These points, truth or lies?

Tar.Aldarion

Trying to learn more about the LT.
Ok, from the Gluaiseacht an Phobail leaflet. I can see things that are plain wrong on it such as the commissioner thing etc, but I would like to know which of these are truth and which are not and why, maybe links to the treaty if possible?
I have also been told we lose our rights to have a referendum on a lot of things, is this true or not?
Also people are going on about everything being privatised, water etc? True? Not?
I don't know a lot of this stuff yet as a fact.

Another point that I have heard from No people is that companies would be able to set up here and eg pay another countries wages to them, not irish minimum wages? ie, a latvian company paying lavian wage to it's latvian employees and so on.

The Gluaiseacht an Phobail Leaflet I was given:

1. Ireland would lose more influence, as power would be centralised in Brussels.

2. We would lose the power to stop a “race to the bottom,” as EU “competition” laws would take legal precedence over established
standards in workers’ wages and conditions.

3. We would give powers to the EU to raise its own taxes from citizens
of the member-states, leaving their governments with less to spend.

4. It would become obligatory to have competition in public services in such
areas as health and education. This would lead to further privatisation
and increased inequality. VOTE NO TO RESTRICTIONSON WORKERS RIGHTS.

5. For five out of every fifteen years Ireland would not have a Commissioner: no-one at the table where all EU laws are proposed.

6. Ireland’s voting strength would be halved, while the big countries’ strength
would be doubled.

7. Population size would be the new basis for voting in the Council of Ministers.
8. We would lose the power to block laws we don’t want in more than thirty new areas, including foreign affairs.

9. Ireland would become active in EU military policy. A European armaments
agency would be enshrined in the treaty.

10. For the first time ever, this treaty contains a “mutual defence” clause.

11. We would be obliged to spend more on defence—at a time when we need
more money to develop our public services.

12. The treaty would make us part of the nuclear option: a legally binding
protocol commits us to support Euratom.

13. At WTO talks our influence on trade will be further weakened.

14. The new EU would be able to negotiate treaties binding on
Ireland—and we would have reduced voting rights to control this in the
Council of Ministers.

15. Future Treaty amendments could be made by the Council alone, without any need for a referendum.
http://www.people.ie/leaflet/voteno.pdf

I know things like the voting and comissioner points are not true, but could somebody please tell me about all of these points?

Thank you.

sink

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I have also been told we lose our rights to have a referendum on a lot of things, is this true or not?

False! This rumour came from the self amending clause in the treaty. The treaty allows the European council to amend the treaties with out having to draw up a whole new treaty. So say when some of the Balkan countries join and the council needs to tweak the rotation of commissioners to keep it fair, they can do so without needing a whole new treaty. Treaties are complex international legal documents that need a lot of time and money to be drawn up, why involve 500+ lawyers in a simple change to the rotation of commissioners when you don't need to. It just creates wasteful spending and bureaucracy. Any changes to the treaties will still require national ratification through the usual methods. In Ireland's case this may require a referendum if the changes effect our constitution or give any more powers to the EU.

The relevant section is Article 47 of the amended 'Treaty on the European Union'. You can find a consolidated version of the treaties here, article 47 starts on page 31.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Also people are going on about everything being privatised, water etc? True? Not?

False. This rumour came about from the closing of a loophole in EU competition law. Up to now public companies which have been privatised having been able to use a loophole to avoid playing by the same rules as the rest of the private sector. The treaty states that all privatised companies must follow all competition law. The treaty does not further open the door for any more privatisation. The door is already fully open for any government to privatise any industry they feel like. The treaty means that privatised industries will not result in monopolies.

The relevant section is article 106 of the 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union' it's on page 46.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Another point that I have heard from No people is that companies would be able to set up here and eg pay another countries wages to them, not irish minimum wages? ie, a latvian company paying lavian wage to it's latvian employees and so on.

If a company set's up here they must follow all Irish laws including the minimum wage. However a foreign company from within the EU can offer services to the Irish market and pay their staff according to the laws in their own country. This was established in the much publicised 'Laval' ruling and the Lisbon treaty will have no effect on this. Essentially you can pay a Latvian construction company to build you a house here and they can pay their staff Latvian wages, but they can not set up a branch here without paying their staff Irish wages. The situation is most pronounced now as these countries have just joined the EU and their wages are well below ours, but it is temporary as wage equalisation is already taking place. Eventually wage in all EU countries should be the same. That is one of the goals of the common market. The Lisbon treaty has no impact here and no campaigners are using it to scare people.

I'll go through the other points you raised later.

johnnyq

Hi Tar,

I have also been told we lose our rights to have a referendum on a lot of things, is this true or not?

We lose our right to a veto on lots of things (not the same as a referendum) due to the move from uninimous to majority voting on all issues except tax/military tmk. The main thing we lose our referendum on is that if the government wishes to change the treaty on voting from uninimous to majority voting on the tax/military issues it can do so without a referendum.

Another point that I have heard from No people is that companies would be able to set up here and eg pay another countries wages to them, not irish minimum wages? ie, a latvian company paying lavian wage to it's latvian employees and so on.

As sink said this is already the case from the Lavel case i.e the laws for companies that are set up in that country apply. I would take his point on wage equalisation with a pinch of salt - focus on the word eventually. ireland was in the union 30 yrs before our boom, remember that.
Some people wish to vote no in an attempt to negotiate an overturn on this issue. Though i'm not sure how feasible that is.

The Gluaiseacht an Phobail Leaflet I was given:

1. Ireland would lose more influence, as power would be centralised in Brussels.

Well we lose a MEP 13 to 12. and there is more majority voting of which ireland doesn't exactly hold much sway. So the loss of the vetos could be regarded as less power.

2. We would lose the power to stop a “race to the bottom,” as EU “competition” laws would take legal precedence over established
standards in workers’ wages and conditions.

Again the Socialists and some unions raise this point with a greater emphasis placed on free market in the treaty and the recent ECJ judgements in favour of big business over the rights of workers. Some posters more focused in this area may be able to give quotes for you. I'd say go to the socialist party website.

3. We would give powers to the EU to raise its own taxes from citizens of the member-states, leaving their governments with less to spend.

I haven't personally seen any justification for this one. AFAIK governments still only raise the taxes, maybe contributions to the EU are going up? I don't know.

4

. It would become obligatory to have competition in public services in such areas as health and education. This would lead to further privatisation
and increased inequality. VOTE NO TO RESTRICTIONSON WORKERS RIGHTS.

dnoflp in the 'why to vote no thread' post 3 goes on at length about this.

5. For five out of every fifteen years Ireland would not have a Commissioner: no-one at the table where all EU laws are proposed.

This is happening anyway tmk.

6. Ireland’s voting strength would be halved, while the big countries’ strength would be doubled.

Sink discusses this in his super long post in the convince me thread.

7. Population size would be the new basis for voting in the Council of Ministers.

Yes it certainly becomes more of an important factor

8. We would lose the power to block laws we don’t want in more than thirty new areas, including foreign affairs.

That's with the introduction of the majority voting. not sure about foreign affairs I think the only exclusions are direct tax/military

9. Ireland would become active in EU military policy. A European armaments agency would be enshrined in the treaty.

Unfortunately ireland is already involved here and is already thanks to our government part of the european defence agency. the armaments industry is enshrined thanks to article 28 which is why senator david norris is voting no. But as sink will point out i'm sure 'active' does not include irish troops in EU missions without UN approval.

10. For the first time ever, this treaty contains a “mutual defence” clause.

It definately includes a mutual defence clause and terrorism prevention measures. Can't say 100% if it's the first time ever.

11. We would be obliged to spend more on defence—at a time when we need more money to develop our public services.

We are obligated to "improve military capabilities" which certainly sounds like increased spending. Now some here argue that this can be done without increasing spending, i.e. through research etc... of course how that research can be done without extra spending is beyond me. I agree that we need more money to develop public services.

12. The treaty would make us part of the nuclear option: a legally binding protocol commits us to support Euratom.

Don't have a clue, not an area of particular interest to me tbh

13. At WTO talks our influence on trade will be further weakened.

I don't know on this one. Do we lose the veto that the farmers are encouraging the government to use for the upcoming talks? If we only have vetos left on tax/defence it sounds like it, but not really sure.

14. The new EU would be able to negotiate treaties binding on
Ireland—and we would have reduced voting rights to control this in the
Council of Ministers.

I assume this is through the new voting/loss of vetos discussed earlier? The eu can already negotiate treaties I thought?

15. Future Treaty amendments could be made by the Council alone, without any need for a referendum.

This is my favourite article 308 which reads

Article 308 wrote:

If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided
the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.

So yes the council can make treaty amendments so long as it fits with the many objectives set out in the treaties. But not alone, it must obtain consent from the parliament.

Tar.Aldarion

Thanks for the replies, I will go through them later.
One think, you say that we lose our rights to veto things, which things?

turgon

About sixty different policy areas. Full list on a pdf at the independent referendum commissions site:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/LisbonTreaty_QMV_new_English.pdf


Just in case you dont have Adobe:

Changes from Unanimity to QMV if the Treaty of Lisbon is Ratified

At present, certain decisions in a number of areas must be made by the Member States agreeing unanimously while they may be made by QMV in other areas. The Treaty of Lisbon proposes that decisions may be made by QMV in more areas.It is difficult to be precise about the number of areas to which this proposed change applies because it is possible to have “unanimity” apply to certain decisions within a particular area and QMV apply to other decisions in that area. However, among the new areas to which QMV (instead of unanimity) will apply if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified are:

Election of the President of the European Council by the European Council
Configurations of the Council of Ministers (other than the Foreign Affairs Council)
Appointment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy by the European Council
Conclusion of a withdrawal agreement with a Member State wishing to leave the EU
Determination of the procedures and conditions required for a citizens’ initiative for
legislation
Arrangements for how Member States evaluate the implementation of EU policies in
the areas of freedom, security and justice*
Administrative cooperation within the area of freedom, security and justice after
consulting the European Parliament*
Measures concerning border checks*
Measures concerning an asylum system*
Measures concerning an immigration policy*
Measures concerning judicial cooperation in criminal matters and aspects of police
co-operation*
Regulations concerning Europol’s structure, operation, field of action and tasks*
Establishment of certain measures concerning transport
Measures concerning the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide
uniform intellectual property rights protection throughout the EU
Amendment of some articles of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks
Measures necessary for use of the euro
Promotion of certain sporting issues
Incentive measures in the cultural field
Measures necessary to draw up a European Space Policy
Measures relating to energy policy
Some aspects of the common commercial policy
Measures for drawing up a framework for humanitarian aid
Decision defining the European Defence Agency’s statute, seat and operational rules
Implementation of the solidarity clause in the event of a Member State suffering a
terrorist attack or a disaster
Amendment of some of the provisions of the Court of Justice’s Statute and
establishment of specialist courts
Arrangements for the control of implementing powers
* Areas marked with an asterisk * are those to which Ireland may opt-in or opt-out.

sink

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

1. Ireland would lose more influence, as power would be centralised in Brussels.

I would say Ireland would gain influence. Trough the new voting system we will have a greater ability to block legislation. The power centralised in Brussels bit is rubbish, the EU’s power is already centralised in Brussels, it’s not going to be more centralised.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

2. We would lose the power to stop a “race to the bottom,” as EU “competition” laws would take legal precedence over established standards in workers’ wages and conditions.

