Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

PHB · 16-07-2009 3:28pm

I'd say it'll be at least another 10 years before a new treaty is considered. We've got the setup if Lisbon is passed to do what we need to do and push on, so there won't be a need for at least 10 years.

Voting No doesn't keep the status quo. Voting Yes will have an effect on Ireland. Voting No will have an affect on Ireland. Anyone who says otherwise is just being stupid.

There are consequences to both decisions, so the idea of sticking the head in the sand I'm saying I'm voting no so that things stay the same is just foolish.

ei.sdraob · 16-07-2009 6:56pm

Firstly completely agree with above poster, putting blinkers on and thinking there will be no consequences to a NO is irresponsible especially in these time, tho then again we as a nation have proved time and time again that we suck at doing the right thing

RandomName2 wrote: »

This is a part of the Lisbon Treaty.

I was referring to the fake % given for the amounts of voting power, which we are still being lied about (See the COIR article in the times) and shown false figures

lies lies and more lies, sick

ei.sdraob | boards.ie

Eire_prince · 16-07-2009 7:14pm

just look yesterday, barrosa didnt get enough vote to continue as the layout of the parliment changed as it always does everytime there is the election.

look at france if it people doesnt like what happens or make changes to their lifestyle asnd go on strike especially at ports causing chaos, til they get what they want.

the german pay companies to put in like a part time employment regime in this recession. the uk keeps saying europe is great yet they want to keep their way of life.

the people of ireland vote no, and then we are told we didnt know what we were voting for, and we are causing disharmony in europe for voting no.

at least ireland got to vote for it, as all other country would have done the same if giving the option.

we the voter are being told the problem in our economy is cause we voted no, the problem in the economy is caused by people believing the lies of the greens and fine faill parties, the quicker we get rid of them both the better. few years ago it was fine fail and the progressive democrats

Scofflaw · 16-07-2009 7:17pm

Eire_prince wrote: »

just look yesterday, barrosa didnt get enough vote to continue as the layout of the parliment changed as it always does everytime there is the election.

look at france if it people doesnt like what happens or make changes to their lifestyle asnd go on strike especially at ports causing chaos, til they get what they want.

the german pay companies to put in like a part time employment regime in this recession. the uk keeps saying europe is great yet they want to keep their way of life.

the people of ireland vote no, and then we are told we didnt know what we were voting for, and we are causing disharmony in europe for voting no.

at least ireland got to vote for it, as all other country would have done the same if giving the option.

we the voter are being told the problem in our economy is cause we voted no, the problem in the economy is caused by people believing the lies of the greens and fine faill parties, the quicker we get rid of them both the better. few years ago it was fine fail and the progressive democrats

OK - but what does this have to do with Lisbon?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Eire_prince · 16-07-2009 7:36pm

we vote yes, it wont be long before what we were promised be eaten away by raft of measure midway into the parlimentary session.

they same some of the celtic tiger was born on the handout from europe but now we are paying back more than we get.

let do what the uk does keep our independence

Scofflaw · 16-07-2009 7:52pm

Eire_prince wrote: »

we vote yes, it wont be long before what we were promised be eaten away by raft of measure midway into the parlimentary session.

And exactly the same if we vote No. You can't unseat the government with a referendum - they've already sat through one, plus a set of punitive local and euro elections. Fianna Fáil know perfectly well that their only hope now is to hang on to 2012 if they can, and hope that the economy is on the uptick by then.

Eire_prince wrote: »

they same some of the celtic tiger was born on the handout from europe but now we are paying back more than we get.

No, we're not. We were supposed to be by 2013, but we're no longer on that track. There's little chance of us becoming net payers in the next decade.

