Lisbon Voters Please Answer These Questions

Plotician

Actually, you've got to answer yes to that. (Understand the logic).

marco_polo

Plotician wrote: »

Actually, you've got to answer yes to that. (Understand the logic).

I agree it is all in the eye of the beholder. However the DFA are taking the position of a Yes being a successful result from their point of view. And while they are not allowed to spend money campaign on the issue, as far as I am aware they are under no obligation to be neutral either.

Plotician

Yep, in the eye of the beholder. I don't think the DFA should really be a vehicle for influencing a referendum personally. It has existed since 1919 and is an office open to whoever is in power.

Hypothetical, but if we had a SF government right now would we be happy if they were using the office of the DFA to oppose the treaty?

Anyway, over and out for tonight.

Scofflaw

Plotician wrote: »

Actually, you've got to answer yes to that. (Understand the logic).

Yes, that one works under either your definition or mine. However, if I were opposed to it, and the result were a No, I would say that we had 'defeated' it, not that it was 'successful'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

I agree it is all in the eye of the beholder. However the DFA are taking the position of a Yes being a successful result from their point of view. And while they are not allowed to spend money campaign on the issue, as far as I am aware they are under no obligation to be neutral either.

They're under an obligation to be independent of the government of the day (that being the model of civil service that we inherited), and they're not allowed to campaign, but you're right, they're entitled to an opinion.

Unfortunately, when they happen to agree with the government of the day, it's very easy for opponents to claim that they're not properly independent of the government - and most people would conflate that political neutrality with neutrality on the issue in question.

If you think about it, the idea that we have a DFA which is not prepared to offer its opinion to the public is ridiculous - are their opinions supposed to be for the government only?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

Legal assurances and a change to the commissioner rules (or are they irrelevant in your opinion?)

assurances about things that already are in the treaty or about issues such as abortion that have nothing to do with the treaty

yeh :rolleyes:

as for commissioner as i mentioned before i would have been happier if the commission size was cut and eventually eliminated


and no he is not "our" commisioner :mad:

marco_polo

Plotician wrote: »

Yep, in the eye of the beholder. I don't think the DFA should really be a vehicle for influencing a referendum personally. It has existed since 1919 and is an office open to whoever is in power.

Hypothetical, but if we had a SF government right now would we be happy if they were using the office of the DFA to oppose the treaty?

Anyway, over and out for tonight.

Well in that case why would there even be a referendum?

As for whether someone would be happy or not would presumeaby depend entirely on their side of the fence.

PKel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Very much so, yes. If we must be given guarantees on abortion & neutrality in every treaty, because every time there's a treaty we assume the EU is out to force abortion and an end to neutrality on us, like they even care, then yes, we show ourselves as backwards and paranoid.

While these issues don't have much currency with me, I recognise the sensitivites for others. Given how we allow the EU to make policy in certains areas, it is easy enough to work out how they might perceive (or mis-perceive) that EU might somehow make policy regarding their cherished concerns. That does not make them backward or paranoid.

In terms of a Member State Declaration, a generic/cryptic statement referring to the non prejudice [even if it's a recapitulation of -statements made elsewhere]to whatever Articles in the Irish Constitution apply, could deal with these (non) issues without signalling the ignorance or otherwise of some of the people of Ireland, AND which need not jeopardise Ireland's face.

Perhaps because they want to stress that the cooperation is indeed sincere, and not a marriage of convenience that future members may join to reap the benefits without giving anything themselves.

Yes, a plausible interpretation. I am not sure any country has behaved in this manner thus far, unless that's been hushed up! As I as said before, why put something into a treaty without reason. Do they not trust potential new members' motives? In any case, as it stands, I find it's a little strange but neither positive nor negative by itself.

In fact I'd completely buy your interpretation were it not for the same phrase occurring in Article 13 regarding the institutions of the EU. Of course they should cooperate and not step on each others toes. But they are not member or potential member states "out for a quick buck" or less lofty goals than the treaties aspire. Surely the instutions or the EU aren't going to vie with each other. It's puzzling.

The sincerity issue is but a single piece of evidence...see below.

Well if enough people don't share your views then you'll just have to live with it, I'm afraid. That's democracy for you.

