lisbon treaty

FutureTaoiseach

Voting yes won't help the economy. Since Spain voted yes, unemployment doubled to 18%. My main problem is that the Lisbon Treaty specifically enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law:

Article 6 TEU (as amended by Lisbon) wrote:

The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

Particular concerns about the Charter include Article 15, which could be used by the ECJ to force Ireland to allow asylum-seekers to work - something currently not allowed. In the current economic circumstances, displacement of Irish labour would increase, and asylum-claims would return to 2002 levels (11,000 per annum) when we last allowed them to work. A system intended for refugees must not become a system of economic-migration for those who failed to get permission to come to our shores. Otherwise, we are ceding sovereignty to persons who have nothing to do with Ireland and have no reason to consider Irish interests. You also have to remember that because the UK has an optout, this would make Ireland and Malta the only English-speaking countries in the EU to allow asylum-seekers to work. Were that to happen, the Irish labour-market would be exposed as in 2004 with Enlargement. Asylum-seekers resident in the UK would move to Ireland if we allow them to work under the Charter. In a recession this is unacceptable

Article 15, Charter of Fundamental Rights wrote:

Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:

COFR, Article 18 wrote:

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

COFR, Article 19 wrote:

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:

Article 7 wrote:

Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ. Furthermore, the right to privacy was the basis of the Roe v Wade judgement in 1974 by the US Supreme Court.

Article 9 wrote:

Right to marry and right to found a family

The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.

This will be used to force Ireland to give residency to illegals involved in marriages-of-convenience to get residency/citizenship here.

ANTIFA!

VOTE YES-It will annoy Future Taoiseach :pac:

JohnC.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Voting yes won't help the economy. Since Spain voted yes, unemployment doubled to 18%.

2 things there. Spain didn't vote yes. Ireland are the only country voting. And how can you say the treaty led to the rise in unemployment when they treaty isn't even in effect yet, not having been ratified by the whole EU?

lugha

Kahless wrote: »

And how can you say the treaty led to the rise in unemployment when they treaty isn't even in effect yet, not having been ratified by the whole EU?

Indeed. You could make a similarly spurious argument to say that Ireland's unemployment rate has soared since we voted no to Lisbon I.

Sully

FutureTaoiseach: Just an fyi. I will issue the same ban that was given in the EU forum to you, if you carry the same approach here. Only one warning.

This thread is being kept here as a mini thread to help Waterford people make an informed choice, rather then referring to the EU forum. For deeper conversations, its likely we will refer to the EU forum.

Sully

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Voting yes won't help the economy. Since Spain voted yes, unemployment doubled to 18%.

1) The treaty is not ratified. Therefore, Lisbon can not be associated with the downturn in Spain.
2) Spain has a poor history in relation to jobs, this is just another mark in the book.
3) Going by your logic here.. By Ireland voting "No", we have seen a big dowturn in our economy and lost lots of jobs.

So, Lisbon has not effected Spain at all. Just more inaccurate spout from the No side.

My main problem is that the Lisbon Treaty specifically enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law:Particular concerns about the Charter include Article 15, which could be used by the ECJ to force Ireland to allow asylum-seekers to work - something currently not allowed. In the current economic circumstances, displacement of Irish labour would increase, and asylum-claims would return to 2002 levels (11,000 per annum) when we last allowed them to work. A system intended for refugees must not become a system of economic-migration for those who failed to get permission to come to our shores. Otherwise, we are ceding sovereignty to persons who have nothing to do with Ireland and have no reason to consider Irish interests. You also have to remember that because the UK has an optout, this would make Ireland and Malta the only English-speaking countries in the EU to allow asylum-seekers to work. Were that to happen, the Irish labour-market would be exposed as in 2004 with Enlargement. Asylum-seekers resident in the UK would move to Ireland if we allow them to work under the Charter. In a recession this is unacceptable
Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:

Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. Even the European Convention on Human Rights - which defenders of the Charter say the latter is based on - doesn't contain such a right. It is the height of nonsense to allow the ECJ to stick its maw into this sensitive area. There are also ethical questions in terms of the impact of the ECJ on abortion, euthanasia etc. owing to provisions in the Charter such as the right to privacy:



This can be expected to result in challenges in the ECJ on the basis that deportation of bogus asylum-seekers with children in this country would undermine "respect for family life". We have already seen attempts by illegals in this country to use the Irish Constitution's provisions on the right of the child to the 'company of its parents' to obstruct deportations from this country, and we can expect that provisions such as Article 7 of the Charter will be latched onto by asylum-lawyers as another loophole they can exploit in challenging deportations in the ECJ. Furthermore, the right to privacy was the basis of the Roe v Wade judgement in 1974 by the US Supreme Court.This will be used to force Ireland to give residency to illegals involved in marriages-of-convenience to get residency/citizenship here.

I wont comment on the above, as its not an area I am very familar with. I shall carry out some research and see where you are getting your point from though.

The_Thing

All this talk of guarantees, but no mention at all of a guarantee that the Eurocrats will accept the will of the Irish people and that when we vote No we mean No.

That's the one guarantee they will never give us.

Sully

The_Thing wrote: »

All this talk of guarantees, but no mention at all of a guarantee that the Eurocrats will accept the will of the Irish people and that when we vote No we mean No.

That's the one guarantee they will never give us.

We already covered that in this thread.

lugha

The_Thing wrote: »

All this talk of guarantees, but no mention at all of a guarantee that the Eurocrats will accept the will of the Irish people and that when we vote No we mean No.

That's the one guarantee they will never give us.

One more time, with feeling . Lisbon cannot be ratified unless and until the majority of people voting in a referendum back it. It is perfectly reasonable (indeed democratic) that a government might take an issue back to the people after addressing their concerns. Which is just as well. Otherwise Ireland would not have divorce. Or a constitution for that matter. You could only make a credible antidemocratic charge if the government pushed ahead with Lisbon in spite of the no vote. Which they will not, nor can not, do.

But of course, we all know what is going on here. Democracy is a fine idea but it is not perfect. We are all aware that someone with money, good PR folk and not impeded by honest and integrity and the like, can mount a dishonest campaign and scare people in to voting against something that they in truth favor. That coupled with the electorate silly but understandable desire to use EU votes to kick the government conspired to defeat Lisbon I. The No side know this and fear that they may not pull it off a second time. If you genuinely hold democracy in such high regard then why do you not trust the people with a re-run? After all, if the true will of the people was indeed set against Lisbon, then it will just be defeated again, won’t it?

Traumadoc

Sully wrote: »

(A recent court case suggests its not even unconstitutional for the re-run and its not ignoring democracy by asking people twice since they have explained Lisbon this time and are asking people to re-consider and not forcing a "Yes" on them).

Sorry I missed the bit where they explained lisbon.

Sully

Nakatomi wrote: »

Sorry I missed the bit where they explained lisbon.

Plenty of information out there explaining Lisbon, compared to the last time.

Traumadoc

I did not vote the last time. Will be voting no this time.

Sully

Nakatomi wrote: »

I did not vote the last time. Will be voting no this time.

Why did you not vote for Lisbon I and why would you vote no to Lisbon II?

Bards

Interesting article from Vincent Browne in this weeks Sunday Business Post giving three good reasons to vote NO

http://www.thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/three-good-reasons-to-spurn-lisbon-once-again-44120.html

lugha

Bards wrote: »

Interesting article from Vincent Browne in this weeks Sunday Business Post giving three good reasons to vote NO

http://www.thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/three-good-reasons-to-spurn-lisbon-once-again-44120.html

Vincent’s first point is that the electorates in other states do not have direct vote on the treaty. Perhaps not, but they do have democratically elected governments to whom they give a mandate to act on their behalf. We don’t get to vote directly on the majority of decisions that the government take, even on something like NAMA which may transpire to be a much bigger fish than Lisbon in the long run. (Vincent rather undoes his fine argument for democracy by simultaneously stating that the treaty is “unintelligible”, implying that the electorate are too dumb to figure out what they are voting for!)

His second argument relates to defense. He talks darkly about “armaments industry” and “instruments of killing” but neglects to point out that Ireland’s neutrality position will not be compromised. It would be great if we could all be hippies and cheerfully declare that if everybody is nice to each other then there will be no need for nasty guns and things. Unfortunately grown up countries realize that however great your personal distaste for war might be, it is naïve in the extreme to think that you can be a major player on the international stage and not have to give serious consideration to matters of security and defense.

His third point (too much centralized power) is too vague to address????

Sully

Bards wrote: »

Interesting article from Vincent Browne in this weeks Sunday Business Post giving three good reasons to vote NO

http://www.thepost.ie/commentandanalysis/three-good-reasons-to-spurn-lisbon-once-again-44120.html

I agree that the "Yes" campaign is poor from the main players and is more styled as if we are voting for/against Europe. I have said it many times since Lisbon I and continue to comment on it. Though, I think this time its more the advertising thats poor but they have picked up on explaining the aspects of Lisbon.

Vincent is an odd chap. He seems anti everything but always found his TV program very good compared with RTEs approach. Also like his radio show. I'm not sure I can take much of what he says seriously.

On his first reason: The treaty has been explained much more. Head over to the EU forum and its been tworn apart and discussed in great detail, including the interputations etc. From what I have seen and heard, some of the main players are actively picking up on explaining whats what. It just seems that aspect is slower to start. As for the treaty being a tough cookie to read, well - what did you expect? Simple English? These type of things are always going to be awkward to read and understand to the average joe-sope which is why the campaigns and people with good understanding to break it down and explain it. If we choose to educate ourselves, we should say "Yes" or "No" purley based on what we understand. Not because the treaty is hard to read.

In addition, it was found that one of the reasons why it was not a public vote in each member state was because of the delay in getting previous treatys passed. Hardly a reason to vote "No".

Point 2: Supprisingly, very like the typical "No" campaign poster. Manipulating what that part of the treaty is about and its risks etc. A mute point imo.

Point 3: Why not? Also, it shows a lack of understanding about how the new voting is going, vetos etc.

A poor selection of reasons which were weak and clutching at straws. Nothing really that states why the Lisbon is bad exactly, the overall problems - just three mute points? Out of everything else?

Vote on what the treaty is about and does. Be careful what people from both campaigns say - Yes we need Europe, Yes Europe has been good to us. But its not what this treaty is about really. No, the min. wage claim has nothing to do with Lisbon. No, Spain did not go down the swanny because of voting "Yes" (the treaty isnt ratified). etc.

Inform yourself about what this treaty is about, the pros and cons of each and weigh it all up - will it improve Europe for better or for worse? Decided on that, and on that only.

lugha

Nakatomi wrote: »

Sorry I missed the bit where they explained lisbon.

As I understand it the challenge to a second referendum failed in part because the court ruled that with the additional protocols negotiated by the government, the treaty was not the same as before. However, the substantial point made by Mr Justice McKecknie was that 'the constitution did not prohibit a question being put to the people on a second occasion. If people have decided on one occasion, it is for the people, not the courts, to express their view on a second occasion. This is democracy working at its most fluid.'

Traumadoc

Sully wrote: »

Why did you not vote for Lisbon I and why would you vote no to Lisbon II?

I was away in Europe! Sweden actually.

I actually strongly believe in the nation state, I feel there are a lot of similarities in the Lisbon treaty and in the Act of Union. I wonder if in 50 or a 100 years Irish people could be again fighting for freedom. I am no sinn feiner or xenophobe, I just wonder, have we debated enough the direction Europe is taking us in?

Sully

Nakatomi wrote: »

I was away in Europe! Sweden actually.

I actually strongly believe in the nation state, I feel there are a lot of similarities in the Lisbon treaty and in the Act of Union. I wonder if in 50 or a 100 years Irish people could be again fighting for freedom. I am no sinn feiner or xenophobe, I just wonder, have we debated enough the direction Europe is taking us in?

I love the idea of the EU and think it has done wonders for every state that has joined it. I believe we would not be as well off as we are today, without the EU. I see concerns that the EU may get a bit big for its boots, but I dont think we will end up in a situation where we regret it or are fighting for our freedom.

Plus, Lisbon has little to do with whether Europe is good for us or not. Its more about whether Lisbon has negative or postive consequences for Europe and I think for the most part, it will improve the current situation. I dont think its a sinister as people are making out and previous referundums had the same lunies harping on yet we are still here today without the bull**** they harped on about. Its sad that the No side have to make up stuff rather then point out "Well, Lisbon does X but really thats bad because it can do Y" etc.

Traumadoc

If Lisbon has little to do with whether europe is good for us : why is this the main argument for voting yes?

Sully

Nakatomi wrote: »

If Lisbon has little to do with whether europe is good for us : why is this the main argument for voting yes?

Iv been asking myself the same question, and I am part of the Yes campaign.

Traumadoc

Sully wrote: »

I am part of the Yes campaign.

More good news for the no campaign then.:D

jonnyfingers

I've done some reading up on the treaty but not in any great detail. The so called "Yes" and "No" campaigns are using primarily scare tactics to get their points across in my opinion. The "No" campaign is again focusing on the worst case scenario of some areas of the treaty. I don't believe that minimum wage will drop to under €2, but I do believe that the minimum wage could drop by a certain amount.

Whereas the "Yes" campaign's message seems to me to be "Vote Yes or else" implying that we will be cast aside by Europe if we don't accept the Lisbon Treaty. Again this is not the truth as if we vote no, the current treaty remains and we can't, nor will we, be forced out of Europe.

I voted No last time because the pros and cons of the treaty were not explained to me and if in doubt, voting not to change was the safest option.

I feel both pros and cons need to be explained to make an informed decision. Somehow I can't see either campaign wanting to argue both sides. I'm still looking for an impartial explanation or the treaty but don't have the time to search for it. It should be made easy to access.

As I'm still waiting for someone to explain the pros and cons of the Treaty to me in clear and plain English my vote remains the same.

P.S. If anyone can point me in the direction of the information I seek please feel free. Incidentally the government information on the treaty is blocked by Websense in work! Does that mean Websense smells bull****???

Sully

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I've done some reading up on the treaty but not in any great detail. The so called "Yes" and "No" campaigns are using primarily scare tactics to get their points across in my opinion. The "No" campaign is again focusing on the worst case scenario of some areas of the treaty. I don't believe that minimum wage will drop to under €2, but I do believe that the minimum wage could drop by a certain amount.

The min. wage has no connection with the Lisbon Treaty. Thats just scare tactics by the No campaign.

Whereas the "Yes" campaign's message seems to me to be "Vote Yes or else" implying that we will be cast aside by Europe if we don't accept the Lisbon Treaty. Again this is not the truth as if we vote no, the current treaty remains and we can't, nor will we, be forced out of Europe.

Well... I wouldnt be so confident it would be good for Ireland if we voted no.

I voted No last time because the pros and cons of the treaty were not explained to me and if in doubt, voting not to change was the safest option.

I feel both pros and cons need to be explained to make an informed decision. Somehow I can't see either campaign wanting to argue both sides. I'm still looking for an impartial explanation or the treaty but don't have the time to search for it. It should be made easy to access.

As I'm still waiting for someone to explain the pros and cons of the Treaty to me in clear and plain English my vote remains the same.

P.S. If anyone can point me in the direction of the information I seek please feel free. Incidentally the government information on the treaty is blocked by Websense in work! Does that mean Websense smells bull****???

Great resource here on boards is the EU Forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1069

One topic in particular thats good.. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633086

jonnyfingers

Sully wrote: »

The min. wage has no connection with the Lisbon Treaty. Thats just scare tactics by the No campaign.

Sully wrote: »

Well... I wouldn't be so confident it would be good for Ireland if we voted no.

But that's the thing, nobody is telling me exactly what will happen that is so bad for Ireland if we vote no.

Sully wrote: »

Great resource here on boards is the EU Forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1069

One topic in particular thats good.. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055633086

Thanks for that.

I've been reading through the forum since I last posted but I don't have too much free time. Might try again later after work.

Basically I want to cut out all the lies and try to figure out what exactly I'm voting on.

FutureTaoiseach

Kahless wrote: »

2 things there. Spain didn't vote yes. Ireland are the only country voting. And how can you say the treaty led to the rise in unemployment when they treaty isn't even in effect yet, not having been ratified by the whole EU?

Spain did vote yes in 2005 to the EU Constitution which was the old name for the institutional reforms in the Lisbon Treaty.

It would be a betrayal of the men and women of 1916 and before to allow foreign governments and politicians to legislate for Ireland's justice and home affairs policy as envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty. The 50 vetoes surrendered include many areas of Justice and Home Affairs including policing and asylum and immigration, as well as the powers of the pan-EU police-body Europol. The Government claims we have an opt out on Justice and Home Affairs, yet they include in Paragraph 7 of the referendum legislation (28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009) wording specifically allowing them to abolish it. This optout Protocol No.21 has existed since the Amsterdam Treaty, and they are empowering themselves to scrap it. Paragraph 7(ii) would also allow the the government to take us into the Schengen area, abolishing passport controls/checks on immigrants. This is not what the 420,000 Irish unemployed need right now:

28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 wrote:

7° The State may exercise the options or discretions—
i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union
relating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated
into the framework of the European Union annexed to that 25
treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (formerly known as the Treaty
establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, 30
security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

JohnC.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Spain did vote yes in 2005 to the EU Constitution which was the old name for the institutional reforms in the Lisbon Treaty.

How is that in any way relevant? That didn't go through in the end and it certainly didn't have anything to do with job losses in Spain.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

FutureTaoiseach: Just an fyi. I will issue the same ban that was given in the EU forum to you, if you carry the same approach here. Only one warning.

This thread is being kept here as a mini thread to help Waterford people make an informed choice, rather then referring to the EU forum. For deeper conversations, its likely we will refer to the EU forum.

*cough*

wfman

Sully wrote: »

*cough*

i suppose if FutureTaoiseach was in the yes camp your cough might clear up.

Sully

wfman wrote: »

i suppose if FutureTaoiseach was in the yes camp your cough might clear up.

Nope. I'm not having a mini-politics here but I want both the No side and Yes side to use this thread fairly. That includes the Yes side using Europe as a soapbox for voting Yes to Lisbon.

Politics mods warned and issued bans based on soapboxing. Some of these users are following around Boards joining other Lisbon discussions with the same ****e and I wont let it consume this thread. End of.