Eire_prince wrote: »

let do what the uk does keep our independence

We have our independence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eire_prince · 16-07-2009 8:12pm

when most of our laws comes from europe, we are told when to fish, catch eels, if inflations goes up then ecb puts up interest rates, then 26 members states decree something it can be passed by majority rules.

independence allows you to make choice which is best for you

oscarBravo · 16-07-2009 8:47pm

Eire_prince wrote: »

independence allows you to make choice which is best for you

If I wanted to be a truly independent individual, I could go live in a cave, catch or grow my own food, try to make my own clothes... it wouldn't be terribly efficient or comfortable.

So I voluntarily relinquish some of my independence to live in a society. I don't get to do whatever I want, whenever I want, but the tradeoff is generally positive as I can reap the benefits of being a part of that society.

Our EU membership is a similar idea. We agree to pool a certain amount of sovereignty, in return for the benefits of being part of a bigger, more effective organisation.

RandomName2 · 16-07-2009 8:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So I voluntarily relinquish some of my independence to live in a society. I don't get to do whatever I want, whenever I want, but the tradeoff is generally positive as I can reap the benefits of being a part of that society.

For the last time: Hobbes' Leviathan doesn't apply in relation to the EU!

oscarBravo · 16-07-2009 9:12pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

For the last time: Hobbes' Leviathan doesn't apply in relation to the EU!

Are you arguing that there is nothing positive to be gained from pooling sovereignty, or are you throwing out pseudo-intellectual references just because you can?

RandomName2 · 16-07-2009 9:33pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you arguing that there is nothing positive to be gained from pooling sovereignty, or are you throwing out pseudo-intellectual references just because you can?

I wouldn't exactly say they are pseudo-intellectual - after all you gave a quick resume of the main arc of his argument. BUT it is only an apropriate model if the supranational organisation has authority over the external actions of the states under its jurisdiction - the internal actions (i.e. the citizens of the member states) cannot be under the direct influence of the suprastate or the analogy falls apart. Indeed this is where my anti-EU sentiments come in.

It is superfluous for me to agree with you that mercantalism and autarky are seriously limited national outlooks that serve only to stagnate intellectual and economic progress.

ei.sdraob · 16-07-2009 9:52pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I wouldn't exactly say they are pseudo-intellectual - after all you gave a quick resume of the main arc of his argument. BUT it is only an apropriate model if the supranational organisation has authority over the external actions of the states under its jurisdiction - the internal actions (i.e. the citizens of the member states) cannot be under the direct influence of the suprastate or the analogy falls apart. Indeed this is where my anti-EU sentiments come in.

It is superfluous for me to agree with you that mercantalism and autarky are seriously limited national outlooks that serve only to stagnate intellectual and economic progress.

So you claim nothing good came out for Ireland out of the EU

:rolleyes: now where are moving onto delusional lies :cool:

there's lies, lies and then there's No lies :P

let do what the uk does keep our independence

hahahahaha

while you at it go and ask the Welsh and the Scottish where is their independence ... we here in Ireland had a taste of UK "Independence" for few hundred years...

ei.sdraob | boards.ie

Eire_prince · 16-07-2009 9:54pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you arguing that there is nothing positive to be gained from pooling sovereignty, or are you throwing out pseudo-intellectual references just because you can?

sharing means what you is mine and what mine is yours, not what mine is mine and whats yours is mine.

ever since the european union was founded it was on a common market principle, but look at spain has a fishing fleet which is taking more than it share of the fishing quota, and the irish fishermen are told to catch less, if you catch to much it cant be landed. as I said before the french, if you take it off them they go in a huff and blockade the ports, what about immigration and assylum, they just let people through to the UK and ireland rather than accessing at the port of arrival which is meant to be done.

there are many other argument, I would vote for europe if all were equal but it not, as a lot of the larger nation are inward looking

RandomName2 · 16-07-2009 10:03pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So you claim nothing good came out for Ireland out of the EU

:rolleyes: now where are moving onto delusional lies :cool:

there's lies, lies and then there's No lies :P

You clearly have no idea what I am talking about.