Ah the democracy chestnut! While Plotician is right to question democracy in this context, I'll adopt a different retort:

First of all, let's take the direct spotlight off me (afterall I may well be a crackpot!). Let's assume the is some issue the crops up be it in relation to a treaty or some proposed legislation, that a large majority (say 70%) of people in Ireland object to. The question becomes: How are they to affect change at the EU level?

Regarding treaty changes:


Do they appeal to their TD or MEP? Would that make a difference? By the time the issue comes to public light there has been tons of negociation. There would be a draft treaty, negociated "in the national interest". Worded in such a way that despite potential misgivings of Irish necogiators, they believe they could sell it to the Dail or the people.

We have already seen that there is an inbuild inertia to treaties [which is not a negative thing in and of itself]. The political teams simply accept whatever the necogiators come back with. They proceed to tell people to also accept the deal, it was the best we could get. Anyone who argues otherwise is plain wrong. Is it any wonder such conduct of our representatives leads to a disconnect between what occur at the EU level and the people. In this hypothetical case between 70% of the people and the EU. Where is the democracy?

This has also fuelled the conspiracy theorists no end.

Regarding legislative changes

This time appealling to our TDs and MEPs might work. But would it make a difference. If Ireland has retained a veto on the area this issue applies then democracy is fully served. If its a QMV area, they might be able to (or not) to argue our views. Should they prevail great, if not the TDs/MEPs will return saying we did our best but "sorry, you'll just have to live with it. That's democracy".

But how many of the mythical 70% would be satisfied? Let's assume a large majority. Which leaves us with with say 20% not happy with the kind of treatment the EU metes out. As you say it's not exactly servitude, it's more like disinterest. Again this leads to a disconnect.

With Lisbon more areas (is 40 odd?) are going QMV. The 70% might get the answer...that's now QMV since the last time we spoke, and the cycle continues.

Frankly I think a million signatures is too few in a population of 500 million to take up the commissions time considering. I'm not too interested in the citizens petition, I can see it being used by special interest groups to push their own agenda's a lot, frankly I think it will be a bit of an annoyance. We can probably look forward to Ray D'Arcy Show organised petitions to declare Roy Keane the best ever premiership footballer.

Yes! At best the petition proposal can be considered as additional annoying paperwork. And given the logistics, I think it's unlikely many petitions would actually end up being submitted.

Again, as I analyse this treaty, I ask myself, what is the worth of this? Why add to the difficulty of running the Commission...departments would need to be organised/funded to handle these. Again another strange piece of evidence...

To seek to infer nefarious purposes on a historically benign organisation is a little paranoid though.

A critical mind should not approach a subject with a pre-set outcome decided or imagined.

I haven't.

I have looked at evidence...the changes. Piece by piece. I have yet to find a change where I am overwhelming positive for (this is not a bad thing BTW). I see changes which either don't effect me or that I see as benign. And I see many (more than I would post about: is that a sigh of relief I hear?!) that I don't like and moreover don't see a benign purpose for.

If I *were* paranoid, I could harp on that you keep saying *historically* benign. But there is a huge difference between a messageboard posting and an internationally binding treaty between sovereign countries. Countries have political agendas and treaties are made to service all the needs of the parties involved. Ascertaining their agendas is valid...but that does/should not provide reasons in favour or against a treaty. It does, however, provide context, which can be used to interpret evidence.

Indeed, but a No to Europe most definitely is a No to Lisbon, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes.

Agreed. But I've lost count of the many times Yes proponents say "Oh you can't be pro-Europe and vote no to Lisbon". I am trying to advocate exactly that. I don't want to promote reasons to vote no (or yes). Everyone's reasons are their own. And I can see people viewing my reasons as picky (or choose your own disbaraging adjective!). To each his/her own.

The EU project was founded essentially to prevent war in Europe. And between it's Member States then that objective is a success. It's moved on towards its "ever closer union". I don't want a United States of Europe. But I don't care if say France and Germany want to unite as FrancoDeutschland and for FrancoDeutschland to be a member state of the EU. That *would* require the French and German people's direct consent, and they would be completely clear about what was occurring. But the EU is a "top down" rather and "bottom up" approach. The shortcomings of this top-down method give rise to the perceived negatives that you accuse me of "reading into" the documents. For instance, top down means some this MUST be imposed from above (again often for very good, practical reasons).

The EU rolls on...with benign, well intentioned pursuits. Unintenionally, this approach has and, if nothing changes, will continue to exacerbate the disconnect between people and the EU...which we all agree is not an ideal state of affairs. Lisbon includes at least two that I see "bottom-up approaches" to attempt to rectifiy this. The Citizens petition is dubious and likely ineffectual. The increasing role of National Parliaments...great, but the actual details...I'm not so convinced of the worth of those provisions. As I see it, these laudable ideas are being used as sops or political capital to promote the treaty.

The treaty should be well intentioned in intent [almost goes without saying, unless you really ARE paranoid] and the actual terms of treaty and their worth should contribute toward the intent. I see a conflict here. Too many (for my liking) provisions will not provide a meaningful benefit. Given the economic concerns, why do something that inevitably will cost money (at the EU level for the petition; member state level for the national parliaments' input) for little reason and no meaningful return?

A Yes to the intent of the EU does NOT mean Yes to Lisbon...how many make or understand that difference?

Paul.

PKel

Scofflaw wrote: »

Positive consequences if you vote yes this time, though. Negotiation is like that. If you hold out for ever you get nothing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Absolutely true. But, as I pointed out in my other posts, there is a growing disconnect between people and the EU...and even what they believe the EU actually does.

In this case, "getting nothing" means staying with Nice-EU. We were good little Europeans when we accepted it the second time...why is Nice not enough now? The main point was to get the Accession States in i.e a bigger Europe. What better time to introduce tweaks for even further enlargement...but apparently they hadn't worked out all the details. Saying No Thank You to THIS deal may well be difficult for some, but they shouldn't settle for second best.

The possible outcomes: Yes and nothing changes. The EU will operate much as it does now. But an increasingly large minority become disconnected from the European project.

No: "stuck" with Lisbon, nothing changes. The EU will operate as it does now. Ireland may get grief in the short term, for being a stick in the mud. But the Eu does respects our sovereign opinions, right? Potentially a discussion may ensue as how the people of Europe see they should go. Would some countries invoke enhanced cooperation? What might they do? Ireland needn't be excluded from that. More jaundicedly, might another mini treaty emerge in a couple of years time and we start this process all over again?

Potential Economic effect to Ireland. The economic policy of Ireland isn't changing, we're not leaving the euro or changing the corporation tax. Ultimately, the economy/jobs issue is likely to be non sequator in relation to Lisbon.

Clearly the European project needs some kind of revision, or a the very least discussion. Paradoxically, the status quo (ie keep Nice-EU) is the only way that I see to change the status quo of how the European project operates.

Paul.

Stabshauptmann

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

...

We also only need to find 3 other countries to veto any law, no matter how many for it.

No this is not correct

it is not the case that 4 countries coming together can block a proposal. 35% of the participating population is required, and this population must be spread over at least 4 countries.

prinz

PKel wrote: »

The EU project was founded essentially to prevent war in Europe. And between it's Member States then that objective is a success. It's moved on towards its "ever closer union". I don't want a United States of Europe.

A Yes to the intent of the EU does NOT mean Yes to Lisbon...how many make or understand that difference?

Paul.

Do you think the Lisbon Treaty facilitates the journey towards the creation of a United States of Europe?

ixtlan

PKel wrote: »

Absolutely true. But, as I pointed out in my other posts, there is a growing disconnect between people and the EU...and even what they believe the EU actually does.

Actually these are good posts. I'd even almost give you a boards "thank" except I don't want to promote them! Ah heck, maybe I will anyhow...

I do disagree though with your views, although very well expressed.

Regarding the idea that 70% of the public oppose something and it gets forced on us, there is a certain element of faith here, for which one does have to look at the historical context of the EU. The EU goes out of it's way to an extreme to avoid situations where any large group of people would object to a policy. I find it unlikely, though I admit it's possible, that any such issue would arise for which 1/ The EU used QMV knowing that 70% of the Irish public cared enough to have an opinion against the issue. 2/ That for such a contensious issue we would not be able to find the minimum number of states to block the proposal.

On the growing disconnect, I agree it is there, but I disagree that it is isolated to the EU. It's a disconnect between the public and politics in general, and no amount of EU reform is going to correct it. It will have to be corrected by teaching people in schools that politics are important... that politicans are just like them... and if they don't think they are enough like them or don't represent them then they need to become politicans.

My theory is that this disconnect comes from the "stability" of moderm life. People have problems but usually (not always) this is not life and death... and people have settled into a consensus that they suport center parties... then they complain they are all the same.

Ix

Sam Vimes

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

No this is not correct

it is not the case that 4 countries coming together can block a proposal. 35% of the participating population is required, and this population must be spread over at least 4 countries.

Yeah I corrected him on that a while ago :P I thought it was that way myself for a while tbh

edit: I corrected him after he wrote that post. He didn't deliberately lie, he thought that's the way it was

ixtlan

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah I corrected him on that a while ago :P I thought it was that way myself for a while tbh

edit: I corrected him after he wrote that post. He didn't deliberately lie, he thought that's the way it was

Actually can we get some clarification on this?

My reading of the treaty is that if all the states participate, ie vote yes or no... you only need 4 states to block.

If not all the states vote, then the number might be less than 4. That is it could be 3 if 2 of the 3 exceeded 35% of the pop of the participating states. However likewise you might need more than 4, if they were small states...

I'm confused...

I include the articles below. Note that article 16 makes no mention of a polulation requirement for blocking... only article 238 in the case of not all members voting.



Article 16:
A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.
The other arrangements governing the qualified majority are laid down in Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Article 238(2)
3. As from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions, in cases where, under the Treaties, not all the members of the Council participate in voting, a qualified majority shall be defined as follows:
(a) A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.
A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained;

ixtlan

If I may reference FutureTaoiseach from another thread...

"As a qualified-majority is 55% of the countries including 65% of the EU's population, and as a blocking minority must include 4 countries, that means that a blocking-minority is 4 member states with over 35% of the EU's population."

OK... I'm going to answer my own question. It is a mimimum of 4 and possibly more. The idea of the blocking minority requirement is to prevent the large countries from blocking everything...

and you do need 35% of the pop of participating states...

???/ I think...

Ix

View

Plotician wrote: »

Not true. The last referendum resulted in a no and had positive consequences.

Speaking personally, I don't regard the last No as having resulted in "positive consequences" at all. In fact, I'd say it was highly damaging for Ireland.

The post-referendum polls indicated that a large part of the No vote was based on stuff that wasn't in the treaty - needing to obtain legal guarentees that stuff that isn't in the treaty really isn't in the treaty just makes us look like the village idiots of the EU.

And yes that does damage us - for instance, suppose that in response to the financial crisis various EU member states urgently wanted to establish an EU NAMA to clear up the mess. Should that involve any EU Treaty changes, the other member states would probably ask us to opt out of any mechanism that established/operated it. This would be due to the fear that if we "opt in" then in the subsequent referendum here some on the No side would invent some fantasy about the treaty which could result in a No vote, thus derailing an important treaty designed to deal with an urgent issue.

Furthermore, even if our Government didn't like that analysis, they could hardly refuse such a request for us to opt out if there is a track record of the electorate rejecting previous EU treaties for reasons that are spurious (i.e. issues not in the treaties) and/or impossible for our Government to resolve (i.e. the demand by the No side, that all other member states use referenda to ratify EU treaties).

PopeBuckfastXVI

Yes Sam corrected me after I wrote the post, genuine mistake.

I then went on to edit this article I had written on the subject:
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=109

Sorry all, I'll try harder in future

PKel

prinz wrote: »

Do you think the Lisbon Treaty facilitates the journey towards the creation of a United States of Europe?

The short answer is yes. But it is a deceptively complex question you've asked.

Before I explain, let me say that I'm NOT stating a potential U.S.E. has negative connotations. It certainly for me is a step too far, though it IS one avenue for the future of the European project. If brought about in the wrong way it would do nothing to solve the disconnect issue I mentioned (I'll say more about the disconnect when I repy to Ixtlan's post later when I get time). It's a loss of sovereignty that I would find difficulty in accepting. Moreover, I wouldn't berate those who think otherwise about a U.S.E.

Looking at Lisbon, it certainly does not say here comes U.S.E. Anyone arguing that could be refuted.

I have difficulties with Article 1. On the face of it, the article says the EU is set up between Member States with powers given to it by the Member States. As a description, this reflects the current situation. So where's my problem, you ask.

Nice Article 1 says we establish the EU among ourselves and its task is to organise relations between Members.

As I see it Nice Article 1 expresses well the INTENT of the EU/European project. The Union is a framework to facilitate relations between Member States.

Lisbon Article 1 is trying to describe the Union as it is/has become. It asserts the Union as an entity with power (however you express that). Member States inherently have power. Explictly, now the EU is stated to have power.

Under Nice, the Union's/framework's power is incidental. Its power arises as a consequence of performing its allotted task.

Under Lisbon, the EU's power is granted ab initio, from the very start. So it's a *bit* like a nation.

I again argue that there is ambiguity as to the phrase "on which Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common" That is the reason the Union acquires these "competences"...the intent of the Member States. That particular paragraph is written from the perspective of the "High Contracting Parties".

The article is agnostic as whether the Union itself has exactly the same objective. I can't see that it would particularly go out of its way beyond the Member States objectives. But, there is wiggle room that is not present in Nice Article 1. [I'm not asserting this change in emphasis is deliberate, but it IS there]. The Union having its own objectives is NOT excluded.

As such the Lisbon definition of the Union is not limited to a particular function. In fact I see no references to this Union having a function to organise relations between Member States anywhere in the Treaty (please correct me if I'm wrong). All uses of the term "relations" seem to be with countries or organisations external to the Union.

The only thing similar to my preferred definition of the EU is in Article 25 "strengthening systemic cooperation between Member States in the conduct of policy" but this Article is refering to common foreign and security policy, which is a contentious area.

The treaty has nice words about founding prinicples of respect and goes on to state what it does, which we all must admit are very state-like things, parliament, courts, currency etc in any case.

Whereas the Nice version, these (already present) quasi-state functions are a by-product in a cooperative engagement between states.

As presented in the Lisbon treaty, the Union is asserted and has these a quasi-state functions.

So, for me, the change in emphasis, the gestalt of the Lisbon treaty not only facilitates, but is a major step toward a U.S.E.

Paul.

PKel

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually these are good posts. I'd even almost give you a boards "thank" except I don't want to promote them! Ah heck, maybe I will anyhow...

I do disagree though with your views, although very well expressed.

Thank you. Namaste.

As an aside, I find it a little ironic that the European project instead of bringing people together on the issue has (unintenionally) generated the artificial division between Europhiles and Euro-sceptic/phobics. Any questions immediately places you in the sceptic camp...and, I might add, gets you branded as a loolah. Questioning is healthy and is not an immediate indication of lunacy!

My theory is that this disconnect comes from the "stability" of moderm life. People have problems but usually (not always) this is not life and death... and people have settled into a consensus that they suport center parties... then they complain they are all the same.

Disconnect develops if questions/concerns are either dismissed or ignored. Perhaps, the tweedle dumb tweedle dee effect comes into play. Though the effective political polarisation on the Europe issue hasn't exactly got the voters scrambling to the ballot boxes in European elections.

Regarding the idea that 70% of the public oppose something and it gets forced on us, there is a certain element of faith here, for which one does have to look at the historical context of the EU.

I accept that there are some big assumptions there. The point being that concerns (parochial or otherwise) of a people could get ignored. Democracy has a different interpretation depending on where it applies...

The EU goes out of it's way to an extreme to avoid situations where any large group of people would object to a policy.

Indeed. Would we have had a "period of reflection" if France had voted yes to the constitution? Would, in such a scenario, the problem have become for the Dutch to resolve their own problem? What derailed the constitution? Two States saying no...but didn't two others vote yes? Or the 60 million population of France placed into the "No" column...not that 60 million voted.

Would 14 million Dutch have had the same impact alone...I don't know.

