Lisbon Voters Please Answer These Questions

meglome

Judgement Day wrote: »

I voted NO last time out and will again this time, indeed, I have voted NO on every single European treaty since I have had the vote. I am not against the original concept of the European Economic Community but I am against the 'European Project' i.e. a United States of Europe. Incidentally, if the YES votes shades it this time by a small majority will it be re-run again to give the NO side another chance - it's pure farce.

I hate to point this out to you but every Yes voter I know wouldn't accept a Federal European state, and certainly I wouldn't. So since it's very very unlikely to happen. and nothing in Lisbon leads it that way I'm not sure what your point really is.

Judgement Day wrote: »

1. All the main parties, media etc. say vote YES so automatically I will vote no as I strongly object to being bullied.

Someone came around to your house and roughed you up did they? How are you 'bullied'?

Judgement Day wrote: »

2. It may help bring this wretched Government down.

Not a hope with Fianna Fail in power, they are a bunch of steel necked ****ers. If the Greens pull out it won't have anything to do with Lisbon.

Judgement Day wrote: »

4. I am against the massive influx of cheap labour from the new accession states.

Our government allowed that, nothing to do with the EU. And I notice we mostly weren't complaining when they were doing all our dirty jobs. I suppose all the Irish people should come back here too, should they.

Judgement Day wrote: »

5. When Turkey eventually joins we will be even more exposed to the threat of even more Islamic extremists infiltrating Europe.

We are a long way off that possibility. Can you see most EU countries voting for that? I can't.

Judgement Day wrote: »

6. I am against a European army.

Every EU country has an army already and a lot of them are also in NATO. It isn't going to make any difference, in a bad way.

Judgement Day wrote: »

7. Every time I hear about all the money that the EU has given Ireland to build up our infrastructure I say and why did they do it - so they could use Ireland as a dumping ground for their unemployed masses? Can you imagine what this country could end up like in twenty years time with the Irish a minority in their own country.

The number of Non-nationals has been going down steadily over the last two years. Good luck with your xenophobia.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Anyway I am heartily fed-up with the Brussels gravy train, our ffing useless politicians and nothing anybody can say will change my mind and I will vote NO again if I am still drawing breath on polling day.

You seem to have a lot of hate there. Maybe you should direct things were are deserved and stop blaming the EU when they done nothing but good things for us.

Kama wrote: »

...which feeds straight back into the 'elite technocrats want to steal our democracy'. I can't imagine a Yes vote would have been rolled back if the electorate had been found to be 'factually ignorant'. It's all a bit 'heads I win tails you lose'; a No vote can be deconstructed and re-marketed, or put down to ignorance, whereas the same would never happen in the other direction.

I always thought referenda were great until I saw what happened over the last year and a half. I've never seen dirty tricks like this outside of an American election. I'm not that interested in politics generally my pet peeve is liars. (it's much the same reason you've seen me post in the CT forum). I'm horrified at how the No campaign handled themselves, it makes a mockery of democracy. No that democracy is perfect by any means. We have a pathetic Yes campaign and a morally bankrupt No campaign. It just warms me all over

Judgement Day

Meglome thanks for your comments on my rant and yes there's is a lot of hate in my posting and it comes from years of direct dealing with a lot of the imbeciles running this country. Fortunately I don't carry it around with and am in real life a good natured person but here in cyberspace I find it good therapy to lash out - as it seems do many others.

As I am not trying to influence others to vote I will only respond to these to points:

"I hate to point this out to you but every Yes voter I know wouldn't accept a Federal European state, and certainly I wouldn't. So since it's very very unlikely to happen. and nothing in Lisbon leads it that way I'm not sure what your point really is."

......No, but the way the EU/our politicians work when/if a Federal European state becomes an issue exactly the same arguments to vote in favour of it will be wheeled out viz: we need to be at the heart of Europe, there will be a plague of locusts if we vote NO etc.......etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judgement Day
1. All the main parties, media etc. say vote YES so automatically I will vote no as I strongly object to being bullied.

"Someone came around to your house and roughed you up did they? How are you 'bullied'?" ........there are many forms of bullying and trying to frighten voters into voting YES by continually telling them the appalling consequences for them if they vote NO? If that doesn't constitute bullying what does?

Just heard Dick Roche on Newstalk this morning - another major reason for voting NO!

Sam Vimes

Kama wrote: »

Yet unavoidably, some of the vote will reflect views on the overall trajectory of the ratification process

1. Governments are meant to make decisions for their people and if you don't like the decisions you vote out the government. Governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a hundred times greater than this treaty. Look at NAMA that's going through without one.
2. Ireland is having a referendum because our constitution requires it but the other countries have no such clause. There is nothing odd about this treaty not being put to referendum in those countries, it's by far the norm. EU countries have had or planned referendums 15% of the times they could have
3. It's not up to us to tell those countries they should do it our way and put every treaty to referendum. If the people of those countries wanted one and were against this treaty being ratified they'd be out protesting and making it clear that they'd be voting their governments out if the treaty goes through. The fact that they're not says that they're happy for this to be one of the million things their governments decide for them
4. Not only do other countries not value referendums like we do, in Germany and The Netherlands they're illegal because they're so easy to abuse, as has happened here. Insisting that other countries have referendums is forcing Irish values on them

Kama wrote: »

from the failure of the Constitution to its resuscitation and current zombie status.

It wasn't resurrected, the French and the Dutch voted no, explained why, and the constitution was rewritten to take out the parts they had objected to. When they only objected to 3 of the 300 pages, there is no reason to change the other 297. That's how democrary works. Something is proposed, people say why they object and they compromise

Kama wrote: »

...which feeds straight back into the 'elite technocrats want to steal our democracy'. I can't imagine a Yes vote would have been rolled back if the electorate had been found to be 'factually ignorant'. It's all a bit 'heads I win tails you lose'; a No vote can be deconstructed and re-marketed, or put down to ignorance, whereas the same would never happen in the other direction.

It's not elite technocrats, this idea that the treaty is too complicated to understand is a myth propagated by people who want to spread lies about it. People read the treaty and think they don't understand it because they didn't find any of the stuff the no side are saying but the reason they can't find those things is they're lies. Just look at all the people who think the leaflets from the referendum commission were biased because they didn't include any of the no campaign's claims! What they're really saying when they say those leaflets are biased is that the truth has a yes bias

And no, if the yes side had won last time there would not have been another referendum but that's because, in my opinion, you don't need a reason to vote yes other than the other 26 countries of the EU want this change. Imagine you were out in a pub with 26 friends and they all got together, including you, and decided to go to a pub across the road (I say including you because the Irish government negotiated the treaty)

If all your friends want to go across the road, that's enough reason to go. You don't sit there saying "why should I go" and demand that your friends convince you why this other pub is better. They're 26 and you're 1 so at that point if you don't want to go you have to give a good reason and, as your friends, they will see if there's anything they can do to satisfy you. That's not to say that you have to do whatever the majority are doing but if you want to stop them doing what they want, you have to explain why.

With this current treaty, if Ireland stays put everyone else has to stay put too but that won't necessarily always be the case. A new treaty can be written that opts Ireland out to give everyone what they want. Everyone else can get the changes they want and Ireland can stay where it is, sitting in the pub, all on its own. Ireland will be left behind

ei.sdraob

Judgement Day wrote: »

Just heard Dick Roche on Newstalk this morning - another major reason for voting NO!

i read all your posts


so you are voting on anything but the treaty itself



well fracking done!

you are truly a responsible citizen!! and then yee wonder why some NO people appear "ignorant" and "arrogant" < as clearly illustrated by yourself

bleh why waste breath you obviously dont understand reason

mickstupp

I think I understand the treaty at a fairly miserable 3/10. I've read the leaflets, the news articles and the posts on these boards but not the actual treaty.
I'll be voting yes.
Last time I voted no.
My reasons for changing have apparently very little to do with logic or reasoning or anything that normal people might consider reasonable. But that's a whole nuther kettle of kippers.

Plotician wrote: »

I've read most of it, focussed on about 50%, and have a particular interest in neutrality.

Without repeating it all again on this thread, I do believe irish neutrality is at risk, regardless of the assurances, and that was my reason for voting no the first time.

This time i will be voting no again, on the neutrality issue...

Pardon my ignorance here. I've just always wondered why people have an issue with a supposed threat to neutrality. It's just that some might argue that we're not neutral anyway, which has nothing to do with Europe or the Lisbon treaty.

Sam Vimes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i read all your posts


so you are voting on anything but the treaty itself



well fracking done!

you are truly a responsible citizen!! and then yee wonder why some NO people appear "ignorant" and "arrogant" < as clearly illustrated by yourself

bleh why waste breath you obviously dont understand reason

tbh I think his reason for voting no is fine. He objects to the whole idea of the EU as anything more than an economic body. He calls it a United States of Europe which is inaccurate but he considers any kind of sharing of sovereignty to be the US of E. I don't agree but at least he's not voting based on lies.

There's no point trying to change his mind because the contents of this treaty are completely irrelevant, he's one of the group who have consistently voted no to every treaty since we joined. I don't agree with him but it's a valid position to hold

ei.sdraob

mickstupp wrote: »

I think I understand the treaty at a fairly miserable 3/10

if you have time do read thru' the threads here

there are some gems of posts/threads


tho you will need to grow a thick skin as certain people like flinging mud around or lying or raising non-issues

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

tbh I think his reason for voting no is fine. He objects to the whole idea of the EU as anything more than an economic body. He calls it a United States of Europe which is inaccurate but he considers any kind of sharing of sovereignty to be the US of E. I don't agree but at least he's not voting based on lies.

There's no point trying to change his mind because the contents of this treaty are completely irrelevant, he's one of the group who have consistently voted no to ever treaty since we joined. I don't agree with him but it's a valid position to hold

fair enough if his whole reason is being anti-EU then thats fine (and they wonder why all discussion on Lisbon turn into a discussion about EU membership or EU itself )

from his posts I read all i gather is that hes unhappy with people like Dick Roache and hence voting No

the whole

"I dont like politician X or party Y hence im voting NO" is rather tiring, especially considering theres no love/respect left for parties like FF or SF in this country


that would be like me saying:

"I dont like Declan Ganley hence im voting YES"

or

"I dont trust SF hence im voting YES"



my real reasons for voting in this threaty are grounded in the treaty itself, having the likes Ganley and SF and Coir campaigning only made me more concerned and ensured i spend more time on learning about this treaty

/

mickstupp

Thank you for the links, very helpful indeed.

oscarBravo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

well fracking done!

you are truly a responsible citizen!! and then yee wonder why some NO people appear "ignorant" and "arrogant" < as clearly illustrated by yourself

bleh why waste breath you obviously dont understand reason

Tone it down, please.

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

Tone it down, please.

ur right, im getting very edgy when i hear any nonsense lately

i did appologise few posts up after Sam clarified something

PKel

I've been trying to get my head round Lisbon, so on that score about 4/10 on the detail. I was and am still a no voter. But what gets me is no-one has mentioned the MOST obvious difference between EU-Nice and EU-Lisbon...

Article 1 changes fundamentally what the EU is.

To summarise: The article currently has the Head of States getting together to form the EU, based on the European Communities with the task to "organise [...] relations between Member States and between their peoples".

Basically, the EU is a mechanism to conduct business among neighbours. Essentially an enhanced Residents Association.

The Lisbon version has the Heads of State again forming the EU but adds "on which Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common"

The new Article 1 ends with "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community"

Now the EU becomes a separate entity, external to the Member States.

It's certainly a change in emphasis in what the EU is meant to be.

Elsewhere (Article 47) the EU gains "legal personality" for the first time.

16 countries (though not Ireland) in Declaration 52 assert the flag, anthem, currency as symbols "to express the sense of community of the people of the EU and their ALLEGIANCE to it"

This declaration is the same kind of declaration that our glorious government worked to obtain, and just as legally binding.

But don't trust me, check it out for yourself

Nice version http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2002:325:0001:0184:EN:PDF

Lisbon version http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:EN:PDF

Paul.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hi Paul,

Welcome to boards...

PKel wrote: »

I've been trying to get my head round Lisbon, so on that score about 4/10 on the detail. I was and am still a no voter. But what gets me is no-one has mentioned the MOST obvious difference between EU-Nice and EU-Lisbon...

Article 1 changes fundamentally what the EU is.

To summarise: The article currently has the Head of States getting together to form the EU, based on the European Communities with the task to "organise [...] relations between Member States and between their peoples".

Basically, the EU is a mechanism to conduct business among neighbours. Essentially an enhanced Residents Association.

The Lisbon version has the Heads of State again forming the EU but adds "on which Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common"

Doesn't it already? To me that's a perfectly good description of the EU as it currently exists...

PKel wrote: »

The new Article 1 ends with "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community"

Now the EU becomes a separate entity, external to the Member States.

It's certainly a change in emphasis in what the EU is meant to be.

Elsewhere (Article 47) the EU gains "legal personality" for the first time.

It inherits the 'legal personality' previously held by the European Community, so it's not quite 'for the first time'.

PKel wrote: »

16 countries (though not Ireland) in Declaration 52 assert the flag, anthem, currency as symbols "to express the sense of community of the people of the EU and their ALLEGIANCE to it"

This declaration is the same kind of declaration that our glorious government worked to obtain, and just as legally binding.

Actually no, the government got binding international treaties, these declarations are just that, declarations.

Are you saying that those countries aren't entitled to make that declaration?

I don't see anything wrong with it myself, except that Ireland isn't part of it...

mickoneill30

meglome wrote: »

Yup we'll just put a question mark on the end of our '1.84 the minimum wage after Lisbon?' and it's not a statement any more, we're just asking - yeah right.

Someone should print up some posters saying

€20 minimum wage after Lisbon?

It's as accurate as the Coir one.

PKel

PopeBuckfastXV wrote

>Hi Paul,
>
>Welcome to boards...

Thanks.

I should say that I don't care what way anyone votes and I'm not trying to convince anybody to vote any way...just to think...rather than blindly voting for or against.



>>The Lisbon version has the Heads of State again forming the EU but adds "on which Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common"

>
>Doesn't it already? To me that's a perfectly good description of the EU as it currently exists...


I don't think so. As I said, I see it as a change in emphasis of where the EU is/should be.

We currently have the EU defined as a mechanism to organise activities between Member States.

We've agreed that this mechanism can make policies in certain areas (be that through unaminity or QMV).

But to confer competence on the new EU structure, is to signal at least an impression of more authority that it currently has.

It could even be seen as trying to retrospectively authorise the de facto situation of how the EU operates.

Operating within agreed areas does NOT equal having competence to operate in those areas.

>It inherits the 'legal personality' previously held by the European Community, so it's not quite 'for the first time'.

