Lisbon. Yes? No? Sell it to me.

Freeborn John

Hitman Actual wrote: »

And my point is simply that both parts of the Simplified Revision Procedure (the SRP itself, and the Passerelle Clause) cannot be used without consent/unanimty of the member states, through their national parliaments.

Which is a foregone conclusion because the majorities in those parliaments are commanded by the very people who sit in the EU Council and who can order their parliaments to rubber-stamp use of the simplified revsiion procedure or passerelle's in exactly the same way they ordered them to rubber-stamp the Lisbon Treaty itself.

molloyjh

bcmf wrote: »

I want to make an informed decision. That was the whole point of this thread. To get some facts. And I think I am getting some.Thanks.


Can I ask a question to which I believe there should only be a 'Yes' or 'No' answer.
It was big news not so long ago that the EU were going to make amendments to the Lisbon Treaty to which we rejected. Have these amendments been made or will they be made before we vote again?
Yes or No.

No amendments have been made, nor will any to Lisbon.

The difference between last year and this is the guarantees and the solemn declaration re the Commissioner.

The guarantees are simply clarifications that state that things we believed were in the Treaty are actually not in the Treaty. They do not change the actual content of the Treaty at all. So there is no need to add them. They are legally binding by international law and the EU has a history of adhering to guarantees they have given (Denmark received guarantees in 1992 after they rejected Maastricht). They will be added to the next Accession Treaty as protocols (ginving them full legal status in the EU).

The reason that they will not be added this time is that if they are the Treaty will need to go for ratification in all Member States. There isn't time for that, especially as nothing will have actually changed about the Treaty. The current Commissions term is up at the end of October and by the current rules it must be reduced then. If Lisbon is not in by the 31st October (and ratification in 27 Member Countries takes time as you can imagine) they need to have a decision made re the make-up of the Commission.

The solemn declaration re the Commission uses Lisbon rules on the Commission to retain 27 Commissioners. Without Lisbon this declaration would not be legal. It could be added to the Treaty, but the above issue re timeframes would also apply.

bcmf

Is it me or is this getting bogged down?
If I may use Scofflaws Post......

Scofflaw wrote: »

Following on from this request, let's state that "selling the Treaty" can only be done on the basis of the Treaty itself, rather than having yet another round of our two sides sniping at each other. We have enough of those already, I think.

I've therefore deleted posts that don't relate to the OP, including my own. Do not attempt to sell your view of the Treaty here on the basis that we're having a second referendum, or on the basis of past goodies from the EU, or even on the implications of the vote itself - just what's good or bad in the Treaty itself, with article numbers.

And no, the 'complexity' or otherwise of the Treaty isn't part of the Treaty. If it's too complicated for you to understand, then don't post here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Freeborn John wrote: »

More junk. The current Article 48 clearly implies that an inter-governmental conference must be held to make changes to the international treaty that is the treaty on European Union.



The new article 48 removes the need for an Intergovernmental conference replacing it with "a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European parliament and of the Commission". This is deliberately intended to include federalist elements (such as the EU Commission and EU Parliament) around the table who have always displayed an institutional bias in favour of increasing their own power.

Only to you would that be a major difference.

The Commission and parliament have never had any mechanism to increase their own power, this can only happen when such power is conferred on them by the member states via a treaty.

Hitman Actual

Freeborn John wrote: »

Which is a foregone conclusion because the majorities in those parliaments are commanded by the very people who sit in the EU Council and who can order their parliaments to rubber-stamp use of the simplified revsiion procedure or passerelle's in exactly the same way they ordered them to rubber-stamp the Lisbon Treaty itself.

With your paranoid speculation on EU federalism, I'd expect this to be your view alright. Being less prone to paranoid delusions, I don't share your view (on pretty much anything). GL.

Hitman Actual

bcmf wrote: »

Is it me or is this getting bogged down?
If I may use Scofflaws Post......

Apologies, I helped cause the side-tracking; I'm bowing out now.

Freeborn John

Hitman Actual wrote: »

With your paranoid speculation on EU federalism, I'd expect this to be your view alright. Being less prone to paranoid delusions, I don't share your view (on pretty much anything). GL.

Are you denying that the EU Council is composed of the heads of government of each member-state?

Are you denying that each one of those people is the head of government precisely because they command the majority in their national parliament?

These are the basic facts of parliamentary democracy and guarantee that no national parliament will ever vote against what the EU Council is in favour of.

Torakx

well freeborn makes some good points i find it hard to disagree with alot of the things he is saying.
and is selling it rather well hehe

Spiritoftheseventies

Hitman Actual wrote: »

If that's really meant to be a reply to my post, can you clarify why? I'm talking about the Simplified Revision Procedure and the Passerelle mechanism in Lisbon. Your reply makes no sense to me.

Sorry ticked quote message in reply box by accident.

Freeborn John

marco_polo wrote: »

Only to you would that be a major difference.

The Commission and parliament have never had any mechanism to increase their own power, this can only happen when such power is conferred on them by the member states via a treaty.

So why are they to be allowed under Lisbon to sit around the table amending the treaty?

It is a plain fact the EU institutions are in a permanent tug of war over political power with 3 institutions (EU Commission, Parliament, and ECJ) representing the 'supranational interest' which they misconstrue as their own interest in accumulating more power. The Commission for example only ever makes legislative proposals that increase the body of EU law (it never proposes any repeal such that power would be be returned the nation-state) and the ECJ has systematically used its judicial ruling to reinterpret EU treaties to the maximum federalist extent possible.

Spiritoftheseventies

bcmf wrote: »

This is a hypothetical situation but one that I no doubt exists in masses of multiples around the country.

Now I am a citizen of Ireland. A normal pleb.
What Europe means to me.
The Euro. Great for holidays.A pain in the arse when going to Northern Ireland or England But It shows how overpriced we are here FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING.

Its warmer and drier everywhere else.

Ask me to live anywhere else and I wouldn't. I love it here. The pints, the GAA, the people.

I work my arse off yet I simply cant pay the bills and then I am told I have to take a pay cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do the banks and developers get special treatment and get their debts written off when I am getting phone calls from x,y and z about the €100 I owe.

Give me a a grand or two and I will spend it around where I live.Its a great spot

Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.



If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue .:)

OP. If you are in a union. can I assume it has made it stance now.
Workers rights re the Lisbon treaty will be a big enough issue here. Obviously Coir have done themselves no favours by putting up those minimum wage posters (1.84 mininum wage) and then putting a question mark beside it.
What Fianna Fail speaker said on Last Word yesterday is that each country decides its own minimum wage.
What Coir was suggesting was that companies would attempt to bring in workers for cheaper rates and quoted a case where ECJ had voted in favour of a company that had done it and as such decisions like the these would drive down minimum rate.
But would recommend you ignore leaflets and posters that tend to over simplify the matter. Like I said even doing something as simple as reading up in the Letters pages of Irish times will at least educate yourself a bit.

bcmf

bayviewclose wrote: »

Like I said even doing something as simple as reading up in the Letters pages of Irish times will at least educate yourself a bit.

Just for the record I dont read ANY NEWPAPERS*. Nor will I start to.But thanks for the pointer, Geraldine.;)

*except maybe for the Sunday Times but thats usually for the free cd/dvd and the excellent sports coverage and maybe to ogle the girls in the style section

Spiritoftheseventies

bcmf wrote: »

Just for the record I dont read ANY NEWPAPERS*. Nor will I start to.But thanks for the pointer, Geraldine.;)

*except maybe for the Sunday Times but thats usually for the free cd/dvd and the excellent sports coverage and maybe to ogle the girls in the style section

EXCUSE ME. You wanted to learn about the treaty and then you resort to this. Good luck!

bcmf

bayviewclose wrote: »

EXCUSE ME. You wanted to learn about the treaty and then you resort to this. Good luck!

Your'e excused!!!
I wanted to learn about the treaty no ask for recommendations about which paper to read.

Spiritoftheseventies

O'Morris wrote: »

No, they wouldn't require a referendum. The national parliaments could ratify them without having to hold a referendum. The Lisbon treaty would make it easier for the politicians to make amendments to the treaties at an EU level though without the need to bundle the changes into a new treaty and then put that treaty to the member states for ratification. Up until now any major changes to the decision making process in the EU were ratified at the national level.




How do you mean? How is the EU funding NAMA? NAMA's funding will involve borrowing from the ECB but the ECB is separate from the EU. The EU budget will not not be touched.




I'm very grateful to the German and British and French and Dutch and Scandinavian taxpayers for all that have done for our economy. They will be very much in my mind when I go to vote on the Lisbon in a few weeks from now.

Thats what I mean. We are in effect borrowing of other countries. Which while good can't continue at the rate its going. As for ECB, European Central Bank, what I meant there is that NAMA was funded by them. Again while it offers us a safety net, it nonetheless puts us under pressure. If NAMA fails, our borrowing rating will suffer badly.

Thraktor

Freeborn John wrote: »

Are you denying that the EU Council is composed of the heads of government of each member-state?

Are you denying that each one of those people is the head of government precisely because they command the majority in their national parliament?

These are the basic facts of parliamentary democracy and guarantee that no national parliament will ever vote against what the EU Council is in favour of.

You've chosen a rather topsy-turvy way of approaching the issue there, Freeborn John. What you're actually saying is that the EU Council will never take a position that any national parliament would vote against, which is a limitation of the EU Council's powers, and is rather the opposite of what you're trying to claim. Members of the Council go into meetings with mandates from their people and their parliament, they don't just sit around a table and think "How can we screw over our own countries to the greatest possible extent?"

nesf

bayviewclose wrote: »

Like I said even doing something as simple as reading up in the Letters pages of Irish times will at least educate yourself a bit.

The Letters pages of the Irish Times are crap. It's basically just a series of soapboxes for people from both sides to make claims without being challenged on them.

nesf

bcmf wrote: »

I wanted to learn about the treaty no ask for recommendations about which paper to read.

Then ask specific questions! Are you curious about CAP reform and how Lisbon might affect this? Are you curious about what areas the EU will and won't have power over? Etc.

Spiritoftheseventies

nesf wrote: »

The Letters pages of the Irish Times are crap. It's basically just a series of soapboxes for people from both sides to make claims without being challenged on them.

So we can assume then that the letter FF Td Brian Crowley wrote in asking for a Yes vote can be ignored then?

nesf

bayviewclose wrote: »

So we can assume then that the letter FF Td Brian Crowley wrote in asking for a Yes vote can be ignored then?

Read it an make up your mind (though normally Crowley is pretty good and doesn't bull**** too much about the EU). I'm only warning people who know nothing about the treaty to take whatever is on that page with a large pinch of salt. It's impossible for them to sort the wheat from the chaff on that page without knowing a fair bit of what the Treaty is about.

bcmf

nesf wrote: »

Then ask specific questions! Are you curious about CAP reform and how Lisbon might affect this? Are you curious about what areas the EU will and won't have power over? Etc.

I have asked specific questions to which I got good replies.
I did not ask to be recommended which newspaper to read.
I hoped by raising this topic that hopefully it wouldnt get bogged down and someone may just explain the treaty so those who dont understand what it is can make "an informed decision".

bcmf

Since it was raised how does the CAP reform relate to Lisbon?

nesf

bcmf wrote: »

I hoped by raising this topic that hopefully it wouldnt get bogged down and someone may just explain the treaty so those who dont understand what it is can make "an informed decision".

That won't happen because a lot of people have their pet issues on this subject and will take any opportunity to rant about them. It's an unfortunately common facet of political debate.

Spiritoftheseventies

nesf wrote: »

Read it an make up your mind (though normally Crowley is pretty good and doesn't bull**** too much about the EU). I'm only warning people who know nothing about the treaty to take whatever is on that page with a large pinch of salt. It's impossible for them to sort the wheat from the chaff on that page without knowing a fair bit of what the Treaty is about.

Yes but it at least highlights issues and then you make further enquiries. I never said to take everything as gospel. For the record anyone who sends in a letter is asked for a contact number and address. That way its transparent enough.

nesf

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes but it at least highlights issues and then you make further enquiries. I never said to take everything as gospel. For the record anyone who sends in a letter is asked for a contact number and address. That way its transparent enough.

Yes but conversely I've seen quite a few issues raised which aren't issues by people, like abortion and whatnot.

Spiritoftheseventies

nesf wrote: »

Yes but conversely I've seen quite a few issues raised which aren't issues by people, like abortion and whatnot.

any examples. You talking about the letter Coir wrote in on subject of Abortion?

Moromaster

Alright, personally, I think Lisbon is great and everyone should vote yes. However, to convince people. It was decided to look at the treaty in a completely unbiased manner.

It says nowhere that it is a constitution, or even hints at it being asimilar to a constitution. To me, it looks completely reasonable.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ WHAT THE LISBON TREATY ACTUALLY IS:

Article One effectively announces the foundation of the European Union which now covers the two treaties. It sets out the need to have open decision making close to the people, this as a common provision applies to the rest of the text.

Article Two sets out the values the EU is founded on including respect for human rights, non discrimination, tolerance and equality between men and women. For those who would dismiss these as flights of rhetoric we must again bear in mind the important legal role of the common provisions. This is a new statement

Article Three summarises some of the main aims of the union in terms of promoting peace, the internal market, combating social exclusion, the Euro and principals in it’s relations with the world which are consistent with the UN Charter. These articles emphasise the need for subsidiarily (decision making as close to the people as possible) and conferral where the EU can only do what it’s member states require of it.
Article Four helpfully sets out what the EU does and what the member states do and how the EU must respect member states and their roles. States must also implement policies agreed together in the Union

Article Five elaborates on the concepts of conferral and subsidiarity. A Protocol is also attached to the treaty on subsidiarity and National Parliaments

Article Six commits the EU to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also sets out it’s limitations, it also provides for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights which will apply to the EU and it’s institutions as well as all the member states who have signed it

Article Seven provides for a mechanism to deal with member states who transgress the fundamental values of the EU. This is a new provision and arises form the controversy over the Freedom Party in Austria several years ago. The provisions have a number of safeguards and effectively require a 4/5 majority of member states.

Article Eight provides for relationships with the EU’s neighbours and sets out the values that govern these.

nesf

bayviewclose wrote: »

any examples. You talking about the letter Coir wrote in on subject of Abortion?

None to hand unfortunately. I don't keep track of letters written into the Irish times.

bustertherat

finbar10 wrote: »

Hi bcmf,
I intend to vote no (just stating my bias). IMO few things in this treaty are straightforward. Often there's a degree of truth to both yes and no arguments. The actual answer is often quite complicated and both sides can in a sense be right (or at least make an arguable point to some degree). I'm disappointed the referendum commission or our politicians haven't taken much more time to explain the ins and outs of this treaty. At this stage I think we'll end up with a polarized shouting match in the mere four weeks we've left to the referendum, with both sides claiming opposite things.

What I think is the most important change in the treaty is straightforward though. The council of ministers is the most powerful body in the EU. Lisbon would mean we'd lose our veto in most areas. Voting would move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV). This automatically happens in most areas. In most remaining areas we can also give up our veto (defense is an exception but not tax). Once we give up our veto in an area it is gone permanently. But of course we do have a veto on giving up our veto in those remaining areas!

This will no doubt streamline and make more efficient the running of the EU. But to do this the national governments are giving up power to the EU institutions. There are a few checks to try to compensate for this flow of power to the centre. This is the "orange card" procedure for national governments. If more than 1/3 of national parliaments object to some proposed EU law then they can get this proposed law reviewed or get an explanation from the commission why it goes against subsidiarity. But this is not really a power to block the legislation. The legislation may still be enacted anyway regardless. There is also a provision for a citizen's initiative. If more than 1 million EU citizens sign a petition the EU has to consider it. But it doesn't necessarily have to do anything.

That's the main reason I intend to vote no: we've ceding more power to the EU (sharing sovereignty as some describe it). We're doing this for reasons of efficiency and streamlining. I'm not convinced the EU needs this extra efficiency. I'm not sure the EU is such a disaster with the current set up. Previous treaties had big ideas associated with them, the Euro or large scale accession of former Eastern block countries. This treaty is a harder sell. The aim is more boring but not unimportant. The EU becomes more efficient by taking some more powers to the centre. It continues a process which has been going on for a long time.

Lisbon would give the EU parliament more powers also. I'd have less problem with this. The parliament is the most directly democratic body in the EU (even if it is still arguably the least powerful).

One other important change with the Lisbon would be the charter of fundamental rights (which is attached to the Lisbon treaty and has the same status). It's likely this will lead to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) becoming more powerful. Any EU citizen will be able to take a case to the court if they feel their rights in this charter are being violated. In some ways this is a good thing. But again it is an example of powers moving away from national courts to the European court. There are supposed to be checks and balances again. The ECJ is only supposed to be able to rule on EU law. But these days EU law touches on just about everything. It's likely that ratification will strengthen the ECJ in relation to our own supreme court. Again like most things in Lisbon this is arguable and the extent to which this will happen is unclear. European law already is superior to our own constitution, but it will likely mean the ECJ will be able to make rulings in far more areas (there are explicit protections for abortion though, so that is an area that is fairly well protected).

There are positive aspects to Lisbon. The environment and energy are made competences of the EU (which means the EU can make binding laws in these areas). This is a good thing, but not enough to make me reconsider my vote.

There are various protections for our neutrality (such as it exists). The constitutional amendment will forbid the government from joining any European common defence without a referendum. There's still the triple lock preventing us from deploying troops without Dáil approval and a UN mandate. But I would feel Lisbon does move the EU generally in a more militaristic direction. We may stay somewhat outside this common defence policy, but Lisbon commits the EU in general to developing one. The European Defence Agency is given official status (and gives the armaments industry a seat at the EU table).

Overall I feel Lisbon would continue the process of the EU institutions gaining power at the expense of national parliaments. I feel the checks and balances to compensate are not enough. I don't feel extra efficiency is a good enough reason for all this.

You got it in one my man!!!!!i applaud you sir!!!

Spiritoftheseventies

Moromaster wrote: »

Alright, personally, I think Lisbon is great and everyone should vote yes. However, to convince people. It was decided to look at the treaty in a completely unbiased manner.

It says nowhere that it is a constitution, or even hints at it being asimilar to a constitution. To me, it looks completely reasonable.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ WHAT THE LISBON TREATY ACTUALLY IS:

Article One effectively announces the foundation of the European Union which now covers the two treaties. It sets out the need to have open decision making close to the people, this as a common provision applies to the rest of the text.

Article Two sets out the values the EU is founded on including respect for human rights, non discrimination, tolerance and equality between men and women. For those who would dismiss these as flights of rhetoric we must again bear in mind the important legal role of the common provisions. This is a new statement

Article Three summarises some of the main aims of the union in terms of promoting peace, the internal market, combating social exclusion, the Euro and principals in it’s relations with the world which are consistent with the UN Charter. These articles emphasise the need for subsidiarily (decision making as close to the people as possible) and conferral where the EU can only do what it’s member states require of it.
Article Four helpfully sets out what the EU does and what the member states do and how the EU must respect member states and their roles. States must also implement policies agreed together in the Union

Article Five elaborates on the concepts of conferral and subsidiarity. A Protocol is also attached to the treaty on subsidiarity and National Parliaments

Article Six commits the EU to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also sets out it’s limitations, it also provides for the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights which will apply to the EU and it’s institutions as well as all the member states who have signed it

Article Seven provides for a mechanism to deal with member states who transgress the fundamental values of the EU. This is a new provision and arises form the controversy over the Freedom Party in Austria several years ago. The provisions have a number of safeguards and effectively require a 4/5 majority of member states.

Article Eight provides for relationships with the EU’s neighbours and sets out the values that govern these.

Post is very noble and all but really there are issues that need to be looked at more closely. "How do you intend to vote" thread is a good place to start. End of the day, articles laid out above are a starting point.But a lot more to treaty than what what OP has laid out.