Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

whatisayis · 07-01-2009 4:54pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

we wouldn't now be in what i think is the embarrassing situation of holding up everyone else without being able to explain why

This seems to be the main argument on the Yes side - if Ireland votes no they we will be holding up the rest of Europe who, under enhanced cooperation, will go on to create a two-tier Europe leaving Ireland behind. I found this article today from IBEC (who promoted a Yes vote) the last line of which states:

"In general, it should also be noted that the putting in place of enhanced cooperation initiatives will be made easier with this Treaty."

http://www.ibec.ie/sectors/ibb/ibbdoclib3.nsf/wvEAINews/626261E54FDD0940802573A6005358E6?OpenDocument

K-9 · 07-01-2009 5:08pm

whatisayis wrote: »

This seems to be the main argument on the Yes side - if Ireland votes no they we will be holding up the rest of Europe who, under enhanced cooperation, will go on to create a two-tier Europe leaving Ireland behind. I found this article today from IBEC (who promoted a Yes vote) the last line of which states:

"In general, it should also be noted that the putting in place of enhanced cooperation initiatives will be made easier with this Treaty."

http://www.ibec.ie/sectors/ibb/ibbdoclib3.nsf/wvEAINews/626261E54FDD0940802573A6005358E6?OpenDocument

Yep, made easier being the term. It does currently exist.

whatisayis · 07-01-2009 5:17pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yep, made easier being the term. It does currently exist.

Yes, but what the article states is that "initiatives" under the term will be made easier.

K-9 · 07-01-2009 5:53pm

whatisayis wrote: »

Yes, but what the article states is that "initiatives" under the term will be made easier.

Yes. Eg. if we wanted to form a low taxation group with say some of the East European countries we can. Any decisions made in that Group would not apply to other EU countries.

Similar to France and Germany wanting higher taxes, wouldn't apply elsewhere.

Did you read what they say about taxation?

whatisayis · 07-01-2009 6:18pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yes. Eg. if we wanted to form a low taxation group with say some of the East European countries we can. Any decisions made in that Group would not apply to other EU countries.

Similar to France and Germany wanting higher taxes, wouldn't apply elsewhere.

Did you read what they say about taxation?

Yes I did. But if you read through the document and check out the list of Articles changed to QMV:

"Powers given to the Commission to manage implementation of Union legislation (Art. 249b TFEU)"

you will note that Article 249b does not in fact exist. Article 249 demands no vote and refers only to publication of rules of procedure. I am pretty sure there was a case of dyslexia there and it should have read Article 294b which, it they had read it correctly, removes the requirement for unanimity. Therefore, as they are not working with the correct article, the basis for their statement is incorrect.
Have to sign off now but will check back tomorrow.

Dob74 · 07-01-2009 11:22pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. the original point was that it encourages slavery. it doesn't and the poster doesn't care about slavery

2. it's already happening. workers from other EU countries can already come to ireland with no problem whatsoever. how will it help them? will it buy them the plane ticket too?

i'm not saying whether it's a bad thing or not, i'm just saying that the lisbon treaty doesn't actually have any effect on it either way. it's no more relevant than "Save the whales. Vote no"

Lisbon will gaurantee the right to work in other states. The EU is made up of independent countries and each country should have the right to let anyone they feel like in. And anyone they feel like out. If tough immigration laws are not inserted into the treaty there will never be any immigration policy in the EU. Someone can get into one country they can get into all of them. Article 2 gaurantees this. Until they change this I am voting NO. There needs to be alot of laws inacted and enforced before they can open the EU to this Laissez-faire immigration policy. If it's as big a failure of Laissez-faire economics then we are in massive trouble.

the-island-man · 08-01-2009 5:32pm

Its been argued quiet a bit in this thread that reports on why people said no in the first treaty suggested that it was because they didn't have a clue what it was about!
I would just like to make the point that if say mr. joe blogs ran in a national or local election for fianna fail or any other party they wouldn't ask for a re-vote because a report showed people couldn't understand his policy's.
Why do we have to do this sh*** again?
Its undemocratic! :mad:

Locomotion · 09-01-2009 11:29am

Is no one afraid of what it'll do to the irish reputation if we give another no vote? Anyone who has travelled through Europe must've experienced those great welcomes people in other countries give us because they all love the Irish. Everyone loves the Irish and it makes it very easy to get on with people, to get a job and to boost our tourism trade.

Everyone hates the US now because of its invasion of Iraq. Most people in Europe hate the English (mostly because we all just love to beat them in sport). We really shouldn't give everyone a reason to hate the Irish. The best thing we have going for us in a global economic sense is "everyone loves the irish".

Now don't get me wrong, I do disagree with the idea of a second referendum cos it is a shot to democracy but as Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"

Nothing is perfect. No form of government is and if it was, then everybody would be employing it. I understand some people that want to vote no because "no one's making me change my mind". It's a very new age Irish thing to do, it's why religion has rapidly faded out of Irish culture because we don't like to be forced what to think.

I also understand that some people want to vote no that voted yes the first time because "democracy said no so we should stick with it". If I'm being truthful, I was one of the mass that didn't vote because I wasn't bothered looking into the Lisbon Treaty enough before the vote.

I am not trying to get people to change their votes or get you to agree with my opinion. I'm just voicing my concerns over how we could all lose that reputation of "everyone loves the Irish" very quickly when and if we do deliver another no vote.

Sam Vimes · 09-01-2009 11:34am

Dob74 wrote: »

Lisbon will gaurantee the right to work in other states. The EU is made up of independent countries and each country should have the right to let anyone they feel like in. And anyone they feel like out. If tough immigration laws are not inserted into the treaty there will never be any immigration policy in the EU. Someone can get into one country they can get into all of them. Article 2 gaurantees this. Until they change this I am voting NO. There needs to be alot of laws inacted and enforced before they can open the EU to this Laissez-faire immigration policy. If it's as big a failure of Laissez-faire economics then we are in massive trouble.

you keep saying guarantee, guarantee, guarantee. it's already guaranteed! people from other european countries can already come to ireland to work with no problem.

you're another person who has a problem with something the treaty doesn't do. well there are an infinite number of things the treaty doesn't do from introduce immigration controls to buy you a cup of tea but none of them are reasons to vote no to it. if you want immigration controls, propose another treaty to your td

Sam Vimes · 09-01-2009 11:36am

the-island-man wrote: »

Its been argued quiet a bit in this thread that reports on why people said no in the first treaty suggested that it was because they didn't have a clue what it was about!
I would just like to make the point that if say mr. joe blogs ran in a national or local election for fianna fail or any other party they wouldn't ask for a re-vote because a report showed people couldn't understand his policy's.
Why do we have to do this sh*** again?
Its undemocratic! :mad:

if mr. joe bloggs ran in an election and felt that his policies weren't understood, well he could go ahead and explain his policies better and run again at the next election couldn't he?

is that undemocratic? do you think that a politician who loses an election should be banned from politics?

edit:we have also had several referenda on abortion and divorce. was that undemocratic?

kmick · 09-01-2009 11:39am

I think you will find that the idea that everyone loves the Irish is a myth. The Germans always hated us. The French hate everyone. The Italians dont know anyone else exists. The Dutch are mildly amused by us. The Brits think we are part of the UK. Most of eastern Europe view us the way we used to view the US i.e. lazy and stupid.

Locomotion · 09-01-2009 12:50pm

kmick wrote: »

I think you will find that the idea that everyone loves the Irish is a myth. The Germans always hated us. The French hate everyone. The Italians dont know anyone else exists. The Dutch are mildly amused by us. The Brits think we are part of the UK. Most of eastern Europe view us the way we used to view the US i.e. lazy and stupid.

Well maybe I'm seeing it from a different perspective but anywhere I've travelled in Europe including Germany, France, Italy and the UK as well as a good few eastern european countries, I've always been greeted with a great welcome as soon as I mention I'm Irish.

I guess it's just cos I've got the Irish looks too eh?

RedPlanet · 09-01-2009 1:02pm

So basically, you think we should vote yes because you're worried what others might think of us?

Sam Vimes · 09-01-2009 1:11pm

RedPlanet wrote: »

So basically, you think we should vote yes because you're worried what others might think of us?

personally i don't want to be thought of as the ian paisley of europe, saying no to everything for no apparent reason.

actually at least ian paisley had the reason that he's a bigot. the overwhelming reason in ireland is "didn't understand it, wasn't bothered finding out. ignorant, lazy and proud of it!"

RedPlanet · 09-01-2009 2:54pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

personally i don't want to be thought of as the ian paisley of europe, saying no to everything for no apparent reason.

Ok, so instead of voting NO for no reason, vote NO to stop further "integration" and expansion of the EU.

Biggins · 09-01-2009 2:57pm

Aaa there you are...
I though there was another poll already on AH.
You were hiding you sneaky poll you... bold boy!

Sam Vimes · 09-01-2009 3:02pm

RedPlanet wrote: »

Ok, so instead of voting NO for no reason, vote NO to stop further "integration" and expansion of the EU.

why should i do that?

edit: and is that an objection to the treaty or the eu in general?

utick · 09-01-2009 3:32pm

i think it would be good for ireland not to become to dependent on europe, weve essentially seen the government wash their hands of this economic mess blaming global problems at every turn (why the hell are we paying the government if they arent the ones responsible for the economy), but anyway one lesson we should learn from this is we better learn to take care of our own country rather than become dependant on others, because while you may get help from outside your country it can be taken away very quickly, so this is why i would vote against further integration

Sam Vimes · 09-01-2009 4:13pm

utick wrote: »

one lesson we should learn from this is we better learn to take care of our own country rather than become dependant on others, because while you may get help from outside your country it can be taken away very quickly, so this is why i would vote against further integration

but if they take the help away are we not in the same position that we would be anyway by voting against integration. that way we don't even give the mthe option of helping...

thebman · 09-01-2009 8:23pm

Since the EU are a thousand times more competent than our government, I think we just hand over all control now with the condition that we can return to our government by referendum. Oh and that we want to keep our flag and not use that crappy European one.

Biggins · 09-01-2009 8:36pm

brim4brim wrote: »

...we want to keep our flag and not use that crappy European one.

...but ...but its got shiny stars and goes round and round in the wind!

Hitman Actual · 10-01-2009 12:20am

whatisayis wrote: »

Yes I did. But if you read through the document and check out the list of Articles changed to QMV:

"Powers given to the Commission to manage implementation of Union legislation (Art. 249b TFEU)"

you will note that Article 249b does not in fact exist. Article 249 demands no vote and refers only to publication of rules of procedure. I am pretty sure there was a case of dyslexia there and it should have read Article 294b which, it they had read it correctly, removes the requirement for unanimity. Therefore, as they are not working with the correct article, the basis for their statement is incorrect.
Have to sign off now but will check back tomorrow.

They're definitely not referring to 294. They're clearly referring to 249c, which does indeed deal with "Powers given to the Commission to manage implementation of Union legislation". You need to check the actual Lisbon Treaty text to find reference to 249a-249d, not the consolidated version: go to page 116 (I'm sure you have a copy; your posts show that you're at least interested in arguing your points from a Treaty basis, and not some wishy-washy rhetorical basis).

Lisbon Treaty, page 116 wrote:

Article 249 C
1. Member States shall adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding Union acts.

2. Where uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts are needed, those acts shall confer implementing powers on the Commission, or, in duly justified specific cases and in the cases provided for in Articles 11 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union, on the Council.

3. For the purposes of paragraph 2, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall lay down in advance the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.

4. The word “implementing” shall be inserted in the title of implementing acts.

Also, the date on that IBEC link is March 2007, and the final negotiations of the Treaty text were carried out in June and October 2007, so perhaps 249c was actually 249b in March? I'm not sure, but they're clearly talking about 249c in the final Lisbon Treaty text.

BTW, you should post your argument over in the EU forum. It looks like a good topic for debate, but this thread is too full of noise to follow it clearly. I'm pretty sure your argument is flawed, but it's hard to know exactly what it is, tbh.

Dob74 · 10-01-2009 2:22am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you keep saying guarantee, guarantee, guarantee. it's already guaranteed! people from other european countries can already come to ireland to work with no problem.

you're another person who has a problem with something the treaty doesn't do. well there are an infinite number of things the treaty doesn't do from introduce immigration controls to buy you a cup of tea but none of them are reasons to vote no to it. if you want immigration controls, propose another treaty to your td

I think your missing my point. Article 2 will put the free movement of labour into EU law(which over rules irish law). Our gov decided on a open door policy, unlike most EU countries. So even if we changed our minds, we would not be able to have our own immigration laws.

Wudyaquit · 10-01-2009 2:26am

brim4brim wrote: »

Since the EU are a thousand times more competent than our government, I think we just hand over all control now with the condition that we can return to our government by referendum.

I couldn't agree more. Additional direction from Europe can hardly be a bad thing at the moment. The country's in too bad a condition, to leave in the hands of solicitors who've never heard of Govt strategy and without any idea of how to curb costs or balance a budget.
The extra expertise can only help. And I voted No last time.

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2009 11:38am

Dob74 wrote: »

I think your missing my point. Article 2 will put the free movement of labour into EU law(which over rules irish law). Our gov decided on a open door policy, unlike most EU countries. So even if we changed our minds, we would not be able to have our own immigration laws.

There are lots of laws that we couldn't change if we wanted to, it's part and parcel of being in the eu. And there are many more important ones than immigration tbh. At the start you were saying the treaty would make it easier to come to ireland but you seem to have acknowldeged that it won't. The problem now seems to be that if at any point in the future we want to change the current policy that allows other eu citizens to work in ireland we won't be able to. My question would be "who says they're ever going to?".

I can't foresee any scenario where any of our current political parties remove the currently existing right of other eu citizens to work in ireland. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's never going to happen, regardless of how we vote on the Lisbon treaty

Think about it this way. For the government to even consider banning other EU citizens from working in Ireland, we would have to be in an extremely bad economic situation, worse than we've ever seen even when we had mass emmigration because there were no jobs. Do you really think Ireland will have an immigration problem at a time like that? By the time the government looks at changing the immigration laws, no one will be coming to Ireland anyway. In fact if our economy is in such a bad state I think we'll be glad that we have the right to go to other EU countries to work with no hassle. Personally I'm working in Sweden and I like that I could just get on a plane and come here whereas my American colleague had weeks of problems with his visa.

Also, we don't totally lose control of immigration to some faceless entity, it's decided by QMV in the EU where we have ample representation. If there ever was a situation so drastic that we'd want to stop the free movement of people I highly doubt we'd be the only country affected by it so other countries will most likely want to do it at that stage too. But to be honest I don't ever see that happening either. The free movement of people is good for every country because it allows people to go where the jobs are whether those jobs are in Ireland, Germany or Poland.

Basically the free movement of people is a good thing and is not a reason to vote no to Lisbon

edit:All of the above assumes you're right that we can currently remove the right of other EU citizens to work here if we so choose and that we won't be able to if we vote yes which I don't actually know is the case

Dob74 · 10-01-2009 2:28pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are lots of laws that we couldn't change if we wanted to, it's part and parcel of being in the eu. And there are many more important ones than immigration tbh. At the start you were saying the treaty would make it easier to come to ireland but you seem to have acknowldeged that it won't. The problem now seems to be that if at any point in the future we want to change the current policy that allows other eu citizens to work in ireland we won't be able to. My question would be "who says they're ever going to?".

I can't foresee any scenario where any of our current political parties remove the currently existing right of other eu citizens to work in ireland. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's never going to happen, regardless of how we vote on the Lisbon treaty

Think about it this way. For the government to even consider banning other EU citizens from working in Ireland, we would have to be in an extremely bad economic situation, worse than we've ever seen even when we had mass emmigration because there were no jobs. Do you really think Ireland will have an immigration problem at a time like that? By the time the government looks at changing the immigration laws, no one will be coming to Ireland anyway. In fact if our economy is in such a bad state I think we'll be glad that we have the right to go to other EU countries to work with no hassle. Personally I'm working in Sweden and I like that I could just get on a plane and come here whereas my American colleague had weeks of problems with his visa.

Also, we don't totally lose control of immigration to some faceless entity, it's decided by QMV in the EU where we have ample representation. If there ever was a situation so drastic that we'd want to stop the free movement of people I highly doubt we'd be the only country affected by it so other countries will most likely want to do it at that stage too. But to be honest I don't ever see that happening either. The free movement of people is good for every country because it allows people to go where the jobs are whether those jobs are in Ireland, Germany or Poland.

Basically the free movement of people is a good thing and is not a reason to vote no to Lisbon

edit:All of the above assumes you're right that we can currently remove the right of other EU citizens to work here if we so choose and that we won't be able to if we vote yes which I don't actually know is the case

Basicly you are in the neo-liberal group that wants the free movement of labour. And I am opposed to it. So you will vote yes and I will vote no.

Sam Vimes · 10-01-2009 11:08pm

Dob74 wrote: »

Basicly you are in the neo-liberal group that wants the free movement of labour. And I am opposed to it. So you will vote yes and I will vote no.

except that voting no will not prevent the free movement of labour. it just removes the option of possibly maybe preventing the free movement of labour at some point in the future which is never going to happen and would be disastrous if it did

Run_to_da_hills · 10-01-2009 11:23pm

I might consider a Yes vote if the EU blocks Dell from leaving Limerick over that unauthorised e52M sweetner offered to management by the Polish Government and saves all those jobs.

K-9 · 10-01-2009 11:46pm

Dob74 wrote: »

I think your missing my point. Article 2 will put the free movement of labour into EU law(which over rules irish law). Our gov decided on a open door policy, unlike most EU countries. So even if we changed our minds, we would not be able to have our own immigration laws.

But we kind of have that under Nice. France has now opened its borders like us and German in May. Everybody will have the same rules. We still have control over Non EU Immigration.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I might consider a Yes vote if the EU blocks Dell from leaving Limerick over that unauthorised e52M sweetner offered to management by the Polish Government and saves all those jobs.

Better leave that one. On that basis, we'd have to pay back the State Aid we gave them! :eek:

whatisayis · 11-01-2009 2:19am

democrates wrote: »

It's a fair system if you assume the EU should have some role as central government.

I think the EU has already gone too far down that road and Lisbon seeks to have more decisions taken by QMV that were previously based on concensus, it is a transfer of power from the nation state to the EU central government. I think a fairer system would be where the EU operates on concensus alone and does not have the power to force anything on nation states.

I'm happy enough with us being in the eurozone with the ECB setting interest rates to tackle inflation. Despite the fact that Ireland had high interest rates when we needed low and visa versa, overall it has been worth it especially with the credit crunch. Crucially it was introduced on a voluntary basis, without Lisbon, and without anyone having to be forced into any measure through QMV.

There are plenty of areas in which we can co-operate in mutual intrerest, and while some horse trading is inevitable we should always retain the capacity to opt out of a particular redline measure.

More EU central government allows national politicians to deflect more accountability since they can come back to their people and claim the latest directive was what the EU voted for. If our EU neighbours force more things upon us via QMV it can sow the seeds of division and run counter to a major reason given for the European experiment - to preserve peace.

The other reason given is that no economic alliance has ever lasted without political union, but what kind of economic union does the increased political union of Lisbon offer? A few years ago I would have asserted that laudable values of social cohesion were primary motives, and cited equality directives and such as evidence.

That is still there to an extent but it seems a right-wing agenda has entered the fray. I was shocked to read about the Bolkenstein directive as originally attempted, clearly designed to serve business interests at the expense of employees.

My fear of centralising more power would easily be assuaged with evidence that those driving the EU were fully loyal to the people and ready to listen. In fact the evidence shows the opposite, less appetite for listening to the people. It seems that like the Washington concensus we now have a Brussels concensus, an elite determined to have their way, and the only thing standing in their way is the people of Ireland.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I'm pretty sure your argument is flawed, but it's hard to know exactly what it is, tbh.

No, my argument isn't flawed but I can understand why you don't understand what it is. That is the nature of the Lisbon Treaty, it has been deliberately designed to be incomprehensible. Democrates in the above referenced post has articulated, in a much more eloquent manner than I ever could, exactly my objections to the Treaty. All I have been trying to do is to get Yes voters to take their heads out of the sand and to see that the reality is that Lisbon is not good for Ireland

Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

Comments