Ok, though I think it was disputed especially in regard to international agreements.

But taken together with the new shade of EU I think this is significant.

>Actually no, the government got binding international treaties, these declarations are just that, declarations.


OK, I'll take your word on that about the governments treaty declarations being different.

Why are some/most countries declaring their peoples ALLEGIANCE to the EU? Do you give allegiance to the euro? To the anthem? To Europe Day?
But you might to a flag...meaning a nation...but the EU is supposed to be concerned with the relations between States. It is NOT a State in itself.


>Are you saying that those countries aren't entitled to make that declaration?

Of course not. But you can't blithety dismiss such declaration even when your country didn't join in.

These declarations are annexed to the treaty and have the same legal status.

>I don't see anything wrong with it myself, except that Ireland isn't part of it...

We'll agree to disagree about that!

Paul

PopeBuckfastXVI

PKel wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXV wrote

>Hi Paul,
>
>Welcome to boards...

Thanks.

I should say that I don't care what way anyone votes and I'm not trying to convince anybody to vote any way...just to think...rather than blindly voting for or against.



>>The Lisbon version has the Heads of State again forming the EU but adds "on which Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common"

>
>Doesn't it already? To me that's a perfectly good description of the EU as it currently exists...


I don't think so. As I said, I see it as a change in emphasis of where the EU is/should be.

We currently have the EU defined as a mechanism to organise activities between Member States.

We've agreed that this mechanism can make policies in certain areas (be that through unaminity or QMV).

But to confer competence on the new EU structure, is to signal at least an impression of more authority that it currently has.

It could even be seen as trying to retrospectively authorise the de facto situation of how the EU operates.

Operating within agreed areas does NOT equal having competence to operate in those areas.

>It inherits the 'legal personality' previously held by the European Community, so it's not quite 'for the first time'.

Ok, though I think it was disputed especially in regard to international agreements.

But taken together with the new shade of EU I think this is significant.

>Actually no, the government got binding international treaties, these declarations are just that, declarations.


OK, I'll take your word on that about the governments treaty declarations being different.

Why are some/most countries declaring their peoples ALLEGIANCE to the EU? Do you give allegiance to the euro? To the anthem? To Europe Day?
But you might to a flag...meaning a nation...but the EU is supposed to be concerned with the relations between States. It is NOT a State in itself.


>Are you saying that those countries aren't entitled to make that declaration?

Of course not. But you can't blithety dismiss such declaration even when your country didn't join in.

These declarations are annexed to the treaty and have the same legal status.

>I don't see anything wrong with it myself, except that Ireland isn't part of it...

We'll agree to disagree about that!

Paul

The Flag/Anthem declaration is there, because believe it or not a lot of countries wanted the EU Constitution that contained these things, and are understandably miffed that they are not getting it. The declaration is there to remind people, if people are interested, that there is still a significant amount of countries/people in the EU that want further integration, and those 'state like' elements, despite their removal in the Lisbon treaty. I should know, I'm one of them, so yep, we will agree to disagree on it

Competence is the word used to describe the authority the EU has, and that's currently the case. The quoted line is an accurate description of what the EU currently does.

http://www.eu2008.si/en/About_the_EU/Competence_of_the_EU/index.html

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

tbh I think his reason for voting no is fine. He objects to the whole idea of the EU as anything more than an economic body. He calls it a United States of Europe which is inaccurate but he considers any kind of sharing of sovereignty to be the US of E. I don't agree but at least he's not voting based on lies.

There's no point trying to change his mind because the contents of this treaty are completely irrelevant, he's one of the group who have consistently voted no to every treaty since we joined. I don't agree with him but it's a valid position to hold

I am of a similar opinion to mr. Judgement Day.

Some concepts of the EU are fantastic....free trade among member states? Free movement of labour? Bloody good ideas....no harm in helping each other create or sustain healthy economies!

So I had no problem back in the day when thats what the European 'get together' was - the EEC.

I'm all for helping eachother out....but a common gov/parliament/whatever just aint for me.

The 'EU' can shove all their directives up their arshenpoop!

I'm voting NO by the way.

meglome

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I'm all for helping eachother out....but a common gov/parliament/whatever just aint for me.

The 'EU' can shove all their directives up their arshenpoop!

I'm voting NO by the way.

Yeah let's get rid of the 80% of workers rights legislation we got from those bastards. Screw the workers I say.

ei.sdraob

meglome wrote: »

Yeah let's get rid of the 80% of workers rights legislation we got from those bastards. Screw the workers I say.

Or the directives to protect the environment, sure who needs that

Or directives that ensure our food and drinks are safe

i can go on

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I am of a similar opinion to mr. Judgement Day.

Some concepts of the EU are fantastic....free trade among member states? Free movement of labour? Bloody good ideas....no harm in helping each other create or sustain healthy economies!

So I had no problem back in the day when thats what the European 'get together' was - the EEC.

I'm all for helping eachother out....but a common gov/parliament/whatever just aint for me.

The 'EU' can shove all their directives up their arshenpoop!

