Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon Treaty Facts and Myths
Options
-
09-06-2008 12:28am#1I found this posted as a comment on an article here. I haven't read the article itself, but I thought this was a good post that helped sort some of the facts about Lisbon from the myths. The poster seems to be in favour of a Yes vote, but it's relatively objective, and at the very least it might be useful to someone in the rapidly shrinking "undecided" camp.
Here it is:FACTS:
*European Parliament
The Treaty will cap the number of MEPs at 750. States will be
guaranteed a minimum of 6 seats and a maximum of 96. Under these new
rules and the current make up of the EU Ireland will lose 1 MEP bringing
our number of MEPs to 12.
*EU Commission
The size of commission (currently 27) will be reduced from 2014. Every
state will have equal rights to appoint a commissioner. This will mean
that Ireland will have an appointee on the commission every 10 years out
of 15, as will all other EU members.
*President of the EU Council
Currently the presidency of the Council of Ministers rotates among
member states every 6 months. A full time president of the council will
be elected by member state governments for a maximum of five years. The
hosting of the EU Council will be carried out by a trio of member states
for a period of 18 months.
*High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs
The EU currently has two main external representatives; the Council's
High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and the
Commissioner for External Affairs. These two positions will be merged
creating a single position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy. The office holder will become Vice President of the
Commission and will chair the Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers. This
persons role will be to co-ordinate the external activities of the EU.
*Move from Veto to Majority Voting
A number of areas are being moved from being veto issues at the European
Council to being governed by a qualifying majority. In a number of
these areas Ireland can also choose to opt out
*New Double Majority System
The Treaty also changes how qualified majority voting works; if the
Treaty is passed, double majority voting will come into force in 2014.
This means that for proposed legislation to be approved by the Council,
the support of 55% of the Member States will be required, and in
addition they must comprise 65% of the Union's population. This is
supposed to ensure that no bloc (either the small member states or the
large ones) can gang up on another.
*New Role for National Parliaments
When new legislation is proposed national parliaments can consider
whether this new legislation is an area that should be governed by the
EU or whether it should be decided locally under the principle of
subsidiarity. National parliaments will have an eight-week period to
offer a reasoned opinion on whether a Commission proposal is breeching
subsidiarity. If at least one third of the votes of national parliaments
request it, the proposal must be reviewed.
If a Commission proposal for EU legislation is opposed by more than half
of the votes allocated to national parliaments (which is one per chamber
in a bicameral system and two per chamber in a unicameral system), the
Commission must justify its proposal in a reasoned opinion and it may be
blocked by the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament.
*Justice & Home Affairs- Irish Opt out
Justice and Home Affairs has been changed from being a veto area to a
qualified majority area. The areas affected include terrorism, human
trafficking, drug trafficking, corruption, money laundering,
counterfeiting, computer crime and organised crime. Ireland has chosen
to opt out of these provisions, along with the UK, but with an option to
opt in on a case-by-case basis. These arrangements are to be reviewed
within three years of the Treaty entering into force.
*Charter of Fundamental Rights
The Lisbon Treaty states that the Union is founded on the values of
respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law
and respect for human rights of persons belonging to minorities. The
Treaty will also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding
for the first time. The Charter consolidates and reflects the human
rights which are already set down in European and Irish law.
*Citizens' Initiative
If 1 million signatures are collected across the EU on a particular
issue, the Commission have to consider it and issue a response. Such an
initiative however does not bind the commission to take further action
on the issue in question.
*Leaving the EU
One of the things that the Lisbon Treaty does is
that it provides a clear mechanism for a memberstate to leave the EU for
the first time. So if we do get the disaster scenario that some of the
opponents paint; ie children conscripted to fight in Russian, a single
50% EU corporation tax rate, Brussel's owned nuclear power stations at
Tara, forced abortions for all etc etc we can always just leave.
MYTHS
"This will be the last EU referendum"
Certain groups are arguing the Art 48 of the Treaty makes the Treaty
self amending and that this means that the Irish people will never again
have a chance to vote on an EU treaty.
This is false. The Treaty is not self-amending and can only be amended
in accordance with the constitutional requirements of each member state.
Changes within the Treaty to allow the EU to acquire any new competences
must be ratified by each member state in accordance with their own
Constitutional requirements. Ireland must hold a referendum. Proposals
to amend the Treaties require unanimous approval by the European Council
and must be ratified in Ireland through a referendum or Oireachtas
approval. Moving an area from unanimity to QMV requires the simplified
revision procedure. Article 1.56 of the Treaty clearly states that any
national government or any national Parliament may veto any proposal by
the European Council. This provides an effective double lock because
complete and unanimous approval of governments and Parliaments is
needed. Military and defense decisions cannot be moved from unanimity
to QMV by the Simplified Revision Procedure.
"The Lisbon Treaty means that the EU can set Ireland' corporation tax rates"
Opponents of the Treaty have made various claims regarding Irish
corporation tax, including that the commission or the ECJ could force
Ireland to change its corporation tax rates or that we could be forced
to adopt a new common corporation tax base system
These are both false. Corporation tax is unchanged by the treaty. Any
move towards a common corporation tax base would require unanimous
support; Ireland, the UK and Slovenia strongly oppose any such move.
The EU Commission originally approved Ireland's lower 12.5% tax rate in
the 1990s. Recent ECJ rulings confirm that the court will not interfere
in member states' corporation tax rate.
>The Lisbon Treaty will force Ireland to change its abortion laws
Yeah this one comes out at every EU treaty. This time treaty opponents
are linking it to the Charter of Fundamental Rights
This is false. The Maastricht Protocal secured in the 1990s means that
no EU treaty or future treaty can impact Ireland's constitutional
provisions on abortion. Abortion law is governed separately by member
states.
"The Lisbon Treaty gives EU law supremacy over Irish law for the first time"
Lisbon opponents are pointing to provisions of the Treaty (in particular
the change to the Irish constitution which will enable the ratification
of the Lisbon Treaty) which state that it overrules Irish law.
This has been a feature of all previous EU treaties. Certain aspects of
EU law have had supremacy over Irish law for decades. The Lisbon Treaty
doesn't change this.
"The Lisbon Treaty marks the end of Irish Neutrality"
Treaty opponents have argued that Ireland will no longer be a neutral
country, that we will be forced to spend more money on defense and that
we will be obliged to defend other EU states if they are attacked.
This is one that is also rolled out at every EU treaty. The EU does
have a defensive infrastructure, that is why Irish troops are going to
Chad as part of an EU battlegroup. This though is taking part under a
UN mandate. Under article 28a of the treaty, the common defence policy
is made subject to the individual defence policies of member states. In
the case of Ireland, this means our position of military neutrality is
not affected. We retain the right to veto any proposed defence or
military action. This applies for example to the launch of any crisis
management mission. Ireland can also opt-out of any activity that it
does not want to be a part of. Irish defence policy is governed by the
'Triple Lock'. Irish troops can not be deployed abroad unless the
Government and the Oireachtas agree and there is a UN mandate for the
mission. Ireland cannot join any common defence arrangement without a
separate referendum of the Irish people. This position is explicitly
stated in the proposed amendment to the constitution. If we ratify the
treaty we will be writing neutrality into the Irish constitution.
Article 28a paragraph 7 of the Treaty refers to the Solidarity Clause
which clearly means that neutral states like Ireland cannot be forced to
take part in a military comment against their will, even if another
member state is attacked.
Furthermore the Reform Treaty does not require Ireland to increase its
military spending. The Treaty states that "Member States shall
undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". There
are no specific commitments as to levels of expenditure nor is there any
scope for these to be imposed. In the EU context, the improvement of
such capabilities is in order to provide the Union with the capacity to
carry out widely-supported crisis management tasks.0
Comments
-
Couple of minor points:*European Parliament
The Treaty will cap the number of MEPs at 750. States will be
guaranteed a minimum of 6 seats and a maximum of 96. Under these new
rules and the current make up of the EU Ireland will lose 1 MEP bringing
our number of MEPs to 12.
Will also happen if Lisbon does not pass. Also, in both cases, we are expected to get the 13th MEP* back at the next review if Irish population growth continues as at present.*EU Commission
The size of commission (currently 27) will be reduced from 2014. Every
state will have equal rights to appoint a commissioner. This will mean
that Ireland will have an appointee on the commission every 10 years out
of 15, as will all other EU members.
Reduction in the Commission will happen next year if Lisbon does not pass. Exact details to be determined, but will definitely be a rotating Commission as per Lisbon, and almost certainly will be exactly the same as proposed in Lisbon.
*Mary-Lou (sorry - couldn't resist).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
seems to be in favour of a 'Yes' ????
They wrote:So if we do get the disaster scenario that some of the
opponents paint; ie children conscripted to fight in Russian, a single
50% EU corporation tax rate, Brussel's owned nuclear power stations at
Tara, forced abortions for all etc etc we can always just leave.
That's far from impartial. Statements like this with a preamble that "some of the No side are saying this", when it is clearly not a valid analysis of what most on the No side are saying, is why many people are in fact voting No! Scare tactics works both ways and can backfire.
It is hard disentangling the web of myths and so-called facts perpetutated by both sides and reasoned debate on the treaty is difficult to find. This is what most people are finding as they listen to both sides that twist things around.
I heard a bit of Ulick McEvaddy and Ruari Quinn over the weekend and I thought Ulick didnt answer all the issues that Ruari raised. I thought Ruari held more than his own on the debate, but has more practice, and many of the things he was mentioning was not exactly Labour Party doctrine. One thing which is a moot point being paraded by the Labour Party is the increase in democracy that the Lisbon Treaty affords. That is rubbish as in practice the countries that could have put the Treaty to a referendum chose not too. That is the practical aspect of so-called democracy. People rarely get a chance to vote on issues, far too rarely imo.
One thing Cowen said over the weekend which is not good:Cowen wrote:A 'No' vote will marginalise our influence, and that we say to other member states we don’t agree with the consensus that has been arrived at.
This is warped logic and is a myth. Our referendum is part of the consensus process. To say that we would be breaking the consensus by voting No directly implies that only a Yes is the consensus answer, as if the result of the referendum is expected by definition of consensus to be a Yes. This is balderdash, and thats a nice way of putting it. Our vote, Yes or No, is part of the consensus process. And if we vote No, the Lisbon Treaty is not passed that THAT IS THE CONSENSUS. We only have the referendum because our government has been forced too. Just becuse a consus was reached in the drafting of the treaty does not mean that it is the consensus reached. Even Brain Cowen should know that.
What galls me is that so-called leaders of our country state such things and say that they represent us.
A No vote, will if anything do the opposite of marginalisation, and will perhaps make the EU sit up and listen to the people of Ireland.
Perhaps its time you made your voice heard .... either way, vote wisely.
Redspider0 -
-
A No vote, will if anything do the opposite of marginalisation, and will perhaps make the EU sit up and listen to the people of Ireland.
Perhaps its time you made your voice heard .... either way, vote wisely.
Redspider
This is not necessarily true and I've commented a number of times on what a No may or may not mean.
However I think that the EU will learn a number of things from this from a Yes vote.
1. Referenda amongst 27 nations are fraught with difficulties and run the risk of being lumped with all the discontent in individual countries. There is always the temptation of mischief especially where a government is unpopular. Part of this problem I would argue goes to the nub of the ineffectual attempts to explain to people what was going on. By this I mean over the last 7 years, although having our ex leader in the driving seat was never going to be conducive to that.
In my view they will avoid these like the plague in the future and find ways to produce legislation that does not necessitate one. The input of national parliaments into legislation will allow us more input.
2. The extended democracy element of the new treaty will need to be addressed above anything else. Apart from the usual suspects there does seem to be a disconnect between people and the EU and I would expect them to recognise this.
3. The implementation of all that is in Lisbon must be transparent and done so as to allow substantive input into it from all stakeholders.0 -
This is warped logic and is a myth. Our referendum is part of the consensus process. To say that we would be breaking the consensus by voting No directly implies that only a Yes is the consensus answer, as if the result of the referendum is expected by definition of consensus to be a Yes. This is balderdash, and thats a nice way of putting it. Our vote, Yes or No, is part of the consensus process. And if we vote No, the Lisbon Treaty is not passed that THAT IS THE CONSENSUS. We only have the referendum because our government has been forced too. Just becuse a consus was reached in the drafting of the treaty does not mean that it is the consensus reached. Even Brain Cowen should know that.
There is merit in your argument, however it's important to acknowledge the terrible dilemma faced by representative democracies when negotiating international treaties. These negotiations have in effect been going on for 8 years. You cannot easily go back to the people during that time and solicit opinions on how they feel you are doing. Apart from the fact that very few people would get involved (the "elite"?), the other problem would be that you would have to make public to the other countries your intentions and what you were prepared to give up in return for something. I would add though that some of the debates did go on in public, and where were Libertas then?
There is no easy answer to this. I'm inclined to say that a representative government should take the appropriate decisions on behalf of the public, unless the issue is very easy to explain and clearly understandable. An international treaty covering 27 countries is unlikely to be like that. No matter what people say it's not cast in stone, there's always another treaty. Brian Cowen was quoted as saying that this would settle matters for 1/2/3 decades. Maybe. But this treaty has been close to one decade in the making already, so I suspect one may be more in line with what happens.
So, while I hear what you are saying, I feel sympathy for Brian and the guys... including Fine Gael and other parties that participated in the negotiations over many years. Most people seem to really distrust the politicians, but every 5 years they do submit themselves to a public vote to keep or lose their jobs.
I understand that some people are angry at them for the tone with which they are demanding a yes vote. On the other hand maybe some people can understand for example Brian Cowen's anger at being told that he never read the treaty (a massive exaggeration of an ill-advised comment about not reading it cover to cover) when he was instrumental in creating it. In effect all yes politicians are being called stupid/lazy/devious for promoting the treaty. I'd suggest they are not handing that well, but I'm not sure I would either.
Ix.0 -
Advertisement
-
(1)These negotiations have in effect been going on for 8 years. You cannot easily go back to the people during that time and solicit opinions. I would add though that some of the debates did go on in public, and where were Libertas then?
(2)I'm inclined to say that a representative government should take the appropriate decisions on behalf of the public, unless the issue is very easy to explain and clearly understandable. An international treaty covering 27 countries is unlikely to be like that.
(1) They should have done a better job at coming back to the people and keeping the people engaged. They knew they had to come to the people for a referendum, so why delay it to the last minute. I do recognise that engagement with the people can be ignored by the people when the subject matter is deemed uninteresting. I agree that there was no sign of Libertas and they are an unusual development to say the least. They do not do the No side any favours at times, as people will have one or more of many reasons for voting No, nothing to do with Libertas' suggestions, and likewise Yes voters will have one or more of many reasons for voting Yes, nothing to do with FF, FG and the many other Yes proponents.
(2) If our representatives should make every decision, then we should abolish referenda altogether. Yes, complex issues can be deemed 'too complex' for the electorate in a way, but if voting for a representative where they are supposed to represent us on 1000's of issues is any less complex than just voting on this Treaty, thats incorrect. The Lisbon Treaty, yes, it may be more complex to lay before the electorate, but it is less complex than a voter deciding on a representative and predicting what they will support on their behalf, including complex issues such as the Lisbon Treaty. (We could erode democracy further by just appointing Commisioners rather than voting for them - oh wait, that's the current situation! ;-) )
Any efforts trying to get 27 countries to agree together is fraught with difficulties. Perhaps there is an argument that the EU has become too big too fast, and countries have not been integrated in a step-wise and manageable manner and they are not in-step with each other in terms of the EU vision, where its going and the ideal. The expansion has gone 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25, 27 ....
Many countries have opt-outs on a range of issues. We have opted out of Schengen. We have opted for the Euro, a central tenet, yet others remain outside of that. Membership of the EU can only be on an a la carte basis, and in that regard it is possible to vote No to Lisbon because there are a few aspects which are deficient. Sure, it may have taken 8 years to get here, but duration of time shouldnt mean that we reduce the level of quality we expect and aspirations we have.
Redspider0 -
(1) They should have done a better job at coming back to the people and keeping the people engaged. They knew they had to come to the people for a referendum, so why delay it to the last minute. I do recognise that engagement with the people can be ignored by the people when the subject matter is deemed uninteresting.
I agree, but would not lay all the blame on the politicians. Even though our lives are increasingly affected by EU regulations, as a public we don't seem to care. How many people could name their MEPs? Or the head of the commission? Or explain how things work pre-Lisbon? Yes, the government should make more of an effort to inform, but remember that most people also can't name their TDs, or the ministers. We only get worked up about Europe when there is a new treaty, which I think shows it's success. Most of the time it's humming away in the background.(2) If our representatives should make every decision, then we should abolish referenda altogether. Yes, complex issues can be deemed 'too complex' for the electorate in a way, but if voting for a representative where they are supposed to represent us on 1000's of issues is any less complex than just voting on this Treaty, thats incorrect. The Lisbon Treaty, yes, it may be more complex to lay before the electorate, but it is less complex than a voter deciding on a representative and predicting what they will support on their behalf, including complex issues such as the Lisbon Treaty.
That's why I said there is no easy answer. However there are certainly occasions where the right thing may be for the government to decide and the people to judge the government. As I've mentioned before, the treaty is not case in stone because there will always be another to correct any surprises that offend us. Remember though that for every treaty we approved there were naysayers who predicted disaster in the future. So here we are decades after the first one, and they are still pointing to disaster in the future but are "pro-European".
Again a difficult situation but we should have a debate on this. Would you agree that it is right for the commissioners to represent the EU and not the country they come from? If you do agree, and we would have a big argument if you disagreed, then how exactly would they be elected? How would they campaign? I will do this for you in Ireland? Or would the entire EU vote... so that the commissioners always come from the big countries?(We could erode democracy further by just appointing Commisioners rather than voting for them - oh wait, that's the current situation! ;-)
The EU is a ponderous beast. Everything gets done in little steps. Lisbon is one of the minor changes. A no vote slows down everything, including the reforms that everyone says they want. Some people think it goes too far. Some people think it doesn't go far enough. It's hard to keep everyone happy.Many countries have opt-outs on a range of issues. We have opted out of Schengen. We have opted for the Euro, a central tenet, yet others remain outside of that. Membership of the EU can only be on an a la carte basis, and in that regard it is possible to vote No to Lisbon because there are a few aspects which are deficient. Sure, it may have taken 8 years to get here, but duration of time shouldnt mean that we reduce the level of quality we expect and aspirations we have.
Redspider
Ix0 -
Again a difficult situation but we should have a debate on this. Would you agree that it is right for the commissioners to represent the EU and not the country they come from? If you do agree, and we would have a big argument if you disagreed, then how exactly would they be elected? How would they campaign? I will do this for you in Ireland? Or would the entire EU vote... so that the commissioners always come from the big countries?
I do believe that commissioner should represent the EU and not were they were born. In the future once the European parliament is more mature and proper party politics has taken hold, I would like to see the commission replaced by a cabinet of MEP's. This is decades away from becoming practical mind you so the system in place atm will do for now.0 -
Thanks Sink. Yes, that sounds like a good idea. As you say though it's a long long way away.0
Advertisement