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
The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon
Options
-
07-09-2009 11:15pm#1Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced
Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.0
Comments
-
Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
No, it's an outright lie. The EU has no competence on minimum wage, and the Irish minimum wage is legally binding on all companies in Ireland.the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced
The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.
Well, ask away, most of the issues have been discussed here, and hopefully you can get an answer without being lied to.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Just to get some stuff out of the way
Nolowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
Not true either. All those guarantees do is spell out in very clear language what was, and more importantly what wasn't in the treaty. The treaty was never going to have any effect on taxation and conscription etc, they were simply lies told by anti-EU groups to scare people into rejecting the treaty and unfortunately it worked.the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced
The guarantees are legally binding but they don't even have to be because their sole purpose is to stop people telling lies about those issues. Unfortunately they've just made up a whole bunch of new lies, such as the €1.84 minimum wage0 -
Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced
Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.
And ask yourself when have the EU ever lied to us or tried to make us do anything? I've been asking that question for a week or two and not one person has come up with anything.0 -
No, it's an outright lie. The EU has no competence on minimum wage, and the Irish minimum wage is legally binding on all companies in Ireland.
The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.
Well, ask away, most of the issues have been discussed here, and hopefully you can get an answer without being lied to.
cordially,
ScofflawJust to get some stuff out of the way
No
Not true either. All those guarantees do is spell out in very clear language what was, and more importantly what wasn't in the treaty. The treaty was never going to have any effect on taxation and conscription etc, they were simply lies told by anti-EU groups to scare people into rejecting the treaty and unfortunately it worked.
The guarantees are legally binding but they don't even have to be because their sole purpose is to stop people telling lies about those issues. Unfortunately they've just made up a whole bunch of new lies, such as the €1.84 minimum wageAnd ask yourself when have the EU ever lied to us or tried to make us do anything? I've been asking that question for a week or two and not one person has come up with anything.
Ok I see now thanks people for clearing that up, its so hard to find the truth these days:rolleyes:0 -
The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.
They are a political declaration at the moment without being a treaty document with its own legal status. The intention is that they be attached as a protocol to a future treaty but they are not a treaty today.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
They are a political declaration at the moment without being a treaty document with its own legal status. The intention is that they be attached as a protocol to a future treaty but they are not a treaty today.
Wrong. They are EU Council decision. And will be registered as as an international agreement should Lisbon be passed, thus having full legal status in international law.
But presumeably you know more than all the Lawyers who agree?0 -
marco_polo wrote: »Wrong. They are EU Council decision. And will be registered as as an international agreement should Lisbon be passed, thus having full legal status in international law.
The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.
Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.
Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Do you know that you are spreading a mistruth or is it unintentional?
Read and watch this:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html
Or read this
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf
or this
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking40.htm
And come back to me with a convincing argument as to why you are right and they are all wrong.0 -
The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.
Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Yes, that's true, as is what marco_polo says. They're currently international agreements, but not part of the EU treaties. Attaching them as Protocols to the EU treaties will give them exactly the same standing in EU law as the EU treaties, but that they're not currently attached to the EU treaties doesn't mean they're not international agreements with full legal standing.
They are not a "political declaration". That is false.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.
Presidency Conclusions – Brussels, 18/19 June 2009
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
They are doing both.
The guarantees have exact the same legal status (or will if we vote yes) as the Belfast Agreement.
Or is that just a 'political declaration'?0 -
Advertisement
-
Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.
There are a lot of lies being told on both sides. There are many genuine reasons for voting NO to Lisbon without falling for stunts (which is what the Guarantees are) and scare stories. Above all remember that if Ireland could not say NO in 2008, and is required to keep voting until saying Yes, then democracy has been reduced to questions where you are only allowed to agree with the politicians.
You will be voting for a long time to come, maybe 60 years or more, so ask yourself if you would like all the votes you make in that time to be genuine choices or the charade of a ballot paper with effectively only one box on it where you can say tick to indicate you agree with whatever the politicians think is best (for them).0 -
The EU Council presidency conclusions clearly sets out the intent... which is to attach them as a protocol to a future treaty.
Yes, but because the Irish were so paranoid we insisted that all the states agree to lodge the declaration as an international treaty with the UN (assuming approval of Lisbon).
So before the accession treaty is signed with the guarantees included, as soon as Lisbon is passed, a separate treaty between all the states will legally agree that the guarantees will go into that next treaty.
For those who argue that this treaty is worth less than an EU treaty... well if you feel that states will breach this treaty then there's no reason to believe they would honour an EU treaty anyhow.
I'm sure some diplomats spent a lot of time coming up with this airtight scenario. Then I saw Cowen on TV talking about the guarantees and he didn't even mention it...
Ix.0 -
There are a lot of lies being told on both sides. There are many genuine reasons for voting NO to Lisbon without falling for stunts (which is what the Guarantees are) and scare stories. Above all remember that if Ireland could not say NO in 2008, and is required to keep voting until saying Yes, then democracy has been reduced to questions where you are only allowed to agree with the politicians.
You will be voting for a long time to come, maybe 60 years or more, so ask yourself if you would like all the votes you make in that time to be genuine choices or the charade of a ballot paper with effectively only one box on it where you can say tick to indicate you agree with whatever the politicians think is best (for them).
The OP asked for facts. What you've posted there is a piece of political soapboxing instead. Not only that, but you're making factually incorrect statements about the guarantees.
This is a warning to (a) stay on topic, and (b) stick to facts.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Now that the date of the vote is getting closer can someone please xlear up some things on lisbon please? Coming back home from Dublin I saw alot of posters on why we should vote no such as:
lowering the minimum wage to €1 sumthing??:eek: is this true????
the actual "promises" on taxation,conscription and the like are not actually legally binding and in fact cant be inforced
Now these are things I have only seen not my actual opinion on Lisbon, I only turned 18 in november so missed this first vote Im now trying to have an informed decision for the second. The two sides are throwing out so many reasons to vote yes/no its hard to decide what is true and what is bull so can someone please enlighten me??:o
Thanks.
The general rule is to inform yourself. Each side of the campaign will be naturally biased so it's best to avoid the blurb from either side initially.
Reading a board is one way but depending on who is on or who is reading and posting back you might not get what you want. Some threads can get quite long and it can be difficult to pick out the nuggets. I thought I had the hang of the minimum wage thing but alas... back to the drawing board.
The complication with issues like the minimum wage is that it can be challenged in the courts and what you thought the treaty or constitution says becomes something different. The quick answer is that until it is challenged we really don't know. We can make educated guesses but once it gets to court it's all about interpretation.
Search engines are good. There are consolidated versions of the treaties that will be amended by the Lisbon Treaty and comparisons between the Treaties and the failed EU constitution. This can help get a better handle on what's involved.
After that you're into blogs, boards, editorials what the latest journalistic reports. Who knows, maybe a vested interest will say something interesting that might sway you one way or tother.
Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »The general rule is to inform yourself. Each side of the campaign will be naturally biased so it's best to avoid the blurb from either side initially.
Reading a board is one way but depending on who is on or who is reading and posting back you might not get what you want. Some threads can get quite long and it can be difficult to pick out the nuggets. I thought I had the hang of the minimum wage thing but alas... back to the drawing board.
The complication with issues like the minimum wage is that it can be challenged in the courts and what you thought the treaty or constitution says becomes something different. The quick answer is that until it is challenged we really don't know. We can make educated guesses but once it gets to court it's all about interpretation.
Search engines are good. There are consolidated versions of the treaties that will be amended by the Lisbon Treaty and comparisons between the Treaties and the failed EU constitution. This can help get a better handle on what's involved.
After that you're into blogs, boards, editorials what the latest journalistic reports. Who knows, maybe a vested interest will say something interesting that might sway you one way or tother.
Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.
There is no way of interpreting the Lisbon treaty as affecting the minimum wage in Ireland, it is a national competency.
If any articles could be interpreted that way, Coir should show us them, but they aren't there, so they can't.
What you're saying is akin to the 'teach the controversy' attitude to Evolutionary Biology in the US.
There is no 'controversy' here, there is a lie, and there is the truth.
With apologies to the OP for straying off-topic.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
StealthRolex wrote: »The general rule is to inform yourself. Each side of the campaign will be naturally biased so it's best to avoid the blurb from either side initially.
Reading a board is one way but depending on who is on or who is reading and posting back you might not get what you want. Some threads can get quite long and it can be difficult to pick out the nuggets. I thought I had the hang of the minimum wage thing but alas... back to the drawing board.
The complication with issues like the minimum wage is that it can be challenged in the courts and what you thought the treaty or constitution says becomes something different. The quick answer is that until it is challenged we really don't know. We can make educated guesses but once it gets to court it's all about interpretation.
Search engines are good. There are consolidated versions of the treaties that will be amended by the Lisbon Treaty and comparisons between the Treaties and the failed EU constitution. This can help get a better handle on what's involved.
After that you're into blogs, boards, editorials what the latest journalistic reports. Who knows, maybe a vested interest will say something interesting that might sway you one way or tother.
Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.
There is no issue with the minimum wage.
What has changed since yesterday?marco_polo wrote: »It appears you have fundamentally misunderstood the implications of the Laval and Rüffert rulings. There are no circumstances where anyone can be employed on less than the Irish minimum wage in this country . And in the cases of industries where a collective agreement has been registered with the Labour court the terms as set out in that agreement as the legal minimum standards in those industries.
The problem has only arisen thus far in countries where there is no statutory minimum wage and that countries collective bargaining structures which outline the minimum legal rates are not legally binding or contained legal loopholes that were exploited.StealthRolex wrote: »Thanks marco-polo, I stand corrected and will endeavor to complete the homework in future.
Still voting No though - for other reasons0 -
There's no way I could possibly disagree more strongly with this.StealthRolex wrote: »Lastly - voting is more important and more valuable than not voting. Even if you haven't made your mind up on the day cast your vote, but make it a Yes or a No. Bring a coin and toss it if you have to but do vote.
If your vote is reduced to a coin toss, do your country a service and don't vote.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »There is no issue with the minimum wage.
What has changed since yesterday?
I found it is more complicated than that.
I understand there are rules in this forum. Are there rules on cross-posting from other threads? It just complicates things.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
StealthRolex wrote: »I found it is more complicated than that.
I understand there are rules in this forum. Are there rules on cross-posting from other threads? It just complicates things.
Care to elabourate?
What could be less complicated than the value of the Irish minimum wage, which is over eight euros and the fact that nobody working in the state can be employed for less than that under any circumstances? And that nothing in the Lison treaty changes this fact.
Feel free to use the big report post button in the corner.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »There's no way I could possibly disagree more strongly with this.
If your vote is reduced to a coin toss, do your country a service and don't vote.
You are quite right and I will modify that statement. However I disagree with the sentiment that not voting is a viable option. Turnout is an important factor and not voting can be as damaging as voting the wrong way.
So what's the right way to vote?
if you agree with the treaty and want our Constitution amended accordingly vote Yes.
If you disagree with the treaty and want no change to our constitution vote No.
If you are undecided then you have a choice. Vote Yes on a blind bet or Vote No to keep the constitution unchanged.
Not voting one what or the other is a cop out. This is our constitution and either you want it changed or you don't.
Voting No because you don't understand what's being asked is equally valid to voting No because you don't like what's being ask and just as valid as voting Yes because you do.
Suggesting that someone does not vote is irresponsible. It's bad enough that those of us who have to live overseas or those of us who are out of the country on the day are disenfranchised without encouraging the doubtful to throw away votes.
A coin toss gives it a 50/50. The alternative is "if you don't know, vote no".0 -
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »You are quite right and I will modify that statement. However I disagree with the sentiment that not voting is a viable option. Turnout is an important factor and not voting can be as damaging as voting the wrong way.
So what's the right way to vote?
if you agree with the treaty and want our Constitution amended accordingly vote Yes.
If you disagree with the treaty and want no change to our constitution vote No.
If you are undecided then you have a choice. Vote Yes on a blind bet or Vote No to keep the constitution unchanged.
Not voting one what or the other is a cop out. This is our constitution and either you want it changed or you don't.
Voting No because you don't understand what's being asked is equally valid to voting No because you don't like what's being ask and just as valid as voting Yes because you do.
Suggesting that someone does not vote is irresponsible. It's bad enough that those of us who have to live overseas or those of us who are out of the country on the day are disenfranchised without encouraging the doubtful to throw away votes.
A coin toss gives it a 50/50. The alternative is "if you don't know, vote no".
I'd rather people who didn't know either find out, or didn't vote, either way.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »
And come back to me with a convincing argument as to why you are right and they are all wrong.
The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.The guarantees are legally binding - they're international treaties in their own right.
Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."
The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.0 -
The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.
Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."
The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.
Supposing that were true. Which of the guarantees worries you the most?0 -
The only "wrong way" to vote is to vote carelessly without understanding the issues.StealthRolex wrote: »You are quite right and I will modify that statement. However I disagree with the sentiment that not voting is a viable option. Turnout is an important factor and not voting can be as damaging as voting the wrong way.
No, it's not. A yes/no question has three possible answers: yes, no and I don't know. The only responsible mapping for the "I don't know" answer is not to vote.Voting No because you don't understand what's being asked is equally valid to voting No because you don't like what's being ask and just as valid as voting Yes because you do.
If an important issue like this can be decided on coin tosses, maybe we should have a bingo machine with a "yes" and a "no" ball in it instead of a referendum.Suggesting that someone does not vote is irresponsible. It's bad enough that those of us who have to live overseas or those of us who are out of the country on the day are disenfranchised without encouraging the doubtful to throw away votes.
Democracy isn't summed up simply by the act of showing up at a polling station and making a mark on a piece of paper. Democracy, if it's done right, involves making informed choices. The right to vote is balanced by the moral duty to vote intelligently.
"If you don't know, vote no" is as morally bankrupt a position as "if you don't know, vote yes" would be - and the suggestion to toss a coin is no better than either.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »I'd rather people who didn't know either find out, or didn't vote, either way.
Apathy is dangerous and does not help democracy. I agree that if you don't know you should inform yourself. However I cannot agree with not voting because you don't know.
We did fight a civil war for this constitution and it deserves to be treated with respect.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Apathy is dangerous and does not help democracy. I agree that if you don't know you should inform yourself. However I cannot agree with not voting because you don't know.
We did fight a civil war for this constitution and it deserves to be treated with respect.
Purposeful abstention is not apathy, voting without finding out what the consequences of that vote may or may not be very much is, and I consider it far more disrespectful to the constitution, and the very notion of democracy.
Also, there was no civil war for this constitution.0 -
The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.
Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."
The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.
This is not a straightforward question.
One could ask whether the guarantees and the EU treaties could actually conflict. The guarantees themselves state that they only state what's in the treaties. Ignoring this question, let's suppose there was a conflict between the guarantees and the EU treaties.
The guarantees are international agreements. As the referendum commission has pointed out though they don't have an enforcement mechanism. The EU treaties have been ratified at constitutional level in Ireland (they are indeed effectively superior to our constitution for practical purposes). If there was a conflict between an international agreement made by our executive and the EU treaties, the ECJ's opinion on this would be what matters.
The ECJ would likely take the agreement made by the EU members into account. But it wouldn't have to. The guarantees have been signed up to by the member countries of the EU but not the EU itself. The ECJ wouldn't necessarily be bound by the guarantees. All EU countries are signatories to the European convention on human rights. But the ECJ nevertheless felt it didn't have the power to allow the EU therefore to sign up to it (something Lisbon addresses).
The governments have agreed to incorporate the guarantees into a future protocol. They would then have the full force of European law. That's likely to happen sometime in the future. But nothing is ever certain. For example what if the Tories come to power next year and put the issue of our guarantees to a referendum and it lost?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »A yes/no question has three possible answers: yes, no and I don't know. The only responsible mapping for the "I don't know" answer is not to vote.
A yes \no question only has two possible answers. Yes or No.
I hate teaching anyone to suck eggs but this is our Constitution. If you do not understand the changes a Yes vote will bring you are morally obliged to force the hand of those asking the question.
There is no "I don't know" option on the ballot.
The responsible mapping for "I don't know" is to reject the question.
Not voting is an option in this country as we do not have compulsory voting but it is not a morally valid option.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
Also, there was no civil war for this constitution.
Fair point. I was getting confused with a different Treaty. We did however fight a war to get the right to have a constitution. And then fought a civil war because some of us didn't like the treaty.
We have a vote. It can be used or thrown away.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
The link you provide confirms my point, which is that scofflaw was incorrect to say the 'guarantees' are international treaties in their own right.
Steve Peers says, in the link you provided, that "in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence."
The Guarantees therefore are only assurances about the existing Lisbon Treaty. They are not treaties in their own right and would be discounted in international law should there be a discrepancy between them and the Lisbon treaty which is unaltered from that voted on in Ireland in 2008.What is the legal status of the Decision? Legal authors agreed at the time that the 1992 agreement was legally binding; that it formed a type of simplified international treaty; that it did not amend the main Treaties (since it was not adopted in the form of a Treaty amendment); and that therefore in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main Treaties would take precedence
As there can be no conflict between the guarantees and the treaties your second point is mute.0
Advertisement