I'm voting NO by the way.

So you want access to the worlds largest market

But you dont want to implement any of the directives that help it make it so

You should readup on Norway who have to implement EU directives (while having no say in them) and have to pay yearly a quarter of a billion in order to gain access into EU market

yet more nonsense from someone who has no clue how EU and world operate

must be nice in you little bubble

oscarBravo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

must be nice in you little bubble

No, seriously: tone it down. It's possible to refute an argument quite convincingly without the personal digs.

PKel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The Flag/Anthem declaration is there, because believe it or not a lot of countries wanted the EU Constitution that contained these things, and are understandably miffed that they are not getting it. The declaration is there to remind people, if people are interested, that there is still a significant amount of countries/people in the EU that want further integration, and those 'state like' elements, despite their removal in the Lisbon treaty. I should know, I'm one of them, so yep, we will agree to disagree on it

Miffed indeed! Naughty Dutch and French! (And I'm not going near the issue of who wanted Constitution)

You're missing my point.

I couldn't care less about what symbols some countries want to like to be seen to represent this new EU.

I strongly object to asserting allegiance...and people need to think about this.

The implication of this declaration is that European Citizens can have an allegiance to the EU.

I will let readers decide whether that is a positive or negative thing.

And I wonder if people in those countries even know that their allegiance is being decided for them.

Further, does this effectively set up a class of European Citizens who have official allegiance to the EU and others not?

In any case, the declaration would have the same effect to highlight the "state-like" elements without the mention of allegiance.

Competence is the word used to describe the authority the EU has, and that's currently the case. The quoted line is an accurate description of what the EU currently does.

http://www.eu2008.si/en/About_the_EU/Competence_of_the_EU/index.html

I fully understand the meaning of the term and what else would such a site say.

My question is why highlight the role of "competence" in Article 1

Looking at the Nice version of the Treaty on EU, "competence" appears only twice. First, in Article 35 in regard to Court of Justice being able to review frameworks or decision "on grounds of competence..."
This is ambiguous as to whether they can judge the competence/incompetence of something or competence in the sense you mean.

The second time is in Article 43 which is on Enhanced Cooperation (which is another contenious issue altogether) and that definitely uses competence as in an agreed cooperative task

I don't deny the Treaty Establishing the EC uses competence in the shared areas sense.

But, again, why stress this in Article 1? Because it separates Member States and the EU from the word go.

Rather than the EU being a mechanism with a specific task to organise "relations between Member States", it becomes something else. Again I quote "establish [...] the Union, on which Member States confer competences to obtain objectives they have in common".

As I read this Article, the EU gets its competences because the Member States want to pursue common objectives. That's fine. But no longer is the EU's task mentioned...it simply exists, apparently separate from Member States.

Perhaps Article 3 goes some way to explain what the EU is up to, but it's more a statement of the de facto situation, single market, free travel, euro etc

I have to wonder about the agenda of those pushing such changes..what's the rush? Surely the "tweaks" required to make the EU work better didn't require such wholesale changes. Article 1 didn't need to change...what other changes were not necessary for the *stated* goals?

Paul.

PopeBuckfastXVI

PKel wrote: »

Miffed indeed! Naughty Dutch and French! (And I'm not going near the issue of who wanted Constitution)

You're missing my point.

I couldn't care less about what symbols some countries want to like to be seen to represent this new EU.

I strongly object to asserting allegiance...and people need to think about this.

The implication of this declaration is that European Citizens can have an allegiance to the EU.

I will let readers decide whether that is a positive or negative thing.

And I wonder if people in those countries even know that their allegiance is being decided for them.

Further, does this effectively set up a class of European Citizens who have official allegiance to the EU and others not?

In any case, the declaration would have the same effect to highlight the "state-like" elements without the mention of allegiance.




I fully understand the meaning of the term and what else would such a site say.

My question is why highlight the role of "competence" in Article 1

Looking at the Nice version of the Treaty on EU, "competence" appears only twice. First, in Article 35 in regard to Court of Justice being able to review frameworks or decision "on grounds of competence..."
This is ambiguous as to whether they can judge the competence/incompetence of something or competence in the sense you mean.

The second time is in Article 43 which is on Enhanced Cooperation (which is another contenious issue altogether) and that definitely uses competence as in an agreed cooperative task

I don't deny the Treaty Establishing the EC uses competence in the shared areas sense.

But, again, why stress this in Article 1? Because it separates Member States and the EU from the word go.

Rather than the EU being a mechanism with a specific task to organise "relations between Member States", it becomes something else. Again I quote "establish [...] the Union, on which Member States confer competences to obtain objectives they have in common".

As I read this Article, the EU gets its competences because the Member States want to pursue common objectives. That's fine. But no longer is the EU's task mentioned...it simply exists, apparently separate from Member States.

Perhaps Article 3 goes some way to explain what the EU is up to, but it's more a statement of the de facto situation, single market, free travel, euro etc

I have to wonder about the agenda of those pushing such changes..what's the rush? Surely the "tweaks" required to make the EU work better didn't require such wholesale changes. Article 1 didn't need to change...what other changes were not necessary for the *stated* goals?

