Lisbon 2 The Return!

FutureTaoiseach

According to the EU website, one of the vetoes surrendered relates to the system of "own resources":

(50) Implementing measures for the system of own resources (article 269 FEU treaty)

The elimination of the veto on Energy (TFEU article 176A) (see link) could also mean nuclear power being forced on Ireland. Likewise, the removal of the veto (46) on "List of Council configurations" will mean that Qualified Majority Voting will be used in future to reweight the votes on the Council, allowing for further reduction of our already tiny voting strength (0.8%) under Lisbon.

RandomName2

Stark wrote: »

It's a complicated enough document and you're not going to summarise it on one panel poster.

True, but this is like saying 'FF supports the UN. Vote Yes'. Only it's more-so, because not only is it unrelated to the treaty, but implying that voting No will end Irish membership of the EU is attempting to play on people's fears. If they havn't made their point clear they have a little note saying that 'Its for the economy' or some such rubbish. It is a terrible indicment of people who supposedly helped fashion this constitutional ammending treaty :mad:.

Stark wrote: »

I wouldn't like to think where Ireland would be if we only had Fianna Fáil to rely on with no outside support to fall back on. The EU has done a lot for us over the years in terms of financial support and dragging us out of the Catholic conservative dark years. Even now, with the financial crisis that's going on, the European central bank is providing us with funds to support NAMA (while overseeing the thing to make sure FF don't skim too much off the top), as well as providing unemployment grants to hard hit areas like Limerick.

Not that I would vote Yes purely out of sense of gratitude though, I think the Treaty still has a lot to offer small countries in terms of representation in Europe and I think we stand to do even better out of the EU arrangement by supporting rather than rejecting it.

Yes, being part of the EU has helped Ireland, as you have said. But the EU isn't some sugar-daddy that is bailing out Ireland. Its an economic community. If we 'owe' the EU anything then we 'owe' ourselves. We are supposed to be as much a part of the EU as any other member state - it is about free trade where no member has a monopoly of trade or resources. It is supposed to be, and is, mutually beneficial.

The EU did not create the enconomic boom in Ireland, nor did it create the recession. It contributed to both, to be sure, but that has nothing to do with Lisbon, or the manner in which political power should be re-distrubuted across the continent of Europe.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

According to the EU website, one of the vetoes surrendered relates to the system of "own resources":The elimination of the veto on Energy (see link) could also mean nuclear power being forced on Ireland. Likewise, the removal of the veto (46) on "List of Council configurations" will mean that Qualified Majority Voting will be used in future to reweight the votes on the Council, allowing for further reduction of our already tiny voting strength (0.8%) under Lisbon.

Any reason to believe we will be forced to have nuclear power?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Excellent post. It's fun to watch both sides ignore the idiocy on their side while foaming at the mouth over the other side's. Hell I'm guilty of that at times myself at times.

There are stupid things on both sides, for example I don't give a crap if Packie Bonner wants me to vote yes but I don't consider the "EU has been good to us" type arguments to be stupid. The EU has been extremely good to us so I need an extremely good reason to go against them and I don't see such a reason in the Lisbon Treaty. As the Labour party says, voting no just to give FF a black eye will hurt the country as much as it will FF.

If there were significant numbers of people who had legitimate reasons for rejection it'd be fine, we could go back to Europe with our heads held high to renegotiate but, except for the objection over the greater move to QMV which I have no problem with, none of the objections are valid. We're just shooting ourselves in the foot by clinging to nonsense ideas like the suggestion that the guarantees aren't guarantees, that your vote should in some way be effected by their problems with Fianna Fail or that finding out why people voted no, handling their objections and asking if they've changed their minds is undemocratic

ShooterSF

Stark wrote: »

Unfortunately the country is full of idiots who will vote based on how many visual cues they encounter. Sorry if that's insulting to those who'll will be voting Yes/No based on valid reasons, but it's true. It's why TDs have to stick pictures of their mugs on every lamp post coming up to every election. If they don't, they'll have people walking into the ballot box thinking "Well I don't know what he/she looks like, so I'm going to vote for Bertie as I've seen him around the place".

If you only have "No" posters everywhere, you will have people who will simply think "well everyone is telling me to vote No, so it must be the right choice".

Now if it was up to me, both sides would be banned from sticking up posters.

The bit in bold I agree on 100%.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

Any reason to believe we will be forced to have nuclear power?

The powerful nuclear lobby in the UK and Germany in particular. While the SPD want to phase of nuclear power, polls suggest a conservative CDU-FPD govt will win the General Election (despite a poor regional election outcome a few days ago) and reverse the policy. But it has to be understand that when people are trying to get you to agree to something,they are hardly going to admit to a future attempt to use the arrangement in a manner that would disturb you.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The powerful nuclear lobby in the UK and Germany in particular. While the SPD want to phase of nuclear power, polls suggest a conservative CDU-FPD govt will win the General Election (despite a poor regional election outcome a few days ago) and reverse the policy. But it has to be understand that when people are trying to get you to agree to something,they are hardly going to admit to a future attempt to use the arrangement in a manner that would disturb you.

Grand. Any evidence of this being suggested at EU Level?

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

Grand. Any evidence of this being suggested at EU Level?

No. They are going to wait until our veto is gone. That way we can't veto it. They're not going to give away their battleplans.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. They are going to wait until our veto is gone. That way we can't veto it. They're not going to give away their battleplans.

YEP. That is how the EU operates!

Any examples of them bringing in something against our wishes this way?

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. They are going to wait until our veto is gone. That way we can't veto it. They're not going to give away their battleplans.

Are you serious? And can you seriously accuse the yes side of scaremongering after a statement like that?

Edit: also, you don't seem to think that a no vote will damage Ireland but if the people in Brussels are as, for want of a better word, evil as you make out here, what's to stop them punishing us in underhanded ways for a no vote?

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you serious? And can you seriously accuse the yes side of scaremongering after a statement like that?

They were accused of scaremongering in 2002 aswell over mass-immigration in Nice II, and it turned out to be true. Remember these gems:

" There is no reason to believe...... that large numbers of workers will
wish to come"
[ Dick Roche I.T. Letters 12/7/2002 ]

" It is the view of the Irish government and a number of other governments
that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is just
not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not going to
flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15 states. There
is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech Republic or Poland
are less anxious to stay in their home as (sic) we are.
[ Dick Roche transcript of interview with The Irish Catholic, Govt.
Buildings 19/9/2002. ]


" It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands
will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland...The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the
Irish economy...I estimate that fewer than 2,000 [ two thousand] will choose our distant shores each year." [ P. De Rossa I.T. Letters
20/8/2002 ]

"Efforts have been made to foment fears that migrants from the new member states could flock to Ireland. This is not only unpleasant but plainly wrong...Ireland is already benefiting from the skills and energy of workers from the applicant states, about 7,000 [ seven thousand] of whom received work permits last year. There is no basis whatever for expecting a huge upsurge in these numbers."
[ Brian Cowen Sunday Business Post 7/7/2002 ]

An Fear Aniar

K-9 wrote: »

YEP. That is how the EU operates!

Any examples of them bringing in something against our wishes this way?

The present ratification process in the UK is the most blatant example. No referendum, although it had been promised in 2004.

If you look at the MEP election results for the UK with huge gains for UKIP and the BNP I think it's fair to say a referendum would be a good idea if the Lisbon Constitution were to have any shred of legitimacy.

.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They were accused of scaremongering in 2002 aswell over mass-immigration in Nice II, and it turned out to be true. Remember these gems:

" There is no reason to believe...... that large numbers of workers will
wish to come"
[ Dick Roche I.T. Letters 12/7/2002 ]

" It is the view of the Irish government and a number of other governments
that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is just
not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not going to
flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15 states. There
is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech Republic or Poland
are less anxious to stay in their home as (sic) we are.
[ Dick Roche transcript of interview with The Irish Catholic, Govt.
Buildings 19/9/2002. ]


" It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands
will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland...The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the
Irish economy...I estimate that fewer than 2,000 [ two thousand] will choose our distant shores each year." [ P. De Rossa I.T. Letters
20/8/2002 ]

So FF fecked up by not using the derogation, like they did with Romania and Bulgaria.

Sam, I prefer seeing these claims about Nuclear power etc. Best propaganda for a Yes vote possible.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

According to the EU website, one of the vetoes surrendered relates to the system of "own resources":The elimination of the veto on Energy (TFEU article 176A) (see link) could also mean nuclear power being forced on Ireland. Likewise, the removal of the veto (46) on "List of Council configurations" will mean that Qualified Majority Voting will be used in future to reweight the votes on the Council, allowing for further reduction of our already tiny voting strength (0.8%) under Lisbon.

Yes the implementing measures refers to the second part of the article. The first part of the article states very clearly that that the decision to introduce such a measure in the first place requires unaminity from the council of ministers
Likewise energy is a new competemcy so this is losing a veto how exactly?

