small few questions(yes I have tried)

wylo

What I mean by that subject is that I have read the booklet but had trouble finding out in detail when searching for particular terms in the treaty itself.

1: Is it true to say that we will be getting rid of that weighted system altogether for voting and decisions will now have to be agreed by 15/27 states of which also make up 65% of EUs population?

2: Briefly,how will our workers rights be affected, its the one area I am not sure about at all to be honest and is possibly the one that will affect my vote.

3: Am I right or wrong in thinking that if this treaty is updated in the future we will have a full right to veto this update(or amendment)? If Im wrong could someone briefly explain what will happen when the treaty is updated regarding agreements etc?

4: (A question for the yes voters) Why are the no voters spending so much money on campaigns and trying ever so hard to convince people to vote no if this treaty is geniunely better for the country? I would prefer as fair as possible an answer not just some anti no accusations of anti government etc. Cheers
If I think of any more questions Ill post them here, any answers appreciated. Im almost on a yes vote but these are the issues i am still unclear of.

wylo

bit more actually...

5: Does the treaty involve agreements that create laws regarding climate change,environment etc?

turgon

Ill try and answer a few of these, but someone like sink is more informed

1 - Yes
2 - Charter of Fundamental Rights apparently enshrines the rights of workers. But not altogether sure of the over all effect
3 - As far as I know the treaty can be amended to introduce more areas to QMV (ie remove vetoes) granted all the states agree. But otherwise usual ratification methods needed (referendum in Ireland)
4 - Im voting No.

turgon

5 - No - AFAIK theres actually no legal obligation or agreement in the treaty as regards Climate Change. I thinks its just preamble where CC is mentioned.

sink

wylo wrote: »

What I mean by that subject is that I have read the booklet but had trouble finding out in detail when searching for particular terms in the treaty itself.

1: Is it true to say that we will be getting rid of that weighted system altogether for voting and decisions will now have to be agreed by 15/27 states of which also make up 65% of EUs population?

Yes correct, we will end up with pretty much the same 2% vote overall that we currently have.

wylo wrote: »

2: Briefly,how will our workers rights be affected, its the one area I am not sure about at all to be honest and is possibly the one that will affect my vote.

The Charter of Fundamental rights will become legally binding in EU law.

Contents of the Charter
The Charter of Fundamental Rights lists the civil, political, social and economic rights recognised by the EU. These are listed under the headings of Dignity, Freedoms, Equality, Solidarity, Citizens’ Rights, and Justice. Specific principles apply to groups such as older people, children and people with disabilities.

wylo wrote: »

3: Am I right or wrong in thinking that if this treaty is updated in the future we will have a full right to veto this update(or amendment)? If Im wrong could someone briefly explain what will happen when the treaty is updated regarding agreements etc?

You are right, and if it affects our constitution it will require a referendum here. This is so we don't have to lump all changes together in one big document like the Lisbon treaty. We will be able to ratify each change separately.

wylo wrote: »

4: (A question for the yes voters) Why are the no voters spending so much money on campaigns and trying ever so hard to convince people to vote no if this treaty is geniunely better for the country? I would prefer as fair as possible an answer not just some anti no accusations of anti government etc. Cheers

Sinn Fein are all going for the working class nationalist vote who generally vote against the establishment. Coir, Eirigi are extreme nationalist who value Irish independence and sovereignty above all other considerations. Libertas are as yet an unknown, many people on both sides have a deep suspicion that there motives are not genuine. For instance Declan Ganley is a multi-millionaire who owns a company that supplies sensitive communications equipment to the US intelligence community and yet he is campaigning in part on protecting Irish neutrality.

edit: Forgot the peace and neutrality alliance. They believe Ireland's neutrality will be effected most other groups don't.

wylo wrote: »

If I think of any more questions Ill post them here, any answers appreciated. Im almost on a yes vote but these are the issues i am still unclear of.

No probs I'll be on here most of the evening.

sink

wylo wrote: »

bit more actually...

5: Does the treaty involve agreements that create laws regarding climate change,environment etc?

It does not create new laws but it does make a legally binding statement of intent to fight climate change by bringing in new laws and legislation.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

It does not create new laws but it does make a legally binding statement of intent to fight climate change by bringing in new laws and legislation.

I must admit i'm amazed the climate change issue is being used by the yes side.

Are they really suggesting that they won't fight climate change together if we vote no?

Come on!!!! It's not like the environment is not an EU area to begin with!

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

I must admit i'm amazed the climate change issue is being used by the yes side.

Are they really suggesting that they won't fight climate change together if we vote no?

Come on!!!! It's not like the environment is not an EU area to begin with!

Well a legally binding statement of intent is certainly better than nothing. Atm the EU is not legally required to act in any fashion. Why would this be a negative? It also brings in the areas of energy and the environment into QMV so some countries holding out for domestic reasons will be forced to cut pollution.

IRLConor

wylo wrote: »

1: Is it true to say that we will be getting rid of that weighted system altogether for voting and decisions will now have to be agreed by 15/27 states of which also make up 65% of EUs population?

I've found 6 ways that the council can vote, I've laid them out here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56205158&postcount=3

I've analysed how those changes work here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56206935&postcount=4

wylo wrote: »

2: Briefly,how will our workers rights be affected, its the one area I am not sure about at all to be honest and is possibly the one that will affect my vote.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes binding. It includes these bits which cover workers rights:

Article 15 Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.
3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.

Article 23 Equality between men and women

Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.


Article 27 Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking

Workers or their representatives must, at the appropriate levels, be guaranteed information and consultation in good time in the cases and under the conditions provided for by Community law and national laws and practices.

Article 28 Right of collective bargaining and action

Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action.

Article 29 Right of access to placement services

Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service.

Article 30 Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal

Every worker has the right to protection against unjustified dismissal, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices.

Article 31 Fair and just working conditions

1. Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.
2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.

Article 32 Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work

The employment of children is prohibited. The minimum age of admission to employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age, without prejudice to such rules as may be more favourable to young people and except for limited derogations. Young people admitted to work must have working conditions appropriate to their age and be protected against economic exploitation and any work likely to harm their safety, health or physical, mental, moral or social development or to interfere with their education.

Article 33 Family and professional life

1. The family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection.
2. To reconcile family and professional life, everyone shall have the right to protection from dismissal for a reason connected with maternity and the right to paid maternity leave and to parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child.

wylo wrote: »

3: Am I right or wrong in thinking that if this treaty is updated in the future we will have a full right to veto this update(or amendment)? If Im wrong could someone briefly explain what will happen when the treaty is updated regarding agreements etc?

Two scenarios:

1. A modification which triggers the rules set down in the Crotty judgement is put forward. Ireland must then hold a referendum to ratify the change.
2. A modification which does not trigger the rules set down in the Crotty judgement is put forward. Ireland ratifies the change by a Dail vote.

Now, that's actually the same as the way it is now. The real difference is that amendments can be made to the treaties without requiring a new treaty.

So, in summary, what we'd be ratifying might change but the way in which we do it wouldn't.

wylo wrote: »

4: (A question for the yes voters) Why are the no voters spending so much money on campaigns and trying ever so hard to convince people to vote no if this treaty is geniunely better for the country? I would prefer as fair as possible an answer not just some anti no accusations of anti government etc. Cheers

The motivations of the no side are many and varied. I have no idea what their true motivations are but my guesses are:

• Libertas: Anybody's guess. Maybe they truly do want a better EU, but I don't trust their public statement of motivation any more than I would from any other political group on either side.
• Sinn Féin: Anything that brings EU countries closer together removes their raison d'être. Nationalism is ideologically opposed to EU integration.
• COIR: I don't know what they're up to TBH.
• Random socialists: They see the EU as too right wing.

Scofflaw

Sinn Fein are all going for the working class nationalist vote who generally vote against the establishment. Coir, Eirigi are extreme nationalist who value Irish independence and sovereignty above all other considerations.

Actually, Sinn fein also advocate "Westphalian sovereignty", which is absolute national sovereignty. They have opposed every EU treaty (and EU entry) primarily on that basis. As far as I can make out, they don't generally argue on that basis any more, because it's not a winner.

Libertas are as yet an unknown, many people on both sides have a deep suspicion that there motives are not genuine. For instance Declan Ganley is a multi-millionaire who owns a company that supplies sensitive communications equipment to the US intelligence community and yet he is campaigning in part on protecting Irish neutrality.