Three million is nothing in comparison. How large a group of people do you need to get your reply accepted at an EU level? The historical context on that front isn't particularly great...the Danes in was it Maastricht and us on Nice and Lisbon. More than 4/5 ish million? :-/

I find it unlikely, though I admit it's possible, that any such issue would arise for which 1/ The EU used QMV knowing that 70% of the Irish public cared enough to have an opinion against the issue. 2/ That for such a contensious issue we would not be able to find the minimum number of states to block the proposal.

I concede it's unlikely that 70% would care enough about any issue...god I'd love it if 90% of people actually did care enough to even vote as the poll said last weekend. I chose 70% to represent a large majority. Implicit in the figure is the possibility that our representatives (or necogiators) need not reflect majority opinion on certain issues (this happens all the time I'm afraid...again an aspect of the disconnect problem). The EU need not (innocently) realise the import of a particular issue. The representives themselves, acting genuinely, may feel an issue is not that "important" or isn't a deal breaker. This leaves QMV overruling 70% less unlikely than you may think. And what's contentious for some may not be for another, though would "disconnected" representatives provide convincing arguments to a subject they are not necessarily in synch with?

Granted, I would hope that this situation wouldn't occur, certainly at the 70% ignored rate. But take a smaller arbritary percentage, even a large minority, and now we're still in the same position. Significant numbers of people could/can get overridden. And certainly less likely to be a contentious issue for others. The result, oh well 40% or 30% [where do we stop?] have to "get over it". The current EU breeds disconnect. More so since the people are only likely to hear about policy (contentious or not) after it's been voted on.

I should also say that this is not a big state versus small state issue. This problem goes toward where sovereignty is placed in the EU context. Is it with the peoples (plural) or the institutions...where it seems to be morphing to as the European project evolves.

I'm not saying we need to run EU-wide plebesites on every issue. EU functioning is simply NOT people friendly nor is Lisbon going to correct this. Feeding potential legislation to national parliaments (which I hear has actually been in practice since 2006) hardly informs the people. The petition is realistically only a political trinket. The most obvious connection between the people and the EU is their MEP...but they can't initiate policy as far as I know. Any change may well be tricky, but wouldn't it be better to get these basics right, or rather back on course?

On the growing disconnect, I agree it is there, but I disagree that it is isolated to the EU.

It was not my intention to convey that the disconnect is limited to the EU. If I asserted this somewhere, I withdraw it. My comments were that the disconnect exists, and arises in a EU context...and has the distinct likelihood to become exacerbated if the EU continues to operate as it has up to now.

It's a disconnect between the public and politics in general, and no amount of EU reform is going to correct it.

This is where I must disagree with you strongly. While I don't deny dealing with this at the school level would help, why can't disconnect be tackled at the EU level? All the member states would have this problem surely. Is it not one reason for the EU but to tackle and resolve problems common to member states? I don't mean we instigate another institution or appoint another Commissioner to deal with the issue...that would be like papering over the cracks. EU reform to include direct, but meaningful, connection between the people and the institutions would, at the very least, beneficial in terms of democracy. If it can be seen that issues can be taken to the EU and respectfully dealt with (and not fobbed off eg the Citizens Petition), then disconnect is reduced. That's good for the EU, and (hopefully) instil more "political positivity" at the Member State level.

Hell, such a scenario could even foster support for a U.S.E. which I actually could accept if it is an organic outgrowth of general sentiment, rather than as an imposition stemming from a vague generic expression of collegiality. I bet you never expected me to say that!!!

In a historical context, we have been granted a unique opportunity to constructively contribute to the development of the European project. Our decision is not merely to decide the immediate future of one small country but also could help shape a new direction, a people-centred direction, for the EU. Perhaps the politicians realise this without expressing it. The posters like "we're stronger with Europe", "Yes to Jobs, Yes to Europe" are not even agruments for or against the Lisbon Treaty. We should avoid a decision which is fear-based (be that economic fears or "big brother EU" fears).

