No to Lisbon

Iwasfrozen

Likely to happen:
Scenario 1: 70%
Scenario 2: 20%
Scenario 3: }
Scenario 4: }
Scenario 5: }10%
Scenario 6: }

K-9

nesf wrote: »

Of course it makes a ****ing difference. "The Government will cut social welfare payments in the mini Budget" and "The Government may cut social welfare payments in the mini Budget" have completely different meanings.

dresden8 wrote: »

O

p.s And on your above quote, you can bet your @rse they do mean the same thing.

Nope, they don't.

I'll come back to this after the mini budget.
They will not cut SW payments, Despite rumours.

the-island-man

I find Article 48 piece 6 of the treaty to be worrying!
Actually the whole of Article 48 seems to be worrying!
Article 48 piece 6 states that:
"The Government of any Member State, the European
Parliament or the Commission may submit to
the European Council proposals for revising all or
part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the Union relating to the internal
policies and action of the Union."

My reading of this article is that the Lisbon treaty does provide the E.U a way of amending the functioning of Europe in any way it sees fit!
What worries me more is that the power falls to a non-elected undemocratic part of Europe such as the Council which is largely administrated by civil servents!

Its safe to say i'll be voting NO

BlitzKrieg

you forgot the rest of the piece

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements

sink

You are completely wrong and here is why

the-island-man wrote: »

What worries me more is that the power falls to a non-elected undemocratic part of Europe such as the Council which is largely administrated by civil servents!

The Council (officially the Council of the European Union) members are the directly elected cabinet ministers of each state i.e. Brian Lenihan, Willie O'Dea etc,. But that article you referenced doesn't even mention the Council, it mentions the European Council, who's members are the heads of government i.e. Brian Cowen, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy etc,.

You are probably confusing the Councils with the European Commission (the civil service of the EU), which like our own national civil service has no power to pass legislation, it only drafts and implements it. Only the councils and the parliament can pass legislation, with different procedures depending on the area.

the-island-man wrote: »

I find Article 48 piece 6 of the treaty to be worrying!
Actually the whole of Article 48 seems to be worrying!
Article 48 piece 6 states that:
"The Government of any Member State, the European
Parliament or the Commission may submit to
the European Council proposals for revising all or
part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the Union relating to the internal
policies and action of the Union."

My reading of this article is that the Lisbon treaty does provide the E.U a way of amending the functioning of Europe in any way it sees fit!

How did you come to that conclusion? It only allows them to submit a proposal to the European Council, that's it!! It would take a unanimous decision by the European Council to act on the proposal, meaning we have a veto. It then would have to be ratified by the national governments of all the member states and if it has constitutional implications for our country that would require a referendum.

You have demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge on the institutions of the EU but don't feel bad as this is the norm. The EU and our government have completely failed to educate the public as to how the EU and it's institutions work.

the-island-man

Okay thanks for clearing that up but now what about piece two of that article!
It basically says that commission can bypass our elected represtatives(E.U Parliment) in respect to amending the laws by submitting proposals to another non-elected institution the council and all they need do is "notify" the national parliment!
Article 48 piece 2:

The government of any Member State, the European
Parliament or the Commission may submit to the
Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties.
These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to
increase or to reduce the competences conferred on
the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be
submitted to the European Council by the Council
and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

BlitzKrieg

part 3 explains what happens after a proposal is made in part 2

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4.

The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

And part 4 (edit: my mistake, its part 4 not part 6) specifies that any proposal that is approved of in part 3 (the above quoted) is required to go through the constitutional process of each member if required. Which in Ireland's case means a referendum in the majority of cases.

Can we rename this thread "why i think i will be voting No to Lisbon" ? The title of this thread reminds me of the posters around the Nice treaty 1st time around ("You will lose. Power. Money. Influence." Remember them? Remember what happened 1st time round?) I'd like to think people are smarter than to be influenced by slogans put wherever, but evidently, people are influenced by suggestion.

molloyjh

the-island-man wrote: »

Okay thanks for clearing that up but now what about piece two of that article!
It basically says that commission can bypass our elected represtatives(E.U Parliment) in respect to amending the laws by submitting proposals to another non-elected institution the council and all they need do is "notify" the national parliment!
Article 48 piece 2:

