Sinn fein and the new lisbon

passive

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Their response will probably be that the Treaty is not being changed and that the assurances from the European Council are not of themselves legally-binding. Essentially we are being asked to trust the word of Cowen and the other EU govts - many of whom called their trustworthiness into question by breaking promises to hold referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon in their respective countries e.g. Poland, the UK, Denmark. And even then, the changes wouldn't come into effect unless the Croatian people vote for their Accession treaty which is the document the changes will be included. So effectively, what we are being offered is a promise thrice-removed from Cowen. Not exactly reassuring.

While I appreciate that you're honest enough to wear your colours and be anti-EU in your username, I'd really appreciate if you'd stop lying about the guarantees/resolutions. You know that when they say they will print out in huge letters "THE LISBON TREATY WILL NOT MAKE X/Y/Z HAPPEN" and sign it, then that is the case, and people should not vote based on their fears about X, Y and Z. Hell I'd go so far as to say you knew in the last referendum that X, Y and Z weren't part of Lisbon, but you and others like you are taking advantage of other people's inability to see that.

You are choosing to fudge the issues and play on peoples fears. If you can't convince people to vote no based on the actual issues at hand, or your actual reasons for opposing it (you want us out of the EU, I assume?) then please just give up and get a new hobby. Stop spreading lies.

Frankie Lee

A bit off topic but a good read in relation to matters of defence:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Third Report


[SIZE=+1]7 European Security and Defence Policy [/SIZE]

204. The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) grew from a UK-French initiative agreed at St Malo in 1998, with the aim of developing an EU military capacity that would be in some sense autonomous of the US. The ESDP remains in its infancy, but has developed extremely rapidly. At the end of 2007, there were eight concluded, ten active and two planned ESDP missions, in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Western Balkans and the former Soviet Union.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note462"]462[/URL
205. President Sarkozy of France has already made clear that, ten years after St Malo, the development of EU defence will be a priority of France's EU Presidency in the second half of 2008.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note463"]463[/URL
206. We are aware that the Defence Select Committee is conducting a major Inquiry into NATO and European Defence, which is likely to report before NATO's Bucharest summit in April 2008, and which is likely to consider the ESDP and the impact on it of the Lisbon Treaty in some detail. The Ministry of Defence, not the FCO, is also the lead UK department for ESDP matters. In this chapter, therefore, we confine ourselves to noting the main relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and reporting the comments of our witnesses.
General ESDP provisions
207. Lord Owen drew our attention to an apparent inconsistency in the language about the ESDP in the Lisbon Treaty. At the opening of the CFSP chapter, the Lisbon Treaty text makes reference to "the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence" (emphasis added).URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note464"]464[/URL However, in the subsection dealing specifically with the ESDP, the Treaty text states that "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides" (emphasis added).URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note465"]465[/URL Both versions were already contained in the Constitutional Treaty, which added the stronger language to the existing Treaty provision referring to "might".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note466"]466[/URL Lord Owen told us that "we cannot put into law two phrases which are mutually exclusive."URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note467"]467[/URL However, the Foreign Secretary said that he was "not sure that there is the distinction" and referred only to the "will" version of the wording.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note468"]468[/URL We understand the argument that the apparent contradiction between the two propositions is not a real contradiction, i.e. it is not incompatible to assert (a) that something might happen and (b) that it will happen if certain circumstances obtain (in this case, that the European Council gives its unanimous approval). We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty retains from the Constitutional Treaty a wording that on the surface at least is clumsy and ambiguous in its references to the prospect that the European Security and Defence Policy both "might" and "will" lead to a common defence. We therefore recommend that in its response to this Report the Government states whether or not it agrees that this is the case, providing such clarification as is necessary.
208. The Lisbon Treaty includes a form of mutual defence clause. This is as follows:
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.
Commitments and co-operation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those states which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note469"]469[/URL
209. The Lisbon Treaty provides for the establishment of new procedures to provide "rapid access" to the EU budget and to create a "start-up fund" of Member State contributions, outside the EU budget. Both initiatives would be to finance "urgent initiatives" under the CFSP, and in particular preparatory activities for ESDP missions.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note470"]470[/URL Decisions on both proposals would be made by qualified majority vote, with the High Representative drawing up the proposal on the "start-up fund". The High Representative would also be authorised to use the fund. According to Open Europe, the new "start-up fund" "is seen by many as the first step towards a common defence budget for the EU."URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note471"]471[/URL
210. Under the Lisbon Treaty, ESDP decisions—including those initiating an ESDP mission—would be taken by the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative or a Member State.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note472"]472[/URL We have noted elsewhere the way in which CFSP decisions with military or defence implications would be excluded from current or possible future qualified majority voting under the Treaty.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note473"]473[/URL Professor Whitman included the ESDP in his general view that the Treaty would preserve the intergovernmental nature of the CFSP.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note474"]474[/URL
Lisbon Treaty changes
211. Under the Lisbon Treaty the ESDP would gain an expanded and more distinctive Treaty base. In the existing TEU, the ESDP is dealt with in a single Article, which is subsumed within the CFSP provisions and which Professor Whitman told us was "feeling increasingly threadbare".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note475"]475[/URL Under the Lisbon Treaty, the ESDP would have five Articles, gathered in a dedicated named subsection of the TEU's CFSP chapter.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note476"]476[/URL
212. Professor Whitman identified five substantive changes which the Lisbon Treaty would make to the existing Treaty provisions on the ESDP.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note477"]477[/URL The five changes are:

• expanded "aims and ambitions" for the policy, in particular as regards Member State military capabilities;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note478"]478[/URL
• an expansion in the list of "Petersberg tasks", i.e. the humanitarian, crisis management and peace-building tasks which the EU may undertake;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note479"]479[/URL
• the introduction into an EU Treaty for the first time of reference to the European Defence Agency, a body aimed at encouraging greater and more co-ordinated defence capabilities development among Member States, which Member States may join voluntarily and which was already established in 2004 by a decision of the Member States;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note480"]480[/URL
• the introduction of the possibility of what Professor Whitman called "sub-contracting" of ESDP tasks to "coalitions of the able and willing" among the Member States;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note481"]481[/URL and
• the introduction of the possibility of "permanent structured co-operation",URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note482"]482[/URL an arrangement among a group of Member States possessing greater military capabilities which could be established by a qualified majority decision of the full Council. The Foreign Secretary told us in December that the creation of "permanent structured cooperation" is about "enhancing capability for European defence; EU-led operations in respect of security in the European neighbourhood".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note483"]483[/URL

213. Of the ESDP changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, that concerning "permanent structured co-operation" has aroused most attention. Mr Donnelly noted that the provision allowing "permanent structured co-operation" to be established by qualified majority vote had "aroused some critical comment" in the UK.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note484"]484[/URL However, Mr Donnelly told us that
given the universal recognition throughout the European Union that 'structured cooperation', however it evolves, will have no credibility or even reality without the full engagement in it of the United Kingdom, it strains the bounds of credibility to imagine that the membership of this intergovernmental sub-set would ever be one unacceptable to the United Kingdom […] If 'structured co-operation' in fact proceeds beyond its present largely aspirational nature, the United Kingdom will be more fully associated with its genesis and evolution than has been the case in any other area of the European Union's activities. The likelihood that this sub-set of 'structured co-operation' might over time develop in a way inimical to the United Kingdom's interests is remote in the extreme.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note485"]485[/URL
Dr Solana similarly affirmed that "structured cooperation"
would be inconceivable without the United Kingdom, which is at the core of our security and defence capability. Structured cooperation will increase the defence capabilities and efficiency of the European Union, so [the UK's] presence or absence will be a yes or no—it will not happen without [the UK]. That is very clear to me.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note486"]486[/URL
214. In written follow-up evidence after his appearance before the Committee in December, the Foreign Secretary told us that:
Permanent Structured Cooperation […] is a new provision that specifically addresses capability development. It provides a mechanism designed to help develop more effective military capabilities amongst EU Member States and is line with UK objective [sic] for improving the capabilities available for EU-led operations. It should be noted that PSC and Enhanced Cooperation are completely different and distinct provisions with different criteria for establishment […] A Council decision is required to launch PSC, to accept new Members into it and to suspend membership of a Member State that no longer fulfils the membership criteria. These decisions are taken by QMV. The use of QMV for these aspects is in UK interests since it prevents an individual Member State from blocking PSC establishment, from blocking another Member State from subsequently joining or from blocking suspension of a non-performing Member State […] Since improved capability development amongst Member States is a key UK objective, it is likely that we would look to launch PSC as soon as practicable, in cooperation with other like minded Member States.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note487"]487[/URL
We advise that the suggestion for UK involvement should not overlook the requirements laid down in the Protocol on Permanent Structured Co-operation, whereby participants undertake to "bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by harmonising the identification of their military needs", as well as "possibly reviewing their national decision-making procedures".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note488"]488[/URL
215. Mr Donnelly felt that the "possibility that 'structured co-operation' will remain a name without substance" was "much more pertinent" than the possibility of the arrangement developing in a way opposed by the UK.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note489"]489[/URL Professor Whitman similarly suggested that, given the somewhat cumbersome procedures involved in establishing and operating "permanent structured co-operation", it might prove to be a little-used device.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note490"]490[/URL Indeed, Professor Whitman suggested that "permanent structured co-operation" was "likely to go absolutely nowhere".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note491"]491[/URL Professor Whitman felt that the possibility of "coalitions of the able and willing" in the military field might be of greater interest because their organisation under the Lisbon Treaty was relatively "light-touch".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note492"]492[/URL
216. The Foreign Secretary rejected the view that the EU should develop a common military leadership for its ESDP missions, arguing that having a particular Member State in the lead for a particular ESDP mission was not the problem. According to the Foreign Secretary, "the European problem is not an institutional one, it is to do with capabilities and coordination".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note493"]493[/URL
217. The FCO's overall assessment of the ESDP element in the Lisbon Treaty is as follows:
The provisions for European defence in the Reform Treaty meet UK objectives to ensure the development of a flexible, militarily robust and NATO-friendly ESDP. The Reform Treaty preserves the principle of unanimity for ESDP policy decisions and on initiating missions as well as confirming the prerogatives of Member States for defence and security issues. 'Enhanced cooperation' will be extended to ESDP, allowing smaller groups of Member States to pursue particular ESDP projects. The requirement for a unanimous Council decision will ensure that the mechanism cannot be used against UK interests.

I know its from a UK point of view but the last paragraph should be noted.

Keith186

Have to say fair ****s to them too.

I'm going to vote no again as the rest of Europe has NO vote. It's not about pissing off the Government for me.

passive

Keith186 wrote: »

Have to say fair ****s to them too.

I'm going to vote no again as the rest of Europe has NO vote. It's not about pissing off the Government for me.

the rest of Europe already voted. They voted for their governments. Their governments signed a treaty. The rest of them don't have the same constitutional issues as us, thus didn't require referendums (referenda? I dunno..)

Please reconsider on the basis of how good the EU is for Ireland and how this treaty benefits everyone. Your current reason isn't part of it.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

A bit off topic but a good read in relation to matters of defence:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm


I know its from a UK point of view but the last paragraph should be noted.

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

Obviously, that is of no relevance if what one objects to is the EU developing any capability for military action at all - if, on the other hand, one is concerned about Ireland's role in that, we have already opted out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LordSutch

wylo wrote: »

Anyway I have to say well done to Sinn Fein if Ireland are given an exception to their main commissioner arguement.
Sinn Fein said we can do better, and better we'll do. I congratulate them for pressing with a No vote last time if thats the case.

Didnt 'Libertas' headed by Declan Ganley have something to do with the NO Vote?

The Corinthian

Camelot wrote: »

Didnt 'Libertas' headed by Declan Ganley have something to do with the NO Vote?

Ahhh, but Sinn Fein got the moral victory...

ChocolateSauce

Frankie Lee wrote: »

A bit off topic but a good read in relation to matters of defence:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm


I know its from a UK point of view but the last paragraph should be noted.

Paragraph?

Eurosceptic2008

One argument they are already using - correctly - is that under Lisbon - for the first time - our Commissioner will no longer be chosen by the Irish govt. We will only have the power to "nominate" our Commissioner, but Brussels will make the final decision. That is a fair point.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

One argument they are already using - correctly - is that under Lisbon - for the first time - our Commissioner will no longer be chosen by the Irish govt. We will only have the power to "nominate" our Commissioner, but Brussels will make the final decision. That is a fair point.

I have some dreadful news for you. Brussels has final say as to who becomes Commissioner right now, under Nice.

regards,
Scofflaw

RedPlanet

Scofflaw wrote: »

.. concerned about Ireland's role in that, we have already opted out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

According to "DRAFT REPORT on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU"
All member states must do things like attend EU-NATO meetings regardless of their positions.
Also, all member states must upgrade their forces.
There are other juicy bits contained in the report, from Oct 2008
I encourage you all to have a read.


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/draftReportsCom.do?language=EN&body=AFET#
Scroll down to:

Ari Vatanen

16 October 2008
DRAFT REPORT
The role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU

Frankie Lee

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Paragraph?

Sorry section 217. Mainly "The provisions for European defence in the Reform Treaty meet UK objectives to ensure the development of a flexible, militarily robust and NATO-friendly ESDP."

Frankie Lee

RedPlanet wrote: »

According to "DRAFT REPORT on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU"
All member states must do things like attend EU-NATO meetings regardless of their positions.
Also, all member states must upgrade their forces.
There are other juicy bits contained in the report, from Oct 2008
I encourage you all to have a read.


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/draftReportsCom.do?language=EN&body=AFET#
Scroll down to:

Ari Vatanen

16 October 2008
DRAFT REPORT
The role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU

These are the real issues involved with the Lisbon Treaty but how often do you hear them mentioned in the mainstream media.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

These are the real issues involved with the Lisbon Treaty but how often do you hear them mentioned in the mainstream media.

What are the real issues? That nearly all the EU countries are in NATO, and that nearly all of NATO is made up of EU countries? And that we're not? In what way are those the real issues?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Frankie Lee

Scofflaw wrote: »

What are the real issues? That nearly all the EU countries are in NATO, and that nearly all of NATO is made up of EU countries? And that we're not? In what way are those the real issues?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Did you read Ari Vatanen's report?
It is my belief that one of the key reasons that the Lisbon treaty was drafted (apart from improving internal workings etc.) was to pave the way increased militarisation of the EU.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Did you read Ari Vatanen's report?
It is my belief that one of the key reasons that the Lisbon treaty was drafted (apart from improving internal workings etc.) was to pave the way increased militarisation of the EU.

I did read it, hence my questions! What's the objection, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Frankie Lee

I don't agree with Europe's foreign policy being shaped by a US led NATO and I don't agree militarisation.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

I don't agree with Europe's foreign policy being shaped by a US led NATO and I don't agree militarisation.

Hmm. The issue with the first one is that most of the EU is in NATO, and regards NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, so there's always going to be a strong NATO element. That doesn't mean that European foreign policy is shaped by NATO or the US, since there's a lot more to foreign policy than military action.

As to the second, the problem there is the EU contains rather a lot of military powers - admittedly second-rank ones. They're not about to abandon military power (heck, neither are we).

So to my mind, we can either have a Europe which acts militarily solely through NATO, we can have a Europe that acts militarily solely through the EU, we can have some blend or cooperation between the two, or we can abandon military force entirely.

Now, option 1 you presumably object to (NATO-led Europe), option 2 you presumably object to (militarised EU), and option 4 isn't going to happen. Option 3 is what's happening, and what you're objecting to.

What am I missing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Frankie Lee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. The issue with the first one is that most of the EU is in NATO, and regards NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, so there's always going to be a strong NATO element. That doesn't mean that European foreign policy is shaped by NATO or the US, since there's a lot more to foreign policy than military action.

As to the second, the problem there is the EU contains rather a lot of military powers - admittedly second-rank ones. They're not about to abandon military power (heck, neither are we).

So to my mind, we can either have a Europe which acts militarily solely through NATO, we can have a Europe that acts militarily solely through the EU, we can have some blend or cooperation between the two, or we can abandon military force entirely.

Now, option 1 you presumably object to (NATO-led Europe), option 2 you presumably object to (militarised EU), and option 4 isn't going to happen. Option 3 is what's happening, and what you're objecting to.

What am I missing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Option 3 as you put it mhust be a combination of option 1 and 2 if that is that is the case and yes I do object to it.
Europe is the safest place on the planet and does not require an increase in military spending at the expense of social projects.

Steviemak

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Europe is the safest place on the planet and does not require an increase in military spending at the expense of social projects.

Europe is the safest place on the planet because of our military power. (it is also the most socially democratic - where else are people and workers treated so well?) No other place in the world has been so shaped and so defined by WAR as Europe. Its the reason we are so peaceful. We understand it more than anywhere. That is what makes the EU so great. It was born from the rubble to ensure it never happened again. It is a fragile project.

But I guess we can give it all up and go back to fighting! What part of NO don't people understand!!!

Eurosceptic2008

There is no new Lisbon? Haven't you heard? Not a syllabel will be changed in the Treaty itself. We will be voting on the exact same proposition. The assurances are to be included in the Croatian Accession Treaty, which of itself makes them of doubtful credibility as Slovenia has announced it will block Croatian accession to the EU over a border dispute. The assurances are not even promises - they are promises thrice removed. First we are asked to trust Fianna Fáil whose litany of broken-promises is the worst-kept secret in Irish politics. Secondly we have to trust 26 foreign govts many of whom broke their word on giving their peoples referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Thirdly we have to trust that Croatian EU membership will actually happen. If one of these parties proves unworthy of our trust after ratification of Lisbon, then we will still lose our Commissioner, still have no guarantees in law for our taxation-system, and the same goes for our neutrality. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

It doesn't matter. The assurances are unnecessary anyway. Haven't you been paying attention?

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

There is no new Lisbon? Haven't you heard? Not a syllabel will be changed in the Treaty itself. We will be voting on the exact same proposition. The assurances are to be included in the Croatian Accession Treaty, which of itself makes them of doubtful credibility as Slovenia has announced it will block Croatian accession to the EU over a border dispute. The assurances are not even promises - they are promises thrice removed. First we are asked to trust Fianna Fáil whose litany of broken-promises is the worst-kept secret in Irish politics. Secondly we have to trust 26 foreign govts many of whom broke their word on giving their peoples referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Thirdly we have to trust that Croatian EU membership will actually happen. If one of these parties proves unworthy of our trust after ratification of Lisbon, then we will still lose our Commissioner, still have no guarantees in law for our taxation-system, and the same goes for our neutrality. :rolleyes:

That's a rather sad misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of the situation. First, the Croatian accession treaty is only the most convenient upcoming treaty - the protocols can be tacked onto any new treaty, or can form a mini-treaty of their own. Croatian accession is not required.

Second, we're not being asked to trust Fianna Fáil - we're being asked to trust legally binding commitments from foreign governments. If your levels of trust don't rise that high, that's a pity, but irrelevant.

Third, only one government promised people a referendum and then welched - the Labour party in the UK - and most probably because it would have turned into a vote of confidence on the government.

To be wrong is one thing - to be quite so comprehensively wrong...have you ever considered becoming a Creationist?

regards,
Scofflaw

marco murphy

However if they continue with a No campaign this time despite alterations in the treaty then I'll lose any respect I had for them

What alterations? There has been none.

oscarBravo

Perestroika wrote: »

What alterations? There has been none.

Probably because only imaginary changes were needed to counter the imaginary concerns of many "no" voters.

marco murphy

murfie wrote: »

Sinn fein will more than likely come up with some other reason not to support the treaty and run with it. They are the party that will forever go against the main stream view of their political opposition.

The main stream view was a no vote. How come that hasn't been listened to? Because Sinn Fein happened to advocate a no vote?

Canada J Soup

Three points about the whole commissioner thing:

1. We were not 'losing' our commissioner. The entire EU was moving to a system whereby the appointment of commissioners rotated equally between all member states.

2. This wasn't new to Lisbon. We'd already agreed to it.

3. If we were to move back to a system where every member state appoints a commissioner it is going to be to Ireland's detriment (and to the detriment of other small member states). There are 27 member states. There are not 27 distinct areas of equal importance to which commissioners can be assigned responsibility. If the commission continues to have 27 members, the larger member states will take the most important portfolios.

There's a reason why the Irish cabinet has only 12 posts. If the Taoiseach were able to appoint a cabinet of 20 or 30 full ministers it'd be an easy way for him to shore up support from within his party and any party they happened to be in coalition with, but it'd also be a reduction of the effectiveness of the cabinet as a decision making group.

Anyone who claims that Sinn Fein opposed the Lisbon treaty in an attempt to secure Ireland a 'better deal' is one of the Sinn Fein party faithful.

Anyone who actually believes this claim should get in touch with me via private message as I have a bridge I'm selling that I think they might be interested in.

Eurosceptic2008

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a rather sad misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of the situation. First, the Croatian accession treaty is only the most convenient upcoming treaty - the protocols can be tacked onto any new treaty, or can form a mini-treaty of their own. Croatian accession is not required.

Second, we're not being asked to trust Fianna Fáil - we're being asked to trust legally binding commitments from foreign governments. If your levels of trust don't rise that high, that's a pity, but irrelevant.

Third, only one government promised people a referendum and then welched - the Labour party in the UK - and most probably because it would have turned into a vote of confidence on the government.

To be wrong is one thing - to be quite so comprehensively wrong...have you ever considered becoming a Creationist?

regards,
Scofflaw

FYI, the Polish, Portuguese, Czech and Danish govts also welched on promises of referenda.

Canada J Soup wrote:

1. We were not 'losing' our commissioner. The entire EU was moving to a system whereby the appointment of commissioners rotated equally between all member states.

Meaning we would have lost our Commissioner 1/3rd of the time so the no side were correct.

2. This wasn't new to Lisbon. We'd already agreed to it.

Only partly true. Yes the idea of rotation was in Nice when unanimity would agree to it in the Commission chosen in November 2009. What happens if unanimity isn't reached is unchartered constitutional territory. But where Nice and Lisbon differ is that Nice simply says the Commission has to be smaller than the number of member states, whereas Lisbon sets the number at 18. With Nice the Commission could just have been reduced to 26, meaning we would keep our Commissioner 95% of the time - a better deal than Lisbon in terms of protecting national interests. And again, whatever the theory, the practice has been that national commissioners do defend national interests.

3. If we were to move back to a system where every member state appoints a commissioner it is going to be to Ireland's detriment (and to the detriment of other small member states). There are 27 member states. There are not 27 distinct areas of equal importance to which commissioners can be assigned responsibility. If the commission continues to have 27 members, the larger member states will take the most important portfolios.

I don't understand where you get that idea from. The next Commission president will decide who gets what portfolio. He/she will be chosen by QMV, but the Nice form of QMV is more favourable to small states who are overrepresented per head of population, unlike Lisbon where they are not.

K-9

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

With Nice the Commission could just have been reduced to 26, meaning we would keep our Commissioner 95% of the time - a better deal than Lisbon in terms of protecting national interests. And again, whatever the theory, the practice has been that national commissioners do defend national interests.

They don't act in the National Interest. When has McCreevey defended our interests?

Eurosceptic2008

Seanies32 wrote: »

They don't act in the National Interest. When has McCreevey defended our interests?

When he opposed Tax Commissioner Laslo Kovacs' plan for a CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) which would have forced companies operating in Ireland to pay their taxes proportionately to the countries of sales-destination. As Ireland exports 90% of what we produce, that would have particularly damaged the Irish govt's tax revenues.

McCreevy spells out his opposition to CCCTB Back
The European Commission's plans to introduce tax harmonisation is 'sinister', 'unworkable' and further evidence of the Commission's policy of 'camouflag(ing) the end purposes of proposals until you have put in place the building blocks to achieve them' Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy told Irish investment professionals on May 11th.
EU Internal Markets Commissioner Charlie McCreevy was in fine form at the Securities & Investment Institute annual lunch on May 11th, when he rubbished the European Commission's attempts to introduce some form of tax harmonisation in Europe. He also expressed some doubts over whether Member States really will have an option to opt out of the planned Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), and wondered whether the Commission's purpose was to, 'camouflage the end purposes of proposals until you have put in place the building blocks to achieve them'.

At the event he set out a number of points which illustrated why he is concerned over efforts to harmonise taxes across Europe.

Firstly, he said that the claim that the CCCTB would have no impact on tax rates is 'unsustainable'. This is because once the base of profits that is taxable is clear and uniform across the Member States, the changes will result in a narrower taxable base than before for some (in other words less income to tax), and for others it will mean a wider base than before (more income to tax). Which, according to McCreevy, would mean that, 'other things being equal, the change in the size of the tax base for each Member State would mean that each Member State would have to either raise or reduce its corporate tax rate to generate the same revenue as at present'.

McCreevy then went on to call the second leg of the scheme, which deals with sharing out the base between Member States, 'more sinister'.

'You might think that the tried and tested way - the so called 'value added' approach whereby tax is levied where the economic added value is created - would be the basis of the share out. But this is certainly not what the designers of this scheme have in mind: they have put forward all sorts of different formulae including a share out based on criteria such as a Member State's sales or GDP. Clearly any such share out would benefit Member States with large markets and big GDPs at the expense of Member States with small markets and small GDPs. This would be particularly unfair to the smaller, poorer Member States of Eastern Europe- and places like Portugal and Malta - who are seeking to build their economies from a low base, have small domestic markets, and relatively low GDPs. Under a formula that included sales and GDP in the calculation those Member States would continually be on the back foot and find it almost impossible to catch up'.

As it stands, Member States will have the option of either opting in, or opting out, of the CCCTB. However, McCreevy expressed great scepticism over whether or not this will actually be the case, saying, 'optionality is not workable'.