lisbon treaty

lugha

jonnyfingers wrote: »

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****???

I suggest you have a gander over to http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
This is the Referendum Commission’s web site. The commission’s role is to explain the treaty and they do so in fairly simple terms. There’s a couple of brief documents you can download (you probably got one of them in the post a week or two ago). Unlike most other places you might look, the commission is and must be neutral and do not advocate either a yes or a no vote.

Beeker

I will be voting YES as I did the last time. The reason.... nobody has presented a valid argument not to. The no side like the last time are using scare tactics about min wage, abortion etc, what crap! Lies and more lies.
If the no side have to lie and use scare tactics it means they have no valid reasons.
And by the way if Sinn Fein are against the treaty well enough said its a YES vote.

Sully

lugha wrote: »

the commission is and must be neutral and do not advocate either a yes or a no vote.

A certain former green party member would disagree with you there

wfman

lugha wrote: »

I suggest you have a gander over to http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
This is the Referendum Commission’s web site. The commission’s role is to explain the treaty and they do so in fairly simple terms. There’s a couple of brief documents you can download (you probably got one of them in the post a week or two ago). Unlike most other places you might look, the commission is and must be neutral and do not advocate either a yes or a no vote.

the referendum commission got it wrong about ireland being able to nominate a commissioner.big difference between nominating a commissioner and been able to suggest a candidate for commissioner.

lugha

wfman wrote: »

the referendum commission got it wrong about ireland being able to nominate a commissioner.big difference between nominating a commissioner and been able to suggest a candidate for commissioner.

I am not sure what you are referring to here?
But there is an ambiguity about the word "nominate". It can mean recommend (as in for an Oscar or a Nobel prize) or is can mean appoint (as in a team captain). The former IS the same as "being able to suggest"

lugha

Sully wrote: »

A certain former green party member would disagree with you there

Not the bauld B surely? :eek:
I would certainly trust that the commission genuinely aims to be independent. The may of course get some details wrong and I doubt they, or anybody else can say with any certainty exactly how the aftermath of either a yes or no vote will pan out. But most of the other dogs in the fight, on both sides, will not be above a little (or more than a little) spinning.

Sully

wfman wrote: »

the referendum commission got it wrong about ireland being able to nominate a commissioner.big difference between nominating a commissioner and been able to suggest a candidate for commissioner.

Just to clear this up for you..

Currently, we 'propose' a Commissioner. The EP has no issues with who we propose, so the Commissioner is then accepted.

In Lisbon, we 'suggest' a Commissioner. The EP has no issues with who we 'suggested', so the Commissioner is accepted.

This is what is currently in the treaty.

The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

Modified in Lisbon:

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

The change is simple - its gone from "proposals" to "suggestions". Despite what is being suggested we don't and never have decided who the Commissioner is. Only proposing one name and having that name accepted by the EP. This was how it was always done and remains this way.

Why the word change, you ask? Well since Lisbon treaty is about improving the EU and making things easier to manage/run - we can assume it was done to improve this aspect of the treat.

It seems to have been made over the system of rotating Commissioners. Commissioners are not national reps - a reassurance and reiteration that countries who were (under the original Lisbon rotating Commission) 'away from the table' are not missing out. Also, its worth noting that there is no statement allowing anyone other than the member states to put forward candidates for the role.

(Thanks to Scofflaw for further clarifying this)

sunnysoutheast

I'm genuinely torn on which way to vote:
Sinn Fein say NO -> so for me that's an automatic YES.
Michael O'Leary says YES -> so for me that's an automatic NO.

Joking apart it's difficult to identify why anyone would vote no, given the parlous state this Country finds itself in.

SSE

FutureTaoiseach

sunnysoutheast wrote:

Joking apart it's difficult to identify why anyone would vote no, given the parlous state this Country finds itself in.

Since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution, unemployment has doubled. It did them no good. There are already some signs the Irish recession is starting to bottom-out, so we shouldn't surrender sovereignty many died to acheive for the sake of a temporary recession. Evidence of the beginnings of the recovery include Irish exports rising by 5% in the year up to April, industrial-output rising by 9.3% in April-June, relative to UK exports and German exports falling by 9% and 29% respectively in the same period. Spain has 18% unemployment compared to 9% when they voted yes, proving there is no economic dividend from so-called 'goodwill' from surrendering national sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and reducing the Irish say in the QMV voting system to 0.8%. The men and women of 1916 would turn in their graves at the thought of Irish people having only a 0.8% say in their own laws. In any case, it's important to distinguish between how the elites feel about Lisbon and how the European people feel about it. The Czech PM at the time of the negotiations on Lisbon admitted in a recent speech to the European Parliament that the Czechs would have rejected Lisbon in a referendum. The UK Tories have said that the British will have a referendum if the Treaty hasn't come into force in all member states by the time of the next UK General Election. 63% of Dutch in polls oppose Lisbon and the French and Dutch voted no to the EU Constitution, which Bertie and Cowen admit is 95% identical to Lisbon. In that context, we need to distinguish between the Europe of the elites, which is pro Lisbon, and the Europe of the people, much of which is anti-Lisbon or has been denied a direct say on the issue. I much prefer the goodwill of the Europe of the peoples of Europe than the elites.

Sully wrote:

Why the word change, you ask? Well since Lisbon treaty is about improving the EU and making things easier to manage/run - we can assume it was done to improve this aspect of the treat.

Hold your horses. That is the official justification for the Lisbon Treaty. Just because they say it, doesn't make it true. We have learned from bitter experience in the last 11 years of Tribunals what the word of a politician counts for.

It's ironic to accuse me of "soapboxing" (Oscarbravo in the EU section) when that post is itself soapboxing for the yes camp. :rolleyes:

To some extent, debate is itself - by definition - a form of soapboxing. In that context I cal for my ban in the EU forum to be lifted.

On the specifc argument that Lisbon is needed for the EU to work smoothly, I will provide as a counterargument some of the conclusions of a London School of Economics study by Professor Helen Wallace which found that the Nice Treaty arrangements have continued to work smoothly since Enlargement. Specifically quoting from the report:

Professor Helen Wallace LSE wrote:

“...a relatively agreed overall picture emerges from across these studies. They indicate that the ‘business as usual’ picture is more convincing than the ‘gridlock’ picture as regards practice in and output from the EU institutions since May 2004. Some changes and variations can be observed, although not all of these can be tied to the impact of enlargement as such. It is also clear that there are some differences across policy domains, which need further exploration. These become more apparent once attention is turned to the implementation phase and the ways in which EU policies and rules are put into practice inside the new member states.

The key data on output from the EU institutions:

Over the period 1999-2003 an average of around 195 legislative acts were adopted each year (but only 164 in 2002 and 165 in 2003); around 230 were adopted in 2004 (with a surge in April 2004 just before the EU15 became the EU25); some 130 were adopted in 2005: and 197 in 2006 . Data need to be added for non-legislative decisions, increasingly important in fields such as foreign policy and some aspects of justice and home affairs, where activity levels have been high. Mattila(forthcoming 2008) reports that some 942 acts other than legislative decisions were agreed between May 2004 and December 2006. Of the 360 (Hagemann and De Clerk-Sacchse 2007) legislative decisions adopted between May 2004 and December 2006 some 43 were identified as revisions to existing legislation to incorporate the new member states. Settembri (2007) reports that decisions taken show an increase in ‘ordinary’ or ‘minor’ subjects, and a decrease of 11% in what he classifies as the more ‘important’ topics.

In the context of the ‘less is better’ objective of José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission (an objective shared by the Council) we can observe only a modest drop in the number of proposals for legislative acts made by the Commission: 2003-491; 2004-526; 2005-411; 2006-482. In 2006 the Commission withdrew 68 proposals and put forward 33 ‘simplification’ proposals and 22 ‘codification’ proposals. In 2006 the Commission also tabled 324 communications and reports, 10 Green Papers and 2 White Papers (covered in the Annual Report 2006, published in 2007).

There has been a reduction in the time lag between proposal and decision on both those subject to the unanimity rule and those based on qualified majority voting (QMV) treaty articles. This is so especially for decisions under the consultation procedures with the European Parliament (EP), including many on agricultural issues, where the data indicate a 5% reduction in the time taken to reach agreement. Issues subject to codecision take somewhat longer than before (Settembri (2007) notes that during the one-year period which he covers that this means some 22% more days). Interestingly, however, a rising proportion of decisions subject to codecision have been reached at first reading: 2003-34%; 2004-45%; 2005-64%; 2006-59%. In 2006 a revised joint declaration was adopted by the EU institutions, designed to improve the efficiency of the codecision procedure.

There is no evidence of declining ‘productivity’ in the judicial system of the EU, at least as regards the work of the ECJ (Naômé forthcoming 2008). On the contrary numbers of cases completed and pending compare favourably with the period before enlargement, one in which there had been rising concerns about the existing overload on the judicial system, even without the added impact of enlargement. There is no significant increase at least yet in the number of new cases. The length of Court proceedings also shows a downwards trend. The Court of First Instance (CFI) has not adapted so easily to the increased pressure of cases combined with its backlog of prior pending cases.”

lugha

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution, unemployment has doubled. It did them no good. ...

Seen as how the fallacy in that argument has been pointed out by no less than three different posts above, it is difficult to accept that you are attempting to engage in an honest debate. So I don't see much point in responding to your posts. Or reading them. Which is why I didn't, beyond the first line. :P

Sully

FutureTaoiseach is now banned. I guess some people never learn.

Sully

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution, unemployment has doubled. It did them no good. There are already some signs the Irish recession is starting to bottom-out, so we shouldn't surrender sovereignty many died to acheive for the sake of a temporary recession. Evidence of the beginnings of the recovery include Irish exports rising by 5% in the year up to April, industrial-output rising by 9.3% in April-June, relative to UK exports and German exports falling by 9% and 29% respectively in the same period. Spain has 18% unemployment compared to 9% when they voted yes, proving there is no economic dividend from so-called 'goodwill' from surrendering national sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and reducing the Irish say in the QMV voting system to 0.8%. The men and women of 1916 would turn in their graves at the thought of Irish people having only a 0.8% say in their own laws. In any case, it's important to distinguish between how the elites feel about Lisbon and how the European people feel about it. The Czech PM at the time of the negotiations on Lisbon admitted in a recent speech to the European Parliament that the Czechs would have rejected Lisbon in a referendum. The UK Tories have said that the British will have a referendum if the Treaty hasn't come into force in all member states by the time of the next UK General Election. 63% of Dutch in polls oppose Lisbon and the French and Dutch voted no to the EU Constitution, which Bertie and Cowen admit is 95% identical to Lisbon. In that context, we need to distinguish between the Europe of the elites, which is pro Lisbon, and the Europe of the people, much of which is anti-Lisbon or has been denied a direct say on the issue. I much prefer the goodwill of the Europe of the peoples of Europe than the elites.Hold your horses. That is the official justification for the Lisbon Treaty. Just because they say it, doesn't make it true. We have learned from bitter experience in the last 11 years of Tribunals what the word of a politician counts for.

It's ironic to accuse me of "soapboxing" (Oscarbravo in the EU section) when that post is itself soapboxing for the yes camp. :rolleyes:

To some extent, debate is itself - by definition - a form of soapboxing. In that context I cal for my ban in the EU forum to be lifted.

On the specifc argument that Lisbon is needed for the EU to work smoothly, I will provide as a counterargument some of the conclusions of a London School of Economics study by Professor Helen Wallace which found that the Nice Treaty arrangements have continued to work smoothly since Enlargement. Specifically quoting from the report:

Just again, to point out the above is actually false. See below.

Sully wrote: »

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.



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.

Mod Note:
The user is now banned because in the EU forum he kept repeating the same post over and over again, despite being told what he was saying was incorrect. This is the typical ****e that had so many people voting no the last time (fact) and I do not want any member of any campaign coming on and spreading inaccurate information. Two warnings, both ignored, a ban has been issued from here. Same situation in the EU forum.

I dont mind people on the No side coming here and saying why they are voting no but if they are proven wrong and are still repeating the same point over and over, I will remove them. The same goes from the Yes side - if neither can comment civily and take part in an accurate debate without lies and misinformation, or scaring people into thinking they will loose a commisioner or be forced out of europe etc. then go elsewhere. Not here.

Traumadoc

Why ban someone and then provide rebuttle to his argument- not very democratic.
You banned him for putting up the same argument and then you did the exact same?

If you want informed debate you should allow people to hear both sides of an argument.

Sully

Nakatomi wrote: »

Why ban someone and then provide rebuttle to his argument- not very democratic.
You banned him for putting up the same argument and then you did the exact same?

If you want informed debate you should allow people to hear both sides of an argument.

He made his point, I responded pointing out it was false.
He made it again, I responded pointing out it was false, again, to make sure people did not just see the bull****. Inclusive of a ban, because he has done the same thing in other forums and never listens. Just keeps repeating the same thing.

Both sides of the argument have been heard.

lugha

Nakatomi wrote: »

Why ban someone and then provide rebuttle to his argument- not very democratic.
You banned him for putting up the same argument and then you did the exact same?

If you want informed debate you should allow people to hear both sides of an argument.

For a debate, informed or otherwise you need debaters. i.e. people who are prepared to listen to and refute the arguments of the other side. What our recently departed friend was doing was spinning, not debating.

Traumadoc

What difference does it make if he posts it a hundred times and you respond a hundred times,?
Just because you do not agree with another posters argument, does not mean you should censor them or silence them, it may be "bull****" to you , but by banning someone you are leaving it open to the feeling that you cannot rebuke the posters argument and so are censoring them.

Sully

Nakatomi wrote: »

What difference does it make if he posts it a hundred times and you respond a hundred times,?

I would have thought that was fairly obvious. A proper debate or conversation wont have the same person on repeat without being asked to leave. You have an issue, you deal with it, and move on. You dont ignore it and keep repeating so much until someone says "It must be true!".

Just because you do not agree with another posters argument, does not mean you should censor them or silence them, it may be "bull****" to you , but by banning someone you are leaving it open to the feeling that you cannot rebuke the posters argument and so are censoring them.

Its false. Incorrect. Completely incorrect. Its not because I dont agree - what he is saying is factually wrong. Spains unemployment problems has NOTHING to do with Lisbon. It cant have. This is the second (and possibly third) forum he has taken the same argument in and got banned from. Its completely nonsense and I have already explained why I wont have any side spouting nonsense constantly.

I have responded/rebuked his arugment, as have others. Here and elsewhere. There is no more explaining that can be done to something so simple. If I was censoring him - I would have deleted his posts so nobody could see them. Yet people can see what he was saying and what I said. Thats not censorship.

Now, if you have any further issues with this - take it to the Help Desk or PM me. Back on topic please.

lugha

Nakatomi wrote: »

What difference does it make if he posts it a hundred times and you respond a hundred times,?
Just because you do not agree with another posters argument, does not mean you should censor them or silence them, it may be "bull****" to you , but by banning someone you are leaving it open to the feeling that you cannot rebuke the posters argument and so are censoring them.

It is not a question of how many times the same point is made. The problem is ignoring the counter arguments made against that point. Now it’s a free country and you can happily argue anything you want and cheerfully ignore all and every counter argument put forward. But that is not debating and is not suited to a debating platform such as a discussion forum and is even detrimental to one. Perhaps FT could start a blog?

Sully

lugha wrote: »

It is not a question of how many times the same point is made. The problem is ignoring the counter arguments made against that point. Now it’s a free country and you can happily argue anything you want and cheerfully ignore all and every counter argument put forward. But that is not debating and is not suited to a debating platform such as a discussion forum and is even detrimental to one. Perhaps FT could start a blog?

Can we get back on topic here please, thanks.

No additional warnings on this - infractions/bans will be given for any further attempts at derailing this thread.

Traumadoc

I can see that the lisbon treaty has nothing to do with unemployment in Spain it is more to do with the overall economic realities and the over reliance on construction.

However the argument put forward by the yes campaign that voting yes will be economically advantageous to Ireland is equally bogus. However the yes campaign should be allowed to repeat this mantra if the wish.

Censoring any argument just because you feel it is bogus does no one any favours.

Apoligies if you feel I am derailing this thread- I will refrain from posting any more.

Sully

Nakatomi wrote: »

However the argument put forward by the yes campaign that voting yes will be economically advantageous to Ireland is equally bogus. However the yes campaign should be allowed to repeat this mantra if the wish.

But, to be fair, I dont think anybody in this thread has came in and said that not voting for Lisbon will damage us economically. Its not a statement I agree fully with, but the Yes campaign posters are piss-poor.

Censoring any argument just because you feel it is bogus does no one any favours.

1) It cant be censorship,
2) It is bogus, you even said yourself pretty much,
3) Someone who ignores a counter argument or repeats the same point (regardless of the discussion) to death will be banned. After warnings. I rarely ban without warning (except for spam).

Apoligies if you feel I am derailing this thread- I will refrain from posting any more.

Questioning a mods decession is derailling a thread. In general, you have been a good contributor to this thread and I would like if you still continued to post. If you have issues with my moderation - I have an Inbox awaiting your Feedback and I will listen carefully and act if I can.

So, on that note, lets just get back onto Lisbon Treaty.

lugha

Nakatomi wrote: »

However the argument put forward by the yes campaign that voting yes will be economically advantageous to Ireland is equally bogus.

Now unlike FT, I AM going to answer your point :P . Ibec and almost all the big players in the private sector (Intel, Ryanair etc) are backing the yes side. Now, you may question the true motives of politicians but the private sector are very simple folk in one respect. They do what is in the best interests of their firms. And as the private sector is the wealth generator then what is good for that sector is good for the Irish economy. They know business and they know what’s good for their business and if they are almost unanimous in the view that Lisbon is indeed good for business then I find that a fairly persuasive economic argument.

There is another point. It has somewhat slipped of the radar in recent times but Ireland inc. is in serious economic do do. We may yet face financial Armageddon and be looking around for help. The EU will not want to let a member state go under but I imagine the would feel much less of an obligation to come riding to our rescue if they perceive that we have snubbed Europe. Lisbon is not a major deal in itself. It’s little more than a tidying up exercise. In normal circumstances we may not lose or gain massively which ever way we vote. But this is not a good time to be making enemies.

clinchy

i am voting no because i think we were bullied into this second attempt to get a second vote by the french wat will happen if we vote on future issue and it does not suit the french germans or italians no vote it will be again for me

Sully

clinchy wrote: »

i am voting no because i think we were bullied into this second attempt to get a second vote by the french wat will happen if we vote on future issue and it does not suit the french germans or italians no vote it will be again for me

Perhaps, but I imagine the French and the EU were pissed off with the government for not doing a proper campaign.

Voting No for reasons outside of the treaty itself, is not good.

clinchy

true but it did also show how easy our goverment will fold i agree with some of the yes voters points but i hav made my mind up once and feel my 1st vote should be respected by my own goverment at lfast

Keith Winters

Sully wrote: »

Perhaps, but I imagine the French and the EU were pissed off with the government for not doing a proper campaign.

Voting No for reasons outside of the treaty itself, is not good.

That's the unfortunate result and implication of the Crotty judgment. Whilst I do think it's a good thing that Ireland gets the opportunity to vote on EU Treaties, the drawbacks are immeasurable in that each referendum revolves around issues completely unrelated to the actual treaty itself.

The polling booth effectively becomes a place for the voter to cast their particular grievance with the Government of the day, rather than addressing the merits or demerits of the treaty. It also gives campaigners (on both sides) the opportunity to muddy the waters. In practical effect, as we saw with Lisbon I, those who didn't understand the Treaty voted NO when logic would dictate that those people just wouldn't vote at all. This is why I think campaigning like that of Cóir is plainly wrong. They're using the fact that confused people are more likely to vote no to spread lies and muddy the water again.

Every Treaty has the generic abortion/neutrality arguments and to date these arguments have been shown up as the scaremongering they are. Lisbon will be no different. It's more a case of people like Cóir not understanding the legal implications of the treaty that has them campaigning in such a way I'd imagine. IT's not a straightforward treaty. It can't be. The EU is not a straightforward organisation and by no means will Lisbon make it the ideal and wholly transparent organisation we want but it certainly is a start.

I certainly think there is a role for the courts to play in future EU treaties. There are issues the Supreme Court could have cleared up prior to Lisbon and perhaps it could be used in future referendum to clear up issues such as abortion and neutrality.

wfman

if voting yes to lisbon is going to be so great for ireland then why hasnt the goverment been able to sell it to the voters?
if ireland votes no again whats the worse that will happen?i believe the EU will continue on the way it is without the lisbon treaty.
i think we as a nation are been asked to "buy a pig in a poke".i have a feeling in 5/6 years time someone will be standing up in the dail saying ""oh we didn't foresee this on Lisbon and we failed to envisage that on Lisbon"
if theres a doubt there is no doubt.ill be voting no again.

Keith Winters

wfman wrote: »

if voting yes to lisbon is going to be so great for ireland then why hasnt the goverment been able to sell it to the voters?

In fairness, the Government is about as popular as gonorrhea. I reckon they couldn't give a new limb to an amputee for free at the moment without great effort.

wfman wrote: »

if ireland votes no again whats the worse that will happen?i believe the EU will continue on the way it is without the lisbon treaty.

We can only guess. I reckon your belief is wrong though. A Union of half-a-billion people being stalled by a few hundred thousand people in one of the particularly small states in the Union is likely to result in a fairly serious approach to a Plan C by the other 26 States who have already ratified Lisbon as the way forward. I'd rather not hypothesize as to what I think could or might happen if we vote no because I'll be labelled as scaremongering but there is a multitude of things that could happen and moving forward under Nice is not something I imagine will be at the top of the agenda.

wfman wrote: »

i think we as a nation are been asked to "buy a pig in a poke".i have a feeling in 5/6 years time someone will be standing up in the dail saying ""oh we didn't foresee this on Lisbon and we failed to envisage that on Lisbon"
if theres a doubt there is no doubt.ill be voting no again.

I have no problem with anyone feeling this but I'd like to know why because just having a feeling doesn't really cut it.

wfman

if we reject the lisbon treaty then the Nice treaty remains.under the rules of the Nice treaty,we cannot be removed from the EU.it has to be unaminous so we would have to vote ourselfs out.
if it was that easy to remove us from the EU we wouldnt be voting on lisbon a 2nd time.

Keith Winters

wfman wrote: »

if we reject the lisbon treaty then the Nice treaty remains.under the rules of the Nice treaty,we cannot be removed from the EU.it has to be unaminous so we would have to vote ourselfs out.
if it was that easy to remove us from the EU we wouldnt be voting on lisbon a 2nd time.

I find this argument a red herring to be honest .Under the protocol of the Treaty of Lisbon we cannot be removed from the EU either. If Ireland, or any other State for that matter wanted to leave the EU now they could. Lisbon just lays out a mechanism to do so in order to retain political stability in the event of such a withdrawal.

Are you trying to claim that if we pass Lisbon we can be voted out of the EU?

In any case the mythological argument of Ireland being voted out of the EU is irrelevant but there is nothing stopping the other states moving on without us in some other shape or form, be it on a good-will basis, a two-track basis or any other number of possibilities.