I want to vote yes but...

The Sparrow

Ok here is the story. I support 99% of what is in the Lisbon Treaty. I am generally in favour of an expanded Europe and I understand that as the EU expands everyone will have to make sacrifices. I also don't believe almost anything that the No side says about neutrality or abortion and that stuff.

But I have one issue with the treaty and that caused me to vote no the last time and I am strongly considering voting no again.

It is my understanding that if this Treaty is passed that subsequent amendments to the Treaty will no longer have to be ratified by a referendum in this country. So therefore it seems to me that if it is passed that subsequent revisions will only need to be passed by the Dail and Seanad and not a referendum as is currently the case.

Is this the case or am I missing something?

I'm genuinely hoping that somebody will point out something that I am missing because I just can't vote yes if it results in removing our right to a referendum on key EU decisions.

Dinner

Thats incorrect. Any changes must be ratified according to our constitutional requirements. Which can mean a referendum. (Article 48, para 4).

Sam Vimes

That's not true thankfully. Under article 48 (the clause people say allows this) certain explicitly limited changes can be made. These changes must be unanimous and must be in line with each country's constitutional requirements, which in our case means a referendum for any significant changes. This procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the union (ie remove vetoes or give the EU new powers).

Here's article 48:http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html

The important bits:

That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

Our constitution is just as valid if Lisbon is passed as it is today. If an issue requires a referendum today, it will still require a referendum if Lisbon is passed

The judgement that requires us to have a referendum for significant changes to our relationship with the EU, the Crotty judgement still stands

lala stone

Im feeling the same OP!

I know our constitution is protected,, but what about amendments to the treaty,,, isnt the whole point of Lisbon to streamline and eradicate the need for referendums such as this one?

also isnt our power to Veto removed?

lala stone

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not true thankfully. Under article 48 (the clause people say allows this) certain explicitly limited changes can be made. These changes must be unanimous and must be in line with each country's constitutional requirements, which in our case means a referendum for any significant changes. This procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the union (ie remove vetoes or give the EU new powers).

Here's article 48:http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html

The important bits:


Our constitution is just as valid if Lisbon is passed as it is today. If an issue requires a referendum today, it will still require a referendum if Lisbon is passed

The judgement that requires us to have a referendum for significant changes to our relationship with the EU, the Crotty judgement still stands

But what are "significant changes"? surely this will be open to the EU gov systems to interpret?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Dinner wrote: »

Thats incorrect. Any changes must be ratified according to our constitutional requirements. Which can mean a referendum. (Article 48, para 4).

Correction, must mean a referendum where EU competences are increased, which is absolutely no different to the current situation.

Here's 48.4 (I've bolded the important bit):

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Sam Vimes

lala stone wrote: »

Im feeling the same OP!

I know our constitution is protected,, but what about amendments to the treaty,,, isnt the whole point of Lisbon to streamline and eradicate the need for referendums such as this one?

No it's not, it's to make it easier to make small changes as required. The changes they can make are very explicitly limited.

lala stone wrote: »

also isnt our power to Veto removed?

Currently 50 areas are decided by Qualified Majority Voting. Under Lisbon 63 more areas (I think) move to QMV. You can see these areas here:
http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62202241

Take a look at hoe hard it is to make a change even with QMV:
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=109

PopeBuckfastXVI

lala stone wrote: »

But what are "significant changes"? surely this will be open to the EU gov systems to interpret?

It's up to the Irish Supreme court to interpret, not the European government's, or European court. They have already determined in the case of Crotty vs An Taoiseach that it includes at least any increase of EU power, relative to Irelands.

Sam Vimes

lala stone wrote: »

But what are "significant changes"? surely this will be open to the EU gov systems to interpret?

No it's up to the Irish constitution. Any transfer of power will require a referendum for example. Anything that requires a referendum today will still require one. Lisbon doesn't change this

Scofflaw

The "simplified revision procedure" in Lisbon Article 48 allows the member states, by unanimity, to agree to move voting on certain issues to QMV or codecision where they are currently by unanimity, or to modify aspects of certain policies. The issues where voting can be changed do not include sensitive issues like defence and foreign policy. Any changes introduced under the simplified revision procedure cannot increase the EU's competences:

Simplified Revision Procedure: is new and simpler, involving the proposal of a single amendment, in the same way we amend our Constitution, but limited only to certain institutional and voting changes. This method can only be used for:

(a) amendments to certain internal EU policies, provided they do not increase EU competences;
(b) moves from unanimity to QMV (except for military and defence issues) ;
(c) moves to co-decision (ie involving the Parliament in legislation).

Unanimity in the European Council and EP consent is required in each case; national ratification is also required for (a), and any national parliament may veto a proposed decision under (b) or (c). Any proposal to increase the EU's competences would have to use the current "full Treaty" method, and require an Irish referendum.

If you are someone who is concerned strongly with the dropping of vetoes in favour of QMV, then you can reasonably consider the Treaty as meaningfully capable of amendment without referendum, since the ratification of Ireland's decision to agree such a change is not covered by the Crotty judgement, and currently requires only the agreement of both houses of the Oireachtas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Euro_Kraut

OP, given the answered you have recieved are you more like to vote YES? Your concerns appear to be unfounded thankfully.

View

lala stone wrote: »

But what are "significant changes"? surely this will be open to the EU gov systems to interpret?

The Supreme Court gets the final call on what constitutes "significant changes". In other words, if the Government here believes something is not a significant change, its decision can (and almost definitely will) be challenged in the courts. After that, ultimately the Supreme Court gets to decide.

This actually is more or less the current situation as most of the provisions of Lisbon could (almost definitely) be passed without recourse to a referendum.

moogester

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it's up to the Irish constitution. Any transfer of power will require a referendum for example. Anything that requires a referendum today will still require one. Lisbon doesn't change this

Yup thats right but have a look at this.

http://wargle.blogspot.com/2008/03/dodgy-bits-of-lisbon-treaty-self.html

nukinfuts

The Sparrow its nice to see you're putting thought into your decision - one woman on the radio today said she was voting no because it would "serve the government right"
:rolleyes: + :eek: = :mad:

Scofflaw

moogester wrote: »

Yup thats right but have a look at this.

http://wargle.blogspot.com/2008/03/dodgy-bits-of-lisbon-treaty-self.html

That's not too bad a piece. It's a pity he doesn't follow it to its logical conclusion, which is that the revision of policy articles allows the EU to change policy course without rewriting the Treaties, assuming that all the governments and all the national parliaments agree.

Perhaps I'm really odd, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. It's a better method than setting policy goals in stone in the Treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rebelmind

This is a self-amending treaty, pure & simple.
If you vote YES to Lisbon, you will never be asked again.
This is the so-called streamlining the unelected Eurocrats most desire.
If it were not, does anyone seriously believe that they would continue to allow the pesky paddies to hold up their grand project?
This is not a matter of opinion, it a matter of fact & all the verbiage the yesman try to cover it with does not make it untrue.

Dinner

rebelmind wrote: »

This is a self-amending treaty, pure & simple.
If you vote YES to Lisbon, you will never be asked again.
This is the so-called streamlining the unelected Eurocrats most desire.
If it were not, does anyone seriously believe that they would continue to allow the pesky paddies to hold up their grand project?
This is not a matter of opinion, it a matter of fact & all the verbiage the yesman try to cover it with does not make it untrue.

No, it's not self amending as has been proven in this very thread. Saying that it is might make you feel better, but it doesn't make it true.

Sam Vimes

rebelmind wrote: »

This is a self-amending treaty, pure & simple.
If you vote YES to Lisbon, you will never be asked again.
This is the so-called streamlining the unelected Eurocrats most desire.
If it were not, does anyone seriously believe that they would continue to allow the pesky paddies to hold up their grand project?
This is not a matter of opinion, it a matter of fact & all the verbiage the yesman try to cover it with does not make it untrue.

Looks like someone hasn't read the thread

Scofflaw

rebelmind wrote: »

This is a self-amending treaty, pure & simple.
If you vote YES to Lisbon, you will never be asked again.
This is the so-called streamlining the unelected Eurocrats most desire.
If it were not, does anyone seriously believe that they would continue to allow the pesky paddies to hold up their grand project?
This is not a matter of opinion, it a matter of fact & all the verbiage the yesman try to cover it with does not make it untrue.

OK, so we've outlined what can and can't be done with the simplified revision procedure - and just so that people can be certain, here's the Treaty text:

Simplified Revision Procedure

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union. The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

That's the bit that allows policy changes in Part Three of the TFEU.

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision. For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

That's the bit that allows for voting changes.

That's it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Sparrow

Scofflaw wrote: »

. The issues where voting can be changed do not include sensitive issues like defence and foreign policy. Any changes introduced under the simplified revision procedure cannot increase the EU's competences:

But what other issues could theoretically be changed? Taxation rulings?

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not too bad a piece. It's a pity he doesn't follow it to its logical conclusion, which is that the revision of policy articles allows the EU to change policy course without rewriting the Treaties, assuming that all the governments and all the national parliaments agree.

Perhaps I'm really odd, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. It's a better method than setting policy goals in stone in the Treaties.

One of my main problems is that I don't trust our houses of parliament to make decisions on our behalf.

So therefore my main issue is trying to figure out exactly what issues could be amended by agreement of the Oireachtas and not a referendum. I get that sensitive issues such as foreign policy and defence can not be changed this way. But what can?

Thanks for the replies. Much appreciated.

cooperguy

The Sparrow wrote: »

But what other issues could theoretically be changed? Taxation rulings?

That would be increasing the competence of the EU as they do not control this at the moment so therefore it cannot be amended to do this. That's my take on it anyway

fdaly

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not too bad a piece. It's a pity he doesn't follow it to its logical conclusion, which is that the revision of policy articles allows the EU to change policy course without rewriting the Treaties, assuming that all the governments and all the national parliaments agree.

Perhaps I'm really odd, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. It's a better method than setting policy goals in stone in the Treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks. Actually I did point that out but I don't see it as necessarily a good thing:

Article 48 would not allow the EU to start regulating religion or abortion for example ... because it doesn't currently have powers in those area. It does however have power to regulate the environment and so Article 48 would allow the EU to switch from liking the environment to hating the environment (to pick an exaggerated example)

I agree that having policy set in stone is a bad thing, this is why most countries have (relatively) short, simple statements of principals and goals - "constitution", "basic law", whatever - to which all of the policies must conform. Instead the EU has these unintelligible monstrosities that allow people on both sides of the debate to lie and obfuscate because nobody has the time or energy to figure out the truth.

Scofflaw

fdaly wrote: »

Thanks. Actually I did point that out but I don't see it as necessarily a good thing:

I agree that having policy set in stone is a bad thing, this is why most countries have (relatively) short, simple statements of principals and goals - "constitution", "basic law", whatever - to which all of the policies must conform. Instead the EU has these unintelligible monstrosities that allow people on both sides of the debate to lie and obfuscate because nobody has the time or energy to figure out the truth.

I would say that the EU has a reasonably coherent set of principles and goals - and, of course, rights. Variously:

Article 2 TEU wrote:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Article 3 TEU wrote:

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. It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child. It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States. It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.

Article 10 TEU wrote:

1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.

2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.

3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.

4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.

Article 21 TEU wrote:

1. The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. The Union shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries, and international, regional or global organisations which share the principles referred to in the first subparagraph. It shall promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of the United Nations.

2. The Union shall define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations, in order to:
(a) safeguard its values, fundamental interests, security, independence and integrity;
(b) consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law;
(c) preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris, including those relating to external borders;
(d) foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries, with the primary aim of eradicating poverty;
(e) encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade;
(f) help develop international measures to preserve and improve the quality of the environment and the sustainable management of global natural resources, in order to ensure sustainable development;
(g) assist populations, countries and regions confronting natural or man-made disasters; and
(h) promote an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good global governance.

3. The Union shall respect the principles and pursue the objectives set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 in the development and implementation of the different areas of the Union's external action covered by this Title and by Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of the external aspects of its other policies. The Union shall ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these and its other policies. The Council and the Commission, assisted by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall ensure that consistency and shall cooperate to that effect.

