Why are YOU voting no ?

nesf · 14-05-2008 6:03pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I did and its still doesn't point blank state what this is for. And if you want people to think you're smart don't act like an asshole.

What do you mean by "what this is for"? Do you mean what will change or what does Ireland get out of it?

sink · 14-05-2008 6:17pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I did and its still doesn't point blank state what this is for. And if you want people to think you're smart don't act like an asshole.

I'm not trying to act like an asshole, but your complaining about not knowing what it's about when the information is everywhere. The treaty is complex, it can not be summed up in one sentence. That is the problem, the no vote will give you a nice simple answer like "Ireland will loose it's sovereignty". Unfortunately it's just not that simple. When the government says "it will provide a better framework for the EU to work more efficiently and effectively", people give out about them being vague. Then you provide them with exactly what the treaty will do and they ask you to sum it up in in one sentence "point blank" when you already have "it will provide a better framework for the EU to work more efficiently". Where is the vagueness? Point out the issues, where you are having trouble and I'll see if I can help.

egan007 · 15-05-2008 3:29pm

Voting no because - No proper independent information means an automatic No to me.....

sink wrote: »

Where is the vagueness? Point out the issues,

What does it mean for paye tax
what does it mean for self employed
what does it mean for farmers
what does it mean for our constitution....

the list goes on,

There needs to be a public information broadcast in plain jane english.

sink · 15-05-2008 3:36pm

egan007 wrote: »

Voting no because - No proper independent information means an automatic No to me.....

http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

Both these links are completely independent, they contain no pro's or con's about the treaty just the straight facts.

egan007 · 15-05-2008 3:39pm

sink wrote: »

http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/

Both these links are completely independent, they contain no pro's or con's about the treaty just the straight facts.

Thanks, now I can get the information - only 2million others to go....

Don't say that people should go looking for it, that's like saying people should vote. It's an obvious statement but unrealistic. The majority are not interested enough, interest needs to be generated.

These issues need to be broadcast until people know what they are voting for inside out.

sink · 15-05-2008 3:49pm

egan007 wrote: »

What does it mean for paye tax

Nothing, has no effect on paye as this is a direct tax and is outside the scope and remit of the EU.

egan007 wrote: »

what does it mean for self employed

The treaty itself has no direct effect, meaning nothing will change in the day to day running as soon as the treaty is implemented. New laws which come about as a result of the rearranged voting powers in the council might have an effect, in much the same way that voting for a new dail will determine the type of laws that will come into effect during the tenure of that government.

egan007 wrote: »

what does it mean for farmers

Similarly the treay has not direct effect on farmers. But any new laws that come about as a result of the new voting arrangements might. It is important to note that the minister for agriculture has many allies in Europe such as the French and any laws that come about are likely to be more benefitial than harmful.

egan007 wrote: »

what does it mean for our constitution....

If you are refering to any future changes in the EU that effect our constitution. The government will still be leagally bound to hold a referendum. The goverenment will not have to ratify in the dail changes in the EU in certain areas that do not have an impact on our constitution

Hope this helped.

ixtlan · 15-05-2008 3:50pm

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

I am voting no because the government of our country is acting illegally by preventing the movement of goods into Ireland from across the EU by imposing an import tariff on them, when the illegal import tariff (VRT) is lifted I will vote yes.

Actually this shows the difficulty of negotiating a treaty and deciding what people really want. If I could put words in your mouth you would like the EU to be much tougher on individual states and force them to reduce barriers to trade and dare I add harmonise in this case car taxes.

However if you vote no and win, it more likely will be interpreted as a vote to be less strict on states and not force them to do as much for free trade.

In your case... I would humbly suggest you should vote yes, as a no would only solidify those things you are concerned about.

Ix.

ixtlan · 15-05-2008 4:00pm

egan007 wrote: »

Voting no because - No proper independent information means an automatic No to me.....

What does it mean for paye tax
what does it mean for self employed
what does it mean for farmers
what does it mean for our constitution....

the list goes on,

There needs to be a public information broadcast in plain jane english.

sink has answered these well. I would add that while I admire your effort to understand the very big picture of Lisbon and the EU, it's not really the right way to approach it to assume that Lisbon will have massive far-reaching effects. Really it is a continuation of Europe's integration. It does not change everything going forward. This is why the documents have been focussed on the specific changes that Lisbon brings. Unfortunately some people then interpret this as not explaining what the real effects are. In reality the real effects to people in the street will not be dramatic.

Rather than any massive changes Lisbon seeks to allow the EU to get business done more quickly. Look at the commission. There are 27 commissioners at the moment. Imagine chairing a meeting where 27 people wanted to make comments on a proposal. It's a compromise certainly but I can see the sense in trying to limit this to 18.

Ix.

shoutman · 15-05-2008 4:12pm

Apologies if my reasons have already been refuted by posts before this, but I do not have the time to trawl this thread.

I have an exam tommorrow in which there will probably be a question on this treaty.
Having done some, admittedly not a huge amount of, research, I feel that the cons outweigh the pros somewhat.

If i've read correctly, the main pro is that the EU will be streamlined, a lot of the red tape will be taken away, therefor allowing the EU to act more as a single entity rather then a group of countries involved in a pact of sorts.
A main part of the treaty is that the EU will now be thought as as a single legal entity.

So the cons for business are that it will probably help some of the less well off states, which may be better for business' in Ireland which are exporting. However is this not a double edged sword? Ie. will the emerging economies, being helped by the EU not become more competitive, and as a result Ireland loses some of its competitiveness?

My main reason for voting against it is that it seems to me that Ireland will lost its voting power. The Qualified Majority voting system seems like it would be disaster for Ireland. At the moment I think that Ireland has a position of power within the EU, which should this treaty be ratified we will lose.
For those who dont know Qualified Majority voting means that for a law to be passed it needs to have 55% of countries voting for it, and those countries voting for have to have 65% of the population of the EU.
So the likes of Ireland will not have much power unless it sides with a country with a big population.

I suppose it boils down to whether or not you want to be a European or Irish.
This treaty is designed to be good for Europe, and I suppose whats good for Europe will have a trickle on effect for Ireland. But at the same time the position Ireland is in at the moment, economic downturn and all, is still a lot stronger then I would imagine it will be if this treaty is ratified. Ireland will eventually become on par with the rest of Europe as opposed to leading Europe.

The fact that Ireland will only be represented in the decision making process every ten of fifteen years also seems worrying, (Am I wrong in this assumption, I know we will have impact through the parliment but will we have a vote?)

Also it seems like we would lose some of the power of controlling our economy as it will be bound by european made international treaties.....

I'm also not fond of the fact that the treaty would mean that Ireland would have to invest more funds in defence where the money could be used in other areas.

partholon · 15-05-2008 4:15pm

TBH im voting NO because i think pooling sovereignty has gone too far.

i didnt want nice to pass as it set up a two tier europe IMO.

I dont see the need for it. yes it makes things tougher for the politicians but so what? id rather the right thing be tough to agree on than the wrong thing be too easy.

thats my 2c anyway

conchubhar1 · 15-05-2008 4:39pm

simply put

it is unreadable - as politicians havent read it - how can most normal people read it
eec - all for it
europe all for it

e.u - i am sceptical - union is a tricky word - and when they tried an anthem to be put in place and have a flag and a currency - does that not sound like an united states type scenario to you?

current e.u status - i am all for - they have eneough power
and this - europe to work better thing is crap - they have the power to make europe work better

why do all other countries not get a say?
is it because this text - basicially with a few ammendments - was voted down before by two countries?

conchubhar1 · 15-05-2008 4:43pm

do you like unelected representitives?

do you like not having a commisioner for long periods?

do you like how germany,uk,france or any other countries think about certain issues 100% of the time?

no? - well then how to vote is obvious

sink · 15-05-2008 6:06pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

do you like unelected representitives?

No, I don't like unelected representatives. But our representatives in the EU are elected. They're the Taoiseach, and his cabinet of ministers, i.e minister of finance, minister of foreign affairs etc. We also directly elect our representatives in the European parliament known as MEP's. We don't elect the commission, the commission is chosen by our elected head of government together with all the other heads of member states. The commission are more like civil servants, they don't have the power to decide on legislation only to suggest legislation, a bit like a group of consultants.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

do you like not having a commisioner for long periods?

I'm fine with it, as anything they put forward has to be vetted by the elected council and possibly the parliament. We have equal representation on the commission as any other country i.e Germany although 20 times our size only is represented for 10 out of every fifteen years as well. In my opinion a commission of 27 members would be impossible to manage

conchubhar1 wrote: »

do you like how germany,uk,france or any other countries think about certain issues 100% of the time?

No but they don't agree with each other most of the time either. Here's a few things I would like to point out to you.

We have twice as much say per citizen than any of those countries you listed i.e my vote will carry twice as much weight as an englander, german or frenchman (in the council, not the parliament)
Those countries can not block legislation on their own, there is a minimum requirement of 4 countries to block legislation using the new voting system
The areas which are most important ot Ireland individualy we still can veto i.e taxation and defence

How to vote is NOT obvious. That is my main gripe with how the no campaign is being run, they make it sound as if there are simple reasons to vote no when it's actually very complex. A no vote does not mean the status-quo! It's entirely unpredictable what will happen if there is a no vote. In the same way voting yes is a complex decision there are few straight answers.

sink · 15-05-2008 6:16pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it is unreadable - as politicians havent read it - how can most normal people read it

The treaty itself is unreadable on it's own, it amends current treaties i.e the treaty of Rome and Maastricht. If you read the consolidated treaties, they're not that hard to understand. It takes a bit of reading and thinking as any legal document does.

You can find the consolidated treaties here http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:EN:HTML

I don't know why biffo and other ministers haven't read the treaty, but I didn't vote for them. Just because they didn't read the treaty is not a good reason to vote against it in my opinion.

Mad_Max · 15-05-2008 8:41pm

Gents please forgive me if my questions have been answered already i couldn't read all the pages up till now (I should be studying

)

I just have a few questions that would help me make up my mind. I've found the government/ No campaigns very unhelpful trying to ram their point down my throat.

Basically i'm wondering:

1: Does this treaty have any effect on our tax system? I've seen statements that it wont effect our corporation tax but what about normal tax. Will the EU have any say in the taxation of workers here?

2: I've heard we have these vetoes but I've also heard they expire after 5 years. Firstly is this true and secondly what areas are these vetoes in? I would like to think we will still control our own laws entirely. I wouldn't like some law being brought in in Europe and we have to accept because 65% (or whatever the majority is) of the others agree.

Again folks, sorry I'm just asking questions that may have been answered I apologise if they have. These are just questions I personally can't get answered.

Edit:

sink wrote: »

The areas which are most important ot Ireland individualy we still can veto i.e taxation and defence

Just seen this, must have scanned over it. Ok so this would answer my first question or does this mean corporation tax?? The second question would still apply, does our veto run out on the taxattion issue. Personally tax is my main issue with this treaty. I would rather move country than have my tax rates decided by someone in a different country to be honest.

conchubhar1 · 15-05-2008 9:06pm

my major gripe with this is

why are 26 countries denied a vote?
is that democratic

and please do not answer - oh thats the countries decision - not our problem

sink · 15-05-2008 9:19pm

Mad_Max wrote: »

1: Does this treaty have any effect on our tax system? I've seen statements that it wont effect our corporation tax but what about normal tax. Will the EU have any say in the taxation of workers here?

Yes this treaty does have an impact on indirect taxation. Indirect taxation is different from direct taxation.

Direct taxation is paid directly to the government by either a person or an organisation. This includes taxes like PAYE, corporate tax. The EU has no legal basis to enforce any direct taxation policy until we agree to let it, which would require another referendum even after Lisbon is fully ratified.

Limited power to affect indirect taxation is included in the treaty. Indirect taxation is tax on goods and services which are not paid directly to the government but through a third party. For example VAT, you don't pay this to the government directly, you first pay it to the seller and they pass it on to the government. However any new legislation on indirect tax requires a unanimous vote by the council over which we would have a veto, which would be controlled by the the Minister for Finance. I'm not sure if it will have to be ratified by the European Parliament, someone else might be able to answer that.

Mad_Max wrote: »

2: I've heard we have these vetoes but I've also heard they expire after 5 years. Firstly is this true and secondly what areas are these vetoes in? I would like to think we will still control our own laws entirely. I wouldn't like some law being brought in in Europe and we have to accept because 65% (or whatever the majority is) of the others agree.

No we retain our veto over taxation and other areas indefinitely, or until another treaty is passed taking it away. By our constitution this would require a referendum.

sink · 15-05-2008 9:28pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

my major gripe with this is

why are 26 countries denied a vote?
is that democratic

and please do not answer - oh thats the countries decision - not our problem

It is democratic through parliamentary democracy, in that it's up to the legitimately elected governments to ratify it trough their parliaments. The population of each member state voted for their government so if their governments don't do what they want final responsibility lies with the voter for giving them power. I don't think it's entirely fair, but neither is it in the remit of the EU to force governments to hold referendums. So there is nothing we can do to force them. I personally would recommend looking at weather or not the treaty is good for us, and leave other countries to sort their governments out trough the ballot box.

Mad_Max · 15-05-2008 10:58pm

sink wrote: »

unanimous vote by the council over which we would have a veto, which would be controlled by the the Minister for Finance. I'm not sure if it will have to be ratified by the European Parliament, someone else might be able to answer that.

Thanks for that reply!!

Does this mean that if the majority votes to pass a legisaltion we can opt out of it?

Is there any real part of this that will be forced on us so to speak?

If not then I don't see how this can be as bad as it's been made out by some people.

