The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

PopeBuckfastXVI

The EU Lisbon Treaty website is pretty good.

It just explains what Lisbon does, it's up to you to figure out if you like that or not.

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm

Remember, that's not there just for the Irish referendum, it's there for all the citizens of Europe to find out about Lisbon, so don't expect any pro/con 'arguments', it's just a source of information about the treaty.

marco_polo

Also rte have a good section.

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/index.html

wayne0308

Thanks for the links and info guys. From hoping from site to site it seemed people were pulling "facts" from thin air. This gives me enough to read to make a decision. Thanks again.

StealthRolex

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 only unbiased information is the Consolidate Treaties and it's on the Eu Commission website. 397 pages so somewhat manageable.

After that it's a case of reading the blurb from both sides, doing the literature searches and verifying the information.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

The only unbiased information is the Consolidate Treaties and it's on the Eu Commission website. 397 pages so somewhat manageable.

After that it's a case of reading the blurb from both sides, doing the literature searches and verifying the information.

I don't believe that's true. You can do a factual summary of what the treaty does, while leaving it up to the reader to determine if they approve or disapprove of any changes.

I can imagine how either side might call it 'biased' if it didn't contain their lies though...

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not but there are those who would claim it is the EU Constitution in disguise. That includes the authors and stakeholders.

Putting my comment back in context the other countries do not have to have a referendum on it because their laws allow legislative ratification.
In Ireland the law is different and a referendum is required. For this treaty anyway.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm not but there are those who would claim it is the EU Constitution in disguise. That includes the authors and stakeholders.

Minus the 'constitutional' elements that the French and Dutch objected to.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Putting my comment back in context the other countries do not have to have a referendum on it because their laws allow legislative ratification.

Or, indeed, require it.

StealthRolex wrote: »

In Ireland the law is different and a referendum is required. For this treaty anyway.

And any future treaty that would be similarly open to the Crotty challenge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm not but there are those who would claim it is the EU Constitution in disguise. That includes the authors and stakeholders...

Every ECSC/EEC/EC/EU treaty is a constitutional document. As are the rule-books of golf clubs or the Articles of Association of limited companies or many other documents. What they all have in common is that they set out the purpose of the organisation (including setting out the limitations on that purpose) and the rules and procedures for achieving that purpose. We are very much in "So what? It's no big deal." territory here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

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?

:rolleyes:

StealthRolex wrote: »

Putting my comment back in context the other countries do not have to have a referendum on it because their laws allow legislative ratification.
In Ireland the law is different and a referendum is required. For this treaty anyway.

If by putting your comment back in context, you mean you are retracting it, then fair enough...

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't believe that's true. You can do a factual summary of what the treaty does, while leaving it up to the reader to determine if they approve or disapprove of any changes.

I can imagine how either side might call it 'biased' if it didn't contain their lies though...

To do a factual summary you need to start with the original documents as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Take the academic approach - read the source not the abstract.
Even so a summary might miss small but relevant details. Tends to happen a lot in abstracts, especially the ones on fish oils and omega3s

As for the "biased" bits. I thought of that and read what the authors, PMs and various commissioners had to say before reading the Yes and No camps.

Enlightening

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Every ECSC/EEC/EC/EU treaty is a constitutional document. As are the rule-books of golf clubs or the Articles of Association of limited companies or many other documents. What they all have in common is that they set out the purpose of the organisation (including setting out the limitations on that purpose) and the rules and procedures for achieving that purpose. We are very much in "So what? It's no big deal." territory here.

Well, it's fair to say that the EU Constitution was a bit more than just that - it made an implicit claim to quasi-state status, by way of state-like language ('Minister for Foreign Affairs') and the adoption of the trappings of statehood such as a flag and an anthem. Lisbon has dispenses with all those elements, and contains only the institutional reforms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

HIB

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

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

Apologies first for omitting the edit on this post but I don't think it is relevant to this post.

Point 4 above is starting to worry me now. If I am reading this correctly ....

"A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States" can determine "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 assume Ireland's "constitutional requirements" will already be satisfied if we have ratified the Lisbon treaty i.e. if we pass the Lisbon treaty and agree to the above clause, then ammendments can be made to that treaty without a referendum???

Dinner

HIB wrote: »

Apologies first for omitting the edit on this post but I don't think it is relevant to this post.

Point 4 above is starting to worry me now. If I am reading this correctly ....

"A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States" can determine "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 assume Ireland's "constitutional requirements" will already be satisfied if we have ratified the Lisbon treaty i.e. if we pass the Lisbon treaty and agree to the above clause, then ammendments can be made to that treaty without a referendum???

Nope. Any changes made through that procedure must themselves be ratified in accordance with each countries constitutional requirements. Which in our case, can mean a referendum.

Scofflaw

HIB wrote: »

Apologies first for omitting the edit on this post but I don't think it is relevant to this post.

Point 4 above is starting to worry me now. If I am reading this correctly ....

"A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States" can determine "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 assume Ireland's "constitutional requirements" will already be satisfied if we have ratified the Lisbon treaty i.e. if we pass the Lisbon treaty and agree to the above clause, then ammendments can be made to that treaty without a referendum???

Er, no. The requirement for a referendum in Ireland stems from the sovereignty of the people as described in Bunreacht. Only the moves from unanimity to QMV or from non-codecision to codecision as per the simplified procedure in Article 48 can be ratified by the Oireachtas:

8° The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts—

i. under the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union authorising the Council of the European Union to act other than by unanimity,

ii under those treaties authorising the adoption of the ordinary legislative procedure, and

iii under subparagraph (d) of Article 82.2, the third subparagraph of Article 83.1 and paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, relating to the area of freedom, security 45
and justice,

but the agreement to any such decision, regulation or act shall be
subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Interestingly, the option of agreeing to changes under Part 3 TFEU, which is also allowed for under the simplified revision procedure, doesn't appear here, which means that changes under that option will presumably still require a referendum - I can't see any other reason why it's not in there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

And any future treaty that would be similarly open to the Crotty challenge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Does this treaty not overrule Crotty by amending the constitution with new council powers?

Triangle

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

SR,
You logic is flawed. Going under your thinking process above all the non voters should be automatically 'No'.
This would mean every change would have to have a majority to go ahead. talk about stacking the odds against change and welcoming in a stagnant nation!

Also, The war was about getting the FREEDOM TO VOTE. Not about making everyone vote. Your talking about reducing freedom to something less.
If people don't want to vote or to vote 'I'm not sure' then that is their right and people died to give them that right.
Regards,
Trig

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Does this treaty not overrule Crotty by amending the constitution with new council powers?

No, you can't overrule Crotty, because Crotty is based on the fact that the Constitution of Ireland devolves from the people of Ireland, and that the Dáil and other apparatus of government only exercises powers in trust for the people.

That's an element of the Constitution that can't be changed by any referendum, or by any amendment of the Constitution text.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, it's fair to say that the EU Constitution was a bit more than just that - it made an implicit claim to quasi-state status, by way of state-like language ('Minister for Foreign Affairs') and the adoption of the trappings of statehood such as a flag and an anthem. Lisbon has dispenses with all those elements, and contains only the institutional reforms.

Agreed. It was a really bad judgement to include those things: they got up the noses of many people, me included. They were not very important to the workings of the EU, but sent a message that people did not want. I suspect that the real mistake was to give Giscard d'Estaing a key role, because the grandiosity of the symbolic ideas seems consistent with his rather patrician style.

But my core point is that the EU already has a constitution, and Lisbon is no more than a revision of that constitution. That's no big deal.

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, it's fair to say that the EU Constitution was a bit more than just that - it made an implicit claim to quasi-state status, by way of state-like language ('Minister for Foreign Affairs') and the adoption of the trappings of statehood such as a flag and an anthem. Lisbon has dispenses with all those elements, and contains only the institutional reforms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The foreign affairs appointment is explicit in Lisbon. How is that "doing away with it". The language may have changed but the sentiment of being quasi state like remains.

D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution admitted it.

marco_polo

HIB wrote: »

Apologies first for omitting the edit on this post but I don't think it is relevant to this post.

Point 4 above is starting to worry me now. If I am reading this correctly ....

"A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States" can determine "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 assume Ireland's "constitutional requirements" will already be satisfied if we have ratified the Lisbon treaty i.e. if we pass the Lisbon treaty and agree to the above clause, then ammendments can be made to that treaty without a referendum???

If we ratify Lisbon, we will have satisfied our constitutional requirements only in regard to the current contents of the treaty. It does not apply to any future amendments which cannot be made without further ratifications and/or referenda.

P. Breathnach

StealthRolex wrote: »

Does this treaty not overrule Crotty by amending the constitution with new council powers?

No.

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Does this treaty not overrule Crotty by amending the constitution with new council powers?

An EU treaty cannot ever overule any supreme court judgement.

P. Breathnach

StealthRolex wrote: »

The foreign affairs appointment is explicit in Lisbon. How is that "doing away with it". The language may have changed but the sentiment of being quasi state like remains.

D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution admitted it.

Citation, please, in its proper context.

And then convince me that I should take Giscard d'Estaing seriously.

PopeBuckfastXVI

HIB wrote: »

Apologies first for omitting the edit on this post but I don't think it is relevant to this post.

Point 4 above is starting to worry me now. If I am reading this correctly ....

"A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States" can determine "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 assume Ireland's "constitutional requirements" will already be satisfied if we have ratified the Lisbon treaty i.e. if we pass the Lisbon treaty and agree to the above clause, then ammendments can be made to that treaty without a referendum???

No, Ireland's constitutional requirements are that we have a referendum for every amendment which increases the powers of the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Agreed. It was a really bad judgement to include those things: they got up the noses of many people, me included. They were not very important to the workings of the EU, but sent a message that people did not want.

That's not really fair, of all the people who voted on the constitution, a majority favoured it.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

The foreign affairs appointment is explicit in Lisbon. How is that "doing away with it". The language may have changed but the sentiment of being quasi state like remains.

The French and Dutch didn't object to the amalgamation of the two existing posts - they objected to the implied claim being made by calling someone "Union Minister for Foreign Affairs", and by the adoption of the flag/anthem etc.

StealthRolex wrote: »

D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution admitted it.

What d'Estaing said was that Lisbon contained all the same "tools" as the Constitution - which is true. All the reforms are there (plus a couple of others), but the implicit claim of statehood has been dropped, because it was something people objected strongly to.

You're operating under the presumption that the French and Dutch objected to the Constitution on the basis of the reforms in it (and which are preserved in Lisbon), which is incorrect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Citation, please, in its proper context.

And then convince me that I should take Giscard d'Estaing seriously.

Sorry I got that wrong -he's not a minster he's a High Representative

"ARTICLE 9 E

1. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council may end his term of office by the same procedure."


As for Giscard I hope you are not asking me to post a quote. They're on a different thread. Anyway, my point was, and it little matters who said it, there are many quotes from those involvced admitting that this is the EU Constitution is all but name and language.

Whether or not you take them seriously is up to you.

HIB

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no. The requirement for a referendum in Ireland stems from the sovereignty of the people as described in Bunreacht. Only the moves from unanimity to QMV or from non-codecision to codecision as per the simplified procedure in Article 48 can be ratified by the Oireachtas:



Interestingly, the option of agreeing to changes under Part 3 TFEU, which is also allowed for under the simplified revision procedure, doesn't appear here, which means that changes under that option will presumably still require a referendum - I can't see any other reason why it's not in there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw.
Just one more question(well actually two) I don't have time to read the treaty so I read the wikipedia page! It says....

"In the simplified procedure proposals for amendments to Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, dealing with internal policy and action of the Union, can be submitted directly to the European Council etc. etc. "

So, does this mean that the simplified procedure can be adopted to ammend any part of Part Three of the treaty?
What is in part three? "Functioning of the European Union"???

What I'm really doing here is playing devil's advocate. What, in theory, could they alter with this simplified procedure?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

As for Giscard I hope you are not asking me to post a quote. They're on a different thread. Anyway, my point was, and it little matters who said it, there are many quotes from those involvced admitting that this is the EU Constitution is all but name and language.

Whether or not you take them seriously is up to you.

You will find many people who will make claims like the treaty is 90% the same as the constitution. The thing that these people unfortunately overlook is that the 10% difference is what the French and the Dutch wanted taken out/put in.

It seems this is how it's supposed to go:

The people: We don't like this treaty because of articles 2, 5 and 7
The EU: Ok, here's a new treaty without articles 2, 5 and 7.
The people: WTF??? That's 90% the same. Feck off!!!
The EU: *head explode*

Scofflaw

HIB wrote: »

Thanks Scofflaw.
Just one more question(well actually two) I don't have time to read the treaty so I read the wikipedia page! It says....

"In the simplified procedure proposals for amendments to Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, dealing with internal policy and action of the Union, can be submitted directly to the European Council etc. etc. "

So, does this mean that the simplified procedure can be adopted to ammend any part of Part Three of the treaty?
What is in part three? "Functioning of the European Union"???

What I'm really doing here is playing devil's advocate. What, in theory, could they alter with this simplified procedure?

Part Three covers quite a bit - pretty much everything except external affairs. However, the simplified procedure only makes it possible to change them within certain limits - specifically, it cannot increase the EU's competences (which means it's essentially limited to changing specific policy actions) - and the change has to be unanimously agreed and ratified by every member state. It's interesting that the government hasn't included it in the constitutional amendment, because that suggests the changes will require referendums.

The best summary is probably that there's fairly wide scope, but only for minor changes.

cordially,
Scofflaw