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
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
I would say that anyone who advocates a vote in either direction absent an understanding of the context is being disingenuous. The only thing I'd encourage people to do is understand it, and vote on its merits; or if they don't want to find out what it involves, to abstain.The goverment is saying people should vote yes by default whether they know whats in it or not. Im saying to people, if they are going to vote and they dont know whats in it then vote No.
How do you know how it is written, if it's unreadable?Mainly because it is incredibly complex, complicated and unreadable. [...] Even then it is written in such a way as to be open to different interpretations.
There are several intelligent positions: to vote no, because you disagree with the treaty's provisions; to vote yes, because you agree with the treaty's provisions; or to abstain, because you don't understand the implications of voting either way.The only intelligent position is to reject it and vote "no" as to do otherwise means we would be voting for something which binds our hands but which no one actually has read or understood.0 -
he makes his point well that we are being asked to vote for a treaty that no one understands, and the only intelligent response is to vote for the status quo (ie vote "NO") until we are given a treaty we can easily understand.
How do you propose to make the changes made in the Lisbon Treaty in a way which is easily understandable by the man on the street?
Do you think it is possible to have a legal document that is easily understandable by the average person?
Oh, and I would suggest that you retract the following as it is factually incorrect and with the frequency you suggest it tantamount to propaganda:a treaty that no one understands0 -
Mainly because it is incredibly complex, complicated and unreadable. Is it 3000 amendments to many previous treaties and one would have to have about a month to go through it, all the previous treaties, and the wisdom of Solomon to understand it. Even then it is written in such a way as to be open to different interpretations.
Actually, the consolidated version will do quite nicely. Galliard mentioned an annotated version due out by the IEA. In the interim the changes are very well summarised on that UKFO document I keep referencing.The only intelligent position is to reject it and vote "no" as to do otherwise means we would be voting for something which binds our hands but which no one actually has read or understood.
No, the intelligent position is to read it and decide.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
You dont understand what im saying. The goverment is saying people should vote yes by default whether they know whats in it or not. Im saying to people, if they are going to vote and they dont know whats in it then vote No. I would prefer people to read up on it of course.
The problem with that position is that the current EU has deficiencies which need to be addressed - for example, it has something of a democratic deficit. This Treaty addresses some of those problems - for example, it increases the amount of democratic control in the EU by increasing the powers of the elected European Parliament over the unelected Commission*.
Voting No leaves those problems unaddressed - it is not, therefore, the neutral act you seem to think it is. The neutral act is to abstain, and let those who have formed opinions vote Yes or No.
* note to jawlie - this is what I think the correct solution is. Not direct election of Commissioners, but the Commission being subject in its powers to the elected Parliament.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I would say that anyone who advocates a vote in either direction absent an understanding of the context is being disingenuous. The only thing I'd encourage people to do is understand it, and vote on its merits; or if they don't want to find out what it involves, to abstain. How do you know how it is written, if it's unreadable? There are several intelligent positions: to vote no, because you disagree with the treaty's provisions; to vote yes, because you agree with the treaty's provisions; or to abstain, because you don't understand the implications of voting either way.
Yeah be we both know that alot of people will vote and wont know whats in the treaty. They will listen to some Fine Fail politician on the radio telling them to vote yes and will do so.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yeah be we both know that alot of people will vote and wont know whats in the treaty. They will listen to some Fine Fail politician on the radio telling them to vote yes and will do so.
That's very true. Mind you, there will also be people voting No because Fianna Fáil say Yes, voting Yes because Sinn Fein say No, and not voting because it clashes with shopping...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
If anyone thinks they are signing up, with the Lisbon treaty, to a static treaty they ought to think again. My understanding is that the treaty gives the EU powers to make future amendments without referring to national governments or the electorate.
Be in no doubt that this means an ever expanding role for the EU President, as he is seen by the rest of the world as the equivalent to the European version of the president of the USA.
Occupied by someone with the political skill of, say, Tony Blair or Bertie Ahern, this job would become, in not so many years, a far more substantial one than anyone now pretends.
The role of national governments will be steadily reduced and the role of national democracy and accountability steadily weakened.
It is naive to think that by voting yes to the Lisbon treaty we are agreeing to a static constitutional position, which is the main reason we should all vote "no".0 -
If anyone thinks they are signing up, with the Lisbon treaty, to a static treaty they ought to think again. My understanding is that the treaty gives the EU powers to make future amendments without referring to national governments or the electorate.
Your understanding is essentially wrong. The article in question makes it possible for the Treaty to be amended as we amend our Constitution - that is, by proposing an amendment - rather than, as at present, producing a whole Treaty every time. However, it cannot do so without national ratification by every EU state.
The Article in question has this clause:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
So whatever a proposed amendment might be, it must still be ratified by every state. The question for us is whether every amendment requires a referendum, or whether some amendments can be passed by the Dáil. Any amendment requiring the passing of powers to the EU would still require a referendum.Be in no doubt that this means an ever expanding role for the EU President, as he is seen by the rest of the world as the equivalent to the European version of the president of the USA.
Occupied by someone with the political skill of, say, Tony Blair or Bertie Ahern, this job would become, in not so many years, a far more substantial one than anyone now pretends.
That would require amendments to the Treaties. Currently, the only powers this much-vaunted office is given in the Treaty are the exact same as the powers currently held by the rotating Presidency - convening meetings, and informing the EU Parliament of certain decisions.
No matter how much political skill the office-holder has, any extension of the powers of the office must be ratified by 27 countries - and anything significant would require a referendum here.The role of national governments will be steadily reduced and the role of national democracy and accountability steadily weakened.
They're actually strengthened in the Treaty, but why let facts disturb your flow?It is naive to think that by voting yes to the Lisbon treaty we are agreeing to a static constitutional position, which is the main reason we should all vote "no".
Whether one votes Yes or No, the EU is a dynamic institution, and will continue to evolve.
The only sensible reason for voting No is that one disagrees with the decision by the EU member states that some things are better done by pooling efforts. This treaty represents an incremental change to the EU, not some amazing new departure. If you like what the EU has done so far, this Treaty simply provides a bit more of it - along with a noticeable decrease in the existing democratic deficit.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I saw a Labour poster today about the Lisbon Treaty and on it was the EU flag but the stars on the EU flag were upside down? What's up with that?0
-
The Article in question has this clause:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
So whatever a proposed amendment might be, it must still be ratified by every state.
You are correct that article 48 does have the above quotation. The danger of using individual quotes, taken out of context, from articles such as article 48, is that it might not give the full picture.
Article 48 continues,
"If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council".
I'm not sure what sort of difficulties might be envisaged, but this would appear, at face value, to be worrying at least. The implication here seems to imply that the European Council will have the power to decide in these circumstances, but doesn't explicitly say so. It just says it will be "referred" whatever that may mean.
(Could it be argued that Ireland had a "difficulty in proceeding to ratification" if we did the equivalent, in the future, to voting "no" to proposed amendments? It seems unclear. Who would be the arbitrator in any such dispute between any individual country and the EU?)
The same clause 48 states the following;
"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".
The numbered paragraphs 1 and two above this are as follows;
"1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures".
and
"2. The government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified".
While there are other parts of article 48 which do talk of amendments being ratified by member states in accordance with their individual constitutional arrangements, the above clauses seem to suggest that there are mechanisms to make further amendments using these alternative mechanisms and thus bypassing, in the case of Ireland, the need for a referendum.
Garrett Fitzgerald, like myself a great proponant of the EU, has said of the Lisbon Treaty that "...Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
It seems folly to vote for a treaty which is, by common consent, incomprehensible and almost impossible to understand, and the consequences of which are not clear.
For anyone who wants to read the full text of article 48, it follows here;
An Article 48 shall be inserted to replace Article 48 of the TEU:
"Article 33
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
Ordinary revision procedure
2. The government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.
3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.
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.
5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.
Simplified revision procedures
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.
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.".0 -
Advertisement
-
You are correct that article 48 does have the above quotation. The danger of using individual quotes, taken out of context, from articles such as article 48, is that it might not give the full picture.
Article 48 continues,
"If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council".
I'm not sure what sort of difficulties might be envisaged, but this would appear, at face value, to be worrying at least. The implication here seems to imply that the European Council will have the power to decide in these circumstances, but doesn't explicitly say so. It just says it will be "referred" whatever that may mean.
Actually, we can say quite simply that such an interpretation is impossible.
If the Council were being given the power to decide such a thing, that would have to be explicit, since it would be a case of the Council over-riding the member states in a process which explicitly requires ratification by all member states.The same clause 48 states the following;
"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".
The numbered paragraphs 1 and two above this are as follows;
"1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures".
and
"2. The government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified".
While there are other parts of article 48 which do talk of amendments being ratified by member states in accordance with their individual constitutional arrangements, the above clauses seem to suggest that there are mechanisms to make further amendments using these alternative mechanisms and thus bypassing, in the case of Ireland, the need for a referendum.
Hmm. That's an even more far-fetched claim. The mechanisms in those paragraphs refer to proposing an amendment, and having that amendment taken forward by the Council as a proposal to be put up for ratification. They do not change the necessity for ratification of any amendment to the Treaty.Garrett Fitzgerald, like myself a great proponant of the EU, has said of the Lisbon Treaty that "...Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
I have a lot of respect for Garrett, but this quote is used all across the net without any reference to its original context. It was in reference only to the difference between the Constitution and the Treaty - the Treaty is completely in line with Nice and Maastricht, which are amending treaties of exactly the same type.[/I]It seems folly to vote for a treaty which is, by common consent, incomprehensible and almost impossible to understand, and the consequences of which are not clear.
The Treaty obviously is comprehensible - if not, all the No arguments that claim to rely on understanding it are self-evidently false, including the ones you have offered here!
What you're saying is "it's too complex for you to understand, so vote No like we want you to" - a mirror image of the argument the government used on the Yes side in the first Nice referendum. It wasn't a good argument then, and it isn't a good argument now.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
If the Council were being given the power to decide such a thing, that would have to be explicit, since it would be a case of the Council over-riding the member states in a process which explicitly requires ratification by all member states.
It's an interesting argument, although I'm not sure that it would have much weight in court when it is being challenged. The words are open to different interpretations, and what we need is certainty in the text.
Hmm. That's an even more far-fetched claim. The mechanisms in those paragraphs refer to proposing an amendment, and having that amendment taken forward by the Council as a proposal to be put up for ratification. They do not change the necessity for ratification of any amendment to the Treaty.
They don't change the necessity for ratification to the Lisbon treaty, that's true. The worrying part is that they do suggest that it is possible to make future changes without ratification by the member states byt he alternative mechanisms outlined in the text.
I have a lot of respect for Garrett, but this quote is used all across the net without any reference to its original context. It was in reference only to the difference between the Constitution and the Treaty - the Treaty is completely in line with Nice and Maastricht, which are amending treaties of exactly the same type.
I had assumed it was the difference between the previous proposed constitution and the Lisbon treaty. Quite obviously he is saying that the the Lisbon treaty is incomprehensible, and I think 99% of the people reading it, or trying to, would agree.
The Treaty obviously is comprehensible -
That's obviously a matter of opinion. Personally, i am with Garrett that it is incomprehensible, and, indeed, I have yet to meet a single person of my acquaintance who either understands it or even pretends to understand the whole document. Indeed, I have also met 12 TD's in recent weeks and they all agree that it is incomprehensible.What you're saying is "it's too complex for you to understand, so vote No like we want you to"
That's exactly what I am saying. We don't know the consequences of what a "yes" vote will mean. However, we do know the consequences of a "no" vote means no change.
It is impossible to vote for something which is incomprehensible, and for anyone who finds it incomprehensible they must vote "no".0 -
Scofflaw,
Cowen needs your legal interpretation services on tax harmonisation and the lisbon EU constitution. He's doing a runner to Barroso to get a "Commitment to not bring it up on the agenda" when he visits Dublin next week to tell us which way to vote. http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=32051-qqqx=1.asp Will you forward his office the relevant section you quoted and save him the bother?
Also read the last section on the CCCTB..0 -
That's obviously a matter of opinion. Personally, i am with Garrett that it is incomprehensible, and, indeed, I have yet to meet a single person of my acquaintance who either understands it or even pretends to understand the whole document. Indeed, I have also met 12 TD's in recent weeks and they all agree that it is incomprehensible.
you can add me to that list
i haven't a notion of how i'm going to vote because i can't make head or tail of it. now i thought this was because i'm not a law type, but i've talked to friends who are and they aren't more any informed than I am on all this. 0 -
Scofflaw,
Cowen needs your legal interpretation services on tax harmonisation and the lisbon EU constitution. He's doing a runner to Barroso to get a "Commitment to not bring it up on the agenda" when he visits Dublin next week to tell us which way to vote. http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=news-qqqid=32051-qqqx=1.asp Will you forward his office the relevant section you quoted and save him the bother?
Also read the last section on the CCCTB..
Actually, if you look, you'll see that Cowen, like IBEC, ACAI and the rest, already know it. They're asking Barroso not to bring it up because apparently there are people who would try to claim that voting No to Lisbon is voting No to CCCTB.
Let's be clear - voting No to Lisbon is not voting No to CCCTB, because Lisbon does not implement or allow the implementation of CCCTB.
IBEC, and the heads of other Irish business bodies, are calling for a Yes to Lisbon because it strengthens our capacity to resist CCCTB and tax harmonisation.
Nor do you have to believe me - this is the Association of Chartered Accountants in Ireland:‘We believe that the treaty poses no threat to our current corporation tax rate, he said. ‘But we believe that if Ireland is to be successful at preventing future attempts at harmonising either rates or bases, we need to maximise our standing and negotiating position in Europe. Voting Yes will achieve that result, voting no will achieve the opposite.'
as reported in Accountancy Age.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
leninbenjamin wrote: »you can add me to that list i haven't a notion of how i'm going to vote because i can't make head or tail of it. now i thought this was because i'm not a law type, but i've talked to friends who are and they aren't more any informed than I am on all this.
It's a very big list and even includes such luminaries as Dr Garrett Fitzgerald.
The point is if we can't understand the treaty, (ie. we can't understand what we are being asked to vote for), then we must either vote "yes" because either we trust those politicians who are asking us to (the majority of whom have not read or understood it either, if indeed any have) or we believe that it must be the right thing to do in some sort of more general way.
For anyone who does not fall into either of these two categories, then we must vote no to a document which we can not understand, the consequences of which we can't understand, and where there is considerable doubt about about what it is we are supposed to be agreeing to.
To suggest anyone who does not understand the treaty should abstain from voting is a flawed argument as we have a duty to ourselves to not let a yes vote carry the day and, by default, put into law a treaty which is incomprehensible and where the consequences are unseen.0 -
I just read a bit on the treaty, it is a clear no for me.
The Treaty emphasis on 4 benefits:
1.A more democratic and transparent Europe
2.A more efficient Europe (include decision making and tourism)
3.A Europe of rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security
4.Europe as an actor on the global stage
Sounds great, Europe as a whole might benefit. But I can not see Ireland benefit from the Treaty at all. The big ones (Germany, France, UK) will get more power, the poorer ones may get more Funds, but Ireland may lose its attractive Corporate Tax and Irish interest may be marginalised.
Lets don't forget what happened to Ireland when Euro came in. Ireland's centrol bank lost its control over the liquidity of currency, inflation was high but little could be done because over-all Europe needs to keep the interest rate low.
I have not seen any convincing reasoning that we should say Yes to the Treaty. Things such as good for business is such a vague promise.
I can't vote for Ireland because I am Chinese, but I will make sure my politically indifferent boyfriend to vote No.0 -
Can we please put this tax issue to bed? Lisbon will not result in tax harmonisation. It will have no effect on the idea. I've quoted the text of the treaty to show this, Scofflaw has referred to Ibec who appear to read this the same way (it's fairly unambiguous), and the only argument being put forward to suggest that we will lose control of this is the somewhat bizarre claim that unanimity amongst a council that includes the Taoiseach isn't enough. In addition: http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/34033/pkey/653/Sounds great, Europe as a whole might benefit. But I can not see Ireland benefit from the Treaty at all. The big ones (Germany, France, UK) will get more power, the poorer ones may get more Funds, but Ireland may lose its attractive Corporate Tax and Irish interest may be marginalised.
And before that we were linked to Sterling, which wasn't exactly a desirable situation either.Lets don't forget what happened to Ireland when Euro came in. Ireland's centrol bank lost its control over the liquidity of currency, inflation was high but little could be done because over-all Europe needs to keep the interest rate low.1.A more democratic and transparent Europe
2.A more efficient Europe (include decision making and tourism)
3.A Europe of rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security
4.Europe as an actor on the global stage
I have not seen any convincing reasoning that we should say Yes to the Treaty. Things such as good for business is such a vague promise.
You have stated some of the benefits of this treaty, and yet you don't see a reason to vote yes? A more democratic Europe, in which the people we elect have a greater say and there is greater transparency regarding decisions affecting us is not a good reason? Greater efficiency in the process of making these decisions, resulting in less money being spent and less time being wasted is not a good reason? "Rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security" are not good reasons? I suppose your fourth point is debatable depending on the direction you want to see Europe taking, so I'll leave that out, but you yourself have given a whole list of reasons to vote Yes.0 -
Yes a more unified Europe would have a lot more bargaining power against the Americans.
I can see the good old Chinese story of "Three Kindom" being played on the global level now.
Hope it is a good move for Ireland.0 -
There is a pattern emerging in this thread, It seems that there are several ambiguous areas in the treaty where it will come down to a legal interpretation of some badly worded sub-clause. Unfortunately my vote in the referendum will not take into consideration my interpretation of it, On that basis I am voting no.
Clarity is a necessary demand of such a complex interaction of international power sharing and policy making, The Lisbon Treaty is a bloody mess, Regardless how well you understand it, somebody else can read it and come to a different conclusion, transmit that across 10-15 different languages, and its gonna take a whole new bureacracy solely devoted to interpretation of this mess. It could take the EU a whole generation to sort it out. I don't think this is a good situation to enter into, even if the treaty is well intentioned and beneficial to Ireland and the EU as a whole. Simplicity and transparency are being sacrificed for political expediency, While there is a time constraint on EU development, I think that forcing this ugly mess through is a false economy of time and that it may make the operation of the EU even more sluggish and complicated instead of simpler, more powerful and faster.
My worry as a No voter is that instead of it being brought back and drafted as the constitution that was originally conceived, that the nations of the Union will try and force it through the parliamentary ratification system and end up committing to it without even attempting to take the concepts of the treaty and scrap the verbosity.
Its a shame, as it could be a period in history that Europe can stand together and actually achieve some good for all the nations involved instead of a few core power-base nations. I would love to have a simple treaty that I could read and understand and have others understand without ambiguity or confusion, but until I do, its a no thank you.0 -
Advertisement
-
AngryHippie wrote: »There is a pattern emerging in this thread, It seems that there are several ambiguous areas in the treaty where it will come down to a legal interpretation of some badly worded sub-clause. Unfortunately my vote in the referendum will not take into consideration my interpretation of it, On that basis I am voting no.
Clarity is a necessary demand of such a complex interaction of international power sharing and policy making, The Lisbon Treaty is a bloody mess, Regardless how well you understand it, somebody else can read it and come to a different conclusion, transmit that across 10-15 different languages, and its gonna take a whole new bureacracy solely devoted to interpretation of this mess. It could take the EU a whole generation to sort it out. I don't think this is a good situation to enter into, even if the treaty is well intentioned and beneficial to Ireland and the EU as a whole. Simplicity and transparency are being sacrificed for political expediency, While there is a time constraint on EU development, I think that forcing this ugly mess through is a false economy of time and that it may make the operation of the EU even more sluggish and complicated instead of simpler, more powerful and faster.
My worry as a No voter is that instead of it being brought back and drafted as the constitution that was originally conceived, that the nations of the Union will try and force it through the parliamentary ratification system and end up committing to it without even attempting to take the concepts of the treaty and scrap the verbosity.
Its a shame, as it could be a period in history that Europe can stand together and actually achieve some good for all the nations involved instead of a few core power-base nations. I would love to have a simple treaty that I could read and understand and have others understand without ambiguity or confusion, but until I do, its a no thank you.
I have to admit, I do find this a strange argument. What you're asking - to know in advance every ramification of the wording - is impossible even in a very simple contract between two parties. This is a Treaty between 27 separate nations. It's not deliberately obscure, but yes it's complicated.
Even so, it was put together by humans, and is comprehensible by them - both those involved and those whose business this is have made readily available their interpretations of what the Treaty will mean in the long run. These will not be perfect, but they're not negligible either. Personally I like some of the more obvious implications (increased democracy through increased powers of the elected EP) sufficiently to vote Yes.
I appreciate that there are various groups surging around at the moment claiming that this clause or that will lead to such and such a dreadful outcome. However, the majority of these claims can shown to be false, because they have either been considered, and specifically countered in the Treaty, or because they are simply not possible interpretations. Further, the majority of them, likewise, have been claimed before, for every other EU treaty, which rather weakens the claim that they are based on reading the text of this Treaty.
If you're going to reject EU treaties on the basis that their details will need to be worked out after the event, then it will never be possible for an EU treaty to make you happy, I'm afraid. A pity, since as you say, there's much to recommend it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
AngryHippie wrote: »There is a pattern emerging in this thread, It seems that there are several ambiguous areas in the treaty where it will come down to a legal interpretation of some badly worded sub-clause. Unfortunately my vote in the referendum will not take into consideration my interpretation of it, On that basis I am voting no.
Clarity is a necessary demand of such a complex interaction of international power sharing and policy making, The Lisbon Treaty is a bloody mess, Regardless how well you understand it, somebody else can read it and come to a different conclusion, transmit that across 10-15 different languages, and its gonna take a whole new bureacracy solely devoted to interpretation of this mess. It could take the EU a whole generation to sort it out. I don't think this is a good situation to enter into, even if the treaty is well intentioned and beneficial to Ireland and the EU as a whole. Simplicity and transparency are being sacrificed for political expediency, While there is a time constraint on EU development, I think that forcing this ugly mess through is a false economy of time and that it may make the operation of the EU even more sluggish and complicated instead of simpler, more powerful and faster.
My worry as a No voter is that instead of it being brought back and drafted as the constitution that was originally conceived, that the nations of the Union will try and force it through the parliamentary ratification system and end up committing to it without even attempting to take the concepts of the treaty and scrap the verbosity.
Its a shame, as it could be a period in history that Europe can stand together and actually achieve some good for all the nations involved instead of a few core power-base nations. I would love to have a simple treaty that I could read and understand and have others understand without ambiguity or confusion, but until I do, its a no thank you.
I've discussed this with friends and have read this thread with interest. There seems to be one thing upon which we agree, which is that the treaty is, for most people, difficult if not impossible to understand. It also seems, from reading the quotes above, that the wording is open to different interpretations and seems ambiguous and badly worded, as the very correspondence here proves. Like you, Angryhippie, I would love to have a treaty which i can understand, and which is unambiguous, and like you can not convince myself to vote yes to a treaty which I can not understand. While this is a view shared by many with whom I have discussed the issue, there is another view amongst some that it is in some way disloyal or ungrateful of us to vote no. It's a sort of after-all-they-have-done-for-us-we-should-not-vote-no-against-them attitude, which I find perplexing and bizarre. Like you, Angryhippie, I shall, reluctantly, have to vote no to a treaty which I do not understand, and this is the view shared by most I discuss it with when they have considered the situation.0 -
I've discussed this with friends and have read this thread with interest. There seems to be one thing upon which we agree, which is that the treaty is, for most people, difficult if not impossible to understand. It also seems, from reading the quotes above, that the wording is open to different interpretations and seems ambiguous and badly worded, as the very correspondence here proves. Like you, Angryhippie, I would love to have a treaty which i can understand, and which is unambiguous, and like you can not convince myself to vote yes to a treaty which I can not understand. While this is a view shared by many with whom I have discussed the issue, there is another view amongst some that it is in some way disloyal or ungrateful of us to vote no. It's a sort of after-all-they-have-done-for-us-we-should-not-vote-no-against-them attitude, which I find perplexing and bizarre. Like you, Angryhippie, I shall, reluctantly, have to vote no to a treaty which I do not understand, and this is the view shared by most I discuss it with when they have considered the situation.
Same point as above - people seem to confusing the necessarily complicated wording of an international Treaty with the idea that it's some kind of kludge that will never work in practice.
By the way, the EU consolidated version is out, for people who were complaining that the EU was deliberately suppressing such a thing.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Is it me or is Scofflaw on this thread an awful lot?
Does he have a full time job or is this his full-time job?0 -
Is it me or is Scofflaw on this thread an awful lot?
Does he have a full time job or is this his full-time job?
A very impolite speculation, to be sure. I'm just rather prolific, although this thread has yet to match my previous obsession on the Creationist thread in the Christianity forum.
As a self-employed IT consultant, I imagine I'm sitting in front of my computer rather a lot more than most people, and with the liberty to post as I like (and use Google as I like, too).
Why - are you concerned I'm some kind of professional forum-poster?
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
A very impolite speculation, to be sure. I'm just rather prolific, although this thread has yet to match my previous obsession on the Creationist thread in the Christianity forum.
As a self-employed IT consultant, I imagine I'm sitting in front of my computer rather a lot more than most people, and with the liberty to post as I like (and use Google as I like, too).
Why - are you concerned I'm some kind of professional forum-poster?
amused,
Scofflaw
You've been rumbled, your a FF press department IT consultant aren't ya !!!:D:D:D
But on a more serious note, I'm not voting no to the best possible outcome of what the treaty could mean to us, I'm voting on the skeptical basis that a complex set of rules leads to a very complex game, complex games are slow, frustrating and largely unsatisfactory. The treaty as proposed could lead to legal arguments in front of EU courts that bog down for months or even years,
That time, spent now, creating a more concise document without any points of argument on interpretation could save so much hassle and expense in the long term that it's bordering on retarded to try and rush this through, especially at such a delicate political juncture in many of the member states.
The treaty is lauded as expediting the process of creating future legislation and policies, but are these future treaties and policies going to be in the same vein as Lisbon, further confusing and convoluting the structure of the EU and if this is the case, how long before it is just a big immobile mess of post-it note treaties and amendments.
If its worth doing, Its worth doing right.
which is it ???
On a separate note (yet relevant) is there any alteration to the powers of the European Central Bank mentioned within the treaty ???0 -
AngryHippie wrote: »You've been rumbled, your a FF press department IT consultant aren't ya !!!:D:D:D
Darn it, before you quoted the post I was going to annoyingly add that I didn't have to go to bed early, and now you've spoiled my fun.
Suggestions that I work for, or even vote for, FF, will be met with a disapproving stare, although you'll have to imagine it, I'm afraid. Seriously though, no, FF are not paying me to do this (and neither is anyone else). It's hard to imagine a level of compensation that would be appropriate (or at least hard to imagine anyone actually paying it). Mostly, the Creationists are just repetitive at the moment - more repetitive, perhaps? Even more repetitive? Some superlative, anyway.
I am, of course, open to any offers involving reasonable compensation and a minimum of indignity.AngryHippie wrote: »But on a more serious note, I'm not voting no to the best possible outcome of what the treaty could mean to us, I'm voting on the skeptical basis that a complex set of rules leads to a very complex game, complex games are slow, frustrating and largely unsatisfactory. The treaty as proposed could lead to legal arguments in front of EU courts that bog down for months or even years,
That time, spent now, creating a more concise document without any points of argument on interpretation could save so much hassle and expense in the long term that it's bordering on retarded to try and rush this through,
While that's undoubtedly true, I would suggest that if you have some means of making that possible, you have an incredibly rewarding career open to you.
The exact role of the EU is constantly being worked out in the courts. Some of the elements of this Treaty are designed to head off some possible problems there - for example, this Treaty is the first to contain a clear delineation of the limits of EU competences.AngryHippie wrote: »especially at such a delicate political juncture in many of the member states.
The treaty is lauded as expediting the process of creating future legislation and policies, but are these future treaties and policies going to be in the same vein as Lisbon, further confusing and convoluting the structure of the EU and if this is the case, how long before it is just a big immobile mess of post-it note treaties and amendments.
If its worth doing, Its worth doing right.
which is it ???
To simplify something as complex as the EU would necessarily involve a complex document! The Treaty, while it is itself hard to read because it's a set of amendments, nevertheless does not make the EU more complex - it simplifies the structures, for example abolishing one of the "pillars", and giving the EU an integrated 'single legal personality'.AngryHippie wrote: »On a separate note (yet relevant) is there any alteration to the powers of the European Central Bank mentioned within the treaty ???
Someone asked that already, I think. There aren't very many references to the ECB, and I don't recall any significant changes to its powers (well, I don't remember any at all, but I'm hedging).
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Mostly, the Creationists are just repetitive at the moment.....
While that's undoubtedly true, I would suggest that if you have some means of making that possible, you have an incredibly rewarding career open to you.
To simplify something as complex as the EU would necessarily involve a complex document! The Treaty, while it is itself hard to read because it's a set of amendments, nevertheless does not make the EU more complex - it simplifies the structures, for example abolishing one of the "pillars", and giving the EU an integrated 'single legal personality'.
Someone asked that already, I think. There aren't very many references to the ECB, and I don't recall any significant changes to its powers (well, I don't remember any at all, but I'm hedging).
Creationists are a dose. They're like the lost guy driving round in circles in the dark, refusing to open the map.:mad:
I'm gonna start my incredibly rewarding career by voting no, and sending in my tuppence ha'penny to a few local papers, see if they'll publish it and send me the price of some cornflakes.(unlikely):D
I disagree on the complexity of the interaction. If the function and electoral system are clearly defined, the rest of it could be segmented in much the same way as most governments are, into relative departments. It would make for a major overhaul of the EU as we know it, but the dividends would be noticeable, instead of an impractical and self-complicating system of mini-treaties. We have a chance to do a major overhaul and revitalise the whole organization, If we vote yes, we are giving the current form the go-ahead, and I see a troubled future for it as it stands..:o
Good to know about the ECB, I have a not-too-irrational distrust of central banks. I blame the Fed...:eek:
Thanks for all the info by the way. Its good to know that someone does have their finger on the button (pulse)
Good show.0 -
AngryHippie wrote: »Creationists are a dose. They're like the lost guy driving round in circles in the dark, refusing to open the map.:mad:
May I gently remind you that they have a map....a map to salvation....and Jesus wants you to read it!!!!AngryHippie wrote: »I'm gonna start my incredibly rewarding career by voting no, and sending in my tuppence ha'penny to a few local papers, see if they'll publish it and send me the price of some cornflakes.(unlikely):D
The very best in that!AngryHippie wrote: »I disagree on the complexity of the interaction. If the function and electoral system are clearly defined, the rest of it could be segmented in much the same way as most governments are, into relative departments. It would make for a major overhaul of the EU as we know it, but the dividends would be noticeable, instead of an impractical and self-complicating system of mini-treaties. We have a chance to do a major overhaul and revitalise the whole organization, If we vote yes, we are giving the current form the go-ahead, and I see a troubled future for it as it stands..:o
I'm not sure what the issue is there. There are only two basic treaties - TEU and TEC (will be TFEU if Lisbon passes). The Constitution would have done away with them, but the institutional changes in Lisbon are essentially the same, as people keep pointing out.
What would you propose?AngryHippie wrote: »Good to know about the ECB, I have a not-too-irrational distrust of central banks. I blame the Fed...:eek:
Thanks for all the info by the way. Its good to know that someone does have their finger on the button (pulse)
Good show.
It's my current obsession, I'm afraid. I wasn't even going to vote Yes, originally - I just have this thing for loonies. Not that voting No makes one a loony, or requires one to be a loony, but being a loony apparently makes one vote No. I'm like a blackbird in a field after a shower at the moment.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Lisbon militarizes the EU further: The Treaty requires Member States “to progressively improve their military capabilities”. It introduces a “start-up” fund for common foreign policy and military operations to be financed by Member States outside the Union budget (Art.28). It contains an Article which the current Slovenian EU presidency has admitted is a “mutual defence clause” (Art.28A.7): “If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power.” This is a new departure for the EU and would commit all Member States including Ireland. In the light of this mutual defence clause there would be no constitutional need for a further referendum in Ireland before we committed ourselves operationally to the military defence of other EU countries, for Lisbon would be that referendum. Lisbon also allows sub-groups of Member States to embark on military missions on behalf of the EU, without a UN mandate, while the others “constructively abstain”.
Lisbon is a self-amending Treaty which would open the way to harmonising Ireland’s company taxes: Lisbon inserts a new Article 48 into the “Treaty on European Union”, the “simplified revision procedure”, which permits the Prime Ministers and Presidents by unanimity to shift most areas of the treaties where unanimity now exists to qualified majority voting without the need for new treaties or referendums. This is called the “escalator clause”, which former French President Giscard d’Estaing said was “a central innovation” of the EU Constitution he helped draft. The laws cover areas such as company taxation, but exclude defence and military matters. A National Parliament can veto this mechanism, but citizens can not, as we would have accepted this method of rule by agreeing the Lisbon Treaty. After Lisbon is ratified there would be no need, practically speaking, for further EU referendums
Lisbon shifts influence over law-making and decision-taking in the EU towards the Big States and away from the smaller ones like Ireland: It does this by replacing the voting system for making EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Rome Treaty by a primarily population-based system which would give most influence to the Member States with big populations and reduce the influence of smaller ones like Ireland. Under Lisbon a “weighted” or “qualified” majority vote (QMV) for making EU laws in future would be 15 States out of 27 as long as they included 65% of the EU’s total population. When Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973 we had 3 votes in making European laws as against 10 each for the Big States, a ratio of one-third. Under the current Nice Treaty arrangements we have 7 votes as against their 29 each, a ratio of one-quarter. Under Lisbon Ireland would have 4 million people as against Germany’s 82 million, a ratio of one-twentieth, and an average of 60 million each for France, Italy and Britain, a ratio of one-fifteenth. Under Lisbon Ireland’s voting weight vis-a-vis the other 26 Member States would fall to one-third its present level, from 2% to 0.8%.
Lisbon removes Ireland’s right to a permanent EU Commissioner: The Commission is the body which has the monopoly of proposing all EU laws, which are then made by the Council of Ministers, with some powers of amendment for the European Parliament. Under Lisbon Ireland would have no member on the Commission for one out of every three Commission terms. This means that for five years out of every fifteen, laws affecting all our lives would be put forward entirely by a committee of EU officials on which there was no representative from Ireland. The Big EU States would lose their right to a permanent Commissioner also, but their size and weight give them other means of exerting influence on that key body. As Dr Garret FitzGerald and others have emphasised over the years, being represented on the EU Commission is especially important for smaller States like Ireland.
(Sorry forgot source)
Anthony Coughlan, Secretary of The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
Reason's to vote No to the Lisbon Treaty.0
Advertisement