How is the Lisbon Treaty good for Ireland? (*POSITIVE* reasons only please)

hatrickpatrick

I'm not saying that it's not, but the Yes side haven't done a great job of explaining them - they either argue that it's good for the EU itself or that rejecting it is bad therefore we should vote yes.

Can someone from the yes side explain, CALMLY and WITHOUT resorting to a condescending flame war (that goes for the no voters too):

What does Ireland (specifically Ireland) get out of the treaty? Not in terms of reputation, not in terms of escaping the consequences of a no vote - what, specifically, do the actual policies in the treaty do for us, the people of Ireland? How will we benefit from the new rules the treaty will create?

Again, I'm not in any way trying to start an argument - I just want to cut through the bulk of the yes arguments (we're ****ed if we vote no) and get some purely positive reasons to say that Ireland will benefit from the changes to the EU which are outlined in the treaty.

If your point is not directly related to one of the clauses of the treaty itself then it's NOT what I'm adking for here.

(Sorry to be so firm sounding about it but every topic I've made before on Lisbon has descended into a troll war in which none of the questions posed was actually answered by anyone, either yes voters OR no voters.)

PHB

Here's some stuff paraphrased that I helped put together for Generation Yes: Everything is linked to the Treaty Article. If you want to read it yourself, you can here
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/pdf/Reform-Treaty-03-Dec-07-CIG-14-07-cg00014.en07.pdf

While some of the Treaty specifically helps Ireland, this Treaty isnt just about Ireland or any other member state for that matter. It's about European Issues. For example, human trafficking is both an Irish issue and a European issue. Just like genocide in Chad is aswell. So improving the European response to it will in turn improve Ireland.

---

EU in the World - Voting ‘yes’ allows member-states to cooperate better in peacekeeping missions and foreign-policy issues.

* The 27 EU countries will be better able to work together on peacekeeping missions, on a case-by-case basis. Each country is free to opt in or out in all these missions. (Article 42(4) TEU; Article 31(1) TEU)
* EU countries will only be able to use defence policy for peacekeeping, conflict-prevention and strengthening International Security, in accordance with the UN Charter. (Article 43(2) TEU)
* There will be a new position: the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. This person will speak for the member-states, but only when they all agree a common position. Any issue that the High Rep will speak on must be agreed unanimously by all the members of the Council – this means Ireland has a veto on any topic that is discussed. (Article 24(1) TEU ; Article 31(1) TEU)
* If Ireland suffers a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, the other EU countries are obliged to provide assistance where needed, this might include humainitarian aid. Likewise, Ireland will assist another EU state which is attacked, but only in accordance with our policy of neutrality. (Article 222 TFEU)

---

Crime and Justice - Modern Crime doesn’t recognise borders, this is about dealing with this challenge.
We can fight cross-border crime like

* Sex-slavery. In the last two years, over 100 women and girls have been trafficked into Ireland in to be exploited in the sex industry [link]. This is a modern, global form of slavery, that is happening in our own country every day. We can only fight this cross-border problem by working more closely with other European countries The Lisbon Treaty would allow the EU to directly attack this horrific situation, where many women are held against their will and forced into sexual acts. (Article 83 TFEU)
* Human trafficking: Thousands of people try to get into the EU each year, many of them drown or suffocate in the process, because people-smugglers transport them using lethal means. Voting ‘yes’ means that member-states can cooperate better on this cross-border issue, and make sure things like this never happen again. (Article 83.1 TFEU)
* Drug-smuggling and money-laundering: the Treaty contains concrete provisions which mean we can fight these crimes more effectively. The alternative is standing by and doing nothing to increase pressure on these criminals.

This is done by transferring the control over these areas from Ireland to a European level.

---

Democratic Reform - Voting ‘yes’ means you get a more democratic, accountable and transparent EU which will help the Irish citizen in the long run.