I have to say i feel very ill informed and the information both parties are sending isn't helping me. I got more help from that message above than anywhere else i've looked.

wonz · 15-05-2008 11:08pm

if you are talkign about having a veto if you were in the EU once the Lisbon treaty has been ratified then NO, you would not have a veto. No one has a veto. Research qualified majority voting.

Briefly, it would take four countries to block a new law that is trying to be passed. They tell you this...but what you are not told is that it takes four countries PLUS 35% of the total european population (that is 171 million). the equation is:

LAW BLOCK = 4 countries + 35% pop (total population of 4 countries must be 171 miilion minimum)

So, if say Ireland, Sweden, Greece and Portugal wanted to block a law if wouldn't matter because their combined populations and not more than 35% of the total.

sink · 15-05-2008 11:29pm

Mad_Max wrote: »

Does this mean that if the majority votes to pass a legisaltion we can opt out of it?

More or less but the process is a little different. It would require a unanimous vote so a majority would not be able to pass it in the council. However separately from the council states are allowed to proceed alone through a process called enhanced co-operation, so theoretically a group of states could implement new tax regulations in their countries while other choose not to.

Mad_Max wrote: »

Is there any real part of this that will be forced on us so to speak?

No not in the area of tax policy.

Mad_Max wrote: »

If not then I don't see how this can be as bad as it's been made out by some people.

Generally confusing miss-information spread by people/parties/organisation with an ulterior agenda. Freedom of speech let's us know who the assholes are.

wonz wrote: »

if you are talkign about having a veto if you were in the EU once the Lisbon treaty has been ratified then NO, you would not have a veto. No one has a veto. Research qualified majority voting.

Unfortunately you have been miss-informed.

Referendum Commission wrote:

Areas to which Qualified Majority Voting applies

At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in civil matters and sport.

Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously – they include decisions on defence and taxation. This means that any Member State may veto a proposed change in these areas.

Mad_Max · 15-05-2008 11:34pm

Ok thanks again, wonz's post confused me a little.

That piece from the referendum commision is pretty nice to see. So if my understanding is now right, the only areas where laws can be brought in through majority rule are them. Thats not bad. I like the idea of some common criminal laws anyway.

So long as the only people that decide how much tax Irish workers pay is the Irish them i'm suitably happy.

I believe I shall vote yes at the minute.

Thanks again sink. Politics is hard

sink · 15-05-2008 11:35pm

Mad_Max wrote: »

Ok thanks again, wonz's post confused me a little.

That piece from the referendum commision is pretty nice to see. So if my understanding is now right, the only areas where laws can be brought in through majority rule are them. Thats not bad. I like the idea of some common criminal laws anyway.

So long as the only people that decide how much tax Irish workers pay is the Irish them i'm suitably happy.

I believe I shall vote yes at the minute.

Thanks again sink. Politics is hard

You're welcome, great to be appreciated.

ixtlan · 15-05-2008 11:46pm

Yes, sink beat me to the response on vetos.

I get the impression that people don't really understand the existing veto arrangements.

Mad_max asked about tax, but then asked a general question about vetos where laws might be imposed by Europe.

The reality is that Ireland has surrendered sovereignty in many areas in each of the treaties we have voted for. For those areas we do not have a veto and laws are already imposed on us. This system has been in place for many years, and is only extended slightly in Lisbon. I do not see this as a bad thing.

Can you think of any laws which we have been forced to enact which are clearly/obviously against what is right and what is in our self interest? The fact that some people don't even realise that we lost the veto in for example environmental matters is indicative that there is no issue. In fact most people seem to agree that the EU forces us to do what is right even when politically it's undesirable.

In answer to what areas are vetoable (a word?) and which are not, the reality is that most areas are now governed by QMV already. The only big areas left are taxation and foreign policy/defense, which ironically are the ones the no side keeps discussing. One would think that if QMV was so bad they would be pointing out the terrible decisions that had been foisted on us in other areas, yet their focus remains on the few areas where the veto remains.

Why? Well to be fair to the no side, I am sure they could find decisions which don't suit Ireland, but those would be difficult and dare I say it complex to explain. So they choose to take the easier option of saying Europe will tax us and force us into war.

Ix.

ixtlan · 15-05-2008 11:54pm

Mad_Max wrote: »

Ok thanks again, wonz's post confused me a little.

That piece from the referendum commision is pretty nice to see. So if my understanding is now right, the only areas where laws can be brought in through majority rule are them. Thats not bad. I like the idea of some common criminal laws anyway.

At the risk of pushing you back to a no... I'd like to make sure you understand that QMV is very widely used. There are now many many areas where laws can be brought in through majority rule.

"a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in criminal matters...and after Lisbon... energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in civil matters and sport."

Tax and defence/foreign policy still have the veto.

Ix.

Mad_Max · 16-05-2008 12:03am

ixtlan wrote: »

"a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in criminal matters...and after Lisbon... energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in civil matters and sport."

Tax and defence/foreign policy still have the veto.
Ix.

I don't see us doing much on energy anyway so i'm all for that one. Im a little more hesitant with immigration. I don't like the idea of someone in Brussels controllig that, i'd like it to be controlled by the dail, but i suppose our decisions have probably been swayed by the EU in the past anyway so will it make much difference?

I despise how the government deals with sport, ive hit many road blocks there so i'd gladly give them full control

This might be a silly question so forgive it

Are interest rates a part of this at all? Will the Central Bank lose the power to set our own rates?

This will actually be my first vote as I missed the last general election so I really want to get as informed as possible.

Thanks again guys, you've been more help than any politician so far

sink · 16-05-2008 12:04am

Because we chose to remain outside the schengen zone the majority of asylum, immigration and border control legislation don't matter to us. The only areas we don't have full control are human rights issues e.g workers rights and healthcare for immigrants. We still get to choose who we let in to our country regardless of any laws that EU might introduce.

sink · 16-05-2008 12:08am

Mad_Max wrote: »

This might be a silly question so forgive it Are interest rates a part of this at all? Will the Central Bank lose the power to set our own rates?

I've got news for you, we lost the right to set our own interest rates in 1999 when we signed up for the Euro. We haven't set interest rates for 9 years, all our interest rates are set by the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt.

Mad_Max · 16-05-2008 12:09am

sink wrote: »

I've got news for you, we lost the right to set our own interest rates in 1999 when we signed up for the Euro. We haven't set interest rates for 9 years, all our interest rates are set by the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt.

I did say it would be silly

Ive never really paid attention to this type of stuff as i've never had a chance to vote. Now im trying to play catch up on all this. I thought the central bank could still set rates even with the euro but that shows what i know

Edit: Am I right in thinking the main bone of contention with this treaty is the issue on defence/neutarility?

thebman · 16-05-2008 12:25am

nesf wrote: »

His point, most likely is, that not all public services are equal in this respect. The whole point of the Treaty with regard to this is that it allows Governments if they want to privatise some or keep them as public monopolies. It tells nothing about which should be which. It just forces privatised public services to abide by EU competition law, which is fair enough. If anything look at the EU countries in general, they favour public monopoly public services to a far higher degree than we do at present. They are more threatening to the right, not the left to be blunt and you ain't on the right mate.

Also, profit and quality are not mutually exclusive in the marketplace.

okay that would be one of my biggest fears removed

Thanks for this post

I think past attempts by the government to privatise public services have all been disastrous, partly becuase of favourtism of the companies when they are no longer state owned and partly because of stupid things like selling the national communications infastructure to a private monopoly :rolleyes:

That will still have huge negative effects on our economy especially the so called knowledge economy we are supposed to be developing.

I welcome EU regulation in this area as I understand it is at least being considered because in a number of countries the national regulators are jokes, ours probably being the worst of the bunch.

nesf · 16-05-2008 12:25am

ixtlan wrote: »

"a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in criminal matters...and after Lisbon... energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in civil matters and sport."

We, along with the UK have an opt-out for some of those. I can't remember which ones off the top of my head, I think criminal matters and immigration are two of them but I'm too lazy/tired to google and find out.

nesf · 16-05-2008 12:27am

brim4brim wrote: »

I welcome EU regulation in this area as I understand it is at least being considered because in a number of countries the national regulators are jokes, ours probably being the worst of the bunch.

Are our civil servants much better?

Yes, it is depressing.

sink · 16-05-2008 12:33am

Mad_Max wrote: »

Edit: Am I right in thinking the main bone of contention with this treaty is the issue on defence/neutarility?

You would be right, but it is again an attempt at miss-information as the lisbon treaty does not affect the state of Ireland's neutrality.

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 5:00pm

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/this-voter-is-for-eu-not-warfare-1378984.html

Sir -- I was a bit surprised to see my ugly old face leering out from an article by Pat Fitzpatrick giving five reasons for voting for the Lisbon Treaty, especially since I have spoken in the Senate giving reasons/arguments against the treaty and will be voting against it because of its commitment to increased militarisation and the endorsement of the armaments industry. I think it would be a very good thing for the Irish people alone in Europe -- who are being permitted a democratic input -- to give the meglocrats in Brussels a bloody nose with a message attached to it saying this is on behalf of ordinary people who do not want land mines, chemical weapons and resource wars.

The reason given by Pat Fitzpatrick for including me and for supporting Europe (which I do but not the treaty) was because of a case I won in Europe on the subject of the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between males in Ireland. However Mr Fitzpatrick gets the thing wrong.

I did not go to the European Court of Justice, which is indeed a function of the European Union, I went to the European Court of Human Rights which is a function of the Council of Europe. Indeed I recall some years ago at a COSAC meeting in the Luxembourg Palace in Paris I raised the sale by France of Alouette Helicopters to the Indonesians which were being used mercilessly to massacre the people of East Timor and being vigorously slapped down by the then French Foreign Minister Mr Alain Jupe who told me that this is an internal French matter and that I should well know that the European Union was not and I quote directly "a human rights association". So please don't enlist my victory in the European Court of Human Rights as a reason for voting 'Yes' to Lisbon.

Senator David Norris

He shares many peoples fears about the growing miltarisation of the EU

sink · 27-05-2008 5:11pm

johnnyq wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/this-voter-is-for-eu-not-warfare-1378984.html

He shares many peoples fears about the growing miltarisation of the EU

He sounds like he's scaremongering, for one thing landmines and chemical weapons are banned.

IRLConor posted a link to a good and balanced report by RTE on the limited changes in the defence area made by the lisbon treaty.

IRLConor wrote: »

There was a short analysis piece done on the 6.1 news last night about the defence parts of the Lisbon Treaty. I thought it was pretty clear and digestible, it's worth a look.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0526/6news_av.html?2379568
Skip down to the bit that says: "Sean Whelan, Europe Editor, analyses the elements of the Lisbon Treaty that affect military matters"

The first part is mostly about the European Defence Agency and there are soundbites from pro- and anti- spokesmen about that.

Then there's an explanation of the conditions under which Irish troops would be deployed with other EU troops and how Ireland stands with respect to a mutual defence pact.

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 5:32pm

sink wrote: »

He sounds like he's scaremongering, for one thing landmines and chemical weapons are banned.

IRLConor posted a link to a good and balanced report by RTE on the limited changes in the defence area made by the lisbon treaty.

I fail to see a motive for this 'scaremongering' to be honest.

Also, only anti-personel landmines are banned not anti-tank mines, cluster bombs or claymore-type mines.
The reference to chemical weapons again appears to only ban poison gas, no reference to nuclear weapons.

If I recall correctly that link never mentioned the requirement on Ireland to improve it's military capabilites and somewhat dismissed the EU battlegroups and defence pact.

Boggle · 27-05-2008 5:38pm

I asked this on the why yes thread but no-one answered so maybe someone here could help...

If at a future stage down the road the treaty is renegotiated or revised, how will it then be ratified? Would we, the people, have to vote again or would it be implicit that if the member states (ie politicians or whatever) pass it then any change can be made?

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 5:58pm

Boggle wrote: »

I asked this on the why yes thread but no-one answered so maybe someone here could help...

If at a future stage down the road the treaty is renegotiated or revised, how will it then be ratified? Would we, the people, have to vote again or would it be implicit that if the member states (ie politicians or whatever) pass it then any change can be made?

To my knowledge and using the referendum commission website, the change in this area is that the government can vote to change areas from unanimous voting (e.g. military) to majority voting in most areas (not certain if it is all areas) without needing a referendum to do so. This it is claimed will make the EU work more efficiently.

Using a military example (but i'm not sure if military comes under this)
If the EU wanted to oppose kurdish 'terrorism' in Turkey and send troops then at the moment all member states would have to agree. But after lisbon, the government here could vote to make this decision a majority one, so if say Ireland opposed this it would not matter since majority wins. It acts as a handy get out clause for our government really when you think about it.

The government can oppose an issue on the one hand but just vote to change the EU voting to majority voting and then vote no when it makes no difference anyway. All without the say of the Irish people in a referendum. Nice and um... efficient;)

Other than this though, to change in treaty itself e.g. to force Ireland into EU wars without the UN, another referendum would be required. But you have to wonder why would they need to bother to change the treaties in the future since, the gov can conveniently 'surrender' its vetos on many if not all issues.

Let's not forget Article 308 which allows the EU institutions to give themselves powers to enact the vagueness and incomprehensibitily of the treaties, but that's for another discussion!

sink · 27-05-2008 6:02pm

johnnyq wrote: »

I fail to see a motive for this 'scaremongering' to be honest.

So do I, he might just be confused.

johnnyq wrote: »

Also, only anti-personel landmines are banned not anti-tank mines, cluster bombs or claymore-type mines.

Anti-tank mines are much less dangerous to civilians. Firstly because they can not be set off by stepping on them, they require a large van or truck in most cases. Secondly they are much larger than anti-personnel mines and therefore easier to detect and disarm. Thirdly they are an out of date technology currently being replaced by Area-Denial smart weapons that can distinguish friend from foe and can be easily retrieved.

Cluster bombs are on there way towards being banned, hopefully! And claymore type mines are passive and require manual detonation in most cases, also they are paced on the surface and therefore are much easier to detect and disarm.

johnnyq wrote: »

The reference to chemical weapons again appears to only ban poison gas, no reference to nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not chemical weapons, they are physics weapons. They are also extremely expensive, complicated and difficult to produce, the chances of one ever being used in modern warfare are slim. Chemical/Biological weapons on the other hand are much easier and cheaper to produce and are far more likely to be used in warfare.

johnnyq wrote: »

If I recall correctly that link never mentioned the requirement on Ireland to improve it's military capabilites and somewhat dismissed the EU battlegroups and defence pact.

The Irish Defence Forces are constantly procuring new and upgrading old equipment anyway, they are not going to be doing anything different after the Lisbon treaty apart from saving money. The Battlegroups are voluntary and are already established under nice nothing about them is going to change under lisbon

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 6:16pm

sink wrote:

Anti-tank mines are much less dangerous to civilians. Firstly because they can not be set off by stepping on them, they require a large van or truck in most cases. Secondly they are much larger than anti-personnel mines and therefore easier to detect and disarm. Thirdly they are an out of date technology currently being replaced by Area-Denial smart weapons that can distinguish friend from foe and can be easily retrieved.

At least you accept that landmines are not banned. Alas none of what you said takes from the obvious obligatory investment in the armaments industry.

sink wrote:

Cluster bombs are on there way towards being banned, hopefully!

Sigh, so should we vote towards developing other weapons to create more advanced devastation only to have a conference in 200 years time to try and ban them?

sink wrote:

Nuclear weapons are not chemical weapons, they are physics weapons. They are also extremely expensive, complicated and difficult to produce, the chances of one ever being used in modern warfare are slim. Chemical/Biological weapons on the other hand are much easier and cheaper to produce and are far more likely to be used in warfare.

Wouldn't it be great if we were voting to move away from investing in weapons and actually invest towards tackling the causes of wars and devastations like poverty and injustice. Alas our EU constitution instead requires us to invest in the exaserbation of the devastition.

sink wrote: »

So do I, he might just be confused.

Or actually spot on

democrates · 27-05-2008 6:27pm

Mad_Max wrote: »

I did say it would be silly Ive never really paid attention to this type of stuff as i've never had a chance to vote. Now im trying to play catch up on all this. I thought the central bank could still set rates even with the euro but that shows what i know

Your attention is a key point which elitists don't like - give people a say and they'll give it some thought. As your first experience in citizen democracy this is straight into the deep end, a vast international treaty of great import.

Mad_Max wrote: »

Edit: Am I right in thinking the main bone of contention with this treaty is the issue on defence/neutarility?

There are other things to consider, and taking a step back to look at the wider strategic context is the first thing rather than getting snagged in debates on the detail of the Lisbon treaty in isolation - that's a fishing net used by the Yes side, and the proof that "Read the Treaty" is not the prime task in considering a vote is that various politicians gung-ho for a yes vote haven't felt the need to read it. This doesn't amount to a case for ignorance but note the duplicity and the fact that there are wider questions to consider.

So is th EU going in the right direction? 26 out of 27 member states citizens are being excluded from having a vote on Lisbon. The trend of excluding the people is clear over the last few major changes and this alone is enough reason to vote No, otherwise we'll prove that exclusion is the way to go in future.

European nations can co-operate on lots of things without having to adopt EU political centralisation which excludes the people. It is not necessary to have any situation in which a member state must adopt EU law regardless of what a majority of the people of that nation want.

People may argue that this is already the situation and it's not down to Lisbon, true, but strategically we're the only one out of 27 that can stop the train our 'representatives' are on. The current and proposed EU hegemony suits our politicians of course, blame it on Brussels and we, the people can whistle. No, Europeans need to win back our democracy, and it's down to us to draw that line in the sand.

sink · 27-05-2008 6:29pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Sigh, so should we vote towards developing other weapons to create more advanced devastation only to have a conference in 200 years time to try and ban them?

If you believe that new weapon development will ever stop you are being incredibly naive imo. New weapons are generally better at targeting specific targets. Without new weapons being developed in the last 25 years indiscriminate carpet bombing would still happen.

johnnyq wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if we were voting to move away from investing in weapons and actually invest towards tackling the causes of wars and devastations like poverty and injustice. Alas our EU constitution instead requires us to invest in the exaserbation of the devastition.

Unfortunately not everyone will respond to any other method but force, again believing anything else is being naive.

I don't think we are going to find agreement on this issue. I respect your opinion, but I just see things differently. At heart i'm a pacifist but reality and pragmatism keep getting in the way.

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 6:39pm

sink wrote: »

you are being incredibly naive imo......

Of course warfare is a part of life I don't deny that, but I don't want investment in warfare at the heart of the EU in it's constitution under another name. I don't want to vote in favour of a military union which places weapons ahead of real solutions.

sink wrote:

At heart i'm a pacifist but reality and pragmatism keep getting in the way.

The over a million slaughtered in Iraq were full witness to that pragmatism in action.:(

27-05-2008 6:45pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Of course warfare is a part of life I don't deny that, but I don't want investment in warfare at the heart of the EU in it's constitution under another name. I don't want to vote in favour of a military union which places weapons ahead of real solutions.

Do you actually think military spending goes down by 1 cent if Lisbon isn't ratified?
Lots of EU countries are in NATO and whats more their voters keep returning governments in favour of that.
It is quirky alright that this treaty should be making the running of the EU including it's military side for those that are that way inclined more streamlined.
It's quirky because that aspect of things has nothing to do with us.

Voting Yes or No on that issue alone is an immaterial waste of a vote.

sink · 27-05-2008 6:48pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Of course warfare is a part of life I don't deny that, but I don't want investment in warfare at the heart of the EU in it's constitution under another name. I don't want to vote in favour of a military union which places weapons ahead of real solutions.

I think we can do both, and imo the EU does place finding real solutions way ahead of military force

johnnyq wrote: »

The over a million slaughtered in Iraq were full witness to that pragmatism in action.:(

I was against the war btw, the whole thing from intelligence gathering to post-war planning was a complete mess. I support the Afgan war as I could not see any other option but to overthrow the taliban, the iraq war has damaged the prospect for peace there.

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 6:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you actually think military spending goes down by 1 cent if Lisbon isn't ratified?
Lots of EU countries are in NATO and whats more their voters keep returning governments in favour of that.
It is quirky alright that this treaty should be making the running of the EU including it's military side for those that are that way inclined more streamlined.
It's quirky because that aspect of things has nothing to do with us.

Voting Yes or No on that issue alone is an immaterial waste of a vote.

Hello Black Briar, I trust you will go back to page 1 of your own thread to see my other reasons for voting no.

I agree NATO has nothing to do with us at the moment. But why is NATO being mentioned in the EU Treaty? Unless of course some governments are after a merger of the two. :eek:

Ireland is part of the EU so any atrocity committed under the EU flag affects Ireland. To claim otherwise is a feeble attempt to wash blood off our hands.

Issues to do with NATO streamlining or efficiency should be done under the NATO command and not headlined in the EU 'constitution'.

BlackBriar wrote:

the EU including it's military side

You see I don't think the EU should have a military side in the first place especially with its lack of accountability to its citizens. If this was an open vote for a EU state then of course military would come under it. But the EU state was rejected by the French/Dutch. In my view, those military requirements should not be in the 95% same, rejected document which is the Lisbon Treaty.

turgon · 27-05-2008 7:12pm

I didnt want to start a new topic cause its like most others here, but the point I wanted to make was why should the EU have a common defense policy, when theres NATO. Why does every organizations created by mankind eventually have to involve war and guns.

Basically, if states want common foreign and defense policy, join NATO. No need for the EU to get involved. Or maybe theres some big point Im missing, if so tell me about it!!!

johnnyq · 27-05-2008 7:24pm

turgon wrote: »

I didnt want to start a new topic cause its like most others here, but the point I wanted to make was why should the EU have a common defense policy, when theres NATO. Why does every organizations created by mankind eventually have to involve war and guns.

Basically, if states want common foreign and defense policy, join NATO. No need for the EU to get involved. Or maybe theres some big point Im missing, if so tell me about it!!!

Unelected EU buricrats feel like they're missing out on the military action?

nesf · 27-05-2008 7:29pm

turgon wrote: »

I didnt want to start a new topic cause its like most others here, but the point I wanted to make was why should the EU have a common defense policy, when theres NATO.

Because NATO also has members who are very much not part of the EU? Also peacekeeping operations organised under an EU banner rather than a NATO banner wouldn't suffer from the problem of having the US attached and the ensuing problems with the states who need peacekeeping but who don't want to let an organisation that the US is part of do it. I don't think that NATO existing means we should completely drop the idea of an EU force of some description. If anything, it'd make me more in favour of it, i.e. a major non-US linked force.

turgon · 27-05-2008 7:34pm

So why shouldn't NATO reform, and introduce enhanced co-operation. And for peacekeeping isnt there the UN????

Why are YOU voting no ?

Comments