Scofflaw · 16-07-2009 10:05pm

Eire_prince wrote: »

when most of our laws comes from europe, we are told when to fish, catch eels, if inflations goes up then ecb puts up interest rates, then 26 members states decree something it can be passed by majority rules.

Most of our laws don't "come from Europe" - about 28% of them are made in Europe, by a joint decision-making process that includes Ireland. Voting is extremely rare on the Council - 90% of decisions are made unanimously. I can't think of any occasions on which we were "outvoted".

Tell me about the eel catch, because I think there's something you're missing there.

Eire_prince wrote: »

independence allows you to make choice which is best for you

And carry it out. The tradeoff for Ireland is that as a small single country in a Europe of competing nation-states, we could theoretically make whatever decisions we wanted, but would be unable to actually put them into practice, because we'd be completely negligible and ignored - whereas in Europe we get to agree the common rules, and our opinion has to be taken into account.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 16-07-2009 10:08pm

Eire_prince wrote: »

sharing means what you is mine and what mine is yours, not what mine is mine and whats yours is mine.

ever since the european union was founded it was on a common market principle, but look at spain has a fishing fleet which is taking more than it share of the fishing quota, and the irish fishermen are told to catch less, if you catch to much it cant be landed. as I said before the french, if you take it off them they go in a huff and blockade the ports, what about immigration and assylum, they just let people through to the UK and ireland rather than accessing at the port of arrival which is meant to be done.

there are many other argument, I would vote for europe if all were equal but it not, as a lot of the larger nation are inward looking

I obviously need to post this repeatedly...

Here are the real fisheries figures for all Irish waters, in millions of year 2000 dollars:

Year|Ireland|France|UK|Spain|Russia|Netherlands|Norway|Faeroe(Denmark)|Germany|Belgium|Latvia|Others|Total
1950|12.03|45.4|55.68|0|0|0|0|0|0|1.66|0|0|114.76
1951|9.79|50.24|64.93|0|0|0|0|0|0|1.05|0|0.01|126.02
1952|14.37|62.18|59.14|0|0|0.01|0|0|0|1.55|0|0.06|137.31
1953|15.53|47.35|56.18|6.12|29.35|0|0|0|0|0.95|3.14|3.19|161.8
1954|14.84|60.11|23.38|0|48.17|0|0|0|0|0.83|4.11|4.72|156.17
1955|19.48|71.44|43.88|0|55.52|0.81|0|0.01|0|3.32|4.8|5.73|204.98
1956|18.43|61.2|42.01|0|54.89|0.02|0|0|0|4.49|5.11|5.87|192.01
1957|16.12|62.34|32.36|0|36.71|0|0|0.06|8.47|6.13|4.86|6.02|173.07
1958|21.31|86.66|36.73|0|31.52|0.11|0|0|2.93|6.45|4.64|5.96|196.32
1959|23.26|84.01|31.94|0|34.22|1.24|0|0|1.99|4.21|5|6.65|192.53
1960|21.17|121.28|34.31|0|34.74|0.76|0|0|0.32|1.37|4.74|6.15|224.85
1961|20.99|78.1|26.48|0|35.34|1.01|0|0|0.23|3.02|3.61|4.62|173.4
1962|21.45|103.47|26.01|0|41.2|0.24|0|0|1.7|2.92|4.01|5.03|206.04
1963|22.19|104.44|26.84|0|36.89|1.52|0|0|0.25|1.66|4.84|5.94|204.57
1964|22.24|97.74|33.03|0|33.1|1.09|0|0|0.28|3.45|5.15|6.75|202.82
1965|23.67|110.98|31.49|32.48|25.77|1.43|0|0.37|0.36|4.16|5.02|6.41|242.14
1966|29.2|163.61|26.53|0|32.03|5.16|0|0|0.98|2.89|4.88|6.21|271.49
1967|30.22|87.1|29.92|0|36.43|6.76|0|0.97|0.96|2|4.51|5.6|204.48
1968|31.86|100.48|29.23|0|54.42|5.18|0|0|1.02|1.96|4.75|5.74|234.65
1969|36.71|116|30.68|0|67.96|4.93|0|0|1.98|2.05|4.78|5.75|270.85
1970|43.58|108.04|30.92|0|80.98|3.25|2.3|0|1.13|3.1|7.59|8.22|289.11
1971|44.78|104.54|31.48|0|104.36|3.8|9.57|0.92|0.04|2.76|8.24|10.67|321.16
1972|58.09|89.5|36.9|29.32|83.72|5.49|2.28|0|0.26|1.63|8.41|10.04|325.64
1973|34.86|117.97|47.9|136.42|22.28|5.43|5.45|0.94|1.08|3.19|2.63|4.81|382.97
1974|31.87|104.93|40.6|140.64|63.3|3.01|4.29|0.57|1.66|2.99|5.23|8.22|407.3
1975|31.29|93.85|33.56|174.21|131.27|6.8|0.39|0.23|2.35|2.29|8.25|14.44|498.92
1976|39.29|68.67|38.75|150.06|203.93|6.37|1.26|1.32|2.21|3.64|14.53|22.41|552.45
1977|36.39|53.7|42.41|40.41|18.41|6.82|0.63|1.59|2.67|2.73|1.71|4.77|212.24
1978|40.09|53.01|44.4|25.76|0|6.11|1.65|5.38|9.19|2.12|0|2.87|190.57
1979|43.43|54.28|41.76|31.34|0|6.34|3.23|4.09|4.54|2.08|0|3.76|194.87
1980|55.48|60.58|30.5|19.76|0|9.98|3.53|8.07|4.11|2.72|0|4.22|198.94
1981|67.49|111.72|42.69|25.53|0|18.4|5.34|0.42|4.11|3.96|0|2.79|282.45
1982|79.71|97.11|48.93|24.85|0|18.2|7.65|5.71|1.63|3.98|0|3.02|290.79
1983|77.27|107.91|35.22|25.41|0|21.3|8|5.92|3.34|3.86|0|3.46|291.71
1984|75.95|94.01|47.3|32.51|0|31.69|7.67|8.51|1.69|3.63|0|3|305.95
1985|85.94|78.04|50.34|35.05|0|9.74|8.25|8.17|1.76|3.65|0|2.59|283.52
1986|85.47|74.73|62.75|31.14|0|17.94|11.11|18.48|1.57|3.88|0|2.9|309.98
1987|99.72|66.5|78.44|38.64|0|8.57|9.41|29.67|2.57|2.32|0|2.7|338.55
1988|100.26|66.74|73.21|46.1|0|15.02|10.53|30.99|5.38|2.04|0|2.77|353.05
1989|104.36|95.29|56.65|54.64|0|11.88|15.59|36.08|5.27|3.35|0|2.25|385.37
1990|102.87|79.47|60.66|51.93|0|18.15|14.82|20.96|4.27|2.44|0|1.16|356.73
1991|105.09|58.54|63.13|60.55|0|19|5.37|3.96|4.42|1.24|0|1.16|322.46
1992|153.25|64.32|76.19|68.47|0|19.39|5.06|2.52|8.64|1.71|0|2.21|401.76
1993|155.2|67.45|74.07|71.86|0|27.71|6.55|4.33|11.55|2.09|0|1.46|422.27
1994|138.49|68.75|80.06|66.55|0|21.25|8.92|7.5|12.98|2.9|0|2.47|409.89
1995|157.79|83.43|74.96|77.67|0|22.76|10.52|4.22|8.26|3.75|0|5.77|449.13
1996|141.47|69.86|73.37|71.16|0.59|23.19|13.88|0.33|6.91|3.66|0|3.8|408.22
1997|168.29|80.09|82.45|109.1|0.89|30.73|11.27|1.17|4.6|3.88|0|2|494.45
1998|216.86|84.27|79.59|72.88|0.22|32.35|25.21|1.7|15.75|2.85|0|2.09|533.76
1999|204.95|74.88|78.81|66.53|1.32|20.98|10.99|5.48|8.64|2.69|0|2.2|477.45
2000|153.12|94.37|60.15|47.57|0|30.09|9.24|0|12.94|2.2|0|1.64|411.32
2001|160.66|81.57|61.79|42.73|0|44.4|8.21|0|12.98|2.59|0|2.25|417.19
2002|154.32|78.82|58.05|63.92|0|34.7|8.39|0|10.4|2.71|0|1.39|412.71
2003|191.39|75.44|54.54|79.97|0|43.43|17.38|0|9.55|2.86|0|1.16|475.73
2004|198.02|66.42|50|59.9|0|60.73|12|0|9.26|2.71|0|1.37|460.42
Total|3490.64|0|1843.23|2043.26|442.21|652.46|271.79|218.31|196.28|92.71|32.35|123.11|11933.12