They've also thrown virtually available red herring into the pot. While one might charitably describe that as merely "media strategy", it does mean that we have no idea why they're really advocating a No vote.

5: Does the treaty involve agreements that create laws regarding climate change,environment etc?

It does not create new laws but it does make a legally binding statement of intent to fight climate change by bringing in new laws and legislation.

Rather more than that. By making it an EU objective, it commits the EU to consider it in all legislation - directives can be challenged on the basis that they are 'incompatible with the objectives of the Union', so if Lisbon is passed EU legislation can be struck down if it is not compatible with combating climate change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cornbb

wylo wrote: »

4: (A question for the yes voters) Why are the no voters spending so much money on campaigns and trying ever so hard to convince people to vote no if this treaty is geniunely better for the country? I would prefer as fair as possible an answer not just some anti no accusations of anti government etc.

I'll leave the answers to the rest of your questions to those who can phrase them more eloquently than me... As for this question, it is a matter of opinion, so I will give my opinion. I hope it is reasonably balanced. I'm voting yes, as you can tell from my sig.

I think most of the No lobby are doing so because it gives them an opportunity to be heard. Simple as. Take Joe Higgins as an example. I heard somewhere that he has had the same amount of media coverage on RTE as any of the major party leaders. He would not get his voice heard in such a manner if he was pushing for a yes vote (his voice would be lost among the many, many bigger players pushing for a yes vote). Most of the No campaigners are on the fringes of Irish politics and this is an opportunity for them to get their voices heard, one way or the other.

Libertas would be the exception. No-one knows what their agenda is. Its quite sinister, if you ask me.

In the name of fairness, I will concede that the fact that the major Yes campaigners (Cowen, Kenny etc) are also using the treaty as an opportunity to get their pictures on posters. But at least they are committed enough to put aside their differences and get together to push the vote.

ixtlan

wylo wrote: »

1: Is it true to say that we will be getting rid of that weighted system altogether for voting and decisions will now have to be agreed by 15/27 states of which also make up 65% of EUs population?

This is a bit of an oversimplification, and Sink's answer is likewise. I'll just go into a little more detail.

Currently, if a vote is needed, 74% of the population votes must approve. We have 2% of the votes, Germany has 8% and so on.

After Lisbon, there are 2 criteria to be satisfied.

For the first, there must be 65% of the population votes to approve. Our vote becomes 0.8 and Germany's goes up to 16% in order to accurately reflect population sizes (up to now it has been skewed). This is why Libertas can say what they do, which is true but only half the story.

The second criteria is that 55% of the countries must approve. For this we have an equal vote with Germany, 3.75%.

So we halve our vote on the first criteria, but double our vote in effect on the second new criteria, thereby ending up pretty much where we started.

There are further complications related to blocking minorities, if you research.

A system like this as you can imagine is designed to make it difficult for issues to be forced through without consensus, and this does not change.

Ix.

johnnyq

Re: Workers Rights

The rights listed under the charter were already taken into account when determining the Laval case. Which held the rights of big business above workers rights. This is not new.

We need a treaty to overturn that decision. This does not occur under lisbon.

So while Irl Conor is correct in listing the rights, it's important to know that they didn't stop that judgement while they already existed.

johnnyq

Joe Higgins on Lisbon wrote:

Workers Rights: Vote No to the “Race to the Bottom”. Lisbon will promote a “Race to the Bottom” aimed at driving down wages and boosting the superprofits of big business. It strengthens the so-called European Court of Justice to determine issues of conflict.

The ECJ has clearly demonstrated it is biased in favour of big business. Last December it ruled that unions had been in breach of European law when they picketed sites controlled by the Latvian company Laval at Vaxholm in Sweden in 2004 in protest at the company paying €9 an hour when the agreed industry rate was €16 an hour.

The court ruled that the only legally enforcable rate was the Swedish minimum wage and no more - that the normal employment agreements could not be imposed.Lisbon does nothing to hinder the ability of this court to hand down more such judgments which uphold the right of the big business at the expense of decent pay and conditions for workers throughout Europe.

If anyone has been listening to the debates he makes numerous reference too to the fact that the ECJ took the Fundamental Rights into account when making that decision

wylo

thanks for the replies, that has cleared everything up. The more I read about it the more frustrating the thought gets that we might not sign this treaty, especially if its out of lack of knowledge.

Ive finally decided I'll be voting yes but i believe the government have made an absolute balls of this from the start and if the no vote passes they will have themselves to blame. There was nothing even written on posters as to why it might be a good thing. I believe they should have highlighted more specific advantages from the start than the likes of "Vote Yes for a better Europe"
anyway Ill keep posting qs as I think of them, thanks again

BlitzKrieg

We need a treaty to overturn that decision. This does not occur under lisbon.

I am honestly considering if the lisbon treaty gets through to put that citizens initive to use and seeing if something about the laveal case can be done.

Without Lisbon nothing changes, with Lisbon a new oppurtunity arises.

You can point out to me how you feel that the EU wont listen or that they will try their best to put a stop to it, but its at least an oppurtunity, and for all we know you could be wrong and the EU might seriously consider doing something about it.

Getting the million signatures from across the EU should be easy, just give unions in every member state a call or email. A million would be impossible with only Ireland...but with 27 states it is very much possible.

johnnyq

Look at what it proposes.

In exchange for 1 million signatures the unelected commission will consider the proposal. That's squat.

I'd prefer an elected commission myself which would reflect the views of 100% of the population not just 0.2% which lets face it will only be abused by nazi and communist movements anyway.

Also do you really think that the commission would overturn the *esteamed* judgment of the european court. Highly Highly improbable

Crash

1 million signatories should be quite simple through the unions across europe.

IRLConor

johnnyq wrote: »

Re: Workers Rights

The rights listed under the charter were already taken into account when determining the Laval case. Which held the rights of big business above workers rights. This is not new.

We need a treaty to overturn that decision. This does not occur under lisbon.

So while Irl Conor is correct in listing the rights, it's important to know that they didn't stop that judgement while they already existed.

I'm not massively well read about either this case or the Charter but here's what I understand:

• The Charter was not binding when they made that judgement. They referenced it and took it into account but they were not bound by the provisions of it and hence were free to act in contravention of it.
• The case said two things:
  1. You can't blockade a work site to force the owner of that work site into a collective bargaining agreement.
  2. Sweden's law prohibits workers working under a collective agreement from striking to change that collective agreement. The judgement said that that law doesn't just apply to Swedish workers.

I think that 1) is fair. Striking is fine, blockading is not cool. What about any workers who are not in agreement with the striking union? I understand that many unions despise those who cross picket lines, but I contend that the rights of every individual to make up their own mind should be sacrosanct and that no-one should be bullied into not going to work.

As for 2), it's a feature of Swedish law and a sensible one to my mind. Without that there's nothing to stop a union settling a deal with the government and employers and then continuously striking to bully their way to better and better deals. There has to be some limit to union power.

johnnyq

crash_000 wrote: »

1 million signatories should be quite simple through the unions across europe.

But enough to overturn the free-market which the commission holds dearly.

I'm an optimist but I don't even see that happening

johnnyq

IRLConor wrote: »

I'm not massively well read about either this case or the Charter but here's what I understand:


[*] The Charter was not binding when they made that judgement. They referenced it and took it into account but they were not bound by the provisions of it and hence were free to act in contravention of it.

Minister of State for Europe Dick Roche acknowledged on the 4th of March that the Charter of Fundamental Rights offers no extension of EU law in relation to fundamental rights. He added that the Charter 'does not extend the field of application of Union law or establish any new power or task for the Union'.

Of course this was in reference to abortion but it also applies to workers rights too.

It's not new that's the problem. It's just consolidated into a list. What's new about that.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

I'm not massively well read about either this case or the Charter but here's what I understand:

[*] The Charter was not binding when they made that judgement. They referenced it and took it into account but they were not bound by the provisions of it and hence were free to act in contravention of it.

Minister of State for Europe Dick Roche acknowledged on the 4th of March that the Charter of Fundamental Rights offers no extension of EU law in relation to fundamental rights. He added that the Charter 'does not extend the field of application of Union law or establish any new power or task for the Union'.

