The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

HIB

oscarBravo wrote: »

Good idea. In the same vein: while we're amending the constitution in a few weeks, we should decide on all future amendments we might want to make and include them at the same time. Dumbing down legal documents is rarely a good idea.

No... there is no need to make all adjustments to our constitution at the one time as any new change requires a referendum..

However, with the lisbon treaty, it seems that some changes may be made without the need for another referendum. Some say we will need a new referendum. Some say we will not. It is not clear cut. It should be. And if another referendum is not required then all proposed changes should be outlined clearly now.

As regards readable legal documents .... our own constitution is a highly readable document. I am not a solicitor and I was able to read it at my leisure over the course of one Sunday afternoon. I would need a month of Sundays to even attempt the same feat with Lisbon.

marco_polo

HIB wrote: »

No... there is no need to make all adjustments to our constitution at the one time as any new change requires a referendum..

However, with the lisbon treaty, it seems that some changes may be made without the need for another referendum. Some say we will need a new referendum. Some say we will not. It is not clear cut. It should be. And if another referendum is not required then all proposed changes should be outlined clearly now.

As regards readable legal documents .... our own constitution is a highly readable document. I am not a solicitor and I was able to read it at my leisure over the course of one Sunday afternoon. I would need a month of Sundays to even attempt the same feat with Lisbon.

How could the Lisbon Treaty specify what changes may trigger a future referendum? It us up to the Supreme Court alone to decide which changes may or may not require a referendum. This is what the phrase as per member states constitutional requirements means.

Nobody knows the exhaustive list of conditions that may cause the Supreme Court to rule an individual change unconstitutional without a referendum, as there has only ever been one case.

Sam Vimes

HIB wrote: »

No... there is no need to make all adjustments to our constitution at the one time as any new change requires a referendum..

However, with the lisbon treaty, it seems that some changes may be made without the need for another referendum. Some say we will need a new referendum. Some say we will not. It is not clear cut. It should be. And if another referendum is not required then all proposed changes should be outlined clearly now.

They're talking about the new simplified revision procedure. In Ireland due to the Crotty judgement any changes to our constitution require a referendum. Most of Lisbon could pass without changing our constitution but because the current set up doesn't allow for small individual changes to be made easily, they put the whole lot to us in a referendum and we vote on everything, the stuff that requires a referendum and the stuff that doesn't.

In the future, individual changes can be made and if they don't require a change to our constitution they can be passed by the Dail but if they do, we will still need to have a referendum.

One important thing is that this new procedure can't be used to increase EU competences. This procedure gets around the problem of hundreds of beneficial changes being voted down because of one or two that people don't want and makes the changes much easier to understand

edit: this is the article: http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html
note: "The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties."
and: "That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

oscarBravo

HIB wrote: »

No... there is no need to make all adjustments to our constitution at the one time as any new change requires a referendum..

However, with the lisbon treaty, it seems that some changes may be made without the need for another referendum. Some say we will need a new referendum. Some say we will not. It is not clear cut. It should be. And if another referendum is not required then all proposed changes should be outlined clearly now.

Let me get this straight: you're asking that every possible change that might ever conceivably be desired in the future to the EU treaties be agreed now, and ratified with Lisbon?

As regards readable legal documents .... our own constitution is a highly readable document. I am not a solicitor and I was able to read it at my leisure over the course of one Sunday afternoon. I would need a month of Sundays to even attempt the same feat with Lisbon.

Have you also read the extensive volumes of case law that have subsequently been written in interpreting our Constitution?

Readability is generally at the expense of ambiguity. The more precise legal language of the EU treaties makes them less open to challenge than our Constitution is. They also form the basis of an agreement between 27 sovereign states - not quite as straightforward as the operation of a single small country.

marco_polo

taconnol wrote: »

Why? What is it about uninformed votes that you think are so great for democracy?


There's a lot of disinterested folk out there.


Have you ever read a contract for buying a house? Or any other bill? Have you actually ever read a legal text? It is complicated - it's the nature of the beast. To say that it's part of some intentional conspiracy theory is totally baseless. You have no proof of that and you know it.


What?? You just said:



I think you are totally, totally confused about what you think. You're talking in circles and contradicting yourself.


We do that already: no one under the age of 18 is allowed to vote.


Who is "they"?


As already asked, what is so wonderful, fantastic and amazing about uninformed people voting?

StealthRolex wrote: »

I waved my stick and shouted "Rediculus!" three times and all that happened was your quotes disappeared.

along with mine

oops

Close split decision from the Judges, but they have given the nod to taconnol on this round. :pac:

BlitzKrieg

HIB wrote: »

However, with the lisbon treaty, it seems that some changes may be made without the need for another referendum. Some say we will need a new referendum. Some say we will not. It is not clear cut. It should be. And if another referendum is not required then all proposed changes should be outlined clearly now.

It is clearcut, changes are made *according to the constitutional requirement of the member states* Whats not clear cut is the individual constitutional requirement of each member state.

least of all the irish constitutional requirements.

As regards readable legal documents .... our own constitution is a highly readable document. I am not a solicitor and I was able to read it at my leisure over the course of one Sunday afternoon. I would need a month of Sundays to even attempt the same feat with Lisbon.

The constitution is a legal document between a state and its people.

So its a document that defines two legal entities that before the constitution did not exist. Its establishes the Irish state and the Irish people.

Legally before the constitution there were neither.

Lisbon is a legal document between 27 already established states which amends numerous previous treaties and works in relation to multiple other international organisations (such as the UN). I think the Lisbon treaty has to be alot more careful and neutral in its language then the irish constitution as it has to work around and ensure it doesnt conflict with any of the above.

HIB

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let me get this straight: you're asking that every possible change that might ever conceivably be desired in the future to the EU treaties be agreed now, and ratified with Lisbon? Have you also read the extensive volumes of case law that have subsequently been written in interpreting our Constitution?

Readability is generally at the expense of ambiguity. The more precise legal language of the EU treaties makes them less open to challenge than our Constitution is. They also form the basis of an agreement between 27 sovereign states - not quite as straightforward as the operation of a single small country.

No: I'm seeking a reassurance (you can offer it if you feel competent ) that the article quoted below guarantees that a further referendum will be held if the european council decide to ammend part three of the "treaty on the functioning of the european union".

"The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision
shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences."

In other words, if we ratify Lisbon i.e. if we agree to that constitutional change, will another constitution change be necessary in order to ammend part three of the "treaty on the functioning of the european union".




No, I have never read any volumes of case law.

BlitzKrieg

"The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision
shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences."

Like I said

Lisbon is clear cut, whats not is the constitutional process of 27 member states, this is not something the EU can address as a whole they do not have the power to change the constitutional process of 27 states to suit them.

oscarBravo

HIB wrote: »

No: I'm seeking a reassurance (you can offer it if you feel competent ) that the article quoted below guarantees that a further referendum will be held if the european council decide to ammend part three of the "treaty on the functioning of the european union".

"The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision
shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences."

In other words, if we ratify Lisbon i.e. if we agree to that constitutional change, will another constitution change be necessary in order to ammend part three of the "treaty on the functioning of the european union".

If any change to the TEU or the TFEU involved any transfer of sovereignty from the Irish people, it would require a referendum here. That's what our "respective constitutional requirements" are - precisely the same as now.

HIB

oscarBravo wrote: »

If any change to the TEU or the TFEU involved any transfer of sovereignty from the Irish people, it would require a referendum here. That's what our "respective constitutional requirements" are - precisely the same as now.

So, if the issue involves "any transfer if sovereignty from the Irish people", we would need a referendum.

But doesn't part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, deal with a large range of internal issues. If the council, for example, chose to make some changes to the internal structure of the EU, but these did not affect our sovereignty, would we have a referendum then?

PopeBuckfastXVI

HIB wrote: »

No: I'm seeking a reassurance (you can offer it if you feel competent ) that the article quoted below guarantees that a further referendum will be held if the european council decide to ammend part three of the "treaty on the functioning of the european union".

"The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision
shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences."

In other words, if we ratify Lisbon i.e. if we agree to that constitutional change, will another constitution change be necessary in order to ammend part three of the "treaty on the functioning of the european union".




No, I have never read any volumes of case law.

The Crotty Judgement ruled that a referendum was necessary when any sort of transfer of sovereignty was taking place from the people of Ireland to the EU.

This includes:
New EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had no say, gaining some level of say)
Increased EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had some say, gaining more of a say)

Competences come in 4 flavours in order of increasing competence:
1. No Competence: The EU has absolutely *No* role in this area. E.g. National Citizenship.
2. Supporting Competence: Nation states make the policy and the EU is allowed to provide infrastructural or coordinating assistance. E.g. Sport under the Lisbon treaty.
3. Shared Competence: The EU makes certain rules and the Nation is free to build upon and extend those rules. E.g. Space under Lisbon
4. Exclusive Competence: The EU is the only one to make the rules. e.g. Monetary policy for the Eurozone, Internal Market Competition rules.

If we add any area, after Lisbon, using the simplified revision procedure, to either 2, 3 or 4 we *must* have a referendum.

If we move any area up from 2 to 3 or 4, or from 3 to 4 we *must* have a referendum.

In determining the Crotty judgement the Supreme Court did not state that these were the only circumstances where we needed to have a referendum, so it is entirely possible we would need to have one when moving from unanimity to qmv in an area, but may need a court case to determine it (at our own Supreme court).

But the above is the absolute minimum requirement to have a referendum in the event of an amendment.

I hope this clears things up for you.

HIB

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Like I said

Lisbon is clear cut, whats not is the constitutional process of 27 member states, this is not something the EU can address as a whole they do not have the power to change the constitutional process of 27 states to suit them.

Fair enough ... I don't expect Gordon Brown or any other EU politician to know the workings of the Irish constitution.

Can anyone answer this question, definitively? Our government, a solicitor, someone on this thread ... ???

PopeBuckfastXVI

HIB wrote: »

So, if the issue involves "any transfer if sovereignty from the Irish people", we would need a referendum.

But doesn't part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, deal with a large range of internal issues. If the council, for example, chose to make some changes to the internal structure of the EU, but these did not affect our sovereignty, would we have a referendum then?

There could be a case taken for it, but possibly not. Certainly if a new full treaty (with or without Lisbon) did only that I doubt we would have a referendum, or even hear about it except for a small slot on the news, to be honest.

Read my post above for referendum triggering circumstances, which applies to full treaties, as well as amendments.

For all of that, there's nothing to *preclude* any Irish government offering us a referendum, whether our constitution demands one or not.

oscarBravo

HIB wrote: »

So, if the issue involves "any transfer if sovereignty from the Irish people", we would need a referendum.

But doesn't part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, deal with a large range of internal issues. If the council, for example, chose to make some changes to the internal structure of the EU, but these did not affect our sovereignty, would we have a referendum then?

If it doesn't affect our sovereignty, why would you want a referendum?

HIB

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The Crotty Judgement ruled that a referendum was necessary when any sort of transfer of sovereignty was taking place from the people of Ireland to the EU.

This includes:
New EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had no say, gaining some level of say)
Increased EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had some say, gaining more of a say)

Competences come in 4 flavours in order of increasing competence:
1. No Competence: The EU has absolutely *No* role in this area. E.g. National Citizenship.
2. Supporting Competence: Nation states make the policy and the EU is allowed to provide infrastructural or coordinating assistance. E.g. Sport under the Lisbon treaty.
3. Shared Competence: The EU makes certain rules and the Nation is free to build upon and extend those rules. E.g. Space under Lisbon
4. Exclusive Competence: The EU is the only one to make the rules. e.g. Monetary policy for the Eurozone, Internal Market Competition rules.

If we add any area, after Lisbon, using the simplified revision procedure, to either 2, 3 or 4 we *must* have a referendum.

If we move any area up from 2 to 3 or 4, or from 3 to 4 we *must* have a referendum.

In determining the Crotty judgement the Supreme Court did not state that these were the only circumstances where we needed to have a referendum, so it is entirely possible we would need to have one when moving from unanimity to qmv in an area, but may need a court case to determine it (at our own Supreme court).

But the above is the absolute minimum requirement to have a referendum in the event of an amendment.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Thanks ... it's a help .... but what if it's an issue that doesn't involve any new EU competence. Say, for example, the EU decide to change the number of commissioners to one and appoint Michael O Leary as the new EU commissioner.
Can they actually do this?
By my reading of the treaty, they would only have to consult the parliament. The parliament cannot veto it. The only safeguard is that they would have to agree unanimously (or could they also change this to qualified majority voting).

This is a nuclear scenario ... so someone assure me, please, that this cannot happen.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The Crotty Judgement ruled that a referendum was necessary when any sort of transfer of sovereignty was taking place from the people of Ireland to the EU.

This includes:
New EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had no say, gaining some level of say)
Increased EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had some say, gaining more of a say)

So if we don't want to transfer competencies we can vote No.

Lovely jubbely. I feel much better about my vote now. A few things said here were getting me worried that I might be voting the wrong way.

Thanks for the clarity PB16

HIB

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it doesn't affect our sovereignty, why would you want a referendum?

Take a look at my previous post ... it always pays to imagine the worst case scenario!

No, seriously ..... the commission is very powerful (too powerful I think) and that sort of power attracts corruption. I think there should be numerous safeguards in place. This simplified procedure looks like a potential loophole to me that could be exploited by people with an agenda. Maybe not in the 'nuclear' manner that I outlined above but what is the worst case scenario? What exactly can be changed in part three of the TFEU?

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

So if we don't want to transfer competencies we can vote No.

Lovely jubbely. I feel much better about my vote now. A few things said here were getting me worried that I might be voting the wrong way.

Thanks for the clarity PB16

Which competencies do you not want to transfer and why? I think there are a lot of things that are much better dealt with on an EU level, e.g. if Ireland enacts a clean energy policy it doesn't make that much of a difference but if the whole EU does it, it can be used as leverage.

A very simple example is that all the mobile networks had to drop their roaming rates a few months ago because the EU made them. Shared competence in action

Sam Vimes

HIB wrote: »

Take a look at my previous post ... it always pays to imagine the worst case scenario!

No, seriously ..... the commission is very powerful (too powerful I think) and that sort of power attracts corruption. I think there should be numerous safeguards in place. This simplified procedure looks like a potential loophole to me that could be exploited by people with an agenda. Maybe not in the 'nuclear' manner that I outlined above but what is the worst case scenario? What exactly can be changed in part three of the TFEU?

Anything that can be changed now. It just means that they don't have to put hundreds of changes all together in the one treaty and can vote on them individually instead

HIB

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Anything that can be changed now. It just means that they don't have to put hundreds of changes all together in the one treaty and can vote on them individually instead

Agreed. On the say so of the commission and the council as I understand it. Plenty room for corruption there. From what I can tell, this loophole is potentially dangerous. Even if they put in the safeguard of the parliament (the only elected body) it would be a lot more palatable.

Sam Vimes

HIB wrote: »

Agreed. On the say so of the commission and the council as I understand it. Plenty room for corruption there. From what I can tell, this loophole is potentially dangerous. Even if they put in the safeguard of the parliament (the only elected body) it would be a lot more palatable.

The safeguard is the elected parliaments of each country, who have to approve the changes. Just because it's not put directly to the people in a referendum doesn't mean the country doesn't have any say.

Scofflaw

HIB wrote: »

Take a look at my previous post ... it always pays to imagine the worst case scenario!

No, seriously ..... the commission is very powerful (too powerful I think) and that sort of power attracts corruption. I think there should be numerous safeguards in place. This simplified procedure looks like a potential loophole to me that could be exploited by people with an agenda. Maybe not in the 'nuclear' manner that I outlined above but what is the worst case scenario? What exactly can be changed in part three of the TFEU?

In fact, the Commission is very weak. Yes, it has the sole power to initiate legislation in anything under the internal market, but people seem to constantly forget that it can't pass the legislation it drafts, and that those drafts are then amended by the Council and the Parliament.

In fact, the Commission doesn't even usually draft the draft legislation - that's done by working parties in the national civil services. The Commission civil service usually just reviews it. Under Lisbon, of course, it would also be reviewed by all the national parliaments.

There are a lot of safeguards in place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

HIB wrote: »

Thanks ... it's a help .... but what if it's an issue that doesn't involve any new EU competence. Say, for example, the EU decide to change the number of commissioners to one and appoint Michael O Leary as the new EU commissioner.
Can they actually do this?
By my reading of the treaty, they would only have to consult the parliament. The parliament cannot veto it. The only safeguard is that they would have to agree unanimously (or could they also change this to qualified majority voting).

This is a nuclear scenario ... so someone assure me, please, that this cannot happen.

Something you might not be clear on is that any change to the EU treaties, however trivial, has to be ratified by every member state.

If you're imagining worst-case scenarios, remember that, even if we didn't have to have a referendum, the government (more accurately, the Oireachtas, but that's not a terribly useful distinction in this country) would still need to ratify any such change.

Sam Vimes

Something I'm not clear on is which council they're talking about. Is it the European Council, made up of the heads of state, or the Council of the European Union, made up of the ministers with responsibility in each area?

Either way the council is elected and represents each country

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The Crotty Judgement ruled that a referendum was necessary when any sort of transfer of sovereignty was taking place from the people of Ireland to the EU.

This includes:
New EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had no say, gaining some level of say)
Increased EU Competences (Areas where the EU previously had some say, gaining more of a say)

Competences come in 4 flavours in order of increasing competence:
1. No Competence: The EU has absolutely *No* role in this area. E.g. National Citizenship.
2. Supporting Competence: Nation states make the policy and the EU is allowed to provide infrastructural or coordinating assistance. E.g. Sport under the Lisbon treaty.
3. Shared Competence: The EU makes certain rules and the Nation is free to build upon and extend those rules. E.g. Space under Lisbon
4. Exclusive Competence: The EU is the only one to make the rules. e.g. Monetary policy for the Eurozone, Internal Market Competition rules.

If we add any area, after Lisbon, using the simplified revision procedure, to either 2, 3 or 4 we *must* have a referendum.

If we move any area up from 2 to 3 or 4, or from 3 to 4 we *must* have a referendum.

In determining the Crotty judgement the Supreme Court did not state that these were the only circumstances where we needed to have a referendum, so it is entirely possible we would need to have one when moving from unanimity to qmv in an area, but may need a court case to determine it (at our own Supreme court).

But the above is the absolute minimum requirement to have a referendum in the event of an amendment.

I hope this clears things up for you.

As I understand only the Ordinary Revision Proceedure could be used to alter the competencies of the EU. And that the special revision proceedure is much more limited in scope.

PopeBuckfastXVI

HIB wrote: »

Agreed. On the say so of the commission and the council as I understand it. Plenty room for corruption there. From what I can tell, this loophole is potentially dangerous. Even if they put in the safeguard of the parliament (the only elected body) it would be a lot more palatable.

The commission have the power to propose law, that's all, they have no vote on it's implementation, nor would they post Lisbon. That power is shared between the Council and Parliament (if we implement Lisbon).

As I understand the simple revision procedure, it allows for moving existing EU competencies from Unanimity to QMV, if the Council unanimously agrees. Nothing about changing the number of commissioners. I'm open to correction on that though.

Incidentally the Parliament has the power to reject, or even force the commission to resign. They have full veto power.

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Something I'm not clear on is which council they're talking about. Is it the European Council, made up of the heads of state, or the Council of the European Union, made up of the ministers with responsibility in each area?

Either way the council is elected and represents each country

Yep. And there are nine different configurations of the Council of Ministers currently, depending on the area under discussion.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

So if we don't want to transfer competencies we can vote No.

Lovely jubbely. I feel much better about my vote now. A few things said here were getting me worried that I might be voting the wrong way.

Thanks for the clarity PB16

I'm not sure you've taken me up correctly, under Lisbon we will have to vote if we want to transfer competencies, just like we do now. That doesn't change, so is unaffected by a 'yes' or 'no' to Lisbon, it shouldn't worry or reassure you about your vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Something I'm not clear on is which council they're talking about. Is it the European Council, made up of the heads of state, or the Council of the European Union, made up of the ministers with responsibility in each area?

Either way the council is elected and represents each country

European Council - Heads of State.

Scofflaw

HIB wrote: »

Agreed. On the say so of the commission and the council as I understand it. Plenty room for corruption there. From what I can tell, this loophole is potentially dangerous. Even if they put in the safeguard of the parliament (the only elected body) it would be a lot more palatable.

On the say so of the European Council - which is the council of heads of the elected governments of the member states:

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union. The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

That means that any change must be unanimously approved by every government in Europe - and then by every parliament in Europe. In our case, since the government has left this mechanism out of the proposed amendment in October, it may even mean a referendum. Nor can the proposed change increase the EU's competences.

That's really quite a lot of safeguards.

cordially,
Scofflaw