Lisbon. Yes? No? Sell it to me.

bcmf

OK. As the OP these are my thoughts based on what I have read so far.

What exactly is wrong with the way the EU is run at the moment? Its seems to be running ok. Why does it need to be changed?*

Its seems that the treaty is open to and can be easily twisted to suit every opinion as demonstrated here and many other threads. If its that easy to 'move' its intention then maybe it should be re-written and be made bulletproof.

Maybe, and this is me just thinking out loud, that the EU is just simply too big and too diverse to be governed by 1 set of rules. After all we are supposed to have free trade between countries but yet we have/had ,and god help me for bringing this up, a massive tax on importing cars. Put whatever name you want on it but its an import tax. Free Trade hmmmm...... its seems that governments ,with the blessing of the EU, can really do what they like.

Leaving Ireland out of the equation.....if every country needs to ratify the treaty in order to move it forward and other countries have rejected it why the fook are we being asked to do it again.


and lastly. Even a mod can be dragged down into an argument about the letters in The Irish Times.:P

*its rhetorical. Please dont go on a 1000 word essay why....

Scofflaw

bcmf wrote: »

OK. As the OP these are my thoughts based on what I have read so far.

What exactly is wrong with the way the EU is run at the moment? Its seems to be running ok. Why does it need to be changed?*

Its seems that the treaty is open to and can be easily twisted to suit every opinion as demonstrated here and many other threads. If its that easy to 'move' its intention then maybe it should be re-written and be made bulletproof.

Maybe, and this is me just thinking out loud, that the EU is just simply too big and too diverse to be governed by 1 set of rules. After all we are supposed to have free trade between countries but yet we have/had ,and god help me for bringing this up, a massive tax on importing cars. Put whatever name you want on it but its an import tax. Free Trade hmmmm...... its seems that governments ,with the blessing of the EU, can really do what they like.

Leaving Ireland out of the equation.....if every country needs to ratify the treaty in order to move it forward and other countries have rejected it why the fook are we being asked to do it again.


and lastly. Even a mod can be dragged down into an argument about the letters in The Irish Times.:P

*its rhetorical. Please dont go on a 1000 word essay why....

I have to ask - how can it be rhetorical? Unless you mean that you're not open to changing your mind on the subject?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

bcmf wrote: »

and lastly. Even a mod can be dragged down into an argument about the letters in The Irish Times.:P

We are but human I'm afraid. :P


As to the rest of your post, what makes you think it's actually legally unclear? It can be twisted by special interest groups sure to be made to appear to do a certain thing but most of these, if not all, won't hold up in court which is what matters. This document was agreed on by all the EU nations, by the people who specialise in legal wordings in treaties. I'd be bluntly shocked if there was much "wriggle room" at all in the Treaty given so many different opposing forces went into its creation.

hobochris

I feel the qualified majority voting will turn the volume down on or voice in Europe, I have no issue with the rest of the treaty but while this remains a part of it, My vote will be no.

marco_polo

hobochris wrote: »

I feel the qualified majority voting will turn the volume down on or voice in Europe, I have no issue with the rest of the treaty but while this remains a part of it, My vote will be no.

QMV exist already in under the terms of existing treaties and is already used across a number of areas, however it it rarely nescessary to take a formal vote as concensus is of often reached. Under Lisbon some 23 areas are moving to QMV, and 21 new cases are added. The system also changes to what is called a Double Majority System.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

As a comparison under the last Treaty of Nice some 30 areas moved to QMV.

There is a similar list for Nice at the bottom of this page.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/publications/treaty-command-papers-ems/explanatory-memoranda/explanatory-memoranda-2001-a/nice

Elba101

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 .:)

Hey!!

I don'y know if you'll be interested in this but this website http://www.europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8909 is a nurtal campaign and explains what will happen if you vote yes and what will happen if you vote no.