Of course this was in reference to abortion but it also applies to workers rights too.

It's not new that's the problem. It's just consolidated into a list. What's new about that.

Hmm. The Charter 'does not extend the field of application of Union law' is true, but of course entirely irrelevant to the Laval case, which is a case in Union law.


cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

johnnyq wrote: »

Of course this was in reference to abortion but it also applies to workers rights too.

It's not new that's the problem. It's just consolidated into a list. What's new about that.

What Dick Roche was saying was that the CFR doesn't expand the areas in which union law applies.

In the areas where union law does apply then the CFR will be binding post-Lisbon. That's new, no?

Duffman

johnnyq wrote: »

Look at what it proposes.

In exchange for 1 million signatures the unelected commission will consider the proposal. That's squat.

I'd prefer an elected commission myself which would reflect the views of 100% of the population not just 0.2% which lets face it will only be abused by nazi and communist movements anyway.

The Commission is the civil service of the EU, it's not elected for the same reason that any civil service is not elected. In fact doing so would politicise the only institution that acts pretty independently at the moment.

The Commission does not adopt laws, that is why it is not elected and why it should not be elected.

You know nothing about the EU you're voting against.

johnnyq

Duffman wrote: »

The Commission is the civil service of the EU, it's not elected for the same reason that any civil service is not elected. In fact doing so would politicise the only institution that acts pretty independently at the moment.

You use the word politicised like it were a disease.

Commission acts independently of what? the voters? True accountability there.

The Commission does not adopt laws, that is why it is not elected and why it should not be elected.

The commission plays a very important role along with the other two parts of the law enacting process and is more than a civil service. Barrosso as head of it acts as a representative figurehead of Europe to the world. He should be accountable to the citizens as much as any other figurehead.

You know nothing about the EU you're voting against.

I am not voting against the EU. I want to use my vote to make the eu better and more accountable to its citizens. It's a pity I am only one of 1% to have this privilege.

Duffman

johnnyq wrote: »

You use the word politicised like it were a disease.

Commission acts independently of what? the voters? True accountability there.

Well it is a disease when you introduce it into a carefully constructed system of checks and balances to ensure that no one institution becomes too powerful and to ensure that any institution that actually has the power to make laws is democratically legitimate.

The role of the Commission in this system is to act independently of the political interests of individual Member States (much like Irish civil servants are not supposed to have political loyalties).

Under the ordinary procedure for law making in the EU, the Commission merely suggests ideas (ideas that it has the resources and experience to develop fully) and the Council and Parliament make the decisions on these proposals, nobody else. They are not obliged to accept them at all.

What part of that exactly is problematic for you?

The EU has many problems, but it has a much more finely tuned system of checks and balances than people realise. This isn't going to be screwed around with, to put it bluntly, and anyone who thinks we'll get a "better deal" in this respect if we vote no is quite simply wrong.

johnnyq

Duffman wrote: »

The role of the Commission in this system is to act independently of the political interests of individual Member States (much like Irish civil servants are not supposed to have political loyalties).

Can you even name Ireland's top civil servant?. I bet most can't and that's OK. Because it's the government who determines policy which is later voted by the Dail.

Barrosso, is much more than the top civil servant. Would a civil servant as you claim not to have political loyalties be campaigning here for a yes vote like he was? Of course not.

Have you heard our top civil servant campaigning in this vote (or any vote?). The answer should be no.

He is a figurehead of the union in his role as president of the commission. Accountabiltiy for such a role is the best check and balance.

Duffman

johnnyq wrote: »

Can you even name Ireland's top civil servant?. I bet most can't and that's OK. Because it's the government who determines policy which is later voted by the Dail.

You're incredible naive if you think that's true. Civil servants are hugely influential, in some cases their proposals are simply rubber stamped by the government. The Dail gets feck all done in a year when it comes to legislating, it really does.

johnnyq wrote: »

He is a figurehead of the union in his role as president of the commission. Accountabiltiy for such a role is the best check and balance.

So you think the President of the Commission isn't the best person to be the public face of the EU on the global stage? You know what, I agree with you. And so do the people who drew up the Lisbon Treaty. That's why it proposes a stronger role for the Council President.