Lisbon: Yes for Jobs?

P. Breathnach

squod wrote: »

... Why are we being bullied and corralled into voting again, before England has a chance to?...

England? Has the UK broken up?

...No person on this Island can be held responsible, we didn't create Lisbon...

Well, we didn't build the city (which, by the way, is a very nice place) but our political and diplomatic representatives played an active part in devising the treaty.

squod

P. Breathnach wrote: »

England? Has the UK broken up?



Well, we didn't build the city (which, by the way, is a very nice place) but our political and diplomatic representatives played an active part in devising the treaty.

Maybe yours did!

squod

meglome wrote: »

I'm coming in at the end of this but who bullied you? Did someone call round?

And the UK still have a pro-Lisbon Labour government which is approving Lisbon.

Funny that, the people of England wouldn't vote for it, but a couple of Labour MPs would. Is that democracy? I don't think so.

humanji

squod wrote: »

Funny that, the people of England wouldn't vote for it, but a couple of Labour MPs would. Is that democracy? I don't think so.

The majority or the people voted Labour in, so yes, that is democracy.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Funny that, the people of England wouldn't vote for it, but a couple of Labour MPs would. Is that democracy? I don't think so.

No democracy is when millions of UK citizens vote in a party, in this case Labour, a party who's stated policy is to approve the Lisbon treaty, which they do.

So who bullied you?

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

No person on this Island can be held responsible, we didn't create Lisbon. We're just dealing with the sh*t.

Many people on this island were involved in the creation of Lisbon, and of its predecessor too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

Many people on this island were involved in the creation of Lisbon, and of its predecessor too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's odd. A lot of people seem to think that faceless bureaucrats in Europe wrote the treaty and then sent it out to be ratified. They don't quite seem to realise that Irish representatives were involved in every stage of its development

ShooterSF

Sully wrote: »

Jesus christ almighty, how on earth could a Yes or No vote in the first referendum effect anyone? The treaty was not reatified so could not effect anybody regardless of the Damn vote

How strange. You posted this on the 1st page and I'm yet to find a single yes voter tear into your claim. After all, one of their first claims is that a no vote has consequences and is one reason why you can't say "if you don't know, vote no".

squod

meglome wrote: »

No democracy is when millions of UK citizens vote in a party, in this case Labour, a party who's stated policy is to approve the Lisbon treaty, which they do.

So who bullied you?

So your saying that Britain should be given the chance to vote on Lisbon?
Seeing that your now positive that those same people who voted labour will return a yes vote. Think again.

K-9

squod wrote: »

So your saying that Britain should be given the chance to vote on Lisbon?
Seeing that your now positive that those same people who voted labour will return a yes vote. Think again.

In fairness, they really shouldn't vote on Lisbon.

They should vote on membership of the EU and going on recent polls, even the EEA!

Anyway, I don't think we are anyway near as Eurosceptic as GB, thank God.

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm lost...

[stuff]

Bet you a euro

edit: btw, I'm betting that if we vote no the treaty will not be passed in its current form. Not that it won't be passed this time

I'd happily take up the bet, but we might be a long time waiting. It took the EU leaders a long time to add a couple of paragraphs to the Constitution. But as I previously said, Lisbon/Barcelona treaty would get through somehow. But a name change to the treaty would invalidate the bet, as your edit points out.

Anyhoo, let me give you some guidance as to the first part of your reply...

Suppose the referendum last year returned roughly 52% yes. However, Sinn Fein deliberately perpetrated an election fraud as to invalidate the vote (ballot boxes getting corrupted in some fashion). So the whole thing has to be re-run. Sinn Fein do not apologise. Oh no! They go out of their way to campaign for another vote. What is more, they call the second vote an entirely different affair due to the fact that they go out of the way to personally educate a certain amount of the electorate as to the nature of the treaty, thus 'solving' one of the major problems connected with the first vote. Witness posters going up saying 'No for security. No for Lisbon' or 'Its simple. I believe in the peace-process. Vote no.' Intimations concerning a resumption of the Troubles by the IRA?