And the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Perhaps, in return, you can tell me what the rights, principles, and goals of Bunreacht are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

fdaly

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that the EU has a reasonably coherent set of principles and goals - and, of course, rights. Variously:

...

And the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Perhaps, in return, you can tell me what the rights, principles, and goals of Bunreacht are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is pretty reasonable and the TEU is too (not sure I like some of the content but that's a different story) however it's not the full story it has references to "other treaties" and specific references to other bits of the treaties.

The main thing though is that we are #including these goals and principals plus a whole load os specific implementations into our constitution with the result that specific implementations supercede our constitution. This is the wrong way around.

I don't hold our constitution as a shining example but at least it is constitution-like.

[Sorry for lack of specific references below, I have almost 0 time for all this this time around].

Finally look at the Common Ag Policy in TFEU It starts with why we should have one and what we are trying to achieve. Contrast this with the section on intellectual property which basically says "IP is good and we should protect it". No explanation why we want to do this or what is hoped to be gained by this, no consideration of the "copyright bargain", or even a mention that we should grant copyright monopolies for a limited time and the harm that ensues if we don't.The US constitution on the other hand is very clear about that and even then they have ended up with endless term extensions being implemented by the legislature - what hope do we have in Europe.

Scofflaw

fdaly wrote: »

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is pretty reasonable and the TEU is too (not sure I like some of the content but that's a different story) however it's not the full story it has references to "other treaties" and specific references to other bits of the treaties.

The main thing though is that we are #including these goals and principals plus a whole load os specific implementations into our constitution with the result that specific implementations supercede our constitution. This is the wrong way around.

I don't hold our constitution as a shining example but at least it is constitution-like.

[Sorry for lack of specific references below, I have almost 0 time for all this this time around].

Fair enough - however, let me correct a couple of things in case you do get time to read it.

We don't incorporate the EU treaties in our Constitution. EU law takes precedence over national law where the EU has competence, and acts necessitated by EU membership are immune from Constitutional challenge - but what that produces is a body of law that is separate from the Constitution, not an extension of the Constitution. The only modification of the Constitution involved in the ratification of an EU treaty is the incorporation of the "permission to ratify" into Bunreacht.

This separate body of law is not governed in any sense by the rights in Bunreacht - it is governed by its own internal principles as specified in the EU treaties. Post-Lisbon, those principles will include the Charter, and the rights therein, but that will have no effect on Irish domestic law, or on the Irish Constitution.

In other words, we're going from a situation where we have two bodies of law applicable in Ireland - Irish domestic law (subject to Bunreacht) and EU law (subject to the EU treaties) - and updating it slightly to a position where the latter is subject to the EU treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The position of Irish domestic law doesn't change.

fdaly wrote: »

Finally look at the Common Ag Policy in TFEU It starts with why we should have one and what we are trying to achieve. Contrast this with the section on intellectual property which basically says "IP is good and we should protect it". No explanation why we want to do this or what is hoped to be gained by this, no consideration of the "copyright bargain", or even a mention that we should grant copyright monopolies for a limited time and the harm that ensues if we don't.The US constitution on the other hand is very clear about that and even then they have ended up with endless term extensions being implemented by the legislature - what hope do we have in Europe.

Yes, that's because the Treaties aren't quite a constitution. The EU isn't really separate from the member states - it is subordinate to them and dependent on them. Therefore the Treaties are not written as a 'sovereign' document, but as the outcome of negotiations.

Further, the Treaties aren't written in the kind of 'vacuum' in which the US Constitution (or the Irish Constitution) was written, where there is no preceding binding precedent - or to the extent that there is one, there is only one. Instead, the Treaties cover 27 member states, each with a different historical tradition in the matter of intellectual property.

That means that if the member states either (a) cannot agree the aims of an intellectual property regime while agreeing that the legal basis for creating one is necessary; or (b) wish to allow the member states to subsequently change the aims of the intellectual property regime - then what you'll get in the Treaty is an agreement to agree such a regime, exactly as per Lisbon.

The Common Agricultural Policy, in contrast, was a creation de nove, as was the common market and the CFP. Those things, therefore, could have 'sovereign' statements made about them, unlike well-trodden historical issues like IP.

cordially,
Scofflaw