Lisbon treaty decision day

Atwork

Sorry in advance for another fecking thread on Lisbon but its decision day and I’m nearly there. I have read lots of stuff on boards about the Lisbon treaty and to be honest it hasn’t made making my decision any easier. I decided the best thing to do was look at the lisbontreaty2009 site and take it from there. This is the way I currently see it and would appreciate any additional valid information where you may think I’m wrong. Facts only please. No €1.84 an hour min wage or “It’s good for jobs” as these I believe are not facts

1: European commission. Yes, as every member will have a commissioner. Under current law the European commission will be reduced in size and each member may not have a commissioner at the end of 2009. To me, this means we may or may not have a commissioner as the amount of commissioners will be reduced. If we have a yes to Lisbon then we are guaranteed a commissioner.

2: Council of Ministers. Yes, as all debates will be public which I think would be better. Currently only some debates take place in public.

3: European Parliament. Yes, as all decisions including the EU budget will be made in conjunction with the council of ministers. Will it be public what way voting took place when decisions were being made including the EU Budget?

4: QMV. Unsure, as because you need 15 countries to agree is good, those 15 countries need to have 65% of the population is not good because Ireland has such a small population. Is it possible for some of the bigger countries to be able to block a proposal that may not suit them regardless of any positive implications that a proposal may have for countries with a smaller population. Needing four countries to block a decision is good because population size is irrelevant. Is this correct? If so then I need not be concerned about QMV.

5: European Council. Unsure, as I actually think the current six month rotation system is better than the proposed election of a president. The reason for this is the president will be elected by QMV which I have raised my concerns about above. The only positive thing I can see here is that the president will have a term of 2.5 years which I think is a good thing as it will allow time for the president elect to get something done in that amount of time and the position will be more stable. Another positive is that the president can only hold the position for a maximum of five years if re-elected. To be absolutely honest, I think I would prefer if we stayed with the current rotation system but increased the term to a minimum of 1 year.

And finally is there anything else I need to consider. I know somebody will bring up the international treaty but I’m really not too concerned about that. I will look a little more into that after I have finished with the above.

Thanks

Max Power1

look here, its the official EU page.

Theres an explanation of the increased militarisation, reduced voting power for Ireland. (although no mention of lower min wage or increased jobs:rolleyes:)

ixtlan

Atwork wrote: »

4: QMV. Unsure, as because you need 15 countries to agree is good, those 15 countries need to have 65% of the population is not good because Ireland has such a small population. Is it possible for some of the bigger countries to be able to block a proposal that may not suit them regardless of any positive implications that a proposal may have for countries with a smaller population. Needing four countries to block a decision is good because population size is irrelevant. Is this correct? If so then I need not be concerned about QMV.

You must have a minimum of 4 states, and they must have a minimum of 35% of the population (assuming all states vote). This makes it harder for the larger states to block compared to Nice. Honestly the voting system is very fair. It's been designed to ensure that any proposals have to have very broad support, and history has shown that the EU strives to incredible lengths to get a consensus.

Atwork wrote: »

5: European Council. Unsure, as I actually think the current six month rotation system is better than the proposed election of a president. The reason for this is the president will be elected by QMV which I have raised my concerns about above. The only positive thing I can see here is that the president will have a term of 2.5 years which I think is a good thing as it will allow time for the president elect to get something done in that amount of time and the position will be more stable. Another positive is that the president can only hold the position for a maximum of five years if re-elected. To be absolutely honest, I think I would prefer if we stayed with the current rotation system but increased the term to a minimum of 1 year.

Thanks

You understand it well. The problem with a one year rotation term is that it would then take 27 years for it to rotate to each state, which makes the rotation rather pointless, and only leads to disruption. Personally as well as the increased stability I would rather the states had some control over who the council president is. At the moment we get characters we don't really like... eg Sarkozy. I believe it more likely that candidates will be very moderate and low-key. I can't say it won't be Tony Blair but since it needs at least 15 states to approve I think he is unlikely. Note that this role is that of a chairman. The EU has many presidential positions, and this one has no executive power.

Actually you seem refreshingly well informed!

Ix

ixtlan

Atwork wrote: »

1: European commission. Yes, as every member will have a commissioner. Under current law the European commission will be reduced in size and each member may not have a commissioner at the end of 2009. To me, this means we may or may not have a commissioner as the amount of commissioners will be reduced. If we have a yes to Lisbon then we are guaranteed a commissioner.

Correct. If Lisbon fails there is no way to know what will happen, except that there will be fewer than 27 commissioners. That might mean 26, with the missing state getting the foreign ministers job, a situation which the NO side are falsely claiming will definitely happen. Or it might mean that the original Lisbon proposal of 15 with a 5 year rotation would happen. The 26+1 I feel is pointless anyhow because at least one new country will join (Croatia definitely and maybe Iceland) and I suspect the council will be reluctant to increase the commission past 26.

Atwork wrote: »

And finally is there anything else I need to consider. I know somebody will bring up the international treaty but I’m really not too concerned about that. I will look a little more into that after I have finished with the above.

Thanks

Citizen's Initative... one million signatures to get a formal hearing/response from the commission.

For the first time ever the Dail gets to review EU laws before they are voted on.

A more co-ordinated energy policy and promotion of renewable energy.

Ix

marco_polo

Just cover these two points

Atwork wrote: »

3: European Parliament. Yes, as all decisions including the EU budget will be made in conjunction with the council of ministers. Will it be public what way voting took place when decisions were being made including the EU Budget?

I believe the Parliament voting record is already available to the public.

4: QMV. Unsure, as because you need 15 countries to agree is good, those 15 countries need to have 65% of the population is not good because Ireland has such a small population. Is it possible for some of the bigger countries to be able to block a proposal that may not suit them regardless of any positive implications that a proposal may have for countries with a smaller population. Needing four countries to block a decision is good because population size is irrelevant. Is this correct? If so then I need not be concerned about QMV.


Thanks

There is a thread here discussing both the changes to the areas moving to QMV and a discussion on the voting weights

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62202241