The government of any Member State, the European
Parliament or the Commission may submit to the
Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties.
These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to
increase or to reduce the competences conferred on
the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be
submitted to the European Council by the Council
and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

The important word in all of that is "proposal". The proposal is still subject to approval by the Parliament and Member States as BlitzKrieg pointed out. The discussion on the changes in competences has been done to death on other threads in relation to corporation tax. Basically changes to competences must get unanimous support from the Member States via their constitutional requirements. The Commission cannot bypass anyone in the EU in any matter. At the very least all proposals will require approval by the Parlliament.

sink

the-island-man wrote: »

Okay thanks for clearing that up but now what about piece two of that article!
It basically says that commission can bypass our elected represtatives(E.U Parliment) in respect to amending the laws by submitting proposals to another non-elected institution the council and all they need do is "notify" the national parliment!
Article 48 piece 2:

You are mixing up 'laws' (aka directives) with the actual treaties. The European Parliament has a very little role to play in the formation and amendments of the treaties as these treaties are the agreements between the sovereign governments of the member states which form the basis of the EU including the parliament. The national governments retain full control over the treaties and the Council is the body where the national governments are represented. If the EU parliament was able to amend the treaties which established it in the first place it would be sovereign and the EU would be a full blown federal state.

The Council is the elected governments of the members states. Every country votes for their own government in a general election. Our current government is a Fianna Fáil/Green Party/Independent coalition and it is they who sit and vote on the Council.

The non-elected EU institution is the Commission which has no power to pass legislation.

greendom

The Lisbon treaty has been ratified by all the other member states. If Ireland says No then, in essence, Ireland is saying No to Europe and should leave. Really the referendum should be about whether we want to remain as a member state of the EU. All the other states have agreed that Lisbon is the best way to run the EU.

You can't have a system where all but one member adheres to the rules set

GuanYin

Posts by banned user deleted

Adhamh

Ah here, to suggest that all the other EU countries that have ratified the treaty did so by consensus is daft. Of course they had parliamentary consensus but not public consensus- Ireland being the only country constitutionally obliged to obtain public support when conceeding power to the EU. Say tomorrow morning, every member state held a referendum on Lisbon, would it then receive unanimous support from all? The French and Dutch public have already rejected what was essentially the same treaty, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I hate it when certain corners of the media portray us as the only anti-Lisbon country out there, when in reality, if given a chance and referendum, the other countries would probably be in much the same posisition as us- split roughly 50/50.

molloyjh

Adhamh wrote: »

Ah here, to suggest that all the other EU countries that have ratified the treaty did so by consensus is daft. Of course they had parliamentary consensus but not public consensus- Ireland being the only country constitutionally obliged to obtain public support when conceeding power to the EU. Say tomorrow morning, every member state held a referendum on Lisbon, would it then receive unanimous support from all? The French and Dutch public have already rejected what was essentially the same treaty, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I hate it when certain corners of the media portray us as the only anti-Lisbon country out there, when in reality, if given a chance and referendum, the other countries would probably be in much the same posisition as us- split roughly 50/50.

I'm not sure what you are basing that last statement on given that the French elected a man who had ratifying Lisbon as part of his manifesto. Either way we never saw any widespread or serious demonstrations or outcrys against the Treaty in any one country in the EU, let alone all of them. And given that it seems that the main Irish concerns were based on ignorance of the treaty itself it is hard to say that our views are representative of anything other than that ignorance.

sink

To be fair. It is statically unlikely that any treaty would pass public referenda in 27 separate states. I'm not good at the mathematics but if a treaty only has a 50% chance of passing in each state and is required to pass in all 27 states, the chance of it passing in all 27 is extremely small. It would be like flipping a coin 27 times a landing on heads every time. Maybe someone else can quantify this. Even if the chance of it passing in each is much higher than 50% it is still statistically unlikely to pass in all states.

hatrickpatrick

Hence why the EU is undemocratic. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't been forced to expand it when we voted twice on Nice?

sink

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hence why the EU is undemocratic. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't been forced to expand it when we voted twice on Nice?