Competition laws are already subject to QMV that does not change. Under the new QMV system as I said above we have more power to block legislation so if anything the Lisbon treaty will give us more power to stop such a race. That is if you believe that a ‘race to the bottom’ is underway. As stated in my previous post the ‘Laval’ ruling was not to harm workers rights in older states, it was to strengthen the common market and to speed up wage equalisation.

johnnyq wrote: »

As sink said this is already the case from the Lavel case i.e the laws for companies that are set up in that country apply. I would take his point on wage equalisation with a pinch of salt - focus on the word eventually. ireland was in the union 30 yrs before our boom, remember that.
Some people wish to vote no in an attempt to negotiate an overturn on this issue. Though i'm not sure how feasible that is.

The economic boom started in 1996, we joined in 1973, and therefore it took 23 years for the boom to happen. Anyhow 30/23 years is a short period of time in the grand scheme of things, it really is only one generation and the benefits of wage equalisation to future generations outweigh the costs to this generation.
It is completely unfeasible that the Laval case would somehow be overturned by the Lisbon treaty passing or failing. Either the council would have to amend the treaties, which they won’t do as free competition is what the ‘common market’ is all about.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

3. We would give powers to the EU to raise its own taxes from citizens of the member-states, leaving their governments with less to spend.

Absolute crap! The member states governments contribute to the EU budget on a basis of developed ‘rich’ nations contributing more and ‘poor’ underdeveloped nations receiving funds for development. There is no proposal for the EU to become a tax collector from any corner of the Union. If there was it would be subject to a unanimous decision in the council which means Ireland would get a veto, I even think it would require a whole new treaty and a referendum as the EU has no legal framework upon which to even introduce taxes.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

4. It would become obligatory to have competition in public services in such areas as health and education. This would lead to further privatisation and increased inequality. VOTE NO TO RESTRICTIONSON WORKERS RIGHTS.

Again more crap. The EU has no ability to privatise public sectors. Now technically speaking a private company could set up and start providing the same services as a free public service, but they would charge. Why would people pay for something they get from the government unless the government service was inefficient? It is our government that has decided to subsidise the private sector in the areas of health and education, it is not mandated by the EU.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

5. For five out of every fifteen years Ireland would not have a Commissioner: no-one at the table where all EU laws are proposed.

From another thread!
The Lisbon treaty adds specifics to the changes in the commission which the Nice treaty already agreed to. It also delays these changes due to come into force in 2009 till 2014. It lowers the number of commissioners from 27 to 18 so each commissioner has a proper role to fill and no bogus roles are created just to give each member a permanent seat. The number of commissioners will be fixed so future expansion of the Union will not result in more commissioners. Each county will have a commissioner for every 10 out of 15 years. The commission is supposed to work on behalf of the Union as a whole and not to represent the specific interests of individual states. Each commissioner speaks for their policy area (e.g. Finance, Justice and Policing) and they meet to discuss the requirements of the EU and to frame new legislation to suit the needs of the whole EU. In addition the commissioners oversee the implementation of policy in each of their areas.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

6. Ireland’s voting strength would be halved, while the big countries’ strength would be doubled.
7. Population size would be the new basis for voting in the Council of Ministers.

This is one of the no camps favourite bits of misinformation. They are only taking one requirement of the new double QMV system when there are in fact two requirements and they choose to ignore the more important one.
The Lisbon treaty reorganises the voting system of the Council. The council at the moment has a QMV system which gives each state a weighted vote which does not match their population size (e.g. Germany has 16% if the population but only has 8% of the vote, Ireland has 0.8% of the population but has 2% of the vote) and a 75% majority is required. It replaces this with a double QMV system whereby there are two requirements for legislation to pass. First it has to have 55% of member states in agreement, this currently gives each member state an equal 3.75% say. Second those member states in favour must represent at least 65% of the population, so here we have 0.8% weight and Germany has 16% weight. This double QMV the voting system roughly balanced in favour of smaller countries as it did before, in that an individual Irish citizen’s vote is still slightly more powerful than a German citizen’s.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

8. We would lose the power to block laws we don’t want in more than thirty new areas, including foreign affairs.

Just plain wrong, foreign affairs require a unanimous decision by the council, we retain a veto.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

9. Ireland would become active in EU military policy. A European armaments agency would be enshrined in the treaty.

We already are active in EU military policy. The ‘battle groups’ were setup under the Nice treaty. The EDA will allow us to collectively buy arms and equipment with other countries, this will save the taxpayer money as Ireland will benefit from economies of scale. Our so called “neutrality” will not be impacted as we retain a veto over military matters and we still cannot partake in any conflict with a Security Council resolution.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

10. For the first time ever, this treaty contains a “mutual defence” clause.

Yes but it does not include us proving military assistance. We are obliged to provide humanitarian assistance were possible.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

11. We would be obliged to spend more on defence—at a time when we need more money to develop our public services.

The wording of the treaty here is very vague. It obliges us to improve out military capability but it does not specify how. Legally speaking we could give our soldiers improved torches and we would have fulfilled our requirement.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

12. The treaty would make us part of the nuclear option: a legally binding protocol commits us to support Euratom.

We are already members if Euratom, it’s purpose is to provide a assistance to states who wish to build nuclear reactors and aid the free movement of nuclear technology and services around the union. It does not oblige us to build nuclear power plants.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

13. At WTO talks our influence on trade will be further weakened.

Wrong! We retain a veto over any WTO deals.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

14. The new EU would be able to negotiate treaties binding on Ireland—and we would have reduced voting rights to control this in the Council of Ministers.

Wrong! We retain a veto over all foreign policy matters.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

15. Future Treaty amendments could be made by the Council alone, without any need for a referendum.

Wrong! Any amendments to the treaties, which have not already been espoused to would require national ratification. In Irelands case if it impacts our constitution we would require a referendum.

johnnyq

sink wrote:

The wording of the treaty here is very vague. It obliges us to improve out military capability but it does not specify how. Legally speaking we could give our soldiers improved torches and we would have fulfilled our requirement.

It wouldn't be the only part of the treaty that's vague. Maybe the assurances on the protection of workers rights are equally vague? Maybe the *amazing* citizens initiative is also 'vague'?

Could it be more vague than sink's promises of wage equalisation in further generations? :pac:

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Could it be more vague than sink's promises of wage equalisation in further generations? :pac:

Wage equalisation is an accepted economic theory. I researched and wrote a paper on wage equalisation in the building industry in both the Polish and Irish markets for my final year. The speed at which it is happening very fast, the rate at which the Irish wage is increasing has halved over the past 4 years but the rate that the Polish wage is increasing has quadrupled. Our conclusion was that it will only take a decade for a Polish construction worker to be paid the exact same as an Irish construction worker. There was nothing vague about it. So there.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

The main thing we lose our referendum on is that if the government wishes to change the treaty on voting from uninimous to majority voting on the tax/military issues it can do so without a referendum.

Thats rubbish.
(1) Ireland can increase taxes if she wants(I presume you weren't talking about lowering them) and always has without a referendum.Lisbon doesn't change that and it's disingenous of you to suggest it does.
(2)We have a triple lock in place thats been pointed out to you several times across several threads now that you keep ignoring because you can't say it doesn't exist.Ireland can't and won't commit to a foreign war unless,there's government approval,Dáil approval and UNSC approval.

As sink said this is already the case from the Lavel case i.e the laws for companies that are set up in that country apply. I would take his point on wage equalisation with a pinch of salt - focus on the word eventually. ireland was in the union 30 yrs before our boom, remember that.
Some people wish to vote no in an attempt to negotiate an overturn on this issue. Though i'm not sure how feasible that is.

Again if you work in Ireland , you are subject to our minimum wage laws regardless of who your employer is.That does not change.
Why are you posting mis information?

Well we lose a MEP 13 to 12. and there is more majority voting of which ireland doesn't exactly hold much sway. So the loss of the vetos could be regarded as less power.

Actually policy in most vital areas has to be agreed by the council of ministers so what you are saying there is very much open to question.

Again the Socialists and some unions raise this point with a greater emphasis placed on free market in the treaty and the recent ECJ judgements in favour of big business over the rights of workers. Some posters more focused in this area may be able to give quotes for you. I'd say go to the socialist party website.

Lol-you are advising someone to go to the socialist party website..how very unbiased that would be...I don't think.
Mind you if you search their site,you'll find that Gama didn't get away with an attempt to impose Turkish conditions on Gama employee's.
It's always been the case that people working for companies in other countries have their own terms and conditions to work in other parts of the EU.
I mean wasn't that the whole basis as to Irish people going to England or America for decades...they got paid more over there.
Complaining about the opposite is a matter for the employee's themselves.If they are qualified,they can offer their services to an Irish company for the go-ing rate.

If as you have alluded elsewhere that you don't agree with that concept,it's a very leftist opinion and I think you are in good company with a lot of the more prominent no supporters.

I haven't personally seen any justification for this one. AFAIK governments still only raise the taxes, maybe contributions to the EU are going up? I don't know.

It's another non sequitor or blarney by the no side.
The bigger your GNP,the more you contribute.Thats not changing.

We are obligated to "improve military capabilities" which certainly sounds like increased spending. Now some here argue that this can be done without increasing spending, i.e. through research etc... of course how that research can be done without extra spending is beyond me. I agree that we need more money to develop public services.

Thats debateable.We cannot actually defend "Europe" at all without a UN resolution demanding that we defend it.

I don't know on this one. Do we lose the veto that the farmers are encouraging the government to use for the upcoming talks? If we only have vetos left on tax/defence it sounds like it, but not really sure.

The question there has nothing to do with Lisbon at all actually.It's the council of ministers that can approve or disapprove any draft WTO agreement.
We definitely DO have a veto there.
The main issue by the concerned parties there(including the farmers) is that they are wondering IF the government will actually use their veto.

So yes the council can make treaty amendments so long as it fits with the many objectives set out in the treaties. But not alone, it must obtain consent from the parliament.

Did you see the word "unanimously" in there?
Yes thats a veto area because the council must have full agreement.

sink

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats rubbish.
(1) Ireland can increase taxes if she wants(I presume you weren't talking about lowering them) and always has without a referendum.Lisbon doesn't change that and it's disingenous of you to suggest it does.
(2)We have a triple lock in place thats been pointed out to you several times across several threads now that you keep ignoring because you can't say it doesn't exist.Ireland can't and won't commit to a foreign war unless,there's government approval,Dáil approval and UNSC approval.

While what you are saying is essentialy correct you're not directly answering johnnyq's point. He is also correct that a unanimous vote by the council could make taxation and military matters subject to QMV. This is never going to happen, I would say at least 50% of member states would veto such a move.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again if you work in Ireland , you are subject to our minimum wage laws regardless of who your employer is.That does not change.
Why are you posting mis information?

I'm not 100% clear on this issue. But from what I have read from multiple sources, if you work for an Irish based company your pay is protected under Irish law. However if you are working for a foreign owned company which has been contracted to provide a service to the Irish market you are protected by the wage laws of your home country. This means that a Polish company can come over here and do some contracted work while paying it's staff Polish wages, once the contract is complete the companies workers returns home. It can't have offices or any sort of a base here, as it would be subject to Irish law.

The_Minister

turgon wrote: »

About sixty different policy areas. Full list on a pdf at the independent referendum commissions site:

If you disregard the one's that Ireland is opting out of, its thirty-something.

Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Trying to learn more about the LT.
Ok, from the Gluaiseacht an Phobail leaflet. I can see things that are plain wrong on it such as the commissioner thing etc, but I would like to know which of these are truth and which are not and why, maybe links to the treaty if possible?
I have also been told we lose our rights to have a referendum on a lot of things, is this true or not?

Hmm. First, it's not possible for the EU to override a member state's constitution (which member state would vote for that?). The No argument is a distortion of the following things:

1. Article 48 TFEU - the so-called "self-amendment" article, means that the Treaties can in future be amended the same way we amend our Constitution - amendment by amendment, rather than a whole new Treaty every time. Some of these amendments may not require a referendum, others will.

2. Certain issues can, in the future, be moved from unanimity to QMV voting without a referendum - because the option to do so is part of this referendum (last section of the amendment text).

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Also people are going on about everything being privatised, water etc? True? Not?

The provisions on public services (Article 14 TFEU and Protocol) "do not affect Member States' competence to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest" to quote the UK Foreign Office analysis. That is, they neither promote privatisation, nor prevent it.

The No argument rests on the idea that if the EU isn't preventing it, it's therefore promoting it.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I don't know a lot of this stuff yet as a fact.

Another point that I have heard from No people is that companies would be able to set up here and eg pay another countries wages to them, not irish minimum wages? ie, a latvian company paying lavian wage to it's latvian employees and so on.

This one is also irrelevant to Lisbon, and rests instead on an ECJ judgement known as the Laval case. If a Latvian company sets up here, or runs and office here, it is subject to Irish employment laws. However, the Laval judgement means that if a Latvian company gets a contract in Ireland it can send over Latvian workers to carry it out at Latvian rates.

The No argument here is based on the idea that, while Lisbon doesn't change anything relevant, it's bound to be more of the same because it's by the "same people".

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

The Gluaiseacht an Phobail Leaflet I was given:

1. Ireland would lose more influence, as power would be centralised in Brussels.

Heavy spin. There are a couple of new EU shared competences in Lisbon, but less than in any previous Treaty. The only areas that move to EU competence, though, are those areas the governments of the EU member states all agree are best handled jointly through the EU.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

2. We would lose the power to stop a “race to the bottom,” as EU “competition” laws would take legal precedence over established standards in workers’ wages and conditions.

False. That's taking the Laval judgement as the inch of truth, and turning it into a mile of bull. We don't have to lower our employment laws to compete with Latvian companies, and we are extremely unlikely to do so.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

3. We would give powers to the EU to raise its own taxes from citizens of the member-states, leaving their governments with less to spend.

False. A straightforward untruth. The EU has no direct taxation powers at all, and is never going to be given them in any foreseeable future.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

4. It would become obligatory to have competition in public services in such areas as health and education. This would lead to further privatisation and increased inequality. VOTE NO TO RESTRICTIONSON WORKERS RIGHTS.

False. This is yet another misreading of the articles on provisions on public services (Article 14 TFEU and Protocol). Governments remain fully entitled to run public service monopolies as they wish. However, if they do privatise a public service, the result must be open to competition - they cannot privatise CIE and then protect it as a monopoly for the benefit of their friends.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

5. For five out of every fifteen years Ireland would not have a Commissioner: no-one at the table where all EU laws are proposed.

True but weaselly. The reduction in the size of the Commission is written into Nice already, so voting No will not preserve the status quo. However, the preferred ideas of the big countries are (a) permanent Commissioners for the big countries, rotating for the small; or (b) senior Commissioners for the big countries, and junior (non-voting) Commissioners for the small. Lisbon is a much better deal for the small countries, and Ireland fought hard to get it. A No vote puts it up for grabs again, with Ireland in an embarrassing position.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

6. Ireland’s voting strength would be halved, while the big countries’ strength would be doubled.

False - overly simplistic. There's a guy on politics.ie who did a very thorough analysis of this, and it turns out to be untrue. Ireland loses 6% of its current ability to block legislation, gains 6% in ability to pass legislation, and is the decisive vote in 36% less cases. We're actually gaining in influence relative to most of the mid-rank countries.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

7. Population size would be the new basis for voting in the Council of Ministers.

True. It's already part of the current voting system. However, the current three criteria (number of votes, number of states, population) are being reduced to two (number of states, population). The results are as indicated above.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

8. We would lose the power to block laws we don’t want in more than thirty new areas, including foreign affairs.

Er, no. What would that even mean? Presumably refers, rather distortedly, to the new QMV areas. We lose vetoes, not the ability to block.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

9. Ireland would become active in EU military policy. A European armaments agency would be enshrined in the treaty.

Heavy spin. Ireland has a constitutional bar on joining EU common defence arrangements. We are already involved in the 'battlegroups' system, but we only participate with the EU where the EU is acting for the UN - and that won't change. The European Defence Agency already exists, and we are already paying members (€350K/year).

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

10. For the first time ever, this treaty contains a “mutual defence” clause.

Essentially false. That's a very free rendering of Article 42.7 TEU, which actually states:

"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."

There is no obligation of "mutual defence" there, and we would be precluded from offering military assistance by our neutrality - which is the "specific character of the security and defence policy" of Ireland.

Other member states, who are neither neutral nor in NATO, could use this clause to establish mutual defence. However, that limits it to Cyprus and Malta.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

11. We would be obliged to spend more on defence—at a time when we need more money to develop our public services.

False. Again, that's an extremely specific interpretation of this (42.3 TEU):

"Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities."

Progressive improvement of Ireland's military capabilities is already the mission of the Department of Defence. No targets are given in the Treaty, and there is no commitment to increased spending either. The clause is essentially aspirational, since it turns out that, legally, it can only be interpreted by each member state.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

12. The treaty would make us part of the nuclear option: a legally binding protocol commits us to support Euratom.

False.

1. We're already Euratom signatories.

2. Euratom is strictly civilian only.

3. In all the time we've been Euratom signatories, we've never been pressed to use nuclear energy.

4. Lisbon's only Euratom commitment is continuing Euratom. A No to Lisbon will continue Euratom. A Yes to Lisbon will continue Euratom.

Why is this even part of the debate?

13. At WTO talks our influence on trade will be further weakened.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

14. The new EU would be able to negotiate treaties binding on Ireland—and we would have reduced voting rights to control this in the Council of Ministers.