Paul.

Paul,

It's any nations right to disagree with the others, and every nations right to add declarations to a treaty, I think you agree with that? The declarations are not legally binding, they are declarations, statements of opinion, or even intent if you like. It's a way of making your political view clear, without binding anyone else to it. You'll have to take the wording of those declarations up with the governments who are making them, we are not voting on those declarations though, those declarations stand, whether Lisbon is implemented or not, they are declarations about the treaty, not within the treaty. I really don't see your problem, except that some countries would prefer closer integration, and want that will as public record.

As for the other issue, I think it's pretty clear that the union exists "to obtain objectives they [The Member States] have in common" and it is granted competences to do that. Morphing the 3 pillar structure into the single EU would imply changes in the wording of the existing treaties, in areas describing the 'persona' of the EU.

I don't see what the big deal is here...

meglome

Judgement Day wrote: »

Meglome thanks for your comments on my rant and yes there's is a lot of hate in my posting and it comes from years of direct dealing with a lot of the imbeciles running this country. Fortunately I don't carry it around with and am in real life a good natured person but here in cyberspace I find it good therapy to lash out - as it seems do many others.

I do most of my ranting on here too and for mostly the same reasons.

Judgement Day wrote: »

As I am not trying to influence others to vote I will only respond to these to points:

Cool. I just think it's a good idea to point the finger where the finger should be pointed.

Judgement Day wrote: »

[
......No, but the way the EU/our politicians work when/if a Federal European state becomes an issue exactly the same arguments to vote in favour of it will be wheeled out viz: we need to be at the heart of Europe, there will be a plague of locusts if we vote NO etc.......etc.

And maybe that is true, maybe they will say these things. However the vast majority of Irish people wouldn't want this so it can't happen, end of.

Judgement Day wrote: »

........there are many forms of bullying and trying to frighten voters into voting YES by continually telling them the appalling consequences for them if they vote NO? If that doesn't constitute bullying what does?

The slogans on the Yes posters may be ****e but they are not really bullying. These things could happen, a No vote isn't consequence free. Look I don't like those posters but I don't want to blow them out of proportion either. I'm really just amazed that so many people are complaining about these posters but don't say a word about the out and out lies the No campaign are using.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Just heard Dick Roche on Newstalk this morning - another major reason for voting NO!

If I thought it would get FF out of office it would be tempting to vote No but that's not going to happen so I'll be sticking with my Yes vote.

I think the treaty on balance is good for Ireland and the EU. If we hate our government then campaign against that government, voting No to Lisbon gives the finger to the EU not our government.

Stainless_Steel

meglome wrote: »

Yeah let's get rid of the 80% of workers rights legislation we got from those bastards. Screw the workers I say.

Is that you're pro EU argument?! You think we NEED the EU to have worker's rights?!

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Or the directives to protect the environment, sure who needs that

Or directives that ensure our food and drinks are safe

i can go on




So you want access to the worlds largest market

But you dont want to implement any of the directives that help it make it so

You should readup on Norway who have to implement EU directives (while having no say in them) and have to pay yearly a quarter of a billion in order to gain access into EU market

yet more nonsense from someone who has no clue how EU and world operate

must be nice in you little bubble

Wow....I dont know if you've realised....but directives are fictional and made up by people. The Irish people can create them....we don't need the EU to hold our hand in being environmentally responsible.

How ironic of you to comment on me living in a bubble, when you're the one that sees so much importance in a group of leaders running your life and telling you what to do.

There are a lot of corrupt people in power within the EU....I'm sure they will welcome the YES voters with open arms.

Mario007

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

There are a lot of corrupt people in power within the EU....I'm sure they will welcome the YES voters with open arms.

do you have any proof of this? is barroso corrupt? is figel? or spidla? or solana? if you don't have any actual proof of this, then i suggest you visit the conspiracy theory forum, they're a great bunch for understanding these kind of comments

meglome

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Is that you're pro EU argument?! You think we NEED the EU to have worker's rights?!

Wow....I dont know if you've realised....but directives are fictional and made up by people. The Irish people can create them....we don't need the EU to hold our hand in being environmentally responsible.

You'd really trust our government to do this properly? Are you really that naive?

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

There are a lot of corrupt people in power within the EU....I'm sure they will welcome the YES voters with open arms.

Ah being insulted by No campaigners, it's just never gets old.

ei.sdraob

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Is that you're pro EU argument?! You think we NEED the EU to have worker's rights?!

you wouldn't have many "workers" without the EU, just ask any country that has no access to the EU market (a third of world trade happens here) or has to pay for the privilege (South American and African countries trying to export to EU but facing steep tarrifs)

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Wow....I dont know if you've realised....but directives are fictional and made up by people. The Irish people can create them....we don't need the EU to hold our hand in being environmentally responsible.

you do realize that we are far from Green? while other EU members like Germany and Denmark are now world leaders in renewables, we blew our wealth on houses and grew our carbon emissions to embarrassing levels, Ireland is anything but "green" if you dont believe me then drive down to MoneyPoint and checkout the mountain of coal the largest fossil burning plant in Ireland burns, thanks to pressure ESB have recently installed expensive equipment to scrub Sulphur out of the exhausts which is a cause of acid rain

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Wow....I dont know if you've realised....but directives are fictional and made up by people. The Irish people can create them....we don't need the EU to hold our hand in being environmentally responsible.

and we still do create our Laws, the EU has no say in many areas, and never will

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

How ironic of you to comment on me living in a bubble, when you're the one that sees so much importance in a group of leaders running your life and telling you what to do.

what you suggest? anarchy? a group of leaders are running (ruining? ) our lives from Dublin, and they are not doing a good job either and I cant wait to vote them out democratically

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

There are a lot of corrupt people in power within the EU....I'm sure they will welcome the YES voters with open arms.

name one

/

PKel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Paul,

It's any nations right to disagree with the others, and every nations right to add declarations to a treaty, I think you agree with that? The declarations are not legally binding, they are declarations, statements of opinion, or even intent if you like. It's a way of making your political view clear, without binding anyone else to it.

Then, given the reaction to Nice, I would wonder why Biffo et al, while negociating Lisbon, didn't try to put a declaration there to subvert some of the more predictable anti Europe rubbish (eg neutrality) that comes up again and again.

You'll have to take the wording of those declarations up with the governments who are making them, we are not voting on those declarations though,

No, we're voting on the Treaty...and its impact, its consequences.

Come to think of it, we're voting on more than the actual Lisbon treaty itself, which is just a collection of statements amending the treaty on the EU and the treaty establishing the EC...does every voter understand that?

The media NEVER mentions that...so all of this is relevant. The whole gestalt, so we can work out were this all might be going, and whether we approve of that.

I was as ardent treaty supporter until Nice as I feel the "enchanced cooperation" ultmately could undermine the whole European project. As far as I know that nothing so far has been undertaken using this option, but it's there. Why spend time negociating something in a treaty that you don't expect to use? Indeed this is now being used as part of scare tactics that we could be left behind should we reject the Lisbon again.

those declarations stand, whether Lisbon is implemented or not, they are declarations about the treaty, not within the treaty.

While it is not a legal precedent, this particular declaration asserts the precedent of the idea of allegiance to the EU. It's part of the consolidated version of the treaties...they ARE part. It shouldn't be dismissed.

I really don't see your problem, except that some countries would prefer closer integration, and want that will as public record.

Public record that they have allegiance to an entity which is not yet a State. It is evidence of how those 16 countries want to evolve the project. Of course, that's their business. Their declaration is akin to Michael Collins expressing allegiance to Fine Gael, which didn't exist when he was alive, though its precursors were. Strange, almost ridiculous.

So why did they make such a declaration? If it is as simple as you imply, your own words are more succinct. But it could be misused to imply support for allegiance a future EU State, where as you say it is supposed a sop to loss upset of loss of symbols from the constitution.

As for the other issue, I think it's pretty clear that the union exists "to obtain objectives they [The Member States] have in common" and it is granted competences to do that.

Pretty clear? It was more explicit in the Nice version.

There is ambiguity in the Lisbon Article 1. What people think the EU is about is not necessarily what the treaty says...or how it can be interpreted.

I don't see what the big deal is here...

That is what the yes side maintain.

The Yes side say that nothing fundamental is changing, which is not incorrect. But there ARE differences, subtle differences which the uncritical ignore. Slowly the EU changes, but there comes a time when even subtle changes are too much (for some).

The difference between Nice-EU and Lisbon-Eu is subtle. Lisbon Article 1 describes a set of affairs slightly different, a little bit closer to the super State.

But has the people of Europe said they want this? Governments have, and so it proceeds. And if anyone says "Hold on" they are ignored...and I don't just mean Nice 2 or Lisbon 2.

In the new Article 4, we are introduced to the concept of "sincere cooperation". What is insincere cooperation?Member States who want to back out of something they didn't think they were committing to?

Article 4 says "persuant to the principle of sincere cooperation" member states shall assist each other in the implementation of task arising from the treaty; that members should take whatever measures to comply with the treaty obligations [no probs there] and "Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Unions tasks and refrain from any measure that could jeopardise the attainment of the Unions objectives"

Under Nice, the equivalent I think is Article 10 of the Treaty Establishing the EC. Without mention of their sincerity, Member States must do what they need to achieve community tasks. BUT "They shall abstain from any measure which would jeopardise the attaintment of the objectives this Treaty"

The difference? Abstain does not equal refrain. One means members could consider potentially "unEuropean" measures but should not commit to them either way. Now it's members shouldn't, full stop.

Also subtle is the change from Treaty's objectives to Union's objectives. You may say it amounts to the same thing, but it is part of the issue of the EU separating itself from Member States....something SOME people may not like.

Paul.

PopeBuckfastXVI

PKel wrote: »

Then, given the reaction to Nice, I would wonder why Biffo et al, while negociating Lisbon, didn't try to put a declaration there to subvert some of the more predictable anti Europe rubbish (eg neutrality) that comes up again and again.




No, we're voting on the Treaty...and its impact, its consequences.

Come to think of it, we're voting on more than the actual Lisbon treaty itself, which is just a collection of statements amending the treaty on the EU and the treaty establishing the EC...does every voter understand that?

The media NEVER mentions that...so all of this is relevant. The whole gestalt, so we can work out were this all might be going, and whether we approve of that.

I was as ardent treaty supporter until Nice as I feel the "enchanced cooperation" ultmately could undermine the whole European project. As far as I know that nothing so far has been undertaken using this option, but it's there. Why spend time negociating something in a treaty that you don't expect to use? Indeed this is now being used as part of scare tactics that we could be left behind should we reject the Lisbon again.



While it is not a legal precedent, this particular declaration asserts the precedent of the idea of allegiance to the EU. It's part of the consolidated version of the treaties...they ARE part. It shouldn't be dismissed.



Public record that they have allegiance to an entity which is not yet a State. It is evidence of how those 16 countries want to evolve the project. Of course, that's their business. Their declaration is akin to Michael Collins expressing allegiance to Fine Gael, which didn't exist when he was alive, though its precursors were. Strange, almost ridiculous.

So why did they make such a declaration? If it is as simple as you imply, your own words are more succinct. But it could be misused to imply support for allegiance a future EU State, where as you say it is supposed a sop to loss upset of loss of symbols from the constitution.



Pretty clear? It was more explicit in the Nice version.

There is ambiguity in the Lisbon Article 1. What people think the EU is about is not necessarily what the treaty says...or how it can be interpreted.



That is what the yes side maintain.

The Yes side say that nothing fundamental is changing, which is not incorrect. But there ARE differences, subtle differences which the uncritical ignore. Slowly the EU changes, but there comes a time when even subtle changes are too much (for some).

The difference between Nice-EU and Lisbon-Eu is subtle. Lisbon Article 1 describes a set of affairs slightly different, a little bit closer to the super State.

But has the people of Europe said they want this? Governments have, and so it proceeds. And if anyone says "Hold on" they are ignored...and I don't just mean Nice 2 or Lisbon 2.

In the new Article 4, we are introduced to the concept of "sincere cooperation". What is insincere cooperation?Member States who want to back out of something they didn't think they were committing to?

Article 4 says "persuant to the principle of sincere cooperation" member states shall assist each other in the implementation of task arising from the treaty; that members should take whatever measures to comply with the treaty obligations [no probs there] and "Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Unions tasks and refrain from any measure that could jeopardise the attainment of the Unions objectives"

Under Nice, the equivalent I think is Article 10 of the Treaty Establishing the EC. Without mention of their sincerity, Member States must do what they need to achieve community tasks. BUT "They shall abstain from any measure which would jeopardise the attaintment of the objectives this Treaty"

The difference? Abstain does not equal refrain. One means members could consider potentially "unEuropean" measures but should not commit to them either way. Now it's members shouldn't, full stop.

Also subtle is the change from Treaty's objectives to Union's objectives. You may say it amounts to the same thing, but it is part of the issue of the EU separating itself from Member States....something SOME people may not like.

Paul.

Hi Paul,

Not going to quote machine gun you here as we're getting closer and closer to agreement on the meaning, if not the worth of the text...

First of all, I do believe that we should copy and paste the Lisbon guarantees into every future treaty. It would make us look like backwards self obsessed paranoid idiots in front of the rest of Europe, but if the shoe fits...

As for the language change, remember Lisbon is a step back from the European constitution, which indeed set out to more closely integrate the Union in a more state-like way. Some of that language survives, I don't have a problem with it (but then I wouldn't), but it's not exactly inducing servitude. I think it's right that Union members should refrain from acting against the Union, where the Union has an agreed objective. If you disagree with the objective then seek to change it.

I guess I have less paranoia about an institution that has been overwhelmingly benign both to Ireland, it's other members and pretty well the rest of the world, consistently leading the way in areas like Human Rights, Environmental Protection and Social Justice. It's good to have a real social democratic counterbalance to the seek profit above all else attitude across the Atlantic, and anything that makes the EU more cohesive and stronger is, in my book, a good thing.

Zzippy

meglome wrote: »

But we have control or our country except where we choose to share it. It's completely our choice, no one is making us do anything. And I've yet to see anyone explain where this sharing has turned out to be a bad thing.

Would you say sharing our fishing rights has been a good thing? 18% of EU territorial waters and only 4% of the quota. A fishing fleet that is outcompeted by larger countries with free access to our fish stocks, declining employment and no resources to modernise...
Whatever about other sectors, the management under Europe of our fish stocks has certainly been a "race to the bottom".
Its all very well saying Ireland has done well out of Europe, of course we have, no one disputes that, but we must also acknowledge that our neighbours have done extremely well out of Ireland since 1973.