Lisbon and sovereignty

Daftendirekt

I've seen it argued by some people that Lisbon should be voted against because they're opposed to the idea of handing over more sovereignty to the EU.

But the more I think about this, the less it makes sense to me.

My understanding of the necessity of Lisbon, is that while Nice allowed the EU to expand eastwards, it was something of a rushed job and wasn't entirely effective in adopting the changes necessary to facilitate the accession of the new member states. This resulted in an awkward and inefficient decision making process for the EU, leading to a sort of bottleneck of power from the top down.

Hence, Lisbon was drawn up to address the problem.

It's my belief that the institutional changes proposed in Lisbon, would ensure the EU's principle of subsidiarity is applied more thoroughly, thus leading to less dilution of the national sovereignty of member states. I'd also argue, that a No vote would keep too much power in the hands of the 'unelected bureaucrats in Brussels,' and a No vote based on the argument mentioned above would actually be counter productive.


I'd be interested in the thoughts of Yes and No voters on this.

ilovelamp2000

Both yes and no votes lead to too much power residing with unelected bureaucrats.

There'll be no more inter governmental pillar if Lisbon gets a yes, so we'll lose a veto in all those areas left under the current inter governmental pillar.

Daftendirekt

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Both yes and no votes lead to too much power residing with unelected bureaucrats.

There'll be no more inter governmental pillar if Lisbon gets a yes, so we'll lose a veto in all those areas left under the current inter governmental pillar.

What do you mean by the part in bold above?

Also the loss of the veto in those areas is one of the institutional changes I'm referring to.

turgon

First of all it is necessary to differentiate between the two "camps" who argue for a No on the basis of sovereignty.

The first group - including Cóir - are simply using the sovereignty issue as a reason to vote No, without any further explanation. That is to say they give no logical rationale as to why losing sovereignty is bad. In their nationalistic* scheme of the world, sovereignty being completely and totally good is an axiom which can never be doubted or questioned.

The second group would include Libertarians such as Boards user donegalfella, who I hope doesnt mind me mentioning him. Their opinion is that governmental decisions are best taken at the most local level possible. They are against the EU as a political entity (but generally not as an economic one, mind). Many would see Europe as just more bureaucracy and a wasteful way in which their tax is being spent. So because Lisbon gives the EU more competencies thus essentially transferring some decisions from national to EU level, they see Lisbon as bad.


*These peoples nationalism may of course be just put on so as to give them another reason to vote No.

Scofflaw

Rosco1982 wrote: »

Both yes and no votes lead to too much power residing with unelected bureaucrats.

There'll be no more inter governmental pillar if Lisbon gets a yes, so we'll lose a veto in all those areas left under the current inter governmental pillar.

No, that's not the case. Foreign policy et al will remain intergovernmental.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

turgon wrote:

In their nationalistic* scheme of the world, sovereignty being completely and totally good is an axiom which can never be doubted or questioned.

As a nationalist I consider national sovereignty to be as sacred and inviolable as private property. National sovereignty on the international scale should have the same status as private property on the national scale.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

As a nationalist I consider national sovereignty to be as sacred and inviolable as private property. National sovereignty on the international scale should have the same status as private property on the national scale.

Why, though?

interested,
Scofflaw

Daftendirekt

turgon wrote: »

First of all it is necessary to differentiate between the two "camps" who argue for a No on the basis of sovereignty.

The first group - including Cóir - are simply using the sovereignty issue as a reason to vote No, without any further explanation. That is to say they give no logical rationale as to why losing sovereignty is bad. In their nationalistic* scheme of the world, sovereignty being completely and totally good is an axiom which can never be doubted or questioned.

The second group would include Libertarians such as Boards user donegalfella, who I hope doesnt mind me mentioning him. Their opinion is that governmental decisions are best taken at the most local level possible. They are against the EU as a political entity (but generally not as an economic one, mind). Many would see Europe as just more bureaucracy and a wasteful way in which their tax is being spent. So because Lisbon gives the EU more competencies thus essentially transferring some decisions from national to EU level, they see Lisbon as bad.


*These peoples nationalism may of course be just put on so as to give them another reason to vote No.

(I'm going to ignore Cóir's group here, for obvious reasons.)


Correct me if I'm wrong here...

Does Lisbon really give the EU any significant new power in passing laws?

I know it establishes a common energy policy, and gives the EU a greater role in environmental protection, but apart from this, are there any really significant changes from Nice?

If this is the case, wouldn't the relatively small increase in legislative power to the EU be outweighed by the restructuring?

greeno

Do you not believe that its is great that we the Irish people are being given the chance to make choices due to our right to a referendum enshrined in the constitution. Accept or reject we have the right to choose.

I'm essentially in favour of the EU. However, if Lisbon is ratified we lose our veto and also the right to any other referendum, our constitution is effectively useless. For that reason I'm voting no.

I studied law and was always in favour of Europe esp for economic reasons. But I’ve looked at the thing inside out and we can get a better deal. As a voting power now we only have 0.8% of votes the EU will be dominated by countries like France and Germany who as much as 17% say.

Declaration 17 states that all law made in the EU is binding on Ireland and we can’t have any more referendums to veto these laws after Lisbon, Ireland will have basically no power to influence changes. If that doesn’t effect sovereignty I don’t know what does.

Dinner

greeno wrote: »

and also the right to any other referendum, our constitution is effectively useless.

greeno wrote: »

As a voting power now we only have 0.8% of votes the EU will be dominated by countries like France and Germany who as much as 17% say.

Neither of these things are true.

We will still have referenda after Lisbon (where our Constitution requires it).

And the voting weights you stated are only 1 part of QMV-Double Majority Voting.

g5fd6ow0hseima

greeno wrote: »

Declaration 17 states that all law made in the EU is binding on Ireland and we can’t have any more referendums to veto these laws after Lisbon, Ireland will have basically no power to influence changes. If that doesn’t effect sovereignty I don’t know what does.

Its interesting what you say about declaration 17. Could you provide me with a few links on the matter if thats possible?

thanks,

turgon

@Daftendirekt, Ive looked at the white paper and it doesnt seem to give a list of new areas of competence for the EU. A quick google search brought up a load of No sites.

greeno wrote: »

But I’ve looked at the thing inside out and we can get a better deal.

which I find hard to believe given you say

greeno wrote: »

As a voting power now we only have 0.8% of votes the EU will be dominated by countries like France and Germany who as much as 17% say.

which is out and out wrong.

Purple Gorilla

greeno wrote: »

Do you not believe that its is great that we the Irish people are being given the chance to make choices due to our right to a referendum enshrined in the constitution. Accept or reject we have the right to choose.

I'm essentially in favour of the EU. However, if Lisbon is ratified we lose our veto and also the right to any other referendum, our constitution is effectively useless. For that reason I'm voting no.

I studied law and was always in favour of Europe esp for economic reasons. But I’ve looked at the thing inside out and we can get a better deal. As a voting power now we only have 0.8% of votes the EU will be dominated by countries like France and Germany who as much as 17% say.

Declaration 17 states that all law made in the EU is binding on Ireland and we can’t have any more referendums to veto these laws after Lisbon, Ireland will have basically no power to influence changes. If that doesn’t effect sovereignty I don’t know what does.

I'm open to correction but:
1) Ireland must have a referendum any time more competencies are conferred to the EU
2)Yes our voting weight is 0.8% compared to France & Germany's increased weight BUT Lisbon also introduces extra safeguards such as the minimum blocking clause so if even 4 countries oppose the proposal, it's scrapped.
And, for proposals to pass, the countries supporting it must represent A)55% of all the EU member states and B)65% of the population.
A) is put in place to stop all the bigger countries ganging up on the smaller countries and is in place to stop the smaller countries ganging up on the bigger countries.

greeno

Colin Mammoth Grout wrote: »

Its interesting what you say about declaration 17. Could you provide me with a few links on the matter if thats possible?

thanks,

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0335:0359:EN:PDF

17. Declaration concerning primacy

The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the
European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have
primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.
The Conference has also decided to attach as an Annex to this Final Act the Opinion of the Council
Legal Service on the primacy of EC law as set out in 11197/07 (JUR 260):

[FONT=EUAlbertina+20][FONT=EUAlbertina+20]

‘[/FONT][/FONT]Opinion of the Council Legal Service
of 22 June 2007
It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice that primacy of EC law is a cornerstone principle of Community
law. According to the Court, this principle is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community. At the
time of the first judgment of this established case law (Costa/ENEL,15 July 1964, Case 6/641 (1) there was no
mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be
included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of
the Court of Justice.

(1) [FONT=EUAlbertina_Italic+20][FONT=EUAlbertina_Italic+20]“[/FONT][/FONT]It follows ([FONT=EUAlbertina_Italic+20][FONT=EUAlbertina_Italic+20]…[/FONT][/FONT]) that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and

turgon

greeno: is this any different to the current situation? EU law has always been above the confines of the Irish constitution.

greeno

If Ireland ratify the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland agree to certain decisions in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in future with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad. These will no longer be put to the Irish people. Ireland also agree at the European Council to certain changes to the EU treaties in the future without a referendum but with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad

I'm not sure where get the info on 4 states rejecting proposals it states that 55% of states must accept proposals or 65% by QMV, the 4 states rule is the minumum taking into account larger states. Countries like Ireland and Luxumbourg would need support of larger states or else their concerns would go relatively unheard.

Surely with 0.8% even if Ireland are totally opposed to a proposal and all the majority of other states acept there is nothing we can do it is binding on us even if all the population of this country and our govt don't want it. A bit draconian don't you think. Effectively in some areas we are at the behest of europe and our govt have no say would you say that this does not effect IRELANDS sovereignty??

ei.sdraob

greeno wrote: »

If Ireland ratify the Lisbon Treaty, Ireland agree to certain decisions in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in future with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad. These will no longer be put to the Irish people. Ireland also agree at the European Council to certain changes to the EU treaties in the future without a referendum but with the approval of the Dáil and Seanad

I'm not sure where get the info on 4 states rejecting proposals it states that 55% of states must accept proposals or 65% by QMV, the 4 states rule is the minumum taking into account larger states. Countries like Ireland and Luxumbourg would need support of larger states or else their concerns would go relatively unheard.

Surely with 0.8% even if Ireland are totally opposed to a proposal and all the majority of other states acept there is nothing we can do it is binding on us even if all the population of this country and our govt don't want it. A bit draconian don't you think. Effectively in some areas we are at the behest of europe and our govt have no say would you say that this does not effect IRELANDS sovereignty??

when has the EU forced anything on any state without a consensus being reached by all the members?

seriously come on now this would not happen

as if any state is cornered they can just leave the union

greeno

turgon wrote: »

greeno: is this any different to the current situation? EU law has always been above the confines of the Irish constitution.

In effet you are correct. But this makes it legally binding. There was no declaration that stated this before only in EU case law which they said took precedence.

The treaty now makes it transparent that EU law succeeds Irish law in all existing and new areas covered by the Treaties. The fact is it is now in a document that if ratified by us will legally be giving away and transferring Ireland’s historic and democratic constitutional rights and freedoms.

greeno

ei.sdraob wrote: »

when has the EU forced anything on any state without a consensus being reached by all the members?

seriously come on now this would not happen

as if any state is cornered they can just leave the union

Reached by members govts not the ppl the dutch and french people don't want this treaty but their governments ratified it as the people unlike us have NO right to referendum that is the future we face.

A state can withdraw voluntarily but is it right that a state that has a grievance with a proposal will basically be forced to accept or withdraw! Hardly democratic. I agree with the EU and what it stands for economically and yes it has done loads for this country. But I feel the Irish nation is being led blind into this and we are losing sovereignty no matter what people think.

This may sound wrong but if the people are happy to have their laws passed from elsewhere by another parliament where we have a minute say why did we fight to free ourselves from British rule. When in effect we had the same sort of parliament.

Tarobot

greeno wrote: »

Reached by members govts not the ppl the dutch and french people don't want this treaty but their governments ratified it

The French and Dutch voted on the European Constitution, not the Lisbon Treaty. Where is your proof that they don't want the Lisbon Treaty.

greeno wrote: »

as the people unlike us have NO right to referendum that is the future we face.

Who are you to tell them how to ratify an international treaty?

greeno wrote: »

A state can withdraw voluntarily but is it right that a state that has a grievance with a proposal will basically be forced to accept or withdraw! Hardly democratic..

Who is being forced?

greeno wrote: »

I agree with the EU and what it stands for economically and yes it has done loads for this country. But I feel the Irish nation is being led blind into this and we are losing sovereignty no matter what people think.

Where are we losing sovereignty?

Who is blind? I've read the Treaty, have you?

greeno wrote: »

This may sound wrong but if the people are happy to have their laws passed from elsewhere by another parliament where we have a minute say why did we fight to free ourselves from British rule. When in effect we had the same sort of parliament.

What you don't seem to get is that the European Parliament has Irish MEPs in it, who have rather more than a 'minute' say in what happens.

Oh GOD please stop with the nonsense about British rule - I am so sick of it.

greeno

I got a brochure in my door from my local Fine Gael councillor Eoghain Murphy in Dublin South Central. His brochure states this:

' The Lisbon Treaty is not perfect, not by a long shot. But it's a start.'

Is this really the attitude our political representatives should have?

greeno

The Lisbon treaty is in effect the same document as the constitution it is a way around these countries accepting it.

I have read the thing inside out and all I am doing is relaying my fears.

We have 12 MEP's out of 750 is that not minute or are my maths mistaking me?!

Tarobot

Care to answer a post, rather than going off on a tangent?

What do you want Greeno, Ireland to stride forth into the future, secure of our rightful place as rulers of the world and take on the international markets on our own? It's all well and good having Irish sovereignty up on your mantelpiece to look at every now and then but what about the reality of people's lives?

The EU is about working together when it makes sense for us to do so, not about taking away our sovereignty.

Tarobot

greeno wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty is in effect the same document as the constitution it is a way around these countries accepting it.

A lie.

greeno wrote: »

I have read the thing inside out and all I am doing is relaying my fears.

So why are you accusing people of being led 'blind' into it?

greeno wrote: »

We have 12 MEP's out of 750 is that not minute or are my maths mistaking me?!

*sigh*, do you understand how decisions are made in the EU, greeno?

ei.sdraob

The dutch and french and spanish voted on the Constitution not Lisbon

and their issues with it were listened to and the points causing concern removed

greeno

Tarobot wrote: »

A lie.


So why are you accusing people of being led 'blind' into it?


*sigh*, do you understand how decisions are made in the EU, greeno?

I do by QVM where we have 0.8% of the say, if you read the treaty like you said you did you would understand this!

So by saying we would be srtriding forth with sovereignty on my mantlepiece if we accept the treaty, are you admitting that if we reject we won't have that sovereignty, which was my argument in the first place.

In a final point on us striding forth on our own. I ask you who does the vast majority of foreign funding in this country come from the US or the EU?? Whether we are part of a united europe or not that US investment will not change.

I am no politician I came on here to try and get my head around my fears not to be patronised by you. I leave safe in the knowledge that guys like you are beleiving the B*ll****!

Tarobot

greeno wrote: »

I do by QVM where we have 0.8% of the say, if you read the treaty like you said you did you would understand this!

Incorrect. Double Majority has two stages. With the first, Ireland has one vote, equal to Germany that has a population of 85m. It is at the second stage that votes are weighted by population. Stop distorting the facts.

greeno wrote: »

So by saying we would be srtriding forth with sovereignty on my mantlepiece if we accept the treaty, are you admitting that if we reject we won't have that sovereignty, which was my argument in the first place.

No, I didn't say that. There are certain areas where it doesn't make sense for us to pursue alone and there are major benefits to being part of the EU. For example in energy, how far would we get trying to negotiate a good gas price with Russia alone? At the moment Russia is really enjoying playing the EU member states off one another - they don't want Lisbon to pass.

So, I don't see what we gain by not joining the EU in energy policy. You're talking about this thing called sovereignty. I'm talking about the reality of food prices, fuel prices, fuel poverty etc.

greeno wrote: »

In a final point on us striding forth on our own. I ask you who does the vast majority of foreign funding in this country come from the US or the EU?? Whether we are part of a united europe or not that US investment will not change.

Why not supply the figures, rather than assuming it's the way you want it to be. Plus it isn't a case of US vs EU in funding. The US multinationals came here because we were part of the EU (transfer payments, structural funds, educated workforce, access to the EU market etc etc).

greeno wrote: »

I am no politician I came on here to try and get my head around my fears not to be patronised by you. I leave safe in the knowledge that guys like you are beleiving the B*ll****!

Given how close-minded you are to accepting differing points of view, based on facts, I seriously doubt you came here to "get your head around your fears" but only to rant and try and get a few more No voters by muddying the waters.

If you think that someone disagreeing with you is patronising, well, that's your problem. On Boards, it's called debating.

greeno

Even with double majority only half the states need accept the rest of us say 44% of states have no veto no matter how strogly we feel on matters.

I would suggest to you that the majority of US companies are here due to our corporate tax rate and not EU participation. I stand open to correction on that but I know my company in particular couldn't care less about the EU they are here solely for the benifit of Irish orporate tax. In addition the majority of other financial servies companies are here to avail of our Irish financial regulation especially in the funds sector which is an area the EU want to tighten up in.

But by and all the name of this thread is Lisbon and Sovereignty. I feel there is no doubt that it effects our sovereingty and you have more or less admitted as much before backtracking. It is because of the sovereignty issue that I will be voting no. The rest of our rambling are irrelevant to the title of this thread I suppose.

Nietzschean

In all this what I don't get is that the opposition to QMV seems to presume there will come a point where pretty much the rest of europe in both countries and population will disagree with us. Now I have to wonder, can anyone come up with a scenario where that would happen? which topic?

And to give an example of a company who were here as much for us being part of the EU as the corporate tax..that'd be DELL, who have of course now moved on to countries who have better infrastructure/lower wages and are part of the EU. But they were here for the combo of low tax + EU membership.

greeno

Nietzschean wrote: »

In all this what I don't get is that the opposition to QMV seems to presume there will come a point where pretty much the rest of europe in both countries and population will disagree with us. Now I have to wonder, can anyone come up with a scenario where that would happen? which topic?

Mosy likely in the areas of abortion or euthanasia. Where if 65% of states agree along with 55% through double majority. Regardless of the views of the Irish people we will have to accept its introduction.

Further down the line I can see financial regulation and corporate tax becoming similar issues.

We are not talking about the rest of Europe we are taking about 55% of states at double majority stage. In addition 65% at QMV stage which in effect is only Spain, Germany France and the UK. Small states will be left to put up with it.

I feel that it is disgraceful if both the people of this island and our government oppose proposals such as those above and the relevant voting margins are met within the EU, we will have to accept or withdraw altogher from Europe.

greeno

Nietzschean wrote: »

In all this what I don't get is that the opposition to QMV seems to presume there will come a point where pretty much the rest of europe in both countries and population will disagree with us. Now I have to wonder, can anyone come up with a scenario where that would happen? which topic?

And to give an example of a company who were here as much for us being part of the EU as the corporate tax..that'd be DELL, who have of course now moved on to countries who have better infrastructure/lower wages and are part of the EU. But they were here for the combo of low tax + EU membership.

The fact they moved for lower wages would seem to suggest they were here for low Corporate tax and maximising profits rather than EU membership.