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

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

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

Please do explain, 3rd time asked!

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

I would be so interested in your definition of xenophobe.

Takes all sorts to get your attention! LOL

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Takes all sorts to get your attention! LOL

Agree! Are you ever going to answer my question?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Agree! Are you ever going to answer my question?

I did, common environmental and energy policies.

Still awaiting why precisely you agree with Democrates.

In points, not just because!

K-9

Your Corporation Tax point has been obliterated, but you still believe it is under threat.

whatisayis

democrates wrote: »

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.
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.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Still awaiting why precisely you agree with Democrates.

There you have it.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

There you have it.

Confirmed, You don't really hate Lisbon.

You hate the EU, not the EEC.

Unfortunately, in repeated Referenda, you are in the minority!

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Your Corporation Tax point has been obliterated, but you still believe it is under threat.

No, it hasn't. But you still believe what you don't question.

K-9

Nope i RESPECT DEMOCRATES. He says exactly what he feels. Basically Lisbon is not his problem. Respect.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

Confirmed, You don't really hate Lisbon.

You hate the EU, not the EEC.

Unfortunately, in repeated Referenda, you are in the minority!

Where have I ever stated that I hate the EU? The word 'Hate' is usually only espoused in right wing rhetoric, and usually in fear.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

Where have I ever stated that I hate the EU? The word 'Hate' is usually only espoused in right wing rhetoric, and usually in fear.

LOL Wrong words. IF YOU AGREE WITH DEMORCATES, really Lisbon and NICE have gone too far. Maybe even Maastricht or the SEA.

whatisayis

Seanies32 wrote: »

LOL Wrong words. IF YOU AGREE WITH DEMORCATES, really Lisbon and NICE have gone too far. Maybe even Maastricht or the SEA.

So, back to the point, why should I vote yes? Simple question.....

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

So, back to the point, why should I vote yes? Simple question.....

For the third time, common Environmental and Energy policies.

Why no? Please keep it Lisbon relevant, not Nice, Masstricht, SEA ETC. Which have been democratically accepted.

gflood

Concessions made after the initial rejection were very positive so we have absouetly no reason to say no a second time. If its rejected due to people still not bothering to understand what it is about, the current economic meltdown or govt popoularity then it will be a very sad day for this country.

Just imagine we did not have the ECB behind us for example. Our position HAS been weaked in Europe. We NEED to be at the heart of Europe more than ever now. Is Libertas or Sinn Fein going to give you a job when yours is moved to one of the other EU states? I hope so.

Those not in favor should go away and move outside of the EU and try to make it on their own, after all they believe we can (when we clearly cannot).

RiverWilde

The problem with Lisbon has been thus far the total ineptitude of the govt. regarding information. It isn't enough to put out a statement in support of the treaty. People need to know what they are voting for. Vagueness allows the likes of Libertas to play the boogie man of europe card. The days of people just doffing the cap and saying 'yes boss' are over.

Riv

thebman

We'll we know Lisbon is coming this year and is a massively complicated treaty that needs to be explained and yet FF are still sitting around acting like its so far away we might as well not bother starting the education again.

Are we walking down the same path we did last year? Should they have started already? I think they should plague the airwaves with information on RTE until the referendum so people will accidently absorb some of it and have some idea of what the treaty is about.

Dob74

brim4brim wrote: »

We'll we know Lisbon is coming this year and is a massively complicated treaty that needs to be explained and yet FF are still sitting around acting like its so far away we might as well not bother starting the education again.

Are we walking down the same path we did last year? Should they have started already? I think they should plague the airwaves with information on RTE until the referendum so people will accidently absorb some of it and have some idea of what the treaty is about.

The reason why FF are not explaining the treaty is that they have not read it themselves. This is one of important votes in the history of the state and alls the pro treaty side is doing is attacking anyone who dares challenge them. I'll be voting no again. It's time to through this treaty in the dust bin and start from scratch.

Sam Vimes

Dob74 wrote: »

The reason why FF are not explaining the treaty is that they have not read it themselves. This is one of important votes in the history of the state and alls the pro treaty side is doing is attacking anyone who dares challenge them. I'll be voting no again. It's time to through this treaty in the dust bin and start from scratch.

the pro treaty are "attacking anyone who challenges them" partly because that's what generally happens when there are two opposing sides to a debate and also partly because the no side don't seem to have read the treaty either and none of their reasons for rejecting it seem to have anything to do with the treaty
one of those reasons being, for example, that FF haven't read it. that fact doesn't really say anything about whether the treaty is good or not, just that it's complicated.

and tbh i'd much prefer a complicated treaty that covers all legal eventualities than a cut down and simplified one that leaves dozens of loop holes that we'll be arguing about for 20 years

K-9

Dob74 wrote: »

The reason why FF are not explaining the treaty is that they have not read it themselves. This is one of important votes in the history of the state and alls the pro treaty side is doing is attacking anyone who dares challenge them. I'll be voting no again. It's time to through this treaty in the dust bin and start from scratch.

Look, I don't want my PM reading minutae in a EU Treaty.


Highly paid advisors do that, ones that know more about EU Treaties than Cowen does.

LOOK UP MANAGEMENT BY EXCEPTION!

Standard Management practice!

PS. Great No side PR Victory, though it was that, a PR Victory!

Dob74

Seanies32 wrote: »

Look, I don't want my PM reading minutae in a EU Treaty.


Highly paid advisors do that, ones that know more about EU Treaties than Cowen does.

LOOK UP MANAGEMENT BY EXCEPTION!

Standard Management practice!

PS. Great No side PR Victory, though it was that, a PR Victory!

And what great managers we have, just look at how well our banks are run. I bet they had highly paid advisors. We pay politians not there advisors to represent us. I dont expect them to know every line but surely an indepht knowlegde of every article is necessary. I know they are busy writing letters for constituents on everyday business but their prime job is to be a legislature.
If people sign contracts without reading them, I would not consider that to be very bright. Must be why we are in the position we are in today. Everyone not reading the fine print on there mortgages

Sam Vimes

Dob74 wrote: »

And what great managers we have, just look at how well our banks are run. I bet they had highly paid advisors. We pay politians not there advisors to represent us. I dont expect them to know every line but surely an indepht knowlegde of every article is necessary. I know they are busy writing letters for constituents on everyday business but their prime job is to be a legislature.
If people sign contracts without reading them, I would not consider that to be very bright. Must be why we are in the position we are in today. Everyone not reading the fine print on there mortgages

well no surely an in depth knowledge of every article is not necessary. the people we elect to represent us are politicians, not lawyers. they could read the whole thing from cover to cover and they still might miss something because it's written in legal language. that's why they pay people who have qualifications in law to read and interpret these things for them. and there's nothing wrong with that

you mentioned that the banks had legal advisors and still did things wrong and you're right. but that's not an argument for kicking out all the qualified people because a few of them in a different industry did something wrong and forcing people who don't know what they're doing to make decisions on something they don't understand. sure legal advisors make mistakes but they're far less likely to make mistakes than anyone else

when you have unqualified people trying to interpret it you end up with nonsense like it'll legalise abortion and force up our corporation tax

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you arguing that, through Lisbon, QMV-based decision making can replace unanimity in any area? Is that what you're saying? If it is, then I challenge you directly to post your argument in the EU forum. If your theory is as sound as you believe, then it will surely hold up to the scrutiny that it will get over there. But the problem with trying to argue a technical issue like this on AH, is that it's too hard to follow here amongst all the rhetoric and noise.

Also, that's some nice selective quoting there. I take it that you acknowledge that you're wrong about IBEC referring to article 294, when they are indeed referring to 249 (all-be-it 249c and not 249b)?

K-9

Dob74 wrote: »

And what great managers we have, just look at how well our banks are run. I bet they had highly paid advisors. We pay politians not there advisors to represent us. I dont expect them to know every line but surely an indepht knowlegde of every article is necessary. I know they are busy writing letters for constituents on everyday business but their prime job is to be a legislature.
If people sign contracts without reading them, I would not consider that to be very bright. Must be why we are in the position we are in today. Everyone not reading the fine print on there mortgages

Tbh, Cowen isn't an EU Treaty legal expert. They get advice on what is important.

You can't compare the Lisbon Treaty to a standard, humdrum conveyancing contract!

CEO's sign contracts they haven't fully read everyday. Why? Because they don't have the in depth legal knowledge to fully understand everything in it. Their legal advisers explain it to them.

whatisayis

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you arguing that, through Lisbon, QMV-based decision making can replace unanimity in any area? Is that what you're saying? If it is, then I challenge you directly to post your argument in the EU forum. If your theory is as sound as you believe, then it will surely hold up to the scrutiny that it will get over there. But the problem with trying to argue a technical issue like this on AH, is that it's too hard to follow here amongst all the rhetoric and noise.

Also, that's some nice selective quoting there. I take it that you acknowledge that you're wrong about IBEC referring to article 294, when they are indeed referring to 249 (all-be-it 249c and not 249b)?

What I'm saying is that any legislative proposal, particularly in relation to internal market competition, that will be subject to the "ordinary legislative procedure", if put forward by a "group of member states" does not require unanimity for approval. If you read Articles 293 and 294 TFEU the procedure is explained there.

We will be voting on the text of the TFEU in which Treaty of Rome Articles 249b and c have been renumbered Articles 290 and 291. So, they are incorrect in quoting that reference anyway.

whatisayis

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I challenge you directly to post your argument in the EU forum. ]
Will take you up on that. Don't really want to start a new thread as I'm sure there are quite a few already. Could you recommend one for me?

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

What I'm saying is that any legislative proposal, particularly in relation to internal market competition, that will be subject to the "ordinary legislative procedure", if put forward by a "group of member states" does not require unanimity for approval. If you read Articles 293 and 294 TFEU the procedure is explained there.

This is quite a strong claim, and probably deserves a thread of its own on the EU forum. But if you want to just use it in the context of corporation tax, then this thread is probably the best to add to, as it's relatively uncluttered.

whatisayis wrote: »

We will be voting on the text of the TFEU in which Treaty of Rome Articles 249b and c have been renumbered Articles 290 and 291. So, they are incorrect in quoting that reference anyway.

Yes, IBEC have made a mistake in what they're referring to, but as I said the link is from March 2007 before the text was finished, and they're clearly referring to 249c of the Lisbon text (i.e. the text which shows the amendments to the TEC and TEU). My problem is that you're trying to include the IBEC link, in some vague way, in your argument of article 294, when it has nothing to do with it.

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

Will take you up on that. Don't really want to start a new thread as I'm sure there are quite a few already. Could you recommend one for me?

Answered above.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

What I'm saying is that any legislative proposal, particularly in relation to internal market competition, that will be subject to the "ordinary legislative procedure", if put forward by a "group of member states" does not require unanimity for approval. If you read Articles 293 and 294 TFEU the procedure is explained there.

We will be voting on the text of the TFEU in which Treaty of Rome Articles 249b and c have been renumbered Articles 290 and 291. So, they are incorrect in quoting that reference anyway.

i haven't been following this. is this still your point about unanimity in the commission not applying if a group of member states want it?

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

What I'm saying is that any legislative proposal, particularly in relation to internal market competition, that will be subject to the "ordinary legislative procedure", if put forward by a "group of member states" does not require unanimity for approval. If you read Articles 293 and 294 TFEU the procedure is explained there.

Seeing as it doesn't look like we're going to see a thread on this on the EU forum, it's time to put this one to bed. I think there are a few ways to prove your argument wrong, but the simplest way is to look at the situations where member states can propose legislation. As it happens, this is basically identical in both the current EU framework, and Lisbon. Member states can only propose legislation in two areas, both in "Title V, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice" (that's the Lisbon title, it's currently called "Justice and Home Affairs"). The two areas are:

1. "Chapter 4 of Title V, Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters", and

2. "Chapter 5 of Title V, Police Cooperation".

Also, the decision procedure is identical whether the Commission or Member States propose it, which I think in Lisbon is QMV in the council, and co-decision with the Parliament. Article 293 and 294 have no effect.

So areas where member states can propose legislation is extremely limited, and most definitely doesn't include the functioning of the Internal Market.

I'm sure a further argument would be to say that member states propose legislation through Enhanced Cooperation. But the problem with that is that in Enhanced Cooperation, the Commission is still the proposer of the particular legislation. The member states who desire participation can only request the Enhanced Cooperation procedure for an existing piece of legislation which has utterly failed to get the unanimous approval of the member states. But they don't initiate the actual legislation.

Edit to add: On a re-read, I haven't disproved exactly what you're saying. What I am trying to say is that even if Article 294 does what you claim, it has absolutely nothing to do with the functioning of the Internal Market or, following on from that, any possible change to Ireland's corporation tax status. As regards your claim about 294 changing the legislation decision procedure from unanimity to QMV if member states propose legislation (not that it would even have any effect in the current framework, or Lisbon, as I've shown), I haven't even bothered to look into that. The chance of there being such a basic flaw in what are tightly-written Treaties is, to be quite abrupt, ridiculous.

whatisayis

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I'm sure a further argument would be to say that member states propose legislation through Enhanced Cooperation. But the problem with that is that in Enhanced Cooperation, the Commission is still the proposer of the particular legislation. The member states who desire participation can only request the Enhanced Cooperation procedure for an existing piece of legislation which has utterly failed to get the unanimous approval of the member states. But they don't initiate the actual legislation.

As regards your claim about 294 changing the legislation decision procedure from unanimity to QMV if member states propose legislation (not that it would even have any effect in the current framework, or Lisbon, as I've shown), I haven't even bothered to look into that. The chance of there being such a basic flaw in what are tightly-written Treaties is, to be quite abrupt, ridiculous.

Here is the actual wording of Article 294. I have highlighted the relevent text and have also, for ease of reference, moved the 'Special Provisions' from the end of the article to the start.

Special provisions

15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.

In such cases, the European Parliament and the Council shall communicate the proposed act to the Commission with their positions at first and second readings. The European Parliament or the Council may request the opinion of the Commission throughout the procedure, which the Commission may also deliver on its own initiative. It may also, if it deems it necessary, take part in the Conciliation Committee in accordance with paragraph 11.

Article 294

(ex Article 251 TEC)
1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply
2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.

First reading
3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the Council.

4. If the Council approves the European Parliament's position, the act concerned shall be adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.
5. If the Council does not approve the European Parliament's position, it shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the European Parliament.
6. The Council shall inform the European Parliament fully of the reasons which led it to adopt its position at first reading. The Commission shall inform the European Parliament fully of its position.

Second reading

7. If, within three months of such communication, the European Parliament:

(a) approves the Council's position at first reading or has not taken a decision, the act concerned shall be deemed to have been adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the Council;
(b) rejects, by a majority of its component members, the Council's position at first reading, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted;
(c) proposes, by a majority of its component members, amendments to the Council's position at first reading, the text thus amended shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission, which shall deliver an opinion on those amendments.
8. If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament's amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority
(a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted;
(b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee

9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.

Conciliation

10. The Conciliation Committee, which shall be composed of the members of the Council or their representatives and an equal number of members representing the European Parliament, shall have the task of reaching agreement on a joint text, by a qualified majority of the members of the Council or their representatives and by a majority of the members representing the European Parliament within six weeks of its being convened, on the basis of the positions of the European Parliament and the Council at second reading.
11. The Commission shall take part in the Conciliation Committee's proceedings and shall take all necessary initiatives with a view to reconciling the positions of the European Parliament and the Council.

12. If, within six weeks of its being convened, the Conciliation Committee does not approve the joint text, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted.

Third reading

13. If, within that period, the Conciliation Committee approves a joint text, the European Parliament, acting by a majority of the votes cast, and the Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall each have a period of six weeks from that approval in which to adopt the act in question in accordance with the joint text. If they fail to do so, the proposed act shall be deemed not to have been adopted.

14. The periods of three months and six weeks referred to in this Article shall be extended by a maximum of one month and two weeks respectively at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.