Ultimately, I believe, we need to ask ourselves: "Does the Lisbon Treaty contribute positively to the European project [i.e not the EU]?" This is not a simple question and requires more than a modicum of consideration and, indeed, necessitates that you do not adopt/accept the analyses of others...without thinking. It may be easier not to think and jump to a decision based solely on your biases or fears. Instead, I suggest you use your critical faculties [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking ], even if your analysis brings you back to your original inclination. If the future is important to you, this decision deserves nothing less.

Paul.

ei.sdraob

PKel wrote: »

Hell, such a scenario could even foster support for a U.S.E.

ahem ahem

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055692179

roosh

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The 0.8% relates to the population requirement, there's also the nation requirement where we get 3.7% of that vote.

In order to pass QMV Double Majority the following must happen:
* To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

So we have 0.8% of the population requirement and 3.7% of the number of countries requirement.

We also only need to find 3 other countries to veto any law, no matter how many for it.

Double Majority QMV absolutely protects the interests of smaller countries, that's the whole point of it.

The people claiming we only have 0.8% are purposefully distorting reality to make it sound worse than it is. Why do this? I would suggest it's because the reality isn't that bad, so they have to distort it, in order to achieve the 'no' vote they crave.

Part of the reason is because the major political parties of this country have failed to clarify it.

One of the potential ramifications of the QMV, even with the double majority system, is that it gives power to the bigger countries. Ireland as an ally in Europe would be pretty weak, so if we want to veto a law, there would be little incentive to join us, over say Germany, France, Italy, the UK or anyone else. What would be more likely to happen, I believe, is that the bigger countries, being better allies will be in a position to dictate legislation moreso, and look to get the smaller countries on side by throwing them a bone every now and then.

Also, do countries such as Germany not see an increase in their voting rights? Making us doubly weak when it comes to EU legislation.

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

One of the potential ramifications of the QMV, even with the double majority system, is that it gives power to the bigger countries.

Which is, of course, why Ireland and Malta and Luxembourg and Belgium and Denmark and so on all agreed to this system when negotiating the treaty.

Wait a sec...

roosh

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is, of course, why Ireland and Malta and Luxembourg and Belgium and Denmark and so on all agreed to this system when negotiating the treaty.

Wait a sec...

Yes, I have overwhelming faith in our European representatives


wait a sec.....

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Yes, I have overwhelming faith in our European representatives


wait a sec.....

Our European representatives have done a great job for Ireland

we still receive more funding from EU than we pay back

never in any year since we joined the EU have we contributed more than we took, even during the boom!

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

Yes, I have overwhelming faith in our European representatives

So you're saying that your interpretation of QMV is correct, and that of the people who negotiated the treaty on behalf of all the small countries in the EU is wrong?

PKel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ahem ahem

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055692179

You seem to think that all "noooers" (as you put it) must think alike and have the same opinions.

Do you feel bound by Michael O'Leary's opinions, statements, actions?

I wouldn't ask any Lisbon supporter to defend O'Leary's actions/statements.

All I ask is a similar respect for me, and all others who have questions/queries (no matter how irrelevant you may feel about their issues).

In my posts on this topic, all I am saying is that that [I won't repeat the word, since seeing it seems to make you overreact] is a possible extension of the European project. There are many ways to get there...if that's where we are going.

I don't care what Ganley has to say. His issues and wishes are his own.

I don't care what Cóir have to say. Their issues and interpretations are their own.

I don't care what Sinn Féin have to say. I've never voted for them and have yet to see a reason to change my mind.

The opinions/statements of others are interesting but should not form a basis on which we should make a decision.

Where is the hypocrisy in wanting a more people centred functioning EU...no matter what it may or may not evolve into in the future?

As I have been trying to point out, there is far more complexity to the "European Issue" than at first seems. Yes/No hardly suffices, but it's what we've got.

There are many shades of Yes and many shades of No.

There are many reasons for voting Yes or No.

The term you react to has no direct bearing on the Lisbon treaty. And I have not raised it as such. When asked, I explained my opinion. The possibility is neither positive nor negative in it's own right.

As I have said before a No to Lisbon does not mean No to the European project or the EU; and Yes to the intent of the European project does not necessarily mean Yes to Lisbon.

The complexity of these kinds of question requires nuanced thinking in order to come to a reasoned decision to opt for Yes/No.

Paul.