Things the No to Lisbon campaign said would happen

Sam Vimes · 30-09-2011 07:40AM #1

Firstly, sorry if this has been done before. I just found an old file on my computer from the time of the last Lison treaty where I'd listed some of the lies that were told by the no campaign. It had plain old lies like the one about the EU having taken €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters but the ones I'm interested in here are things that they said would happen if we voted yes, i.e. they were saying that voting yes would allow something to happen where voting no would prevent it.

This is the list:

The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84
Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack
We would lose our neutrality
It would create a European superstate
Abortion would be made legal
Gay marriage would be made legal
Euthanasia would be made legal
The death penalty would be made legal
The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on
Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
We would lose the right to referendums
Our constitution would be null and void
Healthcare and education would be privatised
We would be forced to increase military spending
The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
We would lose our veto in all areas
A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
Tony Blair would become the EU president

Now that two years have passed and none of those things have happened I think we can all agree they were lies. So that's a list of "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen that didn't. What I'm wondering is: what "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen actually did? I can't think of anything to be honest.

Now bear in mind I'm not looking for a list of "bad" things that have happened since 2009. I'm looking for things that happened and that were allowed to happen as a direct result of a clause in the Lisbon treaty. For example, the Irish government reduced the minimum wage a while ago but that was their decision to make. The reduction of the minimum wage had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty so mentioning that would just be wasting everyone's time. Anther example would be the pressure from Sarkosy a few months ago about our corporation tax. That is actually a prime example of proof that the claim about our losing the right to control our corporation tax was a lie. He tried to put pressure on Ireland and force us to change the rate in exchange for a cut in the bailout rate but because we still have the veto that the no campaign said we would lose we could and did tell him to f*ck off.

Before you post please ensure that you can answer yes to both of these questions:

Did the thing that I am about to post happen as a direct result of a clause in the Lisbon treaty?
Can I (and do I intend to) quote the clause that allowed this thing to happen and explain exactly how it allowed it to happen?

Any post that makes a claim that isn't backed up by a reference to the treaty (or at least a reference that makes reference to the treaty) will be immediately asked to provide a reference so please just save everyone the time by providing it to begin with

celticbest · 30-09-2011 07:44AM

Something bigger has happened since which might just have slightly taken Europe's eyes of the ball.............THE RECESSION

Sam Vimes · 30-09-2011 07:49AM

celticbest wrote: »

Something bigger has happened since which might just have slightly taken Europe's eyes of the ball.............THE RECESSION

Well the recession started the year before the treaty but ok, what's your point? Are you saying that all of those things would have happened had the EU not been too busy dealing with the recession, and that they could still happen?

If so, references please

30-09-2011 07:54AM

Things the yes side said would happen:

"Vote yes for jobs"

celticbest · 30-09-2011 08:05AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well the recession started the year before the treaty but ok, what's your point? Are you saying that all of those things would have happened had the EU not been too busy dealing with the recession, and that they could still happen?

If so, references please

The Treaty is from before the Recession (13 December 2007)......

What I'm saying is that you cannot predict what would have happened compared to what has happened as we are now living in different finincial times to pre the Treaty.

Sam Vimes · 30-09-2011 08:40AM

celticbest wrote: »

The Treaty is from before the Recession (13 December 2007)......

What I'm saying is that you cannot predict what would have happened compared to what has happened as we are now living in different finincial times to pre the Treaty.

I think you're missing the point here. The no campaign said that the treaty contained certain clauses that the EU intended to use to do certain things. They were predicting that these things were going to happen because they were claiming that the EU were anxiously waiting for us to vote yes to the treaty so that they could do these things. 21 of these things are listed above and none of them happened. So I really don't see what the recession that was well up and running during the second vote has to do with, to pick one example, plans to make Tony Blair the EU president.....

