YES/NO Lisbon Treaty - In simple terms

Chong

I am not politically minded, can some one please explain to me in simple terms what the Lisbon treaty is.

chopperbyrne

You'd probably be best off posting in the politics forum if you want a serious response.

connundrum

No means the end of Eurovision. Vote No!

Chong

Nah they are too serious over there, I want a simple explanation.

Bard

From what I'm told a Yes vote is more Europe friendly, allows for a better run Europe, is better for Irish jobs and is fairer to other member states (allowing them all the chance to have a commissioner - we'd have one 10 out of every 15 years instead of every year).

A No vote is the opposite,- less inclusive, less productive and more selfish.

... from what I'm told anyway.

Z

Yes is just another small step in a long road to the USE that I don't really want to go down tbh...

kryogen

if you want to accept a european constitution replacing our own then vote yes by all means,we fought long enough for independance but we are slowly but surely giving all power to Brussels willingly anyway. if you value some of the independance/soverignty we still have and would like to keep our own constitution, make our most important decisions ourselves, then vote no

its all irrelevant anyway, this will be passed, one way or the other.

democracy is becoming the illusion of choice imo, rather then actual choice. i only say this because of a referendum we had once, where the country voted no, then the politicians said they would vote on it again (and again) until it passed. is that democracy?

biko

More in this forum. Also see the link in my signature.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1069

Country's largest craft union urges 45,000 members to vote No

The national executive of the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union is advising members to vote 'No' in the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. General Secretary Designate Eamon Devoy says, "The TEEU favours a social Europe but unfortunately recent key judgements by the European Court of Justice show that the pendulum has swung against workers' rights and in favour of big business. In the circumstances it would be foolish to provide the institutions of the European Union with more power."

leninbenjamin

Z wrote: »

Yes is just another small step in a long road to the USE that I don't really want to go down tbh...

this is mentioned where in the treaty? attitudes like that are just the result of scaremongering by the no campaign.

Winters

I'll be voting Yes as I am not a (complete) idiot.

The scaremongering of the No vote campaign posters with their clear lack of knowledge on the treaty annoys me.

Although, I did find this to be somewhat interesting

Sherifu

Cruijff wrote: »

I am not politically minded, can some one please explain to me in simple terms what the Lisbon treaty is.

This looks simple enough.

biko

I'll be voting No as I am not a (complete) idiot.

The scaremongering of the Yes vote campaign posters with their clear lack of knowledge on the treaty annoys me.

Lockstep

I'll be voting no, due to the European court Justice decision on the Laval Vaxholm case.

http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf/Facts_memorandum_detailed1.pdf

Essentially the lisbon treaty views freedom of competition as more important than a workers right to strike.

I am unable to support anything that does that.

Ciaran500

I haven't seen any scaremongering from the yes side...

ScumLord

The Man from del monte, he say yes to Lisbon. That's good enough for me. Voting yes just feels right.

Winters

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I haven't seen any scaremongering from the yes side...

Either have I..

Yet I would regard "They died for your freedom. Vote No" with a picture of the Irish proclamation to be a clear scaremongering tactic somehow implying that you are not Irish or stabbing the founders of the state in the back by voting Yes. Also the 'Libertas' (I see them on the Dart) "Europe's been good to Ireland. Lets keep it that way" is even funnier as by voting No we would probably no doubt loose out in Europe, particularly in the long run.

I dunno, all the (real) Political Parties and IBEC supporting a Yes vote would lay more weight with me then some disillusioned republications and pictures of funny monkeys..

Lockstep

I've personally seen scaremongering (We'll be kicked outta the EU if we vote no....")

Ciaran500

Winters wrote: »

Yet I would regard "They died for your freedom. Vote No" with a picture of the Irish proclamation to be a clear scaremongering tactic somehow implying that you are not Irish or stabbing the founders of the state in the back by voting Yes.

For anyone that hasn't seen it
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/395/17102008204rs3.jpg

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I've personally seen scaremongering (We'll be kicked outta the EU if we vote no....")

I saw someone posting that on here, but its no where near the scale the no side is doing it.

biko

40% of farmers are likely vote Yes to the the Lisbon Treaty while 33% say they are likely to vote No, according to a new poll.

However 27% farmers do not yet know which way they will vote on 12 June, according to the poll conducted by the Irish Farmers' Journal and RED C.

Out of the 619 farmers questioned, 78% described themselves as either 'quite concerned' or 'very concerned' about EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson's handling of the WTO talks. rte

Lockstep

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I saw someone posting that on here, but its no where near the scale the no side is doing it.

*shrugs*

TBH I'm guessing most people would be less likely to view something as scare mongering if they agree to the propaghanda's position.

biko

UK discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXSo0RyDSsc

kodute

The Danish ratified it, thats good enough for me!
They make really good butter biscuits! :pac:

Winters

Natural gas use has increased by 35 percent over the past ten years, and is projected to grow 45 percent by 2015.


Biko, your implying in your random statistics that the majority of Farmers who have decided are in support of the Treaty and with a further 27% undecided.

And you also say that a large majority who are concerned with an EU Trade Commissioner's handling of recent WTO talks. Their fears are for the existing EU reform of the Common Agricultural Policy are they not? And with a lot less to do with the Lisbon Treaty yet it seems simple to just mix the two together and urge a No vote by some campaigners.

*alt-tabs back to work*

Regardless of peoples own opinions on here, I would be more inclined for people to just read the information being sent out by the referendum committee and try and make their own mind up and see what is important to them. For me, myself I cannot see any benefits from a No vote, however I see many from a Yes vote and this is why I am voting Yes.

Lockstep

I see benifits in a yes vote.



But with the Laval/Vaxholm case......

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I voted yes.

gizmo

Winters wrote: »

Yet I would regard "They died for your freedom. Vote No" with a picture of the Irish proclamation to be a clear scaremongering tactic somehow implying that you are not Irish or stabbing the founders of the state in the back by voting Yes.

Don't forget the fantastic "It'll cost you!" posters for the No campaign either.

To be quite frank the No side has yet to put forward any argument to which there is a shred of truth behind. Their claims of losing control of sovereignty, security, taxation (or to be specific, Corporation Tax) and neutrality have all been debunked and despite the fact that it is now public knowledge, they still insist on spinning the same lies.

Winters wrote: »

Regardless of peoples own opinions on here, I would be more inclined for people to just read the information being sent out by the referendum committee and try and make their own mind up and see what is important to them. For me, myself I cannot see any benefits from a No vote, however I see many from a Yes vote and this is why I am voting Yes.

Couldn't agree more...

Lockstep

gizmo wrote: »

To be quite frank the No side has yet to put forward any argument to which there is a shred of truth behind.

Laval Vaxholm case?

Ciaran500

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Laval Vaxholm case?

Can you explain how it ties into the Lisbon Treaty? Don't really have time to read through that report and the word Lisbon isn't in it.

Winters

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But with the Laval/Vaxholm case......

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I voted yes.

Can you please explain as to why this one case (dated 2006/2007) is causing you to vote no? Is it due to your belief that the Treaty does not do ENOUGH to protect rights? And surly is that not a reason to vote yes and have them build on that foundation as opposed to throwing away the benefits the treaty could bring and foundation is will lay for the future?

Labour, a political party who are all know are a supporter of trade unions and workers right are campaigning for a Yes vote, maybe they can get past short-sightedness and see that the Treaty is an excellent building block to help fix what may not currently be inpalce due to various reasons

Lockstep

Summary of Laval Vaxholm case: In 2004 the firm Laval errected school buildings in Vaxholm near Stockholm and paid its Latvian employees according to Latvian rates. Because the enterprise refused to follow the Swedish industry-wide collective agreement, the trade unions organized industrial action and boycott measures. The lawsuit which was triggered off by this went up to the Swedish labour court of justice which called in the ECJ.

On December 18th, 2007, the ECJ judged, that the actions of the Swedish construction trade union were disproportionately against the Latvian enterprise Laval.. In a preliminary ruling it should be cleared whether industrial actions are permitted according to EU legislation to force foreign companies to follow the Swedish industry-wide collective agreement for foreign workers on Swedish soil (see report in the EWC News 4/2005).
This question is decided now. The judges confirmed the right to strike, but declared the actions taken against Laval as incompatible with the EU Posting Directive.

The Laval case accepted that the right to strike is a fundamental right, but not as fundamental a right as that of businesses to supply cross-border services.



While I think the EU has been a wonderfully progressive thing in the past, this ruling in ECJ makes me extremely wary of the direction the EU is going in.

Given that Lisbon Treaty would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU), I'm wary of what could result from that.



I've been an ardent Labour supporter since I was 15 but it baffles me as to why Labour are doing this given their history on the necessity of unions and striking.

Winters

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The judges confirmed the right to strike, but declared the actions taken against Laval as incompatible with the EU Posting Directive.

The Laval case accepted that the right to strike is a fundamental right, but not as fundamental a right as that of businesses to supply cross-border services.

While I think the EU has been a wonderfully progressive thing in the past, this ruling in ECJ makes me extremely wary of the direction the EU is going in.

So would you not agree that new rules and agreements to prevent this sort of thing and a foundation to build them on would be good for Europe?

By blocking the Lisbon treaty are you not blocking a foundation to build on to prevent the above from happening again?

Lockstep

If the EU hadn't shown such an attitude to unions and striking, then I'd possibly be voting yes.


Although I fail to see how voting yes will give it a better disposition towards a workers right to organise.

leninbenjamin

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'll be voting no, due to the European court Justice decision on the Laval Vaxholm case.

http://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf/Facts_memorandum_detailed1.pdf

Essentially the lisbon treaty views freedom of competition as more important than a workers right to strike.

I am unable to support anything that does that.

I strongly disagree. Workers rights are more encompassing than right to strike and unions. Europe increases rights laterally by making it easier to move from country and industry to industry and so forth. this is very important to me as the industry i seek to work in offers little to no opportunities in this country. without Europe i'd be f*cked. so if one takes the view that 'freedom of competition' is a tradeoff, then i'll happily take this. it's better than closed shop industries where prospects are limited and productivity slides.

Lockstep

I'm not advocating a closed shop. I'm a firm believer in the necessity of free movement within the EU.

You need to understand, this isn't a case of workers complaining about foreigners moving in taking their jobs and wimmin. Laval was not paying the Swedish minimum wage.

This case is nothing to do with that. It concerned the Lavel company bringing in foreign workers and paying them the minimum wage from their country (In this case Latvia)

The ECJ then supported this as freedom of competition over a workers right to strike.

This both exploits foreign workers and undercuts local workers.

Winters

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I've been an ardent Labour supporter since I was 15 but it baffles me as to why Labour are doing this given their history on the necessity of unions and striking.

If the EU hadn't shown such an attitude to unions and striking, then I'd possibly be voting yes.

As I said, maybe they are not so short sighted and can see the benefits and foundation it builds. Rejecting it is not going to change anything and can cause the problems you talk about to just happen again.

By EU you mean the 27 Judges? Maybe some new European wide agreements and laws for this sort of thing might help, and this is the sort of groundwork the treaty is putting place.

Art.79 TFEU ?

Article 79 TFEU

1. The Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.

There are many parts of it I see being of absolute and total benefit to both Ireland and Europe. I will admit, other parts I may not be so happy about but with such a large treaty the Pro's utterly do outweigh the Con's, imo.

Sanjuro

Winters wrote: »

Either have I..

Yet I would regard "They died for your freedom. Vote No" with a picture of the Irish proclamation to be a clear scaremongering tactic somehow implying that you are not Irish or stabbing the founders of the state in the back by voting Yes. Also the 'Libertas' (I see them on the Dart) "Europe's been good to Ireland. Lets keep it that way" is even funnier as by voting No we would probably no doubt loose out in Europe, particularly in the long run.

I dunno, all the (real) Political Parties and IBEC supporting a Yes vote would lay more weight with me then some disillusioned republications and pictures of funny monkeys..

Ya see, it really all comes down to who has the most money and highest production values and that's why democracy is fast becoming a joke. Instead of basing your decision on 'who has the nicest poster,' people should be actually investigating what voting yes or no (or for whichever person in an election) will mean for the country. Basing your decision on a poster is a ridiculous way of making a decision.

Lockstep

I'm not supporting the treaty given the EU position on the Laval Vaxholm case, as evident by it's ECJ.

I fail to see how voting sets a groundwork, given the referernces to no distortion of competition. The EU wants me to vote on this treaty, if I vote for it, I'm giving them what they want there. I hope they will offer me something in return. Such as a clause preventing the exploitation of foreign workers while undercutting Irish ones.

As I'm unhappy with the treaty, I will vote no. As you would if you were unhappy with the treaty. Hopefully this will allow changes to be implemented in a new addition to the Lisbon. Then I'd be supportive of it.

gizmo

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've read (albeit quickly) is that it's not that you're dissatisfied with the Treaty itself, more that you're angered by the recent judgment by the ECJ and what you feel is the direction it is going in.

Unfortunately your reference to Art.79 TFEU does not really do anything to back this claim up hence I'd wonder are there any other factors influencing your decision?

Winters

Sanjuro wrote: »

Ya see, it really all comes down to who has the most money and highest production values and that's why democracy is fast becoming a joke. Instead of basing your decision on 'who has the nicest poster,' people should be actually investigating what voting yes or no (or for whichever person in an election) will mean for the country. Basing your decision on a poster is a ridiculous way of making a decision.

Making posters which attempt to portray a Yes voter as not being Irish has nothing to do with production values, it is cheap underhanded scaremongering tactic, Id expect it from a 12 year old CIRA spray painting supporter. Not a campaigning group trying to get a serious message across. Same goes for the monkey poster.

You do not have to have high production values to create a poster with "Vote No/Yes" and a legitimate reason that does not resort to childish underhandedness. Sure, a "Vote No, Get Informed" and a website address would be cheaper in

Unfortunately, people (not THAT many [One owuld hope]) will vote based on the posters they see about. I had all ready made my mind up about this Treaty before posters went up when I read about it and researched it myself.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

As I'm unhappy with the treaty, I will vote no. As you would if you were unhappy with the treaty. Hopefully this will allow changes to be implemented in a new addition to the Lisbon.

Hate to be mean, but you seem to agree there are a lot of benefits in the current Treaty, yet you are voting No due to the outcome of one case which the treaty has no direct bearing over and your view that Europe is going in a different direction due to this one outcome.

Can you not see that by using the treaty you can fix these problems better than having to wait another 4+ years for a whole new treaty to be created after more problems and possibly even further cases (similar to the one case you have outlined) come to light. I would state that by passing it we can create an easier system in Europe to prevent those from happening again, and quicker.

No one treaty is ever going to fix every single problem. Particularly a problem that one came to strong light and focus at the end of last year following the ECJ's decision. The EU are hardly goign to re-write the Treaty to include this provision, but I'm sure they are using fore-sight to see that after Lisbon they can fix this problem, and both quicker and easier thanks to the Treaty.

Lockstep

The ECJ is the Supreme court of the European Union.


As such, I feel unable to support the EU on this, given my dubiosness on the direction that the EU is taking.

Art.79 TFEU refers to the "efficent management of migration flows".

Let's say someone moves into the EU from a third world country. THey'd most likely be willing to work for less money, granted it allows for "fair treatment" but that could be bent to mean they could be paid what is a fair wage to them, but still explotiative and undercutting european workers.

Rob_l

Eurpeans booed Dustin enough said Vote NO

leninbenjamin

kickoutthejams wrote: »

This case is nothing to do with that. It concerned the Lavel company bringing in foreign workers and paying them the minimum wage from their country (In this case Latvia)

you mean they subcontracted a Latvian company, who paid their Latvian employees hired in Latvia at the Latvian rates? that's what i call competition.

what you should be pushing is a EU wide minimum wage (which i'd agree with, and which would ironically need the current treaty to be passed frankly, as it represents a step towards a more integrated Europe)

Lockstep

Winters wrote: »

Hate to be mean, but you seem to agree there are a lot of benefits in the current Treaty, yet you are voting No due to the outcome of one case which the treaty has no direct bearing over and your view that Europe is going in a different direction due to this one outcome.

You're not being mean at all. I can fully understand your position here, but it's imperative to remember one thing: the ECJ is the highest court possible in the EU. I'm extremely wary of the EU for this reason and as such, suspicious of a treaty they want us to sign.

Winters wrote: »

Can you not see that by using the treaty you can fix these problems better than having to wait another 4+ years for a whole new treaty to be created after more problems and possibly even further cases (similar to the one case you have outlined) come to light. I would state that by passing it we can create an easier system in Europe to prevent those from happening again, and quicker.

Again, I understand what your saying but I don't see how the treaty will allow us to combat such measures.

Winters wrote: »

No one treaty is ever going to fix every single problem. Particularly a problem that one came to strong light and focus at the end of last year following the ECJ's decision. The EU are hardly goign to re-write the Treaty to include this provision, but I'm sure they are using fore-sight to see that after Lisbon they can fix this problem, and both quicker and easier thanks to the Treaty.

I fail to see why they could not address this within the Lisbon treaty. It'd make a huge difference and definetly help restore faith in the EU by unions.

leninbenjamin

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Let's say someone moves into the EU from a third world country. THey'd most likely be willing to work for less money, granted it allows for "fair treatment" but that could be bent to mean they could be paid what is a fair wage to them, but still explotiative and undercutting european workers.

hmmm... i see you're completely ignoring the flip side of the coin. what about the workers from the third world. should they not have a right to work? are they not allowed to increase their own prospects and welfare of their families?

frankly, Kick, your stance on this is very blinkered. understandable, but blinkered. and more importantly, further integration is NECESSARY for these issues to be resolved satisfactory to all parties. and a small stepping stone to this further integration is represented by the Lisbon treaty.

Lockstep

leninbenjamin wrote: »

you mean they subcontracted a Latvian company, who paid their Latvian employees hired in Latvia at the Latvian rates? that's what i call competition.

The company failed to sign a collective agreement with the workers. Under Swedish law, trade union action is therefore allowed. The company withdrew from collective agreements and brought in Lativan workers and paid them at their minimum wage. Not that of Sweden.

This is too much competition. It allows companys to bus workers in and out when it suits them and pay them at prices which significently undercut those of the host country. There is healthy competition and competition which the other party literally cannot do.

The Swedes pay far different taxes, based on their social security network. Bussing Latvians in to do the job at an undercut is unfair.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

what you should be pushing is a EU wide minimum wage (which i'd agree with, and which would ironically need the current treaty to be passed frankly, as it represents a step towards a more integrated Europe)

Problem with a Europe wide minimume wage: different ecnomys and social structures. What might get you by in Greece would not get you by in Luxembourg.

Winters

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I fail to see why they could not address this within the Lisbon treaty. It'd make a huge difference and definetly help restore faith in the EU by unions.

Generally as you cannot make a last second addition to a Treaty that takes years to create. There are many agreements, laws, regulations that all need to be taken in. The idea to wait till every possible problem comes to light then fix them in one big Treaty would be silly. But by one Treaty which covers the majority of them, and than as new ones come to light (Such as the case you speak of) fix that using the new system which would make it both easier and quicker.

In your attempt to protect workers right/pay/unions (Im running out to lunch so excuse me for not getting it right ) by voting No due to one single outcome you are going to absolutely hinder the EU from fixing the problems you speak of through the Treaty quickly and more efficiently. (etc. .. now, to lunch!)

Lockstep

leninbenjamin wrote: »

hmmm... i see you're completely ignoring the flip side of the coin. what about the workers from the third world. should they not have a right to work? are they not allowed to increase their own prospects and welfare of their families?

Of course they have the right to work. At a fair wage in their host country. Not being moved around to suit a company only interested in a profit.

My old man had to move jobs every few years because of the EU and it's tough enough.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

frankly, Kick, your stance on this is very blinkered. understandable, but blinkered.

Ok.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

and more importantly,
further integration is NECESSARY for these issues to be resolved satisfactory to all parties. and a small stepping stone to this further integration is represented by the Lisbon treaty.

I still fail to see how further integration will resolve this.

Lockstep

Winters wrote: »

Generally as you cannot make a last second addition to a Treaty that takes years to create. There are many agreements, laws, regulations that all need to be taken in. The idea to wait till every possible problem comes to light then fix them in one big Treaty would be silly. But by one Treaty which covers the majority of them, and than as new ones come to light (Such as the case you speak of) fix that using the new system which would make it both easier and quicker.

In your attempt to protect workers right/pay/unions (Im running out to lunch so excuse me for not getting it right ) by voting No due to one single outcome you are going to absolutely hinder the EU from fixing the problems you speak of and quickly using the new methods. (etc. .. now, to lunch!)

I don't see how the treaty will prevent companies from exploiting cheap labour. It might sure, but equally it might not.

Not something I'd personally take a chance on.

Given the EU's attitude on the Laval Vaxholm case, I cannot push for further integration.

Winters

So your going to stop the chance of the EU being able to do something by voting No and keeping it as it is?

I would assuming some change is better than no change at all. And particularly with some change creating a better model to make those future changes with....

Lockstep

Problem with change is that it could get worse.


I'll try and break my position down:

1)The ECJ ruled a certain way in the laval case.
2)I strongly disagree with this, and the ECJ is the supreme court of the EU.
3) The Lisbon treaty stands for greater EU integration.
4) Given my opposition to the EU's supreme court, I am wary of being further integrated in the EU.

Ciaran500

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You're not being mean at all. I can fully understand your position here, but it's imperative to remember one thing: the ECJ is the highest court possible in the EU. I'm extremely wary of the EU for this reason and as such, suspicious of a treaty they want us to sign.

So, you didn't like an outcome in the ECJ with this case and now to do something about that you are going to vote against an unrelated treaty that you think is beneficial.

leninbenjamin

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I still fail to see how further integration will resolve this.

because the entire single market effectively requires full integration to be realised. effectively this means in the long run we need to see homogeneity in all areas of the market, not just commodities, but labour, capital etc. this means that Latvian workers working at Latvian rates need to be able to compete with Irish/Swedish workers working at higher rates, until the two markets effectively adjust to the same level, becoming one. if we stay at the level of integration we are at now, the problems you point out will effectively remain, and arguably the imbalances between the countries will actually increase as the market isn't properly harmonised. further integration are needed to facilitate the harmonisation of the market at all levels (for example an increase in the EU budget to facilitate fiscal redistribution in response to the differing performances of the economies at EU level). Lisbon is a long way off to resolving any problems you mention, or indeed introducing the levels of integration i speak of, but if you believe in the single market it's a necessary small step.

otherwise we might as well just leave the EU, if we aren't able to accept the good with the bad that will inevitably arise.