* Your elected representatives in the European Parliament play a bigger role in decision-making: 40 new areas need their approval (Articles 75, 77, 78 , 79 , 81, 82 , 83, 84, 85, 87, 88 TFEU)
* Direct Democracy: Voting Yes means that the EU will have to respond to a petition signed by citizens across Europe. Issues you care about will be considered. (Article 11 TEU)
* All Council meetings will be in public and all laws discussed (Article 15 TEU)
* National Parliaments will have a greater role in oversight of EU decisions, with a formal process for reviewing all proposals. For instance, all EU regulation will be checked by the Oireachtas. (Article 12 TEU)
* Every EU law will need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The charter is a statement of values and principles that are already common to member states. It will only apply EU law. (Article 51, Charter on Fundamental Rights)


---

Making Ireland more competitive - The roadmap to economic recovery.

* The new deal will protect Ireland’s absolute right to set our own tax rates. (Article 115 TFEU)
* The EU will promote research and development in Europe, this means the opportunity to create high-tech jobs for Ireland (Article 179 TFEU; Article 189 TFEU)
* The EU will have to prioritise funding for development in rural areas. This means more roads and broadband access in new areas. (Article 174 TFEU)
* More money being invested in renewable energy – giving Ireland the chance to create thousands of jobs in green industry (Article 194(1)(c) TFEU) Right now, we aren’t maximising the opportunities in this area.
* Public services (like healthcare, education and transport) are protected from privatisation. Member States decide which services are best run by governments. (Protocol on services of general interest)
* The EU will help and support Irish tourism (Article 195 TFEU)

BlitzKrieg

What does Ireland (specifically Ireland) get out of the treaty?

Thats a bit difficult because beyond the protocols which protect specific nation interests, the treaty itself is not designed to grant benefits to individual states, its not a shopping list promising money or power to specific countries, its a structural blue print.

The protocols on the other hand are on the other hand a series of exceptions for the treaty for individual states as such they do not add bonuses but rather protect interests. In here our role in the common defence and security policy is defined (we have the ability with the UK to not involve ourselves in any military/security action by the EU.) There's a protocal on the schriegen system (sp?) exempting us with the UK again. And there's a protocol specifiying the exact section of our constitution that protects Ireland's position on abortion. Similar There are quite alot of protocols for a number of states.

As for benefits, its difficult to name one specific only to one individual state and none of the other states. Best you can do is name the benefits that are given to the national bodies of each state rather then the ones given to the EU institutions. Chief among these would be the ability for all national parliaments to actively involve themselves in the legaslative process from the get go. At the moment national parliaments have to wait until a law is processed through the EU institutions by which point the national government has had its say on the law at least twice if not three times before any other member of parliament can comment. Now though all the national parliaments can involve themselves at the same time as the institutions.

(we're ****ed if we vote no)

on a side note, while I would say that is a common argument given by the government or other groups, here on boards that is the rarest argument given by anyone who regulary argues for a yes vote.

hatrickpatrick

Ok, so the ones in your list which I have an issue with:

--Drugs: I'm very socially liberal and I believe it's entirely the individual's choice what to put into his/her body (provided it's not in relation to competitive sports etc). Does the drug trafficking policy require Ireland to define particular drugs illegal and make it harder for the Irish people alone to change Irish government policy on the matter?

--Direct Democracy - Given that the EU has twice refused to accept the democratic will of the people in the only country where they were allowed to have a vote - Nice and Lisbon - I am hugely skeptical that the EU will ever endorse direct democracy. I'm a proponent of total democracy myself.

--Tax: The treaty does not affect our tax system. But by introducing QMV, does it not mean that, at a later date, a law can be passed by a majority rather than by consensus which states that all members must have the same tax rate for business?

--Public services protected from privatisation - sometimes a private company can do a better job than the government. Particularly ours. I don't ever believe in forcing people to pay for healthcare or anything like that, but with our completely incompetent government I'm very glad that, for example, I have private healthcare. I also went to a "private" school (not a snobbish one if that's what your thinking) - and I utterly oppose anything which would force it to close or change how it is run. Would this provision completely outlaw private industry in these areas, or simply ensure that the government must provide a state service AS WELL as any existing private ones?

on a side note, while I would say that is a common argument given by the government or other groups, here on boards that is the rarest argument given by anyone who regulary argues for a yes vote.

Yes, but it's the ONLY argument proposed by our government. And I don't take kindly to being threatened into voting a particular way. This principle is one of the major factors in why I consider voting no. Calling the people "insane" for rejecting a proposal is not in any way democratic and I find it utterly deplorable that our own government would be so condescending (and EU officials, to a certain extent. Sarkozy has become far, far too big for his boots IMO).

BlitzKrieg

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, so the ones in your list which I have an issue with:

--Drugs: I'm very socially liberal and I believe it's entirely the individual's choice what to put into his/her body (provided it's not in relation to competitive sports etc). Does the drug trafficking policy require Ireland to define particular drugs illegal and make it harder for the Irish people alone to change Irish government policy on the matter?

The laws are specific to drug smuggling, not to prosecution of drug use within the state itself. Obviously this matter is left to each individual state. Considering that the EU is already quite diverse on the legal status of drugs this policy will have no effect on the national status of drugs and would work to protect those status.

--Direct Democracy - Given that the EU has twice refused to accept the democratic will of the people in the only country where they were allowed to have a vote - Nice and Lisbon - I am hugely skeptical that the EU will ever endorse direct democracy. I'm a proponent of total democracy myself.

THis would be a position often debated. The EU has neither refused nor denied the democratic will of the people in Ireland. In both cases it was our own government who put it to a second referendum, they could have told the EU that the no is permanent and that the treaties would need to be renegotiated in both cases. They didnt, they got the 2nd referendum passed (in the first case, we dont know about lisbon yet) and the process continued.

I'm hugely skeptical of your position of total democracy, since you have argued in a another thread that the voting weight of Ireland in the parliament (directly corrosponding to our population size) is unfair of our national status. But if you supported total democracy, you would accept that with such a small population we would need to have such a small percentage for it to be a total democracy.

--Tax: The treaty does not affect our tax system. But by introducing QMV, does it not mean that, at a later date, a law can be passed by a majority rather than by consensus which states that all members must have the same tax rate for business?

THere is a protocol for the issue of taxation and Ireland protecting our tax policy.

--Public services protected from privatisation - sometimes a private company can do a better job than the government. Particularly ours. I don't ever believe in forcing people to pay for healthcare or anything like that, but with our completely incompetent government I'm very glad that, for example, I have private healthcare. I also went to a "private" school (not a snobbish one if that's what your thinking) - and I utterly oppose anything which would force it to close or change how it is run. Would this provision completely outlaw private industry in these areas, or simply ensure that the government must provide a state service AS WELL as any existing private ones?

No, the public services are protected as areas of business that it is up to each member state themselves. It means the EU cannot force a member state to do away or create a public service, it is up to that state's government alone.

Yes, but it's the ONLY argument proposed by our government. And I don't take kindly to being threatened into voting a particular way. This principle is one of the major factors in why I consider voting no. Calling the people "insane" for rejecting a proposal is not in any way democratic and I find it utterly deplorable that our own government would be so condescending (and EU officials, to a certain extent. Sarkozy has become far, far too big for his boots IMO).

Well I am not in favour of our current government nor do I think they did a good job of promoting Lisbon (in fact I blame the mfor its defeat because of their incompetance.) I felt that the government approached lisbon with far too much of an air of confidence and were ill prepared. Hopefully with Lisbon 2 they will consider actually preparing something. Though they might hope that the economic crisis might carry them over instead in which case I'll remind myself again and again that I did not vote Fianna Fail.

On EU officials, you need to remember that they are either elected representatives for other states, such as sarkozy and neither have any authority or responsibility for Ireland or the Irish vote, so you are you are fully welcome to ignore that airbag, who was only being so big because he was at the time holding the presidency and was the face of the European Council and wanted to make the french presidency look good, in the same way bertie was everywhere when he held presidency of the Council. It has since passed over to the Czech, and sarkozy has gone back to his own national affairs.

Scofflaw

Blitzkrieg wrote:

The laws are specific to drug smuggling, not to prosecution of drug use within the state itself. Obviously this matter is left to each individual state. Considering that the EU is already quite diverse on the legal status of drugs this policy will have no effect on the national status of drugs and would work to protect those status.

It's an important point to remember that while we describe the EU's competences in shorthand as 'drugs' or 'energy', those are just the headline areas the competences fall under - the actual competence of the EU in that area is almost invariably restricted to the cross-border elements, and the EU has competence in the cross-border elements for very obvious reasons.

Those areas of competence can have ramifications that affect the internal workings of the member states, so the EU competence in cross-border drug trafficking may well have implications for the internal drug-crime regimes within the member states - but because those are not under EU competence, it is up to the member states individually whether they choose to carry those implications into national legislation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wylo

Hi PHB,
could you please explain how to find your references?
E.g.
* The 27 EU countries will be better able to work together on peacekeeping missions, on a case-by-case basis. Each country is free to opt in or out in all these missions. (Article 42(4) TEU; Article 31(1) TEU)

I did a search for "article 42", and could not find anything to do with peacekeeping missions. I had to search myself for military and found a few bits of information, article 28 I think. I could not find much about a case by case basis.

Anyway that was only one example, i would like to read the rest of your points as well and check up on them but I cant seem to find your references.
Thanks

PopeBuckfastXVI

wylo wrote: »

Hi PHB,
could you please explain how to find your references?
E.g.
* The 27 EU countries will be better able to work together on peacekeeping missions, on a case-by-case basis. Each country is free to opt in or out in all these missions. (Article 42(4) TEU; Article 31(1) TEU)

I did a search for "article 42", and could not find anything to do with peacekeeping missions. I had to search myself for military and found a few bits of information, article 28 I think. I could not find much about a case by case basis.

Anyway that was only one example, i would like to read the rest of your points as well and check up on them but I cant seem to find your references.
Thanks

Article 48(4) of Post Lisbon TEU states:

Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

Article 31(1) of Post Lisbon TEU states:

Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.

When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted.

I'd say you're probably looking at the wrong documents, his quoted articles are from the consolidated versions of the TEU and TFEU as amended by Lisbon, available here:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf

storinius

1. Lisbon makes the EU more democratic.

2. Lisbon enables the EU to fight climate change, cross-boarder crime and money-laundering.

3. Lisbon gives national parliaments a 'policeman' role in checking the Commission.

4. Lisbon gives the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal status, another check against the power of the commission.

ixtlan

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

On EU officials, you need to remember that they are either elected representatives for other states, such as sarkozy and neither have any authority or responsibility for Ireland or the Irish vote, so you are you are fully welcome to ignore that airbag, who was only being so big because he was at the time holding the presidency and was the face of the European Council and wanted to make the french presidency look good, in the same way bertie was everywhere when he held presidency of the Council. It has since passed over to the Czech, and sarkozy has gone back to his own national affairs.

Indeed and this is another benefit of Lisbon. While the no-side speak of the "non-elected" EU president, in fact this role will be elected, not by the public, which would be an unworkable Eurovision-style auction, but by the European Council.

Therefore the face of the council will likely be a more reasoned, diplomatic individual, and one in whom we have some say in electing through those we directly elect. This may not be a democratic ideal for some people but it is undoubtedly closer than the current situation, where every 6 months a new president takes over that we have no say in at all. I don't care that he/she was elected in their own country, I want to have some say to make sure they are not going to mess things up for Ireland and the EU.

Remember that this role is not an executive (decision taking) one but rather an administrative/diplomatic one. That is, the kind of guy who can avoid putting their foot in their mouth when things go wrong.

Ix.