Irish Friends vote 'No' for me (please!)

Benfatto

A short while ago, the following initiative was launched to fight the massive EU state and protect democracy and national sovereignty:



Dear Irish friends and friends of Europe,
I am a citizen of a EU member state. In my country, we have not been allowed to vote on the future of Europe. You, our friends in Ireland, alone have this right and are called to vote on the "Lisbon Treaty" on June 12th.
I reject this Treaty as undemocratic in conception and in content. Please, vote NO on this Treaty for me


http://www.irish-friends-vote-no-for-me.org/index.php?set_language=en&cccpage=sign_petition

Some companies are also protesting, this one is currently advertising on board.ie: http://freemontgroup.com/index.php?page=page/newsletter/news9.php

Why the Lisbon Treaty is bad for your wallet and your freedom

• European legislation supercedes national legislation; what the Lisbon Treaty will change in effect is that it takes away all rights of member states to veto a proposal, thus making it impossible for one member state to object to any detrimental legislation that might be proposed by another member state.
• Ireland's low tax rates are key for making it one of the richest countries in the world. Most EU member states however have higher tax rates than Ireland. Countries like Germany and France have repeatedly stated that they oppose tax competition, opposing in effect Ireland and other members. Already the European commission is working on a unified EU corporate tax rate. Recently it has been postponed untill after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states.
• The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU the possibility to extend their legislative powers into any political area. It is therefore only a matter of time before all issues will be centrally decided, including national taxation policies.
• As we speak, the European Union is already a major bureaucracy with huge overhead and without any control over its funds. The EU accounts have not been properly audited for many years. As this organisation grows, it is unlikely to become any more efficient, meaning that less money will be available to sustain Irish schools, hospitals, social services and infrastructure.
• The Lisbon Treaty is for 99% the same as the EU Constitution which was voted down in France and the Netherlands. European MP's have admitted that the Lisbon Treaty is a deliberate unreadable version of the old constitution, in order to retain the substance but avoid referenda and opposition. In other words, it is a cynical attempt to hide the fact that this treaty will end national sovereignity of the member states.

We at Freemont Group believe that the Lisbon Treaty is the biggest threat to our freedom since the fall of the Soviet Union. It bypasses our present democratic system and hands over legislative power into the hands of a small unknown group of politicians. All Europeans except the Irish are denied to have their say in a referendum. We urge the Irish people to do the right thing on behalf of all of us, and vote 'NO' for the Lisbon Treaty.


Need any more reasons to vote no?
Check out this Irish website and click on the little picture next to the intro: http://www.caeuc.org

jon1981

Benfatto wrote: »

• Ireland's low tax rates are key for making it one of the richest countries in the world. Most EU member states however have higher tax rates than Ireland. Countries like Germany and France have repeatedly stated that they oppose tax competition, opposing in effect Ireland and other members. Already the European commission is working on a unified EU corporate tax rate. Recently it has been postponed untill after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states.
  
  
  
  Need any more reasons to vote no?
  Check out this Irish website and click on the little picture next to the intro: http://www.caeuc.org

Wont Ireland will still retain its veto in this area, as does all the member states? Don’t forget, we don’t have the lowest corporate tax rate in Europe, Cyprus doesn’t and most Eastern EU countries have lower rates than the big states. And Britain will not be dictated 2 by Europe re tax either. We have allies, this is not the first time the tax issue has raised its head.

Benfatto

Although the Lisbon treaty does not deal with tax matters, it does allow the EU to expand their legislative powers into any area, something that cannot be vetoed. In other words, it's just a matter of time.

Do not expect your or England's politicians to do anything about it. Remember, they are lying to you right now and will keep on doing so. Their agenda's are different from the will of the people.

Gegerty

Benfatto wrote: »

Their agenda's are different from the will of the people.

They are people too.

Lets be clear, Europe cannot touch our corporation tax. Lets be clear about another thing, the celtic tiger would not have happened if it were not for EU support and funding. They dragged us out of the dirt, wiped us down and told us to run off and play. and we did, and we had fun, and there's more fun to come. Democracy is good people. world peace is good, an EU political power is good and we will be part of it.

jon1981

but whos agenda? you make it sound like its this third person imposing this treaty on us. was this not drafted up the EU which in turn means it was drafted up by the members?

molloyjh

Benfatto wrote: »

· European legislation supercedes national legislation; what the Lisbon Treaty will change in effect is that it takes away all rights of member states to veto a proposal, thus making it impossible for one member state to object to any detrimental legislation that might be proposed by another member state.

This is a very inaccurate interpretation of the Treaty. The Treaty is removing veto power for some policy decisions, not all. Furthermore Ireland has the option to opt out of a number of those areas. See the following link for the list of areas affected and the ones we can opt out of. There’s isn’t much in there worth worrying about.
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/LisbonTreaty_QMV_new_English.pdf

Benfatto wrote: »

· Ireland's low tax rates are key for making it one of the richest countries in the world. Most EU member states however have higher tax rates than Ireland. Countries like Germany and France have repeatedly stated that they oppose tax competition, opposing in effect Ireland and other members. Already the European commission is working on a unified EU corporate tax rate. Recently it has been postponed untill after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states.

The EU has no legal rights to modify our taxation policies, nor will they after Lisbon. There are countries that have a problem with our corporate tax as they feel its anti-competitive, but Lisbon will not allow them to do anything about that. The EU can work on unified tax rates all they want, we still have veto power over that legislation. And we’re not the only ones who would oppose it either. We may well at some point in the future end up with tax harmonisation in the EU, but Lisbon will have nothing to do with that.

Benfatto wrote: »

· The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU the possibility to extend their legislative powers into any political area. It is therefore only a matter of time before all issues will be centrally decided, including national taxation policies.

I have no idea what was used as the basis for this remark. It is blatantly untrue. The Treaty clearly sets out what will be decided by majority voting after Lisbon and what will require unanimity. There is what is being described as a self-amending Article in the Treat (308) which will allow the EU to make minor modifications to the Treaty without having to get consent from every member, every time, e.g. addition of new member states. However anything that, for example, will require modifications to the Constitution will still require a referendum.

Benfatto wrote: »

· As we speak, the European Union is already a major bureaucracy with huge overhead and without any control over its funds. The EU accounts have not been properly audited for many years. As this organisation grows, it is unlikely to become any more efficient, meaning that less money will be available to sustain Irish schools, hospitals, social services and infrastructure.

For a start the EU accounts have been properly audited. Additionally one of the main aims of the Lisbon Treaty is to make the EU more efficient so it is in fact very likely that that it will become more efficient.

It strikes me that there is a lot of scare-mongering and ill-informed people throwing around these accusations about the Lisbon Treaty. To my mind it seems that, while yes there are drawbacks, these are sufficiently negligible. The Treaty will make the EU more efficient and will give the EU a much stronger voice as a singular global body than we would have as a group of nations or than it currently has. Given all the benefits we’ve gotten from the EU over the years surely a more efficient EU is only a good thing for us? And with a more single, structured and solid foreign affairs position we can contribute more to the world stage. And I think that’s a very positive thing also as we in Europe do seem to have our heads screwed on a bit better than some other places, possibly to do with the fact that we’ve housed the majority of both World Wars here and are made up of both former Imperialist powers as well as Imperialist colonies. In this way we have seen where we have gone wrong in the past and have a unique perspective on certain situations.

Scofflaw

Benfatto wrote: »

Although the Lisbon treaty does not deal with tax matters, it does allow the EU to expand their legislative powers into any area, something that cannot be vetoed. In other words, it's just a matter of time.

Hmm. Grossly inaccurate. The Treaty contains the specific statement that competences not given to the EU by the member states cannot become EU competences.

Who would be most disadvantaged by allowing the EU to expand its powers as it pleased? The member states. Who wrote the Treaty? The member states.

So, you are asking us to believe that the member states sat down, and carefully negotiated something to the disadvantage of every single one of them. Amazing, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hotblack Desiato

Benfatto wrote: »

I am a citizen of a EU member state. In my country, we have not been allowed to vote on the future of Europe.

Take that up with your own government. They're the only ones preventing you from having a referendum, and the only ones who can bring one about. How dare you tell us how to vote!

Benfatto

molloyjh wrote: »

This is a very inaccurate interpretation of the Treaty. The Treaty is removing veto power for some policy decisions, not all. Furthermore Ireland has the option to opt out of a number of those areas. See the following link for the list of areas affected and the ones we can opt out of. There’s isn’t much in there worth worrying about.
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/LisbonTreaty_QMV_new_English.pdf


The EU has no legal rights to modify our taxation policies, nor will they after Lisbon. There are countries that have a problem with our corporate tax as they feel its anti-competitive, but Lisbon will not allow them to do anything about that. The EU can work on unified tax rates all they want, we still have veto power over that legislation. And we’re not the only ones who would oppose it either. We may well at some point in the future end up with tax harmonisation in the EU, but Lisbon will have nothing to do with that.

I have no idea what was used as the basis for this remark. It is blatantly untrue. The Treaty clearly sets out what will be decided by majority voting after Lisbon and what will require unanimity. There is what is being described as a self-amending Article in the Treat (308) which will allow the EU to make minor modifications to the Treaty without having to get consent from every member, every time, e.g. addition of new member states. However anything that, for example, will require modifications to the Constitution will still require a referendum.

Think again:

Three examples:

(a) The enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Article 308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty would extend this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

(b) the proposed "Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure" which would permit the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (Article 33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and

(c) the several "ratchet-clauses" or "passerelles" which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters( Article 69d.3.2), in criminal matters(Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (Article 69i.4), and in a number of other area

molloyjh wrote: »

For a start the EU accounts have been properly audited. Additionally one of the main aims of the Lisbon Treaty is to make the EU more efficient so it is in fact very likely that that it will become more efficient.

They have not been properly audited because it couldn't be done. Funds have disappeared, not filled, wasted. Here is the report from the auditors [WARNING: THIS MIGHT SHOCK YOU]
http://www.brugesgroup.com/COA2006Report.pdf

A quote from the auditor:
“It is tragic that British ministers and senior officials this year emerge as some of the biggest culprits. Their incompetence, especially in getting to grips with EU agriculture grants, sets a feeble example.

“But the Commission must continue to shoulder the blame for a system that clearly remains endemic with corruption, waste and fraud.”

molloyjh wrote: »

It strikes me that there is a lot of scare-mongering and ill-informed people throwing around these accusations about the Lisbon Treaty. To my mind it seems that, while yes there are drawbacks, these are sufficiently negligible. The Treaty will make the EU more efficient and will give the EU a much stronger voice as a singular global body than we would have as a group of nations or than it currently has. Given all the benefits we’ve gotten from the EU over the years surely a more efficient EU is only a good thing for us? And with a more single, structured and solid foreign affairs position we can contribute more to the world stage. And I think that’s a very positive thing also as we in Europe do seem to have our heads screwed on a bit better than some other places, possibly to do with the fact that we’ve housed the majority of both World Wars here and are made up of both former Imperialist powers as well as Imperialist colonies. In this way we have seen where we have gone wrong in the past and have a unique perspective on certain situations.

It strikes me that some people can be so naive

But maybe you don't want to listen to me, so let's see what the people who wrote this treaty have to say about it:

WHAT TOP EU POLITICIANS SAY ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY/ EU CONSTITUTION
(These quotations are in chronological order backwards)
“France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments… A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
_______
“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
______
‘ “I think it’s a bit upsetting… to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity”, Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday 21 October, according to the Irish Independent. ‘If you believe in something …why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn’t be so afraid of it,’ he added. “
- Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007
______
“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
- Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
_____
“Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire.”
- Commission President J-M Barroso, The Brussels Journal, 11 July 2007
_____
“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
____
” The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.”
- Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007
_____
“The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007
_______
The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.”
- Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007
_______
“The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’ “.
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007
______
“90 per cent of it is still there…These changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
____
“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007
____
“The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
____
“Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable … I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?”
- Commission President Jose M. Barroso, Irish Times, 8 Feb.2007; quoting remarks in Het Financieele Dag and De Volkskrant, Holland; also quoted in EUobserver, 6 February 2007
_____
” It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin … Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive … The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament … And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country … The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation … Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this.”
- Former German President Roman Herzog and former president of the German Constitutional Court, article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007
_______
“If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go”, and if it’s a No we will say ‘We continue.’”
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005
________
“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004
_____
“Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001

Benfatto

ninja900 wrote: »

Take that up with your own government. They're the only ones preventing you from having a referendum, and the only ones who can bring one about. How dare you tell us how to vote!

Look at the topic, doesn't it say 'Please'?

Thomaas1918

I'm a foreigner as well and I would be voting against it but unfortunately our government forgot to ask us. And why? I can give you some good reasons to vote no even before you start reading Lisbon treaty.

BEHAVIOR
I'm not English native speaker and EU banned translations into other languages. So you are one of 2 nations in the whole EU who can actually read it! Our parliament as well as other ones will vote for/against something that they've never read. They can change lives of 0,5 billion people and they don't know how.

EU has created something and it wants me to agree and obey and they don't even bother to provide it in my language and explain it to me? Sorry, but there is one very good rule I always follow: never ever sign something that you didn't carefully read and fully understand.


FORM
Lisbon treaty is a mess. It is about 300 pages of amendments to other 3000 pages of other treaties. You would have to put together many treaties, add amendments from that 300 page document and than read it. I think you won't be surprised that EU won't do it and is not happy if somebody does. What are they hiding? Why don't they come with some user friendly form to show us how good it is?

For more details watch this video, where a member of EU parliament explains details about the form etc.: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rvQp0E1UZxU

full length video: http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=173

DIRECTION
We were told that EU was created to support free movement of people, capital and services before we joined. Check it nowadays - it is everything but this. People from one country can't work in an another one, market is over regulated. There are thousands of bureaucrats we have to pay and they have to make themself useful.

What they are trying to do is to create United States of Europe. It was here before - it was called Soviet Union. It was created by force, it was centrally governed by unelected oligarchy and they were fighting opposition. There was no free speech. It was totally inflexible and it collapsed after few decades with huge impact on people. Twenty years after the collapse there are still civil wars, local dictators and ruined economy. There are many Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians etc. living in Ireland. Ask them how it was living in Soviet Union!

"Wait", you say, "that was East Europe. This is West Europe, this can never happen here." Oh, really, are you sure? European Commission is unelected (creates all EU laws) and EU president will not be elected either. They use dirty tricks to make USE happen (Lisbon treaty is first step). We don't have to argue about flexibility, right?

Well, at least nobody fights opposition and we have free speech here... Unfortunately, I have bad news for you - it has already begun:

Plans to eliminate Eurosceptics as an organised opposition within the European Parliament are expected to be agreed by a majority of MEPs this summer.

(read more)


For more details about Soviet Union and USE watch this video (only 4:36):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU

Some people say that if you vote no you'll betray Europe and nobody will like you. That is not true. It is investigated by at least 2 constitutional courts (Czech Republic, Germany) and it is not sure that it will pass. There are many organizations fighting against Lisbon treaty as well. Generally said, it is not very popular. I'd like to live in cooperating and strong but free Europe. EU is heading wrong way and Lisbon treaty is big step in this movement.



Some other videos to watch if you didn't before:
Referendum support in EU parliament

Lisbon treaty is a constitution

Dinner

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

I'm not English native speaker and EU banned translations into other languages. So you are one of 2 nations in the whole EU who can actually read it!

You did a pretty good job at typing english (if you did in fact type it and it's not just a copy and paste). So why don't you do your country a public service and translate it and post it on the internet for all your countryfolk!

If you're so angry about nopt getting a vote on it then take it up with your government and stop trying (Like the OP) to get us to vote on your behalf, I'll be voting on my behalf and my country's behalf, not a bunch of pissed off europeans.



Also, to the OP; a rather non-specific and perfectly constructed post there, are they your own words or is it a copy and paste on behalf of Libertas' continental friends?

djpbarry

Benfatto wrote: »

Three examples:

(a) The enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Article 308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty would extend this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

(b) the proposed "Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure" which would permit the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (Article 33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and

(c) the several "ratchet-clauses" or "passerelles" which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters( Article 69d.3.2), in criminal matters(Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (Article 69i.4), and in a number of other area

Three examples of what? I'm not sure what you're point is here.

Benfatto wrote: »

They have not been properly audited because it couldn't be done.

So what's this report produced by the CAO every year?

Benfatto wrote: »

Funds have disappeared, not filled, wasted. Here is the report from the auditors [WARNING: THIS MIGHT SHOCK YOU]

I'm looking for the "shocking" bit (not looking very hard mind you, because I don't have the time to read the whole thing) and I'm not finding it - perhaps you could help us out here?

Benfatto wrote: »

A quote from the auditor:
“It is tragic that British ministers and senior officials this year emerge as some of the biggest culprits. Their incompetence, especially in getting to grips with EU agriculture grants, sets a feeble example.

“But the Commission must continue to shoulder the blame for a system that clearly remains endemic with corruption, waste and fraud.”

Source? Context?

Benfatto wrote: »

But maybe you don't want to listen to me, so let's see what the people who wrote this treaty have to say about it:

WHAT TOP EU POLITICIANS SAY ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY/ EU CONSTITUTION

Again, what's your point here?

Copying and pasting reams of text from the web is all very well and good, but it doesn't make for a very coherent argument.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

I'm not English native speaker and EU banned translations into other languages.

Absolute horse****; the treaty (like all EU documents) is available in all the official languages of the EU. It's even available in Irish FFS!

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

Why don't they come with some user friendly form to show us how good it is?

You mean like some sort of website available in all the official languages of the EU? A website like this one?

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

People from one country can't work in an another one...

Last time I checked, I could work in any EU country I want. So can you as far as I know, so where are you getting this **** from?

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

What they are trying to do is to create United States of Europe.

No they are not. People don't want it, so it won't happen.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

"Wait", you say, "that was East Europe. This is West Europe, this can never happen here." Oh, really, are you sure?

Pretty sure, yeah.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

They use dirty tricks to make USE happen (Lisbon treaty is first step).

Prove it.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

Generally said, it is not very popular.

I beg to differ; latest opinion polls in Ireland showed strong support for the treaty.

Are ANY of your claims based on facts?

robindch

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

I'm not English native speaker and EU banned translations into other languages. So you are one of 2 nations in the whole EU who can actually read it!

Complete rubbish. You can download your native language edition of the Treaty of Lisbon from one of the twenty-three language editions available as PDF's from here:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.asp?lang=en&id=1296&mode=g&name=

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

EU has created something and it wants me to agree and obey and they don't even bother to provide it in my language and explain it to me? Sorry, but there is one very good rule I always follow: never ever sign something that you didn't carefully read and fully understand.

See above. Download it. Then read it.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

Lisbon treaty is a mess. It is about 300 pages of amendments to other 3000 pages of other treaties. You would have to put together many treaties, add amendments from that 300 page document and than read it. I think you won't be surprised that EU won't do it and is not happy if somebody does. What are they hiding? Why don't they come with some user friendly form to show us how good it is?

You don't seem to have done much research on this -- the EU has provided consolidated editions and it is hiding nothing.

Please see the link above and click on whichever of the twenty-three "Consolidated Versions" happens to be in you native language.

BTW, you get to the above page if you google for "Lisbon treaty" and click on the "Consolidated text" link.

(* just saw djpbarry's post; sorry for duplication )

Thomaas1918

Generally regarding the translation: I've again double checked it and our government did their own, unofficial and non-committal (of course) translation. Waste of time to read it. Last article about this is dated back to 21st May 2008 so it is not old at all. There can be lack of communication between EU and our government but I find this highly suspicious. Or they can't use Google .

I should be more specific and say that I was talking about official translation, my mistake.


[FONT=&quot]Arabel:[FONT=&quot] thanks but no, I'm not going to do other people's work.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

djpbarry: there are 1st class citizens like you, then 2nd class and 3rd class citizens like me or others. Check it again for other countries. Pick some from Middle or East Europe, if I can suggest.

Lisbon treaty is dirty trick - only one referendum??? Have you watched those videos?

Generally I like your believe in democracy and authorities. I grew up in country where people did this mistake 70 years ago and we are still not fully recovered. Future will show who was right.

'User-friendly form' is not downloadable pdf full of color and with a cool font. It is a document as short as possible that states only very basic rules and processes and that allows very few or no multiple interpretations so most of the citizens can read it and fully understand. This is what I call constitution.[/FONT][/FONT]

Hotblack Desiato

Benfatto wrote: »

Look at the topic, doesn't it say 'Please'?

On reflection, what I posted was worded too strongly and I apologise.

Let's agree that you are 'strongly encouraging' us to vote a certain way. Which is fair enough. But this sort of thing might backfire for both the No side and the Yes side!

We Irish people certainly don't like being told what to do by people from other countries, a sore point from our history. I don't think Barosso was 'telling' us what to do last week, but a lot of the media here tried to spin it that way and were very hostile to what he said. Equally I'm sure a lot of people do not appreciate the letter writing campalgns, etc. coming from the No side in other countries.

Hotblack Desiato

The strategy of repeating nonsense often enough appears to work though, judging by the latest poll http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308034

Benfatto

djpbarry wrote: »

Three examples of what? I'm not sure what you're point is here.

You are not the brightest light in the sky are you? These are self amending articles, and there are much more of them in the treaty.

djpbarry wrote: »

So what's this report produced by the CAO every year?
I'm looking for the "shocking" bit (not looking very hard mind you, because I don't have the time to read the whole thing) and I'm not finding it - perhaps you could help us out here?
Source? Context?
Again, what's your point here?

This ìs the official accountants report, smartypants.
The quote is from some of the auditors called Lee Rotherham. You don't have to look far for shocking statement:

COMMISSION MONEY IT HANDED OVER IS HUNDREDS OF MIILIONS OUT
“The Court’s audit has identified errors in amounts registered in the accounting system as invoices/cost statements and pre-financing which have the effect of overstating the accounts payable by some 201 million euros and the total amount of long and short term pre-financing by some 656 million euros.” (p.14)

http://www.brugesgroup.com/COA2006Report.pdf

djpbarry wrote: »

Copying and pasting reams of text from the web is all very well and good, but it doesn't make for a very coherent argument.

These are quotes from the people who made this treaty, people in charge, people who know what it is about. If you are debasing this as 'copy pasting reams of text' you are not worth discussing with cause you ignore evidence even when it's right in front of you.

I will put them here again for all to see:

WHAT TOP EU POLITICIANS SAY ABOUT THE LISBON TREATY/ EU CONSTITUTION
(These quotations are in chronological order backwards)

“France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments… A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007
_______
“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary … But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007
______
‘ “I think it’s a bit upsetting… to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity”, Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern said on Sunday 21 October, according to the Irish Independent. ‘If you believe in something …why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn’t be so afraid of it,’ he added. “
- Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, EU Observer, Brussels, 22 October 2007
______
“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
- Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
_____
“Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire.”
- Commission President J-M Barroso, The Brussels Journal, 11 July 2007
_____
“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
____
” The most striklng change ( between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibilty has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.”
- Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007
_____
“The substance of the constitution is preserved.That is a fact.”
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007
_______
The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters - the core - is left.”
- Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister, Jyllands-Posten, 25 June 2007
_______
“The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term ‘constitution’ “.
- Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007
______
“90 per cent of it is still there…These changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004.”
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007
____
“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007
____
“The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
____
“Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable … I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU much more difficult. If a referendum had to be held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?”
- Commission President Jose M. Barroso, Irish Times, 8 Feb.2007; quoting remarks in Het Financieele Dag and De Volkskrant, Holland; also quoted in EUobserver, 6 February 2007
_____
” It is true that we are experiencing an ever greater, inappropriate centralisation of powers away from the Member States and towards the EU. The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Results: 84 percent come from Brussels, with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin … Against the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, the essential European legislative functions lie with the members of the executive … The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers, and not by the German Parliament … And so the question arises whether Germany can still be referred to unconditionally as a parliamentary democracy at all, because the separation of powers as a fundamental constituting principle of the constitutional order in Germany has been cancelled out for large sections of the legislation applying to this country … The proposed draft Constitution does not contain the possibility of restoring individual competencies to the national level as a centralisation brake. Instead, it counts on the same one-way street as before, heading towards ever greater centralisation … Most people have a fundamentally positive attitude to European integration. But at the same time, they have an ever increasing feeling that something is going wrong, that an untransparent, complex, intricate, mammoth institution has evolved, divorced from the factual problems and national traditions, grabbing ever greater competencies and areas of power; that the democratic control mechanisms are failing: in brief, that it cannot go on like this.”
- Former German President Roman Herzog and former president of the German Constitutional Court, article on the EU Constitution, Welt Am Sonntag, 14 January 2007
_______
“If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go”, and if it’s a No we will say ‘We continue.’”
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005
________
“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.”
- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21 June 2004
_____
“Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity. Do we realise that our nation states, taken individually, would find it far more difficult to assert their existence and their identity on the world stage.”
- Commission President Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 February 2001

Benfatto

ninja900 wrote: »

The strategy of repeating nonsense often enough appears to work though, judging by the latest poll http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308034

Some people do see that the emperor has no clothes on

redspider

I think there is a basis as to why non-Irish people want to let us know their opinions. Irish people have the responsibility of not only voting on Lisbon considering the interests of Ireland, but also the interests of all EU member states, as we are the only people who are being consulted on this set of proposed changes. We de facto have an EU-wide responsibility as well as an Irish one, whether we like it or not. We cant just say that each county is on its own - in fact, that approach is not very european at all!

Given that Lisbon is a slightly amended version of the EU Constitution which was not passed, it would be naive and stupid of us to ignore the way other people in other countries have voted in the past, for essentially the same set of proposals.

> latest opinion polls in Ireland should strong support for the treaty.

You need to update this! The latest poll is now 35% 'No', 30% 'Yes'. There are still a lot of undecided.

I myself think that there are many people voting Yes that do not know the full set of consequences. I think there are obfuscations in the treaty that may only be determined by the European Courts if challenged, and areas of competence and veto rules etc are not cast in stone as no country can veto all they like as they will lose out on co-operation in other aspects. Its all politics.

The question is whether 27 countries can work well with the current set of rules or work better with the proposed new set. Also, is there yet a better version of rules possible that will make it work better again? There is no reason why a new and better treaty cannot be negotiated. Voting Yes to this treaty because it is the only one presented so far is madness.

A lot of FUD has been generated from both sets of campaigners. Some of the oversimplistic remarks from the FF Yes side have been nauseating, such as 'look what Europe has done for us', etc, etc. This is not what the vote is about, a 4 year old can see that so for FF ministers to be throwing that line out really shows what they think of the electorate.

The No camp have also perpetuated falicies.

Irish voters have a lot of responsibility, and should vote wisely !

Redspider

Gegerty

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

What they are trying to do is to create United States of Europe. It was here before - it was called Soviet Union.

So whats Europe about if its not about creating a federal state? Why did you join the EU if you don't want a federal state? Why is that bad? It will not make us all American. As for comparing it to the soviet union, give me a break!

From an Irish perspective we have got nothing but good from the EU and nothing to fear. Every decent law in this country comes down from Europe (exception of the smoking ban, which came from California )

is_that_so

redspider wrote: »

I think there is a basis as to why non-Irish people want to let us know their opinions. Irish people have the responsibility of not only voting on Lisbon considering the interests of Ireland, but also the interests of all EU member states, as we are the only people who are being consulted on this set of proposed changes. We de facto have an EU-wide responsibility as well as an Irish one, whether we like it or not. We cant just say that each county is on its own - in fact, that approach is not very european at all!

Yes we do have a responsibility but not where it extends to telling individual countries how they should approach ratification of treaties.
Many other EU countries pass this mandate to their national parliament who in turn have been mandated by the people.

Given that Lisbon is a slightly amended version of the EU Constitution which was not passed, it would be naive and stupid of us to ignore the way other people in other countries have voted in the past, for essentially the same set of proposals.

I myself think that there are many people voting Yes that do not know the full set of consequences. I think there are obfuscations in the treaty that may only be determined by the European Courts if challenged, and areas of competence and veto rules etc are not cast in stone as no country can veto all they like as they will lose out on co-operation in other aspects. Its all politics.

The question is whether 27 countries can work well with the current set of rules or work better with the proposed new set. Also, is there yet a better version of rules possible that will make it work better again? There is no reason why a new and better treaty cannot be negotiated. Voting Yes to this treaty because it is the only one presented so far is madness.

It is but one achieved after some very very lengthy negotiations. You may recall the Poles jumping up and down about the voting process and even ICTU making No vote threats amongst other things. To me this implies that the original negotiators were not capable of delivering a treaty and therefore would probably not be capable of doing so now. It evokes a vision of bouncing treaties forwards and backwards for the next 10 years until they get it "right".

A lot of FUD has been generated from both sets of campaigners. Some of the oversimplistic remarks from the FF Yes side have been nauseating, such as 'look what Europe has done for us', etc, etc. This is not what the vote is about, a 4 year old can see that so for FF ministers to be throwing that line out really shows what they think of the electorate.

The Yes campaign has been abysmal and seems to consist of local councillors getting their pictures on posters.
Although picking on the Yes ignores the even more simplistic No "fear" campaign.

The No camp have also perpetuated falacies.

Innumerable.

djpbarry

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

I should be more specific and say that I was talking about official translation, my mistake.

So what would you regard as an "official" translation?

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

there are 1st class citizens like you, then 2nd class and 3rd class citizens like me or others.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

'User-friendly form' is not downloadable pdf full of color and with a cool font. It is a document as short as possible that states only very basic rules and processes and that allows very few or no multiple interpretations so most of the citizens can read it and fully understand.

So you don't like the website then? It seems to me that you want the EU to spoon-feed the electorate.

Benfatto wrote: »

These are self amending articles, and there are much more of them in the treaty.

No **** :rolleyes:. Still waiting for your point...

Benfatto wrote: »

The quote is from some of the auditors called Lee Rotherham.

Source?

Benfatto wrote: »

COMMISSION MONEY IT HANDED OVER IS HUNDREDS OF MIILIONS OUT

I have no idea what this means, but with regard to the text you quoted - is that not the whole point of carrying out an audit? You've also conveniently overlooked the paragraph preceding the one you quoted:

European Court of Auditors wrote:

VII. In the Court’s opinion, except for the effects of the matters described in paragraph VIII, the ‘Final annual accounts of the European Communities’ present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Communities as of 31 December 2006, and the results of their operations and cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

Benfatto wrote: »

These are quotes from the people who made this treaty, people in charge, people who know what it is about. If you are debasing this as 'copy pasting reams of text' you are not worth discussing with cause you ignore evidence even when it's right in front of you.

Evidence of what? What's your point?

redspider wrote: »

Irish people have the responsibility of not only voting on Lisbon considering the interests of Ireland, but also the interests of all EU member states, as we are the only people who are being consulted on this set of proposed changes. We de facto have an EU-wide responsibility as well as an Irish one, whether we like it or not.

We most certainly do not; how each of the other member states intend to ratify the treaty has absolutely nothing to do with us and should have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the Irish referendum.

redspider wrote: »

Given that Lisbon is a slightly amended version of the EU Constitution which was not passed, it would be naive and stupid of us to ignore the way other people in other countries have voted in the past, for essentially the same set of proposals.

While I disagree with this approach, if that's the way you feel, then you should be voting yes. The constitution was ratified by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Finland, Germany and Slovakia; only France and the Netherlands rejected it. Voting ‘No’ to Lisbon just because the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution is just plain stupid.

redspider wrote: »

Also, is there yet a better version of rules possible that will make it work better again? There is no reason why a new and better treaty cannot be negotiated.

A better treaty for Ireland or for Europe? Better how?

Thomaas1918

Gegerty wrote: »

So whats Europe about if its not about creating a federal state? Why did you join the EU if you don't want a federal state? Why is that bad? It will not make us all American. As for comparing it to the soviet union, give me a break!

From an Irish perspective we have got nothing but good from the EU and nothing to fear. Every decent law in this country comes down from Europe (exception of the smoking ban, which came from California )

It was imho originally created as an economical pact and now it is more and more political. I agree that we need to band together but you can't create federation against majority wish. This will escalate national feelings. Free market and removing borders is good enough for me. I wouldn't go any further.

EU is to far and to 'virtual' for most people to take care. Centralized power was never a good idea and it is not good idea in Europe either.

So what would you regard as an "official" translation?

The problem is that in texts like Lisbon treaty every single comma can dramatically change meaning of the sentence. You can do your best while translating it but than can somebody come and say "wait, we didn't mean it this way." Czech and English grammar are completely different and you have to be very creative if you want translate something. I don't think that Lisbon treaty is good a place for creativity. Our government explicitly stated that EU refused to provide official translation. So until somebody comes and says that this is an official obligatory translation, I'll act like there is no one .

I have no idea what you're talking about.

There were few waves of new members and they joined with different conditions. So I can't work in Germany, Austria etc. without work permission. We joined EU in 2004 but become part of Schengen in Dec 2007. To make long story short - old members are protecting themselves against new members. So the originally idea of free market and movement got lost somehow.

So you don't like the website then? It seems to me that you want the EU to spoon-feed the electorate.

No, I don't like the treaty itself . It is too long and to complicated. Look in the USA - they have short constitution with few amendments and still they are arguing about it for last hundred years or so and they are not able to follow it. Can you imagine what will happen if Lisbon treaty becomes true? As I said before - constitution should be short and straight forward so (almost) everybody can understand it.

Scofflaw

Thomaas1918 wrote:

It was imho originally created as an economical pact and now it is more and more political. I agree that we need to band together but you can't create federation against majority wish. This will escalate national feelings. Free market and removing borders is good enough for me. I wouldn't go any further.

Hmm. The question is, is that the majority view? Every country in the EU is a democracy, and time after time, they elect governments that favour a good deal more than "free market and removing borders".

The other question is - if Ireland votes No, is that the 'majority opinion' - or just the slightly majority opinion of a those who actually vote out of, in turn, a tiny minority (1%) of the EU?

Thomaas1918 wrote:

EU is to far and to 'virtual' for most people to take care. Centralized power was never a good idea and it is not good idea in Europe either.

Well, one wonders how it is, then, that every modern state is centralised - much more centralised than the EU?

It's also slightly ironic that the claim that the EU is too centralised is used as a rallying cry in a referendum held by 1% of the population (physically located on the periphery!) whose outcome will determine the course of said 'over-centralised' institution comprising 500 million.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Benfatto

djpbarry wrote: »

No **** :rolleyes:. Still waiting for your point...

amendment Definition

amend·ment (ə mend′mənt)
noun

1. a change for the better; improvement
2. a correction of errors, faults, etc.
3. 1. a revision or addition proposed or made in a bill, law, constitution, etc.
   2. the process of making such changes

In this case the third connotation. Self amending means that changes can be made based on the constitution itself, in effect making such changes limitless.

Self amending articles allow the EU to increase it's legislative powers into any area deemed appropriate, increasing the scope of what you really be voting for on the 12th.

djpbarry wrote: »

Source?

http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/releases.live?article=13787

djpbarry wrote: »

I have no idea what this means, but with regard to the text you quoted - is that not the whole point of carrying out an audit? You've also conveniently overlooked the paragraph preceding the one you quoted:

I have not conveniently overlooked that paragraph: such concluding paragraphs are common in conclusions meant to deceive.
In the actual reports this is what you can find:

EU Unfit for Purpose: So EU Court of Auditors report indicates

The European Union Court of Auditors key assessment on how our money is spent.
In a damning indictment of the Brussels institutions, the clear message of the EU's very own Court of Auditors report is one of fraud, mismanagement and waste.

read more

djpbarry wrote: »

Evidence of what? What's your point?

Deceit


But again, you cannot recognize evidence even when it's right in front of you.

Let me give you a
prediction

Scofflaw

Benfatto wrote: »

In this case the third connotation. Self amending means that changes can be made based on the constitution itself, in effect making such changes limitless.

Self amending articles allow the EU to increase it's legislative powers into any area deemed appropriate, increasing the scope of what you really be voting for on the 12th.

Sigh. The Article colloquially called the "self-amending clause" does not actually allow the EU to amend the Treaties itself.

It sets up a simplified procedure in which the Treaties can be modified by single amendments, rather than requiring a whole new treaty every time. In other words, it allows updating bit by bit, in exactly the same we as we in Ireland update our Constitution - and just as a referendum is required here to pass an amendment to the Constitution, any amendment proposed to the EU treaties will require ratification in every single state just as at present.

rather wearily,
Scofflaw

Benfatto

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh. The Article colloquially called the "self-amending clause" does not actually allow the EU to amend the Treaties itself.

It sets up a simplified procedure in which the Treaties can be modified by single amendments, rather than requiring a whole new treaty every time. In other words, it allows updating bit by bit, in exactly the same we as we in Ireland update our Constitution - and just as a referendum is required here to pass an amendment to the Constitution, any amendment proposed to the EU treaties will require ratification in every single state just as at present.

rather wearily,
Scofflaw

Why do I have to repeat myself all the time?

a) The enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Article 308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty would extend this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

(b) the proposed "Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure" which would permit the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (Article 33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and

(c) the several "ratchet-clauses" or "passerelles" which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters( Article 69d.3.2), in criminal matters(Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (Article 69i.4), and in a number of other area

Scofflaw

Benfatto wrote: »

Why do I have to repeat myself all the time?

a) The enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Article 308 TEC/TFU), whereby if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty would extend this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;

(b) the proposed "Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure" which would permit the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union" (Article 33.6, amended TEU), where the population size of certain Member States is likely to be decisive; and

(c) the several "ratchet-clauses" or "passerelles" which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters( Article 69d.3.2), in criminal matters(Art.69f.2), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor (Article 69i.4), and in a number of other area

You have to repeat yourself because you're retailing propaganda, and it is in the nature of propaganda that it needs to be repeated.

The EU cannot grant itself powers that are not granted by the member states - that is a safeguard which is explicitly written into Lisbon. Nor can it proceed to alter treaties without ratification.

The amendment we're voting on next week contains a clause to allow the irish government to use the passerelle clauses, and the unanimity to QMV changes you have mentioned, so they too are being voted on.

regards,
Scofflaw

murphaph

I'm a little puzzled. Virtually every thread I have read on the treaty the "yes" side state repeatedly that the "treaty cannot do x, cannot do y and cannot do z" so if this treaty is so bloody weak and subject to so many vetos....what use is it at all?

I was wavering until this week and now I have decided to vote "no". I believe it is WRONG that we are the only people out of 486 million citizens who will get any say on Lisbon and I believe we should vote "no" out of solidarity with our fellow europeans and tell the political elite to redraw the treaty and put it to the popular vote across ALL of Europe. If ALL of Europe votes "yes" then it can be said to have a mandate.

I strongly dislike the browbeating tones from the main political parties on this. We managed to develop a robust economy without the treaty of Lisbon and using scare tactics to seek a "yes" vote is despicable.

genericgoon

murphaph wrote: »

I'm a little puzzled. Virtually every thread I have read on the treaty the "yes" side state repeatedly that the "treaty cannot do x, cannot do y and cannot do z" so if this treaty is so bloody weak and subject to so many vetos....what use is it at all?

I was wavering until this week and now I have decided to vote "no". I believe it is WRONG that we are the only people out of 486 million citizens who will get any say on Lisbon and I believe we should vote "no" out of solidarity with our fellow europeans and tell the political elite to redraw the treaty and put it to the popular vote across ALL of Europe. If ALL of Europe votes "yes" then it can be said to have a mandate.

I strongly dislike the browbeating tones from the main political parties on this. We managed to develop a robust economy without the treaty of Lisbon and using scare tactics to seek a "yes" vote is despicable.

Maybe the No side shouldn't have spent so much time manufacturing blatant lies to fill out its propaganda. Whether its abortions, corporation tax, the faltering economy or fox hunting, somehow the No side seems to find some BS link between these issues and Lisbon. Its just a shame as I feel these tactics have served to lower the whole debate on Lisbon as time is wasted dispelling these myths. I really wish the Yes campaign had focused on the treaty instead of counteracting BS but unfortunately many people seem to have taken this crap at face value. Also you find the Yes sides 'scare tactics' despicable. Because the No sides arguments have been so full of truthful, levelheaded argumentation. ¬_¬

As for your point about getting a popular mandate thats a decent point although I would say it isn't our place to fight others peoples battles for them. Plus, Lisbon went through the required protocols of each member state. I don't really think its our place to question every single other countries legislative system.

Thomaas1918

Hmm. The question is, is that the majority view? Every country in the EU is a democracy, and time after time, they elect governments that favour a good deal more than "free market and removing borders".

The other question is - if Ireland votes No, is that the 'majority opinion' - or just the slightly majority opinion of a those who actually vote out of, in turn, a tiny minority (1%) of the EU?

I don't know and because of stupid EU policy we will never find out. Because of the same policy we have Irish decision take as major. There will be no others!

Btw. I don't think that democracy is a good system but this doesn't belong here.

Well, one wonders how it is, then, that every modern state is centralised - much more centralised than the EU?

This doesn't mean that it is right, right?

It's also slightly ironic that the claim that the EU is too centralised is used as a rallying cry in a referendum held by 1% of the population (physically located on the periphery!) whose outcome will determine the course of said 'over-centralised' institution comprising 500 million.

It is not centralized now, but it will be in the future if don't stop it. Again, it is not my fault that minority will decide about majority. I didn't set up the rule 'everybody or nobody' and I didn't ban referendums in other countries.

is_that_so

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

I don't know and because of stupid EU policy we will never find out. Because of the same policy we have Irish decision take as major. There will be no others!

Btw. I don't think that democracy is a good system but this doesn't belong here.

This doesn't mean that it is right, right?

It is not centralized now, but it will be in the future if don't stop it. Again, it is not my fault that minority will decide about majority. I didn't set up the rule 'everybody or nobody' and I didn't ban referendums in other countries.

They are not banned, you just do it differently. Every country took a vote on it through their parliament which I presume you voted for. As I suggested to the other chap, take it up with them. It's not the EU's fault you didn't get a referendum.

djpbarry

Benfatto wrote: »

Self amending means that changes can be made based on the constitution itself, in effect making such changes limitless.

Self amending articles allow the EU to increase it's legislative powers into any area deemed appropriate, increasing the scope of what you really be voting for on the 12th.

As Scofflaw has already pointed out, this is absolute nonsense. Why would all the individual member states negotiate a treaty that renders them completely powerless?

Benfatto wrote: »

http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/releases.live?article=13787

So the quote that you originally posted was in fact from The Bruges Group and not from "some of the auditors", as you claimed? Big difference there, don’t you think?

Benfatto wrote: »

I have not conveniently overlooked that paragraph: such concluding paragraphs are common in conclusions meant to deceive.

Are they indeed... :rolleyes:

Benfatto wrote: »

In the actual reports this is what you can find:

EU Unfit for Purpose: So EU Court of Auditors report indicates

The European Union Court of Auditors key assessment on how our money is spent.
In a damning indictment of the Brussels institutions, the clear message of the EU's very own Court of Auditors report is one of fraud, mismanagement and waste.

You seem to be having difficulty separating The Bruges Group from the CAO. Here, let me help:

• The Bruges Group is a euro-sceptic think tank which is often associated with the British Conservative Party.
• The European Court of Auditors is a panel of financial experts that examines the revenue, expenditures, management, and overall efficiency of the European Union's bureaucracy.

See the difference?

Benfatto wrote: »

Deceit


But again, you cannot recognize evidence even when it's right in front of you.

Let me give you a
prediction

I fail to see what any of this has to do with Lisbon; you're argument is not terribly convincing. In fact, I'd say you've made me even less likely to vote 'No'.

murphaph wrote: »

I believe it is WRONG that we are the only people out of 486 million citizens who will get any say on Lisbon and I believe we should vote "no" out of solidarity with our fellow europeans and tell the political elite to redraw the treaty and put it to the popular vote across ALL of Europe. If ALL of Europe votes "yes" then it can be said to have a mandate.

This has to be the most common reason I've heard for voting 'No'; I cannot understand why so many people have such a hard time accepting the democratic procedures of other EU nations. The treaty cannot be put to a vote across the entire EU because referenda are illegal in certain countries.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

I agree that we need to band together but you can't create federation against majority wish.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a "federation", but a United Europe is unlikely to happen any time soon for the simple reason (as you have pointed out) that the majority of people do not wish it.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

The problem is that in texts like Lisbon treaty every single comma can dramatically change meaning of the sentence.

Dramatically? No, I don't think so.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

We joined EU in 2004 but become part of Schengen in Dec 2007. To make long story short - old members are protecting themselves against new members.

It's not a policy I agree with, but it's only temporary.

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

As I said before - constitution should be short and straight forward so (almost) everybody can understand it.

What you're asking for is not realistic. Besides, we're not talking about a constitution.

bogwalrus

djpbarry wrote: »

This has to be the most common reason I've heard for voting 'No'; I cannot understand why so many people have such a hard time accepting the democratic procedures of other EU nations. The treaty cannot be put to a vote across the entire EU because referenda are illegal in certain countries.

What countries are referendums not allowed in?


to give my two cents i think people should keep their focus on what the treaty offers to europe instead of thinking about how they feel it is unfair as to why we are the only ones allowed to vote and all that. If you go down that route you will just get lost.

I think people that are undecided should sit down and spend the day before and up until they vote on a chair reading the Treaty with a tea in one hand a a dictionary in the other.

Stay away from radio debates and tv. If you want to discuss the treaty talk with family members. If you really dont understand parts of it go on the internet and head to reliable sources not tainted by bias.

It is very easy to vote no in this treaty, but i feel they are for the wrong reasons. Think of the basic offerings of the treaty and how it can make ireland stronger and Europe stronger. You should not be listening to other countries or peoples views as what you are hearing will only be anti treaty opinions.

The world is changing very quickly and Europe cannot afford to spend another few years trying to convince Individual countries that this constitution/treaty has to be set in stone. Think of the big picture here and have some forseight.

I believe Many are being too conservative in their approach to this and for many it will be a leap of faith to say yes but that leap will be based on previous experience on how the E.U has helped shape the Ireland of today.

Also, I really dont understand how Many people who say they are voting no can turn such a negative eye on Europe after all they have done. Listening to the radio station today i heard very selfish reasons as to why people are voting No. Instead of thinking about Europe and all its members with the different cultures and beliefs, they were thinking about themselves. In some cases thats fair but it has to be balanced out with the positives of the treaty.

murphaph

bogwalrus wrote: »

Also, I really dont understand how Many people who say they are voting no can turn such a negative eye on Europe after all they have done. Listening to the radio station today i heard very selfish reasons as to why people are voting No. Instead of thinking about Europe and all its members with the different cultures and beliefs, they were thinking about themselves. In some cases thats fair but it has to be balanced out with the positives of the treaty.

I'm voting NO because I am in solidarity with my european neighbours (I'm very pro-Europe) who have been denied the right to vote on this. This document (or 90% of it) has already been REJECTED by two countries at the heart of Europe-the dutch and french said NO and in what has become an EU trend (remember Nice?-I voted yes btw, twice) they have been ignored and the EU constitution rehashed to make sure it wouldn't require the french and dutch electorate to pass it. In my own opinion the document has been carefully constructed to ensure it does not legally require a referendum wherever possible-unfortunately for them our own beloved <cough> Bunreacht is impossible to get around in this regard but our arrogant political leaders (all parties, and no I'm not a shinner!) thought "sure the plebs will vote yes on anyhting". Well maybe we won't this time and a PROPER DISCUSSION across the EU can be opened up instread of what they did when the french and dutch said non/nej!

djpbarry

bogwalrus wrote: »

What countries are referendums not allowed in?

Since WWII, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level because a certain Mr. Hitler was quite adept at rigging them. I believe the same is true in Austria. In Italy, it is forbidden to call a referendum for the ratification of international treaties.

There may be other states I am not aware of that have similar laws.

murphaph wrote: »

I'm voting NO because I am in solidarity with my european neighbours (I'm very pro-Europe) who have been denied the right to vote on this...

...which has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland or the EU and is a rather foolish reason to vote 'No', in my opinion.

murphaph wrote: »

This document (or 90% of it) has already been REJECTED by two countries at the heart of Europe-the dutch and french said NO...

The constitution was approved by 18 other nations; hardly the resounding 'No' that some groups have claimed.

murphaph wrote: »

In my own opinion the document has been carefully constructed to ensure it does not legally require a referendum wherever possible...

What's your opinion on the actual content of the document?

bogwalrus

sure the french and the dutch are the biggest complainers in europe anyway:p

But to be honest your reasons for voting "no" seem very wrong. It should be a vote on the treaty and what it offers, nothing else and not what other countries are doing.


If the french and dutch were so negative towards it we would be hearing alot more outcry from them do you not think?

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

This document (or 90% of it) has already been REJECTED by two countries at the heart of Europe-the dutch and french said NO and in what has become an EU trend (remember Nice?-I voted yes btw, twice) they have been ignored and the EU constitution rehashed to make sure it wouldn't require the french and dutch electorate to pass it.

This argument continues to bewilder me.

We voted no to Nice, and the French and Dutch voted no to the Constitution.

Are you suggesting that, on that basis, there should never again be another EU treaty? Or that, if a country rejects a treaty, that every word of it should be deleted and the entire thing carefully redrafted to ensure that there's absolutely no commonality with what was originally rejected?

BMH

The EU constitution was accepted by 17 countries as opposed to two. So by your logic, surely we should accept it on behalf of our European brethren.

murphaph

djpbarry wrote: »

...which has absolutely nothing to do with Ireland or the EU and is a rather foolish reason to vote 'No', in my opinion.

I disagree that it has nothing to do with the EU but fair enough if you think it's a foolish reason.

djpbarry wrote: »

The constitution was approved by 18 other nations; hardly the resounding 'No' that some groups have claimed.

18 other parliaments. Look at our nearest neighbour....joe public is not in favour of this treaty and the government knows full well a referendum there will be resoundly rejected. The danes knew the same but in contrast to other major issues surrounding them and their participation in the project they pushed it through parliament with a large voice of public opposition so claiming that it has the support of everyone else is not true and it's not like every parliamentary vote has been a resounding 'yes' either!

djpbarry wrote: »

What's your opinion on the actual content of the document?

I haven't read the entire treaty. I have read the referendum commission literature and so on. I agree with some sections of it (charter of human rights being enshrined in law for example). I disagree with other sections including the rotation of commissioners so a country will only have a commissioner for 10 out of 15 years. I disagree with a common defence policy and believe this is aimed squarely at building the weapons industry in Europe to rival the americans. What most concerns me is this....what's wrong with the status quo? I think the EU has already expanded too far and believe Lisbon will allow even further expansion more easily.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

This argument continues to bewilder me.

We voted no to Nice, and the French and Dutch voted no to the Constitution.

Are you suggesting that, on that basis, there should never again be another EU treaty? Or that, if a country rejects a treaty, that every word of it should be deleted and the entire thing carefully redrafted to ensure that there's absolutely no commonality with what was originally rejected?

No, but why not throw the 90% back to the french and dutch and see do they agree that it is sufficiently altered to warrant a 'yes' vote. It seems to me the treaty of Lisbon has been kept away from as many electorates as possible-why?

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

Look at our nearest neighbour....joe public is not in favour of this treaty and the government knows full well a referendum there will be resoundly rejected.
.

Britain is not really a good example here. Beyond the corridors of power and business Britain has never shown any great love for the EU. I amazed that they are still in the EU and I would even suggest that a referendum to exit the EU would be passed by a very large margin.

murphaph

is_that_so wrote: »

Britain is not really a good example here. Beyond the corridors of power and business Britain has never shown any great love for the EU. I amazed that they are still in the EU and I would even suggest that a referendum to exit the EU would be passed by a very large margin.

Should they be offered that referendum?

Crash

The EU constitution was accepted by 17 countries as opposed to two. So by your logic, surely we should accept it on behalf of our European brethren.

Well, if we apparently should turn it away on behalf of our European brethren, as many here seem to spout, then its not that different is it?

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

Should they be offered that referendum?

They actually had one, back in the 70's, and opted to stay in. Not sure what would happen if they voted now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

I disagree with other sections including the rotation of commissioners so a country will only have a commissioner for 10 out of 15 years.

The reduction in the size of the commission was agreed in the Nice treaty. The mechanism wasn't.

Lisbon created a mechanism whereby the larger countries are equally affected by this reduction as the smaller ones. If we reject Lisbon, the commission gets reduced in 2009 instead of 2014. Do you think we'll get as good a deal next year?

murphaph wrote: »

No, but why not throw the 90% back to the french and dutch and see do they agree that it is sufficiently altered to warrant a 'yes' vote. It seems to me the treaty of Lisbon has been kept away from as many electorates as possible-why?

Because of the plethora of utterly stupid reasons people come up with for voting against it, as can be seen here in Ireland. People will vote no as a protest against the government, because of fears about immigration, to prevent abortion, to keep our commissioner - none of which have any bearing on the treaty.

If I thought people would make an intelligent and informed choice on the merits of the treaty, I'd be all in favour of letting them vote on it.

utick

Benfatto wrote: »

A short while ago, the following initiative was launched to fight the massive EU state and protect democracy and national sovereignty:



Dear Irish friends and friends of Europe,
I am a citizen of a EU member state. In my country, we have not been allowed to vote on the future of Europe. You, our friends in Ireland, alone have this right and are called to vote on the "Lisbon Treaty" on June 12th.
I reject this Treaty as undemocratic in conception and in content. Please, vote NO on this Treaty for me


http://www.irish-friends-vote-no-for-me.org/index.php?set_language=en&cccpage=sign_petition

Some companies are also protesting, this one is currently advertising on board.ie: http://freemontgroup.com/index.php?page=page/newsletter/news9.php

Why the Lisbon Treaty is bad for your wallet and your freedom

• European legislation supercedes national legislation; what the Lisbon Treaty will change in effect is that it takes away all rights of member states to veto a proposal, thus making it impossible for one member state to object to any detrimental legislation that might be proposed by another member state.
• Ireland's low tax rates are key for making it one of the richest countries in the world. Most EU member states however have higher tax rates than Ireland. Countries like Germany and France have repeatedly stated that they oppose tax competition, opposing in effect Ireland and other members. Already the European commission is working on a unified EU corporate tax rate. Recently it has been postponed untill after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all member states.
• The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU the possibility to extend their legislative powers into any political area. It is therefore only a matter of time before all issues will be centrally decided, including national taxation policies.
• As we speak, the European Union is already a major bureaucracy with huge overhead and without any control over its funds. The EU accounts have not been properly audited for many years. As this organisation grows, it is unlikely to become any more efficient, meaning that less money will be available to sustain Irish schools, hospitals, social services and infrastructure.
• The Lisbon Treaty is for 99% the same as the EU Constitution which was voted down in France and the Netherlands. European MP's have admitted that the Lisbon Treaty is a deliberate unreadable version of the old constitution, in order to retain the substance but avoid referenda and opposition. In other words, it is a cynical attempt to hide the fact that this treaty will end national sovereignity of the member states.

We at Freemont Group believe that the Lisbon Treaty is the biggest threat to our freedom since the fall of the Soviet Union. It bypasses our present democratic system and hands over legislative power into the hands of a small unknown group of politicians. All Europeans except the Irish are denied to have their say in a referendum. We urge the Irish people to do the right thing on behalf of all of us, and vote 'NO' for the Lisbon Treaty.


Need any more reasons to vote no?
Check out this Irish website and click on the little picture next to the intro: http://www.caeuc.org

how dare you voice your opinion on the lisbon treaty, your government is the only body entitled to make this decision for you (i feel for you and hope for a no vote too, just being a little sarcastic )

HydeRoad

Can anyone please give me a good, reasonable and accessible argument for voting YES?

I have read as much of the debate as I can decipher. I have to say that the NO campaign, outside of the predictable Sinn Féin anti-everything dross, offers quite a lot of convincing argument. I am sure much of it is scaremongering, but quite an amount of it is very well constructed and expounded. In particular, a recent radio interview with Declan Ganley very decidedly swung me in favour of voting NO.

On the other hand, Dermot Ahern, in the same radio interview, speaking for the Government YES campaign, for me failed either to refute the NO argument, or to offer any kind of substantive argument for voting YES, other than because the state 'tells' me to. Alas, the very political machine that is campaigning for my YES vote have profoundly failed to convince me of their honesty or credibility in matters pertaining to the running of our own small corner of Europe. Years of lies, squandered boom, and more lies, mean that I am unlikely to take seriously any statement made by a member of the main political parties, on any side of the issue.

This leaves me in the situation where I have a very convincing argument for voting NO, and a YES campaign that has singularly failed to convince me that it is anything other than a hall of smoke and mirrors. Vote YES because we tell you to and because we know what's good for you. I'm sorry, but I need an awful lot more than that. YES campaigners work very hard explaining that NO campaigners tell lies (I'm sorry, but that coming from Fianna Fáil?), yet fail to explain, in plain language, what a YES vote will mean in any substance for me.

I am in the NO camp, and I wait to be convinced otherwise.

Scofflaw

HydeRoad wrote: »

Can anyone please give me a good, reasonable and accessible argument for voting YES?

I have read as much of the debate as I can decipher. I have to say that the NO campaign, outside of the predictable Sinn Féin anti-everything dross, offers quite a lot of convincing argument. I am sure much of it is scaremongering, but quite an amount of it is very well constructed and expounded. In particular, a recent radio interview with Declan Ganley very decidedly swung me in favour of voting NO.

On the other hand, Dermot Ahern, in the same radio interview, speaking for the Government YES campaign, for me failed either to refute the NO argument, or to offer any kind of substantive argument for voting YES, other than because the state 'tells' me to. Alas, the very political machine that is campaigning for my YES vote have profoundly failed to convince me of their honesty or credibility in matters pertaining to the running of our own small corner of Europe. Years of lies, squandered boom, and more lies, mean that I am unlikely to take seriously any statement made by a member of the main political parties, on any side of the issue.

This leaves me in the situation where I have a very convincing argument for voting NO, and a YES campaign that has singularly failed to convince me that it is anything other than a hall of smoke and mirrors. Vote YES because we tell you to and because we know what's good for you. I'm sorry, but I need an awful lot more than that. YES campaigners work very hard explaining that NO campaigners tell lies (I'm sorry, but that coming from Fianna Fáil?), yet fail to explain, in plain language, what a YES vote will mean in any substance for me.

I am in the NO camp, and I wait to be convinced otherwise.

The shortest, straightest answer I can give to that is that the main reason for voting Yes is the increase in democracy on offer. The Treaty:

1. extends the legislative control of the elected Parliament to 95% of EU legislation

2. allows national parliaments to send back EU legislation they feel is more properly handled at the national level

3. enshrines a petition mechanism that allows citizen movements to place items on the Commission agenda

In addition, making combating climate change an objective of the EU is a pretty big seller for me.

I've seen the first argument dismissed as "well, the EP is just a talking shop" - to which the answer is "no, it has to pass legislation for legislation to be passed, which is the opposite of a talking shop". The second argument gets called "window dressing", but no real reason is given why it should be window dressing. The same argument is applied to the third - the petition mechanism - largely, it seems, because we don't have a petition mechanism here, so we don't think they work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

utick

Scofflaw wrote: »

The shortest, straightest answer I can give to that is that the main reason for voting Yes is the increase in democracy on offer. The Treaty:

1. extends the legislative control of the elected Parliament to 95% of EU legislation

2. allows national parliaments to send back EU legislation they feel is more properly handled at the national level

3. enshrines a petition mechanism that allows citizen movements to place items on the Commission agenda

In addition, making combating climate change an objective of the EU is a pretty big seller for me.

I've seen the first argument dismissed as "well, the EP is just a talking shop" - to which the answer is "no, it has to pass legislation for legislation to be passed, which is the opposite of a talking shop". The second argument gets called "window dressing", but no real reason is given why it should be window dressing. The same argument is applied to the third - the petition mechanism - largely, it seems, because we don't have a petition mechanism here, so we don't think they work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

well they are hardly going about it in the most democratic fashion are they?


1)So it will give the eu more 'control' over our lives? How is this democratic?

2)Is this not already the case, if not where in lisbon is this stated?

3)citizen movement is already entiteled in the eu

as far as combating global warming goes, that will mean more taxes (part of that eu control you were talking about i guess)