Lisbon 2 The Return!

K-9

Indo wrote:

Don’t have a clue what we are being asked to vote on in the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on June 12th? Join the rest of the country. The treaty comprises 270 pages of complex legal language - it’s not light reading even for those of us paid to study it. But don’t worry, help is at hand. Jessie Magee breaks down the treaty into a ten point summary, so you can make up your mind without having to enlist a lawyer.

Jaysus an unreadable Treaty condensed into 10 points. This guy should be Taoiseach!

The Indo wrote:

Confusing. Unintelligible. Impenetrable. This is the general reaction of anyone who has read or attempted to read the Lisbon Treaty, from politicians to pundits to ordinary people trying to find the facts. The treaty amends the contents of several existing EU treaties in a document running to hundreds of pages of legal articles, protocols, declarations and annexes.
Those in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote argue that complexity is unavoidable when a treaty needs to set out the rules governing relations between 27 sovereign member states.
Those opposed to the treaty claim it is deliberately unclear, and that we should not be asked to vote on something we cannot understand.
Both sides agree that the Lisbon Treaty preserves the main substance of the EU constitution, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Both sides also agree that some reform of EU structures is necessary, to facilitate the continuing expansion of the union and streamline its decision-making processes.

Like that part, reform is needed and agreed by most.

The Indo wrote:

1. Top jobs
A politician will be chosen to be president of the European Council for two and a half years, replacing the current system where presidency is rotated between member states every six months. Another post to be created will be the EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, combining the current roles of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and external affairs commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

It does not replace each countries presidency. Ireland will still get our presidency in 2/3 years time.



It creates a new president in that instead of one new president every 6 months, there will now be one for 2 1/2. Personally, I see advantages in that, others see problems.


As the article points out, the foreign policy role isn't particularly new, it combines 2 roles, so less bureaucracy. All foreign policy has to agreed by the 27 states.




I'll address the rest point by point.

uprising

yes continue!

K-9

uprising wrote: »

yes continue!

Converted already.

Was distracted. LOL

Back on it.

K-9

The Indo wrote:

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights
The Lisbon Treaty makes the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights a legally-binding document. The charter lists the human rights recognized by the European Union.

Generally, this would be a good thing. It recognises the European Court of Human Rights. Really, I think this one is up to the No campaigners to show it's a bad thing.

The Indo wrote:

3. 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.

Petitions are great! Look, the Commission can still only go on EU law and Treaties, so NO, this will not lead to us being abortionists, sodomists or drug dealers.

Get a million petitions EU wide on Morris dancing as a recognised sport and it maybe regarded as a real sport. Unlikely though.

junkyard

Voting no because I can still use my brain.

amacachi

I'm voting yes because I'm in favour of forced abortions for everyone and the "self-ratifying" thing which from what I gather will give life to laws which can then morph and absorb other lifeforms to make itself stronger, eventually making laws as it pleases.

K-9

amacachi wrote: »

I'm voting yes because I'm in favour of forced abortions for everyone and the "self-ratifying" thing which from what I gather will give life to laws which can then morph and absorb other lifeforms to make itself stronger, eventually making laws as it pleases.

If you don't want abortionists everywhere, vote No!

K-9

The Indo wrote:

4. National parliaments to get ‘yellow card’ facility
All proposals for EU legislation will have to be sent to national parliaments, who will then have eight weeks to offer a ‘reasoned opinion’ on whether they believe the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity (this is the principle by which decisions should as far as possible be made at local or national level). If enough national parliaments object to a proposal, the commission can decide to maintain, amend or withdraw it.

Good.

The Indo wrote:

5. Smaller commission
The European Commission is the EU’s executive arm; it puts forward legislation and ensures that EU policies
are correctly implemented. Since 2004, it has been made up of 27 commissioners, one from each member state. Under the new treaty, the commission will be reduced to 18 members from 2014, with membership rotating every five years. This means that only two-thirds of member states will have their own commissioner at any one time, and each country will lose its commissioner for five years at a time.

OUT OF DATE, ADDRESSED BY ASSURANCES.

The Indo wrote:

6. European Parliament to get greater powers but reduced numbers
Currently, the European Parliament has joint lawmaking power with the Council of Ministers over about 75% of legislative areas. If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, co-decision will be extended to virtually all areas of EU policy.

Not sure about the bold part. Can you expand Uprising?

uprising wrote:

The European Parliament comprises 785 MEPs from across the union; under the treaty, this will be permanently reduced to 751. The number of Irish MEPs will drop from 13 to 12.

It already has. How many seats did we elect in the last EU Elections? Not a Lisbon matter!

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

there wont be a third vote because the labour party will be gone in england... if the vote is passed this time it will be because of peoples fear of the recession... Even though voting yes to lisbon will done nothing for this country.. The EU misled people over Nice as they did with this... The fact that a democratic vote was disregarded is enough to vote no again

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61284547#post61284547
An analogy to show the ridiculousness of the argument that being asked to vote again is undemocratic and is enough reason in itself to vote no

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285634&postcount=215
In the real world people don't drop an entire 300 page document that took 5 years to write. Instead they find out what parts people object to, handle their objections and/or settle their fears and ask them to reconsider. It's not undemocratic, it's the essense of democracy.


http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61287967&postcount=302
Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61287396#post61287396
The fact that we were asked to vote again doesn't "scare me" because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. 77% of people no longer have a reason to vote no so a second referendum is more than justified

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61289006&postcount=311
With the divorce referendum time passed which made it "ok" to hold another one. But the above point shows that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

And we no the reasons as to why this was done

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61285259#post61285259
By far the normal practice in the EU is ratification through parliament. Referendums have only been used 15.8% of the times they could have been. The fact that other countries did not have referendums is neither unusual nor any of our business. It's an internal matter for those countries alone

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

We will be on the fukking mosney pedal boat being dragged by the mother ship on a poxxy ball of twine if we vote yes.

see lisbon treaty for dummies..
http://www.independent.ie/special-features/your-eu/the-lisbon-treaty-for-dummies-1376340.html

8. Redistribution of voting weights between member states

The changes mean that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

So where does that leave Ireland?, 4 million of us, wimpering as legislation is fukked on us that we have no say in, and you say we'll be fukked if its not passed.?
Think again

That only applies in areas where QMV is used, ie unimportant areas that don't really make that much of a difference, like sporting policy. Important things like taxation are still unanimous

I'd also point out that since Ireland has joined the EU it's almost used its veto once over milk quotas. In the day to day running of the union negotiation is carried out and everything is decided before it ever comes to the voting stage

thelordofcheese

sam, can i hug you?

I don't mean to be weird, or anything, but your tireless dedication to the truth is heart warming.

K-9

The Indo wrote:

7. New areas of EU competence
The Lisbon Treaty will set out those areas over which the EU has exclusive competence, shared competence with member states, or supporting competence.

This is what you'll see the No side claiming.

The Indo wrote:

The treaty gives the EU no new areas of exclusive competence; however, it establishes joint competence in the areas of space and energy. It also gives the EU the role of supporting competence in several new fields including health, education, tourism, energy and sport.[

This isn't what you'll see the No side claiming!

The Ido wrote:

8. Redistribution of voting weights between member states
Within those areas to be decided by qualified majority voting, the current rules require the support of a little over 72% of member states for a law to be passed. Under the new system due to come into effect from 2014, a vote can be passed if it is backed by 55% of member states, and secondly, if these countries represent 65% of the EU’s population.

It can also be passed if less than four countries oppose it. The changes mean
that it will be easier to pass legislation, and more difficult to block it. Countries with smaller populations will have less chance of blocking legislation.

The reason 4 countries blocking is there is precisely to make it easier for small countries to block. You'd swear 4 countries was dreamed up for no reason.

The Indo wrote:

9. Shift from unanimity to majority voting
The Lisbon Treaty will see an increase in the number of policy areas to be decided by a majority vote at the council, rather than by unanimity. Qualified majority voting will become the norm; however, there are some notable exceptions that will still require unanimous decisions, including taxation and defence.
One area where the unanimity veto will give way to qualified majority voting is Justice and Home Affairs, covering issues such as asylum, immigration, criminal law, border controls and police cooperation. Ireland has the power to opt out of this area on a case-by-case basis.

Irelands opt out is important. As pointed our, defence and tax are NON issues. EU decisions are arrived at my consensus but if this is a major issue for you, i.e. more important than the advantages, vote No. SF'ers will not like this part.

The Indo wrote:

10. Changes to common security and defence policy
The Lisbon Treaty provides for the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the European Union, which will nonetheless respect the neutrality of member states like Ireland. It also allows the European Council to change decision making from unanimity to majority voting in a number of areas, excluding military and defence. However such changes will themselves require unanimous decisions.
The treaty extends the range of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions for which the union may draw on member states to include disarmament operations, military advice and assistance and post-conflict stabilization.

The unaminous part is key.

K-9

Upsrising wrote:

The European Parliament comprises 785 MEPs from across the union; under the treaty, this will be permanently reduced to 751. The number of Irish MEPs will drop from 13 to 12.

A direct question Uprising, how did you reach that conclusion?

Wibbs

MaGrOtTeN wrote: »

It is well worth comparing with the divorce referendum. What difference does it make if it took 10 years to pass, it did in the end. Just goes to show how backwards this country really is.

Pretty big difference. Cultures change over time. Regardless of whether you and me think it backwards that was the will of the people at the time. Democracy as it were. As for divorce, I voted yes at the time, because it was needed and I had (stupidly) hoped the powers that be would have looked to other countries experience and implemented it better. Of course they didn't. Another debate though.

I don't think this decision should ever have been put on Ireland's head.

Eh that pesky democracy lark again.

People are venting their anti-federalist concerns in completely the wrong sectors. Why should it be the 'End Of?' Because you are afraid a so-called EU bully? Do you have any idea how much the EU achieves for Ireland?

Of course I do. I lived through the 70's and 80's I know exactly what the EU did for us. They are two separate issues. Yes we should give something back, but we should never be railroaded into doing so out of some misplaced guilt. Fcuk that for a game of soldiers.

Why shouldn't we vote on Lisbon tomorrow when most of the NO voters said they weren't informed? If you aren't informed, why vote?

I would say the vast majority of voters in any election/referendum are ill informed and don't know the issues. Take a spin through the dail and and look at the gallery of flap eared morons that people voted for and of course then moan about when it goes wrong. Then en masse vote in another crop of flap eared morons from the "other side" who are in most practical ways the exact bloody same. Again that's democracy.

Frankly I think mass democracy is over rated and I would re jig it entirely, by having study and exams required to get a vote.

The EU is not saying 'Or Else.' And if there are any consequences I'm sure it will include cut backs in financial assistance and regulation that has been so vital to this country, that we will destroy ourselves without.

So by that logic a gun is being held at our heads, or the veiled threat of one?

I will say this again, politicians weren't happy with the outcome because the public didn't do their homework and also believed the Treaty included superficial compromises that never existed!

As I said it's not the publics job, or at least the vast majority of the public neither care not have the capacity to. Once they have their lease on their new car being paid and the three holiday getaways a year, they notice bugger all. The main reason FF got in and stayed in. When that all went twitchy they freaked out and starting thinking(up to a point).

The public need it broken down in very very simple terms. Hell look at how many can't even understand how to negotiate a roundabout properly. A huge document written in legalese to cover all bases? May as well be written in Sanskrit.

Sam Vimes

thelordofcheese wrote: »

sam, can i hug you?

I don't mean to be weird, or anything, but your tireless dedication to the truth is heart warming.

Oh alright. But make it quick, I don't want anyone thinking we're.....like that

Sam Vimes

Wibbs wrote: »

Pretty big difference. Cultures change over time. Regardless of whether you and me think it backwards that was the will of the people at the time. Democracy as it were.

With the divorce referendum time passed. If you look at my list you'll see where I show that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"

Sam Vimes

You say this:

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh that pesky democracy lark again.

But then you say this:

Wibbs wrote: »

As I said it's not the publics job, or at least the vast majority of the public neither care not have the capacity to. Once they have their lease on their new car being paid and the three holiday getaways a year, they notice bugger all. The main reason FF got in and stayed in. When that all went twitchy they freaked out and starting thinking(up to a point).

The public need it broken down in very very simple terms. Hell look at how many can't even understand how to negotiate a roundabout properly. A huge document written in legalese to cover all bases? May as well be written in Sanskrit.

So you acknowledge that people neither care nor have the capacity to find out what the treaty is about but you still think a referendum is the best way to decide on it? Would we not have a better chance of a decision that's beneficial for Europe by deciding through a game of pin the tail on the donkey than by leaving it to people who can so easily be, and were the last time, manipulated by people with ulterior motives?

Also, there are versions of the treaty that are broken down and simplified (the consolidated treaty) and any bit that is in any way important has been highlighted by either the yes or no camps. You can get a perfectly adequate understanding of the treaty in about half an hour by reading opinions and summaries but the problem seems to be that people don't quite believe that and think they personally need to read all 277 pages before they can be sure there's no clause requiring the eating of babies.

Wibbs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say this:

But then you say this:

Oh no ya got me:) I'm stuck between a love of democracy and a mistrust and apathy towards those charged with running it and a real mistruust of those charged with voting.

So you acknowledge that people neither care nor have the capacity to find out what the treaty is about but you still think a referendum is the best way to decide on it? Would we not have a better chance of a decision that's beneficial for Europe by deciding through a game of pin the tail on the donkey than by leaving it to people who can so easily be, and were the last time, manipulated by people with ulterior motives?

Well you could argue there are ulterior motives on both sides of most political debates. Scaremongering too.

Also, there are versions of the treaty that are broken down and simplified (the consolidated treaty) and any bit that is in any way important has been highlighted by either the yes or no camps. You can get a perfectly adequate understanding of the treaty in about half an hour by reading opinions and summaries but the problem seems to be that people don't quite believe that and think they personally need to read all 277 pages before they can be sure there's no clause requiring the eating of babies.

Oh I completely agree. The thing is the majority won't even spend the half hour reading the condensed version. The only ones who will are those with the interest in both camps and the sheep will follow their natterings in the media and vote accordingly. I suspect a no vote or a very very close yes vote on the back of it. It'll be interesting to see what would happen with a second no vote. Another referendum in two years time? Now that would be farcical.

Sam Vimes

Wibbs wrote: »

Well you could argue there are ulterior motives on both sides of most political debates. Scaremongering too.

You're absolutely right. Very few people on either side had any idea what they were voting for and that's not really a good way to run a country. What we got wasn't the will of the people, it was the will of whoever those people chose to believe.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I completely agree. The thing is the majority won't even spend the half hour reading the condensed version. The only ones who will are those with the interest in both camps and the sheep will follow their natterings in the media and vote accordingly. I suspect a no vote or a very very close yes vote on the back of it. It'll be interesting to see what would happen with a second no vote. Another referendum in two years time? Now that would be farcical.

I can't see another referendum happening. This is not a case of the EU forcing us to vote again because they didn't like the result as the no crowd keep saying, the results of the last referendum were skewed by apathy, fear, misinformation and lies. As I keep pointing out, 77% of no voters don't have a valid reason to vote no anymore. The lies have been legally guaranteed to be lies and people have had two years to familiarise themselves with the treaty so they can't use the excuse that they don't understand it (although some people still spend more time saying they don't understand it than it would take to understand it)

In light of that, the second referendum will actually be the will of the people, not the will of the people who have been against the EU since we joined, who got their way by scaring people into rejecting the big bad treaty.

Another thing that would prevent another referendum would be if the people who are against the treaty could give one good, treaty related reason for why they're rejecting it. If we could do that, anything that we had an objection to could be renegotiated and we would be asked to vote on a new treaty with the bits we didn't like taken out (they're never going to throw out a 277 page document because we have a problem with a few paragraphs) but as it stands there's nothing to be renegotiated. "It's too big to read" just doesn't cut it as a reason to reject a piece of work that took 5 years and millions to produce I'm afraid.

RandomName2

snyper wrote: »

Ill put it this way to you..

If we knew nothing about the treaty at all, i think the fact that the ONLY political party that are against it is those communist/terrorist cruds Sinn Fein / IRA should be the hint that YES is a positive move.

Does this mean that most people in Ireland, the UK, France and the Netherlands support neo-fascist or loony Communsit parties? Oh I see, if the people knew what they were voting on, like the politicians :rolleyes:, they would see the error of their ways and clamour to accept the Constitution/Lisbon/Lisbon2 Treaty.

The bankers almost universally supported the granting of risky mortgages on the grounds of interest return. A banker should know more than me. Shouldn't that alone tell us how wise such a policy was?

TheSpecialOne

ill be voting no...the fact they havent recognised the result of the first vote annoys me...and while reading this thread the smart arse yes voters are getting on my nerves so i will certainly be voting no!bunch of d4 fruit cakes the whole lot of um!

Wibbs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

"It's too big to read" just doesn't cut it as a reason to reject a piece of work that took 5 years and millions to produce I'm afraid.

I agree 100%, but as I say reason won't win out. Rarely does. Laziness or stupidity is far more formidable across the board.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Does this mean that most people in Ireland, the UK, France and the Netherlands support neo-fascist or loony Communsit parties? Oh I see, if the people knew what they were voting on, like the politicians :rolleyes:, they would see the error of their ways and clamour to accept the Constitution/Lisbon/Lisbon2 Treaty.

Well yes, in fact I think they would simply based on the fact that no one can give me anything from the treaty that they object to.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The bankers almost universally supported the granting of risky mortgages on the grounds of interest return. A banker should know more than me. Shouldn't that alone tell us how wise such a policy was?

Trusting someone just because they're in a position of power is not always a good idea but neither is it always a bad idea, by which I mean just because the government says it's good doesn't automatically mean it's bad. The only groups who are against the treaty have been against every treaty since we joined the EU. That says something to me. Does it not say anything to you?

Sam Vimes

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree 100%, but as I say reason won't win out. Rarely does. Laziness or stupidity is far more formidable across the board.

Right, so since you agree that the people who are rejecting it don't really have good reason to and we're only being asked to vote again because the EU and the government know that the people who rejected it didn't have good reason to, do you not think you should vote yes?

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only groups who are against the treaty have been against every treaty since we joined the EU. That says something to me. Does it not say anything to you?

No. It says nothing to me; their message is meaningless in much the same way that the message of the political propenents of the treaty is meaningless. The upshot of this is that it invalidates the argument of those who point out that there are more groups/ a larger political elite that supports the treaty, and hence an indicator that we should support it too.

AckwelFoley

RandomName2 wrote: »

Does this mean that most people in Ireland, the UK, France and the Netherlands support neo-fascist or loony Communsit parties? Oh I see, if the people knew what they were voting on, like the politicians :rolleyes:, they would see the error of their ways and clamour to accept the Constitution/Lisbon/Lisbon2 Treaty.

The bankers almost universally supported the granting of risky mortgages on the grounds of interest return. A banker should know more than me. Shouldn't that alone tell us how wise such a policy was?

No, certainly not.. People have their reasons for voting no, most of those reasons are not valid in my opinion

My point about the IRA Sinn Fein is that they are the only party in the country supporting a no vote. Those fcukers havnt got a single policy on a national level that would benefit the country.

I dont think because people vote "No" they support Sinn Fein. I credit No voters with more intelligence than that

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

No. It says nothing to me; their message is meaningless in much the same way that the message of the political propenents of the treaty is meaningless. The upshot of this is that it invalidates the argument of those who point out that there are more groups/ a larger political elite that supports the treaty, and hence an indicator that we should support it too.

That's how representative democracy works. We vote people in to decide on matters like these because in general people don't have the time, inclination or expertise to make an informed decision. Our politicians make decisions for us every day of the week that have implications a hundred times greater than the Lisbon treaty. This system works all over the world.

If the political leaders of every nation in Europe think the treaty is good, it doesn't automatically mean that it is and that no further investigation should be done but it certainly does increase significantly the likelihood that it is good. These leaders have to live with the consequences of the treaty just as much as their people, if not more, so they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by telling us to vote for something that would screw the country over, and by extension screw them over.

eirebhoy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'll be voting No. I think it's a disgrace it's being held again.

EU democracy: I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it but you'll keep having to vote again until I do.

A lot of what Sinn Fein and Libertas were telling us to vote No for has now been sorted.

I think it's ridiculous if someone votes No just because there's a 2nd vote.

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's how representative democracy works. We vote people in to decide on matters like these because in general people don't have the time, inclination or expertise to make an informed decision. Our politicians make decisions for us every day of the week that have implications a hundred times greater than the Lisbon treaty. This system works all over the world.

If the political leaders of every nation in Europe think the treaty is good, it doesn't automatically mean that it is and that no further investigation should be done but it certainly does increase significantly the likelihood that it is good. These leaders have to live with the consequences of the treaty just as much as their people, if not more, so they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by telling us to vote for something that would screw the country over, and by extension screw them over.

True, true, but what is good for a politician may not be good for a plebian. Indeed, if I were a politician I would probably support Lisbon as well (I would have to regardless of my feelings about it if I was a member of FF, FG, or Labour anyway).

Besides which, what is a politician in Ireland except someone who was a lawyer, accountant or teacher who now is involved in state (and then, mainly tax related) administration? Or alternatively, someone who wants to be in an administrative position but failed to get either elected or appointed.

In fact, the unanimity in support among politicans for Lisbon is actually something which has made me suspicious (the Tories are the only major party I know of who don't support it). Neither Sinn Fein nor the Socialists in Ireland can be, in my opinion, counted as true politicians (notwithstanding the fact that the term is pretty watered down to begin with).