Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lisbon and sovereignty

Options
245678

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    ' 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?

    wasnt the same said of the anglo irish treaty of 1921?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    greeno wrote: »
    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.

    Don't both of these topics require further treaties if they were to be changed at EU level?
    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.
    regardless of the 65% stage, as you seem to believe big states will be ganging up on the little ones regularly. at 55% the little states can block anything... so that seems to be a pointless argument? Now if you can point out a block of 65% of population and 55% of states who's countries ideology is very different than ours on these topics I'd be more interested.
    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.
    Do those proposals above fall under this EU treaty?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    greeno wrote: »
    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?!

    The are mistaking you that is 1.6% of the seats for 0.8 percent of the population.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    greeno wrote: »
    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.

    You said you read the Treaty and thats a lie. QMV can be blocked if 4 countries are against it ('blocking minority'). Anyone who really read the Treaty would know that. Do you really think we are going to fall for all this tripe your throwing our way? We were trying to have a proper discussion here on nationalistic and libertarian attitudes to sovereignty and Lisbon and you come on and hijack it with lies and deceit. Not appreciated at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    wasnt the same said of the anglo irish treaty of 1921?

    And the same Fine Gael party drove us to a bloody civil war at that time, hardly an ideal comparason


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Tarobot


    greeno wrote: »
    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.
    Incorrect again! (Please read the Treaty or go to www.lisbonexposed.org and inform yourself.) With Double Majority 17 of the 27 member states have to agree and then they have to represent 65% of the population. PLUS, 4 states can come together and veto (Article 16.4, TEU "A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.")
    greeno wrote: »
    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.
    I think I already outlined this in another post. But anyway, 80% of Ireland's wealth is generated from exports and 80% of our exports go to the EU. US companies are not just here twiddling their thumbs, they are making products that they are then exporting to the EU. Why do you think the Irish Exporters Association are most definitely pro-Lisbon?
    greeno wrote: »
    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.
    What is so important about sovereignty to you? What do you think you gain from Ireland having total sovereignty over, say, matters relating to Energy? Are you aware we are 79% dependent ion imported foreign energy and 99% dependent on imported fuel for transport? Are you aware that energy impacts on practically every single thing we do, make and consume? Explain to me why not joining together with the EU in Energy policy is a good idea for Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    turgon wrote: »
    You said you read the Treaty and thats a lie. QMV can be blocked if 4 countries are against it ('blocking minority'). Anyone who really read the Treaty would know that. Do you really think we are going to fall for all this tripe your throwing our way? We were trying to have a proper discussion here on nationalistic and libertarian attitudes to sovereignty and Lisbon and you come on and hijack it with lies and deceit. Not appreciated at all.

    My argument is that do we need to go this far if we don't have to. Why should we be reliant on 3 other states to ensure we can reject a proposal


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    greeno wrote: »
    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.

    at the time dell moved into ireland we had low wages, EU membership and low corporate tax.

    also regarding the move it should be noted that dell were given 60mil by the polish govt to move too...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    greeno wrote: »
    My argument is that do we need to go this far if we don't have to. Why should we be reliant on 3 other states to ensure we can reject a proposal

    Sorry, I failed to see a coherent argument behind the stack of lies that you have posted. Why are you doing this? Why are you lying so blatantly?


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    Tarobot wrote: »
    Incorrect again! (Please read the Treaty or go to www.lisbonexposed.org and inform yourself.) With Double Majority 17 of the 27 member states have to agree and then they have to represent 65% of the population. PLUS, 4 states can come together and veto (Article 16.4, TEU "A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.")


    I think I already outlined this in another post. But anyway, 80% of Ireland's wealth is generated from exports and 80% of our exports go to the EU. US companies are not just here twiddling their thumbs, they are making products that they are then exporting to the EU. Why do you think the Irish Exporters Association are most definitely pro-Lisbon?


    What is so important about sovereignty to you? What do you think you gain from Ireland having total sovereignty over, say, matters relating to Energy? Are you aware we are 79% dependent ion imported foreign energy and 99% dependent on imported fuel for transport? Are you aware that energy impacts on practically every single thing we do, make and consume? Explain to me why not joining together with the EU in Energy policy is a good idea for Ireland.

    I have said earlier I am pro EU for economic reasons and yes an energy policy is a terrific idea. Unfortunately its only one part of the Lisbon treaty I won't be voting yes on energy policy alone


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    greeno wrote: »
    And the same Fine Gael party drove us to a bloody civil war at that time, hardly an ideal comparason

    ahh you have that sort of perspective...


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    greeno wrote: »
    My argument is that do we need to go this far if we don't have to. Why should we be reliant on 3 other states to ensure we can reject a proposal

    Honestly as someone who has not read the treaty your leaving that out of previous posts is just lunacy. Your previous answers to my questions just appear to be made up rhetoric if you leave out such important points. Really just means I'm forced to treat everything else you say as more or less truth bending fiction tbh.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    greeno wrote: »
    My argument is that do we need to go this far if we don't have to. Why should we be reliant on 3 other states to ensure we can reject a proposal

    Because that is the same rules that everyone else has signed up for including the biggest states, in the areas where all have agreed that QMV is the most efficent approach.

    It is already the normal voting proceedure in the majority of decision making areas with the exception of those deemed to be of critical importance to the member states such as taxation, defense and foreign policy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    marco_polo wrote: »
    The are mistaking you that is 1.6% of the seats for 0.8 percent of the population.

    Hardly huge representation 1.6%? In the real decision making matters we have 0.8% say in the QVM stage and if as much as 9 states reject a proposal they cannot impact that decision if they are small states.

    Its only 70 years since Europe was divided before in the biggest war ever seen. Can this happen again, is this dictatorship by treaty? If you think not vote yes by all means


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    greeno wrote: »
    Hardly huge representation 1.6%? In the real decision making matters we have 0.8% say in the QVM stage and if as much as 9 states reject a proposal they cannot impact that decision if they are small states.

    A three word George Orwell slogan comes to mind...its the one that beings with 'I'.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    greeno wrote: »
    Hardly huge representation 1.6%? In the real decision making matters we have 0.8% say in the QVM stage and if as much as 9 states reject a proposal they cannot impact that decision if they are small states.

    Its only 70 years since Europe was divided before in the biggest war ever seen. Can this happen again, is this dictatorship by treaty? If you think not vote yes by all means

    Have you any good examples from the last 30 years where something was foisted upon us against our will via QMV?


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    Don't both of these topics require further treaties if they were to be changed at EU level?

    regardless of the 65% stage, as you seem to believe big states will be ganging up on the little ones regularly. at 55% the little states can block anything... so that seems to be a pointless argument? Now if you can point out a block of 65% of population and 55% of states who's countries ideology is very different than ours on these topics I'd be more interested.

    Do those proposals above fall under this EU treaty?


    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;

    So we need larger states for our blocking minority? So if Ireland, Luxembourg etc joined together there is surely no way we would for 35% of the popultion so the QVM would be used despite 4 countries opposing. This could in effect lead to the larger countires having the say over us!

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0042:0133:EN:PDF


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Have you any good examples from the last 30 years where something was foisted upon us against our will via QMV?

    We will have no referendums on such matters anymore


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭Purple Gorilla


    greeno wrote: »
    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.
    Have you really read the treaty? In line with the German Constitutional Court Ruling, no competencies can be conferred to the EU without creating a new treaty and in turn, without us having a referendum on it.
    Also, things like family law and tax require unanimity, not QMV so no, the EU cannot and most likely will not ever have the choice to set our Corporate Tax Rate or introduce abortion, euthanasia etc. unless we agree to it


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    Have you really read the treaty? In line with the German Constitutional Court Ruling, no competencies can be conferred to the EU without creating a new treaty and in turn, without us having a referendum on it.
    Also, things like family law and tax require unanimity, not QMV so no, the EU cannot and most likely will not ever have the choice to set our Corporate Tax Rate or introduce abortion, euthanasia etc. unless we agree to it

    We as the people or the govt as our representatives?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    greeno wrote: »
    We as the people or the govt as our representatives?

    but if your argument is on sovereignty then surely for the purposes of that its a case of either of them should do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    taconnol wrote: »
    But you said your problem with the Lisbon Treaty is sovereignty.

    There are no new areas of exclusive competence under Lisbon, and the only new shared competences are energy and space.

    You've just stated you don't have a problem with energy. Are you really going to tell me that Ireland has a feasible space exploration programme up its sleeve?

    The EU will have exclusive competence in customs, competition rules, monetary policy, fishing policy, common commercial policy and conclusion of certain International agreements. Only the EU can legislate on the above member states can't.

    The EU will have a coordinating role on economic policies, employment policies and social policies.

    The treaty will also for first time give the EU legal basis to take action on:
    energy, natural disasters, sport and space policy.

    So it is not only a question of energy or space travel.


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    but if your argument is on sovereignty then surely for the purposes of that its a case of either of them should do.

    Am no, the whole sovereignty issue comes down to the fact that the govt in this country could not change the consitution without our acceotance by referendum.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    greeno wrote: »
    The EU will have exclusive competence in customs, competition rules, monetary policy, fishing policy, common commercial policy and conclusion of certain International agreements. Only the EU can legislate on the above member states can't.

    And what has that to do with Lisbon?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    Tarobot wrote: »
    Incorrect again! (Please read the Treaty or go to www.lisbonexposed.org and inform yourself.) With Double Majority 17 of the 27 member states have to agree and then they have to represent 65% of the population. PLUS, 4 states can come together and veto (Article 16.4, TEU "A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.")
    Having followed greenos(and Tarobots) reference(no offence but it seemed quite different than Tarobot's assertion, and the previous discussion).

    And indeed greeno's quote is accurate, which is very very different than "4 states can come together and veto".


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    greeno wrote: »
    Am no, the whole sovereignty issue comes down to the fact that the govt in this country could not change the consitution without our acceotance by referendum.

    but...thats an internal question no? we could easily put it in our own constitution that our government can't agree to anything in a manner which might supersede the constitution. If indeed they can as it stands already?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    How so? It certainly states that 4 member states can block a proposal.
    Article 16 Lisbon TEU

    1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.

    2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.

    3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide otherwise.

    4. As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union. 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.

    5. The transitional provisions relating to the definition of the qualified majority which shall be applicable until 31 October 2014 and those which shall be applicable from 1 November 2014 to 31 March 2017 are laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions.

    6. The Council shall meet in different configurations, the list of which shall be adopted in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The General Affairs Council shall ensure consistency in the work of the different Council configurations. It shall prepare and ensure the follow-up to meetings of the European Council, in liaison with the President of the European Council and the Commission. The Foreign Affairs Council shall elaborate the Union's external action on the basis of strategic guidelines laid down by the European Council and ensure that the Union's action is consistent.

    7. A Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Governments of the Member States shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Council.

    8. The Council shall meet in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act. To this end, each Council meeting shall be divided into two parts, dealing respectively with deliberations on Union legislative acts and non-legislative activities.

    9. The Presidency of Council configurations, other than that of Foreign Affairs, shall be held by Member State representatives in the Council on the basis of equal rotation, in accordance with the conditions established in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    but...thats an internal question no? we could easily put it in our own constitution that our government can't agree to anything in a manner which might supersede the constitution. If indeed they can as it stands already?

    No we can't not after Lisbon


  • Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭greeno


    turgon wrote: »
    And what has that to do with Lisbon?

    Because to legislate in these areas QVM is employed


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,314 ✭✭✭Nietzschean


    greeno wrote: »
    No we can't not after Lisbon

    where does it say that exactly? don't think the EU can stop us from changing our own constitution, and our government must obey it....and we indeed elect our government to represent our views.....


    If the government would have to agree to any such move, and we control the government(well at least in theory, but thats still an internal issue)...then how do we loose sovereignty ?


Advertisement