Source

If we throw all of the "Other" category in as EU members, then the total amount of fish the other EU states have taken from our waters is $5.2bn since 1973, while we have had $3.5bn. Over the same period we've received probably close to another half a billion in funding for our fisheries, including the building of 5 out of our 8 existing fisheries protection vessels.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agent J · 17-07-2009 12:35am

K-9 wrote: »

Others have managed to read it and understand it. Even it it was just a 40 page document this argument would still exist.

Are you one of the those?

Fantastic. Perhaps you could do a poll and find out exactly how many that is out of the population.

And wasnt it Our own commissioner who said not even a handful of people had read it or words similar?

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you can't understand the document, how can you know whether a No or a Yes is better for Ireland and Europe? This isn't the same as signing a contract, where not signing a contract leaves you exactly where you were before - this is the equivalent of agreeing to a medical procedure that the doctors claim is necessary.

Disagree and you are appealing to authority.

Considering that i heard our minister for european affairs Dick Roche on national airwaves lie(either through malice or ignorance) about the ratification process how on earth are we suppose to the trust the "doctors?"

He was asked a direct question by matt cooper about having a second referendum if the 1st one failed. He said it was right there in the treaty that it had to be ratified before the end of the year(2008) or else it wouldnt happen.I went to said section of the treaty and it put no such time limit on it. It merely said that it would come into force the month after ratification by all member states.This clip was replayed and similary on newstalk

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not agreeing to reform the EU is not leaving things at the status quo. The world has moved on since 2001 - and even then, it was known that another treaty would be required, because a lot was left out of Nice as not yet agreed, or not yet possible to agree until the accession countries were actually part of the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok you are going to have to elaborate on that point because i dont quite understand what will change if we say no again.
Leaving the point about the world changing since 2001. The world changes, this doesnt nesscarily mean we need a new treaty every couple of years.

K-9 · 17-07-2009 12:48am

Agent J wrote: »

Are you one of the those?

Fantastic. Perhaps you could do a poll and find out exactly how many that is out of the population.

And wasnt it Our own commissioner who said not even a handful of people had read it or words similar?

That wasn't really my point though, was it? If it was a 40 page document we would still have the same problem. It still would be a complex international Treaty with people picking holes at it, which is their right.

Agent J · 17-07-2009 1:13am

K-9 wrote: »

That wasn't really my point though, was it? If it was a 40 page document we would still have the same problem. It still would be a complex international Treaty with people picking holes at it, which is their right.

Perhaps you should be clearer in your points then and leave no room for ambiguity.

Yes but increase that situation you outline by a factor of ten.
Your arguement seems to be
"But people will pick at anything".

There is a term in IT called "Security through obscurity" which means that a system is more secure becase people don't know enough about the inner workings of it to be able to mess around with it because it is left intentionally difficult for people to try to understand.This method often fails.

Just because something is complex doesnt actually preclude it from being straightforward for a lay person to understand without the need for cross reference every other treaty and having a couple of european lawyers on speed dial.

K-9 · 17-07-2009 1:18am

Agent J wrote: »

Perhaps you should be clearer in your points then and leave no room for ambiguity.

So a short, concise reply can be ambiguous.

Precisely.

K-9 · 17-07-2009 1:22am

Agent J wrote: »

Yes but increase that situation you outline by a factor of ten.
Your arguement seems to be
"But people will pick at anything".

Not people, No campaigners, no matter if there is some truth in it or not. Some No campaigners thrive on that very uncertainty.

AgentJ wrote:

There is a term in IT called "Security through obscurity" which means that a system is more secure becase people don't know enough about the inner workings of it to be able to mess around with it because it is left intentionally difficult for people to try to understand.This method often fails.

Just because something is complex doesnt actually preclude it from being straightforward for a lay person to understand without the need for cross reference every other treaty and having a couple of european lawyers on speed dial.

I completely agree. There's a Referendum Commission booklet and there will be another one.

Even that was too difficult for some.

Scofflaw · 17-07-2009 1:34am

Agent J wrote: »

Are you one of the those?

Fantastic. Perhaps you could do a poll and find out exactly how many that is out of the population.

And wasnt it Our own commissioner who said not even a handful of people had read it or words similar?

Unfortunately, the fact remains that we're voting on it, and the primary purpose of the text is not to "be easily understood for the Irish voter" but to control the joint decision framework of 27 sovereign nations. If it was Grade 3 reading material, it wouldn't be able to do what it's for.

Agent J wrote: »

Disagree and you are appealing to authority.

Considering that i heard our minister for european affairs Dick Roche on national airwaves lie(either through malice or ignorance) about the ratification process how on earth are we suppose to the trust the "doctors?"

I'm not asking you to trust "the doctors", and I'm not appealing to authority. The point of the analogy is that you may not be able to understand the procedure, but that doesn't mean it will make no difference to you, and that you still have to decide on whether to take it. You could simply decide not to take it on the basis that you don't understand it, but that isn't necessarily the right decision.

Agent J wrote: »

He was asked a direct question by matt cooper about having a second referendum if the 1st one failed. He said it was right there in the treaty that it had to be ratified before the end of the year(2008) or else it wouldnt happen.I went to said section of the treaty and it put no such time limit on it. It merely said that it would come into force the month after ratification by all member states.This clip was replayed and similary on newstalk

So? That's an inverse appeal to authority, if you like. I don't care about what Dick Roche knows about the Treaty - or Mary Coughlan knows about the EU. I care about my own opinion.

Agent J wrote: »

Ok you are going to have to elaborate on that point because i dont quite understand what will change if we say no again.
Leaving the point about the world changing since 2001. The world changes, this doesnt nesscarily mean we need a new treaty every couple of years.

The EU won't change, and that's the point. The world does change, and has changed. An example is the attitude of the Russians over Georgia, and over energy supplies. They spent the first week pretending that, even though France then held the Presidency of the Council, Sarkozy could only speak for France. We need the commitment to combating climate change as a primary EU goal, we need an EU-wide energy capability. From a personal perspective, we need the subsidiarity mechanisms that the Dutch negotiated into Lisbon after the vote against the Constitution, we need the extra co-decision, we need the added transparency.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes · 17-07-2009 9:29am

Agent J wrote: »

Perhaps you should be clearer in your points then and leave no room for ambiguity.

I find it ironic that you're arguing that the treaty is too big and complex while telling people to leave no room for ambiguity. The treaty is big and complex for precisely that reason

RandomName2 · 17-07-2009 11:02am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I find it ironic that you're arguing that the treaty is too big and complex while telling people to leave no room for ambiguity. The treaty is big and complex for precisely that reason

What about big, complex and ambiguous?

Sam Vimes · 17-07-2009 11:04am

RandomName2 wrote: »

What about big, complex and ambiguous?

In what way is it ambiguous? I realise there have been several interpretations put forward for parts of the treaty but in every case I've seen, all but one of the interpretations was very clearly wrong. Do you have any examples of ambiguity?

RandomName2 · 17-07-2009 11:16am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In what way is it ambiguous? I realise there have been several interpretations put forward for parts of the treaty but in every case I've seen, all but one of the interpretations was very clearly wrong. Do you have any examples of ambiguity?

Some ambiguity is caused by leaving it open-ended how the members of the Consilium impliment Lisbon in their own states - for instance, which Parliamentary seats will we lose? (Will Dublin become a two-seater, etc.)

But anyway, here's one:
How does the Citizens' Initiative work?
How many signiatures per country/ how many countries/ does it have the powers of legislative initiative (technically or practically)/ would it still count if isolated to a single state? If so can it have any real relivance? Does it need the approval of the government of the country from which it began? Or the majority of the member states' governments in general? If approved by Parliament does it also have to be approved by the Commission as well (which is unlikely if it runs contrary to legislation produced by the Commission).

Sam Vimes · 17-07-2009 11:21am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Some ambiguity is caused by leaving it open-ended how the members of the Consilium impliment Lisbon in their own states - for instance, which Parliamentary seats will we lose? (Will Dublin become a two-seater, etc.)

But anyway, here's one:
How does the Citizens' Initiative work?
How many signiatures per country/ how many countries/ does it have the powers of legislative initiative (technically or practically)/ would it still count if isolated to a single state? If so can it have any real relivance? Does it need the approval of the government of the country from which it began? Or the majority of the member states' governments in general? If approved by Parliament does it also have to be approved by the Commission as well (which is unlikely if it runs contrary to legislation produced by the Commission).

Citizens’ initiative

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states.

Seems pretty clear to me

RandomName2 · 17-07-2009 11:27am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Citizens’ initiative

Under the Lisbon Treaty, the commission is obliged to consider any proposal signed by at least one million citizens from a number of member states.

Seems pretty clear to me

So it has to be from more than one state.
It doesn't have legislative initiative.
It is essentially like writing a letter to the Commission, only with a guarantee that they will actually read it?
So it is not really an Initiative, as such, but rather a suggestion box for the Commission, after which it goes the route of Commission legislation.

If I'm understanding you correctly?

Sam Vimes · 17-07-2009 11:31am

RandomName2 wrote: »

So it has to be from more than one state.
It doesn't have legislative initiative.
It is essentially like writing a letter to the Commission, only with a guarantee that they will actually read it?
So it is not really an Initiative, as such, but rather a suggestion box for the Commission, after which it goes the route of Commission legislation.

If I'm understanding you correctly?

It's not me you're understanding, I copied and pasted that from a website. A bit more info on it here:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/democracy/index_en.htm

"The newest of these is the citizens' initiative, whereby one million citizens, from any number of member countries, will be able to ask the Commission to present a proposal in any of the EU's areas of responsibility. The practical details of this initiative will be worked out once the Treaty of Lisbon takes effect."

When you say it's not an initiative, what exactly do you mean by initiative? The citizens of a number of countries can initiate a proposal, so it seems like an initiative to me

View · 17-07-2009 11:33am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Some ambiguity is caused by leaving it open-ended how the members of the Consilium impliment Lisbon in their own states - for instance, which Parliamentary seats will we lose? (Will Dublin become a two-seater, etc.)

Given a number of EU parliamentary seats - whether 12 at the moment (or any future number) - it is currently entirely a matter for the Government and any electoral commission it appoints as to how it divides up the seats. It could have 12 1-seaters, 1 12-seater or any number in between. Additionally, it is also free to choose whatever voting system it wants to use for the elections (there is no requirement that PR-STV be used).

To the best of my knowledge (and this is from memory), post-Lisbon, the EP is supposed to draw up a recommendation for a standard voting system/methodology for future elections. Obviously, that doesn't mean the member states will accept such a recommendation though.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments