The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes as an Irish citizen over the age of 18 you are entitled to express your opinion on the treaty. However that does not mean that your reasoning is sound or that you are behaving wisely. You gave an argument for "if you don't know vote no" to suggest that that was a wise course of action and I responded with an equivalent argument for "if you don't know vote yes" and you pointed out that assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups. That's true whether you're assuming the treaty is positive or negative so to avoid f*ck ups the best course of action is not to assume either way and either inform yourself or not give your opinion. An uninformed opinion can be far more damaging than none.

That is not correct. You assumed that because it took a long time and many people it must be safe and beneficial. I disagreed with your assumption.

I agree that an uninformed opinion can be damaging but I am also of the opinion that not exercising your right to protect the constitution is dangerous.

Macha

StealthRolex wrote: »

You seem to think that educating myself on this treaty over 30 minutes from a biased source will automatically lead me to vote yes.

Sorry, where did I say that?

StealthRolex wrote: »

could you point me to an unbiased point of view for the No camp?

None that I'm aware of. So go to the Referendum Commission site.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I do not want this treaty and 30 mins of "explanation" from the dept of foreign affairs will not sway me.

I will vote no.

Looks like you don't want anything to sway you.

StealthRolex wrote: »

and anyone telling me not to vote for any reason will only encourage me to encourage as many "don't knows" as possible to vote no.

How childish and threatening.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I have a vote and am entitled to use it as I see fit.

Sure but don't expect any respect if you can't muster the most basic respect for the democratic mechanism that is the referendum.

Jesus, there's a reason we restrict certain sections of society from voting. But those who have the vote? Well, there is the inherent assumption that they will have sufficient integrity and sense of civic duty to respect the vote. You're actually arguing against that - that is a very undemocractic stance.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you know, Vote
if you don't know, vote No

If you can't/won't educate yourself on the Treaty, don't vote. It's very, very simple.

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you know, Vote
if you don't know, vote No

Its that kind of bull**** nonsense that gives NO campaign such a bad name


keeping people dumb, in the dark and uninformed and then telling them how to vote, how Republican of you, GW Bush be proud of low tactics like that


the referendum commission have provided plenty of information on the treaty

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/

claiming retardation and ignorance is not an excuse to vote any way in anything

democracy depends on people making informed decisions, the alternative is tyranny

HIB

There is one main reason why I am considering voting no. I would be happy for anyone to point out any flaws with what I say here ... my understanding of how the EU works is based solely on a few hours googling, but this is what I have learned.

The Lisbon treaty is essentially an effort to reorganise/update the structures of the EU.

Currently, the only body with the power to propose new legislation within the EU is the commission. This is an unelected body consisting of 27 members. Once a law is proposed it can, in some cases, be passed solely on the votes of the council of ministers, which is made up of ministers which have been elected to serve in their respective country's parliament (but not elected to serve in Europe). In many cases the European parliaments can veto proposed legislation but in some cases it cannot. The Lisbon treaty plans to extend the powers of the parliament but does not propose that their veto be extended to ALL legislation.

If the above is essentially true and the idea of the Lisbon treaty is a reorganisation, then they need to tear it up and start again. The people of Europe surely deserve a democratic EU. This current structure hands far too much power to a small group of unelected men/women (crucially the commission). If this is our chance to get it right, then we need to tear it up, get back to work and reorganise the EU properly.

Feel free to correct me on the above, if I have made any errors, ... or more crucially on my conclusions below... I would like to learn, so I can make an informed choice.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ei.sdraob wrote: »

keeping people dumb, in the dark and uninformed and then telling them how to vote

I believe the no campaign benefits from a lack of information, which is why they have such silly slogans like 'if you don't know, vote no', and why they keep saying the treaty is too hard to understand.

They don't want people to be informed on the treaty, because their lies can only live in the shadows of uncertainty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

HIB wrote: »

There is one main reason why I am considering voting no. I would be happy for anyone to point out any flaws with what I say here ... my understanding of how the EU works is based solely on a few hours googling, but this is what I have learned.

The Lisbon treaty is essentially an effort to reorganise/update the structures of the EU.

Currently, the only body with the power to propose new legislation within the EU is the commission. This is an unelected body consisting of 27 members. Once a law is proposed it can, in some cases, be passed solely on the votes of the council of ministers, which is made up of ministers which have been elected to serve in their respective country's parliament (but not elected to serve in Europe). In many cases the European parliaments can veto proposed legislation but in some cases it cannot. The Lisbon treaty plans to extend the powers of the parliament but does not propose that their veto be extended to ALL legislation.

If the above is essentially true and the idea of the Lisbon treaty is a reorganisation, then they need to tear it up and start again. The people of Europe surely deserve a democratic EU. This current structure hands far too much power to a small group of unelected men/women (crucially the commission). If this is our chance to get it right, then we need to tear it up, get back to work and reorganise the EU properly.

Feel free to correct me on the above, if I have made any errors, ... or more crucially on my conclusions below... I would like to learn, so I can make an informed choice.

I would look at it this way: the above as you describe is fairly accurate, but it seems your problem with Lisbon is that it doesn't go far enough, but it still is a step in the right direction.

If I were you I would vote 'yes' and then seek to use the simplified revision procedure contained in Lisbon to make the EU even more democratic than Lisbon makes it.

If you vote 'No' how do you know that the powers that be won't see your vote as saying 'No' to that step in the right direction, and say 'well it seems the Irish people don't want any more powers given to the parliament'?

I will always welcome a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't go as far as I'd like, because the alternative is telling people you prefer how things are right now.

HIB

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I would look at it this way: the above as you describe is fairly accurate, but it seems your problem with Lisbon is that it doesn't go far enough, but it still is a step in the right direction.

If I were you I would vote 'yes' and then seek to use the simplified revision procedure contained in Lisbon to make the EU even more democratic than Lisbon makes it.

If you vote 'No' how do you know that the powers that be won't see your vote as saying 'No' to that step in the right direction, and say 'well it seems the Irish people don't want any more powers given to the parliament'?

I will always welcome a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't go as far as I'd like, because the alternative is telling people you prefer how things are right now.

That's true but the problem is that our politicians and all European politicians in general seem to be perfectly happy with Lisbon. They have given no indication (to my knowledge) that they think it is an essentially undemocratic institution. What if they get Lisbon through and they think great ... everything's hunky dory now. Then we carry on with this undemocratic institution growing ever larger and more powerful .... a recipe for disaster I'd say.

StealthRolex

ei.sdraob wrote: »

keeping people dumb, in the dark and uninformed and then telling them how to vote, how Republican of you, GW Bush be proud of low tactics like that

Actually I learned it from Fianna Fail during the previous Lisbon campaign

HIB

In fact, two EU governments have now demonstrated their disregard for democracy by ignoring the votes of their own electorate, namely the French and Dutch governments and the EU constitution vote.

It's a dangerous step and maybe we need to put our foot down and call a halt now. Tear up the treaty, start again, and let's not stop until we have a democratic institution, that people feel comfortable voting for.

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

Actually I learned it from Fianna Fail during the previous Lisbon campaign

I dont give a **** about FF

and be happy to see them gone

i never voted for them and they have nothing to do with Treaty

its a EU treaty ffs


and well done admitting to a deliberate disinformation campaign

PopeBuckfastXVI

HIB wrote: »

That's true but the problem is that our politicians and all European politicians in general seem to be perfectly happy with Lisbon. They have given no indication (to my knowledge) that they think it is an essentially undemocratic institution. What if they get Lisbon through and they think great ... everything's hunky dory now. Then we carry on with this undemocratic institution growing ever larger and more powerful .... a recipe for disaster I'd say.

Well in my opinion, two facts contradict this:

1. That they increased the power of the parliament vis a vis the council in Lisbon at all means that they recognised and imbalance to begin with.
2. That they included the simplified revision procedure to make it easier to confer more power to the parliament, or change the voting structure within the council, means that they don't see the work as having been 'done'.

It's quite simple to me, Lisbon makes the EU more democratic (if not enough), voting 'No' gives the impression you don't want a more democratic EU.

Again, as step in the right direction is better than no step, or indeed a step in the wrong direction.

Remember there are people in Europe who don't want the parliament to exist at all, because they are nationalists and the parliament represents a combined European democracy to them. We are all trying to move at a pace that will accommodate the most people.

Let me ask you this:

Imagine if there was no vote for women, and men had a vote at 18 and above.
Someone proposes a law, and there is a referendum to allow women over 30 to vote.

Who would vote 'No' to such a law? You might, by your own logic of it not going far enough, certainly anyone who didn't want women to have any vote at all would.

How could we tell who wanted what?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Star Chamber wrote: »

This is true. Lisbon makes this so in almost all cases where the EU would have the authority to make the law.

Actually Lisbon doesn't change it at all.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is not correct. You assumed that because it took a long time and many people it must be safe and beneficial. I disagreed with your assumption.

And I disagree with your assumption that the only consequences of a no vote will be "some people will get upset"

StealthRolex wrote: »

I agree that an uninformed opinion can be damaging but I am also of the opinion that not exercising your right to protect the constitution is dangerous.

But how do you know that you're protecting the constitution if you don't understand the treaty? The word protecting assumes that any change made to it is inherently bad and, as you say, assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups.

There is no way you can logically argue that voting out of ignorance and fear is fine if you're voting one way but not the other. Neither is acceptable

HIB

I think it is still very important to note that the French and Dutch governments have ignored the votes of their own electorates and essentially found a way to 'palm off' the treaty on them.

It is true that they have granted more power to the parliament in Lisbon, as far as I understand it. However, the introduction of the "simplified revision procedure" is being seen by many of the No campaigners as a vehicle which the EU can use to bypass referenda (and essentially democracy) in the future. Please take a look at the quote from a 'No' campaign website below. Is this essentially true?

"Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty in that it contains a "simplified revision procedure” allowing the Prime Ministers and Presidents to change from unanimity to majority voting over large areas of the Treaty without the need for new treaties or referendums."

If this is true, it is again diluting the power of the electorate and must be seen as a backward step. It does not go very far to reassuring me of the EU's belief in democracy.

Dinner

HIB wrote: »

I think it is still very important to note that the French and Dutch governments have ignored the votes of their own electorates and essentially found a way to 'palm off' the treaty on them.

It's even more important to note that the French and Dutch governments have not ignored the votes of their own people.

As a direct result of their no votes parts that the public objected to were removed from the EU constitution, the rest was put into the Lisbon Treaty where some additional text was added by their governments.

The French and the Dutch addressed the concerns of their people. That is not ignoring them.

HIB

Dinner wrote: »

It's even more important to not that the French and Dutch governments have not ignored the votes of their own people.

As a direct result of their no votes parts that the public objected to were removed from the EU constitution, the rest was put into the Lisbon Treaty where some additional text was added by their governments.

The French and the Dutch addressed the concerns of their people. That is not ignoring them.

One of the accusations levelled by No campaigners is that the treaty was a way to bypass the need for another referendum in France and Holland. Is this not true? If it is not true, why did they not hold another referendum, once the changes had been made?

Dinner

HIB wrote: »

One of the accusations levelled by No campaigners is that the treaty was a way to bypass the need for another referendum in France and Holland. Is this not true? If it is not true, why did they not hold another referendum, once the changes had been made?

Well Holland couldn't hold another referendum because in Holland, binding referenda are illegal. But the referendum on the Constitution was like a giant opinion poll to guage opinion. But Dutch courts ruled that it as in fact binding. Because of this, another one cannot be held.


In the case of France, thats an issue you will have to take up with Mr. Sarkozy. In the run up to the 2007 election he openly stated he would ratify the next treaty without a referendum. I believe his opponent said she would hold a referendum, but I'm not sure.

Sarkozy was then elected. Now I know that people don't vote based solely on 1 issue, but the French people weren't sufficiently bothered by it to not vote for him. And since his election there have been no large demonstrations to have a referendum run. Something the French have become famous for.

PopeBuckfastXVI

HIB wrote: »

I think it is still very important to note that the French and Dutch governments have ignored the votes of their own electorates and essentially found a way to 'palm off' the treaty on them.

It is true that they have granted more power to the parliament in Lisbon, as far as I understand it. However, the introduction of the "simplified revision procedure" is being seen by many of the No campaigners as a vehicle which the EU can use to bypass referenda (and essentially democracy) in the future. Please take a look at the quote from a 'No' campaign website below. Is this essentially true?

"Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty in that it contains a "simplified revision procedure” allowing the Prime Ministers and Presidents to change from unanimity to majority voting over large areas of the Treaty without the need for new treaties or referendums."

If this is true, it is again diluting the power of the electorate and must be seen as a backward step. It does not go very far to reassuring me of the EU's belief in democracy.

It is essentially untrue.

Article 48 (the 'self-amending' one) contains the following in paragraph 4:

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

I've bolded the important bit, the bit that means we have to have a referendum where our constitution requires it (Crotty v An Taoiseach).

You can read it yourself here:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf



Edit:

Woops, I've gone back and reread! Yes they can change the voting mechanisms, but if that change resulted in increased power in the EU and reduced power in Ireland, I believe the Crotty judgement would still apply, requiring a referendum.

This is in areas where we already have given or shared the power to the EU, not in any new areas, and it only allows changes in the voting mechanism from unanimity to the more democratic qmv, by unanimous consent, and any national parliament (not just the government!) can lodge an objection within 6 months and block it completely.

Again, if this was done in a treaty, and it made that treaty require a referendum, then the amendment would also require a referendum.

StealthRolex

taconnol wrote: »

Jesus, there's a reason we restrict certain sections of society from voting. But those who have the vote? Well, there is the inherent assumption that they will have sufficient integrity and sense of civic duty to respect the vote. You're actually arguing against that - that is a very undemocractic stance.

I have read the treaty. I have ready the consolidated treaties.

I do not like what it contains. I have made my decision. I do not want the Irish Constitution changed in this manner.

To ratify this treaty puts it's contents in a position superior to our constitution and modifies the related treaties.

As I reject the treaty as it stands my vote is no. How is that undemocratic?

How is encouraging those with a vote who don't know to inform themselves and vote undemocratic?

How is encouraging those who don't know to protect the constitution from change undemocratic? I am not about to go chasing after the apathetic on this only those who want to vote but have yet to decide.
Nor am I prepared, as the yes campaign appears to be, to encourage people to sit on the fence.

There are other countries out there where voting is compulsory? How democratic is that?

Lets say you live in such a country and the choice is put before you. There is no penalty for voting yes or no, only for _not_ voting. That penalty may be a fine, a prohibitive fine, a loss of voting rights or death.
You are given a choice you do not understand. Do you vote Yes or No?
Put it another way - what is the safest vote?

The only undemocratic suggestion here is to encourage members of a democratic society with an entitlement to vote, not to vote.

As for respecting the vote. How was our last vote on Lisbon respected?

This is how it was respected:
"We respect your No decision but would you mind voting again and saying Yes this time? We accept that it is a little difficult to understand, I'm sorry but this is the only way we can get the constitution to work. It was the French you know.Oh, and the Dutch but we think they're addled from spending too long in coffee shops. We're not going to change it so we have some guarantees to put your little minds at rest. You know a lot of people spent a lot of time and money putting to this thing together and they are a little unhappy that you didn't like it. It's for your own good really and you are holding up things for everyone else. So pretty please, with sugar on top, vote yes"

Scofflaw

Dinner wrote: »

Well Holland couldn't hold another referendum because in Holland, binding referenda are illegal. But the referendum on the Constitution was like a giant opinion poll to guage opinion. But Dutch courts ruled that it as in fact binding. Because of this, another one cannot be held.


In the case of France, thats an issue you will have to take up with Mr. Sarkozy. In the run up to the 2007 election he openly stated he would ratify the next treaty without a referendum. I believe his opponent said she would hold a referendum, but I'm not sure.

Sarkozy was then elected. Now I know that people don't vote based solely on 1 issue, but the French people weren't sufficiently bothered by it to not vote for him. And since his election there have been no large demonstrations to have a referendum run. Something the French have become famous for.

Segolene Royale did in fact state that she would hold a referendum. As you say, it's hardly definitive, but in France the lack of protests is very strongly indicative, given their propensity for protest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Dinner wrote: »

It's even more important to note that the French and Dutch governments have not ignored the votes of their own people.

As a direct result of their no votes parts that the public objected to were removed from the EU constitution, the rest was put into the Lisbon Treaty where some additional text was added by their governments.

The French and the Dutch addressed the concerns of their people. That is not ignoring them.

But the Dutch and the French did not get to have a public vote on Lisbon.

I might be wrong but my understanding was that the EU Constitution was scrapped in favour of making the required amendments via Lisbon, therefore whatever was objected to was not removed from the EU constitution but rather not incorporated into Lisbon. As it became a treaty and not a Constitution there was no longer a legal requirement in France or Holland to hold a referendum.

The situation in France and Holland is now similar to the situation in England\UK and the rest of Europe. If their governments wanted to they could present them with a referendum. They have chosen not to preferring instead to ratify Lisbon by legislative means in accordance with their local laws and constitutions.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

But the Dutch and the French did not get to have a public vote on Lisbon.

They didn't have a public vote on Nice, are the Nice rules legitimate, the ones you are encouraging those who 'don't know' to approve, the ones you are approving yourself, in fact?

StealthRolex

HIB wrote: »

One of the accusations levelled by No campaigners is that the treaty was a way to bypass the need for another referendum in France and Holland. Is this not true? If it is not true, why did they not hold another referendum, once the changes had been made?

If you search for quotes by V.Giscard D’Estaing you will find the answer to that question. I won't risk another rap on the knuckles for posting a quote here, but essentially he said that it was a bypass.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

They didn't have a public vote on Nice, are the Nice rules legitimate, the ones you are encouraging those who 'don't know' to approve, the ones you are approving yourself, in fact?

They didn't get a vote on Nice because it was a treaty and their laws do not require a public vote to pass a treaty.

Do you not understand the laws in those countries?

wayne0308

A little bit off topic but it does regard the pro's and con's of the Lisbon treaty. I didn't vote last time because I just didn't know exactly what I was voting on. I've been doing some reading and it seems that an awful lot of mis-information is floating around (even more than last time round).

Has anyone got links to unbiased information that I can use to educate myself in time for the actual election? (That is besides the referendum commissions website if indeed it is reliable)

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It is essentially untrue.

Article 48 (the 'self-amending' one) contains the following in paragraph 4:



I've bolded the important bit, the bit that means we have to have a referendum where our constitution requires it (Crotty v An Taoiseach).

You can read it yourself here:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655-re01.en08.pdf



Edit:

Woops, I've gone back and reread! Yes they can change the voting mechanisms, but if that change resulted in increased power in the EU and reduced power in Ireland, I believe the Crotty judgement would still apply, requiring a referendum.

This is in areas where we already have given or shared the power to the EU, not in any new areas, and it only allows changes in the voting mechanism from unanimity to the more democratic qmv, by unanimous consent, and any national parliament (not just the government!) can lodge an objection within 6 months and block it completely.

Again, if this was done in a treaty, and it made that treaty require a referendum, then the amendment would also require a referendum.

The simplified revision procedure applies only to Part 3 of the TFEU, and only to certain changes within that. As usual, there's a good Grahnlaw article on the subject:

The Reform Treaty introduces some elements of flexibility into less sensitive areas of the Treaties. Two simplified revision procedures are introduced:

1) Provisions of Part 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Union policies and internal actions, can be revised without increasing the competences conferred on the EU in the Treaties. Unanimous decision by the European Council and approval by the member states is required. The European Parliament, the Commission (and the European Central Bank) are consulted.

2) ‘Passerelle’ or enabling clauses opening up for more effective or democratic and transparent decision making:

2a) A move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council within the TFEU (except in questions excluded by Article 308a TFEU) or the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), except in decisions with military implications or in the area of defence. Absence of opposition from member state parliaments is required for the final unanimous decision by the European Council. The European Parliament needs to give its consent.

2b) A move from special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure within the TFEU (except in questions excluded by Article 308a TFEU), thereby widening the scope for co-legislation and democratic accountability through the European Parliament. Absence of opposition from member state parliaments is required for the final unanimous decision by the European Council. The European Parliament needs to give its consent.

That's a very limited revision method - essentially, the aims and objectives within Part 3 can be modified by unanimity, and moves can be made from unanimity to QMV in some of the remaining areas (nothing with military/defence implications), or from non-codecision to codecision. IN the latter two cases there needs to be no opposition from any national parliament, while the former case requires national ratification.

None of the possible revisions are allowed to increase the competences of the EU, so the only real objections will have to be to QMV voting in principle - the standard sovereigntist objection.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

They didn't get a vote on Nice because it was a treaty and their laws do not require a public vote to pass a treaty.

Do you not understand the laws in those countries?

Lisbon is also a Treaty. Are you claiming it's something else?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wayne0308 wrote: »

A little bit off topic but it does regard the pro's and con's of the Lisbon treaty. I didn't vote last time because I just didn't know exactly what I was voting on. I've been doing some reading and it seems that an awful lot of mis-information is floating around (even more than last time round).

Has anyone got links to unbiased information that I can use to educate myself in time for the actual election? (That is besides the referendum commissions website)

You could use this one (PDF summary of the articles) - ignore the "benefits" column if you prefer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

wayne0308 wrote: »

A little bit off topic but it does regard the pro's and con's of the Lisbon treaty. I didn't vote last time because I just didn't know exactly what I was voting on. I've been doing some reading and it seems that an awful lot of mis-information is floating around (even more than last time round).

Has anyone got links to unbiased information that I can use to educate myself in time for the actual election? (That is besides the referendum commissions website if indeed it is reliable)

The referendum commisions website is a completely unbiased view of what the treaty contains, the reason why people may be surprised that many of the issues raised by the No campaign do not appear on the website, is because they have nothing to do with the treaty whatsoever.

ixtlan

StealthRolex wrote: »

The situation in France and Holland is now similar to the situation in England\UK and the rest of Europe. If their governments wanted to they could present them with a referendum. They have chosen not to preferring instead to ratify Lisbon by legislative means in accordance with their local laws and constitutions.

Actually in Holland it's more complicated since they cannot have another referendum, However putting that aside I would respond...

If the people in the other states wanted to they could demand referenda on EU treaties, either immediately with street protests, or if they were more patient via making it a general election issue at the next opportunity.

This has not happened in any state, despite as people have pointed out, the fact some of the states are prone to public protests on various issues.

Also, remember that the EU is not preventing them from having referenda, and is not forcing us to have another one. Those are both national decisions.

ix