The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

marco_polo · 10-09-2009 4:57pm

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.

Just to clarify the Commission have no authority over the compenancies that the EU holds or any changes that may happen in the future. It is a legislative body only. Changes to the treaties are exclusively the domain of the member states. The commission can only propose legislation within the competencies that are granted by the existing treaties.

Sam Vimes · 10-09-2009 5:01pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's really quite a lot of safeguards.

We'll make a yes voter out of you yet HIB :P

djmarkus · 10-09-2009 5:06pm

First off, Coir have no credibility, they are out and out liars. I felt like hitting one of their people on the street today. Dont listen to a word they say(Or read any of their posters).

Secondly Europe is going to give us a lend of (in the region of) 50 Billion to pay for NAMA. I really dont think we want to piss them off by voting no.

This country is going under, we'll need Europe to bail us out.

HIB · 10-09-2009 6:22pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Maybe ye will make a yes voter out of me but I'm still not convinced.

By my reading of it, I'm not convinced that every/any national parliament would have to vote on any ammendment. Only in article 7 does it refer to referring proposed ammendments it to national parliaments i.e. in the cases of changing from unanimity to QMV and in changing from special legislation procedure to the ordinary procedure. Article 6 on the other hand seems to state that the decision to change Part3 of the TFEU can be ammended solely on the say so of the european council.

Scofflaw, you seem to know a thing or two ....

are you sure that any change must be voted on in the Dail. Article 6 says "it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their
respective constitutional requirements.". What exactly are our constiutional requirements? Does that neccesitate a Dail vote? It certainly doesn't necessitate a referendum, does it?

oscarBravo · 10-09-2009 6:26pm

HIB wrote: »

By my reading of it, I'm not convinced that every/any national parliament would have to vote on any ammendment.

We're talking about treaties here - legally-binding agreements on the countries that sign up to them. You can't just change the content of a treaty that multiple countries have signed up to, without the explicit consent ("ratification") of each signatory country.

Ratification of treaties is the role of the Oireachtas. The Crotty judgement makes it clear that the ratification of treaties that involve a transfer of sovereignty requires the permission of the electorate, but the Oireachtas still has to ratify.

This isn't some woolly, debatable stuff we're talking about.

HIB · 10-09-2009 6:33pm

Ok. I don't know why I'm doing this .... (boredom?) but I rooted out the treaty on the functioning of the EU.

Article 45:1: Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.
9.5.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 115/65

Lisbon Treaty: Article 48: 6: 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.

So .... in theory ....

The commission could propose an ammendment to article 45. The European council could pass this ammendment. The decision would have to be approved by the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

I don't know what our constitutional requirements are.
Would we get need a referendum?
Would the Dail even get to vote?

I just picked article 45. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF

There are tons of articles in there that seem important! I don't want anyone changing them without a democratic mandate.

Sam Vimes · 10-09-2009 6:33pm

HIB wrote: »

Article 6 on the other hand seems to state that the decision to change Part3 of the TFEU can be ammended solely on the say so of the european council.

You know the European council is made up of the heads of state of each goverment right? As in the Taoiseach has a veto and if the issue required a referendum he would be required to use his veto the way we say?

HIB · 10-09-2009 6:35pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're talking about treaties here - legally-binding agreements on the countries that sign up to them. You can't just change the content of a treaty that multiple countries have signed up to, without the explicit consent ("ratification") of each signatory country.

Ratification of treaties is the role of the Oireachtas. The Crotty judgement makes it clear that the ratification of treaties that involve a transfer of sovereignty requires the permission of the electorate, but the Oireachtas still has to ratify.

This isn't some woolly, debatable stuff we're talking about.

OK. So you are saying that the Oireachtas would have to vote on any proposed change under the simplified procedure?
I'll believe you if you can point out where it says that in Irish law/constitution ..... honest, I will.

But right now, I have my doubts.

HIB · 10-09-2009 6:37pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know the European council is made up of the heads of state of each goverment right? As in the Taoiseach has a veto and if the issue required a referendum he would be required to use his veto the way we say?

That's the point. Where does it say we need a referendum? What are our "constitutional requirements". The way I read it, Cowen gets to vote whatever way he likes without asking anyone.

FutureTaoiseach · 10-09-2009 6:46pm

The Treaty removes the national veto in an additional 50 areas. You don't have to take my word for that - see the list here on the EU website. The Government says we have an optout from some of them, notably on Justice and Home Affairs. Yes - but they have included wording in Paragraph 7(iii) of the referendum legislation allowing them and the Oireachtas to surrender the Justice and Home Affairs related vetoes by ending Protocol No.21 (Area of Justice and Freedom).

I would also argue that this study by Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics on the efficiency of the EU's decisionmaking mechanisms since 2004 and EU Enlargement demonstrates that on balance, the decisionmaking in the EU institutions has gone smoothly. I regard that as demonstrating to my satisfaction that Lisbon's removal of national vetoes is unnecessary relative to the cost in terms of sovereignty. Important findings from the report:

Enlarging the European Union: Effects on the new member states and on the EU wrote:

...a relatively agreed overall picture emerges from across these studies. They indicate that the ‘business as usual’ picture is more convincing than the ‘gridlock’ picture as regards practice in and output from the EU institutions since May 2004. Some changes and variations can be observed, although not all of these can be tied to the impact of enlargement as such. It is also clear that there are some differences across policy domains, which need further exploration. These become more apparent once attention is turned to the implementation phase and the ways in which EU policies and rules are put into practice inside the new member states.

The key data on output from the EU institutions:

Over the period 1999-2003 an average of around 195 legislative acts were adopted each year (but only 164 in 2002 and 165 in 2003); around 230 were adopted in 2004 (with a surge in April 2004 just before the EU15 became the EU25); some 130 were adopted in 2005: and 197 in 2006 . Data need to be added for non-legislative decisions, increasingly important in fields such as foreign policy and some aspects of justice and home affairs, where activity levels have been high. Mattila(forthcoming 2008) reports that some 942 acts other than legislative decisions were agreed between May 2004 and December 2006. Of the 360 (Hagemann and De Clerk-Sacchse 2007) legislative decisions adopted between May 2004 and December 2006 some 43 were identified as revisions to existing legislation to incorporate the new member states. Settembri (2007) reports that decisions taken show an increase in ‘ordinary’ or ‘minor’ subjects, and a decrease of 11% in what he classifies as the more ‘important’ topics.

In the context of the ‘less is better’ objective of José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission (an objective shared by the Council) we can observe only a modest drop in the number of proposals for legislative acts made by the Commission: 2003-491; 2004-526; 2005-411; 2006-482. In 2006 the Commission withdrew 68 proposals and put forward 33 ‘simplification’ proposals and 22 ‘codification’ proposals. In 2006 the Commission also tabled 324 communications and reports, 10 Green Papers and 2 White Papers (covered in the Annual Report 2006, published in 2007).

There has been a reduction in the time lag between proposal and decision on both those subject to the unanimity rule and those based on qualified majority voting (QMV) treaty articles. This is so especially for decisions under the consultation procedures with the European Parliament (EP), including many on agricultural issues, where the data indicate a 5% reduction in the time taken to reach agreement. Issues subject to codecision take somewhat longer than before (Settembri (2007) notes that during the one-year period which he covers that this means some 22% more days). Interestingly, however, a rising proportion of decisions subject to codecision have been reached at first reading: 2003-34%; 2004-45%; 2005-64%; 2006-59%. In 2006 a revised joint declaration was adopted by the EU institutions, designed to improve the efficiency of the codecision procedure.

There is no evidence of declining ‘productivity’ in the judicial system of the EU, at least as regards the work of the ECJ (Naômé forthcoming 2008). On the contrary numbers of cases completed and pending compare favourably with the period before enlargement, one in which there had been rising concerns about the existing overload on the judicial system, even without the added impact of enlargement. There is no significant increase at least yet in the number of new cases. The length of Court proceedings also shows a downwards trend. The Court of First Instance (CFI) has not adapted so easily to the increased pressure of cases combined with its backlog of prior pending cases.

Sam Vimes · 10-09-2009 6:52pm

HIB wrote: »

That's the point. Where does it say we need a referendum? What are our "constitutional requirements". The way I read it, Cowen gets to vote whatever way he likes without asking anyone.

Whether we need a referendum or not depends on the issue at hand. The government make decisions and passes legislation every day without having a referendum because the changes they're making don't require changing the constitution. The things that Cowen will have the power to change without a referendum after Lisbon are the same things he has the power to change now. It just means he doesn't have to vote on 1000 changes in one massive treaty and either accept them all or reject them all, he can vote on them individually

marco_polo · 10-09-2009 6:53pm

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Treaty removes the national veto in an additional 50 areas. You don't have to take my word for that - see the list here on the EU website. The Government says we have an optout from some of them, notably on Justice and Home Affairs. Yes - but they have included wording in Paragraph 7(iii) of the referendum legislation allowing them and the Oireachtas to surrender the Justice and Home Affairs related vetoes by ending Protocol No.21.

