Lisbon: Yes for Jobs?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

No, but there would be a point in arguing against that summary, if only to correct the record. It's true that puffdragon's claims were little more than copypasta - probably from the National Platform website - and for that reason I wasn't as, well, cordial about dismissing them as I would usually be.

However, to claim that I've simply said "it's all in Maastricht ha ha ha too late you fool" is rubbish. Most of what puffdragon put forward isn't in there at all - only one point is, the primacy of EU legislation. And that's primacy of EU legislation, not the legislature,which is actually subject to the national parliaments - or "EU statehood", because there's no such thing.

The primacy of EU law isn't some kind of admission or commission of submission of the member states to the EU. It's a simple outcome of making joint agreements - there is no point in making a joint agreement if every person party to that agreement can individually override it at any time. Therefore, when the member states make law through the EU, and thus by common agreement, they must necessarily agree to be bound by it. Otherwise, there's no point in having agreed it in the first place.

There's no form of agreement to which that rule doesn't apply. If you and I agree not to mention fisheries, and I then hit you with fishing stats, there was no point in having the agreement. That each of us cannot individually override the agreement is an inbuilt feature of the agreement's very existence.

Thus legislation agreed in common by all the member states must take precedence over individual legislation. Anything else is meaningless.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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).

OK.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Hold up. I don't think that's the case at all! Lisbon contains a whole raft of measures that increase the strength of the citizen relative to the EU - indeed, that's my primary reason for voting for it.

First, the Charter: enshrining rights in law, where they become legally enforceable, is an obvious strengthening of the citizen with respect to the legislature - and when I say obvious I mean obviously obvious, as in plain as the balls on a dog obvious. Nearly every citizen-government struggle has revolved around the enshrining of rights in law, from Magna Carta (for a given value of citizen) to the US war of independence. Giving the Charter the same legal weight as the Treaties does exactly that in respect of EU legislation.

Yes, the ECJ currently tries to "take the Charter into account", but that's nothing like having an enforceable legal right. The EU is accepting a major set of legal constraints on its legislative freedom, and it's being handed to us on a plate - no blood spilled, no throwing yourself under the King's horse, just a tedious set of wrangling with a bunch of numpties who either completely fail to understand the document's application, or who are afraid it will take away their right to discriminate against immigrants.

Second, the increase in codecision: the European Parliament is the citizen's representative body in the EU - its citizen watchdog/oversight committee if you like. Expanding codecision is irrelevant to the question of expanding EU competences or QMV, much as sovereigntists like to conflate them - what it means is that the citizen now has a further channel (his/her MEP) through which to amend or oppose EU legislation. That is not a loss to the citizen, but a very clear gain.

Oh, aye, and of course Libertas likes to claim that the Parliament never votes down EU legislation. That relies on a little sleight of hand - the Parliament rarely simply vetoes legislation, but it almost invariably amends it, thus removing by such amendment the bits it would veto the legislation over. That the Council generally accepts these amendments is the real reason the Parliament doesn't generally have to veto the legislation - because they've amended it to their satisfaction. Like many Libertas claims, this one is the mirror image of the truth.

Third, the subsidiarity arrangements, and the upgraded information for national parliaments. National parliaments aren't separate from the citizen - they are representative bodies for the citizen, and upgrading their powers in respect of the Council and Commission is also a strengthening of the citizen's position with respect to the EU - particularly those citizens who are represented by parties not currently in government. The government parties are already informed on EU legislation, by virtue of forming the Council of Ministers through which - lest we forget - all EU legislation passes. Information for the opposition allows the opposition to inform the citizen of what might otherwise pass unnoticed.

Fourth, the citizens' initiatives are another clear gain for the citizen. It's fashionable for No proponents to decry it as 'window-dressing' (while wishing we had similar here), but it won't be, because it can't be. Having been put in the treaty, there's no possibility that it will never be used, because that would be a disaster in terms of EU responsiveness to the citizen and thus legitimacy. You can't get a million signatures together and then ignore the result without annoying at least a million people. If there was no intention of using it, there would be no need to have included it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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'

I'm afraid I've no idea what either of those are supposed to be about.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

squod wrote: »

I come accross some excellent points, made particularly by scofflaw. These points haven't changed my opinion overall though. It's a fact that none of you replys so far have been so worthy of my consideration. That is not my fault.

Thankfully I'm not worried if people find me or my opinions worthy. That doesn't change the fact it's near impossible to have a debate with someone who doesn't ever appear to reply to the actual points you asked them.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, fair enough.

I don't think that the government went out of its way to not address the public's concerns - it just didn't really give a damn what the public's concerns were in the first place.

Both deliberately not addressing people's issues and not caring about them would have the same outcome: another no

RandomName2 wrote: »

But if the real issue that came back to the government was a concern which was inimical to the entire nature of Lisbon (i.e. granting the eu more legislative power) there wouldn't be a damn thing that they could do other than concede the defeat of the treaty, which they were never going to do.

You're half right there. If the move to QMV was a majority issue this treaty would not have been put back to us but you're wrong to say there's not a damn thing they could do. The treaty is 300 pages long and the move to QMV is only one or two pages of it. If that was the major stumbling block it could have been renegotiated but it was given by less than 10% of no voters

RandomName2 wrote: »

What exactly does FF lose with a Lisbon defeat? Very little. Fine Gael and Labour can just blame Fianna fail for Lisbon's defeat, catapulting them to a position which is already almost inevitable.

So are you saying that they ran a second referendum with the intention of losing it, just to appear to be doing something?

squod

meglome wrote: »

Thankfully I'm not worried if people find me or my opinions worthy. That doesn't change the fact it's near impossible to have a debate with someone who doesn't ever appear to reply to the actual points you asked them.

What you're telling me is that you still have nothing to say. Fine.

puffdragon

Copypasta you say, well said considering were turning European(god forbid)

It is unlikely that sound argument is capable of defeating your obvious addiction to irrelevant misinterpretation of historical facts,and a careless willingness to put your own interpretation on a deliberately complicated (near to theoretical) document which is open to abuse .
My intention in offering these arguments is not only to make you aware of what POTENTIALLY is contained within the document but also to remind you that as a small country we have been "boxing above our weight" for a long time now.
I feel that powers within Europe are attempting by the implementation of this regime to bring not only us into line but others who would aspire to be us, and to introduce policies which are a minefield of red tape and bureaucracy in order to keep our economy from" booming again".
Where are the jobs?
Where are the factories?
Where is the financial help we so badly need?
Well you might say they are a carrot on the end of a stick called "The Lisbon Treaty" unfortunately it is my opinion that the stick is a fishing rod and we are about to get caught, no specific promises have come from this government or Europe, my god even China in its first address to the world climate meeting was an ultimatum that "without funding from other developed countries ,reduced carbon emissions were impossible"
Jasus where are our politicians? why dont we give Europe an ulitmatum NO MONEY! NO JOBS! NO FACTORIES! NO VOTE!!

Scofflaw

puffdragon wrote: »

Copypasta you say, well said considering were turning European(god forbid)

It is unlikely that sound argument is capable of defeating your obvious addiction to irrelevant misinterpretation of historical facts,and a careless willingness to put your own interpretation on a deliberately complicated (near to theoretical) document which is open to abuse .
My intention in offering these arguments is not only to make you aware of what POTENTIALLY is contained within the document but also to remind you that as a small country we have been "boxing above our weight" for a long time now.
I feel that powers within Europe are attempting by the implementation of this regime to bring not only us into line but others who would aspire to be us, and to introduce policies which are a minefield of red tape and bureaucracy in order to keep our economy from" booming again".
Where are the jobs?
Where are the factories?
Where is the financial help we so badly need?
Well you might say they are a carrot on the end of a stick called "The Lisbon Treaty" unfortunately it is my opinion that the stick is a fishing rod and we are about to get caught, no specific promises have come from this government or Europe, my god even China in its first address to the world climate meeting was an ultimatum that "without funding from other developed countries ,reduced carbon emissions were impossible"
Jasus where are our politicians? why dont we give Europe an ulitmatum NO MONEY! NO JOBS! NO FACTORIES! NO VOTE!!

In other words, you favour the good old-fashioned quid pro quo - Europe gives us money and we vote for "their" treaties.

Perhaps it's pride that makes me uncomfortable with that. I'd like to think we're not still playing the part of a stock Irish rogue in an English play - "sure and begorrah sir, I'd sign it for ye no problem but I'm a little short on cash right now...a fiver'll do very nicely, thank'ee sir" - except for a couple of billion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

puffdragon

Scofflaw wrote: »

In other words, you favour the good old-fashioned quid pro quo - Europe gives us money and we vote for "their" treaties.

Perhaps it's pride that makes me uncomfortable with that. I'd like to think we're not still playing the part of a stock Irish rogue in an English play - "sure and begorrah sir, I'd sign it for ye no problem but I'm a little short on cash right now...a fiver'll do very nicely, thank'ee sir" - except for a couple of billion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Stop man! No illiterate Irish beggars here,(your own favourite word applies here,"wrong",)
What I do believe in is a europe of "equal wealth sharing" and I'm not afraid of any Treaty,Law ,rule or tax as long as they are transparent,just,fair and inclusive of the whole population of "Europe"

What I do object to is(I'll say this slowly) the closing down of a factory in Ireland and shipping it lock stock and barrell(not including the workforce of course) to Poland with no intervention by our government by way of "incentives" to get them to stay, actions im afraid speak louder than words!!

Tarobot

puffdragon wrote: »

What I do object to is(I'll say this slowly) the closing down of a factory in Ireland and shipping it lock stock and barrell(not including the workforce of course) to Poland with no intervention by our government by way of "incentives" to get them to stay, actions im afraid speak louder than words!!

Um..what does this have to do with the EU?

Scofflaw

puffdragon wrote: »

Stop man! No illiterate Irish beggars here,(your own favourite word applies here,"wrong",)
What I do believe in is a europe of "equal wealth sharing" and I'm not afraid of any Treaty,Law ,rule or tax as long as they are transparent,just,fair and inclusive of the whole population of "Europe"

What I do object to is(I'll say this slowly) the closing down of a factory in Ireland and shipping it lock stock and barrell(not including the workforce of course) to Poland with no intervention by our government by way of "incentives" to get them to stay, actions im afraid speak louder than words!!

So you believe that treaties, rules, laws are OK as long as they are fair and inclusive of the whole population of Europe, but you object to the fact that the Irish government has not put in place "incentives" to keep a particular factory in Ireland.

Well, leaving that contradiction aside, there isn't some kind of blanket ban on incentives, as should be obvious from the fact that Poland is offering incentives. Unless you suffer from the belief that the EU is favouring Poland here - that is, allowing Poland to offer incentives while not allowing Ireland to do so - then it would seem that your problem is with the Irish government's failure to offer enough incentives to keep the factory.

Alternatively, the problem could be with the mobility of business itself - but that can hardly be the case, because Ireland relies on that mobility rather more than most countries do.

On balance, I'm not sure exactly what the problem is here.

perplexed,
Scofflaw