Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
lisbon treaty
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Okay. So since my last post on this thread I've done some extensive research on the Lisbon Treaty. I've completely ignored anything that's being said from the "Yes" and "No" campaigns because, frankly, I'm smarter than them! This is well worth a read. http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_extended_guide.pdf
So these are some of my findings. Correct me if I'm wrong.
First off, the basics. What are we voting for?On referendum day October 2nd, you are being asked to decide whether or not to change the Constitution of Ireland. This proposed change would allow:- Ireland to ratify the Lisbon Treaty
- Ireland to agree to certain decisions in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in future with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad
- Ireland to agree at the European Council to certain changes to the EU treaties in the future without a referendum
So the Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, will attempt to streamline the EU. The Lisbon Treaty proposes to increase the decision-making powers of the European Parliament. If the Treaty comes into force, co-decision would apply to a number of new areas. These include agriculture, asylum and immigration from non-EU countries. If the Lisbon Treaty comes into force then the European Parliament and the Council (of Ministers) will have joint decision-making powers over the entire EU budget.
A so-called "President of the EU" would be elected by qualified majority voting and he/she would have a 2.5 year term. Currently the president is the leader of whichever country holds the presidency and has a 6 month term. From what I can see this new "Presidency" will not give unacceptable powers to that person. There may be a slight chance that they will be able to push their own agenda but this remains to be seen.
Qualified majority voting will become the standard voting procedure. QMV is reached when a majority of all member countries (55%) who represent a majority of all citizens (65%) vote in favour of a proposal. When the Council is not acting on a proposal of the Commission, the necessary majority of all member countries is increased to 72% while the population requirement stays the same. To block legislation at least 4 countries have to be against the proposal. The current Nice treaty voting rules that include a majority of countries (50% / 67%), voting weights (74%) and population (62%) would remain in place until 2014. Now this obviously favours larger members states so I don't think Ireland would have too much influence in any votes. This, I feel, is not a good thing. At the moment, as I understand it, we still have less influence than the larger members states due to voting weights but under Lisbon we may be worse off.
The Lisbon Treaty also proposes that changes be made that will give the European Council power to make certain changes to Treaties without the need for a referendum. Certain changes will still require a referendum in Ireland and one change that cannot be made by the EC is to change the competences of the EU. Now having a referendum opens up the possibility for "Yes" and "No" campaigns to try and sway you their respective ways, usually through scare tactics, exaggerations of the truth and downright lies. In fact look at any posters from either campaign at the moment and you'll see examples.
. So it may be a good thing for the EC to be able to make certain changes, after all the heads of government will be the ones making the decision and they are the people we elect to speak for us. However looking at the current situation I don't want my government speaking for me and also the decisions to future changes of treaties may be made by qualified majority voting instead of unanimity, which is currently required, so our government may have no say in the matter. I'll leave that up to you to decide if it's a good thing.
Now I mentioned competences in the last paragraph. This does worry me. At the moment there are three types of competence, Exclusive Competence, Shared Competence and Supported Competence. Lisbon will redistribute the competences. Examples of what areas fall under which competence type can be found here. Exclusive Competence means just that; the EU has exclusive competence to make directives and conclude international agreements when provided for in a Union legislative act. For Supported Competence the EU cannot harmonise laws, but it can adopt legally binding rules all the same. Shared Competence is what worries me. The entended document on the Lisbon Treaty 2009 site says shared competence means "The EU and the member states are jointly responsible" for the areas that fall under this type. Here suggests something slightly different.Shared competence
"A shared competence" would normally entail that two different decision-makers share the right to decide and make laws.
When the EU and its member states share a competence, the Member State loses its 'competence' (power to take decisions) when the EU decides to regulate. So EU legislation does not only replace the content of a national law, it also removes the national right to legislate.
Future
The Lisbon Treaty proposes in Art. 4 TFEU that the following areas become shared competences: competition rules within the internal market; the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice; agriculture and fisheries; transport; trans-European networks; energy; social policy; Economic, social and territorial cohesion; the environment; public health; and consumer protection.
To me that suggests that Shared Competence isn't all that shared!
The role of National Parliaments will change. One one hand they will have more time to vet proposals put through by the Commission and offer an opinion. However if they don't like what they see they can only recommend a review. A third (a quarter in certain situations) of National Parliaments would have to object to a proposal to start the review process. But the review process will only make the Commission have another look at the proposal and see if it should still go through. At the end of the day they have the power and the National Parliaments can realistically do nothing about it if the Commission has made its mind up.
As for the European Commission, at present each member state has a member on the Commission totaling 27 in all. Under the Nice Treaty that number has to be reduced by a certain date, of which I'm not sure. It could be reduced only to 26 from 27, I understand, and I've heard some people speculate that we would be the country left out if we vote no! Not sure if that would happen by maybe it could. Lisbon also wants to reduce this number to one for two thirds of member states from 2014 but one of the "legally binding agreements" made since we said No the first time is that on ratification of Lisbon each member state will retain their commissioner. However, the Treaty also provided that the European Council could unanimously decide to alter this number. If I was being honest I think that if Lisbon is ratified, in 2014 the number will be reduced.
As for the issue of Ireland's neutrality, Ireland has opted out from the change from unanimous decisions to qualified majority voting in the sector of police and judicial affairs. However, the government have promised to review this decision three years after the treaty enters into force (if the Treaty is approved). We can also opt in to these voting issues on a case-by-case basis, decided by the Dail and the Oireachtas. So, yes, we can stay neutral but will we be pressurised to opt in in three years? And could the government make a decision against the people's wishes without the need for a referendum?
So that's my initial understanding of what happens if we vote yes. I am, by no means, an expert on all of this. I'm still undecided. I can see both positives and negatives of voting either way. I'm in no way convinced that increased powers given to the EU will completely benefit a small country like ours. But by being a small country I think we lose something either way we vote. Sure we'll have more power to negotiate with Russia for oil and gas so in areas such as energy we may be stronger. We're slowly moving towards a European "country" similar to the US. Lisbon is another step towards that. Losing some of Ireland's individuality may be the cost.
I'd love to find out what would change if a new Treaty had to be drawn up if we vote no. How long it would take? What changes would be made that would benifit the smaller countries like ours? And how would the EU function while waiting for it to be done? But, as always, all we could do is speculate.
As it stands I have a few weeks to make up my mind. I could go either way at the moment but I won't be swayed by any of the political parties' campaigns that's for sure.
P.S. Apologies for any mistakes, either spelling, grammatical or factual! I am but a simple man!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm voting No. Brian Cowan and Michael Martin are scaring the frightened Sheep into voting Yes, suggesting there will be a backlash from Europe if we say no again.
How come Barosso was re-elected? Easy! He was the only candidate in the race - after an exhaustive campaign of self Aggrandissement.
The EU didn't Stop DELL moving to Poland. Others will follow to where bigger profits can be made.
0 -
-
Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21860
Without question voting NO.
Its a disgrace they are forcing us to vote again.Everyone in Europe who did not receive the right to vote is all eyes on us counting on us to vote no.They put it to us we voted no and now they will force the vote again,even though they said that would not happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfmEgjgkaBo&feature=related
1) You were asked to vote again in other treatys,
2)
You are being asked to vote again because the Yes side did a ****e job at explaining, and according to research, the large majority voted no because of this,
3) The No side started a compain based on 100% bull**** and misquotes. They used scare tactics into getting everyone to vote no. A lot of people believed them, so the government asked the EU to create legal guarntes about certain things. They are rather pointless because they have no point - neither of the guarntss have aanything to do with Lisbon in the first place. There just accepting why folk said no and making it clear it wont happen (not that it ever would have).
4) You would be voting with complete nut job groups and partys ost off you would not even consider for a vote in a local, general or europea electioon.
5) Your forgetting that Declan Gnley nnver toook "No" for an answer, yet is being welcomed back with open arms.
5) Also, the No campaigners have voted no to pretty much every EU treaty including joining the EU.vooting no myself.
i hate to be a worker of a multi national company out on the estate or anywhere else.
ireland has 1 o the loowest corporation taxes in europe, if we vte yess then the eu will rise copooration taxes in this country in lieu of the european averags. multii nationals are under serious enough pressure and this will lead to them pulling out of this country. remember 200,000 are employed by multi nationals companies in ireland.
Incorrect. What you are confusing here is the reference to the "Common Tax Base". What it doesn't do is change the actual rate at which Corporation Tax is at in any country. It would fix exactly counts as income and what counts as expenses for a company.
Its also part of those famous guarntees, which ar silly. YYou know, the ones which clarify something that isnt actually true.Nothing in threatyaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.spain did this and unloymeyment rose from8% to 18% after the ratifcation of the lin treaty[/q
ncorrerrect. Spain has a deep history of unemployment and was hit by the recession like everyone else. Regardless of how things went with accepting Lisbon - the treaty was never ratified. It could not be ratified because of our no vote. Therefore, Lisbon clearly had no effect on Spain because it never came into effect. We are still on the Niece treaty folks.this treaty stinks and its flawed, its the same treaty as before and anyone who voted no the last time and voting yes this time would want to get their heads checked
How does it stink and how is it flawed? Its the same treaty but people voted "No" because of misinformation and anger at the government. Thats fact. Now people areing aing at the treaty, comparing arguments and doing their own basic research and deciding then which way to go. This time the majority wont vote to piss of Finna Fail (like Sinn Feintellitelling peop do)ooff off and it has been explained a bit better then last time which is what the people asked for. People voting "No" because they believe what the "No" side said and never did their own research, or because they want to piss of FF - "would want to get their heads checked".I'm voting Nian Coan Cowan and Michael Martin areing ting the frightened Sheep into voting Yes, suggesting there will be a backlash from Europe if we say no again.
True, but it will effect us imo. I cant honestly agree tha EUhe EU will accept they need to re-draft the treaty because of us. I believe something will change which will effect us. Sad, but true. We are voting No for daft reasons - why should they do it all over? Regardless, SF and the other nut jobs will make up more bull**** and lies that will bring us back around in the same circle.The EU didn't Stop DELL moving to Poland. Others will follow to where bigger profits can be made.
Your point? Thats the whole advantage of the Een heen here in Waterford more and more businesses are shutting down and moving to a lower cost base. Blame our government - not the EU.Johnnnybravo wrote: »Im voting NO m, but Id lovd love onehef the yes voters to explain to me where the "jobs" that the yes posters hung around the country boast of are supposed to come from??
Article 3 TEU:3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance. It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child. It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States. It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
The full employment is their new objective. Article 166 has a section about the EU funding vocational training courses.
Dont forget folks - both sides welcome to thbon sbon Talk this coming Tuesday in the main WIT Auditorium at 7.30pm. Get your questions answered.
0 -
1) You were asked to vote again in other treatys,
2)
You are being asked to vote again because the Yes side did a ****e job at explaining, and according to research, the large majority voted no because of this,
3) The No side started a compain based on 100% bull**** and misquotes. They used scare tactics into getting everyone to vote no. A lot of people believed them, so the government asked the EU to create legal guarntes about certain things. They are rather pointless because they have no point - neither of the guarntss have aanything to do with Lisbon in the first place. There just accepting why folk said no and making it clear it wont happen (not that it ever would have).
4) You would be voting with complete nut job groups and partys ost off you would not even consider for a vote in a local, general or europea electioon.
5) Your forgetting that Declan Gnley nnver toook "No" for an answer, yet is being welcomed back with open arms.
5) Also, the No campaigners have voted no to pretty much every EU treaty including joining the EU.
Incorrect. What you are confusing here is the reference to the "Common Tax Base". What it doesn't do is change the actual rate at which Corporation Tax is at in any country. It would fix exactly counts as income and what counts as expenses for a company.
Its also part of those famous guarntees, which ar silly. YYou know, the ones which clarify something that isnt actually true.
ncorrerrect. Spain has a deep history of unemployment and was hit by the recession like everyone else. Regardless of how things went with accepting Lisbon - the treaty was never ratified. It could not be ratified because of our no vote. Therefore, Lisbon clearly had no effect on Spain because it never came into effect. We are still on the Niece treaty folks.
How does it stink and how is it flawed? Its the same treaty but people voted "No" because of misinformation and anger at the government. Thats fact. Now people areing aing at the treaty, comparing arguments and doing their own basic research and deciding then which way to go. This time the majority wont vote to piss of Finna Fail (like Sinn Feintellitelling peop do)ooff off and it has been explained a bit better then last time which is what the people asked for. People voting "No" because they believe what the "No" side said and never did their own research, or because they want to piss of FF - "would want to get their heads checked".
True, but it will effect us imo. I cant honestly agree tha EUhe EU will accept they need to re-draft the treaty because of us. I believe something will change which will effect us. Sad, but true. We are voting No for daft reasons - why should they do it all over? Regardless, SF and the other nut jobs will make up more bull**** and lies that will bring us back around in the same circle.
Your point? Thats the whole advantage of the Een heen here in Waterford more and more businesses are shutting down and moving to a lower cost base. Blame our government - not the EU.
Article 3 TEU:
The full employment is their new objective. Article 166 has a section about the EU funding vocational training courses.
Dont forget folks - both sides welcome to thbon sbon Talk this coming Tuesday in the main WIT Auditorium at 7.30pm. Get your questions answered.
cool.
that article in no way answers my question, its just fluff,poltical jargon and means nothing to normal people. A speech compiled by some overpaid politician somewhere. Not convincing at all. as for vocational training courses......................I dont need a course I need a job. I just think its bull, the country is at an all time high in regard to unemployment, are we meant to believe they have a shedload of jobs hidden til we comply and vote yes.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 21860
Johnnnybravo wrote: »cool.
that article in no way answers my question, its just fluff,poltical jargon and means nothing to normal people. A speech compiled by some overpaid politician somewhere. Not convincing at all. as for vocational training courses......................I dont need a course I need a job. I just think its bull, the country is at an all time high in regard to unemployment, are we meant to believe they have a shedload of jobs hidden til we comply and vote yes.
I guess the whole EU and how it works helps us get jobs more easily, but the Yes side are correct in their statement. It might be "fluff", but its still true.
The Yes side has never been a great campaign though. Online and some canvassers or public debates are the best way of learning imo.
As for high unemployment - ya, thats why we have a general election. Blame FF, not the EU.0 -
-
I guess the whole EU and how it works helps us get jobs more easily, but the Yes side are correct in their statement. It might be "fluff", but its still true.
The Yes side has never been a great campaign though. Online and some canvassers or public debates are the best way of learning imo.
As for high unemployment - ya, thats why we have a general election. Blame FF, not the EU.
Ah I honestly just think its rubbish ya know. Still a big No for me anyway. Not blaming the EU never said I was did I?? Quote me if I did. I just believe the yes to jobs is complete rubbish. I`ll believe its true when 1 person I know gets a job as a result of it if yes gets the vote.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement