convince me to vote yes on the lisbon Treaty

dblennon · 29-05-2008 2:21pm #1

mabey it's just me but the more i look into this the more I don't like the treaty.

I would consider myself progressive and in favour of the european idea.

I think that what makes the European union great is the fact that countries are countries, not states. By voting yes to this treaty are we taking a rather large step towards the united states of Euro.

I want to vote yes but all I keep hearing is the yes side defending the treaty rather than telling me the advantages.

how does making the EU stronger help Ireland, UK, Portugal, greece, and many other smaller countries grow and govern themselves to their best potential as only a country can.

Scofflaw · 29-05-2008 3:41pm

dblennon wrote: »

mabey it's just me but the more i look into this the more I don't like the treaty.

I would consider myself progressive and in favour of the european idea.

I think that what makes the European union great is the fact that countries are countries, not states. By voting yes to this treaty are we taking a rather large step towards the united states of Euro.

I want to vote yes but all I keep hearing is the yes side defending the treaty rather than telling me the advantages.

how does making the EU stronger help Ireland, UK, Portugal, greece, and many other smaller countries grow and govern themselves to their best potential as only a country can.

It actually sounds like you should vote No. If you believe that only a country can "grow and govern themselves to their best potential", then you should be opposed to the EU.

To be sure, though - what exactly is the "European idea" you're in favour of?

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon · 29-05-2008 4:05pm

Number one tip when making political decision: do not asked to be convinced or ask anyone their opinion because it will be biased.

Instead visit http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ a neutral website, learn the facts and decide yourself. That way you will make a more informed decision.

If your too lazy just vote NO. You know you want to :cool::cool::cool:

dblennon · 29-05-2008 4:10pm

I am probably not as well informed as yourself, but i think that it is fare to say that countries in the EU are at different stages of growth even ireland is at least 10 - 15 years away from stabilising as an economy.

Our growth is required to be able to come in line with the greater long term goals of the EU.

it just seems to be a treaty that helps the big countries gain greater control over how less developed countries improve there economy.

again I thought the EU was a group of common trading nations why do we have to compete with with Russia, the US & China why can't the EU be the benchmark.

turgon · 29-05-2008 4:21pm

dblennon wrote: »

I am probably not as well informed as yourself, but i think that it is fare to say that countries in the EU are at different stages of growth even ireland is at least 10 - 15 years away from stabilising as an economy.

Our growth is required to be able to come in line with the greater long term goals of the EU.

it just seems to be a treaty that helps the big countries gain greater control over how less developed countries improve there economy.

again I thought the EU was a group of common trading nations why do we have to compete with with Russia, the US & China why can't the EU be the benchmark.

Fair point I suppose. As regards your last paragraph, the Treaty of Lisbon is moving in the direction of more than just economic union (having stated since Maastricht) towards a single political identity. Whether or not that is good is for each individual to decide.

You have good point about different growth rates. Now im young enough so I wasn't exactly interested in economics before the Celtic Tiger!! I do know however that there is a giant gulf between for exampl Ireland and Romania and these economic gaps need to be rectified before any furthering of the EU can realistically take place.

Scofflaw · 29-05-2008 4:48pm

turgon wrote: »

Fair point I suppose. As regards your last paragraph, the Treaty of Lisbon is moving in the direction of more than just economic union (having stated since Maastricht) towards a single political identity. Whether or not that is good is for each individual to decide.

You have good point about different growth rates. Now im young enough so I wasn't exactly interested in economics before the Celtic Tiger!! I do know however that there is a giant gulf between for exampl Ireland and Romania and these economic gaps need to be rectified before any furthering of the EU can realistically take place.

Hmm. I'm old enough to have moved from London to Ireland in 1979. The economic and social gulf was enormous - maybe 50 years, if one wants to put it in terms of time. We sold a single (nice) house in London, and with the proceeds bought 2 houses in Leeson Street and a mansion on 100 acres in the country* - and had enough money left over to restore the latter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*all gone now - ask me for divorce advice!

seamus · 29-05-2008 4:55pm

One of the thing which many people miss about Lisbon is that regardless of how the vote turns out, the bulk of the document is either already part of the EU's operations, or it will be.

There's no "plan B" for this, just as there was no plan B for the constitution. If we reject this, they'll take the bits which don't require any national referendum and implement them anyway.

If you're voting no because you don't like the EU being involved in Irish affairs, then you've missed the boat. If you're voting no because you think it'll send a "message" to somebody, then you're mistaken - how does your specific "no" vote communicate any specific agenda to anyone else?
If you're voting no because you don't agree with the changes which are proposed to the constitution, then great, more power to ya.

A "yes" vote will change very little except to speed up the EU's ability to change itself. A "no" vote will change nothing except to slow down the rate of change of the EU.

ScumLord · 29-05-2008 4:59pm

I voting yes because I've liked all the Euro changes so far. The union has proved it's worth to me so I'm going to keep supporting it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It actually sounds like you should vote No. If you believe that only a country can "grow and govern themselves to their best potential", then you should be opposed to the EU.

To be sure, though - what exactly is the "European idea" you're in favour of?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I just don't see this super Europe happening. French people won't stop being French and Irish won't become English either.

sink · 29-05-2008 5:07pm

The EEC was founded to be a purely economic union with no other mandate than to make the single market work to it's best ability. Many European Leaders recognised that co-operation in other areas could bring greater results than individual states acting alone. For example cross border organised crime, negotiating foreign treaties, improved defence capabilities, ensuring energy security, tackling climate change and the list goes on. In all these areas countries which act alone have little or no impact, but in acting together problems which looked almost insurmountable could be tackled efficiently and effectively.

This is what the EU was designed to do. The three pillars of the EU established in the Maastricht treaty (aka The Treaty Establishing The European Union) were the European Community (EC formerly the EEC), 'Police & Judicial co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC)' and 'Common Foreign & Security Policy (CFSP)'. The EU is basically a governing body with oversight on these three separate pillars. The institutions set down in the Maastricht treaty were designed to deal with just the free western European states as when the treaty was negotiated the east was still held in the grip of the soviet union. The planners never envisioned that the eastern states would ever be free to join.

When the new members from the east joined the original institutions were inadequate and had to be seriously overhauled or the governing bodies of the EU would grind to a halt under the weight of bureaucracy. This is what the Nice treaty planned to do but it only half completed the job. At the time the leaders envisioned scrapping the original treaties founding the EEC and the EU and starting again with a new constitution in a few years, so the Nice treaty was just a stop gap measure to keep the EU ticking over in the interim period. The idea was that having several treaties was confusing and it would be much simpler to put everything in one document. The constitution effectively would have scrapped all that came before and each member state would no longer be a member of the old EU and would become a member of an entirely new EU. As a result some counties that would usually just be able to ratify treaties in their national parliaments had to hold referendums on becoming members of the new EU. As we all know the constitution was rejected and this effectively threw a spanner in the works and the EU reformation stalled.

The institutions of the EU continued to work as best they could but it was messy, there was too much unnecessary bureaucracy. Things were still getting passed but not as efficiently as they could. The Lisbon treaty basically carries out all the original reforms that were envisioned in the constitution but it does so by amending the Maastricht treaty and the Rome treaty. So instead of disbanding the original EU it morphs into the new EU. As current members remain members of the same organisation after the Lisbon treaty there is no need for it to be put to a referendum in most countries.

The Lisbon treaty itself reorganises the commission, the council and the European parliament. It also gives national parliaments the right to debate new EU legislation and to make suggestions. It sets out a new policy of subsidiary which means all acts of legislation must be made as close to the citizen as possible. So if it is more effective to be made at national level it must be made at national level, if it is more effective to be made at EU level it must be made at EU level. So issues such as abortion and gay rights have no added benefit of being legislated at EU level so national parliaments should legislate on these topics. Similarly legislation to tackle organised crime which recognises no borders is more effective at EU level so that is where the legislation should be made. Ireland and the UK have the option to opt-out of any EU legislation in the area of criminal justice as our legal systems are based on common law which is sometimes incompatible with the legal systems used on the continent. It also merges the three pillars of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff.

The Lisbon treaty adds specifics to the changes in the commission which the Nice treaty already agreed to. It also delays these changes due to come into force in 2009 till 2014. It lowers the number of commissioners from 27 to 18 so each commissioner has a proper role to fill and no bogus roles are created just to give each member a permanent seat. The number of commissioners will be fixed so future expansion of the Union will not result in more commissioners. Each county will have a commissioner for every 10 out of 15 years. The commission is supposed to work on behalf of the Union as a whole and not to represent the specific interests of individual states. Each commissioner speaks for their policy area (e.g. Finance, Justice, Policing) and they meet to discuss the requirements of the EU and to frame new legislation to suit the needs of the whole EU. In addition the commissioners oversee the implementation of policy in each of their areas.

The council and the European council are where national governments are represented. Currently the councils meet behind closed doors, the Lisbon treaties will make the councils meet in the open providing valuable insight into the workings of the EU. The heads of state sit at the European council and their ministers for different policy areas sit at the relevant councils (e.g. Ministers for agriculture sit at the council of agriculture. Two changes are proposed to the councils themselves. One establishes a permanent president of the European council, elected by the European council members for a two and a half year term. This replaces the current system where the head of each government is president for six months on rotation. The current system causes the president to push his or her national agenda rather than what is best for everyone. It also does not provide consistency as the direction of the European council changes every six months. The second change creates an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (currently held by Javier Solana) with the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (currently held by Benita Ferrero-Waldner),The High representative will chair the council of foreign affairs and will present the foreign policy of the EU to the outside world. They will also be vice president of the European council.

New areas will become subject to QMV rather than the unanimous decision making process currently operated. Two areas which remain under unanimous decision are Taxation, Foreign policy & Defence. The Lisbon treaty reorganises the voting system of the Council. The council at the moment has a QMV system which give each state a weighted vote which does not match their population size (e.g. Germany has 16% if the population but only has 8% of the vote, Ireland has 0.8% of the population but has 2% of the vote) and a 75% majority is required. It replaces this with a double QMV system whereby there are two requirements for legislation to pass. First it has to have 55% of member states in agreement, this currently gives each member state an equal 3.75% say. Second those member states in favour must represent at least 65% of the population, so here we have 0.8% weight and Germany has 16% weight. This double QMV the voting system roughly balanced in favour of smaller countries as it did before, in that an individual Irish citizens vote is still slightly more powerful than a German citizens.

The European parliament will be permanently capped at 750 members. Currently it has 785 members and keeps expanding as new member states join. As a result in the reduction of MEP's Ireland would be reduced from 13 to 12 MEP's and when new countries join every other country would loose some of their MEP's. The parliament currently has co-decision making power with the council in only a few areas, these areas would be expanded and the parliament would be allowed to provide more oversight of both the councils & commssion.

These are the most important changes in the Lisbon treaty. I can not see any major faults and the changes should make the EU more open, democratic and efficient. This should be the final shake up of the EU for quite a while and these changes are necessary if we want the EU be strong enough to work on our behalf. This is why any supporter of the EU and not just the EC should vote yes for the Lisbon treaty. Thank you for reading.

Regards,
sink

ixtlan · 30-05-2008 12:03am

Sink, that is absolutely excellent!

dblennon · 30-05-2008 4:29pm

I completely agree if it's completely impartial it's the best piece of information i've read so far.

thanks

I really like the fact that laws that are EU benifitting, can be more efficiently processed.

And smaller laws will be dealt with nationally.

Moriarty · 01-06-2008 10:15pm

Zenno - read the charter before posting here again please, specifically on posting links to videos. That video has also been linked here quite a number of times before.

mikemac · 01-06-2008 10:22pm

quality post sink and a possible sticky imo

BlitzKrieg · 01-06-2008 10:51pm

The one new thing that keeps catching my mind as a strong internationlist is the new multinational petition system which allows a million voters from any country across europe to petition a bill or agenda to the EU. While on a national level this is irrelevent unless you can get a grass roots support, for international communities and ideology (most of the left wing of politics) it could be a very strong system in their favour.

gordon_gekko · 02-06-2008 12:12pm

while i admit to not having read the treaty , i will be voting yes
the reasons why i will be voting yes are

ireland is fooling itself if it thinks it can stand alone against the major blocks of the world ( usa, china , russia , india , brazil ) in this brave new world of ours , when the big guns are trying to cut a deal between them , ireland needs to be united with the rest of europe otherwise we will be simply squatted away like a tiny insect who is an annoyance , too many people seem to think that voting no is like saying no to turkey for christmas dinner and that we can have it some other day when we feel like it , its time we realised that were a pretty small player and that the big guns will move forward with or without us , were an extremly interdependant country , were not switzeraland

even you dont agree with the above piece , perhaps you could look at it this way , regardless of what you believe is in the treaty , take a look at which parties and personalitys are at the forefront of the no campaign , i think when most people do that , they will quickly see that the no camp are bar a few exceptions , the usual suspects of protestors and fruit cakes
i mean a good criteria to follow with everything is if sinn fein and richard boyd barrett plus patricia mc kenna are against something , it must be a good thing

johnnyq · 02-06-2008 5:03pm

Thank you sink for putting the time into writing a very detailed review of the organisational section of the reforms of this treaty. Just some words for thought.

sink wrote:

The constitution effectively would have scrapped all that came before and each member state would no longer be a member of the old EU and would become a member of an entirely new EU. .. As we all know the constitution was rejected and this effectively threw a spanner in the works and the EU reformation stalled.

Of course we must ask ourselves why it was rejected?
Were these reforms in the best interests of citizens and not politicians?
It is important to acknowledge that the rejection of these reforms by two founding member states of the EEC should not be viewed as an inconvenient 'spanner' to be circumvented but perhaps an important indicator of the unease of unyielding ambition of what the EU has become.

sink wrote:

The Lisbon treaty basically carries out all the original reforms that were envisioned in the constitution but it does so by amending the Maastricht treaty and the Rome treaty. So instead of disbanding the original EU it morphs into the new EU. As current members remain members of the same organisation after the Lisbon treaty there is no need for it to be put to a referendum in most countries.

Especially when the citizens may reject it again :eek:
Politician; 'Instead of perhaps listening to what citizens want their EU to be, how about ignoring them and proceeding ahead regardless with what we think is the best way forward'

sink wrote:

Two changes are proposed to the councils themselves. One establishes a permanent president of the European council, elected by the European council members for a two and a half year term. This replaces the current system where the head of each government is president for six months on rotation. The current system causes the president to push his or her national agenda rather than what is best for everyone.

Well certainly this president of europe will push for what's best for the politicians who elected him. Maybe the role should be named 'president of european politicians' since the roll is much more likely to represent their interests than those of the citizens.

How about letting this president of europe actually be elected by the citizens or 'everyone' whose interests he is supposed to representing. But wait!!! it probably wouldn't be the right person that eurocrats want since OMG (s)he mightn't infact represent their interests and we can't have that!

blitzkrieg wrote:

The one new thing that keeps catching my mind as a strong internationlist is the new multinational petition system which allows a million voters from any country across europe to petition a bill or agenda to the EU. While on a national level this is irrelevent unless you can get a grass roots support, for international communities and ideology (most of the left wing of politics) it could be a very strong system in their favour.

Just don't forget they're a lot of right wing nuts out there in Europe too who would expect their views to be equally considered. Unless of course you think that the EU is an extreme left-wing fringe in sheep's clothing

Really though this is a sop at appeasing the 'extreme' fringes instead of true democratic representation in the commission.

gordon gekko wrote:

take a look at which parties and personalitys are at the forefront of the no campaign , i think when most people do that , they will quickly see that the no camp are bar a few exceptions , the usual suspects of protestors and fruit cakes
i mean a good criteria to follow with everything is if sinn fein and richard boyd barrett plus patricia mc kenna are against something , it must be a good thing

Well I support none of those people yet I am against it. I usually support one of the main political parties in fact, but that doesn't stop me voting no. Why? Because the issues at stake are more important than those who have their own agenda to grind.
There are genuine fears about european militarisation, power without representation, favouring big business at the expense of workers (ironically EU right wing stances).

To buy Biffo's argument (that because FF/FG/IBEC right wing parties and business lobbies support it, it must be good) - at the expense of looking at the issues is pure fallacy.

Would you vote no if I told you the Catholic Church supported it for example?

It's funny how the unions are so cagey about it and labour calling it a 'compromise'.

Just on your note about Ireland becoming isolated. This isn't a vote to leave the union. I certainly don't want to leave the EU. I view this as pure scaremongering to force a *certain* (particularly right wing) vision of europe down our throats. If you're happy with that vision (as sink is) then fine, but don't be goaded into denying your beliefs in the interests of appeasing that vision.

02-06-2008 5:19pm

johnnyq wrote: »

There are genuine fears about european militarisation, power without representation, favouring big business at the expense of workers (ironically EU right wing stances). .

All very bland and sweeping statements of course given that there are things related to certain parts of the EU by its nature that are country specefic and nothing to do with Ireland.
.

To buy Biffo's argument (that because FF/FG/IBEC right wing parties and business lobbies support it, it must be good) - at the expense of looking at the issues is pure fallacy.

I have read a lot of your posts lately and theres been very little looking at the issues and a lot of bland generalised groundless fears expressed.

Would you vote no if I told you the Catholic Church supported it for example?.

Personally I would weigh up the pros and cons.
.

It's funny how the unions are so cagey about it and labour calling it a 'compromise'..

Its not funny at all.Some unions like the farmers are just using it as a bargaining chip.
The will only recommend depending on non related concessions.
.

Just on your note about Ireland becoming isolated. This isn't a vote to leave the union. I certainly don't want to leave the EU. I view this as pure scaremongering to force a *certain* (particularly right wing) vision of europe down our throats. If you're happy with that vision (as sink is) then fine, but don't be goaded into denying your beliefs in the interests of appeasing that vision.

Whats right wing about the EU? its quite socialist actually and historically has encouraged irelands most liberal laws.
Again like in other threads you are here expressing bland vague generalisations.

ixtlan · 02-06-2008 6:04pm

johnnyq wrote: »

It's funny how the unions are so cagey about it and labour calling it a 'compromise'.

Compromise is not a dirty word. One of our problems seems to be that many people are unwilling to accept anything other than a perfect treaty that promotes Ireland view to the exclusion of every other country. Any treaty almost by definition is going to be a "compromise". Why do you point this out as a problem?

Ix.

johnnyq · 02-06-2008 6:13pm

Black Briar, do you have anything else to contribute to this forum except your petty obsession of following me around? I don't owe you money do I?:D

Deleted User wrote: »

All very bland and sweeping statements of course given that there are things related to certain parts of the EU by its nature that are country specefic and nothing to do with Ireland.

You keep saying this and yet when I respond to your points you drag in abortion and so on. I'm getting the impression you're campaigning more for a no to johnnyq than a yes to lisbon.

Workers rights have everything to do with Ireland
How Irish (as EU) citizens are represented has everything to do with Ireland
How the EU impacts in military matters has everything to do with Ireland (please keep discussion on this point to the other two threads you have hijacked on this issue)

black briar wrote:

I have read a lot of your posts lately and theres been very little looking at the issues and a lot of bland generalised groundless fears expressed.

Is looking at my posts all you do on boards lately?
I can't make any point without 'rubbish and ergo' forming the substantive part of your post. Are you doing this for laughs or what?

black briar wrote:

Personally I would weigh up the pros and cons.

Hurrah! It's the right answer folks.:D

black briar wrote:

.Its not funny at all.Some unions like the farmers are just using it as a bargaining chip.
The will only recommend depending on non related concessions.

These groups must rely on politicans they do not trust. And this treaty places more reliance on them. I don't think what the farmers are doing is the right thing but it is understandable why they do it.

In fact it's incredibly similar to the 'vote yes or be isolated' strategy of Biffo do you not agree? He claims that the loss of goodwill or 'bargaining chip' will affect Ireland's stance in Europe on unrelated matters.

I don't think Europe should opperate along those lines but yet it does and the loss of countless vetos only shores up this operation. You can't blame the farmers for milking the system that they are being encouraged to support.

On the other hand, I would consider Siptu's stance on collective bargaining a very useful measure against railroading though of workers rights by recent ECJ decisions.

black briar wrote:

Whats right wing about the EU? its quite socialist actually and historically has encouraged irelands most liberal laws.

Denying people their rights under the UNCRH is not right/left wing, it's repressive. If you are referring to gay rights etc.. you should know that Senator David Norris is rejecting the treaty because of it's right wing leanings.

There is nothing socialist about the exertion of the free market above all else especially workers rights and supporting the armaments industry.

johnnyq · 02-06-2008 6:16pm

ixtlan wrote: »

Compromise is not a dirty word. One of our problems seems to be that many people are unwilling to accept anything other than a perfect treaty that promotes Ireland view to the exclusion of every other country. Any treaty almost by definition is going to be a "compromise". Why do you point this out as a problem?

Ix.

Perhaps because virtually all other left wing organisations do not consider it a compromise at all?

I personally view the labour campaign as half hearted and used as an excuse to show off Eamonn Gilmore, maybe Biffo views that as a 'compromise'

BlitzKrieg · 02-06-2008 6:37pm

Just don't forget they're a lot of right wing nuts out there in Europe too who would expect their views to be equally considered. Unless of course you think that the EU is an extreme left-wing fringe in sheep's clothing

Really though this is a sop at appeasing the 'extreme' fringes instead of true democratic representation in the commission.

actually I was referring to that traditionally left wing politics had a more international flavour to them over right wing (which are traditionally linked to national and individual interests)

and while drumming up a million supporters for a bill would be difficult if isolated to a single country (even the biggest countries within the EU) I would assume it would be sufficiently easier to pass a bill around the unions and worker parties across europe with worker rights at its centre and pick up a million that way.

I'd assume it would apply to *green* politics aswell.

EDIT: also in its structure *extreme fringes* are represented in the parliment not the commission, and their representation is under no threat by the lisbon treaty.

sink · 02-06-2008 6:45pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Of course we must ask ourselves why it was rejected?
Were these reforms in the best interests of citizens and not politicians?
It is important to acknowledge that the rejection of these reforms by two founding member states of the EEC should not be viewed as an inconvenient 'spanner' to be circumvented but perhaps an important indicator of the unease of unyielding ambition of what the EU has become.

In my opinion you're seeing a conspiracy where the possibility for one does not exist. The politicians of Europe are far from a harmonious group who plot together, in fact they never stop arguing (the British with the French, the Germans with the Polish, the Italians with everyone e.t.c.). I do not for one second believe that they would be able to co-operate on one thing that is not in everyone's interest. Just look at the domestic situation, don't you think there would be far more political capital to be made for FG by the just giving FF a kicking by campaigning for a no vote? The only reason they don't is that they recognise that the benefits of the treaty far outweigh any short term gain they might yield by forcing a defeat on the new Taoiseach.

johnnyq wrote: »

Especially when the citizens may reject it again :eek:
Politician; 'Instead of perhaps listening to what citizens want their EU to be, how about ignoring them and proceeding ahead regardless with what we think is the best way forward'

It is so difficult to tell what citizens actually want most of the time. The no camp for instance is campaigning on issues which are not effected by the treaty. The IFA and SIPTU are holding the government to ransom for thing unconnected to the treaty. If the treaty is voted down and in the mean time these issues get resolved, is there any reason that the exact same treaty should not be put to another vote?

johnnyq wrote: »

Well certainly this president of europe will push for what's best for the politicians who elected him. Maybe the role should be named 'president of european politicians' since the roll is much more likely to represent their interests than those of the citizens.

The 'president of the council' is nothing like a 'president of europe' they will not create policy only set the agenda. The president does not have a vote, they simply organise the topics to be discussed and present the councils views to Europe and the wider world.

johnnyq wrote: »

How about letting this president of europe actually be elected by the citizens or 'everyone' whose interests he is supposed to representing. But wait!!! it probably wouldn't be the right person that eurocrats want since OMG (s)he mightn't infact represent their interests and we can't have that!

That would not be practical. The president is unlikely to speak 20 something languages, how would any candidates get their message across to 500 million people? It is likely that people will just vote for candidates from their nationality or region. I don't think you would ever see anyone but a French, German or Brit get elected.

johnnyq wrote: »

Just don't forget they're a lot of right wing nuts out there in Europe too who would expect their views to be equally considered. Unless of course you think that the EU is an extreme left-wing fringe in sheep's clothing

Really though this is a sop at appeasing the 'extreme' fringes instead of true democratic representation in the commission.

You could argue that freedom of speech does the same, but it's not only the extremist that will be using it.

johnnyq wrote: »

To buy Biffo's argument (that because FF/FG/IBEC right wing parties and business lobbies support it, it must be good) - at the expense of looking at the issues is pure fallacy.

Would you vote no if I told you the Catholic Church supported it for example?

It's funny how the unions are so cagey about it and labour calling it a 'compromise'.

Well the fact that business groups such as IBEC and the American chamber of commerce support the treaty flies in the face of libertas's claims that it will damage business interests in Ireland. The fact that ICTU support and the only reason SIPTU don't is because of an unrelated domestic issues, flies in the face of Sinn Fein's and the Socialist Parties claim that it will damage workers rights.

johnnyq wrote: »

Just on your note about Ireland becoming isolated. This isn't a vote to leave the union. I certainly don't want to leave the EU. I view this as pure scaremongering to force a *certain* (particularly right wing) vision of europe down our throats. If you're happy with that vision (as sink is) then fine, but don't be goaded into denying your beliefs in the interests of appeasing that vision.

But the Lisbon treaty does not set out a new vision for Europe, it carries on with the exact same vision that was laid down in the Maastricht treaty at the founding of the EU. If you disagree with Lisbon's vision you must disagree with Maastricht's vision and the whole idea of the EU, which is fine. There are many people who don't like the idea of the EU but would rather just have the EC. If that's what you want why don't just come out and say it, instead of pretending you're for the EU.

johnnyq · 02-06-2008 7:41pm

sink wrote: »

In my opinion you're seeing a conspiracy where the possibility for one does not exist. The politicians of Europe are far from a harmonious group who plot together, in fact they never stop arguing (the British with the French, the Germans with the Polish, the Italians with everyone e.t.c.). I do not for one second believe that they would be able to co-operate on one thing that is not in everyone's interest.

Or perhaps their own as politicians?

It is so difficult to tell what citizens actually want most of the time. The no camp for instance is campaigning on issues which are not effected by the treaty. The IFA and SIPTU are holding the government to ransom for thing unconnected to the treaty. If the treaty is voted down and in the mean time these issues get resolved, is there any reason that the exact same treaty should not be put to another vote?

Isn't that what is happening with the EU constitution renamed Lisbon treaty except for the fact that we are the only ones allowed have a vote?

The 'president of the council' is nothing like a 'president of europe' they will not create policy only set the agenda. The president does not have a vote, they simply organise the topics to be discussed and present the councils views to Europe and the wider world.

Wouldn't it be great if the representative of europe to 'the wider world' was democratically elected and perhaps set a good example to the wider world.

That would not be practical. The president is unlikely to speak 20 something languages, how would any candidates get their message across to 500 million people? It is likely that people will just vote for candidates from their nationality or region. I don't think you would ever see anyone but a French, German or Brit get elected.

Just as well most people in virtually every country in europe is learning or is fluent in two or more languages!

I would disagree on the French/German/Brit argument but i'm sure if I was talking commissioners here you would say they're ment to be representing europes interests not their own and hence where they come from doesn't matter :pac:

Well the fact that business groups such as IBEC and the American chamber of commerce support the treaty flies in the face of libertas's claims that it will damage business interests in Ireland. The fact that ICTU support and the only reason SIPTU don't is because of an unrelated domestic issues, flies in the face of Sinn Fein's and the Socialist Parties claim that it will damage workers rights.

I would view Siptu's stance as very relevant actually since the right to collective bargaining isn't exactly upheld by the treaty. the ICTU vote was made up of a load of unions who chose to abstain so that isn't exactly representative. Several unions have come out against it need I remind you. Though except the Milk and Creamery union after a discussion with Biffo Cowan hmmmm......

sink wrote:

But the Lisbon treaty does not set out a new vision for Europe, it carries on with the exact same vision that was laid down in the Maastricht treaty at the founding of the EU. If you disagree with Lisbon's vision you must disagree with Maastricht's vision and the whole idea of the EU, which is fine. There are many people who don't like the idea of the EU but would rather just have the EC. If that's what you want why don't just come out and say it, instead of pretending you're for the EU.

I disagree with Lisbon's increased militarisation under Maastricts CFSP pillar.

But I have no problem with cooperation in law enforcement, criminal justice, civil judicial matters, and asylum and immigration and other economic, social and trade matters brought in under the Maastrict EU and the introduction of the euro. So i don't think that arguments holds water.

BlitzKrieg · 02-06-2008 9:01pm

I would disagree on the French/German/Brit argument but i'm sure if I was talking commissioners here you would say they're ment to be representing europes interests not their own and hence where they come from doesn't matter

It doesnt matter if they are elected by other politicions as is the current system, open it up to the general public and well...then national self interest will take hold because as its been proven by elections here, the UK and the US, some people use some of the stupidest reasons in some of their votes.

Or perhaps their own as politicians?

what would a politicians own interst be? More curious then anything.

Wouldn't it be great if the representative of europe to 'the wider world' was democratically elected and perhaps set a good example to the wider world.

But we dont democratically elect our taoiseach, nor does the UK elect its prime minister...

johnnyq · 02-06-2008 9:15pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

It doesnt matter if they are elected by other politicions as is the current system, open it up to the general public and well...then national self interest will take hold because as its been proven by elections here, the UK and the US, some people use some of the stupidest reasons in some of their votes.

That's a good reason to take someones vote away. Maybe they should take yours?

what would a politicians own interst be? More curious then anything.

To make the politican more easily reelected, better paid, etc... etc...
I wonder why we have tribunals in the first place? Sure those brown envelopes only contained library cards :rolleyes:

But we dont democratically elect our taoiseach, nor does the UK elect its prime minister...

But doesn't that prime minister have to be a democratically elected politician himself to be in the running in the first place? There's no requirement for that for the new head of europe to my knowledge. Maybe the person who donates the most brown envelopes wins?

BlitzKrieg · 02-06-2008 10:19pm

That's a good reason to take someones vote away. Maybe they should take yours?

Ahh no...I apologise i am being misunderstood, I dont mean to take the vote from someone because they'll go waste it on something, but setting up an election where unless every person is well educated well informed and eager to put their vote to use it will become broken and unusable.

I am not saying take the vote away, but modern democracies are representative for a reason.

I am finding this hard to explain

Ok.

Lets try it this way.

Say the secretary to the president of ireland passed away and to select a new one they put it to a general vote across the country. The position is mostly admin working, preparing documents, organising meetings etc.

the first issue putting it to a general vote is that voters in each county would automatically vote for the contender from their own county.

Going past that there will be a number of people who are not informed of what the position entails and assume by the title, they would then vote according to their own preception of who would fit the job, varying from outdated ideas that secretaries should be women or those who vote with racial undertones. Not to mention ageism aswell.

finally candidates might start promoting mandate politics, making promises and commitments to get the vote, even though there is no formal power with the position, candidates start bringing agendas into the election and the reason for the vote is made muddled and unclear.

All of that for a beuracratic position.

Now a government could invest large amounts of funds into ensuring that for each election the general public are well informed of what the position entails and what it doesnt. But thats a cost that will probably have to be brought out everytime the position is needed filling.

Or instead the government that was elected by the people would choose who fills the position, they would choose the person on their capabilities to fulfill the job.

Ok forget about the secretary and instead put in the President of the european council.

again its a mostly formal and beuracratic position, there is no real legastive power or veto power, he is the face of the the Council of Ministers to the rest of the EU structure (parliment etc).

All the above issues I pointed out for the secretary would occur for the president, but would be worse.

instead of counties, its whole countries, people have precieved notions of power associated with the term president, candidates will start creating mandates to get votes and for the most part the majority of people will not know what they are voting for.

The EU will then have the added cost of producing information every 2 and a half years ensuring everyone understands, but even then, chances are much like with the current lisbon treaty it will only remove a percentage of the confusion.

In the end it would be alot more effecitve to let the people we elected to choose the president of the european council. You could argue its not democratic, But we live in a representative democracy where we have agreed to hand over some of our democratic responsibilities to our representatives, ones where they need more direct decisions on who would best suit the job. We still have control over our representatives, and if they fail to handle the responsibilities correctly, we can removed them from office.

So how about instead, you take the members of the Council, who are all by the way elected representatives by their own states and have them vote on who would best represent the Council to the rest of the EU. Chances are if the title didnt have the word President in it and had secretary instead there wouldnt be an issue at all.

To make the politican more easily reelected, better paid, etc... etc...
I wonder why we have tribunals in the first place? Sure those brown envelopes only contained library cards

Ok, thank you. Seeing as the members of the Council of Ministers need to be part of the current government, I'd assume they will need to be elected in their own country, if they are failing to provide for their own countries within the EU I'd assume the vote would go against them?

But doesn't that prime minister have to be a democratically elected politician himself to be in the running in the first place? There's no requirement for that for the new head of europe to my knowledge. Maybe the person who donates the most brown envelopes wins?

True maybe it should be that the person elected to the position by the council must be one of the MEP's or something. I fail to see why someone would bribe themselves to the position though? It has no legalastion power, and if you could afford to pay off the heads of every member state in the EU I'd think the wages of the position would be a bit below you.

rereading your original comment, the President of the european council is not officially the representative of the EU to the wider world, just of the Council to the rest of the EU. Wouldnt the President of the European Commission be the representative of the EU to the rest of the world?

ixtlan · 02-06-2008 10:42pm

On the matter of the president of the council and whether they should be elected...

It is easy to point to this and cry "lack of democracy". However can anyone seriously suggest that this role should be elected by the people of Europe?

They will not be responsible for setting policy agenda, so how are they supposed to campaign? They cannot promise to actually get anything done. And if they could, would be be acceptable for them to criss-cross Europe promising special treatment for certain countries. That would surely destroy the trust of the public in the EU completely, even if you think that trust is somewhat lacking now.

Also, in a time when a 50% turnout for Lisbon would be considered good, does anyone think that the Irish public and the Polish/UK/French and other publics would tune in to campaign debates where the candidates had to have their answers translated?

Let's look at an analogy. We do indeed elect TDs and they do indeed elect one of their number to the position of Taoiseach. Would it be a good idea for the Taoiseach to be publicly elected from the pool of TDs say a month after the general election? Do you think we would get many leaders from outside Dublin? Do you think that most counties would vote for their candidate? Do you think that this would enhance our democracy and strenghten people's confidence in the system?

PS: I see while I was typing BlitzKrieg has made a similar argument.

Ix.

03-06-2008 12:55am

johnnyq wrote: »

Black Briar, do you have anything else to contribute to this forum except your petty obsession of following me around? I don't owe you money do I?:D

I'm here to debate..

You keep saying this and yet when I respond to your points you drag in abortion and so on. I'm getting the impression you're campaigning more for a no to johnnyq than a yes to lisbon.

Honestly I'm here to debate,Sometimes I don't think you are though by the looks of things.

Workers rights have everything to do with Ireland
How Irish (as EU) citizens are represented has everything to do with Ireland
How the EU impacts in military matters has everything to do with Ireland (please keep discussion on this point to the other two threads you have hijacked on this issue)

See this is what I'm talking about here in reference to your post.
You've wrote four lines there and discussed nothing.
Whats the point of that?

Is looking at my posts all you do on boards lately?
I can't make any point without 'rubbish and ergo' forming the substantive part of your post. Are you doing this for laughs or what?

I'm asking the question as to where the discussion is.All I see in these posts are sound bytes aka soap boxing and no discussion mostly.
Now thats all fine and dandy when theres noting more substantial to add other than yada yada yada,I don't like this but t'would be better just to concentrate on the stuff where you have something to say.

These groups must rely on politicans they do not trust. And this treaty places more reliance on them. I don't think what the farmers are doing is the right thing but it is understandable why they do it.

In fact it's incredibly similar to the 'vote yes or be isolated' strategy of Biffo do you not agree? He claims that the loss of goodwill or 'bargaining chip' will affect Ireland's stance in Europe on unrelated matters.

It probably would but not to an extent that it should be over played.
The EU will survive without this treaty-just like the world would survive without electricity.

I don't think Europe should opperate along those lines but yet it does and the loss of countless vetos only shores up this operation. You can't blame the farmers for milking the system that they are being encouraged to support.

You can't seriously expect the EU to run effeciently with 27 members all shouting round a table for their own imby requests to be implimented in full.

On the other hand, I would consider Siptu's stance on collective bargaining a very useful measure against railroading though of workers rights by recent ECJ decisions.

They get it right sometimes[unions] and get it wrong other times.Thats the nature of negotiation and compromise as is the nature of the way the larger EU is being run.

Denying people their rights under the UNCRH is not right/left wing, it's repressive. If you are referring to gay rights etc.. you should know that Senator David Norris is rejecting the treaty because of it's right wing leanings.

God you'd swear t'was the Soviet Union you were talking about.
What people deserve is and always is in a democracy a function of what the people want them to have in that democracy.
The EU is a democracy.The council of ministers have the final say and they are all directly elected.

There is nothing socialist about the exertion of the free market above all else especially workers rights and supporting the armaments industry.

Thats where we part company ideaologically I'd say as I believe that the market is a tool of democracy.
As for armaments...if I can discern anything from you,it seems that is appearing over and over again as a main kernel of your opposition to the way the EU is likely to be run given the road it's elected representatives want it to go.
That actually is as I said at the outset in my opinion a valid enough reason if it's a belief held for someone to vote no to this.
It's not even a percentile of the realistic be all and end all of the EU in my opinion though ie I feel it pointless for anyone losing sleep over it-more especially from the point of view that Ireland cannot take part without opening the triple lock and secondly as has been mentioned before,it is very unlikely that all 27 countries are going to lead the EU into a war with much agreement.

mattman · 05-06-2008 1:05am

fishing industry is in chaos
health care is a disaster
pubs closing
rural business destroyed
increasing suicide in ireland
cost of living has hit an all time high
government are telling us what to do
taxis are a complete rip off
we voted on last referendum ..we rejected ..they re voted(and won)
Lose the right to make our own decision's
Its a joke...Time to reject current government and vote no..

Only problem is most people wont even read it(even our own politicians)

AND THEY ARE TELLING US TO VOTE YES?

WAKE UP...

M.

Winters · 05-06-2008 1:21am

mattman wrote: »

Time to reject current government and vote no..

You should not be voting on the Lisbon Treaty to show your disappointment with the Government but by the pro's and con's the treaty has to offer this country.

By voting No to the treaty due to your opinion on the Governments performance on matters and not on the Treaty itself you clearly show that you are not only too immature to identify what it is you are voting on but also that you are possibly too stupid narrow minded to even comprehend what a waste of a real vote you will make.

Everything you have pointed out are events that you have labeled the current government with however I would urge you to look at the Lisbon treaty and try and find how voting yes/no would change any of these.

Also, in reference to your "government are telling us what to do" remark Id like to point out how utterly in the wrong you are. If they were telling you then you would not be getting a chance in the matter to vote. They are campaigning for a Yes vote along with all other major political parties (and IBEC/ICTU/etc.) as they believe that to be in the best interest of the people of the state. So if you are going to vote No to spite the government then you will also be spiting the opposition to the government and other groups who you (may) adore.

molloyjh · 05-06-2008 4:36pm

mattman wrote: »

fishing industry is in chaos
health care is a disaster
pubs closing
rural business destroyed
increasing suicide in ireland
cost of living has hit an all time high
government are telling us what to do
taxis are a complete rip off
we voted on last referendum ..we rejected ..they re voted(and won)
Lose the right to make our own decision's
Its a joke...Time to reject current government and vote no..

Only problem is most people wont even read it(even our own politicians)

AND THEY ARE TELLING US TO VOTE YES?

WAKE UP...

M.

All of these issue are problems you have with the Government in power and not with the EU or more importantly Lisbon. I have huge problems with the Government in power, but I'm still voting Yes because I think its good for the country overall. Thats the worst reason for voting No I've heard as its all totally irrelevant.

convince me to vote yes on the lisbon Treaty

Comments