Sam Vimes · 30-09-2011 08:43AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Things the yes side said would happen:

"Vote yes for jobs"

Yes, well done. Although now that we're essentially living off money from our EU neighbours to whom a no vote would have been a bit of a kick in the teeth, personally I think that the jobs situation in Ireland would be a good bit worse had we voted no

celticbest · 30-09-2011 08:51AM

#6. Gay marriage??? We're only one step away, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Ireland

Sam Vimes · 30-09-2011 09:06AM

celticbest wrote: »

#6. Gay marriage??? We're only one step away, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Ireland

Read the bold part of my first post and then tell me, what's the next question I'm going to ask you?

which part of the Lisbon treaty allowed that to happen?

thebman · 30-09-2011 12:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Things the yes side said would happen:

"Vote yes for jobs"

Start a thread on it, although you could bump one of the old ones :pac:

The reality is idiots on both sides lied or misrepresented what was happening for fear of the people not actually understanding what they were voting on or because they wanted to trick people into voting one way or the other depending on their own preference.

I think the government was engaged in thinking, ah the poor little people will never understand all these big words.

I think the no campaigners were engaged in trying to trick people in to voting no in many cases and just look at the list in OP makes that clear enough IMO.

I think both were wrong though. The treaty should have been discussed on its own merits regardless of how boring that might have been.

Scofflaw · 30-09-2011 03:45PM

About the only thing not predicted was that Lisbon would prove to be probably inadequate in the face of the crisis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome · 30-09-2011 04:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Things the yes side said would happen:

"Vote yes for jobs"

celticbest wrote: »

The Treaty is from before the Recession (13 December 2007)......

What I'm saying is that you cannot predict what would have happened compared to what has happened as we are now living in different finincial times to pre the Treaty.

To quote from a previous thread...

meglome wrote: »

...Lisbon treaty came into force in December 2009, the recession started over a year earlier. So you're complaining that your plane was late when the engines had been damaged by a bird strike and demanding to know why the faster wingtips put on afterwards didn't sort it. They are two different things, it's very simple.

Btw good idea for a thread, personally I'm sick and tired of yes for jobs brought up time and again without any reference to the no side shenanigans.

rumour · 12-10-2011 07:16PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

About the only thing not predicted was that Lisbon would prove to be probably inadequate in the face of the crisis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I remember these issues and even attempted to debate why the treaty was flawed. Water under the bridge now.

We had a position of responsibility with the eyes of the world upon us holding the key to an extremely integral part of the European project. What did we do?

We descended into a polarized mud slinging exercise highlighting our complete inability to be responsible, a bloody disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see now. We are run by the IMF EU & ECB.

The rot set in along time ago when we refused to accept the results of referenda. That the EU should encourage this, is and will be a serious flaw in its construct.

meglome · 12-10-2011 11:10PM

rumour wrote: »

I remember these issues and even attempted to debate why the treaty was flawed. Water under the bridge now.

It's about as flawed as can be expected when 25 countries make a deal. Though it's a big improvement on what was there before it.

rumour wrote: »

We had a position of responsibility with the eyes of the world upon us holding the key to an extremely integral part of the European project. What did we do?

Well what we did was initially vote against the treaty based on things that weren't it in which let's face it was pretty stupid.

rumour wrote: »

We descended into a polarized mud slinging exercise highlighting our complete inability to be responsible, a bloody disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see now. We are run by the IMF EU & ECB.

I agree that we did descend into polarised mud slinging and have certainly shown ourselves to be very irresponsible. I'm not getting what that had to do with the EU. Care to elaborate?

rumour wrote: »

The rot set in along time ago when we refused to accept the results of referenda. That the EU should encourage this, is and will be a serious flaw in its construct.

We've been redoing referenda for many years now as there is rarely a sane debate about any of them. Again I fail to see how the EU created that situation.

Sam Vimes · 14-10-2011 06:49AM

rumour wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

About the only thing not predicted was that Lisbon would prove to be probably inadequate in the face of the crisis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I remember these issues and even attempted to debate why the treaty was flawed. Water under the bridge now.

We had a position of responsibility with the eyes of the world upon us holding the key to an extremely integral part of the European project. What did we do?

We descended into a polarized mud slinging exercise highlighting our complete inability to be responsible, a bloody disgrace. The evidence is there for all to see now. We are run by the IMF EU & ECB.

The rot set in along time ago when we refused to accept the results of referenda. That the EU should encourage this, is and will be a serious flaw in its construct.

So can you tell us any 'bad' things that the no to Lisbon campaign said would happen if we voted yes that actually happened (due to the treaty of course)?

RandomName2 · 16-10-2011 04:31PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84.

Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack

We would lose our neutrality

It would create a European superstate

Abortion would be made legal

Gay marriage would be made legal

Euthanasia would be made legal

The death penalty would be made legal

The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on

Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus

During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead

Turkey would be allowed to join the EU

The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)

We would lose the right to referendums

Our constitution would be null and void

Healthcare and education would be privatised

We would be forced to increase military spending

The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics

We would lose our veto in all areas

A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people

Tony Blair would become the EU president

Oooh that's a little unfair and you know it, particularly since you are using anything said by any old crank organisation (COIR specifically). Even then you are not making allowances for the upshot of some of the claims - COIR was claiming €1.84 min wage as an eye-catching figure, but admitted that their main claim was interference in our capacity to set our own minimum wage (which was incorrect). Anyway:

[list=2]

[*] The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84.
[*]Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack
[*]We would lose our neutrality
[*]It would create a European superstate
[*]Abortion would be made legal
[*]Gay marriage would be made legal
[*]Euthanasia would be made legal
[*]The death penalty would be made legal
[*]The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on

1. No
2. Yes (you are being overly specific claiming 'military response' and no major disaster or terrorist attack has happened, but legislation exists for Ireland's contribution in the event of the above happening)
3. Ummm... depends on what one means by neutrality really. The neutrality thing has always been a bit silly to be honest.
4. It hasn't created but has perhaps either facilitated the creation of one or cemented the current superstate depending on what you view a 'superstate' as.
5. Possibly on its way. At most only marginally facilitated by Lisbon.
6. Possibly on its way. At most only marginally facilitated by Lisbon.
7. No.
8. Did anybody actually say this? It would be entirely bogus, if so. In fact the converse could be successfully argued; that Lisbon prevents Ireland reintroducing the death penalty.
9. More the case that the guarantees were neither here nor there - which, apart from the retention of Commissioner, was pretty much the case.

[*]Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
[*]During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
[*]Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
[*]The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
[*]We would lose the right to referendums
[*]Our constitution would be null and void

10. It may well have aided his chances.
11. Did anybody say rigged polls? Certainly the media was biased in favour of the yes campaign.
12. Hmmm... I don't think membership acceptance moved to QMV, so in that case I would say no.
13. As you say. However, the European Court of Human Rights (or whatever its official name is) has now also been given teeth.
14. Nobody said this. The claim was an elevator clause for the EU to make internal changes. I think I head some mention of this recently, but it was too vague for me to properly comment on.
15. Our sovereignty has slightly less significance. Null and void - hardly.

[*]Healthcare and education would be privatised
[*]We would be forced to increase military spending
[*]The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
[*]We would lose our veto in all areas
[*]A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
[*]Tony Blair would become the EU president[/I]
[/list]

16. No.
17. We do have to contribute something to R&D don't we? I didn't bother looking it up as part of the Budget.
18. Strange one (again wayyy over specific hypothetical scenarios that have little basis in reality)
19. We did lose a hell of a lot of vetoes.
20. lol. Maybe somewhere down the line (I'll give it a decade at least, more legislation, and never any conscription)
21. He was a front-runner. (Be a bit like someone in two years time saying BUT SOMEONE SAID THAT SEAN GALLAGHER* WAS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT!)

*for example

Scofflaw · 16-10-2011 06:02PM

8. Did anybody actually say this? It would be entirely bogus, if so. In fact the converse could be successfully argued; that Lisbon prevents Ireland reintroducing the death penalty.

For the "reinstates the death penalty" claim - yes, the claim was made by a German academic, Professor Schachtschneider, and repeated widely:

http://www.google.ie/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1519&bih=681&q=lisbon+reinstate+death+penalty+Schachtschneider+&oq=lisbon+reinstate+death+penalty+Schachtschneider+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=26106l26699l0l27115l2l2l0l1l0l0l127l127l0.1l1l0

You're correct as the actual effect, though, which is the reverse of what was claimed - but claimed it most certainly was. The National platform (Anthony Coughlan) would have been a front runner in repeating this one.

4. It hasn't created but has perhaps either facilitated the creation of one or cemented the current superstate depending on what you view a 'superstate' as.

In respect of "sets the EU on the road to <bad thing> depending on how you define <bad thing>" - depending on how you define "cooperative intergovernmental framework", you could equally well claim that.

13. As you say. However, the European Court of Human Rights (or whatever its official name is) has now also been given teeth.

The ECHR isn't part of the EU - it's part of the Council of Europe, an entirely separate organisation.

14. Nobody said this. The claim was an elevator clause for the EU to make internal changes. I think I head some mention of this recently, but it was too vague for me to properly comment on.

Again, this certainly was claimed - that Ireland would have no more referendums on EU treaties. Indeed, it was a major claim, made by nearly every No group, and still being repeated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour · 19-10-2011 08:36PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So can you tell us any 'bad' things that the no to Lisbon campaign said would happen if we voted yes that actually happened (due to the treaty of course)?

Again we descend into the particulars justifying the general.

To me the Lisbon treaty was part of a process towards European Integration, which fundamentally I agree with. Its the pragmatic thing to do in the current geo-political construct of our planet if we want to preserve our privileged way of life that we have enjoyed for centuries at the expense of most others on the planet. But to not apply lessons learned or developing reasoned arguments for doing something is bordering on stupidity. The Irish people decided which way to vote on the Lisbon Treaty twice rationalised by nothing more than mob management of ridiculing the other person opinion to prove that defacto the other side must be right.

To me this type of argument will remain nonsense. Countries states or nations are generally since the time of the Hammurabi held together by written laws. Administering these laws in any society communist capitalist feudal etc etc is generally done under these three headings

The legislative
The executive
The judiciary

The legislative is responsible for writing or agreeing the laws, the executive enacts them and the judiciary resolves disputes. Throughout history problems with nations can be traced to imbalances in these three functions. In the current version of the EU, the legislative is constructed to give disproportionate weight to Germany and France. Take the US for example where the lower house of the legislative represents population distribution and the upper house represents the states equally acting as a filter and preserving unity. The EU does not have this filter, I consider this flawed as in the long term it won't preserve unity. I'm not saying the states is ideal but about 250yrs ago they put some serious thought into what their Union meant and how they would preserve it, we on the other hand decided by....what rational argument?
The executive. Who are the executive in the EU accountable to? The construct of the executive is less than transparent with roles secondary to nation states but at the same time influential and the process of appointment far from the democratic will of the populace. This fudge is not a solution and the longer it remains the longer it will bring disrepute on the executive.
The Judiciary, while we all agree European Law is superior to nation state law the moral authority of this organisation is built upon what? What does the Judiciary decide as right and wrong?

You may not like this perspective but once upon a time moral authority was derived from Christian values, these values permeate life in the western world even today. Crucially most states up to quite recently placed this absolute moral authority in God. This served a real function in that the judiciary were able to act within moral authority defined by something extraneous to the laws they adjudicated. The Lisbon Treaty, which is the rebranded constitution, got rid of any reference to extraneous moral authority. Now most people today consider this an advantage, as they don't want to be told what to do by the church, that is the immediate reaction. But providing no get out clause with reference to an extraneous moral authority means the judiciary must act within the written laws, which are defined now, only by the legislative and enacted by the executive.
In the short term this may appear perfect, but when added with a flawed construct of the legislative and an unaccountable executive the combination has the potential to becomes much more sinister. The executive have for example made Irish Taxpayers pay for the losses of private French banks. Hardly the act of a Union where the Irish must be sacrificed in order not to highlight the gambling and losses of French banks in Greece. This is the sort of unimaginable distortion of events that the treaty of Lisbon facilitated but did not in itself set out to deliver. Who can we appeal to?

The judiciary....well they cannot apply any sense of right or wrong they must judge only on the law. If you study the history of Law in England, which is quite developed all of these types of problems, have arisen before.

The construct of the EU is so flawed that the currency will probably fall apart in the next two weeks, the reason is not the that the euro is a bad thing, it is that the construct that backs it up is flawed, it was set up to pander to the French and Germans and is held together only by fear of the consequences of it falling. I'll happily be wrong on this.

Lisbon was rushed through to appease French and German worries they were and are the primary beneficiaries. With beneficiaries come losers, these losers were the small states that had their equal nation status demeaned. This ignores all the European wars throughout the centuries that have defined these states and does nothing to preserve unity in the long term. The EU is flawed in its construct and Lisbon is part of that.

Yes for jobs really sums up the level of intellect employed in Ireland.

Scofflaw · 19-10-2011 11:54PM

rumour wrote: »

Again we descend into the particulars justifying the general.

To me the Lisbon treaty was part of a process towards European Integration, which fundamentally I agree with. Its the pragmatic thing to do in the current geo-political construct of our planet if we want to preserve our privileged way of life that we have enjoyed for centuries at the expense of most others on the planet. But to not apply lessons learned or developing reasoned arguments for doing something is bordering on stupidity. The Irish people decided which way to vote on the Lisbon Treaty twice rationalised by nothing more than mob management of ridiculing the other person opinion to prove that defacto the other side must be right.

To be honest, while the Lisbon debate was atrocious, the fact that we're about to hold referendums on two amendments that affect the separation of powers here in Ireland, and haven't had anything like a debate on them, suggests a fundamental flaw in the referendum process.

rumour wrote: »

To me this type of argument will remain nonsense. Countries states or nations are generally since the time of the Hammurabi held together by written laws. Administering these laws in any society communist capitalist feudal etc etc is generally done under these three headings
The legislative

The executive

The judiciary

The legislative is responsible for writing or agreeing the laws, the executive enacts them and the judiciary resolves disputes. Throughout history problems with nations can be traced to imbalances in these three functions. In the current version of the EU, the legislative is constructed to give disproportionate weight to Germany and France. Take the US for example where the lower house of the legislative represents population distribution and the upper house represents the states equally acting as a filter and preserving unity. The EU does not have this filter, I consider this flawed as in the long term it won't preserve unity. I'm not saying the states is ideal but about 250yrs ago they put some serious thought into what their Union meant and how they would preserve it, we on the other hand decided by....what rational argument?

How is the weight given to Germany and France 'disproportionate', though? They get a lot less weight than their population or economic size would justify, and certainly a lot less than they would have in either a purely inter-governmental EU or a Europe purely of nation-states.

rumour wrote: »

The executive. Who are the executive in the EU accountable to?

They're accountable to the Parliament, as is usual in such systems.

rumour wrote: »

The construct of the executive is less than transparent with roles secondary to nation states but at the same time influential and the process of appointment far from the democratic will of the populace. This fudge is not a solution and the longer it remains the longer it will bring disrepute on the executive.

The Commission is part of the protection for smaller states, though - each state has one Commissioner. Having them elected across Europe would result in a Commission primarily from the big five states.

As for having the Irish Commissioner elected in Ireland - there's nothing stopping that being the case.

rumour wrote: »

The Judiciary, while we all agree European Law is superior to nation state law the moral authority of this organisation is built upon what? What does the Judiciary decide as right and wrong?

It doesn't - it rules only on application of the Treaties, and resolves only disputes stemming from them. That makes it, in essence, a contractual arbitration body or a constitutional court rather than the equivalent of a full judicial system. Questions of right and wrong largely do not arise, because the court is purely civil in nature, and has no criminal jurisdiction.

rumour wrote: »

You may not like this perspective but once upon a time moral authority was derived from Christian values, these values permeate life in the western world even today. Crucially most states up to quite recently placed this absolute moral authority in God. This served a real function in that the judiciary were able to act within moral authority defined by something extraneous to the laws they adjudicated. The Lisbon Treaty, which is the rebranded constitution, got rid of any reference to extraneous moral authority. Now most people today consider this an advantage, as they don't want to be told what to do by the church, that is the immediate reaction. But providing no get out clause with reference to an extraneous moral authority means the judiciary must act within the written laws, which are defined now, only by the legislative and enacted by the executive.

Er, no, that's wrong - they're actually created by a separate external body, the Member States acting in summit. The moral authority of the laws derives from the democratic mandate of the governments of the Member States who agree the Treaties in the first place, and who control EU legislation as the Council of Ministers, who you appear to have left out entirely.

rumour wrote: »

In the short term this may appear perfect, but when added with a flawed construct of the legislative and an unaccountable executive the combination has the potential to becomes much more sinister.

Not really - to be blunt, I think your understanding of how the EU works is rather incomplete.

rumour wrote: »

The executive have for example made Irish Taxpayers pay for the losses of private French banks.

Er, again, no. First, the Guarantee enacted by the Irish government was enacted domestically without European input, and came as an unpleasant shock to much of Europe. The ECB's insistence on bondholder protection didn't kick in until they had a measure of control through bailout funding - by which time the majority of bondholders had already been paid off, with our banks borrowing from the ECB to do so. Second, all the evidence strongly points to the bondholders having been primarily non-eurozone, most likely the US and UK money markets where the Irish banks traditionally operate - the evidence for "French and German banks" being major senior bondholders is entirely absent.

rumour wrote: »

Hardly the act of a Union where the Irish must be sacrificed in order not to highlight the gambling and losses of French banks in Greece. This is the sort of unimaginable distortion of events that the treaty of Lisbon facilitated but did not in itself set out to deliver. Who can we appeal to?

The judiciary....well they cannot apply any sense of right or wrong they must judge only on the law. If you study the history of Law in England, which is quite developed all of these types of problems, have arisen before.

The construct of the EU is so flawed that the currency will probably fall apart in the next two weeks, the reason is not the that the euro is a bad thing, it is that the construct that backs it up is flawed, it was set up to pander to the French and Germans and is held together only by fear of the consequences of it falling. I'll happily be wrong on this.

Actually, if the euro falls apart the reason will be precisely because the euro itself is a poor construction. It was put together primarily for political purposes, and without any of the controls, or backup plans, needed for it to survive a crisis unassisted. The current move towards greater fiscal integration is something that should have happened before the euro was created - and the reluctance and national foot-dragging on display is the reason it didn't.

rumour wrote: »

Lisbon was rushed through to appease French and German worries they were and are the primary beneficiaries. With beneficiaries come losers, these losers were the small states that had their equal nation status demeaned.

The slight fiddling with voting weights produced larger states with reduced weights, smaller states with increased weights, and the reverse - on balance, it came out largely equal, certainly as regards the balance of power between the majority of smaller EU states and the minority of larger states. Other than that I'm not sure how this statement is supposed to mean anything - nothing in Lisbon "demeaned" the equal status of the smaller nations, and it would be frankly bizarre if it had, given that the Treaty was negotiated through an intergovernmental process with precisely one veto per state.

rumour wrote: »

This ignores all the European wars throughout the centuries that have defined these states and does nothing to preserve unity in the long term. The EU is flawed in its construct and Lisbon is part of that.

Yes for jobs really sums up the level of intellect employed in Ireland.

I'm not sure why the postscript, but while it's certainly good that you've evidently put more thought into the matter than was apparent in the Lisbon campaigns, you seem to have reached only a sketchy understanding of the EU itself, on which you then base criticisms which are as a result pretty poorly directed.

For example, the Commission is not the executive of the EU in the sense that the Cabinet is the executive of the Irish government. Instead, it is the management body of the European civil service. Its sole right of legislative initiative is a purely protective one, to prevent individual states from initiating legislation for their own benefit which the larger states would have a better chance of passing through the Council than would the smaller states.

The EU is primarily a permanent framework for joint action by the Member States, including joint legislative action, and its institutions are geared towards that role, which is necessarily subservient to the elected governments who use it. That it has a certain political weight in itself, and not merely as the Member States acting in concert, is something that reflects the necessity of such joint action. At this stage, if the EU did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Things the No to Lisbon campaign said would happen

Comments