How is it that we have a veto on something that doesn't exist, since approximately 27 of these have a new legal basis?

bogwalrus · 10-09-2009 8:48pm

Voting Yes to the treaty is a vote for progression, both for Ireland, the EU and society as a whole. Article 151 refers to the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers.

This basically consolidates Workers' rights to safer conditions of work, it gives Unions far greater swing with employers, improves Social Services and Welfare rights to those out of work, provides women with a firmer base for employment equality, it eases restrictions on non-EU nationals gaining employment within the EU and their subsequent rights etc. etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The three main stumbling blocks to the yes vote are completely irrelevant to the treaty itself (abortion, conscription, loss of commissioner). It's embarrassing that elected officials from Ireland had to get guarantees for issues that are not even addressed within the treaty and can't even be meddled with even if the yes vote goes through!

The council does gain greater power to legislate, but it's worth noting that the council consists entirely of elected cabinet members of each state, at least 15 member states must agree on any legislature and the minimum of 15 states must also represent over 65% of the whole population of the Union and anything passed that affects our own constitution must yet again go to a public referendum.

That seems pretty democratic to me anyway, especially considering that it will mainly concern matters of trivial interest to you or me Ciaran. A friend pointed out to me over the weekend that a No vote isn't necessarily a vote for the left, a vote No fits in quite comfortably with say, the BNP or the UKIP, or Sinn Fein, or that ultra right wing Catholic group that has a lot of people ****ting over abortion. It's a vote for regression. Can you honestly tell me that Ireland (as a whole) was a better place before it entered the EU? I mean economically, psychologically, socially? Not a ****ing hope.

Today we are backward enough, but if we never joined the EU we'd be ruined. Church and State? Access to the arts, literature, music the internet? Equality for people entering the country? Free exchange of ideas and forums for the exchange? Equality for women? Equality for Homosexuals? Contraception? ****, we'd be broke and emigrating on a ridiculous scale, persecuted by a Church caught in the 13th century, wishing we had it as good as our enemies on the continent.

It's a good thing the EU and it's a far cry from the ****storm our government weaved around us after independence.

Why vote No? Enlighten me.

FutureTaoiseach · 10-09-2009 9:00pm

marco_polo wrote: »

How is it that we have a veto on something that doesn't exist, since approximately 27 of these have a new legal basis?

But for practical purposes, 50 areas of policy that were not decided by QMV will be under this Treaty. It's the same difference.

Scofflaw · 10-09-2009 9:09pm

HIB wrote: »

That's the point. Where does it say we need a referendum? What are our "constitutional requirements". The way I read it, Cowen gets to vote whatever way he likes without asking anyone.

It says it in our Constitution, unsurprisingly - or rather it says it in the interpretation of our Constitution given a couple of decades ago by our Supreme Court. If something agreed by our government impacts the sovereignty of Ireland, that agreement must be ratified by the people of Ireland in referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 10-09-2009 9:25pm

HIB wrote: »

OK. So you are saying that the Oireachtas would have to vote on any proposed change under the simplified procedure?
I'll believe you if you can point out where it says that in Irish law/constitution ..... honest, I will. But right now, I have my doubts.

Article 29.5.1 of the Irish Constitution:

Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann.

The Dáil has to ratify a treaty for it to be valid. If the text of the treaty changes in any way, it's no longer the treaty that was ratified by the Dáil, and for the state to be bound by the treaty, it must be ratified by the Dáil again.

hatrickpatrick · 10-09-2009 9:52pm

Well for me the biggest con is that whilst preserving our independence by voting no, I'm siding with moral legalists like Coir who insist that they have a right to meddle in people's personal lives - there's nothing I disagree with more than that. Ironically though that's one of the reason's I'm voting no as well though - I don't want the EU to be able to make social or moral policy either and they will be if it turns into a federal superstate...

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-09-2009 10:58pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well for me the biggest con is that whilst preserving our independence by voting no, I'm siding with moral legalists like Coir who insist that they have a right to meddle in people's personal lives - there's nothing I disagree with more than that. Ironically though that's one of the reason's I'm voting no as well though - I don't want the EU to be able to make social or moral policy either and they will be if it turns into a federal superstate...

Quite a good thing for you that Lisbon doesn't even come close to turning the EU into a federal state then...

vikena · 11-09-2009 12:55am

The logic that the Government present is that if we vote no to Lisbon the ECB will not back NAMA.

Surely that's a good reason for voting no to Lisbon then?

