Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

Sam Vimes · 19-12-2008 12:36am

btw, i am not particularly for the yes side. i have been searching for months for a reason to vote no to this treaty and if i find one you can bet your ass i'll vote no.

if you want to post the article that the interpretation refers to and explain to my satisfaction how the words in the article will result in what you describe you may well just turn me

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 19-12-2008 12:47am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

btw i don't want people to get the impression that i'm a fianna fail apologiser. i despise them and want them gone just as much as you. i can just tell the difference between a general election and a european referendum

and i can tell the difference between an arrogant , condescending high horse sitter and any person with common sense ,

seriously , even if i was a yes voter , i would vote no just to piss people like you off, your arrogance and unselfawareness is a sight to behold

i bet you've even registered a load of times on boards just to bring the yes vote up in the poll at top

I will raise my ballot paper in your honour before i mark my X in the NO box

.

Sam Vimes · 19-12-2008 12:54am

DaDumTish wrote: »

and i can tell the difference between an arrogant , condescending high horse sitter and any person with common sense ,

seriously , even if i was a yes voter , i would vote no just to piss people like you off, your arrogance and unselfawareness is a sight to behold

i bet you've even registered a load of times on boards just to bring the yes vote up in the poll at top

I will raise my ballot paper in your honour before i mark my X in the NO box

.

Right so i'm arrogant. Yet another reason to vote no that has absolutely nothing to do with the treaty

Sam Vimes · 19-12-2008 12:59am

also, you should have a read of the ad hominum argument wiki page

It basically says that an ad hominum argument consists of criticising the person who proposed the argument in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it

Eg:
A claims X
There is something objectionable about A
therefore X is false

democrates · 19-12-2008 1:17am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

btw, i am not particularly for the yes side. i have been searching for months for a reason to vote no to this treaty and if i find one you can bet your ass i'll vote no.

Can't say fairer than that guv. Still on the no side myself but similarly all I care about is what's the best way forward.

whatisayis · 19-12-2008 1:22am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

if you want to post the article that the interpretation refers to and explain to my satisfaction how the words in the article will result in what you describe you may well just turn me

Article 116

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law,regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted.

1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply.

2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council

First reading

3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the Council.

4. If the Council approves the European Parliament's position, the act concerned shall be adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.

(5-12 cover second and third readings and a conciliation procedure if the proposal is voted down.) Too long to include here but easily available several places online.

9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.

Special provisions

15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.

The stumbling block all along has been paragraph 9 which demands a unanimous vote. The special provision negates that requirement. (All the other steps are done be majority vote.) And, you have my utmost respect for asking!

demakinz · 19-12-2008 1:22am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6QmH-7fu68

whatisayis · 19-12-2008 1:30am

Sorry forgot to put the title 'Article 294' for the second article (which starts at #1 in my post)

K-9 · 19-12-2008 1:37am

FoldedShirt wrote: »

Let's put it in black and white. Reasons for voting Yes:

32% It was in the best interest of Ireland (vague, doesn't really mean anything. You could argue that 100% of Yes-voters thought it was in our interests and 100% of No-voters thought it wasn't. That's why they voted that way!)

It doesn't give a breakdown. They may have read the Treaty and decided so. You are being presumptious. The answer is vague, doesn't mean the reasons are.

FoldedShirt wrote:

19% Ireland gets a lot of benefit from the EU (nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty)

Irrelevant really. Doesn't mean we will continue to.

FoldedShirt wrote:

9% It keeps Ireland fully engaged in Europe (nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty unless by "engaged" people meant further integrated)

Debatable. If we keep voting No, say to the Croatian Treaty as well, well there will come a time where the EU will move on, similar to the UK and the Euro.

FoldedShirt wrote:

9% It will help the Irish economy (nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty)

Very relevant. Avoids any political confusion. American multi nationals want it, despite the tax concerns from others. Common energy policy very important when bargaining with Russia for oil and gas in the future. Better having 27 joint voices than 27 independent ones. Common environmental policies. Being committed EU Members is good for trade and foreign investment. Other reasons I can't think of now!

=FoldedShirt]5% It gives the EU a more effective way of making decisions (the first totally relevant reason, and it's only 5%!)

4% It makes the EU more effective on the global stage (relevant)

A few relevant reasons getting 1-2% such as co-operation on crime etc.

Agreed, though not sure on the crime part when we opted out from many of the security parts. Amazing how having a different perspective gives you a different outlook on the above though. The No side see it as sinister despite opt outs.

FoldedShirt wrote:

Reasons for voting No:

22% Don't understand and don't want to vote for something I'm not familiar with (legitimate reason - you don't sign a contract you don't understand. It has been argued by some that these people shouldn't have voted)

Problem is many No voters have said it IS understandable and have read it and given their say, despite the No side saying it was unreadable. That means they just didn't bother.

FoldedShirt wrote:

12% To protect Irish identity (loosely related to the Lisbon Treaty in that it brings about more integration)

HUH? What Irish identity does it attack. This is a new one to me!

FoldedShirt wrote:

6% Neutrality (there was a lot about a military identity/funding for the EU in the Lisbon Treaty, so this probably relates to that as well as neutrality. A valid reason)

Agree, there are concerns, Nice2 addressed these. A new legal guarentee will copper fasten it.

FoldedShirt wrote:

6% I do not trust our politicians (irrelevant, although they did write the Treaty)

Agreed.

FoldedShirt wrote:

6% Commissioner (irrelevant)

I've a notion this played a part in the national identity and not understanding it part. I'd agree but many don't who don't grasp the Commissioner concept.

FoldedShirt wrote:

5% Against unified Europe (probably votes No to all treaties)

4% Protest against government (irrelevant)

4% To avoid an EU that speaks as one on global issues! (relevant)

Agreed

FoldedShirt wrote:

4% Large EU states decide on EU matters (relevant).

3% Protect the influence of small states (relevant, the same as the reason above just worded differently)

Debatable, does Lisbon really change this?

FoldedShirt wrote:

There were a few more reasons with 1 or 2% such as abortion, euthanasia, immigration (which is probably understated and perhaps reflected in part by the "Irish identity" answer). Strangely only 1% voted No because they were happy with the status quo (like me!)

Agreed there.

FoldedShirt wrote:

Being kind to the Yes side (counting "fully engaged" as a valid reason), 18% of Yes-voters voted Yes for relevant reasons. Being harsh to the No side (not counting the "don't understand" reason), at least 31% voted No for reasons relevant to the Treaty.

Nope, that is your interpretation.

Valmont · 19-12-2008 1:40am

"Vote Yes to Lisbon"

Otacon wrote: »

I have one question that still has not been answered. Why?

71 pages and you ask "why?", are you blind?

K-9 · 19-12-2008 1:49am

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

Just my opinion mind but we elect PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES to er, represent the public funnily enough. Now if the electorate, rightly or wrongly (immaterial to my argument here) voted no to Lisbon, then surely the PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES should support the decision of the PUBLIC who they REPRESENT. However, all of the tossers in the Dail (with the exception of the Shinners), be they FF, FG, Lab campaigned for the treaty and will no doubt campaign for it again (and thus ignore the wishes of the PUBLIC who they REPRESENT) as they like to think that they'll be in a position at some point to hob nob with the other EU heads in Brussels at some point. Kenny or Gilmore are not going to campaign against Lisbon if at some point they might, and I emphasis might, be in Government and will then have an awkward situation when they sit around the table with Merkel, Brown, Sarko etc. I suppose if we Irish had some real backbone and believed in ourselves, we would turn up in Brussels bold as brass and say -

"How's it goin' boys. The lads and lassies at home said Feck Off to your treaty so I guess its a dead duck like the constitution you French and Dutch threw out a couple of years back."

Then they could sit back and eyeball the rest of them and let them seethe knowing they could do damn all about it. But no, the chicken sh!t cowards we have to represent us were gobsmacked by the Lisbon result and no doubt sh!tted themselves at the thought of facing the powers that be in Brussels.

I didn't vote last time around but I will vote next time and it'll be a NO. Not because I'll be annoyed at the Government for their ineptitude at everything they do (which I am), or for the "opposition" cravenly seeking a YES vote against the electorate's wishes (which I am), or for the unholy alliance of big business/unions/media campaigning for a YES with no credible counter arguments for an even handed debate (which I am) but because the Irish people voted NO last time and their voice was ignored by the "democratic" institutions of Dail Eireann and Brussels. If these feckers will accept the No vote of the French and Dutch but browbeat us for doing the same, then perhaps we would be better off outside the EU where we could at least retain our sovereignity and dignity. The fact that we would also be in a position to now devalue our currency adjust our interest rates etc to suit our own economic conditions would be a major plus as well.

Well Ray McSharry acted in the National Interest in the 1987 when for years, FG and FF talked about it. Wasn't popular and there was protest but it resulted in the Celtic Tiger instead of Bankruptcy. Terrible thing to say I know, but sometimes the majority do not know what is good for them!

justcallmetex wrote: »

we can find a ten billion fund for the banks but not the health service? you seem surprised people will be voting out of protest?

