Bullet Point Lisbon

tonycascarino

NO - Enable the 27 EU Prime Ministers to appoint an EU President for up to five years without allowing voters any say as to who he or she would be - thereby abolishing the present six-monthly rotating EU presidencies (Art.15.5 TEU). Appointment rather than democratic election to this and other top EU jobs typifies the undemocratic nature of the proposed Lisbon Constitution. It is the Prime Ministers of the Big States who would have the key say in filling them because of the big increase in their voting weight under Lisbon.

tonycascarino

NO - Be a self-amending Treaty which would allow the EU Prime Ministers to shift most of the remaining policy areas where unanimity is required and a national veto still exists, to qualified majority voting on the EU Council of Ministers, without need of further Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU).

tonycascarino

NO - Militarize the EU further, requiring Member States "progressively to improve their military capabilities"(Art.42.3 TEU) and to aid and assist other Member States experiencing armed attack "by all the means in their power" (Art.42.7 TEU).

tonycascarino

NO - Reintroduce the death penalty "in time of war or of imminent threat of war" for possible future supranational EU forces by providing for the post-Lisbon EU to accede as a corporate entity, separate from its Member States, to Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which permits the use of the death penalty on these occasions, rather than to Protocol 13 which bans the death penalty in all circumstances and to which the EU's Member States have acceded (Art.6 TEU; Explanation on Art.2, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).

tonycascarino

NO - Copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice, which make it illegal for Trade Unions or Governments to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers. At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU). This combination threatens the pay and established working conditions of employees in higher income EU countries.

tonycascarino

NO - Give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our rights as EU citizens by making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time. This Charter includes such rights as the right to life, the rights of the child, the right to fair trial, the right to strike, the right to property etc, all of them rights which Member States already have under their national Constitutions, but which for people as EU citizens it would fall to the EU Court of Justice, not their national Courts, to interpret and decide. This would give power to EU judges to lay down a uniform standard of rights for 500 million EU citizens across the post-Lisbon European Union.

tonycascarino

NO - Turn us all into real citizens for the first time of this new post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to our own country and State, and its constitution and laws, in the event of any conflict between the two. One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. Article 9 TEU would give us an "additional" EU citizenship, on top of our national citizenship. This would be a real EU citizenship for the first time, with associated citizens' rights and duties, and would be quite different from the notional or symbolical EU "citizenship" of today. We would still retain our national citizenship post-Lisbon, but it would be subordinate to our EU citizenship in any case of conflict, as is the case with citizens of such Federal States as Germany, the USA, Switzerland, Australia, Canada.

beneton

Yes, loss of veto in certain areas - policy making that results is more democratic, fairer, more open and reflects something more than lowest common denominator politics. PS Vetos defend interests of bigger players rather than smaller ones - Ireland has used veto only ONCE since we joined whereas we have LOST OUT much more often wehen bigger member states have used veto often.

tonycascarino

NO - Increase the influence of the European Parliament in making EU laws in 19 new policy areas, while reducing the power of National Parliaments to make laws in 49 such areas. Lisbon would entitle one-third of the National Parliaments or 1 million EU citizens to request the EU Commission to propose a new EU law or to abandon a proposed law, but the Commission need not accede to any such request (Art.11 TEU; Protocol No. 2). Lisbon underlines the implicitly subordinate role of National Parliaments in the institutional structure of the post-Lisbon EU by laying down that"National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by various means that are set out in Art.12 TEU.

tonycascarino

NO - It's exactly the same Lisbon Treaty: Not a comma of the Lisbon Treaty will be changed for Lisbon Two. If Lisbon comes into force it will be interpreted by the EU Court of Justice and not on the basis of political declarations and promises by the EU Prime Ministers which the Government is trying to make out are significant, but which do not change the Treaty and are not legally binding as part of EU law. As pro-Lisbon journalist James Downey wrote in the Irish Independent on 21 March: "The antis are right about one thing, if one thing only. Any guarantees we may get on their concerns will be irrelevant, or worthless, or both."

