Lisbon: Yes for Jobs?

rumour

Thanks, I've gotta get some sleep. Goodnight

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

I'm really not following you now, is the treaty altered between signing and the consolidated version or have I read this incorrectly? Article 2 is being replaced by article 2 in article 3??

For the avoidance of doubt, this is a genunine question.

There is a table of equivalences set out in the Annex that shows what articles are renumbered. This is nescessary so that after all the insertions and deletions of articles, the final document ends up with an continuously numbered articles (I presume?).


This is mentioned in Article 5.1

1. The articles, parts, titles, chapters and sections of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as amended by this Treaty, shall be renumbered in accordance with the tables of equivalences set out in the Annex to this Treaty.

2. The cross references to the articles, parts, titles, chapters and sections of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as well as between them, shall be adapted accordingly. The same shall apply as regards references to the articles, parts, titles, chapters and sections of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union contained in the other treaties and acts of primary legislation on which the Union is founded.

3. The references to the articles, parts, titles, chapters and sections of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union contained in other instruments or acts shall be understood as referring to the articles, parts, titles, chapters and sections of those Treaties as renumbered pursuant to paragraph 1 and, respectively, to the paragraphs of the said articles, as renumbered by certain provisions of this Treaty.

BlitzKrieg

it also helps that any article that was in some form in a prior treaty has the follwing under its title:

Article 3
(ex Article 2 TEU)

Makes it easy to know whats brand spanking new to lisbon, whats updated and whats exactly the same as Nice (which is a mistake happening alot these days.)

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Frankly I was using a pdf I had from the last time. I used that in order to establish the changes. The consolidated text is fine if you just want to know whats in front of your nose. I have tried to explain this before, I am more interested in the direction of the EU rather than the specifics of this treaty. Idon'tthinkI've raised ay concern other than the value systemupon which it is founded, which by any standards is vague. I do not see this as a good thingin the long term.

I would normally deal with this sort of thing by change marked documents, obviously that can't be made readily available. But thats just me it's habit.

This version is exactly what you are looking for, it includes deleted text, inserted text, new articles etc.

I think you will find your paracetamol bill greatly reduced, by using this instead of the original treaty

http://iiea.com/documents/iiea-annotated

marco murphy

To those who advocate a 'Yes'.

What is to stop any country or the EU kickstarting a job creation strategy, be it green or whatever. Why is a Yes vote needed for this?

Scofflaw

Perestroika wrote: »

To those who advocate a 'Yes'.

What is to stop any country or the EU kickstarting a job creation strategy, be it green or whatever. Why is a Yes vote needed for this?

From a treaty point of view there's not that much in it, bar the change from "high level of employment" to "full employment". From the point of view of the EU getting into action rather than navel-gazing about reform, there's a lot in it. It's like asking why you need to fix your roof before redecorating.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco murphy

Scofflaw wrote: »

From a treaty point of view there's not that much in it, bar the change from "high level of employment" to "full employment". From the point of view of the EU getting into action rather than navel-gazing about reform, there's a lot in it. It's like asking why you need to fix your roof before redecorating.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Surely not a justification for "YES TO JOBS" as seen on Fine Gael's posters?

Scofflaw

Perestroika wrote: »

Surely not a justification for "YES TO JOBS" as seen on Fine Gael's posters?

I don't think that's a reference to any explicit commitment in the Treaty. It's more the FDI / polico-economic stability and consistency argument. At this stage we're not exactly voting on just the Treaty text - more the consequences of the vote itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Perestroika wrote: »

To those who advocate a 'Yes'.

What is to stop any country or the EU kickstarting a job creation strategy, be it green or whatever. Why is a Yes vote needed for this?

It's not needed for any country to do what it can on job creation, and you can be sure that governments everywhere are trying their utmost without Lisbon having been passed.

But co-operation, a sense of common purpose, joint projects, mutual support, and even critical mass can all help.

marco murphy

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think that's a reference to any explicit commitment in the Treaty. It's more the FDI / polico-economic stability and consistency argument. At this stage we're not exactly voting on just the Treaty text - more the consequences of the vote itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for your reply.
I conclude that Lisbon won't affect the job situation.

Scofflaw

Perestroika wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.
I conclude that Lisbon won't affect the job situation.

Which was the conclusion you were looking to reach. Delighted to have been entirely superfluous.

amused,
Scofflaw

marco murphy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which was the conclusion you were looking to reach. Delighted to have been entirely superfluous.

amused,
Scofflaw

Don't be offended, I was merely examining my own argument and hopefully our small exchange will be of benefit to everyone.

Scofflaw

Perestroika wrote: »

Don't be offended, I was merely examining my own argument and hopefully our small exchange will be of benefit to everyone.

I'm certainly not offended, just amused. It's entertaining watching No proponents playing the "it's not in the treaty so it doesn't count" game while simultaneously* proposing a No vote as the cure for everything from Fianna Fáil to globalisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*not necessarily always the same No proponents, of course

marco murphy

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm certainly not offended, just amused. It's entertaining watching No proponents playing the "it's not in the treaty so it doesn't count" game while simultaneously* proposing a No vote as the cure for everything from Fianna Fáil to globalisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*not necessarily always the same No proponents, of course

The 'No' vote isn't a cure to anything. 'No' changes nothing.

Scofflaw

Perestroika wrote: »

The 'No' vote isn't a cure to anything. 'No' changes nothing.

You mean it keeps the status quo? No, not really. It just means the post-enlargement Nice rules, which are different from the current set.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Perestroika wrote: »

The 'No' vote isn't a cure to anything. 'No' changes nothing.

but but

with a NO vote we would loose "our" commissioner then :eek:

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Originally Posted by dresden8
Was it not before?

No, it was "a high level of employment" in Article 2 TEU. This is the relevant bit from the unconsolidated text:

Quote:
4) Article 2 shall be replaced by the following:
‘Article 2
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.
3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

This is what's being replaced:


Quote:
The Union shall set itself the following objectives:
- to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty,
- to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17,
- to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union,
- to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime,
- to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community. The objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So if Lisbon is not passed they're not committed anymore to full employment?

Backstards!

What level of unemployment will a post Lisbon-rejection Europe be committed to I wonder.

homer1916

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's on the same page as the €1.84 minimum wage.

They are liars saying this. They shoud not be allowed put this lie on a poster. If Ireland does not vote YES we are in serious trouble

meglome

homer1916 wrote: »

They are liars saying this. They shoud not be allowed put this lie on a poster. If Ireland does not vote YES we are in serious trouble

Now in fairness they put a question mark at the end as otherwise this would be a stinky lie. All it is now is a stinky lie dressed up as a question.

mickoneill30

meglome wrote: »

Now in fairness they put a question mark at the end as otherwise this would be a stinky lie. All it is now is a stinky lie dressed up as a question.

That's why the question mark is there. I'm sure a lot of people are reading it and missing the question mark (I'm not saying they're smart people). I'd say that's the intention.

mathie

Martin 2 wrote: »

In a recent poll of economists ( http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0912/1224254386236.html ) “Just under 91 per cent of the economists expressed the belief a Yes vote best-served the economic interests of the State”

I wonder are they the same economists who didn't predict the financial crisis?

ei.sdraob

mathie wrote: »

I wonder are they the same economists who didn't predict the financial crisis?

alot of economists in Ireland did predict the crash

it was obvious we were in a bubble

the problem no one listened to them

and the likes of Bertie told them to

"go hang themselves"

meglome

mathie wrote: »

I wonder are they the same economists who didn't predict the financial crisis?

Yup those economists must be lying again, and most of our politicians, and most of our unions, labour organisations, academics, media, etc. etc. Yes a lot of people are obviously biased in favour of this Lisbon treaty. Gosh darn it, it almost seems like it's a good thing or something.

O'Morris

You can find the report itself at this site.
http://www.indecon.ie/

An interesting quote from the survey:

This development is reflected in the views of economists where the results indicate that 87.5% indicated that ratification of the Lisbon Treaty would not result in imposed changes in Ireland’s corporate tax rate.

How come 12.5% of the country's independent economists did not answer no when asked if the Lisbon Treaty would result in imposed changes in Ireland's corporate tax rate?

meglome

O'Morris wrote: »

You can find the report itself at this site.
http://www.indecon.ie/

An interesting quote from the survey:

How come 12.5% of the country's independent economists did not answer no when asked if the Lisbon Treaty would result in imposed changes in Ireland's corporate tax rate?

I might find that 12.5% believe in ghosts too but that wouldn't take away from the vast majority believing a Yes vote to be a good thing for Ireland.

Of course if these were the only group advocating a Yes... but they're really not.

mickoneill30

O'Morris wrote: »

How come 12.5% of the country's independent economists did not answer no when asked if the Lisbon Treaty would result in imposed changes in Ireland's corporate tax rate?

Was that survey anonymous? It might be handy to know which economists to totally ignore in future.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

You can find the report itself at this site.
http://www.indecon.ie/

An interesting quote from the survey:

How come 12.5% of the country's independent economists did not answer no when asked if the Lisbon Treaty would result in imposed changes in Ireland's corporate tax rate?

Dear me - what you've done there is a parody of the whole No campaign technique. Never mind the 87.5% - what about the tiny minority, hey? With, you'll note, a question mark - you're not saying anything, just, you know, asking.

As to the answer - I'm sure it has occurred to you that the most likely answer is that they said they didn't know, wasn't their area of expertise, hadn't checked all options, etc. Yet by "asking the question"* you can make it seem as if perhaps there's a suppressed 'minority report'...

amused,
Scofflaw

*see also "teaching the controversy"

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

*see also "teaching the controversy"

Indeed. Many of the tactics of some of the no side are very like those of creationists and it seems that atheists can see through these tactics just as easily

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

Dear me - what you've done there is a parody of the whole No campaign technique. Never mind the 87.5% - what about the tiny minority, hey? With, you'll note, a question mark - you're not saying anything, just, you know, asking.

Exactly. I'm asking why 12.5% of the economists surveyed aren't convinced that the Lisbon treaty won't lead to an imposed change in Ireland's corporate tax rate. Taxation was never an issue for me and I've always assumed that our veto and the guarantees would be enough to prevent any changes in our low corporate tax. That's why I'm genuinely curious to know why some of the country's leading experts on the economy feel differently. Maybe our low corporate tax rate is not as secure as many of yes side would like us to think?

Scofflaw wrote:

As to the answer - I'm sure it has occurred to you that the most likely answer is that they said they didn't know, wasn't their area of expertise, hadn't checked all options, etc.

I think it's more likely that they agree with this gent
http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0520/lisbon.html

Ray Kinsella - Professor of Banking and Financial Services at UCD - said the treaty posed a 'clear and present danger' to Ireland's tax regime.

Sam Vimes

O'Morris wrote: »

That's why I'm genuinely curious to know why some of the country's leading experts on the economy feel differently. Maybe our low corporate tax rate is not as secure as many of yes side would like us to think?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the reason these people did not say for definite that the Lisbon treaty has no effect on our ability to set our own taxes is because they have not read this:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61088174&postcount=1

SECTION B: TAXATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

Our low corporate tax rate is exactly as secure as many of yes side would like us to think.