Look, your problem is with the Govt. Simple! Not the EU.

Darragh29 wrote: »

There are many ways of protesting, if I don't like the government and want to give them a kick in the naads in a referendum, that is a legimitate form of protest. This is just one of many reasons I have for voting no on Lisbon, some related to the treaty, some not related.

I'm sending a message to the government that if it wants my cooperation, it has to be earned and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Grand, IMO you are sending a message to the Govt. that we shouldn't have votes on EU Treaties but there you go!

whatisayis wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10009975.shtml
The Irish Taxation Institute (ITI) has said that the report outlined today by EU Commissioner for Taxation, Lászlo Kovács for common corporate taxes in all EU Member States remains “dangerously fuzzy”.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/mccreevy-slams-ec-hidden-tax-plan-655022.html
Mr McCreevy told a business lunch in Dublin the proposal currently under consideration, and due to become Community law next year, is a "sinister" idea that "refuses to die".
It was clear from 50 years of history "and the reality of the institutional continuity of the Commission and its culture" that no matter how often certain proposals might be turned down, the officials sneak them out in different guises, he said.
"What is envisaged by those seeking to foist a CCCTB on Europe is quite different to what appears on the label.
"It is important that member states understand fully what is going on," he said.

Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty, the plan has been put on hold thanks to "Good old Ireland". Pure coincidence?
As a business owner this issue is very important to me. It should also be at least investigated by others because it will have an impact on everyone in Ireland.

[/FONT]

Indeed, 50 years and still nothing has happened. The majority don't want it but HELL, who cares. Maybe Ireland should do a paper on low taxes and bad Services and say France and Germany will have to follow!

Darragh29 wrote: »

There is a huge amount of distrust in relation to this treaty. The fact that it is so unreadable, coupled with the fact that we had a remark made by Valerie D'Estang regarding this treaty being deliberately designed in such a way as to hide proposals within it. There has been no explanation of this remark that I am aware of.

You can go down to any Easons outlet and by a copy of our constitution and read and also understand it over two mugs of coffee. Why is this treaty so utterly unreadable??? What on earth is the problem with a legible and readable document???

Our nearest neighbour, the UK, decided to opt out of the Euro, no big deal, we all respected their decision and went on with the Euro ourselves. If they want to take on the Euro, we'll be happy to accept them into the Eurozone.

It isn't unreadable. Many No voters have read it and given there view.

We where told by many No voters it is unreadable yet plenty of them can give their opinions! Confused?

Then when it's pointed 30% of No voters fell for that lie, they get all offended and say "are you calling us thick?"

Nope, somebody said it is unreadable and you agreed!

Toiletroll · 19-12-2008 1:51am

Seanies32 wrote: »

Well Ray McSharry acted in the National Interest in the 1987 when for years, FG and FF talked about it. Wasn't popular and there was protest but it resulted in the Celtic Tiger instead of Bankruptcy. Terrible thing to say I know, but sometimes the majority do not know what is good for them!

Look, your problem is with the Govt. Simple! Not the EU.

Grand, IMO you are sending a message to the Govt. that we shouldn't have votes on EU Treaties but there you go!

Indeed, 50 years and still nothing has happened. The majority don't want it but HELL, who cares. Maybe Ireland should do a paper on low taxes and bad Services and say France and Germany will have to follow!

It isn't unreadable. Many No voters have read it and given there view.

We where told by many No voters it is unreadable yet plenty of them can give their opinions! Confused?

Then when it's pointed 30% of No voters fell for that lie, they get all offended and say "are you calling us thick?"

Nope, somebody said it is unreadable and you agreed!

Confused? Are you trying to plant the image?

tolosenc · 19-12-2008 1:54am

whatisayis wrote: »

Article 116

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law,regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the

internal market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted.
1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply.

2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council

First reading

3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the Council.

4. If the Council approves the European Parliament's position, the act concerned shall be adopted in the wording which corresponds to the position of the European Parliament.

(5-12 cover second and third readings and a conciliation procedure if the proposal is voted down.) Too long to include here but easily available several places online.

Look at article 101 of the Treaty of Rome, that's everything there except the steps, which are probably in some other treaty that's already in force. THIS ISN'T NEW. Please before you start posting this crap again, please just reference this: http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Rome57.txt

whatisayis wrote: »

9. The Council shall act unanimously on the amendments on which the Commission has delivered a negative opinion.

Special provisions

15. Where, in the cases provided for in the Treaties, a legislative act is submitted to the ordinary legislative procedure on the initiative of a group of Member States, on a recommendation by the European Central Bank, or at the request of the Court of Justice, paragraph 2, the second sentence of paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 shall not apply.

The stumbling block all along has been paragraph 9 which demands a unanimous vote. The special provision negates that requirement. (All the other steps are done be majority vote.) And, you have my utmost respect for asking!

Dunno what that is, but again I'd imagine as before, to use a baseball metaphor, you would again just be teeing one up that I will again knock out of the park...

Darragh29 · 19-12-2008 1:59am

Check this out, I think it's the funniest thing I've ever seen on youtube!

K-9 · 19-12-2008 2:01am

Toiletroll wrote: »

Confused? Are you trying to plant the image?

Think it is already planted as seen by this thread!

A big part part of the No campaign was "Vote No, if you don't understand it!"

When it turns out the biggest reason for voting No was not understanding it, the No side get all offended and say "are you calling us thick?"

No Sir, Many No Voters voted NO because they didn't understand it, as the NO Voters said!

Now, when the No side gets clarifications to address the confusion and the parts that the No side raised as unclear, it is called undemocratic!

YES voters said if you don't understand it, don't vote, hence, have no effect!

So maybe the No side where right the first time, but surely not now with the clarifications?

PS. The No side is made up off Anti Abortionists, Anti Securalists, Anti Gay rights, Anti Co-habitation rights, Anti Military, Pro Military, Anti USA, Pro USA, Pro Abortion, pro Workers rights, Anti Workers rights etc. etc. parts,

I give up!

justcallmetex · 19-12-2008 9:58am

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'd rather not sink to the level of embracing voter ignorance.

well I've been lumped with a Government I never wanted but thats Democracy for you not ignorance just the way the world works

Dyr · 19-12-2008 10:20am

It's not the way the world works anymore , now we can just commission a survey questioning voters on the details of each parties manifesto and then have the opposition fund a report on why people voted for the govt parties, proving they were f***wits to do so. Sure we can invalidate any election at this rate. :pac:

Dyr · 19-12-2008 10:22am

Darragh29 wrote: »

Check this out, I think it's the funniest thing I've ever seen on youtube!

funny thing is that when that was put up first, no one thought for a minute that we actually would be arseraped in the next budget

Toiletroll · 19-12-2008 10:47am

Seanies32 wrote: »

Think it is already planted as seen by this thread!

A big part part of the No campaign was "Vote No, if you don't understand it!"

When it turns out the biggest reason for voting No was not understanding it, the No side get all offended and say "are you calling us thick?"

No Sir, Many No Voters voted NO because they didn't understand it, as the NO Voters said!

Now, when the No side gets clarifications to address the confusion and the parts that the No side raised as unclear, it is called undemocratic!

YES voters said if you don't understand it, don't vote, hence, have no effect!

So maybe the No side where right the first time, but surely not now with the clarifications?

PS. The No side is made up off Anti Abortionists, Anti Securalists, Anti Gay rights, Anti Co-habitation rights, Anti Military, Pro Military, Anti USA, Pro USA, Pro Abortion, pro Workers rights, Anti Workers rights etc. etc. parts,

I give up!

Well I didnt vote last time and I am far from confused. Additionally your theory has been anihilated earlier on in the thread

whatisayis · 19-12-2008 11:18am

obl wrote: »

Look at article 101 of the Treaty of Rome, that's everything there except the steps, which are probably in some other treaty that's already in force. THIS ISN'T NEW. Please before you start posting this crap again, please just reference this: http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Rome57.txt

whatisayis wrote: »

Article 116
Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law,regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted.

Treaty of Rome Article 101

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the common market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the
distortion in question, the Council shall, on a proposal from the
Commission, acting unanimously during the first stage and by a qualified majority thereafter, issue the necessary directives. The Commission and the Council may take any other appropriate measures provided for in this Treaty.

Away for the rest of the day, will try to answer any further queries this evening.

thelordofcheese · 19-12-2008 11:19am

justcallmetex wrote: »

well I've been lumped with a Government I never wanted but thats Democracy for you not ignorance just the way the world works

Given how much you cry about the government, i'd be willing to say you're incapable of following your own advice of "Get used to it".

Just because things are a certain way (like FF still in power, people more concerned about "fighin' da powah" rather than the contents of the actual treaty) doesn't mean you have to like them in the slightest.
Y'know, the same way you've complained about there being a second lisbon vote.

K-9 · 19-12-2008 1:19pm

Toiletroll wrote: »

Well I didnt vote last time and I am far from confused. Additionally your theory has been anihilated earlier on in the thread

Indeed, half the posters don't seem to understand it.

If you don't understand it, vote No!

OK

Are you calling me thick as I voted No because I didn't understand it?

K-9 · 19-12-2008 1:27pm

whatisayis wrote: »

acting unanimously during the first stage

The key is that part. It's called a veto, that thing the No side said we don't have!

Oh, Congrats, you just found it!

Darragh29 · 19-12-2008 1:57pm

Bambi wrote: »

funny thing is that when that was put up first, no one thought for a minute that we actually would be arseraped in the next budget

Jesus that video is the funniest thing I've ever seen!

tolosenc · 19-12-2008 4:31pm

whatisayis wrote: »

Treaty of Rome Article 101

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the common market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.

If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the
distortion in question, the Council shall, on a proposal from the
Commission, acting unanimously during the first stage and by a qualified majority thereafter, issue the necessary directives. The Commission and the Council may take any other appropriate measures provided for in this Treaty.

Away for the rest of the day, will try to answer any further queries this evening.

Dude, I just have a copy of the Treaty of Rome here. Kinda 50 years old and all. I couldn't be arsed to check a later treaty, the point is, that almost all of the stuff in the Lisbon Treaty is a copy and paste of a previous treaty, and objecting to it is pointless as it will be in force whether or not we pass it at the second time of asking.

Toiletroll · 19-12-2008 4:34pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, half the posters don't seem to understand it.

If you don't understand it, vote No!

OK

Are you calling me thick as I voted No because I didn't understand it?

Why not just read the treaty? I support your vote but you need to understand what you are voting on. That is only imo

whatisayis · 19-12-2008 6:49pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

The key is that part. It's called a veto, that thing the No side said we don't have!

Oh, Congrats, you just found it!

You got the bit about a veto. Only thing is you got it backwards. The Treaty of Rome called for a unanimous vote which allowed a veto, the Lisbon treaty (which supersedes all previous treaties) calls for a majority vote. That means no veto.

obl wrote: »

Dude, I just have a copy of the Treaty of Rome here. Kinda 50 years old and all. I couldn't be arsed to check a later treaty, the point is, that almost all of the stuff in the Lisbon Treaty is a copy and paste of a previous treaty, and objecting to it is pointless as it will be in force whether or not we pass it at the second time of asking.

Do you seriously believe that the Lisbon Treaty is a copy and paste of previous treaties? Then what on earth are you voting on?

PrivateEye · 19-12-2008 7:01pm

PS. The No side is made up off Anti Abortionists, Anti Securalists, Anti Gay rights, Anti Co-habitation rights, Anti Military, Pro Military, Anti USA, Pro USA, Pro Abortion, pro Workers rights, Anti Workers rights etc. etc. parts,

I give up!

The yes side on the other hand is made up of ex-Paris '68 student rebels (google Daniel Cohn-Bendt), ex-republicans (hello Labour WP!), power-freaks like Sarkozy, trade union beuracrats who haven't worked a day in their lives, IBEC ("increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment."- Their words), anti worker employers and the sort.

K-9 · 19-12-2008 7:45pm

Toiletroll wrote: »

Why not just read the treaty? I support your vote but you need to understand what you are voting on. That is only imo

Indeed, I was being sarcastic. I voted yes bye the way and fully agree that it was possible to, if not read it, at least learn about the contentious issues. Again, it seems a fair percentage of the No voters believed it was unreadable.

Again my point stands. Many No voters didn't understand it or try to read it. That doesn't mean they are thick, they just were told it was unreadable by the No side!

No point in No campaigners taking offence over that now.

whatisayis wrote: »

You got the bit about a veto. Only thing is you got it backwards. The Treaty of Rome called for a unanimous vote which allowed a veto, the Lisbon treaty (which supersedes all previous treaties) calls for a majority vote. That means no veto.

acting unanimously during the first stage and by a qualified majority thereafter

My reading of that is that it has to be agreed unanimously first, to allow majority voting. In essence, the veto still applies until all Member States agree otherwise. You cannot have Majority voting without Irelands consent!

whatisayis · 19-12-2008 8:06pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

acting unanimously during the first stage and by a qualified majority thereafter

My reading of that is that it has to be agreed unanimously first, to allow majority voting. In essence, the veto still applies until all Member States agree otherwise. You cannot have Majority voting without Irelands consent!

Yes, you are reading correctly. But you are reading The Treaty of Rome not Lisbon. In Lisbon thay have changed it so that it no longer needs to be agreed unaninmously. And, yes most definately, you can have have majority voting without Irelands consent. We only have a population of four (ish) million. That is definately not a majority in the context of Europe.

Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

Comments