)
- That the EU is overregulating in a way that is far more damaging then when a national entity would do that, as business has a heavier time in voting with their feet.

And most of all:

That the EU is an obscure bureaucratic entity deciding over the heads of ordinary people and business what they should do, lacking any legitimacy in doing that.

Therefore the Irish now have been given the last opportunity to stop the centralisation.

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

With respect Sauron.....I have much more faith in the people of France and the Netherlands than their (or our) political leaders. Rumour has it that the Danish PM has been promised a cushy EU job for keeping the treaty in the parliament and away from the people of Denmark. Would anyone be surprised if that were true?

Yes, since the decision isn't made by the Danish PM, but by their constitutional lawyers - the same ones that have ruled that other EU treaties required referendums.

So if the EU had "promised" him a "plum job" (better than being PM, eh?), it's wasting its time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

pietercleppe wrote: »

The author of this post said:

"maybe it's just me but the more i look into this the more I don't like the treaty."

THAT is exactly what happened in France and the Netherlands in 2005. People in France for example got sended a copy of the Constitution. There was plenty of debate and no wonder that certain things became all to clear:

- That the EU is corrupt (the Court of Auditors has been refusing for years to sign off the accounts)
- That the EU is overregulating in a way that is far more damaging then when a national entity would do that, as business has a heavier time in voting with their feet.

And most of all:

That the EU is an obscure bureaucratic entity deciding over the heads of ordinary people and business what they should do, lacking any legitimacy in doing that.

Therefore the Irish now have been given the last opportunity to stop the centralisation.

Does your Prime minister sit at the European council? Do your cabinet ministers sit on the council of ministers? Do you get to vote for your MEP's? If the answer to any of these is no you may have a point but if the answer is yes to all then you're talking crap.