True but weaselly. The EU already negotiates binding treaties. We will have 6% less ability to block them on the Council. Big whoop.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

15. Future Treaty amendments could be made by the Council alone, without any need for a referendum.
http://www.people.ie/leaflet/voteno.pdf

False both in the specific claim, and in the implication. The Council can agree proposed amendments, which then need to be ratified by all member states according to their own constitutional requirements - which in our case may or may not require a referendum, depending on the specific amendment. If it would have required a referendum as part of a Treaty, it will still require a referendum as an amendment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

sink wrote: »

I'm not 100% clear on this issue. But from what I have read from multiple sources, if you work for an Irish based company your pay is protected under Irish law. However if you are working for a foreign owned company which has been contracted to provide a service to the Irish market you are protected by the wage laws of your home country. This means that a Polish company can come over here and do some contracted work while paying it's staff Polish wages, once the contract is complete the companies workers returns home. It can't have offices or any sort of a base here, as it would be subject to Irish law.

This isn't changed by the Lisbon treaty and applies to non EU countries aswell.
It works both ways in that you can work in a low wage low cost country for your Irish employer.
On that flip side,I doubt too many from rich countries would be happy to take the foreign local rate despite the cost of living being way lower there.
Similarally theres little point in foreign workers asking for an immediate equalisation of pay with the richer country as it would throw their economy out of kilter.
Thats just normal practicality.

sink

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't changed by the Lisbon treaty

I know that I mentioned it in my original post.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. We're already Euratom signatories.

2. Euratom is strictly civilian only.

3. In all the time we've been Euratom signatories, we've never been pressed to use nuclear energy.

4. Lisbon's only Euratom commitment is continuing Euratom. A No to Lisbon will continue Euratom. A Yes to Lisbon will continue Euratom.

Why is this even part of the debate?
cordially,
Scofflaw

I'll hazzard a guess.
It's there to pad out the No literature.
10 misrepresentations look more pressing to worry about when you read them together as opposed to 9 or 8 etc etc.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

Wage equalisation is an accepted economic theory. There was nothing vague about it. So there.

Ok my economic knowledge let me down!

Just remember that an economic theory is just that - a theory. Theory does not equal crystal ball.

It's not like those theories have exactly been getting things right lately, unpredicted credit crunch and all that:)

Sorry to any economists I may be offending in this post!

sink @ black briar wrote:

While what you are saying is essentialy correct you're not directly answering johnnyq's point. He is also correct that a unanimous vote by the council could make taxation and military matters subject to QMV. This is never going to happen, I would say at least 50% of member states would veto such a move.

I am still awaiting a response to this point BB. A 100% admission of defeat is not necessary just some form of apology or "not in fact more rubbish" comment will do. This is the second time that a poster on the Yes side has corrected you on purposefully misinterpreting my posts.

Scofflaw

sink wrote:

While what you are saying is essentialy correct you're not directly answering johnnyq's point. He is also correct that a unanimous vote by the council could make taxation and military matters subject to QMV. This is never going to happen, I would say at least 50% of member states would veto such a move.

Hmm. To clarify, a unanimous vote by the Council cannot make direct taxation subject to QMV, because it isn't subject to the EU at all. That would include corporate taxation.

Nor can military matters be moved to QMV by the Council 'passerelle':

Article 31 TEU wrote:

3. The European Council may unanimously adopt a decision stipulating that the Council shall act by a qualified majority in cases other than those referred to in paragraph 2.
4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

I am still awaiting a response to this point BB. A 100% admission of defeat is not necessary just some form of apology or "not in fact more rubbish" comment will do. This is the second time that a poster on the Yes side has corrected you on purposefully misinterpreting my posts.

If you go back and read your own post You'll see that you ignored the word unanimous in what you quoted from the treaty.
Unanimous means everybody has to agree.
Ergo if Ireland doesn't on that particular issue-theres no implimentation of it.
You were quoting it to show a veto gone...when you made the statement "yes the council can make treaty ammendments" at the bottom of post 3

I suspect of course you already know this however which would make your postings bizarre but carry on..
Proponents of a yes vote have little to fear from that kind of elementary tom foolery.

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. To clarify, a unanimous vote by the Council cannot make direct taxation subject to QMV, because it isn't subject to the EU at all. That would include corporate taxation.

Nor can military matters be moved to QMV by the Council 'passerelle':
cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you Scofflaw, especially for the clarrification on defence. What I am curious about though is if virtually all areas go to QMV and as you say defence/tax are unanimous/irrelevant areas then what is the point of the following from the referendum commission website:

Referendum Commission wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty also proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the Treaties so as to allow Qualified Majority Voting to operate in certain areas where unanimity is now required. It will also give them the power to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in certain areas where a Special Legislative Procedure applies at present. Any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council.

This means that any national government may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, any national parliament may prevent these changes coming into effect. Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland.

The power to change from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting or from the Special Legislative Procedure to a Ordinary Legislative Procedure does not extend to military and defence issues.

It could apply, for example, to taxation where unanimity is required at present. However as outlined earlier in this website, any such proposed change could be vetoed by the Irish government.

johnnyq

Two points

Deleted User wrote: »

If you go back and read your own post You'll see that you ignored the word unanimous in what you quoted from the treaty.

Which would be great if that was even the same area which sink quoted; from p1. But it wasn't :rolleyes: You are responding to pt 15

black briar wrote:

You were quoting it to show a veto gone...when you made the statement "yes the council can make treaty ammendments" at the bottom of post 3

Ok so what was the point 15 and my response:

15. Future Treaty amendments could be made by the Council alone, without any need for a referendum.

johnnyq wrote:

This is my favourite article 308 which reads

article 308 wrote:

If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided
the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.

So yes the council can make treaty amendments so long as it fits with the many objectives set out in the treaties. But not alone, it must obtain consent from the parliament.

I never mentioned the word 'veto' or whether or not it was unaninimous or not.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

Two points



Which would be great if that was even the same area which sink quoted; from p1. But it wasn't :rolleyes: You are responding to pt 15

Wrong.I was reponding to your post about my response to sinks.
But then you know that don't you.

Ok so what was the point 15 and my response:

I never mentioned the word 'veto' or whether or not it was unaninimous or not.

Oh really..

You posted a piece from the treaty here ... conveniently ignoring that the word unanimous is in the paragraph posted.
Unanimous in that way means a veto for all the council members individually or collectively should they oppose a proposal.

Scofflaw informs us of course that you are incorrect in the above anyway.

I didn't say you used the word veto in that post I implied it and used the actual word veto in the description of your implication.
I still think thats what you meant regardless of the wriggling.

johnnyq

You keep mixing up the two areas of 1)Article 308 and 2)Article XX on the move from unanimous to QMV voting. They aren't the same thing.

blackbriar wrote:

Scofflaw informs us of course that you are incorrect in the above anyway.

This is what scofflaw has corrected me on:

johnnyq wrote:

The main thing we lose our referendum on is that if the government wishes to change the treaty on voting from uninimous to majority voting on the tax/military issues it can do so without a referendum.

Two things still outstand:
1) The issue of taxation which was presented on the Referendum Comm website
2) Article 308 - on changing the powers to implement treaty objectives. NOT the same as the voting changes

Deleted User wrote: »

Wrong.I was reponding to your post about my response to sinks.

Sink quoted what you typed and then you defended it by referring to a different part of my reply. I think we'll have to leave it to the court of public opinion to decide who is right.

blackbriar wrote:

You posted a piece from the treaty here ... conveniently ignoring that the word unanimous is in the paragraph posted.

Again that article has nothing to do with the issue of QMV which is what you were complaining about in the first place.

black briar wrote:

I still think thats what you meant regardless of the wriggling.

At least i'm man enough to admit I misread something.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

You keep mixing up the two areas of 1)Article 308 and 2)Article XX on the move from unanimous to QMV voting. They aren't the same thing.

Thats an audacious post if ever I saw one.
I've mixed up nothing.
At all times I'm refering you your contrived worries about the treaties ability to "unanimously" vote for something that wouldn't be voted for by an Irish government in a billion years.
Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
For taxation-firstly it's ludicrous to be talking about it as Lisbon doesn't affect it and secondly it's also ludicrous to mention it with respect to the ability or otherwise of the council to affect it as the only worry could be that the Irish government would vote to do down our tax advantages.
Thats utterly ludicrous.

Sink quoted what you typed and then you defended it by referring to a different part of my reply. I think we'll have to leave it to the court of public opinion to decide who is right.

Go back and read it again.
I Quoted some of sinks post as a reference for a point I wanted to make.
If you think anything else about that , then you are wrong.

Again that article has nothing to do with the issue of QMV which is what you were complaining about in the first place.

Hello ? It is you that is complaining regularally about QMV.I was merely pointing out there one big area that you needn't worry as regards that.
You had missed the importance of the word unanimous in the article you quoted.
Sink clarified it for you.
I did aswell.

At least i'm man enough to admit I misread something.

Attack the post and not the poster is the rule around here.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats an audacious post if ever I saw one.
I've mixed up nothing.
At all times I'm refering you your contrived worries about the treaties ability to "unanimously" vote for something that wouldn't be voted for by an Irish government in a billion years.
Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.

the treaties ability to unanimously vote? What are you talking about?

I can't respond until you clarify (i) your view and (ii) your representation of my view.

For taxation-firstly it's ludicrous to be talking about it as Lisbon doesn't affect it and secondly it's also ludicrous to mention it with respect to the ability or otherwise of the council to affect it as the only worry could be that the Irish government would vote to do down our tax advantages.
Thats utterly ludicrous.

Ok this is a bit clearer. I am not even arguing these points re: taxation. All I wanted clarified was whether the the unanimous voting to QMV applies to taxation or not. You can save your condemnations and no i'm not suggesting the gov is voting down the tax advantages.

Go back and read it again.
I Quoted some of sinks post as a reference for a point I wanted to make.
If you think anything else about that , then you are wrong.
Hello ? It is you that is complaining regularally about QMV.I was merely pointing out there one big area that you needn't worry as regards that.
You had missed the importance of the word unanimous in the article you quoted.
Sink clarified it for you.
I did aswell.

You keep drawing the link between that article and QMV. The word unanimous in that article is of no baring to QMV. Do you think that article is related to QMV? is this why you keep dragging it up?

Attack the post and not the poster is the rule around here.

You're Right... I apologise and withdraw all calls for black briar to admit to being wrong. Even the suggestion of BB being wrong itself is an insult.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

the treaties ability to unanimously vote? What are you talking about?

I can't respond until you clarify (i) your view and (ii) your representation of my view.

The treaties coferring of that power on the EU.

Ok this is a bit clearer. I am not even arguing these points re: taxation. All I wanted clarified was whether the the unanimous voting to QMV applies to taxation or not. You can save your condemnations and no i'm not suggesting the gov is voting down the tax advantages.

You accept then that taxation is a nation state competency completely?
Then there was no need for your last question to scofflaw .
Both are abilities that just happen to be possible but not going to happen.
The referendum commission merely mentions the possibility that they could happen because it is obliged to say that.
It's similar to me saying that the pope can have sex but we all know he doesn't or at least we have no evidence that he does.
We can be confident that he won't.

You keep drawing the link between that article and QMV. The word unanimous in that article is of no baring to QMV. Do you think that article is related to QMV? is this why you keep dragging it up?

I didn't say it was a barring.
I said it meant that issues that require unanimity including changes to the treaty are examples of a veto.

You're Right... I apologise and withdraw all calls for black briar to admit to being wrong. Even the suggestion of BB being wrong itself is an insult.

Playing the man and not the ball again? how unsurprising.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

The treaties coferring of that power on the EU.

Grrr, i've nothing to work with here.

I think a big problem between us is that you appear to me to be taking up my opinions incorrectly. At first I thought you were doing this on purpose but the longer and longer this drags out it appears that you honestly think that I have certain views which I don't. When I ask for a clarification from you I get something like the above. Now I will proceed based on what I think you are trying to say, but it's very easy for you to scream 'LUDICRIOUS RUBBISH' when I can't make sense of what your objections are.

Ok so, this is your original post.

black briar wrote:

At all times I'm refering you your contrived worries about the treaties ability to "unanimously" vote for something that wouldn't be voted for by an Irish government in a billion years.

Now I will take it you've changed it to:

blackbriar wrote:

At all times I'm refering you your contrived worries about the treaties coferring of that power on the EU to vote for something that wouldn't be voted for by an Irish government in a billion years.

I never said that the EU could override the government since it still holds its tax/military vetos

My point in this whole veto area is that the government loses that veto in a variety of areas not including tax/military under this treaty and that this treaty allows the government (unanimously with others) to vote to change certain areas remaining under unanimous voting to QMV (and Scofflaw has pointed out this excludes military) in the remaining unanimous areas.
The likelihood of this is not important.

Deleted User wrote:

You accept then that taxation is a nation state competency completely?

But it's not - VAT is an EU introduced tax after all. I think you may have needed to include 'direct taxation' into your assertion above btw.

Then there was no need for your last question to scofflaw .
Both are abilities that just happen to be possible but not going to happen.
The referendum commission merely mentions the possibility that they could happen because it is obliged to say that.

Well isn't it important that they outline what is possible under this treaty. Should they just ignore what they think is or is not likely? They're the ones providing the facts not opinions on likelihood. Hence my question about it in the first place.
P.s. It's unnecessary to launch into a 'it's ludicrous' tryade because I mentioned the word 'taxation'. If something is possible I want to know about it and not be railroaded over because you don't *think* it might happen.

black briar wrote:

I said it meant that issues that require unanimity including changes to the treaty are examples of a veto.

I didn't say that Article 308 could be changed without unanimous voting. I only brought it up in the first place in response to this point about the need for a referendum. Veto/no veto didn't matter here, it was all about the need for a referendum.

15. Future Treaty amendments could be made by the Council alone, without any need for a referendum.

black briar wrote:

Playing the man and not the ball again? how unsurprising.

Sigh, I apologised, take it or leave it.

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

But it's not - VAT is an EU introduced tax after all. I think you may have needed to include 'direct taxation' into your assertion above btw.

VAT is a state competancy.The only EU rule in relation to it as far as I am aware is that it should be the rate applied in the country of sale that is charged to the customer.Nothing to do with Lisbon.

Well isn't it important that they outline what is possible under this treaty. Should they just ignore what they think is or is not likely? They're the ones providing the facts not opinions on likelihood. Hence my question about it in the first place.

Your opinion looked to me like a loaded one though.
I understand that the law requires the REF Com to state something is theoretically possible if it is.It looked like a suggestion that the Irish government wouldn't veto proposals harmfull to Ireland when it has the power to do so as stated in the article you posted.
I don't see the worry.

P.s. It's unnecessary to launch into a 'it's ludicrous' tryade because I mentioned the word 'taxation'. If something is possible I want to know about it and not be railroaded over because you don't *think* it might happen.

It's a red herring though.
You may aswell say it's going to be Lisbons fault that taxes will rise because well the Irish government will be meeting with socialists more often now because theres a socialist government somewhere in the EU and theres a risk that they will brainwash the Irish government.
Theoretically possible but zero likelyhood.

I didn't say that Article 308 could be changed without unanimous voting. I only brought it up in the first place in response to this point about the need for a referendum. Veto/no veto didn't matter here, it was all about the need for a referendum.

Fine thats that clarified then.
It's still un important from a national perspective as the elected government has a veto.Thats why I harp on about the word unanimity.

Sigh, I apologised, take it or leave it.

I didn't look for one or require one and the one that was given wasn't genuine anyway as it was couched in a taunt.
Water off a ducks back to me.I just would rather a discussion at the end of the day.
Lets park it so if you wish

johnnyq

I understand that the law requires the REF Com to state something is theoretically possible if it is.......
You may aswell say it's going to be Lisbons fault that taxes will rise because well the Irish government will be meeting with socialists more often now because theres a socialist government somewhere in the EU and theres a risk that they will brainwash the Irish government.
Theoretically possible but zero likelyhood.

I must have skipped past that possibility when reading the referendum commission booklet.

[TREND]

Deleted User wrote:

You accept then that taxation is a nation state competency completely?

johnnyq wrote:

But it's not - VAT is an EU introduced tax after all.

Deleted User wrote: »

VAT is a state competancy.The only EU rule in relation to ......Nothing to do with Lisbon.

[/TREND]

How can you argue against this? Where did I suggest that VAT was part of Lisbon?!? /dumbfounded

johnnyq

johnnyq wrote: »

How can you argue against this? Where did I suggest that VAT was part of Lisbon?!? /dumbfounded

If we are talking about trends..I've noticed a trend by your good self to assume every thing typed after a quote is an assertion against what is wrote in the quote.
It's only that really if it's stated as that.
My point was really that tax is irrelevant to the discussion on the treaty as it's a national competence.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't have time to read all this at more than a glance as I'm off to paris for a week or two, to delve deep into how the people feel about the LT obviously, but I'll be back. Don't think I have forgotton about you. Thanks for the replies.
One thing again is the vetoes we lose, The Minister says we lose thirty and there is a list up there too, are any of them important? Ie do any matter at all, I can't see a reason for vetoing Election of the President of the European Council by the European Council etc. Which of this do you think actually matter when it comes to unanimity and so on? People seem to think losing a veto is the end of the world. I don't know much about it in terms of this tbh.

Au revoir,
merci beaucoup.

humanji

So you start a big thread on the treaty and won't even be here to vote? :P