Bullet Point Lisbon

BlitzKrieg

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%!

I have to wonder why you throw this out despite in the very post above yours it has been pointed out to be false???

n 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.

Scofflaw

Mayo1 wrote: »

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

The assurances are legally binding, because they're cast as legally binding international agreements. That includes the assurance that they will be turned into Protocols - either at the next accession treaty, or on their own. The only reason for not putting them into Lisbon is that that would require re-ratification by all those countries that have already ratified - and while No proponents are quick to dismiss parliamentary ratification, it's not a case of rubber-stamping the documents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the_dark_side

adr wrote: »

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

If I were to vote no, it would also be for these reasons

oscarBravo

the_dark_side wrote: »

If I were to vote no, it would also be for these reasons

To be fair, Euroskepticism is one of the few internally-consistent reasons for voting against Lisbon.

adr

Scofflaw wrote: »

The assurances are legally binding, because they're cast as legally binding international agreements. That includes the assurance that they will be turned into Protocols - either at the next accession treaty, or on their own. The only reason for not putting them into Lisbon is that that would require re-ratification by all those countries that have already ratified - and while No proponents are quick to dismiss parliamentary ratification, it's not a case of rubber-stamping the documents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is nonsensical explanation and only cofirms people will be voting on the same Treaty as last year. Once Lisbon is ratified it's all over and all assurances will be worthless.
You are right in one thing. Brussels won't take the risk of re-ratification of the Treaty having almost all signatures. It's much easier to try to pull this stunt again on one country than on all of them.

molloyjh

adr wrote: »

This is nonsensical explanation and only cofirms people will be voting on the same Treaty as last year. Once Lisbon is ratified it's all over and all assurances will be worthless.
You are right in one thing. Brussels won't take the risk of re-ratification of the Treaty having almost all signatures. It's much easier to try to pull this stunt again on one country than on all of them.

The assurances are legally binding. And try telling the Danes that the assurances they received in '92 were worthless. They weren't. The EU has shown at this stage that it does indeed act in good faith and people like you are casting about objections and accusations for what!?

K-9

molloyjh wrote: »

The assurances are legally binding. And try telling the Danes that the assurances they received in '92 were worthless. They weren't. The EU has shown at this stage that it does indeed act in good faith and people like you are casting about objections and accusations for what!?

Fair point, there is no good reason or track record to think they will renege on them.

It's a believe that touches on the dreaded "xenophobia" idea.

Scofflaw

adr wrote: »

This is nonsensical explanation and only cofirms people will be voting on the same Treaty as last year. Once Lisbon is ratified it's all over and all assurances will be worthless.
You are right in one thing. Brussels won't take the risk of re-ratification of the Treaty having almost all signatures. It's much easier to try to pull this stunt again on one country than on all of them.

Again, you're mixed up there. 'Brussels' doesn't dictate what it wants - the other member states don't want to go through ratification again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

adr

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, you're mixed up there. 'Brussels' doesn't dictate what it wants - the other member states don't want to go through ratification again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How nicely said... You can also say Brussels didn't dictate to run a 2nd referendum in Ireland the other member states did. And again, if Lisbon is ratified Brussels won't dictate Ireland what to do, the other member states will. What difference does it make?

oscarBravo

adr wrote: »

How nicely said... You can also say Brussels didn't dictate to run a 2nd referendum in Ireland the other member states did.

Um, no. The Irish government did. The sole responsibility for choosing to hold a referendum in this country is vested with the Oireachtas.

And again, if Lisbon is ratified Brussels won't dictate Ireland what to do, the other member states will. What difference does it make?

If you don't understand the difference, you really need to go and do some in-depth research on the whole concept of the EU and how it works.

edit: It occurs to me that I should add something more constructive.

Imagine you and some friends sit down to discuss where to have dinner. After some discussion (some of it heated), all of you arrive at a decision that you're all pretty happy with.

Does that mean that your friends have dictated to you where you should eat? Has the restaurant dictated to you where you should eat?

adr

oscarBravo wrote: »

edit: It occurs to me that I should add something more constructive.

