8 Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon

pietercleppe

8 Reasons to Vote No to Lisbon



1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
The new President and Foreign Minister for Europe will be appointed by the European Council by qualified majority vote. Although many of the terms and conditions of these roles have yet to be decided, they will be committed through the Lisbon Treaty to “drive forward” the agenda of the Council and discussions have already taken place to provide a presidential palace and executive jet for the President.

2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8% if the Treaty was implemented, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
The Lisbon Treaty proposes to reduce the number of Commissioners to two thirds of the number of member states. This would mean that, on a rotating basis, Ireland would have no seat for five years out of every 15 in the body that has the monopoly on initiating legislation. This would clearly affect a small country like Ireland to a far greater extent than, for example, Germany which is having its voting weight doubled under the Treaty.

4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
Article 113 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically inserts a new obligation on the European Council to act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. The proposals for a common consolidated tax base and the commitment of the French government to pursue it combined with a weakening of Ireland’s voice in Europe through the loss of a permanent Commissioner and halving of its voting weight represent a clear and present danger to our tax competitiveness.

5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
The Lisbon Treaty provides for more than 60 areas of decision making from unanimity at present to qualified majority voting. Some of those areas include decision-making on immigration, sport, culture, transport and the appointment of the European President and Foreign Minister.

6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
For the first time, under the Lisbon Treaty foreign direct investment would become an exclusive competence of the EU as part of its common commercial policy. This means that the tools which have been used so successfully by the IDA to attract tens of thousands of jobs to Ireland will become the sole preserve of the European Union and the Irish Government will have to seek permissions

7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
On June 12th we will be voting on the 28th amendment to the Irish Constitution which clearly restates the following:
11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum Article 48 of the Treaty enables changes to be made to it after ratification without the constitutional requirement for another referendum in Ireland. This is confirmed by the independent Referendum Commission on its website which states: there “may” be a requirement for a referendum to implement such changes.

http://www.free-europe.org/blog/english.php?itemid=451

sink

I'm really getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over. All of these points have been raised before and have been shown to either be completely false or miss-representations.

pietercleppe wrote: »

1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
The new President and Foreign Minister for Europe will be appointed by the European Council by qualified majority vote. Although many of the terms and conditions of these roles have yet to be decided, they will be committed through the Lisbon Treaty to “drive forward” the agenda of the Council and discussions have already taken place to provide a presidential palace and executive jet for the President.

The President of the European council is an existing role that each member state holds for 6 months on rotation. Slovenia currently holds the Presidency, France is next and will take over on the 1st of July. I think the Czech republic is due to take over in 2009 unless the Lisbon treaty passes. The current rotation system will be changed to one where the European council will elect a president for 2.5 years. The President of the European council has no executive powers and does not even have a vote. The EU has two other presidents as well, the President of the European Parliament and the President of the Commission arguably the most powerful of the three presidents.

The High representative for foreign affairs is actually two existing positions merged in to one. It merges the two positions of 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' (currently held by Javier Solana) with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' (currently held by Benita Ferrero-Waldner),The High representative will chair the council of foreign affairs and will present the foreign policy of the EU to the outside world. They will also be vice president of the European commission.

pietercleppe wrote: »

2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8% if the Treaty was implemented, while Germany’s would increase from 8% to 17%.

Completely wrong.The council at the moment has a QMV system which give each state a weighted vote which does not match their population size (e.g. Germany has 16% if the population but only has 8% of the vote, Ireland has 0.8% of the population but has 2% of the vote) and a 75% majority is required. It replaces this with a double QMV system whereby there are two requirements for legislation to pass. First it has to have 55% of member states in agreement, this currently gives each member state an equal 3.75% say. Second those member states in favour must represent at least 65% of the population, so here we have 0.8% weight and Germany has 16% weight. This double QMV the voting system roughly balanced in favour of smaller countries as it did before, in that an individual Irish citizens vote is still slightly more powerful than a German citizens.

pietercleppe wrote: »

3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
The Lisbon Treaty proposes to reduce the number of Commissioners to two thirds of the number of member states. This would mean that, on a rotating basis, Ireland would have no seat for five years out of every 15 in the body that has the monopoly on initiating legislation. This would clearly affect a small country like Ireland to a far greater extent than, for example, Germany which is having its voting weight doubled under the Treaty.

Completely misleading. The Lisbon treaty adds specifics to the changes in the commission which the Nice treaty already agreed to. It also delays these changes due to come into force in 2009 till 2014. It lowers the number of commissioners from 27 to 18 so each commissioner has a proper role to fill and no bogus roles are created just to give each member a permanent seat. The number of commissioners will be fixed so future expansion of the Union will not result in more commissioners. Each county will have a commissioner for every 10 out of 15 years. The commission is supposed to work on behalf of the Union as a whole and not to represent the specific interests of individual states. Each commissioner speaks for their policy area (e.g. Finance, Justice, Policing) and they meet to discuss the requirements of the EU and to frame new legislation to suit the needs of the whole EU. In addition the commissioners oversee the implementation of policy in each of their areas.

pietercleppe wrote: »

4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
Article 113 of the Lisbon Treaty specifically inserts a new obligation on the European Council to act to avoid “distortion of competition” in respect of indirect taxes. The proposals for a common consolidated tax base and the commitment of the French government to pursue it combined with a weakening of Ireland’s voice in Europe through the loss of a permanent Commissioner and halving of its voting weight represent a clear and present danger to our tax competitiveness.

Completely wrong. Direct tax policy remains under the sole control of member states, any change will require a referendum here. So many threads have already covered this please read them.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308970
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055306697
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055295928

pietercleppe wrote: »

5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
The Lisbon Treaty provides for more than 60 areas of decision making from unanimity at present to qualified majority voting. Some of those areas include decision-making on immigration, sport, culture, transport and the appointment of the European President and Foreign Minister.

Areas which are either unimportant to us, or are more beneficial to us under QMV so special interest can't rule the day.

pietercleppe wrote: »

6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
For the first time, under the Lisbon Treaty foreign direct investment would become an exclusive competence of the EU as part of its common commercial policy. This means that the tools which have been used so successfully by the IDA to attract tens of thousands of jobs to Ireland will become the sole preserve of the European Union and the Irish Government will have to seek permissions

Never heard this one before tbh. Care to provide any proof with reference to the treary of this?

pietercleppe wrote: »

7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
On June 12th we will be voting on the 28th amendment to the Irish Constitution which clearly restates the following:
11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

EU law already supersedes Irish law in areas where we have given it competence. This happened when we joined in 1973 nothing new here.

pietercleppe wrote: »

8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum Article 48 of the Treaty enables changes to be made to it after ratification without the constitutional requirement for another referendum in Ireland. This is confirmed by the independent Referendum Commission on its website which states: there “may” be a requirement for a referendum to implement such changes.

It allows changes by unanimity in the European council. Any changes which impact our constitution or give the EU new competencies will still require a referendum and would require ratification through Belgium's national parliament.

Scofflaw

'm really getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over. All of these points have been raised before and have been shown to either be completely false or miss-representations.

I particularly look forward to the retraction of a couple of them by Libertas (they're Libertas' "8 points") in the event of a No vote....but I won't hold my breath.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

EDIT: I see sink got here before me, and he's much more accurate then me.



Reason to vote yes:

Citizens’ Initiative

The Lisbon Treaty proposes that a citizens’ initiative would allow for at least one million citizens from a significant number of Member States to ask the Commission to bring forward proposals on a particular issue. The Commission would be obliged to consider the proposal. The details of how this would operate have yet to be decided.

Meaning that yes, the sh*tty things some people are complaining about (the laveal case) which do have actual genuine concerns that even I would like addressed cannot be overturned currently because the courts have ruled on it...BUUUUUT with the lisbon treaty we can actually make a case to the european commission and find a solution more fitting.

pietercleppe

Thanks for the word. Forgive me for not answering all of your points (I should look into nr. 2, granted), but at least I can say this:

1. It all already exists, but one could speak of a "power building" process: indeed in the case of the president it is not clear whether he (or she) will be a "chairman" or a "president". It is even seen by some euro-centralist as an anti-commaunautarian move, as it might decrease the power of the Commission. But who ever said the Council defends the interests of the Member states?

Either way it clearly means more integration.

4. Most tax harmonisation happens not directly, but indirectly, through the judgements of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Any change in any treaty will be used by the ECJ to build an EU taxing power.
And that is not a good thing, as I hope you will agree upon: it reduces the possibility for tax competition, a benificial system for tax payers as it drives governments to be more efficient as tax payers can flee with their money.

5. I don't think any EU citizen can care about being this not important, as you will pay for it and obey the rules.

7. ok: that's a trickier one. It all depends on your legal doctrine (monistic or not): for sure in the UK parliament will always be able to withdraw its consent with giving away powers. For their "Parliament" can do anything except changing a man into a woman. I don't think the Tories will dare to take it back however. In Belgium we see international law as being superior (at least the majority, let's say).

The_Minister

pietercleppe wrote: »

5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
The Lisbon Treaty provides for more than 60 areas of decision making from unanimity at present to qualified majority voting. Some of those areas include decision-making on immigration, sport, culture, transport and the appointment of the European President and Foreign Minister.

sink wrote: »

Areas which are either unimportant to us, or are more beneficial to us under QMV so special interest can't rule the day.

Just to make the point that, as has been said over and over...

....IT IS NOT 60 VETOES IT IS THIRTY.

*Ahem*
We have opt-outs on a load of them.

thecoolfreak

7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
On June 12th we will be voting on the 28th amendment to the Irish Constitution which clearly restates the following:
11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

Current Article 29.10:

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State."

Spot the difference. Being honest this sort of thread should be locked cause these blatant mistruths have been gone over again and again

kippy

I am getting kinda sick of all the "new posters" here who suddenly come out with all these pro and anti comments about the vote.
Surely if this was in relation to a product or company these people would be hailed as Shils straight away as we are totally unsure of who they are or who pays them but they still are allowed get away with their posting.
Kippy

PS, I reaslise that boards have already got the no advertising going on but surely this type of thing isnt part of the deal?

thecoolfreak

kippy wrote: »

I am getting kinda sick of all the "new posters" here who suddenly come out with all these pro and anti comments about the vote.
Surely if this was in relation to a product or company these people would be hailed as Shils straight away as we are totally unsure of who they are or who pays them but they still are allowed get away with their posting.
Kippy

PS, I reaslise that boards have already got the no advertising going on but surely this type of thing isnt part of the deal?

So just because I don't have as many posts as yourself I am not allowed to comment on this thread?

dlofnep

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Meaning that yes, the sh*tty things some people are complaining about (the laveal case) which do have actual genuine concerns that even I would like addressed cannot be overturned currently because the courts have ruled on it...BUUUUUT with the lisbon treaty we can actually make a case to the european commission and find a solution more fitting.

They are not obliged to do anything with it, other than listen to it from what I understand. Is this correct?

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

They are not obliged to do anything with it, other than listen to it from what I understand. Is this correct?

Afaik they have to write a detailed report on it and present it to the council and parliament but the details have yet to be worked out.

The_Minister

It means that the issue must be raised and discussed (I can see this being horrifically abused by the commies tbh)

sink

thecoolfreak wrote: »

So just because I don't have as many posts as yourself I am not allowed to comment on this thread?

I think he was referring to the op.

dlofnep

sink wrote: »

Afaik they have to write a detailed report on it and present it to the council and parliament but the details have yet to be worked out.

Details of the Citizens’ Initiative or an query/problem to be sent?

dlofnep

The_Minister wrote: »

It means that the issue must be raised and discussed (I can see this being horrifically abused by the commies tbh)

No, I understand this much and think it's a good thing - but they aren't required to do anything with it from what I understand?

kippy

thecoolfreak wrote: »

So just because I don't have as many posts as yourself I am not allowed to comment on this thread?

Sorry thecoolfreak,
My main issue here is the OP has 8 posts all of which are in relation to this treaty. His is obviously anti treaty and MAY be getting paid by a group which are against the treaty. This is the behaviour of a shill in any other forum, I cant see how it's gotten away with here just cos its a political issue.
You can post away all you want,
Kippy

thecoolfreak

kippy wrote: »

Sorry thecoolfreak,
My main issue here is the OP has 8 posts all of which are in relation to this treaty. His is obviously anti treaty and MAY be getting paid by a group which are against the treaty. This is the behaviour of a shill in any other forum, I cant see how it's gotten away with here just cos its a political issue.
You can post away all you want,
Kippy

Sorry about that. Bit of a daft misunderstanding!

The_Minister

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I understand this much and think it's a good thing - but they aren't required to do anything with it from what I understand?

1,000,000 signatures = .002% of the Union's population.

To force them to take a specific action on an issue would be most unjust. It basically allows people to make sure that their issues are not brushed under the carpet.

dlofnep

But if no action is required, then isn't that brushing it under the carpet? Also, who organises the collection of 1 million signatures? I believe if it was taken into consideration in an honest manner, it's a good thing - But I don't believe for one minute that it would be, therefore - rendering it pretty text.

sink

As I said before the details haven't been finalised. Similar to the way the details on downsizing the commission weren't finalised in Nce.

Scofflaw

dlofnep wrote: »

But if no action is required, then isn't that brushing it under the carpet? Also, who organises the collection of 1 million signatures? I believe if it was taken into consideration in an honest manner, it's a good thing - But I don't believe for one minute that it would be, therefore - rendering it pretty text.

Funnily enough, though, the Citizens' Initiative in the Treaty is the direct result of exactly such an EU-wide petition (the European Citizens' Initiative), and does exactly what the petition requested. There was a campaign for it in 2006/2007, with 110 NGO's supporting it.

Why do we think it's just "pretty text"? Have a look at this:

Countries with initiative rights at the political level:

Hungary
Italy
Lithuania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Netherlands
Poland
Spain
Liechtenstein
Switzerland

Countries with initiative rights only at the national level:

Latvia
Austria
Portugal
Albania
Macedonia
Croatia
Romania
Moldavia
Andorra
Serbia
San Marino

Countries with initiative rights only at the subnational level:

Belgium
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Sweden
Great Britain
Norway
Bulgaria

Countries in which there is legal recognition of the instrument of the agenda initiative:

Hungary
Italy
Slovakia
Slovenia
Finland
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
Norway
Albania
Romania
Bulgaria
Moldavia
Andorra
Serbia
Macedonia
San Marino


Can you see which familiar country is entirely missing from those lists?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pietercleppe

kippy wrote: »

Sorry thecoolfreak,
My main issue here is the OP has 8 posts all of which are in relation to this treaty. His is obviously anti treaty and MAY be getting paid by a group which are against the treaty. This is the behaviour of a shill in any other forum, I cant see how it's gotten away with here just cos its a political issue.
You can post away all you want,
Kippy

Kippy, a shill would be a bit less open about it, no? I'm just a private citizen that is indeed not supporting the treaty, as I think such a "blank cheque" to bureaucracy would be a bad thing and for Ireland and for Europe.

oscarBravo

...as Amsterdam, and Maastricht, and Nice were bad things for Ireland and for Europe. Over and over and over again we're told what an utter catastrophe each treaty will be, and over and over again it turns out not to be so.

Yeah, yeah, I know, this one's different.

kippy

pietercleppe wrote: »

Kippy, a shill would be a bit less open about it, no? I'm just a private citizen that is indeed not supporting the treaty, as I think such a "blank cheque" to bureaucracy would be a bad thing and for Ireland and for Europe.

I've seen shills on here being very blatent about what they are doing.
It'd be pretty difficult to be "less open" about an issue such as this.
I would question whether you are in the payment of a particuliar group for touting the anti Lisbon sentiment.

pietercleppe

Well, Kippy, I'm not, and if I was, I would just tell you. Just bringing a positive sentiment on more democracy, decentralision and accountable decision making...

oscarBravo: 1. This is indeed different. 2. We've seen the "acquis communautaire" growing to 90.000 pages of shameful dirigism over the years.

Not everything what has to do with European decision making is bad, however. It is just annoying to see opening of markets (obviously great) being accompanied with rigid regulations that are meant to prevent protectionist local regulations but actually do impose much greater costs than the local ones as they are less adapted to local situations. It should just be unilateral opening of markets, that would be great.

BlitzKrieg

Just bringing a positive sentiment on more democracy, decentralision and accountable decision making...

your not though?

You're scaremongering, telling people of woes and evils ahead of us unless we do what you want to do.

you've used lies in your argument and half truths.

Where's the positive?

Tell us something positive.

The only positive comment in this thread has been mine in favour of yes.

pietercleppe

Blitzkrieg: no need for panic, and don't make it too biblical, but I guess then I was clear about the fact that it is a bad ("evil" if you wish) thing, unfortunately.

Just opening countries and not building a super-bureaucracy seems positive to me, but that is a relative concept.

The naked truth will suffice to make my point, so no lies are needed. Or you were referring to what exactly? I won't have a problem to admit if there was an incorrect statement somewhere.

Apart from that: the world is still going to be a pretty nice place if it passes, no worries. I just said that this is a critical transfer of power to the central level, and apparently you think that is "scaremongering", although this claim wasn't fundamentally challenged here as it is a plain fact.

BlitzKrieg

uhmm I think the big long list of corrections put up by sink in the 2nd response shows up the lies and half truths

and its nothing biblical about this, I am just offended you would say you are bringing a positive sentiment when clearly your not.

a positivie sentiment would focus on what would be the good things that will happen by saying *no* to the treaty. Not the bad things that would happen by saying *yes*.

kippy

From the stories I have been told by my "elders" I believe there was a lot of the same negative sentiment happening in the 70's when we had the choice to join the Union or whatever incarnation of it it was then. Thank God the people of Ireland could see the longer term benefits at the time despite the negative spin.
This time round, while it is harder to see exactly what positives will come from a yes vote, I havent been able to find anything concrete that will have a negative impact either.
The no vote appears to be completely built on overhyped scaremongering, and this is what is putting me off in a big way.
OP - you're not a shill, fair enough. Looking forward to seeing you participate in other non lisbon treaty threads when the referendum is over.
Kippy

sink

pietercleppe wrote: »

Not everything what has to do with European decision making is bad, however. It is just annoying to see opening of markets (obviously great) being accompanied with rigid regulations that are meant to prevent protectionist local regulations but actually do impose much greater costs than the local ones as they are less adapted to local situations. It should just be unilateral opening of markets, that would be great.

pietercleppe wrote: »

Just opening countries and not building a super-bureaucracy seems positive to me, but that is a relative concept.

I actually agree with you on some level. Bureaucracy is bad, market rules and regulations are bad but unfortunately they are also necessary. If Ireland negotiated a bilateral opening of markets with each country in the EU we would be give the sharp end of the stick by the large countries, guaranteed. They would be able to exert far more influence on our government than is possible now thanks to the ECJ. Those nuisance laws and regulations are more to protect the smaller countries from being overpowered by the larger ones. So rather than make things easier I believe you would be making things a whole lot worse for us smaller countries.

LostinBlanch

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The only positive comment in this thread has been mine in favour of yes.

Which, as was pointed out, is not as cut and dried as you seem to think. All the commission has to do is consider it. Such consideration could easily be equivalent to a quick glance on the way to throwing it into the bin.

ateam

Sinn Fein make me laugh. Last year they were going into the general election saying they wanted to increase corporation tax. Now they're campaigning against the Treaty because the Treaty "could increase our taxes". You would think they would be happy with that.

is_that_so

Ganley on RTE now. Full of "old quotes" and the usual level of mistruths based on the same old misguided premises. Considering how upset some are with potential bullying, his lecturing on how to "read the treaty properly" and the "appropriate interpretation" leaves an awful lot to be desired.

BlitzKrieg

Which, as was pointed out, is not as cut and dried as you seem to think. All the commission has to do is consider it. Such consideration could easily be equivalent to a quick glance on the way to throwing it into the bin.

I understand its not as cut and dry as I think it is, but it was still a positive statement .

I guess it depends how we percieve the Commission, I dont see them as the group who would simply discard such inititives without at least a response as to why, and you might see different, neither of us can really prove at this point which of us is right cause its merely a matter of opinion at the moment.

Scofflaw

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Which, as was pointed out, is not as cut and dried as you seem to think. All the commission has to do is consider it. Such consideration could easily be equivalent to a quick glance on the way to throwing it into the bin.

I've pointed it out elsewhere, that we don't think much of a 'petition' because we don't have any formal petition mechanism in our Constitution. Quite a lot of other EU states do, however, and I rather suspect this was written with their expectations in mind, not ours.

It was also, as an aside, written into the Treaty on foot of a petition to have such a mechanism, which was signed by a fair bit over a million people - it was regarded as something of a triumph. If Ireland returns a No, of course, it will be in the ironic position of being voted down by rather less people than actually signed it.

cordially,
Scofflaw