I am glad you mentioned it because is is one of the few new competencies added and it is quite limited in scope:

Highlighted the interesting bits

1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for
the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit
of solidarity between Member States, to:
(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;
(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union; and
(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and
(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.

2. Without prejudice to the application of other provisions of the Treaties, the European
Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall
establish the measures necessary to achieve the objectives in paragraph 1. Such measures shall be adopted after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions. Such measures shall not affect a Member State’s right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply, without prejudice to Article 175(2)(c) [192(2)(c)].

3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special
legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein when they are primarily of a fiscal nature

K-9

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The present ratification process in the UK is the most blatant example. No referendum, although it had been promised in 2004.

If you look at the MEP election results for the UK with huge gains for UKIP and the BNP I think it's fair to say a referendum would be a good idea if the Lisbon Constitution were to have any shred of legitimacy.

.

I support a referendum in the UK. Not on Lisbon though, on EU membership.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They were accused of scaremongering in 2002 aswell over mass-immigration in Nice II, and it turned out to be true. Remember these gems:

" There is no reason to believe...... that large numbers of workers will
wish to come"
[ Dick Roche I.T. Letters 12/7/2002 ]

" It is the view of the Irish government and a number of other governments
that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is just
not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not going to
flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15 states. There
is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech Republic or Poland
are less anxious to stay in their home as (sic) we are.
[ Dick Roche transcript of interview with The Irish Catholic, Govt.
Buildings 19/9/2002. ]


" It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands
will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland...The expected trickle of immigration to Ireland will on balance benefit the
Irish economy...I estimate that fewer than 2,000 [ two thousand] will choose our distant shores each year." [ P. De Rossa I.T. Letters
20/8/2002 ]

"Efforts have been made to foment fears that migrants from the new member states could flock to Ireland. This is not only unpleasant but plainly wrong...Ireland is already benefiting from the skills and energy of workers from the applicant states, about 7,000 [ seven thousand] of whom received work permits last year. There is no basis whatever for expecting a huge upsurge in these numbers."
[ Brian Cowen Sunday Business Post 7/7/2002 ]

Ireland didn't have to do that and most other EU countries didn't. People were encouraged to come here from those countries. And anyway, having taken advantage of the free movement of people in the EU to work in Sweden for 6 months, I'm all for it. Free movement works both ways

An Fear Aniar

K-9 wrote: »

I support a referendum in the UK. Not on Lisbon though, on EU membership.

What people in the UK most likely want is what they voted for in the original referendum in 1975 shortly after they joined. They want to be part of the EEC, a trading bloc, not what it has become, the EU - a political superstate. That's my guess anyway.

.

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ireland didn't have to do that and most other EU countries didn't. People were encouraged to come here from those countries. And anyway, having taken advantage of the free movement of people in the EU to work in Sweden for 6 months, I'm all for it. Free movement works both ways

The scale of movement to Ireland from Eastern Europe is totally out of proportion to the other way around though. And the EU can't take credit for Irish emigration to Britain which was allowed since independence under the CTA. And we did have to open our borders from Day 1 because of EU Enlargement. The rules are that while we could have imposed labour-restrictions, we couldn't prevent actual movement by nationals of those countries to Ireland. The central point I am making in the above quotes is that the issue was played down in Nice II and we were told there would not be a large influx. That was untrue. Why believe them now?

Furthermore, the abolition of the veto (Article 42 TFEU) on "Freedom of movement for workers, social security benefits" will encourage welfare tourism and potentially impose financial commitments on Ireland we can't afford.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The scale of movement to Ireland from Eastern Europe is totally out of proportion to the other way around though. And the EU can't take credit for Irish emigration to Britain which was allowed since independence under the CTA. And we did have to open our borders from Day 1 because of EU Enlargement. The rules are that while we could have imposed labour-restrictions, we couldn't prevent actual movement by nationals of those countries to Ireland. The central point I am making in the above quotes is that the issue was played down in Nice II and we were told there would not be a large influx. That was untrue. Why believe them now?

Furthermore, the abolition of the veto (Article 42 TFEU) on "Freedom of movement for workers, social security benefits" will encourage welfare tourism and potentially impose financial commitments on Ireland we can't afford.

Yes we could have imposed labour restrictions and we chose not to. Our government's fault, not the EU's. I don't think you should just believe anything that Irish politicians say unless you have confidence in one particular person but nor should you assume that the people in Brussels are sitting in their ivory towers stroking white cats, cackling and waiting for the Irish people to be duped so their plans for world domination can be put into action

An Fear Aniar

Well I never voted for Emperor Barroso. When can we vote him out?

.

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes we could have imposed labour restrictions and we chose not to. Our government's fault, not the EU's. I don't think you should just believe anything that Irish politicians say unless you have confidence in one particular person but nor should you assume that the people in Brussels are sitting in their ivory towers stroking white cats, cackling and waiting for the Irish people to be duped so their plans for world domination can be put into action

I get your point that this was our govt's decision to do this. But that's not the point. The point is that what they said in 2002 turned out to be untrue, and that undermines their credibility this time around.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Likewise, the removal of the veto (46) on "List of Council configurations" will mean that Qualified Majority Voting will be used in future to reweight the votes on the Council, allowing for further reduction of our already tiny voting strength (0.8%) under Lisbon.

Poor effort. The List of Council configurations has nothing to do with voting weights whatsoever. This simply means that the list of the types of meetings of ministers that can occur under the guise of the Council of ministers can be altered by QMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#Configurations

ArseBurger

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Well I never voted for Emperor Barroso. When can we vote him out?

.

You didn't vote for Cowen either - unless you're one of his constituents.

Welcome to democracy.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I get your point that this was our govt's decision to do this. But that's not the point. The point is that what they said in 2002 turned out to be untrue, and that undermines their credibility this time around.

I don't think the Irish government has any credibility. To be honest I wish they'd shut up and let other people explain the benefits of the treaty because the more they say yes, the more people say no but in reality it doesn't work like that unfortunately

If anything I'd rather have some decisions in the hands of Brussels, with Irish representation of course, than in Cowens sweaty hooves

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

Poor effort. The List of Council configurations has nothing to do with voting weights whatsoever. This simply means that the list of the types of meetings of ministers that can occur under the guise of the Council of ministers can be altered by QMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union#Configurations

I acknowledge my mistake on that issue but not the rest.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I acknowledge my mistake on that issue but not the rest.

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.

Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources.

The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down implementing measures for the Union’s own resources system insofar as this is provided for in the decision adopted on the basis of the third paragraph. The Council shall act after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

It is also crystal clear that the introduction of any EU tax requires unanimity. The QMV aspect kicks in after this point

Dr. Baltar

As much as the Yes side believe this is an invalid point, I am going to be voting No (even though I had been considering Yes for some time) because I want to vote against what this government is suggesting.
Hopefully a second unsuccessful campaign by our government will force the resignation of Cowen & Co. and will also cause a general election.

Secondly, I'll be voting "NO" because I believe that our first No decision is valid and that asking the same question again is undemocratic.

PrivateEye

What posters have people seen up so far? Only COIR and We Belong so far myself.

FutureTaoiseach

PrivateEye wrote: »

What posters have people seen up so far? Only COIR and We Belong so far myself.

Don't begrudge them their cycling, which is far more important. :rolleyes:

Campaigners for a ’Yes’ vote in the forthcoming Lisbon treaty referendum got on their bikes today to take their message across Ireland.

Activists from Ireland were joined by pro-Lisbon supporters from Spain, France, the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany as they began a cycle tour of the country in Dublin.

The seven day trip will stop in Carlow, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Athlone as participants urge people to back the controversial EU reforms at the second time of asking in October.

BTW, I suspect a straw-man attack on me on the EU politics thread, in terms of someone attempting to link me to support for discrimination.

ranmac wrote:

totally agree with FutureTaoiseach if only for the proposed insertikon of the following Clause"ARTICLE 5b
In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat
discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation."

To me this clause s totally abhorrent and anti-christian

marco_polo

Sir Baralot wrote: »

As much as the Yes side believe this is an invalid point, I am going to be voting No (even though I had been considering Yes for some time) because I want to vote against what this government is suggesting.
Hopefully a second unsuccessful campaign by our government will force the resignation of Cowen & Co. and will also cause a general election.

Secondly, I'll be voting "NO" because I believe that our first No decision is valid and that asking the same question again is undemocratic.

In the wake of a previous failed referenda, and a drubbing in the local election what make you think that this would be the one to finally bring down the Government? Bearing in mind the minute that the Referendum is over either the country will be straight into the Nama debate with a vengance?

Even in the event that it did happen any new Government would immediately be in a bit of a tight spot dealing with the implications of the result, and a distraction from other important issues. Now of course if you are really opposed to Lisbon this bit will not be of concern, but if you may have been in favour in the absence of FF?