Helped me anyway!!

bcmf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to ask - how can it be rhetorical? Unless you mean that you're not open to changing your mind on the subject?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I really should have said that I was merely thinking out loud.
What I meant was that why is there a need to change what is there already. Why is there such a huge push in political circles to get this through.
Looking at Brian Cowen on the news yesterday for some reason maybe feel very nervous. Am I wrong in saying ,in a nutshell, what he implied that unless we pass Lisbon we are doomed..?

bcmf

nesf wrote: »

We are but human I'm afraid. :P


As to the rest of your post, what makes you think it's actually legally unclear? It can be twisted by special interest groups sure to be made to appear to do a certain thing but most of these, if not all, won't hold up in court which is what matters. This document was agreed on by all the EU nations, by the people who specialise in legal wordings in treaties. I'd be bluntly shocked if there was much "wriggle room" at all in the Treaty given so many different opposing forces went into its creation.

I made this comment on the basis that the amount of versions and 'debates' people have entered in here and in the media. As you say these MAYBE people who have special interest groups (or maybe not) and legally it maybe be rock solid. Having said that I also believe that exemptions can be made ie the car import duty - free trade. I know this can be argued in the opposite direction ie with our low corporation tax.

marco_polo

bcmf wrote: »

I made this comment on the basis that the amount of versions and 'debates' people have entered in here and in the media. As you say these MAYBE people who have special interest groups (or maybe not) and legally it maybe be rock solid. Having said that I also believe that exemptions can be made ie the car import duty - free trade. I know this can be argued in the opposite direction ie with our low corporation tax.

In fact it is likely that VRT is on its last legs.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/06/14/story42434.asp

Corporation tax rates is a direct taxation and the EU has no competencies in this area, with the sole proviso that such direct taxes laws respect the four basic freedoms of the EU (No discriminatory polices towards other member states etc).

The rules on direct taxation in the EU are rock solid, despite the FUD that is throw into the debate from time to time.

Martin 2

bcmf wrote: »

...After all we are supposed to have free trade between countries but yet we have/had ,and god help me for bringing this up, a massive tax on importing cars. Put whatever name you want on it but its an import tax. Free Trade hmmmm...... its seems that governments ,with the blessing of the EU, can really do what they like.

You mention tax* on importing cars, that's imposed by the Irish government and tolerated by the EU (definitely not encouraged), however I think there's a possibility Lisbon may help matters here, so this question is addressed at the more learned members of the forum: Could the new Citzen's Initiative in the Lisbon treaty be used to tackle this problem?

The Citzen's Initiative is point 8 on Sinks list.

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]
The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

* I am aware it's actually a vehicle registration tax, but it could also be considered an impediment to free EU trade.

bcmf wrote: »

Leaving Ireland out of the equation.....if every country needs to ratify the treaty in order to move it forward and other countries have rejected it why the fook are we being asked to do it again.

You are definitely mistaken here, every other country in the EU has approved ratification of the Lisbon treaty, some countries have yet to complete ratification namely Poland, the Czech republic and Germany. Ireland is the only country yet to approve ratification hence the referendum. For more details see: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm#

.

bcmf

Freeborn John wrote: »

. The French and Dutch voted against it already.

and from Martin 2

"You are definitely mistaken here, every other country in the EU has approved ratification of the Lisbon treaty, some countries have yet to complete ratification namely Poland, the Czech republic and Germany. Ireland is the only country yet to approve ratification hence the referendum."

Am I missing something here. Have countries voted 'No' but yet it is still going to be ratified?

oscarBravo

bcmf wrote: »

Am I missing something here. Have countries voted 'No' but yet it is still going to be ratified?

Freeborn John is referring to the fact that the predecessor to Lisbon, the European Constitution, was rejected in referenda in two countries. Those countries have since ratified the Lisbon treaty, abeit not by referenda.

galah

I am just starting to inform myself about Lisbon now, haven't made up my mind which way I want to vote - but can someone tell me - what will actually happen if Ireland votes 'no'? (I don't want doom and gloom stories about how we'll all die in another famine, just the practicalities/consequences that surely must have been laid out, which I can't seem to find anywhere)

Will Ireland just be excluded from the treaty, and it'll go ahead everywhere else as planned?
Will they amend the treaty again, to suit Ireland's "demands"?
Will Ireland have to vote again and again until we vote 'correctly'?

Does anyone know?

marco_polo

galah wrote: »

I am just starting to inform myself about Lisbon now, haven't made up my mind which way I want to vote - but can someone tell me - what will actually happen if Ireland votes 'no'? (I don't want doom and gloom stories about how we'll all die in another famine, just the practicalities/consequences that surely must have been laid out, which I can't seem to find anywhere)

Will Ireland just be excluded from the treaty, and it'll go ahead everywhere else as planned?
Will they amend the treaty again, to suit Ireland's "demands"?
Will Ireland have to vote again and again until we vote 'correctly'?

Does anyone know?

Apart from the last one, which will certainly not happen. Nobody knows.

skelliser

galah wrote: »

Will Ireland just be excluded from the treaty, and it'll go ahead everywhere else as planned?

No, the treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states for it to come into force. This has been stated over and over.
There has however been rumblings and scare tactics coming from brussels saying that they will go on without us, i cant see how they can tho.

galah wrote: »

Will they amend the treaty again, to suit Ireland's "demands"?

It hasnt been amended in the first place. We got legally binding gaurantees that come into effect in the next treaty afaik.

galah wrote: »

Will Ireland have to vote again and again until we vote 'correctly'?

very unlikely, i cant see how they will justify it, but if it does happen i think an armed insurrection will happen!;)

galah

Cheers.

Although I find it odd that there seems to be no 'real' backup plan...

skelliser

dont take my word as gospel, its pretty complicated stuff.
there will be more posters to reply to your questions with more info and points of view so stick around!

meglome

galah wrote: »

Cheers.

Although I find it odd that there seems to be no 'real' backup plan...

I think when something has been negotiated by all parties over such a long period of time and seen as a genuine and obvious step forward a plan B would be unthinkable and an awful lot of wasted effort if it wasn't necessary.

Stark

galah wrote: »

Cheers.

Although I find it odd that there seems to be no 'real' backup plan...

Well they can muddle through with Nice I think. Nice actually provides for many of the changes due to be ratified in Lisbon, but doesn't set out the details. With Lisbon, you knew what you were getting. For example, Nice allows for reduction in size of the European Commission, but doesn't specify how the countries divide out the remaining commissioners. So it's quite likely that Ireland would lose a commissioner, while a large country such as Germany or France gets to keep a full time commissioner. I imagine things like transparent council meetings can be implemented without the need for member countries to amend their constitutions, but we'll lose out on nice things like legal standing for the charter of fundamental human rights.

molloyjh

galah wrote: »

Cheers.

Although I find it odd that there seems to be no 'real' backup plan...

I don't think they ever expected to need one really. These reforms have been on the table going back and forth since the Treaty of Amsterdam over 10 years ago. Amsterdam and Nice were both incremental steps in this direction.

Either way getting Plan A was difficult enough (10 years of negotiations really). Trying to come up with a Plan B to that would have taken even longer.

Scofflaw

galah wrote: »

I am just starting to inform myself about Lisbon now, haven't made up my mind which way I want to vote - but can someone tell me - what will actually happen if Ireland votes 'no'? (I don't want doom and gloom stories about how we'll all die in another famine, just the practicalities/consequences that surely must have been laid out, which I can't seem to find anywhere)

Will Ireland just be excluded from the treaty, and it'll go ahead everywhere else as planned?
Will they amend the treaty again, to suit Ireland's "demands"?
Will Ireland have to vote again and again until we vote 'correctly'?

Does anyone know?

The Treaty gets kicked upstairs to the European Council (heads of all the member states) to make a decision on its future. There's nothing legally stopping our government from suggesting a third referendum, but I would imagine that the other states will tell them to forget it - if they couldn't win Lisbon 1, and they couldn't win Lisbon 2 even with the Guarantees and other decisions the European Council gave them since, then there's almost certainly no point in hanging on for Cowen and co to have another go.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Pat Cox vs Joe Higgins on Primetime in a few minutes if anyone is interested and reads this in time.