Lisbon treaty allows them to suspend Ireland's EU membership

wilmotsitwell

I was looking at an article in The Economist of April 26, 2008 (page 46, last paragraph):

“The Lisbon treaty offers a few other sanctions, notably the suspension of a country’s membership rights by a majority vote of other members”.
This represents a super-veto over Ireland’s veto!

A majority of other members could vote to suspend Ireland’s EU membership indefinitely if Ireland refused to increase corporation tax to 35% (playing the “unfair competition” tune), or refused to join NATO, or refused to participate in any number of projects we don’t know about yet, which they have up their sleeves.

Suspension of membership could imply suspension of free trade, making it difficult or impossible to export to or via the other 26 member states territories. Combined with the re-introduction of customs clearance on Irish exports, which no doubt would be administered ever so slowly and bureaucratically, taking days or weeks to clear customs.

The EU has threatened Switzerland with trade blockages and border blockages in the past if they didn’t agree to the EU’s demands. However Switzerland is in a much more powerful position than Ireland because it controls road, rail and air routes between Germany, Italy, France, Austria, and Slovenia. Ireland does not enjoy a similar strategic position.

Ireland should vote “no” to the Lisbon treaty unless any option to suspend Ireland’s membership is removed from the equation.

The majority of Europeans (ie ordinary voters – rather than Brussels bureaucrats and EU commissioners) would be very happy to see Ireland vote “no”. Those that were given an opportunity to vote on the matter last time – France and the Netherlands voted “no”. This is a repackaging of the same dog’s dinner, and deserves to be sent to the doghouse!

Amazing that only the British media picked up on this one...

Alex

Scofflaw

What's 'amazing' is that people clearly haven't read the existing treaties:

The existing EU treaties wrote:

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of this Treaty to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The above is Article 7.3 of the current, existing, EU Treaty - the one now in force, the one that will continue to apply in the event of a No vote. To clarify that - this provision is already in force. It is not new in Lisbon.

very wearily,
Scofflaw

Vinegar Hill

And did they suspend the French and the Dutch?

Scofflaw

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

And did they suspend the French and the Dutch?

No, and they're not likely to suspend us either. I don't think anyone has suggested it. They're more likely to simply go ahead without us - an enhanced cooperation group of 26 countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Is that with or without our commissioner?

oscarBravo

No idea. The implementation details of the Nice-approved reduction in the size of the Commission haven't been worked out.

Daftendirekt

dresden8 wrote: »

Is that with or without our commissioner?

Possibly with, considering that if Lisbon passes we don't lose our commissioner until 2014, whereas we'll be down a commissioner next year if it doesn't.

Dave!

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's 'amazing' is that people clearly haven't read the existing treaties:



The above is Article 7.3 of the current, existing, EU Treaty - the one now in force, the one that will continue to apply in the event of a No vote. To clarify that - this provision is already in force. It is not new in Lisbon.

very wearily,
Scofflaw

So there's another "no" argument neutered........

The_Conductor

wilmotsitwell wrote:

The EU has threatened Switzerland with trade blockages and border blockages in the past if they didn’t agree to the EU’s demands. However Switzerland is in a much more powerful position than Ireland because it controls road, rail and air routes between Germany, Italy, France, Austria, and Slovenia. Ireland does not enjoy a similar strategic position.

We do have 42% of Europe's fishing waters, but only 1.8% of its fishing quota...... I'm sure you'd find quite a few member states only too happy to make bilateral agreements with us, for access to our waters. In addition- we provide airtraffic control for almost 35% of the EU airspace- which is arguably more important than road or rail links.

We may not be as important as Switzerland, but it is erroneous to suggest that do not have some strategic assets of interest to other member states.

wilmotsitwell

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's 'amazing' is that people clearly haven't read the existing treaties:



The above is Article 7.3 of the current, existing, EU Treaty - the one now in force, the one that will continue to apply in the event of a No vote. To clarify that - this provision is already in force. It is not new in Lisbon.

very wearily,
Scofflaw

If that is the case, then logically there is no veto for any member state.

Except perhaps for those who possess the nuclear option – literally speaking. i.e. a handful of large states who use the EU to enforce their laws on everyone else. Colonialisation 21st century style.

It also implies that all member state constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on – because any constitutional issues can be steamrolled over using the threat of suspension of membership, which could easily be orchestrated by an inner circle. While they may not use this threat every day, it is available to use against "vetoists".

In any event, you don’t provide a reference, other than a vague reference to “Article 7.3 of the current, existing, EU Treaty” – which EU treaty? there are zillions of them. URL please or date of treaty.

In conclusion:

1) If what you say is true, it is yet another reason for the public to vote NO in this referendum. If they don’t, they are leading us all deeper into a quagmire of bureaucratic fiddling that is taking over from democracy. Who knows what nasties are buried in treaty provisions that “replace paragraph 2(b) with xyz”? People are being asked to sign a blank cheque. No responsible person signs blank cheques.

2) The job should be done properly. Publish one consolidated document entitled “The Constitution of the European Union” – incorporating word for word the provisions of each treaty that is being incorporated into the constitution, amended where necessary to bring matters up to date – without external references to other documents. Just like the Constitution of Ireland. Put that consolidated document in a referendum to the people of each member state.

Anything less than that is just a fiddle, and a fraud on the people of Europe.

The people of Ireland have a duty to give this proposal a resounding NO on behalf of their fellow brethren in the rest of the EU – as a signal to the bureaucrats and politicians to go back to the drawing board and do the job properly.

Alex

BMH

wilmotsitwell wrote: »

If that is the case, then logically there is no veto for any member state.

Except perhaps for those who possess the nuclear option – literally speaking. i.e. a handful of large states who use the EU to enforce their laws on everyone else. Colonialisation 21st century style.

It also implies that all member state constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on – because any constitutional issues can be steamrolled over using the threat of suspension of membership, which could easily be orchestrated by an inner circle. While they may not use this threat every day, it is available to use against "vetoists".

In any event, you don’t provide a reference, other than a vague reference to “Article 7.3 of the current, existing, EU Treaty” – which EU treaty? there are zillions of them. URL please or date of treaty.

In conclusion:

1) If what you say is true, it is yet another reason for the public to vote NO in this referendum. If they don’t, they are leading us all deeper into a quagmire of bureaucratic fiddling that is taking over from democracy. Who knows what nasties are buried in treaty provisions that “replace paragraph 2(b) with xyz”? People are being asked to sign a blank cheque. No responsible person signs blank cheques.

2) The job should be done properly. Publish one consolidated document entitled “The Constitution of the European Union” – incorporating word for word the provisions of each treaty that is being incorporated into the constitution, amended where necessary to bring matters up to date – without external references to other documents. Just like the Constitution of Ireland. Put that consolidated document in a referendum to the people of each member state.

Anything less than that is just a fiddle, and a fraud on the people of Europe.

The people of Ireland have a duty to give this proposal a resounding NO on behalf of their fellow brethren in the rest of the EU – as a signal to the bureaucrats and politicians to go back to the drawing board and do the job properly.

Alex

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Scofflaw

wilmotsitwell wrote: »

If that is the case, then logically there is no veto for any member state.

Except perhaps for those who possess the nuclear option – literally speaking. i.e. a handful of large states who use the EU to enforce their laws on everyone else. Colonialisation 21st century style.

It also implies that all member state constitutions are not worth the paper they are written on – because any constitutional issues can be steamrolled over using the threat of suspension of membership, which could easily be orchestrated by an inner circle. While they may not use this threat every day, it is available to use against "vetoists".

In any event, you don’t provide a reference, other than a vague reference to “Article 7.3 of the current, existing, EU Treaty” – which EU treaty? there are zillions of them. URL please or date of treaty.

In conclusion:

1) If what you say is true, it is yet another reason for the public to vote NO in this referendum. If they don’t, they are leading us all deeper into a quagmire of bureaucratic fiddling that is taking over from democracy. Who knows what nasties are buried in treaty provisions that “replace paragraph 2(b) with xyz”? People are being asked to sign a blank cheque. No responsible person signs blank cheques.

2) The job should be done properly. Publish one consolidated document entitled “The Constitution of the European Union” – incorporating word for word the provisions of each treaty that is being incorporated into the constitution, amended where necessary to bring matters up to date – without external references to other documents. Just like the Constitution of Ireland. Put that consolidated document in a referendum to the people of each member state.

Anything less than that is just a fiddle, and a fraud on the people of Europe.

The people of Ireland have a duty to give this proposal a resounding NO on behalf of their fellow brethren in the rest of the EU – as a signal to the bureaucrats and politicians to go back to the drawing board and do the job properly.

Alex

Why would they bother? It's clear people don't bother reading it. You can get the existing Treaties from here - bottom link. I can't do more, since there's no way of linking to the inside of a PDF. Or you can go here, where you can find it by searching on the phrase "may decide to suspend".

Seriously, though, you haven't read, or even checked, the existing treaties to whether what you're excited about is either true, or new - yet you're willing to suggest that what I'm saying isn't true, despite me giving a reference for it. I appreciate there's no guarantee that an internet poster is going to be correct, but there's no guarantee that a journalist is either - who knows where they get their information from?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

wilmotsitwell wrote: »

If that is the case, then logically there is no veto for any member state.

Except perhaps for those who possess the nuclear option – literally speaking. i.e. a handful of large states who use the EU to enforce their laws on everyone else. Colonialisation 21st century style.

Wow... I know you are joking but... you are joking aren't you?

I've seen the no side implying that it's 26 other countries to 1, or maybe the big against the little in most matters. The suggestion is that we have to protect ourselves from the European masterminds planning to destroy our economy or our public services or our morals.

I really don't understand why such people continue to declare their love for the "right" European project. You however have taken things to a new level, suggesting that some countries might nuke us "to enforce their laws on everyone else".

We'd better get started on a defense pact with Russia or China to protect ourselves. Perhaps we should install a few missile silos targetting the UK/Germany/France before it's too late.

Ix.