tonycascarino

NO - Overturning the people's vote: The Lisbon Treaty is the EU State Constitution which French and Dutch voters rejected in their 2005 referendums in new legal form. Irish voters rejected it in last year's referendum by 53% to 47%. All genuine democrats, including Yes-side voters, should respect that vote. Respecting it would have meant Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Foreign Minister Micheál Martin telling their EU partners that Ireland could not ratify Lisbon because Irish voters had rejected it, so that there was no point in their continuing to ratify it, as EU Treaties must be unanimous. Instead Cowen and Martin told the other EU Governments on the morning of the count to ignore their people's vote, to continue with ratifying Lisbon and that they would re-run the referendum on exactly the same Treaty, while pretending it has changed, so as to turn that No into a Yes.

tonycascarino

NO - Denying citizens a vote: France's President Sarkozy has admitted that if Lisbon were put to referendum in other EU countries their voters would reject it too. That is why the EU Prime Ministers decided to refuse referendums on it everywhere, although opinion polls show that people in most Member States want to decide themselves whether they should be put under an EU Constitution which would override their National Constitutions.

tonycascarino

NO - Lisbon would be a constitutional revolution in the EU and its Member States. It would give Government Ministers and the Big EU States huge new powers, while taking power away from ordinary citizens across the EU, and from the National Parliaments they elect. That is why only Ireland is being allowed a vote on it - because of our Constitution. Only we Irish can save democracy in the EU by refusing to allow ourselves to be bullied or bamboozled into overturning our rejection of Lisbon last year - thereby holding open for the people of Britain and our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland the chance of voting No to Lisbon in a UK referendum next summer.

oscarBravo

NO - the flying spaghetti monster is anti-Lisbon.

This is fun.

tonycascarino

oscarBravo wrote: »

NO - the flying spaghetti monster is anti-Lisbon.

This is fun.

Good for him. I really do hope you are enjoying yourself just like I am.:D

ixtlan

tonycascarino wrote: »

NO - Enable the 27 EU Prime Ministers to appoint an EU President for up to five years without allowing voters any say as to who he or she would be - thereby abolishing the present six-monthly rotating EU presidencies (Art.15.5 TEU). Appointment rather than democratic election to this and other top EU jobs typifies the undemocratic nature of the proposed Lisbon Constitution. It is the Prime Ministers of the Big States who would have the key say in filling them because of the big increase in their voting weight under Lisbon.

YES - Vastly improves the current inefficient presidency system. At the moment it rotates every 6 months, which may be flattering to the prime minister in the current state, but which is extremely disruptive to the administration of the EU.

Finally gives Ireland a say in the choice of the president of the council, as opposed to having to accept without question whichever EU leader's turn it is. At the moment that could be a neo-Nazi/Communist/whatever your least favourite type is. In future the candidate will have to be acceptable to a qualified majority of all member states.

This candidate will be agreed by QMV which per capita gives Ireland a much greater say than larger states, rather than an EU wide election, which would result in a Eurovision style fiasco, and a much much smaller influence level by Ireland.

The candidate will be appointed for 2.5years, can be ousted if there are problems, and can be re-appointed for 2.5 more years. Note that this role is not a decision-making one. It's more of a facilating role for the heads of state.

Sounds like an improvement to me.

ix

ixtlan

tonycascarino wrote: »

NO - Lisbon would be a constitutional revolution in the EU and its Member States. It would give Government Ministers and the Big EU States huge new powers, while taking power away from ordinary citizens across the EU, and from the National Parliaments they elect. That is why only Ireland is being allowed a vote on it - because of our Constitution. Only we Irish can save democracy in the EU by refusing to allow ourselves to be bullied or bamboozled into overturning our rejection of Lisbon last year - thereby holding open for the people of Britain and our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland the chance of voting No to Lisbon in a UK referendum next summer.

YES - Lisbon is a continuation of the successful policies and strategies of the EU. It is of a more minor nature than previous treaties, involving less transfer of powers. It enhances the powers of the European parliament and allows National parliaments more of a say in EU legislation.

If we vote NO again, there will be no vote in the UK. Indeed logically no-voters should demand that there be no such vote as otherwise Britain would be dis-respecting our vote in suggesting that Lisbon might still come into effect. So it's rather amusing for you to suggest voting no, to allow them to vote no later!

adr

NO - enough of bureaucracy, socialism and ridiculous laws from Brussels! Why not let all countries stay sovereign and cooperate with each other. Why create something artificial. Haven't we learnt anything from the past? All experiments like this ended horribly ie Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, or more recently Yugoslavia.

NO - to ignorance of Eurocrats and their lack of respect to Irish people vote. This is the same Treaty! Stop fooling people with some irrelevant and worthless guarantees!

NO - our ancestors fought and gave their lives for freedom of our countries. Why give it up now voluntarily to a bunch of politicians who only care about their perks and plum jobs?

NO - to lies about the necessity of Lisbon to a quicker economy recovery. Solutions that are good for Ireland may not necessarily be good for Germany etc

conchubhar1

they are all against the eu - not lisbon.

last point is about lisbon, kind of.

the_dark_side

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes - Ireland's and Europe's voices will be stronger on the world stage, with the consolidation of the external relations aspects of the Union, giving us the ability to share our values of respect for Human Rights, and abhorrence of Despots and Dictators, and giving us the ability to stand up to any country that would pursue an illegal war of conquest for financial gain, under false pretences.

Are you worried that the USA will invade the EU after their finished with Iraq and Afghanistan?

Iwasfrozen

Are you worried that the USA will invade the EU after their finished with Iraq and Afghanistan?

No but we want Europe to take a stronger international stance with relation to the U.N and OCED, both of which are currently American dominated.

conchubhar1

because america is our enemy or a threat?

not that that needs answering but just in case - no they are not

the_dark_side

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No but we want Europe to take a stronger international stance with relation to the U.N and OCED, both of which are currently American dominated.

ok... I didnt realsie this. Its just that popebuckfast's last sentence of his point sounded very like how people now refer to the US led invasion of Iraq etc.

Iwasfrozen

ok... I didnt realsie this. Its just that popebuckfast's last sentence of his point sounded very like how people now refer to the US led invasion of Iraq etc

Meh, maybe America did invade Iraq for Oil, tbh I don't know or care.
But no, America is no threat to us.

hatrickpatrick

O'Morris wrote: »

No - loss of national sovereignty. I want to be governed from Ireland's capital not Belgium's.

This.

also to everyone who said the "democratically elected" EU parliament - Ireland only has 13% of the seats. We have less representation there than we did in the Westminster parliament. Now, remind me one of the main reasons we wanted freedom from England? Oh yeah - because their parliament didn't care about us and our voice in it was powerless!

BlitzKrieg

Ireland only has 13% of the seats. We have less representation there than we did in the Westminster parliament.

But we have equal representation with the other states in the European Council. The parliament as an institute is decided by population. Our interests as a state are protected in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. Representation in both are equal to every other state but in the Council of Ministers our voting power is lower due to our smaller size though the claims of Germany's 16% super advantage are false as the voting system works on a double qualify system, meaning the population aspect of our vote is only half of the requirement the other half is a single vote that represents us a whole state which is equal with all other states and there are a series of protections in place to stop larger states pushing laws through without support. And in the European Council all states have equal representation and power.


European Parliament is designed to be an institute between the people and the EU, its the only institute that bypassess national governments. As such then the voting weight is decided purely by population rather then soverignty.

Mayo1

No - the Lisbon Treaty will give larger countries, Germany, France, Britian, etc, more say with a larger percentage of voting rights. Ireland's voting weight will be reduced to less than 1%!

Mayo1

No - The Charter of Fundamental Rights will override the Irish Constitution on many, many areas of human rights, including asylum, industrial relations, freedom of speech/press, ethical issues and even our justice education system, and health service. Giving the ECJ that kind of jurisdiction makes it a Supreme Court, allowing it to overrule the Irish Supreme Court on practically everything. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by Lisbon makes the Charter part of EU law with the same value as the Treaties.

Mayo1

No - We lose 34 vetoes now with the prospect of losing a further 16 later. The wording of the Lisbon I referendum legislation (28th amendment to the Constitution Act 2008) allows the govt and Oireachtas to surrender the Protocol that gives us an optout from QMV on Justice and Home Affairs without a referendum. I expect this provisions to be included in the Lisbon II legislation when it goes through the Oireacthas in July.

Mayo1

No - The guarantees are not inserted into a Protocol until a future Treaty to be negotiated at an unknown date. It is possible therefore that future governments will refuse to abide by this promise. Once Lisbon goes through, we lose our leverage to accomplish that. Vote no to force the elite to add the Protocol to the Treaties and ratify them so we know for certain the assurances are legally binding