Imagine you and some friends sit down to discuss where to have dinner. After some discussion (some of it heated), all of you arrive at a decision that you're all pretty happy with.

Does that mean that your friends have dictated to you where you should eat? Has the restaurant dictated to you where you should eat?

The issue is that maybe sometimes I want to eat alone or pick the restaurant myself. If the Lisbon is passed I will have to eat at the same restaurnat that suits the rest even if I don't like it.

Is it more constructive for you?

smithcity

NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

NO Voting for this Treaty is caving in to bullying tactics by our government which rejected and ignored our original vote. It is undemocratic.

NO The Lisbon Treaty will allow the European Court of Justice to overrule the Irish Supreme Courts on all matters.

NO I believe that moving towards a Federal Europe is the wrong direction to take the Europe project and will ultimately work to the detriment of the small EU states.

Hitman Actual

smithcity wrote: »

NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

Lucky this is covered in the Irish EC Decision so (BTW, you do know that we're already in the EDA anyway, yes?):

Section 3, EC Council Irish Decision wrote:

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

smithcity wrote: »

NO Voting for this Treaty is caving in to bullying tactics by our government which rejected and ignored our original vote. It is undemocratic.

Are you that easily bullied? You're not being forced to vote Yes, you know. And the original vote wasn't ignored; has the Irish Constitution been changed? Also, this has nothing to do with the Treaty anyway.

smithcity wrote: »

NO The Lisbon Treaty will allow the European Court of Justice to overrule the Irish Supreme Courts on all matters.

Are you talking in general, or about the Charter of Fundamental Rights? In either case, you are wrong.

smithcity wrote: »

NO I believe that moving towards a Federal Europe is the wrong direction to take the Europe project and will ultimately work to the detriment of the small EU states.

There might be several institutional reforms in Lisbon, but there isn't much (if anything) in it to move it towards this Federal Europe that you're worried about.

Scofflaw

Hitman Actual wrote: »

There might be several institutional reforms in Lisbon, but there isn't much (if anything) in it to move it towards this Federal Europe that you're worried about.

From the German constitutional case ruling:

The European Union continues to constitute a union of rule
(Herrschaftsverband) founded on international law, a union which is
permanently supported by the intention of the sovereign Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

smithcity

Dear Hitman, thank you for your opinion.
Here is an excerpt from the treaty which totally contradicts your quote:

"Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon
Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to C 306/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007 strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."


NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

Scofflaw

smithcity wrote: »

Dear Hitman, thank you for your opinion.
Here is an excerpt from the treaty which totally contradicts whatever that quote was:

"Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon
Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."

Possibly we ought to have a separate thread for discussion of Lisbon/EDA. However, just to make the point that the Treaty Article above doesn't contradict the Guarantee given:

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

The duties of the EDA as highlighted by smithcity involve:

1. implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector,

2. participating in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy

The former is a matter of industrial policy, such as giving R&D breaks to defence research companies. The latter will be defined, in part, by Ireland, and unless Ireland chooses to sign up to some kind of goal, cannot impose any tasks or decisions on Ireland, because there is no EU jurisdiction allowing it. What would happen is that Ireland would say "this is what we're willing to bring to the table", and the "capabilities" would then include that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

smithcity wrote: »

Dear Hitman, thank you for your opinion.
Here is an excerpt from the treaty which totally contradicts whatever that quote was:

"Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon
Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to C 306/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007 strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities."


NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

"whatever that quote was" is part of Section 3 of the legally-binding EC Decision on the Irish assurances.

smithcity

Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon
...Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities....

NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

I can't keep dumbing it down guys, that's as simply as I'm going to put it. Ok?

Scofflaw

smithcity wrote: »

Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon
...Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities....

NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

I can't keep dumbing it down guys, that's as simply as I'm going to put it. Ok?

Simple, and wrong. There aren't any powers for the EDA to do that. In fact, the EDA is irrelevant to Lisbon, because we're already members of the EDA, and the EDA already has exactly the remit in Lisbon, and is already an agency of the EU. Here's the original Council Decision creating the Agency, from the EDA website, which you should probably also have a read of (or, at least, people can who aren't already utterly convinced there's an EU army in Lisbon). The EDA is a procurement and research agency - Ireland is involved because it will probably allow us to reduce our defence costs.

Frankly, the idea that anybody cares enough to try and force Ireland to increase military speding is inherently silly. If we trebled our military budget we'd nearly have an army - we probably still couldn't afford an airforce.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

smithcity wrote: »

Article 28, Paragraph 3, TEU post Lisbon
...Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities....

NO The Lisbon Treaty will give the EDA the power to take measures to ensure member states, including Ireland, increase military spending (a ridiculous notion in a country that claims it can't afford 10 million euros for cervical cancer innoculations for little girls)

I can't keep dumbing it down guys, that's as simply as I'm going to put it. Ok?

Why do you keep repeating it?

ChocolateSauce

Yes-The national vetoes need to go.

BlitzKrieg

I can't keep dumbing it down guys

but you can lie and twist and misrepresent the facts because hey it helps your argument!

smithcity

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

but you can lie and twist and misrepresent the facts because hey it helps your argument!

Blitzkrieg, all I have done is point out that article 3, paragraph 28 states that EU states will endeavour to improve their military capabilities.

Clearly that means increased military spending.

In what way have I lied or misrepresented the facts?

Would you care to qualify your statement or should I just assume that will be your standard response to anyone with an opinion that differs from yours?

Scofflaw

smithcity wrote: »

Blitzkrieg, all I have done is point out that article 3, paragraph 28 states that EU states will endeavour to improve their military capabilities.

Clearly that means increased military spending.

In what way have I lied or misrepresented the facts?

Would you care to qualify your statement or should I just assume that will be your standard response to anyone with an opinion that differs from yours?

Unfortunately, you haven't in any way demonstrated that it "clearly means increased military spending". You've simply stated it, and you're clearly prepared to go on stating it, but you're not persuading people because you haven't shown how it's true.

I appreciate that you probably think the connection is so obvious as to need no demonstration, but that isn't the case. 'Improvement' covers all kinds of things, and the assumption that everything that's an improvement must necessarily cost more money is not tenable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

smithcity

With respect, I think it's a bit naive to expect that we will progressively improve military capabilities without spending money to do so.

P. Breathnach

smithcity wrote: »

With respect, I think it's a bit naive to expect that we will progressively improve military capabilities without spending money to do so.

And who will have the authority to direct those spending decisions?

ChocolateSauce

If the military capabilities of, say, Britain, hadn't been "improved" continually over the last 200 years, they'd still be sailing Men of War into battle. Keeping up with the times means improvement. I certainly know that when the evil EU sends its legions of conscripts into Ireland to force us to abort our babies, we'll hope our rangers have the latest rifles.

Scofflaw

smithcity wrote: »

With respect, I think it's a bit naive to expect that we will progressively improve military capabilities without spending money to do so.

Indeed, but that's not your claim - your claim is that we will have to spend more money to do so. We have a defence budget of about €1.1 billion, which - in theory at least - is already dedicated to the maintenance and improvement of Ireland's military capabilities. At least, I don't believe it's ever been suggested that the job of the Minister for Defence is to worsen Ireland's defence capabilities (unlike, say, the Minister for the Environment). 'Progressive improvement', therefore, is something we are already interested in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Parser

No Lisbon Treaty, tl;dr.

View

The Army Reserves (or whatever the old FCA are now called) used to have Lee Enfield rifles of WWI vintage up to 10-15 years ago. If new rifles are bought to replace such antiques then Ireland has just "progressively improved its military capabilities". Since this happens on a fairly frequent basis, Ireland "progressively improving its military capabilities" isn't something that should be controversial.

If the EDA puts out a large tender for new rifles on behalf of Ireland and other member states and this results (due to manufacturer discounts on a large order) in a cheaper price per rifle than if Ireland put out a small tender on its own, then what is the objection? Is it that the Irish tax-payer might save money? :rolleyes: