What Is This Lisbon Treaty All About?

IRockUrSocks

Seaneh wrote: »

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

Watch this.
Skip the first minute or so.

Interesting video but I must admit, I find it a little one-sided for my taste - much like Bowling For Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11, although I enjoyed these movies .

K-9

Leilani Happy Moon wrote: »

And pigs may fly... :rolleyes:

After looking at the above video, it's pretty scary to have people from other countries coming to Ireland with said countries salaries... That will seriously effect us...

If that is the Lavel judgment they are working on changing it. It is the wiseup journal so I'd use the same skepticism they have of Lisbon and apply it to them!

TheZohanS

K-9 wrote: »

If that is the Lavel judgment they are working on changing it. It is the wiseup journal so I'd use the same skepticism they have of Lisbon and apply it to them!

I'd be skeptical of anyone that doesn't support the Treaty...it's just ignorant.

K-9

TheZohan wrote: »

I'd be skeptical of anyone that doesn't support the Treaty...it's just ignorant.

Nope, a lot of No voters have perfectly good reasons, I just don't attach the same significance to some of those reasons.

IRockUrSocks

Are the only European nations to actually practice conscription: Germany, Lux, Austria, Denmark and Sweden?

squod

TheZohan wrote: »

I'd be skeptical of anyone that doesn't support the Treaty...it's just ignorant.

Then you'd be sceptical about most of the population of europe.
That would make you euro-sceptic, and so you'd vote no?

What can I say.

K-9

IRockUrSocks wrote: »

Are the only European nations to actually practice conscription: Germany, Lux, Austria, Denmark and Sweden?

Think Austria and Germany where considering ending it.

K-9

IRockUrSocks wrote: »

Are the only European nations to actually practice conscription: Germany, Lux, Austria, Denmark and Sweden?

K-9 wrote: »

Think Austria and Germany where considering ending it.

Bulgaria and Romania have ended it in the last year or two.

Thinking about this, Germany and Austria have it because they could not be members of NATO until recently.

Looks like Sweden is ending it too:http://www.thelocal.se/9318/20071206/

So even though the trend is for EU countries ending conscription this somehow is an EU concern for some.

squod

K-9 wrote: »

The above isn't a bad summary of how the EU works anyway and always has. Vetoes are rarely used and it is about cooperation. Losing vetoes sounds scarey if you don't realise that.

No other state has passed it by a public vote because their constitution doesn't require it. The UK and Germany had legal challenges to that. We are indeed the odd one out on Referenda.

On the UK, tbh, I think the problem there isn't so much Lisbon, it's more the EU. They've opted out of the Euro and many other things and still they are eurosceptic.



The booklet isn't patronising! Many people want a booklet like that as they don't have the time or inclination to read more on it. The Treaty is available to read if that is your inclination.

As for abortion, it is clear our position will not be affected.

I don't go along with all your reasoning and I still can't understand why we're voting again.
My piont is that another Peter Mandelson type will come along in future,
pushing his own agenda to the detrement of others and under Lisbon we'll have fewer chances of stopping him.

As I said the UK are our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partners,
they would vote no. It's highly probable the rest of europe would vote no also if asked.

We're one of very few countries to be asked to express our opinions on Lisbon. We should feel the burden of weight of those unable to vote on this.

An Fear Aniar

squod wrote: »

We're one of very few countries to be asked to express our opinions on Lisbon. We should feel the burden of weight of those unable to vote on this.

Exactly. Most of Europe would vote no, that's why they're not being given a referendum, not after the French and the Danes voted No in previous polls.

.

K-9

squod wrote: »

I don't go along with all your reasoning and I still can't understand why we're voting again.
My piont is that another Peter Mandelson type will come along in future,
pushing his own agenda to the detrement of others and under Lisbon we'll have fewer chances of stopping him.

We are voting again because our Govt. got some guarentees. They may not satisfy your concerns and I accept that, but some people are happy with them and will change their vote to a Yes.

Do you have any examples of him doing that? Not his biggest fan at all so I'd be interested in it. Can throw some mud come the UK elections!

squod wrote:

As I said the UK are our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partners,
they would vote no. It's highly probable the rest of europe would vote no also if asked.

We're one of very few countries to be asked to express our opinions on Lisbon. We should feel the burden of weight of those unable to vote on this.

I don't know on the burden point. Don't think Germany or indeed the UK would be too bothered about us if it was the other way round.

The EU is now as big a trading partner as the UK so we need to consider that too.

The UK is different to us as they could arguably survive without the EU. The EU has helped us get rid of the shackles that tied us to the UK.

sink

I want a yes vote but I'm apathetic about the whole thing now. The greatest motivators of the general public are hate, greed and fear in that order. They'll vote against the treaty because they hate the government and all politicians. They'll vote against the treaty because they believe sharing power is loosing power. They'll vote against the treaty because they fear what's not in it.

"In a democracy the people get the government they deserve"

An Fear Aniar

sink wrote: »

"In a democracy the people get the government they deserve"

It's a lot better than the alternatives, which is where we're heading if the people have to keep voting again until they give the right answer.

.

K-9

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's a lot better than the alternatives
.

Hmmmm, think that is why we are in the mess we are in!

squod

sink wrote: »

I want a yes vote but I'm apathetic about the whole thing now. The greatest motivators of the general public are hate, greed and fear in that order. They'll vote against the treaty because they hate the government and all politicians. They'll vote against the treaty because they believe sharing power is loosing power. They'll vote against the treaty because they fear what's not in it.

"In a democracy the people get the government they deserve"

You shouldn't be apathetic, it seems the longer this goes on the more sure I am getting.

Mandelson was a 'spin doctor' to answer a question, a very talented negotiator.
'Couple times he was accused of corruption. You could wiki him of course.

sink

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

It's a lot better than the alternatives, which is where we're heading if the people have to keep voting again until they give the right answer.

.

QED, TBH!

Behind that is really just hatred of the government.

Democracy is the so called 'least worst option'. The trouble with democracy is that the majority of people vote based on abstracts like "people have to keep voting again until they give the right answer". In that statement there is no consideration of the pros and cons, not even a reflection of reality. It's a slogan that has been picked up by those who feel disenfranchised. It's angry, cynical and sticks one to the government, it purely reflects how the people feel emotionally at this moment in time but it says noting about the treaty.

K-9

squod wrote: »

You shouldn't be apathetic, it seems the longer this goes on the more sure I am getting.

Mandelson was a 'spin doctor' to answer a question, a very talented negotiator.
'Couple times he was accused of corruption. You could wiki him of course.

Ah, that isn't what I asked or related to what you said first.

What was his agenda in the EU and was he successful with that agenda?

checkbalance

There are a lot of issues in Lisbon but first of all it would be a constitutional treaty. It would make a federal Europe, not a complete federation but close enough.

Lisbon would be a constitution and the EU would have it's own police force, it's own court system, it's own president, its own minister for foreign affairs, a military dimension & common foreign policy, it's own diplomatic system and its own charter of fundamental rights. It would be ignorant to say that Lisbon does not create the strong outline of a federation.

The issue for voters now just like before is do you want an independent country like now (in many areas) or to be a semi-independent state in a large federation?

That is the issue of sovereignty, which is central. Then you must look at what kind of Union Lisbon will make Europe and decide if it's agreeable or not.

From my perspective the issues are is Lisbon democratic, will it allow irish people to have a say in its own governance, does it respect workers rights, will it create another army/military alliance like those active today, will its economic policies help us or create recessions like this one?

PS anyone who disagrees that Lisbon isn't a constitution of sorts can argue with the German chancellor who said about Lisbon in comparison to the rejected EU Constitution 27/06/07

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."

Dinner

You have an awful lot of fact checking to do. Lets start with an easy one.

'The EU would have [...] it's own president.'

You are wrong. Do you care?

Here's a hint to get you started. It won't be called President of the EU, it has feck all power and we already have one. It will just become a longer term after Lisbon.

After you have corrected yourself on the president bit you can start to research the rest of your post.

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

There are a lot of issues in Lisbon but first of all it would be a constitutional treaty. It would make a federal Europe, not a complete federation but close enough.

How so?

checkbalance wrote:

Lisbon would be a constitution and the EU would have it's own police force, it's own court system, it's own president, its own minister for foreign affairs, a military dimension & common foreign policy, it's own diplomatic system and its own charter of fundamental rights. It would be ignorant to say that Lisbon does not create the strong outline of a federation.

Can you expand on all those points?

checkbalance wrote:

PS anyone who disagrees that Lisbon isn't a constitution of sorts can argue with the German chancellor who said about Lisbon in comparison to the rejected EU Constitution 27/06/07

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."

Think the recent German court judgment is more relevant than a politicians opinion or quote that may have been misquoted.

What they mean by SUBSTANCE probably isn't what you mean.

K-9

Dinner wrote: »

You have an awful lot of fact checking to do. Lets start with an easy one.

'The EU would have [...] it's own president.'

You are wrong. Do you care?

Here's a hint to get you started. It won't be called President of the EU, it has feck all power and we already have one. It will just become a longer term after Lisbon.

After you have corrected yourself on the president bit you can start to research the rest of your post.

Most of it seems new to me. It is scarey though when it is put like that with NO details.

checkbalance

In response that Lisbon would not create a position of president. There is a form of presidency now but it rotates between member countries every 6 months. Lisbon stops rotation and make it an electable position (not for us to elect though). Regardless of the name or even its powers, that is what it is. The fact that France wanted to hold the presidency for another 6 months (instead of changing it to Czech Republic) at the end of last year to handle the recession shows that it has importance.

Dinner

checkbalance wrote: »

In response that Lisbon would not create a position of president. There is a form of presidency now but it rotates between member countries every 6 months. Lisbon stops rotation and make it an electable position (not for us to elect though). Regardless of the name or even its powers, that is what it is. The fact that France wanted to hold the presidency for another 6 months (instead of changing it to Czech Republic) at the end of last year to handle the recession shows that it has importance.

Lets get one thing perfectly clear. It is not President of the EU, EU president or anything of the sort. It is President of the European Council.

Calling it anything else is misleading people into thinking that some new position is being created that is moving the EU in a more federal direction when the position has been around for ages.

You mention that the President of the Council won't be elected by the people. Do you think it should? Would you like a permanent German President of the Council all the time? More importantly, someone elected by popular vote is much more likely to be biased towards the group that most helped elect them.

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

In response that Lisbon would not create a position of president. There is a form of presidency now but it rotates between member countries every 6 months. Lisbon stops rotation and make it an electable position (not for us to elect though). Regardless of the name or even its powers, that is what it is. The fact that France wanted to hold the presidency for another 6 months (instead of changing it to Czech Republic) at the end of last year to handle the recession shows that it has importance.

So it replaces an unelectable position with an electable one?

It does not stop rotation. Ireland will get our turn in 2/3 years.

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

Lisbon would be a constitution and the EU would have it's own police force, it's own court system, it's own president, its own minister for foreign affairs, a military dimension & common foreign policy, it's own diplomatic system and its own charter of fundamental rights. It would be ignorant to say that Lisbon does not create the strong outline of a federation.

Can you expand more on these?

Own police, court, minister for FA, military dimension, diplomatic system and ITS OWN CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

I accept the common foreign policy point. You do realise we keep our sacred veto in this area?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

TheZohan wrote: »

I'd be skeptical of anyone that doesn't support the Treaty...it's just ignorant.

Why so? Just claiming that is pretty ignorant itself, you know?

People do have viable reasons. Some are afraid of change, some do not trust the treaty mainly due to the fact that it was completely unreadable and this was done on purpose to hide the things people would not like...

checkbalance

I'm not sure what you want me to expand on:

The EU already has an executive and legislative arm as well as a judiciary. These are all important aspects of a government.

Lisbon creates the electable (by politicians) positions of President and Minister for Foreign Affairs (if you're being techincal that's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Secirity Policy) Articles 15 & 18 Consolidated Lisbon Treaty (TEU)

Diplomatic service is called the European External Action Service and would cooperate with dimplomatic services of member countries Art. 27.3

The existence in Lisbon of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is well documented.

There is a whole section (title 5) on common foreign and security policy including a mutual defence clause, framing a common defence strategy, making the European Defence Agency responsible for guiding military spending.

We already have Europol which gains much more through Lisbon.

I'm hoping you know about this stuff and are just being argumentative because if you are advocating a yes vote and haven't heard about these aspects then you should have a look over the Treaty and perhaps you'll change your mind. As condescending as that sounds I'm not actually trying to be.

The final point about the German ruling is that it only applies in Germany. The 28th Ammendment of the Constitution Bill 2009 which we will vote on clearly states that Lisbon is superior/has primacy to our constitution. that means all the things that the German court said would interfere with Germanys sovereignty and could not be permitted to do so are actually free to interfere with our sovereignty.

Seriously, arguing that Lisbon isn't a move towards federalisation could well be seen as ignorant at best or simply dishonest.

Mal-Adjusted

don't you know, OP?

a yes vote will bring in conscription to a european army, forced abortion & creating a united states of europe!

a no vote will set us back 50 years, get us kicked out of the E.U. and kill all the potatoes in the land!

...at least this is the tripe i'm hearing from both sides. I never will understand why these people can't be truthful

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

I'm not sure what you want me to expand on:

The EU already has an executive and legislative arm as well as a judiciary. These are all important aspects of a government.

Lisbon creates the electable (by politicians) positions of President and Minister for Foreign Affairs (if you're being techincal that's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Secirity Policy) Articles 15 & 18 Consolidated Lisbon Treaty (TEU)

Diplomatic service is called the European External Action Service and would cooperate with dimplomatic services of member countries Art. 27.3

The existence in Lisbon of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is well documented.

There is a whole section (title 5) on common foreign and security policy including a mutual defence clause, framing a common defence strategy, making the European Defence Agency responsible for guiding military spending.

We already have Europol which gains much more through Lisbon.

I'm hoping you know about this stuff and are just being argumentative because if you are advocating a yes vote and haven't heard about these aspects then you should have a look over the Treaty and perhaps you'll change your mind. As condescending as that sounds I'm not actually trying to be.

The final point about the German ruling is that it only applies in Germany. The 28th Ammendment of the Constitution Bill 2009 which we will vote on clearly states that Lisbon is superior/has primacy to our constitution. that means all the things that the German court said would interfere with Germanys sovereignty and could not be permitted to do so are actually free to interfere with our sovereignty.

Seriously, arguing that Lisbon isn't a move towards federalisation could well be seen as ignorant at best or simply dishonest.

Ah, that is different to what you originally posted. It was phrased as if Lisbon did all this.

What powers does this Minister of Foreign Affairs have?

The EU already has diplomats, eg. John Bruton in the US. Why people have a problem with that I don't know!

The charter of Fundamental rights is not an EU document. It already exists. We are being asked to vote on it.

Common foreign and security policy? We have opt outs and sacred vetoes.

What is the problem with Europol?

I have heard of these points. Just want to know your concerns as most I've seen can be assuaged and calmed.

On the constitution point, you need to clear up that point. Does Lisbon have primacy over our Constitution?

On the arguing, you are setting out a position. You are being questioned to see if it holds out. Shouldn't be a problem.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

don't you know, OP?

a yes vote will bring in conscription to a european army, forced abortion & creating a united states of europe!

a no vote will set us back 50 years, get us kicked out of the E.U. and kill all the potatoes in the land!

...at least this is the tripe i'm hearing from both sides. I never will understand why these people can't be truthful

Nor do I... I was a no voter in the past, I then turned yes after some things were amended, now I am no again. It's fcuking confusing. The amount of crap you hear...

One thing I do know is that we won't be kicked out of the EU, nor will our economy crash, look at norway and switzerland, they are not in the EU but still benifit from it. You know?

checkbalance

Dinner wrote: »

Lets get one thing perfectly clear. It is not President of the EU, EU president or anything of the sort. It is President of the European Council.

Calling it anything else is misleading people into thinking that some new position is being created that is moving the EU in a more federal direction when the position has been around for ages.

You mention that the President of the Council won't be elected by the people. Do you think it should? Would you like a permanent German President of the Council all the time? More importantly, someone elected by popular vote is much more likely to be biased towards the group that most helped elect them.

It is perfectly clear, yes its the president of the European Council or President of the Council of the heads of the EU states. It creates a re-electable position from one that was a rotational one. The importance is this President would be elected as an individual and does not mean each country gets their chance.

The system at the moment works fine, its very fair and equal. It sometimes puts good leaders and sometimes bad leaders in the spotlight. The rotational presidency is a big argument against federalisation and for a cooperative community. At least you have conceded the point that there is an electable position for President (of the European Council) created by Lisbon.

K-9

Leilani Happy Moon wrote: »

Nor do I... I was a no voter in the past, I then turned yes after some things were amended, now I am no again. It's fcuking confusing. The amount of crap you hear...

One thing I do know is that we won't be kicked out of the EU, nor will our economy crash, look at norway and switzerland, they are not in the EU but still benifit from it. You know?

Switzerland isn't doing that great either. Neither is Iceland!

Dinner

checkbalance wrote: »

At least you have conceded the point that there is an electable position for President (of the European Council) created by Lisbon.

I never said there wasn't, so I didn't concede anything. I took objection to your misleading phrasing of 'it's own president', which I'm sure you'll agree indicates an EU President rather than a president of the Council. You also phrased it in such a way as that it indicated that this position was a new position created by Lisbon, rather than one which already exists but is being changed to be an elected longer-term position.

I know it seems pedantic but it is the 'fast & loose' buzzwords and slogans like that, that mislead people

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

It is perfectly clear, yes its the president of the European Council or President of the Council of the heads of the EU states. It creates a re-electable position from one that was a rotational one. The importance is this President would be elected as an individual and does not mean each country gets their chance.

The system at the moment works fine, its very fair and equal. It sometimes puts good leaders and sometimes bad leaders in the spotlight. The rotational presidency is a big argument against federalisation and for a cooperative community. At least you have conceded the point that there is an electable position for President (of the European Council) created by Lisbon.

Ireland still gets our Presidency in 2/3 years time.

Why a President for a 2 1/2 year term is seen as worse than one of 6 months, I don't know!

We will have an influence over who is President under Lisbon, we have none whatsoever now. Your argument seems to be it isn't democratic enough, which is fair enough.

checkbalance

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, that is different to what you originally posted. It was phrased as if Lisbon did all this.

What powers does this Minister of Foreign Affairs have?

The EU already has diplomats, eg. John Bruton in the US. Why people have a problem with that I don't know!

The charter of Fundamental rights is not an EU document. It already exists. We are being asked to vote on it.

Common foreign and security policy? We have opt outs and sacred vetoes.

What is the problem with Europol?

I have heard of these points. Just want to know your concerns as most I've seen can be assuaged and calmed.

On the constitution point, you need to clear up that point.

On the arguing, you are setting out a position. You are being questioned to see if it holds out. Shouldn't be a problem.

Lisbon further federalises the EU.

I agree that many of the bodies & institutions needed for a federation are already in place. However, Lisbon ammends previous treaties in a way to implement the changes that the EU Constitution would have brought in (in an easily-read document). The changes put together the institutions of a federation (e.g. the European Council becomes an official EU Institution rather than being intergovernmental) and the rules and processes for a federation to operate (e.g. rights of citizens and qualified majority voting). Thats what constitutions pretty much do.

The vetoes which have being mentioned are removed in very large numbers (not on defence etc) and so decisions are made in the EU rather than individual governments deciding their own fate. The shift in decision making from being an issue for national parliaments to decide to an issue for a weighted majority in an EU Institution to decide is of course key in the move towards federalisation.

I quite like the questions but I strongly suspect you already know everything I'm telling you so really you should be agreeing with me that Lisbon further moves Europe towards a federation. I'm also guessing you would like a more federal Europe which you shouldn't be ashamed of if true, thats your perogative.

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

I quite like the questions but I strongly suspect you already know everything I'm telling you so really you should be agreeing with me that Lisbon further moves Europe towards a federation. I'm also guessing you would like a more federal Europe which you shouldn't be ashamed of if true, thats your perogative.

Nah, I'm reading more into you not answering some easy enough questions, but seeing as its late, I haven't the energy!

An Fear Aniar

sink wrote: »

It's angry, cynical and sticks one to the government, it purely reflects how the people feel emotionally at this moment in time but it says noting about the treaty.

Dude, it's about the PRINCIPLE at the very heart of the democratic idea - that the people are sovereign and their opinion expressed in votes actually counts!

.

IRockUrSocks

Things are getting more confusing by the page...

So there IS going to be an E.U defense/military now?

sink

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Dude, it's about the PRINCIPLE at the very heart of the democratic idea - that the people are sovereign and their opinion expressed in votes actually counts!

.

It's not really about principles. It is the case that if one is against Lisbon & voted no the first time round, one is far more likely to be against a second vote. If one is for Lisbon then it is significantly less likely that one opposes a second vote. It's really about having it your own way..

The argument isn't even that good. The idea that a democratic vote is anti-democratic is extremely tenuous. If you asked a stranger in a foreign land "what's the elemental component of democracy?" they would more than likely answer "voting". You would be at pains to try an convince them that a free and fair ballot could ever be anti-democratic.

K-9

checkbalance wrote: »

Lisbon further federalises the EU.

I agree that many of the bodies & institutions needed for a federation are already in place. However, Lisbon ammends previous treaties in a way to implement the changes that the EU Constitution would have brought in (in an easily-read document). The changes put together the institutions of a federation (e.g. the European Council becomes an official EU Institution rather than being intergovernmental) and the rules and processes for a federation to operate (e.g. rights of citizens and qualified majority voting). Thats what constitutions pretty much do.

The vetoes which have being mentioned are removed in very large numbers (not on defence etc) and so decisions are made in the EU rather than individual governments deciding their own fate. The shift in decision making from being an issue for national parliaments to decide to an issue for a weighted majority in an EU Institution to decide is of course key in the move towards federalisation.

I quite like the questions but I strongly suspect you already know everything I'm telling you so really you should be agreeing with me that Lisbon further moves Europe towards a federation. I'm also guessing you would like a more federal Europe which you shouldn't be ashamed of if true, thats your perogative.

Don't know what the problem is with the European Council or citizens getting more rights.

The shift in decision making from being an issue for national parliaments to decide to an issue for a weighted majority in an EU Institution to decide is of course key in the move towards federalisation.

Really, I don't think anybody can convince you this is a good thing. We already have QMV in areas and we don't use our veto anyway. The EU is about cooperation.

By your reasoning anybody who votes Yes wants a more federal Europe. I'd say those who are federalists are outnumbered by people would rather we where not in the EU or just the old EEC.

sink

checkbalance wrote: »

Lisbon further federalises the EU.

Does it? Federalism is not a broad catch all phrase for intra-state organisations. Federalism is a system of government whereby power is vested in a central institution know as the federal government. Europe has no central institution where power is held.

The direction of the EU is defined by the European Council consisting of the heads of the national government's, is the European Council a federal government? The European Commission acts to implement the direction set by the European Council. The commission does not vote on anything, it can only draft legislation which has to be passed later by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. It then implements this legislation at European level, it's up to the national government to implement legislation at national level. Is the commission a federal government? The Council of Ministers consist of the cabinet ministers of each member state. It votes on legislation trough a system of QMV. Is the Council of Ministers a federal government? The European Parliament votes on legislation but does not form any kind of a government with a ruling party/coalition. Is the European Parliament a federal government?

The overall direction of the EU is set by the European Council, the European Council dictates how all other institutions are run. The European Council consists of the heads of each member states government. Therefore the governments of each member state retain the largest amount of power, which is not the case in a federal system of government.

squod

K-9 wrote: »

Ah, that isn't what I asked or related to what you said first.

What was his agenda in the EU and was he successful with that agenda?

You would have had to ask a bunch of angry farmers about that 'couple years ago.

K-9

squod wrote: »

You would have had to ask a bunch of angry farmers about that 'couple years ago.

Farmers are just angry full stop!

IRockUrSocks

Ultimately, you must ask yourself, where do you want to be in five or ten years time, who do you want to be and what opportunities do you want to have. As far as I'm concerned, Europe has weeded out the Irish peoples concerns from the last failed Treaty, however, having read this thread, I'm not sure as to what exactly constitutes as "change" compared to the original write-up.

A YES vote would cement Ireland's position abroad as a pro-jobs & pro-growth state and that's a position every citizen must be fighting for in the current economic situation we now find ourselves in. It's astonishing to contemplate exactly how many of those NO votes where based on uninformed individuals, uneducated about the Lisbon Treaty and it's policies.

Someone briefly touched on it earlier about trade within Europe and that is a very important aspect we need to consider. To be pro-European and to dismiss Lisbon is hypocritical. I don't discard anyone's opinion whether YES or NO but I do know that much. To be skeptical about the E.U's policies is to be willingly involved in a game in which you openly criticize.

Put aside the Lisbon Treaty for one second and consider this - Ireland needs the E.U more than ever right now.

An Fear Aniar

sink wrote: »

The argument isn't even that good. The idea that a democratic vote is anti-democratic is extremely tenuous. If you asked a stranger in a foreign land "what's the elemental component of democracy?" they would more than likely answer "voting".

They would more likely say "being able to choose your government". It's hardly democracy if you've got no choice in the matter.

The democratic tradition is not very strong in mainland Europe.

When de Valera came to power in 1932 there was a lot of concern that he might go in the direction of most of the rest of Europe at that time - most of Europe had fallen under Fascist dictatorships - Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Salazar, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Luthuania, Bulgaria, Albania...

People would not have been surprised if de Valera had fashioned an authoritarian state along those lines. Instead, he produced a Constitution that affirmed the sovereignty of the people and introduced this requirement that the people decide matters of foreign treaties in a referendum.

Which is the very reason that Ireland is the only European country that gets to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

There's a really good RTE podcast about de Valera and this period of European history:

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_judgingdev.xml


.

Feathers

K-9 wrote: »

The booklet isn't patronising! Many people want a booklet like that as they don't have the time or inclination to read more on it.

Sorry, I don't have it to hand anymore. But what I mean is - the booklet lays out in general terms things that will change. Everyone says that the No side are scaremongering- but why then do we not have a booklet that addresses each issue in turn & gives a black & white response? Surely this would clear up any issues.

Instead, we have the Dept of Foreign Affairs, while deep in a recession, funding an "EU Matters" campaign (www.eumatters.ie) - a website, leaflets & lots of billboards and newspaper ads about how great the EU is. Give me a break! Please, will they debate this on the issues.

K-9 wrote: »

As for abortion, it is clear our position will not be affected.

To clarify my position, I'm not voting on Lisbon based on abortion.
But a lot of other people have expressed concerns. The head of the referendum commission was asked, straight out - he couldn't answer. If the position was that clear, why couldn't the legally trained, high court judge figure it out?

K-9 wrote: »

On the constitution point, you need to clear up that point. Does Lisbon have primacy over our Constitution?

the ballot paper last time out wrote:

10° The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.

(This allows for the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon)

11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

[My emphasis]

AFAIK, all other EU treaties adopted needed this provision, but none of the rest were so vague on the gamut of issues they affected.

sink wrote: »

The idea that a democratic vote is anti-democratic is extremely tenuous. If you asked a stranger in a foreign land "what's the elemental component of democracy?" they would more than likely answer "voting". You would be at pains to try an convince them that a free and fair ballot could ever be anti-democratic.

Voting isn't the core of democracy. The people governing through representation is the core of democracy. But when the people aren't listened to, it's kinda undemocratic. Fine Gael didn't win the last election - why weren't they allowed to rerun it? I mean the issues might not have been clear to everyone...

IRockUrSocks wrote: »

A YES vote would cement Ireland's position abroad as a pro-jobs & pro-growth state and that's a position every citizen must be fighting for in the current economic situation we now find ourselves in. It's astonishing to contemplate exactly how many of those NO votes where based on uninformed individuals, uneducated about the Lisbon Treaty and it's policies.

Some nice rhetoric there - Lisbon will make us 'pro-jobs'? How exactly? We're all worried about Dell & co. fecking off. Will we suddenly have cheaper wages than Poland if we vote Yes? & the other old favour of the Yes camp - everyone who votes No is ignorant of the issues.

This gets trotted out at every election. I think the government should change the ballots:

• Yes
• No
• I'm not informed enough to vote
• Protest vote/spoil

At least when people reject something they would have to reply to it at face. (Though I obviously am aware that some people genuinely don't know - though some of these people also vote yes, purely because they were told to - are these not the ignorant people?).

IRockUrSocks wrote: »

To be pro-European and to dismiss Lisbon is hypocritical.

So most Europeans are anti-Europe? The ones who weren't let vote?

TeganRainIsGod

Voting Yes will essentially equate to handing over power to Europe.

EU Law will supersede and overrule Irish Law.

We will never have a referendum on any EU treaty ever again. At present our Constitution obliges us to have a referendum on such treaties. If Yes wins, this will no longer be the case and the EU can pass whatever treaties they like without the Irish people ever getting to vote on whether or not it should be implemented.

Our sovereignty will be diluted.

Men like Collins, Pearse etc died for Irish freedom.

Voting Yes will mean that their deaths have been in vain.

Voting Yes mean we are one step closer to an EU Superstate. The EU would prefer we classify ourselves as Europeans rather than Irish. We will lose our individual nationality.

What would James Connolly have voted for? he would have voted for Freedom!!!



The consequences of voting no are really unknown at this point in time. I dont believe the treaty would be put to us a third time.

The_Minister

TeganRainIsGod wrote: »

EU Law will supersede and overrule Irish Law.

Thats nice.

Now lets see what Mr. Bunracht has to say about that, shall we?

Article 29.4.10: " No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.
"
Woops-a-daisie!!
Looks like your a little late.

TeganRainIsGod wrote: »

We will never have a referendum on any EU treaty ever again. At present our Constitution obliges us to have a referendum on such treaties. If Yes wins, this will no longer be the case and the EU can pass whatever treaties they like without the Irish people ever getting to vote on whether or not it should be implemented.

Once again, Mr. Bunracht doesn't say that.

That Mr Bunracht is a tricksy fucker isn't he?

What you are referring to is the Crotty judgment which only applies to foreign policy. Which mean that most of the Treaty (and any previous EU treaty) can be passed by the Dail. Only a small number of provisions actually need a referendum.
In fact many respected legal professionals don't believe that any of the Lisbon treaty falls foul of the crotty judgement.

Isn't that a bitch?

Turns out that your main reasons for voting No already happened.

Stings, huh?

Feathers

The_Minister wrote: »

What you are referring to is the Crotty judgment which only applies to foreign policy. Which mean that most of the Treaty (and any previous EU treaty) can be passed by the Dail.

As a straight-up question: would all of our interaction with the EU not count as foreign policy? As in, changing the way the EU is run essentially does change our foreign policy in that we interact with foreign nations differently?

Would appreciate if you could clarify how you know it's so clear cut? I thought it'd be something that'd have to be further challenged if it were to arise.

An Fear Aniar

Feathers wrote: »

As a straight-up question: would all of our interaction with the EU not count as foreign policy? .

For sure and certain. This is the last stand for democracy in Europe, the lights are going out all over Europe.

.