Personally, I would vote Yes in a flash.

But the rules don't apply the other way round.

It is called the epitome of democracy.

UKIP are terrible interfering in the political processes of another country! When do you want your flight booked to Dublin, Sarcozy (and Commissioners, and Polish ex-PMs, and ex EU presidents)...

The difference is: they are on the other side!

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

No democracy is when millions of UK citizens vote in a party, in this case Labour, a party who's stated policy is to approve the Lisbon treaty, which they do.

Look, I'm doing it only one more time.

3rd Reich = brilliant democracy.

Why?

Because the NAZI party won a majority in the Reichstag.

No... hold on, why is this not correct?

Because the NAZI party rewrote the Constitution as they pleased.

'The people of UK feel a certain way? Who cares - there isn't an election due for a year or two... can do whatever we like up until then'

And if you say that this is a problem which is specific to the political structure set out in the UK - well, you would be correct. But you, at least, can thank your lucky stars that Lisbon has been approved by the UK against the wishes of its citizens. That's true democracy for you! Why? Because the United Kingdom is so stupid that if it got a vote it would probably leave the EU. And they should be forced to stay for the benefit of the EU as a whole. They don't know what's good for them.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Many people on this island were involved in the creation of Lisbon, and of its predecessor too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

To quote you 'It is a EUROPEAN treaty, not a fianna fail treaty.'

It is unfair to criticise ff because it is an eu treaty. It is unfair to criticise the eu because ff had a large part in creating it.

Brilliant, keep that sort of stuff coming. Its great fun, and representative of the yes-campaign as a whole.

puffdragon

(things that are actually in the treaty) [meglome]

Take each point and prove me wrong on each by which time the Irish population will have voted NO and perhaps then when the ff's have been humiliated we might get our wee country back!!


1. Would be a power-grab by the Big States for control of the EU by basing EU law-making post-Lisbon primarily on population size.

2.Would copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice,

3. Would permit the post-Lisbon EU to impose Europe-wide taxes directly on us for the first time without need of further Treaties or referendums (Art.311 TFEU).

4. Would amend the existing treaties to give the EU exclusive power as regards rules on foreign direct investment (Arts.206-7 TFEU) and give the Court of Justice the power to order the harmonisation of national indirect taxes

5. Would abolish our present right to “propose” and decide who Ireland’s Commissioner is , by replacing it with a right to make “suggestions” only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU).

6. Would give the European Union the Constitution of an EU Federal State which would have primacy over the Irish and other national Constitutions.

7. Would turn us into real citizens for the first time of this new post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority

8. Would give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our rights as EU citizens by making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time (Art.6 TEU) .

9. Would abolish the national veto Ireland has at present by handing over to the EU the power to make laws binding on us in 32 new policy areas,

10. Would reduce the power of National Parliaments to make laws in relation to 49 policy areas or matters, and increase the influence of the European Parliament in making EU laws in 19 new areas (See euabc.eu for the two lists).

11. Would be a self-amending Treaty

12. Would enable the 27 EU Prime Ministers to appoint an EU President for up to five years without allowing voters any say as to who he or she would be

13. Would militarize the EU further, requiring Member States “progressively to improve their military capabilities” (Art.42.3 TEU) and to aid and assist other Member States experiencing armed attack “by all the means in their power” (Art.42.7 TEU).

(You know, things that are actually in the treaty)

Scofflaw

puffdragon wrote: »

1. Would be a power-grab by the Big States for control of the EU by basing EU law-making post-Lisbon primarily on population size.

Wrong. It's based on two criteria - a weight by population and a weight by membership. In the first criterion we have 0.9% (4.5m out of 500m), in the second we have 3.7%. That's 2.3% if you consider both. Currently we have 7/345 votes in the Council = 2.02%.

puffdragon wrote: »

2.Would copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice,

Wrong, which is why ETUC are urging a Yes vote.

puffdragon wrote: »

3. Would permit the post-Lisbon EU to impose Europe-wide taxes directly on us for the first time without need of further Treaties or referendums (Art.311 TFEU).

Wrong. The treaty contains no new tax powers for the EU. The article you cite allows the member states to fund the EU - and the member states already have that power, obviously, since otherwise the EU would have no funding. Is the subject of a specific Guarantee:

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.

puffdragon wrote: »

4. Would amend the existing treaties to give the EU exclusive power as regards rules on foreign direct investment (Arts.206-7 TFEU)

Wrong. The articles you cite refer to the common commercial policy, which only covers agreements made by the whole EU together - when such agreements are made. Nothing prevents Ireland making its own FDI arrangements - and from that point of view, the objective of "progressive abolition of restrictions...on foreign direct investment" in Article 206 represents an improvement.

puffdragon wrote: »

and give the Court of Justice the power to order the harmonisation of national indirect taxes

Wrong. The ECJ isn't given any such power. The Council of Ministers (ie the governments of the member states) can do it, but only by unanimity. Here are the two articles - post-Lisbon and post-Nice:

Article 113 (ex Article 93 TEC) Lisbon
The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

Article 93 Nice TEC

The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 14.

puffdragon wrote: »

5. Would abolish our present right to “propose” and decide who Ireland’s Commissioner is , by replacing it with a right to make “suggestions” only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU).

Wrong. The Commissioner put forward by any member state is subject to exactly the same approval process after Lisbon as before.

puffdragon wrote: »

6. Would give the European Union the Constitution of an EU Federal State which would have primacy over the Irish and other national Constitutions.

Wrong, as per the German Constitutional Court judgement. Lisbon does not make the EU a federal state.

puffdragon wrote: »

7. Would turn us into real citizens for the first time of this new post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority

Wrong. Doesn't even appear in the Treaty. There are rights attached to being an EU citizen (which we've all been since Maastricht), but no duties whatsoever.

puffdragon wrote: »

8. Would give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our rights as EU citizens by making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding for the first time (Art.6 TEU) .

Wrong. The Charter only applies to EU law, not to national law. It does not remove any rights whatsoever - it adds rights.

puffdragon wrote: »

9. Would abolish the national veto Ireland has at present by handing over to the EU the power to make laws binding on us in 32 new policy areas,

It does abolish vetoes, but the laws will continue to be made by Ireland along with the other member states.

puffdragon wrote: »

10. Would reduce the power of National Parliaments to make laws in relation to 49 policy areas or matters, and increase the influence of the European Parliament in making EU laws in 19 new areas (See euabc.eu for the two lists).

Wrong. There are 49 new areas where the Parliament adds a degree of direct democratic control to the creation of new legislation, but virtually all of them are existing areas of EU competence. There are only a couple of new competences in Lisbon (sport/energy/tourism/space), only one of which is even a shared competence rather than a supporting competence.

puffdragon wrote: »

11. Would be a self-amending Treaty

Wrong, or rather has a false implication. Certain moves from unanimity to QMV, and certain policy changes, may be made, but anything requiring the granting of new powers to the EU requires a full treaty and an Irish referendum as at present.

puffdragon wrote: »

12. Would enable the 27 EU Prime Ministers to appoint an EU President for up to five years without allowing voters any say as to who he or she would be

Wrong. There's no such thing as an EU President. There's the President of the European Council, a position that comes with virtually no powers beyond chairing meetings. As to having them voted in, that would give us a German President every time.

puffdragon wrote: »

13. Would militarize the EU further, requiring Member States “progressively to improve their military capabilities” (Art.42.3 TEU) and to aid and assist other Member States experiencing armed attack “by all the means in their power” (Art.42.7 TEU).

Which requires us neither to render military aid, nor to increase our military budgets in any way. It's the subject of a specific Guarantee:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

...

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

puffdragon wrote: »

(You know, things that are actually in the treaty)

You know, it's not sufficient to just pretend that things are in the Treaty - they need to actually be there. Virtually nothing you've cited is correct.

regards,
Scofflaw

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, I'm doing it only one more time.

3rd Reich = brilliant democracy.

Why?

Because the NAZI party won a majority in the Reichstag.

No... hold on, why is this not correct?

Because the NAZI party rewrote the Constitution as they pleased.

'The people of UK feel a certain way? Who cares - there isn't an election due for a year or two... can do whatever we like up until then'

And if you say that this is a problem which is specific to the political structure set out in the UK - well, you would be correct. But you, at least, can thank your lucky stars that Lisbon has been approved by the UK against the wishes of its citizens. That's true democracy for you! Why? Because the United Kingdom is so stupid that if it got a vote it would probably leave the EU. And they should be forced to stay for the benefit of the EU as a whole. They don't know what's good for them.

I don't get your point I'm already aware that democracy isn't perfect. I mean you only have look at the lies and misinformation that have been spread about the Lisbon treaty. Turning what is for the most part a housekeeping treaty into a 'they'll eat your babies' treaty.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Wrong.

Alternatively summed up:

Hey, you're right about 95% of the above.

Trouble is, they already exist and there's nothing you can do about it if they aren't to your taste.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

I don't get your point I'm already aware that democracy isn't perfect. I mean you only have look at the lies and misinformation that have been spread about the Lisbon treaty.

Hey, what a way to sum up the 3rd Reich.

'Democracy isn't perfect.'

meglome wrote: »

Turning what is for the most part a housekeeping treaty into a 'they'll eat your babies' treaty.

Housekeep or we'll bankrupt you!

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Alternatively summed up:

Hey, you're right about 95% of the above.

Trouble is, they already exist and there's nothing you can do about it if they aren't to your taste.

I'm pretty certain that wouldn't relate to anything I've said (it's pretty much the opposite of what I actually said, in that he was 95% wrong) - in fact, in general, your posts are beginning to relate less and less to anything that anyone else has said. Are you OK?

concerned,
Scofflaw

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that wouldn't relate to anything I've said (it's pretty much the opposite of what I actually said, in that he was 95% wrong) - in fact, in general, your posts are beginning to relate less and less to anything that anyone else has said. Are you OK?

concerned,
Scofflaw

You're saying with certainty the poster is wrong. The treaty hasn't been implemented yet, and so no-one has used it. You can't guarentee me the results of something that hasn't been used. A small point, I know.

Nonetheless, it's a whopper of complexity and the last word on the treaty will be made by the people who used it best for their own advantage. The system we have is fine for now. That's my view on it.

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

Your saying with certainty the poster is wrong. The treaty hasn't been implemented yet, and so no-one has used it. You can't guarentee me the results of something that hasn't been used. A small point, I know.

Nonetheless, it's a whopper of complexity and the last word on the treaty will be made by the people who used it best for their own advantage. The system we have is fine for now. That's my view on it.

Much of what was claimed by puffdragon simply isn't in the treaties in the first place, which makes it irrelevant how they might be interpreted. As to complexity - it's no more complex than Nice, and if you can point to things in Nice that were interpreted in a way completely different from what they say, feel free.

The argument that we shouldn't vote for something because we don't know how it will pan out is an argument against accepting any change ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

The argument that we shouldn't vote for something because we don't know how it will pan out is an argument against accepting any change ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd like to point out that isn't my argument.

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

I'd like to point out that isn't my argument.

It's extremely close to it, I'm afraid. I doubt you could put a slip of paper between them.

Essentially, if you claim that we cannot know how the treaty will work out, and therefore we cannot dismiss any arguments put forward about, then we have to admit all COIR's arguments as possible - and indeed, any negative argument at all, no mater how insane it may be (giant EU robots will stamp your house flat!!). That, in turn, means that as long as you're at all OK with how things currently are, you should clearly always vote against any change at all, because of the enormous number of hugely unpleasant things that are conceivable, none of which, by your lights, can be dismissed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

squod

squod wrote: »

I went into this before in another thread. Let say you want X to happen.
Do you go straight ahead and try to get X passed or do you wait untill the majority share of voters present will support your project X.

Lisbon is gonna make voting packs or agreements easier to happen. Since all you'd have to do is wait till like minded states get their turn to vote with you.

Kewl n'all if that's what you want. To me it seems a little bit more undemocratic than the system we have now. As I've said the solution to that is simple.

'If the Irish people vote no it will cause a referendum in Britain, which would be a fine democratic thing for the peoples of Europe to have an opportunity to stop and debate their future.'


People of Europe should have an opportunity to stop and debate their future together. What is wrong with that?

That's nearer the mark, that and the fact that there's no rush in voting.
Oh and if we vote yes this time it should come down to a best out of three, best out of five, or another ridiculous voting system. We can't get a general election when we want one but we'll bluddy well get to vote on Lisbon again, when the bluddy government wants it.

marco_polo

squod wrote: »

That's nearer the mark, that and the fact that there's no rush in voting.
Oh and if we vote yes this time it should come down to a best out of three, best out of five, or another ridiculous voting system. We can't get a general election when we want one but we'll bluddy well get to vote on Lisbon again, when the bluddy government wants it.

Hi welcome to Ireland. There is a good website here that tells you all about how our system of democracy works. :rolleyes:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

We can't get a general election when we want one but we'll bluddy well get to vote on Lisbon again, when the bluddy government wants it.

The question you keep avoiding:

You: There's no justification for holding another referendum
Me: The justification is they've addressed many of the issues of previous no voters
You: Well they didn't address my issues
Me: You're not the whole country

Continue......

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The question you keep avoiding:


Me: The justification is they've addressed many of the issues of previous no voters

Lisbon hasn't changed. It's still the same treaty that we rejected last time.
And there is still no reason why we're in such a rush to vote again.

Q: Are you a previous no voter?

Q: Do you propose we vote again if the electorate vote yes in majority next time, to address the issues of people who voted no on the previous two occassions?

Q: How many times do you think we should ballot the people on the same
treaty?

squod

marco_polo wrote: »

Hi welcome to Ireland. There is a good website here that tells you all about how our system of democracy works. :rolleyes:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland

We're in a republic. You'd be supprised how many people don't know that.

mickoneill30

squod wrote: »

Lisbon hasn't changed. It's still the same treaty that we rejected last time.
And there is still no reason why we're in such a rush to vote again.

What's the problem then? If everything is the same as last time rount it'll be No again then.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that wouldn't relate to anything I've said (it's pretty much the opposite of what I actually said, in that he was 95% wrong) - in fact, in general, your posts are beginning to relate less and less to anything that anyone else has said. Are you OK?

concerned,
Scofflaw

Yes, well put Polonius. I am avoiding getting bogged down in the semantics of what you wrote, as I would be wasting my time (eventually getting hit with fishery statistics like a brick.)

But in reality, you came down harder on puffdragon than Judge Judy on a single-mom of eight children, by different fathers. And you did so, not only because Puffdragon was wrong in the details (which is true) but because it has become a bit of a cliched document among 'no' groups.

But what your argument - the strain of your argument - the manner in which the core of his argument was contradicted by you, ran, as such:

Assertion: EU legislature, law and statehood will become superior to their respective counterparts within Ireland with the ratification of Lisbon.
Reply: They already are. *looks smug*

Well... okay. There isn't much point arguing against Maastricht.

The question is: does Lisbon increase the strength of the EU relative to national government, and if not, does it increase in strength relative to its citizenry, and if it does either, is it a good thing?

It is pretty conclusive that national government is not overly weakened relative to the EU after Lisbon. Part of this is because the national government forms part of the supranational government (and although the other powers of the eu are increased in Lisbon, the powers of the national governments within the eu are also increased).

But the eu also increases its strength relative to its citizenry (although the citizens are not weakened relative to their respective governments).

And I don't think that this is a good thing. And you do. And indeed, there are valid arguments in favour of it.

Oh, and you seem to avoid the possibility of voting for something that we understand (unless you consider the public as being incapable of understanding anything - which there are various arguments to support, if you need them)

And Sam Vimes still doesn't understand the negative implications of saying 'go vote again. We -ahem- "fixed" it'