. If anything it explains why separate referenda in every state is not a realistic way to decide the future of the EU. An EU wide referenda would be better but that requires the EU demos to be sovereign and the EU to be a fully fledged state. So you can either have ratification by national parliaments or make the EU demos sovereign, anywhere in the middle is unworkable!

molloyjh

sink wrote: »

To be fair. It is statically unlikely that any treaty would pass public referenda in 27 separate states. I'm not good at the mathematics but if a treaty only has a 50% chance of passing in each state and is required to pass in all 27 states, the chance of it passing in all 27 is extremely small. It would be like flipping a coin 27 times a landing on heads every time. Maybe someone else can quantify this. Even if the chance of it passing in each is much higher than 50% it is still statistically unlikely to pass in all states.

While that would be statistically the case in certain models where-by each result is as likely as the other that is likely not the case in most countries in the EU. There is almost always a majority for or against. To quantify it we would need to know things like electorates stands on the Treaty and voting numbers etc.

sink

molloyjh wrote: »

While that would be statistically the case in certain models where-by each result is as likely as the other that is likely not the case in most countries in the EU. There is almost always a majority for or against. To quantify it we would need to know things like electorates stands on the Treaty and voting numbers etc.

It's virtually impossible to verifiable quantify but no matter what the actual specific statistics are, the odds are still stacked against any treaty passing in all 27 states. It would have to have somewhere around as high as 95% in every state to even have a 50% chance of passing in all states.

molloyjh

sink wrote: »

It's virtually impossible to verifiable quantify but no matter what the actual specific statistics are, the odds are still stacked against any treaty passing in all 27 states. It would have to have somewhere around as high as 95% in every state to even have a 50% chance of passing in all states.

Yeah, all depends on the proportion of supporters against their likelihood to vote I suppose. Either way the point remains that there is no evidence to suggest that the people of Europe are unhappy with the Lisbon Treaty. I have yet to see a case made by anyone.

Scofflaw

Ah here, to suggest that all the other EU countries that have ratified the treaty did so by consensus is daft. Of course they had parliamentary consensus but not public consensus

There seems to be some ongoing confusion between the EU, which operates by consensus on a day to day basis, and the ratification of treaties by the member states, which is a totally separate process.

Ratification of treaties is a state-by-state process. It requires only a majority of one representative in each national parliament, or a majority of one person in a public vote. The method, and the tactics, are up to the governments of each individual member state - we use referendums, most states use parliamentary votes. As with the ratification of any treaty, governments that have signed a treaty are obliged to keep trying for ratification until it becomes clearly impossible.

The day to day decision-making of the EU, on the other hand, depends on the operations of the Commission, the Council, and increasingly the Parliament. The first two operate by consensus, in that a decision is not made until everyone is 'happy enough' with the outcome, while the latter operates by free votes, unlike our whipped system.

The former and the latter are unrelated processes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Adhamh

Sorry, I am aware that there are different voting systems in place i.e. us being the only country legally obliged to hold referenda. I'm not making any comment here on the treaty itself; I just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements within the media which portray us as being the only country within EU to be against the treaty when really they're not comparing like with like. Our heads of state- just like all their continental counterparts- were and are still in favour of the treaty yet as were we the only nation to have a referendum we don't know what the citizens of the other countries think, although their politicians support the treaty. (Legally speaking of course, they don't have referendums, so their opinions don't matter- I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, it's just a fact.) As we don't have any raw facts or figures about support for the treaty amongst the European public- the demos in the democracy- I hate it when newspapers report it as the people of Ireland versus 100% of Europe. Fair enough?

K-9

Adhamh wrote: »

Sorry, I am aware that there are different voting systems in place i.e. us being the only country legally obliged to hold referenda. I'm not making any comment here on the treaty itself; I just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements within the media which portray us as being the only country within EU to be against the treaty when really they're not comparing like with like. Our heads of state- just like all their continental counterparts- were and are still in favour of the treaty yet as were we the only nation to have a referendum we don't know what the citizens of the other countries think, although their politicians support the treaty. (Legally speaking of course, they don't have referendums, so their opinions don't matter- I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, it's just a fact.) As we don't have any raw facts or figures about support for the treaty amongst the European public- the demos in the democracy- I hate it when newspapers report it as the people of Ireland versus 100% of Europe. Fair enough?

The Mail and some of the other tabloids definitely do not report it like that.

Scofflaw

Adhamh wrote: »

Sorry, I am aware that there are different voting systems in place i.e. us being the only country legally obliged to hold referenda. I'm not making any comment here on the treaty itself; I just wanted to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements within the media which portray us as being the only country within EU to be against the treaty when really they're not comparing like with like. Our heads of state- just like all their continental counterparts- were and are still in favour of the treaty yet as were we the only nation to have a referendum we don't know what the citizens of the other countries think, although their politicians support the treaty. (Legally speaking of course, they don't have referendums, so their opinions don't matter- I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, it's just a fact.) As we don't have any raw facts or figures about support for the treaty amongst the European public- the demos in the democracy- I hate it when newspapers report it as the people of Ireland versus 100% of Europe. Fair enough?

I think that's a fair point, but it's somewhat weakened by the equal and opposite tendency for No proponents to claim or imply that the people of Europe are actually on the No side, as opposed to their politicians - thus making it a fight between "the people" (hurrah!) saying No and "the elites" (boo!) saying yes.

As far as the national level goes, though, it's accurate to say that Ireland - the state - is alone in Europe at the moment, because governments deal with governments, states with states. Diplomatic isolation is only meaningful at the state level - and at the state level, we're the player holding onto the ball.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Adhamh

Yes, I agree with you to some extent, Scofflaw, but we just don't know what 'the people' are thinking, the majority could be on either side. The point you make though about the whole thing being 'romanticised' into an 'us' and 'them' thing is well placed. I remember seeing a poster for the Socialist Party or someone after the results declaring it to be a 'resounding No!'. A 'No' it most certainly was but only by about 4%, hardly resounding compared to the EU constitutions rejection in the Netherlands of about 70/30. The people have spoken most definately, but what irked me was that, despite the huge diversity of No voters, they tried claiming that the people had united against the neoliberal order, when really people who were that way inclined obviously only made up a fragment.

Hitman Actual

Adhamh wrote: »

they tried claiming that the people had united against the neoliberal order, when really people who were that way inclined obviously only made up a fragment.

Who's they? I think you're misinterpreting something there. The commonly accepted view, and one borne out by several polls, is that lack of knowledge of the Treaty was the most significant factor in the No vote. For an excellent analysis, have a look at the report in this thread.

Scofflaw

Adhamh wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you to some extent, Scofflaw, but we just don't know what 'the people' are thinking, the majority could be on either side. The point you make though about the whole thing being 'romanticised' into an 'us' and 'them' thing is well placed. I remember seeing a poster for the Socialist Party or someone after the results declaring it to be a 'resounding No!'. A 'No' it most certainly was but only by about 4%, hardly resounding compared to the EU constitutions rejection in the Netherlands of about 70/30. The people have spoken most definately, but what irked me was that, despite the huge diversity of No voters, they tried claiming that the people had united against the neoliberal order, when really people who were that way inclined obviously only made up a fragment.

Not only that, but the No actually included quite a lot of people who were voting No on behalf of the neo-liberal order....Libertas, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Adhamh

Hitman- the 'they' that I was refering to was the Socialist Party or whoever put up the sign that declared to vote to be a victory for the opponents of neoliberalism. I was annoyed that they hijacked the result for their own purposes when a very broad spectrum of people voted no for many reasons. Sorry for grammatical ambiguity.

Amberman

from a poker players point of view, I think the popular argument is, essentailly, optimally...an expression of collective will.

Yes, we have voted particular politicians in, for general stuff. Pro europenas will argue that we have voted them in for all stuff...but that isnt really how the electorate understood it...at least not in Britain. irish people also though once they voted, that would be it. Wrong again! Vote until you vote YES!

For particular stuff, like lisbon etc, the Euro population overwhelmingly wants an individual say IMO. Politicians are great an all...for stuff like tax etc, but thats as far as people trust them in many cases.

Since the YES campaign is 0 for 3 (counting Euro referendum) wher a vote has been allowed to take place.

In a democracy, wouldnt it make sense to allow all people to have a say individually. This is clearly an issue...we dont want gold plated pension politicians deciding for us....if history is a guide. They are completely biased and self interested...any fool can see that.

Still p[oliticians kow best...where are we again?

Is this the way to Sh1t street?

Amberman

Adhamh wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you to some extent, Scofflaw, but we just don't know what 'the people' are thinking

They voted NO....didnt they?

Which part do you find confusing?