V

K-9 · 11-09-2009 12:59am

vikena wrote: »

The logic that the Government present is that if we vote no to Lisbon the ECB will not back NAMA.

Surely that's a good reason for voting no to Lisbon then?

V

Any quotes or is that just your logic?

vikena · 11-09-2009 1:04am

No specific quotes , just a large number of popular media comments from which this inference can be drawn.

marco_polo · 11-09-2009 1:06am

vikena wrote: »

No specific quotes , just a large number of popular media comments from which this inference can be drawn.

If there is no quotes then can we at least have the logic?

K-9 · 11-09-2009 1:12am

vikena wrote: »

No specific quotes , just a large number of popular media comments from which this inference can be drawn.

Thank you, exactly! It is your inference, not a direct quote.

I don't think it would take too much for you to infer!

So quoter the POPULAR media comments you infer from?

HIB · 11-09-2009 9:29am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Article 29.5.1 of the Irish Constitution: The Dáil has to ratify a treaty for it to be valid. If the text of the treaty changes in any way, it's no longer the treaty that was ratified by the Dáil, and for the state to be bound by the treaty, it must be ratified by the Dáil again.[/font]

OK. I believe you now! Well.... I presume 'laid before' is defined as the Oireachtas actually having a vote on it? Or, could it possibly mean just showing them the agreement? Devil's advocate again, I know, but I'm actually getting far more interested in this than I ever thought possible.

Out of curiosity ....
Why do we need to change our constitution in order to ratify Lisbon?
What clauses do they need to insert/delete?
Can it be simply explained?

HIB · 11-09-2009 9:33am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Article 29.5.1 of the Irish Constitution: The Dáil has to ratify a treaty for it to be valid. If the text of the treaty changes in any way, it's no longer the treaty that was ratified by the Dáil, and for the state to be bound by the treaty, it must be ratified by the Dáil again.[/font]

Actually .... just reading on to article 2.

2° The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

If Article 1 means what you think it means i.e. that every international agreement has to be voted on by the Dail, then why do we need article 2?

Does Article 1 really mean that there will be a vote by the Oireachtas?

1° Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann.

Does it just mean that they have to raise the issue in the Dail ... not neccessarily a vote.
Or is the Constitution just badly written maybe?

marco_polo · 11-09-2009 9:45am

HIB wrote: »

Actually .... just reading on to article 2.

2° The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

If Article 1 means what you think it means i.e. that every international agreement has to be voted on by the Dail, then why do we need article 2?

Does Article 1 really mean that there will be a vote by the Oireachtas?

1° Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann.

Does it just mean that they have to raise the issue in the Dail ... not neccessarily a vote.
Or is the Constitution just badly written maybe?

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=351

The DFA explaination of the ratification proceedure is as follows. A treaty that make a charge on public funds needs a two stage ratification.

In Irish treaty practice, therefore,

(a) if the terms of an international agreement would impose a charge on public funds, approval of Dáil Éireann is first sought in accordance with article 29.5.2° of the Constitution

(b) thereafter (or as a first step in the case of an international agreement which would not impose a charge upon public funds), a Government decision authorising signature, ratification or accession is sought in accordance with article 29.4.1° of the Constitution

(c) a further Government decision authorising ratification is required in the case of international agreement approved subject to ratification

(d) when the State has consented to be bound by an international agreement and it has entered into force, it is laid before Dáil Éireann in accordance with Article 29.5.1° of the Constitution.

(e) The Minister for Foreign Affairs will also arrange for the agreement to be registered with the United Nations pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations

HIB · 11-09-2009 10:43am

marco_polo wrote: »

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=351

The DFA explaination of the ratification proceedure is as follows. A treaty that make a charge on public funds needs a two stage ratification.

Does 'laid before' mean that the Dail actually vote?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 11-09-2009 10:52am

Q2: What is meant by laying a document?
A2: According to the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann (SO 171) and Seanad Éireann (SO 152) a document is deemed to have been laid on the delivery of a copy of the document to the relevant Clerk for that purpose. As the Clerks of both Houses have assigned responsibility for managing all procedures relating to the laying of documents to the Library & Research Service, a document is also deemed to have been laid once it has been delivered to the Library & Research Service.
Note: all documents laid before the Dáil or Seanad are public documents (see Standing Orders above)

http://www.oireachtas.ie/Viewprnt.asp?UserLang=EN&fn=%2Fdocuments%2Flibrary%2FDocuments_Laid%2Fdocument1.htm#Question%202

However what you're probably more interested in is 29.5.2° of Bunreacht

The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm