Lisbon 2: Declaration for No voters?

Kovik

Question to those who voted no first time around.

If Ireland negotiates a declaration that in no uncertain terms clarifies that Lisbon will not impact upon the sovereignty of corporation tax, our neutrality, our stance on abortion etc etc, would you be satisfied in voting yes?

These, essentially, were the concerns raised by the No campaign. If the EU declares that they would not (and legally could not) legislate in these areas, would you change your vote?

Do you think Libertas and Sinn Féin would be happy to concede to a yes vote once their concerns are rules out?

No.

tolosenc

Theirs weren't legitimate concerns in the first place, just lies, so therefore Libertas will still oppose it, as whatever Ganley's personal goals are will, more than likely(please god), remain unacheived.

A declaration like that would be insulting to those of us who read the treaty.

djpbarry

Kovik wrote: »

If Ireland negotiates a declaration that in no uncertain terms clarifies that Lisbon will not impact upon the sovereignty of corporation tax, our neutrality, our stance on abortion...

You mean like the sort of "declarations" that are already contained within the treaty?

zenno

Kovik wrote: »

Question to those who voted no first time around.

If Ireland negotiates a declaration that in no uncertain terms clarifies that Lisbon will not impact upon the sovereignty of corporation tax, our neutrality, our stance on abortion etc etc, would you be satisfied in voting yes?

These, essentially, were the concerns raised by the No campaign. If the EU declares that they would not (and legally could not) legislate in these areas, would you change your vote?

Do you think Libertas and Sinn Féin would be happy to concede to a yes vote once their concerns are rules out?

No.

answer= no.
President Barroso welcomed the Irish Taoiseach to the Commission for the first time since he took office. They discussed the main topics on the European Council agenda and particularly the recent "no" vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They both agreed that the next meeting of the European Council in October would be an appropriate occasion for further discussion. On this matter, President Barroso said: "I strongly believe that a problem for Ireland is a problem for Europe. My focus is on finding a solution where everyone's voice can be heard."

a problem? we don't have a problem this country will still thrive without ratifying this god awful lisbon treaty. the yes side are all doomsdayers. the country will crack up and fall to pieces lol.. "where everyones voice can be heard" ? well the dutch gave their voice so did the french the first time then they took the word constitution out and mixed it up like porage and fed it to them again but it worked. well the irish aren't that stupid to swallow it again like nice 2 so i say no. no. and no again and i'll keep saying it until october

djpbarry

zenno wrote: »

we don't have a problem this country will still thrive without ratifying this god awful lisbon treaty.

What's so awful about it?

Kovik

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean like the sort of "declarations" that are already contained within the treaty?

Pretty much, yeah. Declarations to the effect of "THIS WILL NOT EFFECT NEUTRALITY" beneath the increased military cooperation sections and the like.

KerranJast

zenno wrote: »

answer= no.
well the dutch gave their voice so did the french the first time then they took the word constitution out and mixed it up like porage and fed it to them again but it worked. well the irish aren't that stupid to swallow it again like nice 2 so i say no. no. and no again and i'll keep saying it until october

The French elected Sarkozy who before the election blatantly said his Government would ratify Lisbon.

zenno

djpbarry wrote: »

What's so awful about it?

The Lisbon Treaty threatens public services, including healthcare. The EU wants Member States to limit public spending. Alongside this is pressure to open public services, initially to private contractors from across the EU, but later to world markets at the world trade organisation. This process would worsen the problems of access, accountability and quality in our services and put the profit motive centre stage.

it gives the eu too much power and reduces our ability to stop decisions that are not in irelands interests, as is a problem with most no voters.

plus i can see that military spending within the eu will increase and we will have to load off alot of cash for that as well. as they try and integrate us into the military industrial complex eventually.

it cut's our voting strength to pieces, which would be soo small it would not make much difference against larger eu countries votes hence germany.

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.we'll be all dumbed down by then if this happens.


missing a commissioner for five years. i'm not into that either.Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty removes member states’ automatic right to an EU Commissioner. It also reaffirms the “independence” of the Commission: “The Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.”

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.
well i sure as hell don't think many people would like the idea of the eu powers been able to amend their own treaties without a single citizen of the eu countries been able to have a say. you would want to be insane to give those powers to these people. it goes on and on but i'm finished here until october the 16th and i'll come back to haunt you then. ps. and i will still vote NO. down with DICTATORSHIP.

Kovik

zenno wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty threatens public services, including healthcare. The EU wants Member States to limit public spending. Alongside this is pressure to open public services, initially to private contractors from across the EU, but later to world markets at the world trade organisation. This process would worsen the problems of access, accountability and quality in our services and put the profit motive centre stage.

it gives the eu too much power and reduces our ability to stop decisions that are not in irelands interests, as is a problem with most no voters.

plus i can see that military spending within the eu will increase and we will have to load off alot of cash for that as well. as they try and integrate us into the military industrial complex eventually.

it cut's our voting strength to pieces, which would be soo small it would not make much difference against larger eu countries votes hence germany.

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.we'll be all dumbed down by then if this happens.


missing a commissioner for five years. i'm not into that either.Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty removes member states’ automatic right to an EU Commissioner. It also reaffirms the “independence” of the Commission: “The Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.”

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.
well i sure as hell don't think many people would like the idea of the eu powers been able to amend their own treaties without a single citizen of the eu countries been able to have a say. you would want to be insane to give those powers to these people. it goes on and on but i'm finished here until october the 16th and i'll come back to haunt you then. ps. and i will still vote NO. down with DICTATORSHIP.

o_O

sink

zenno wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty threatens public services, including healthcare. The EU wants Member States to limit public spending. Alongside this is pressure to open public services, initially to private contractors from across the EU, but later to world markets at the world trade organisation. This process would worsen the problems of access, accountability and quality in our services and put the profit motive centre stage.

it gives the eu too much power and reduces our ability to stop decisions that are not in irelands interests, as is a problem with most no voters.

plus i can see that military spending within the eu will increase and we will have to load off alot of cash for that as well. as they try and integrate us into the military industrial complex eventually.

it cut's our voting strength to pieces, which would be soo small it would not make much difference against larger eu countries votes hence germany.

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.we'll be all dumbed down by then if this happens.


missing a commissioner for five years. i'm not into that either.Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty removes member states’ automatic right to an EU Commissioner. It also reaffirms the “independence” of the Commission: “The Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.”

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.
well i sure as hell don't think many people would like the idea of the eu powers been able to amend their own treaties without a single citizen of the eu countries been able to have a say. you would want to be insane to give those powers to these people. it goes on and on but i'm finished here until october the 16th and i'll come back to haunt you then. ps. and i will still vote NO. down with DICTATORSHIP.

Have you not read any other thread on this forum?

zenno

sink wrote: »

Have you not read any other thread on this forum?

I have read a few of them but i'll still forward my opinion on it. look dont worry i won't be back here till october so you should be happy enough with that or will we have a vote on it. best wishes whatever your opinion is. the deeper I look into this treaty the more worrying it seems.

zenno

sink wrote: »

Have you not read any other thread on this forum?

ps. I was asked a question by another forum user and i just answered it above. thats why i had to repeat it.

djpbarry

zenno wrote: »

well i sure as hell don't think many people would like the idea of the eu powers been able to amend their own treaties without a single citizen of the eu countries been able to have a say. you would want to be insane to give those powers to these people. it goes on and on but i'm finished here until october the 16th and i'll come back to haunt you then. ps. and i will still vote NO. down with DICTATORSHIP.

Apologies for wasting your time - I thought you were going to give a rational answer.

zenno

djpbarry wrote: »

Apologies for wasting your time - I thought you were going to give a rational answer.

I just did in the last 30 pages of this thread. I don't have a problem with you or anyone elses opinions on this treaty i'm just expressing my own opinion so no need to be smart

zenno

maybe you can enlighten me on the things you think i am wrong on. >?

ixtlan

zenno wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty threatens public services, including healthcare. The EU wants Member States to limit public spending.

As far as I am aware there is not such provision in Lisbon. Please specify where you think this is specifically. I suspect you are talking about the stability pact where states are compelled to restrict their borrowing to certain limits. There is no requirement to limit public spending, just to avoid spending more than you can afford. States are welcome if they choose to increase taxes to spend more.

zenno wrote: »

Alongside this is pressure to open public services, initially to private contractors from across the EU, but later to world markets at the world trade organisation. This process would worsen the problems of access, accountability and quality in our services and put the profit motive centre stage.

Again I don't think Lisbon does anything of the sort. If you think there is please quote the section. I suspect you are talking about the clauses which state that private monopolies where were created from publicly owned organisations have to be open to competition. This does not mean that you have to privatise public services. That remains a decision for each government.

zenno wrote: »

it gives the eu too much power and reduces our ability to stop decisions that are not in irelands interests, as is a problem with most no voters.

Specifically? What you say could be true. I don't think it is, but I can't really have a debate with you in such general terms. Many of the areas covered by Lisbon are areas where Ireland's lone voice would be completely ineffectual so that our only hope of influencing anything is to sit at the EU table and form a consensus.

zenno wrote: »

plus i can see that military spending within the eu will increase and we will have to load off alot of cash for that as well. as they try and integrate us into the military industrial complex eventually.

Military spending may increase but there is no commitment to do that. The phrase "progressively improve military capabilities" can mean buying radios for the Irish army. As others have mentioned, that phrase is a reasonable goal of any Irish minister for defense at any time since the foundation of the state. A complete veto remains over any EU military activity, and there are several "neutral" states in the EU not just Ireland. As to what may happen "eventually", if we believed the same concerns 20-30 years ago we should now have mandatory conscription into an EU army which would be fighting wars in the Middle East and Africa. This still seems very far away.

zenno wrote: »

it cut's our voting strength to pieces, which would be soo small it would not make much difference against larger eu countries votes hence germany.

Can I ask whether you have carefully examined the QMV changes under Lisbon. As has been explained elsewhere the effects are actually minimal to Ireland and favour us in some cases. "cut's our voting strength to pieces" is not a scientific analysis.

zenno wrote: »

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.we'll be all dumbed down by then if this happens.

Those values, objectives and interests are determined by the elections which elect the heads of states for the EU council and the various ministers for the EU council of ministers. Where EU law is formed it is again agreed to by those elected members. Why is this causing us to be "dumbed down"?

zenno wrote: »

missing a commissioner for five years. i'm not into that either.Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty removes member states’ automatic right to an EU Commissioner. It also reaffirms the “independence” of the Commission: “The Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.”

There were good reasons to reduce the commission to 18, since many of the posts are even now "make-up the numbers" positions. Why would you want a body which is supposed to promote the interests of the EU to take instructions from any one government? Would you like the UK to tell the agriculture commissioner to scrap the CAP?

zenno wrote: »

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.

Getting annoyed now... Please quote the exact text where you are reading this from. Lisbon specifically says that any treaty change through amendment has to go through the normal ratification/constitutional requirements of every state. I quote from article 48...
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States
in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. At the very least this would mean the Dail would have to approve and in most cases we would need to have a referendum. Please don't pounce on this subtle distinction. Whether a referendum is required is an Irish decision and the consensus seems to be that we would always have a referendum.

zenno wrote: »

well i sure as hell don't think many people would like the idea of the eu powers been able to amend their own treaties without a single citizen of the eu countries been able to have a say. you would want to be insane to give those powers to these people. it goes on and on but i'm finished here until october the 16th and i'll come back to haunt you then. ps. and i will still vote NO. down with DICTATORSHIP.

Big sigh... The EU citizens have their say when they democratically elect their governments. If you really believe there is a conspiracy of the Elite then I wish you well setting up your new political party, although I doubt if I personally would vote for you. You appear convinced however that you represent the views of the public so I guess you would assume that you would win a majority and could shape EU policy? More likely I think you are not bothered participating in such politics and would rather complain about the whole situation?

Ix

IRLConor

For a start, this:

zenno wrote: »

it cut's our voting strength to pieces, which would be soo small it would not make much difference against larger eu countries votes hence germany.

is completely, utterly, totally and provably false.

See here for an explanation: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311438

sink

zenno wrote: »

maybe you can enlighten me on the things you think i am wrong on. >?

ixtlan has done a pretty good job. Thanks ixtlan! I would also but it's monday and I'm in no mood to write a long rebutal to satisfy you when past experience has shown me that most who hold similar beliefs just ignore the truth.

zenno

ixtlan

not bad you almost convinced me. I don't hold or argue for political gains. obviosly you would not vote for me. I wouldn't vote for me but like you said in such a way there are a few good things in this treaty. but i still think theres room for improvement. i need to go back and go over some of this document which is terribly done. and ill see what i can properly make out of it before i comment on this again. there are some points you made that i need to sort out. "it's unscientific" you said of my post so is the treaty. but i'll have to read the whole bloody thing now. you did clarify some things for me there.

zenno

The 272 pages on the widely advertised website www.lisbontreaty2008.ie include only the amendments to be applied to the existing EU treaties; however the website does not offer the text-base to be modified by these amendments, nor does it offer a consolidated presentation of these texts. How can the voters of Ireland be expected to make a decision on a treaty that they will never even see in full, only scattered fragments of it? Or every citizen of Ireland is expected to know all the existing EU treaties by heart, then to perform the necessary puzzle-game of insertions, deletions and modifications of these scattered texts?

How many Irish politicians (or other EU state politicians) have actually read the Lisbon Treaty. As a qualified chief reporter of more than 20 years I have, and find it illegible in the extreme, being nothing more than a collection of amendements, additions and deletions. It refers to hundreds of other treaties and without access to reading them at the same time, the so-called Lisbon Treaty is nothing more than obfuscated politicospeak.

"quote: Anyone voting for this Treaty of the strength of information they have been given is being taken for,

well he is right. it's a tough one to read subparagraph this and that and having to go and look for older amendments to paragraph with. lol well you yes voters seem to have no problem with reading it all plus the parts that are not in it. will comment after i read the whole lot and find the other parts that corispond with it out there. lol

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote:

zenno wrote:

Alongside this is pressure to open public services, initially to private contractors from across the EU, but later to world markets at the world trade organisation. This process would worsen the problems of access, accountability and quality in our services and put the profit motive centre stage.

Again I don't think Lisbon does anything of the sort. If you think there is please quote the section. I suspect you are talking about the clauses which state that private monopolies where were created from publicly owned organisations have to be open to competition. This does not mean that you have to privatise public services. That remains a decision for each government.

Minor addition to that - the Protocol on Services of General Interest (aka 'public services'):


PROTOCOL (No 26) ON SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, WISHING to emphasise the importance of services of general interest, HAVE AGREED UPON the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1
The shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union include in particular:
– the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
– the diversity between various services of general economic interest and the differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from different geographical, social or cultural situations;
– a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and of user rights.

Article 2
The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic services of general interest.

All of which seems to have a sense quite opposite to zenno's view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

david_the_great

ixtlan wrote: »

As far as I am aware there is not such provision in Lisbon. Please specify where you think this is specifically. I suspect you are talking about the stability pact where states are compelled to restrict their borrowing to certain limits. There is no requirement to limit public spending, just to avoid spending more than you can afford. States are welcome if they choose to increase taxes to spend more.


Again I don't think Lisbon does anything of the sort. If you think there is please quote the section. I suspect you are talking about the clauses which state that private monopolies where were created from publicly owned organisations have to be open to competition. This does not mean that you have to privatise public services. That remains a decision for each government.


Specifically? What you say could be true. I don't think it is, but I can't really have a debate with you in such general terms. Many of the areas covered by Lisbon are areas where Ireland's lone voice would be completely ineffectual so that our only hope of influencing anything is to sit at the EU table and form a consensus.


Military spending may increase but there is no commitment to do that. The phrase "progressively improve military capabilities" can mean buying radios for the Irish army. As others have mentioned, that phrase is a reasonable goal of any Irish minister for defense at any time since the foundation of the state. A complete veto remains over any EU military activity, and there are several "neutral" states in the EU not just Ireland. As to what may happen "eventually", if we believed the same concerns 20-30 years ago we should now have mandatory conscription into an EU army which would be fighting wars in the Middle East and Africa. This still seems very far away.


Can I ask whether you have carefully examined the QMV changes under Lisbon. As has been explained elsewhere the effects are actually minimal to Ireland and favour us in some cases. "cut's our voting strength to pieces" is not a scientific analysis.


Those values, objectives and interests are determined by the elections which elect the heads of states for the EU council and the various ministers for the EU council of ministers. Where EU law is formed it is again agreed to by those elected members. Why is this causing us to be "dumbed down"?


There were good reasons to reduce the commission to 18, since many of the posts are even now "make-up the numbers" positions. Why would you want a body which is supposed to promote the interests of the EU to take instructions from any one government? Would you like the UK to tell the agriculture commissioner to scrap the CAP?


Getting annoyed now... Please quote the exact text where you are reading this from. Lisbon specifically says that any treaty change through amendment has to go through the normal ratification/constitutional requirements of every state. I quote from article 48...
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States
in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. At the very least this would mean the Dail would have to approve and in most cases we would need to have a referendum. Please don't pounce on this subtle distinction. Whether a referendum is required is an Irish decision and the consensus seems to be that we would always have a referendum.


Big sigh... The EU citizens have their say when they democratically elect their governments. If you really believe there is a conspiracy of the Elite then I wish you well setting up your new political party, although I doubt if I personally would vote for you. You appear convinced however that you represent the views of the public so I guess you would assume that you would win a majority and could shape EU policy? More likely I think you are not bothered participating in such politics and would rather complain about the whole situation?

Ix

are you a politician or something ??

ixtlan

zenno wrote: »

it's a tough one to read subparagraph this and that and having to go and look for older amendments to paragraph with. lol well you yes voters seem to have no problem with reading it all plus the parts that are not in it. will comment after i read the whole lot and find the other parts that correspond with it out there. lol

Hi Zenno,

You are right that the Lisbon treaty is very difficult reading. I shall be completely honest and admit that I have not read it cover to cover (no Cowen jokes please).

There is a certain level of trust involved, and it certainly helps if you accept that the Irish government has an army of lawyers and diplomats who have taken the treaty apart to make sure it means what they think it means.

I dispute that you need to read it cover to cover. For those people campaigning against the treaty the thing to do is ask what clauses and paragraphs they are pointing to when they make their case. For example Scofflaw has provided a specific clause which upholds the rights of states to control public services. Can the no side provide a specific clause that says public services will be privatised? No... but they will point to the clause about already privatised organisations having to compete, and they twist that to mean something completely different.

If you concentrate on the specific areas of interest then your quantity of reading is very much reduced. It is unfortunate that the text is so legalised, but what can you expect? I don't buy the argument "would you sign a contract you didn't understand"? If you have signed any serious legal documents in your life you will have received legal advice. For example, who has read all the documents regarding house sales cover to cover? Who has said "I refuse to buy a house until all these documents make perfect sense to the man on the street"? Having said that you can check the basics, and make sure there is nothing obvious wrong.

The EU has a very good track record with regards to the treaties meaning what they were originally said to mean. They are complex, but that was inevitable when there are 27 countries involved.

Some other points I like to keep mentioning. The areas where the treaty is vague exist because the states wanted lee-way to do as they wished. eg the Irish army can buy radios and the French can commission some extra aircraft carriers. There is an abortion parallel where the Irish(some) thought the treaty would bring in abortion, while the French thought the original constitution would outlaw abortion. In actual fact neither would happen, although the Irish position was safer since the treaty (through a protocol in Maastrict) specifically respects the Irish constitution in this regards.


Ix.

zenno

lol thats what i tought. but there are a few poliers on this site for sure

ixtlan

david_the_great wrote: »

are you a politician or something ??

I'm not sure if I should be flattered or insulted.

I'm just a regular guy, whose involvement in the Lisbon debate was restricted entirely to this forum, and discussions at work. Others like Sink, Scofflaw and IRLConnor are far more informed than myself.

I had more time to contribute than might otherwise have been the case because my company is being closed and I'm being made redundant, so there's not a lot happening here!

In the future, having seen the appalling campaign run by the yes side, I am far more inclined to get involved, if there is another vote. There may not be such a vote though. If there is it will only happen if public opinion swings heavily in favour of ratification.

Ix.

zenno

ixtlan wrote: »

Hi Zenno,

You are right that the Lisbon treaty is very difficult reading. I shall be completely honest and admit that I have not read it cover to cover (no Cowen jokes please).

There is a certain level of trust involved, and it certainly helps if you accept that the Irish government has an army of lawyers and diplomats who have taken the treaty apart to make sure it means what they think it means.

I dispute that you need to read it cover to cover. For those people campaigning against the treaty the thing to do is ask what clauses and paragraphs they are pointing to when they make their case. For example Scofflaw has provided a specific clause which upholds the rights of states to control public services. Can the no side provide a specific clause that says public services will be privatised? No... but they will point to the clause about already privatised organisations having to compete, and they twist that to mean something completely different.

If you concentrate on the specific areas of interest then your quantity of reading is very much reduced. It is unfortunate that the text is so legalised, but what can you expect? I don't buy the argument "would you sign a contract you didn't understand"? If you have signed any serious legal documents in your life you will have received legal advice. For example, who has read all the documents regarding house sales cover to cover? Who has said "I refuse to buy a house until all these documents make perfect sense to the man on the street"? Having said that you can check the basics, and make sure there is nothing obvious wrong.

The EU has a very good track record with regards to the treaties meaning what they were originally said to mean. They are complex, but that was inevitable when there are 27 countries involved.

Some other points I like to keep mentioning. The areas where the treaty is vague exist because the states wanted lee-way to do as they wished. eg the Irish army can buy radios and the French can commission some extra aircraft carriers. There is an abortion parallel where the Irish(some) thought the treaty would bring in abortion, while the French thought the original constitution would outlaw abortion. In actual fact neither would happen, although the Irish position was safer since the treaty (through a protocol in Maastrict) specifically respects the Irish constitution in this regards.

.

cheers for that info. Ix.

molloyjh

Ah yes here we go, more of the same......

zenno wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty threatens public services, including healthcare. The EU wants Member States to limit public spending. Alongside this is pressure to open public services, initially to private contractors from across the EU, but later to world markets at the world trade organisation. This process would worsen the problems of access, accountability and quality in our services and put the profit motive centre stage.

I'm not in any way aware of this provision(s) in the Treaty......maybe you could enlighten the rest of us?

zenno wrote: »

it gives the eu too much power and reduces our ability to stop decisions that are not in irelands interests, as is a problem with most no voters.

There is very little changing with respect what the EU has "power" over. There are about 60 or so areas moving from unanimity to Qualified Majority Voting, of which roughly 30 we have opt outs for. The rest are relatively meaningless and are logically EU issues rather than sovereign ones anyway.

zenno wrote: »

plus i can see that military spending within the eu will increase and we will have to load off alot of cash for that as well. as they try and integrate us into the military industrial complex eventually.

That article requests that each nation improve their militaries relative to their ability to do so. We wouldn't have to do much.

zenno wrote: »

it cut's our voting strength to pieces, which would be soo small it would not make much difference against larger eu countries votes hence germany.

This is not opinion, it is total rubbish. The difference between the old QMV system and the new one is negligible at best.

zenno wrote: »

Under Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty the European Council changes from an inter-governmental body to a European Union institution.
Rather than act in the interests of the nation states who elect them, this change would mean that the Council would “aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, its interests”. These values, objectives and interests are not determined by any election but by existing and future EU law.we'll be all dumbed down by then if this happens.

Do you think the Council is some form of foreign power or something? Who do you think elects the people who sit on the Council? Again this is not opinion, it is rubbish. We elect our Ministers and they sit both in the Dail and on the Council. Where do you get this stuff from?

zenno wrote: »

missing a commissioner for five years. i'm not into that either.Article 9 of the Lisbon Treaty removes member states’ automatic right to an EU Commissioner. It also reaffirms the “independence” of the Commission: “The Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other institution, body, office or entity.”

The Lisbon Treaty does not "remove" any Commissioners. This was already agreed to in Nice. According to Nice the Commission is reduced in 2009, but no method for doing so was defined. According to Lisbon this would be delayed until 2014 with an agreed, fair and logical method for doing so. All member states are in the same boat - hence the fair remark. It is highly probable now that the same method, or one very similar with the possibility that the larger nations will have a permanent place on the Council, will be implemented if Lisbon is not ratified. Again your point is not opinion and is blatantly not true.

zenno wrote: »

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU powers to amend its own treaties, without recourse to an inter-governmental conference, a new treaty or a process of national ratification.
well i sure as hell don't think many people would like the idea of the eu powers been able to amend their own treaties without a single citizen of the eu countries been able to have a say. you would want to be insane to give those powers to these people. it goes on and on but i'm finished here until october the 16th and i'll come back to haunt you then. ps. and i will still vote NO. down with DICTATORSHIP.

The EU is not given power to amend the Treaty without getting authorisation to do so. Each and every amendment is required to be passed by each member state in accordance with their sovereign laws. In other words if the change requires an amendment to our constitution we must vote, if not the vote is held by the Dail and Seanad. See www.lisbontreaty2008.ie for more details.

nhughes100

To answer the question I can't see Sinn Fein etc coming out and supporting the re-phrased Lisbon treaty. I won't be voting yes no matter what they come out with due to the simple fact that our veto on this has been ignored.

We're getting all this nonsense that oh we can't have one country holding up the other 26. Really? that's what I thought a veto was. We are now told there's no deadline for the treaty to be passed, we are also told that the Nice treaty passed a few short years ago is crippling the work of the EU, really? Is that why we had two referendums on it?

Maybe Lisbon will cripple the EU in a few years too and we'll have to have some more modifications to be put to a "vote"

What no political party/lobbyist group/public figure has said is Hold on, maybe this whole idea of further European integration needs to be put on hold and seriously reviewed. It is entirely obvious that if this was put to a referendum vote in other European countries Ireland would not be the only one out of 27 that returned a no vote. So this leads me to agree with several commentators after the referendum that the EU politicians driving further integration are totally out of touch with what the people want.

This line we are sold that whilst all the politicians respect the vote of the Irish people we have to continue on regardless as 26 will not be held up by 1, therefore any assurances of a veto on tax, nuetrality etc cannot be believe in my opinion.

IRLConor

nhughes100 wrote: »

To answer the question I can't see Sinn Fein etc coming out and supporting the re-phrased Lisbon treaty. I won't be voting yes no matter what they come out with due to the simple fact that our veto on this has been ignored.

We're getting all this nonsense that oh we can't have one country holding up the other 26. Really? that's what I thought a veto was.

The veto on ratifying Lisbon means that we can refuse to accept the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. It doesn't allow us to prevent the others from accepting those provisions and/or continuing on without us.

We're not being forced to accept the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and we can't be unless there's another referendum which turns out a yes vote.

nhughes100 wrote: »

What no political party/lobbyist group/public figure has said is Hold on, maybe this whole idea of further European integration needs to be put on hold and seriously reviewed.

That's because unless you're a fringe nutbar party it's not in your political interest to suggest that. Politically and economically a tightly integrated EU is in every country's best interest.

nhughes100 wrote: »

This line we are sold that whilst all the politicians respect the vote of the Irish people we have to continue on regardless as 26 will not be held up by 1, therefore any assurances of a veto on tax, nuetrality etc cannot be believe in my opinion.

Again, we can veto stuff to make sure we're not included, but we can't veto stuff to make everyone else stop doing something unless we can persuade them that after modifying it slightly we'll reverse our veto.

So on tax, they can put together a CCCTB regime that includes a large number of EU countries and not include us and we can't veto the formation of that bloc. We can veto being included in that bloc, but we can't veto its creation.

On neutrality, they can put together a mutual defence pact which includes all or most of the other countries and we can't veto the formation of that pact. Obviously we can't be forced into it (and there's no motivation for the EU to try, we bring very little to the table) but we can't stop them doing their own thing.

On Lisbon, when they talk about "26 will not be held up by 1" they mean that they'll go on and ratify Lisbon without us if necessary (they'll have to modify the treaty to cut us out) but it does not mean that they can force the provisions of the treaty on us.

david_the_great

ixtlan wrote: »

I'm not sure if I should be flattered or insulted.

I'm just a regular guy, whose involvement in the Lisbon debate was restricted entirely to this forum, and discussions at work. Others like Sink, Scofflaw and IRLConnor are far more informed than myself.

I had more time to contribute than might otherwise have been the case because my company is being closed and I'm being made redundant, so there's not a lot happening here!

In the future, having seen the appalling campaign run by the yes side, I am far more inclined to get involved, if there is another vote. There may not be such a vote though. If there is it will only happen if public opinion swings heavily in favour of ratification.

Ix.

sorry- this wasn't intended as an isnult. Its just yu obviously know alot about it. I tred looking into the whole thing to decide myself whether or not to vote yes or no, I don't think there was nearly enough resources available regarding this which is why many voted no. If we need a yes vote alot mmore should be dont to change out minds- i didn't see any groups or advertising campaigns telling us why to vote yes. They just said "vote yes for a better deal in europe"

the EU is a complex institution- so what exactly are we getting a better deal in with regards to the EU??

IRLConor

david_the_great wrote: »

the EU is a complex institution- so what exactly are we getting a better deal in with regards to the EU??

That's been covered in several other threads.

This post by sink has a few good ones. See the rest of that thread for more.

Kev_ps3

I dont care if they give us a shiney new rolex, I will be voting No again if they have the cheek to ask us again.

IRLConor

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I dont care if they give us a shiney new rolex, I will be voting No again if they have the cheek to ask us again.

Well (unless I'm mixing you up with someone else) you're a nationalist. The only logical position for you is to vote no to everything to do with the EU and push for us to leave altogether. Nationalism (in the general, rather than Irish sense) is logically opposed to the EU.

marco_polo

nhughes100 wrote: »

To answer the question I can't see Sinn Fein etc coming out and supporting the re-phrased Lisbon treaty. I won't be voting yes no matter what they come out with due to the simple fact that our veto on this has been ignored.

Isn't the fact that you can vote No proof that this is not true. If we vote no again we will still not have ratified the treaty. In any case you don't veto a treaty in the truest sense, you simply refuse to sign up to the terms contained within the treaty.

We're getting all this nonsense that oh we can't have one country holding up the other 26. Really? that's what I thought a veto was. We are now told there's no deadline for the treaty to be passed, we are also told that the Nice treaty passed a few short years ago is crippling the work of the EU, really? Is that why we had two referendums on it?

It was no secret at the time that the Nice treaty was a temporary measure to enable the continued expansion of the EU from 15 to 27 members.

Maybe Lisbon will cripple the EU in a few years too and we'll have to have some more modifications to be put to a "vote"

Why have you put the word vote in inverted commas?

What no political party/lobbyist group/public figure has said is Hold on, maybe this whole idea of further European integration needs to be put on hold and seriously reviewed. It is entirely obvious that if this was put to a referendum vote in other European countries Ireland would not be the only one out of 27 that returned a no vote. So this leads me to agree with several commentators after the referendum that the EU politicians driving further integration are totally out of touch with what the people want.

This line we are sold that whilst all the politicians respect the vote of the Irish people we have to continue on regardless as 26 will not be held up by 1, therefore any assurances of a veto on tax, nuetrality etc cannot be believe in my opinion.

Our vetos are contained in the numerous treaties that we have signed up to already and are the rules of the club we have joined. We are not vetoing the treaty, we are choosing not ratifying the treaty. In effect we are voting against the addition of new rules to the club.

marco_polo

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I dont care if they give us a shiney new rolex, I will be voting No again if they have the cheek to ask us again.

It is our government that will be asking us again. See the constitution for a description of how the referendum process works.

david_the_great

IRLConor wrote: »

That's been covered in several other threads.

This post by sink has a few good ones. See the rest of that thread for more.

that was a retorical question lol

i have now heard the reasons for voting yes- 2 weeks too late and on boards.ie

where was all this information when the ppl of ireland needed it before the vote and for all to see and choose the correct decision- this is what i mean

sink

david_the_great wrote: »

that was a retorical question lol

i have now heard the reasons for voting yes- 2 weeks too late and on boards.ie

where was all this information when the ppl of ireland needed it before the vote and for all to see and choose the correct decision- this is what i mean

Tell me about it. As a yes voter I was so frustrated by the yes campaign. There were so many people like yourself who just weren't given good information on which to base their decision. This Lisbon treaty failed because of the ineptitude of the political parties not because it was a bad treaty.

marco_polo

david_the_great wrote: »

that was a retorical question lol

i have now heard the reasons for voting yes- 2 weeks too late and on boards.ie

where was all this information when the ppl of ireland needed it before the vote and for all to see and choose the correct decision- this is what i mean

Good point, it wasn't through any lack of effort and debate on this forum. I have an even better understanding of the treaty now than before the vote because of all the debate here in the past few weeks.

The offical yes camapign was very poor in the run up to the referendum.

axer

ixtlan wrote: »

I suspect you are talking about the stability pact where states are compelled to restrict their borrowing to certain limits.

The ERSI are arguing that the government should break EU rules and borrow 11bn next year in a bid to stop the recession. If it is the case that it is in Ireland's best interests to borrow 11bn then does that should that common/integrated everything is not always best for each individual country since each country has different circumstances.

djpbarry

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I dont care if they give us a shiney new rolex, I will be voting No again if they have the cheek to ask us again.

FIGHT DA POWA!

marco_polo

axer wrote: »

The ERSI are arguing that the government should break EU rules and borrow 11bn next year in a bid to stop the recession. If it is the case that it is in Ireland's best interests to borrow 11bn then does that should that common/integrated everything is not always best for each individual country since each country has different circumstances.

But surely it is a good think to aim to for budgetary restraint as the norm in the long term interests of a country. Those rules are there to ensure the stability of the euro currency, which is also in our interest.

Any deviation from the rules should be taken only when absolutely unavoidable, and in such if the need is justafiable it should be allowed by other Eurozone members (I haven't read the ERSI resoning for this as of yet BTW). This is what Germany did for some years without penalty and are now back in within the allowable deficit range.

Heavy borrowing in the longer term leads to crippling national debt and is a road that should be avoided at all costs.

nhughes100

Isn't the fact that you can vote No proof that this is not true. If we vote no again we will still not have ratified the treaty. In any case you don't veto a treaty in the truest sense, you simply refuse to sign up to the terms contained within the treaty.

So when is a veto not a veto? It is quite clear that the Lisbon treaty cannot be ratified unless by all 27 states yet representatives of the EU are saying that it could go ahead with 26. So when will this end? Maybe 25 will go ahead with lowering the corperation tax rate, maybe 20 will go to war, maybe some of them will choose to have a single currency - oh that's already happened. Welcome to the multi-speed EU.
It was no secret at the time that the Nice treaty was a temporary measure to enable the continued expansion of the EU from 15 to 27 members.

Classic horse before the cart mis-management for a photo shoot. And you want to give these peope more power?
Why have you put the word vote in inverted commas?

Because we'll have to have another "vote" till we get the answer right.(clue, the correct answer is yes)
Our vetos are contained in the numerous treaties that we have signed up to already and are the rules of the club we have joined. We are not vetoing the treaty, we are choosing not ratifying the treaty. In effect we are voting against the addition of new rules to the club.[/quote]

Again they have ignored the most sacresanct of vetos from the Irish people so what makes you think they are going to respect any other vetos?

marco_polo

nhughes100 wrote: »

So when is a veto not a veto? It is quite clear that the Lisbon treaty cannot be ratified unless by all 27 states yet representatives of the EU are saying that it could go ahead with 26. So when will this end? Maybe 25 will go ahead with lowering the corperation tax rate, maybe 20 will go to war, maybe some of them will choose to have a single currency - oh that's already happened. Welcome to the multi-speed EU.

When its not a veto perhaps.

If something goes ahead with 26 states it will likely not be the Lisbon treaty, what would give us the power to 'veto' a different treaty that we are not involved in?

Also state may do whatever it likes with its own corporation tax rates including coming to agreements with groups of other nations under enhanced cooperation as things currently stand. Some parts of EU policy like the euro have opt outs, I don't see how that is such a bad thing.

Classic horse before the cart mis-management for a photo shoot. And you want to give these peope more power?

Sounds like your only problem with the Lisbon Treaty is that it was too late?

Because we'll have to have another "vote" till we get the answer right.(clue, the correct answer is yes)

Do you honestly think we will get asked a third time?

Again they have ignored the most sacresanct of vetos from the Irish people so what makes you think they are going to respect any other vetos?

Have we somehow we signed up for the treaty already? If not then it seems our vote stands.

molloyjh

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

I dont care if they give us a shiney new rolex, I will be voting No again if they have the cheek to ask us again.

Yes how dare we be asked! I demand we be told! At least then I can have my outrage....

molloyjh

david_the_great wrote: »

that was a retorical question lol

i have now heard the reasons for voting yes- 2 weeks too late and on boards.ie

where was all this information when the ppl of ireland needed it before the vote and for all to see and choose the correct decision- this is what i mean

I got most of mine from lisbontreaty2008.ie and boards.ie - going through posts & sources etc. And I got all of that well in advance of the vote.

However I'm with sink. The Yes campaign was a load of horse poo and Cowen and co have noone to blame but themselves for the position they are now in. The No campaign (while full of BS) was run very well and the Yes campaign had no idea how to tackle it. It just proved (to me anyway) that our politicians are toally out of touch with the people.

molloyjh

nhughes100 wrote: »

So when is a veto not a veto? It is quite clear that the Lisbon treaty cannot be ratified unless by all 27 states yet representatives of the EU are saying that it could go ahead with 26.[/quote]

Well as far as treaties go the idea of a veto is somewhat misguided. If we choose not to ratify the treaty we can just remove our signatures from it - we have already signed the treaty but not ratified it - and have any references to ourselves removed. That would be how the other member states can go ahead without us. Its a perfectly normal and reasonable way forward for the rest of them as thats how treaties work.

nhughes100

marco_polo wrote: »

When its not a veto perhaps.

If something goes ahead with 26 states it will likely not be the Lisbon treaty, what would give us the power to 'veto' a different treaty that we are not involved in?

So we have an opt out not a veto. Several prominent EU reps have stated that this(Lisbon) is going ahead for the EU with out without Ireland.

Also state may do whatever it likes with its own corporation tax rates including coming to agreements with groups of other nations under enhanced cooperation as things currently stand. Some parts of EU policy like the euro have opt outs, I don't see how that is such a bad thing.

Nor do I see opt outs as bad things but at least call them that, not vetos.


Sounds like your only problem with the Lisbon Treaty is that it was too late?

No that was one of my problems with the Lisbon treaty and the EU in general.

Do you honestly think we will get asked a third time?

Yes of course we'll be asked again if the 2nd vote is no but it will most likely be a yes since we'll be told we'll have to leave the EU if we don't signup. I love the way we are all taking a second vote as being par for the course already!
Have we somehow we signed up for the treaty already? If not then it seems our vote stands.

Our vote stands yet the other 26 will go ahead with the Lisbon treaty. Therefore our vote has effectively been ignored.

sink

nhughes100 wrote: »

Our vote stands yet the other 26 will go ahead with the Lisbon treaty. Therefore our vote has effectively been ignored.

Well if we're not involved it means our vote was respected. We can't control what other countries do much like they can't control what we do without specific agreements. They never agreed to not co-operate if we don't want them to, nor should they.

marco_polo

nhughes100 wrote: »

Our vote stands yet the other 26 will go ahead with the Lisbon treaty. Therefore our vote has effectively been ignored.

We could be asked to remove our signature or perhaps they will draw up an identical treaty and leave us out of it. Either way our vote is very much respected.

molloyjh

nhughes100 wrote: »

Our vote stands yet the other 26 will go ahead with the Lisbon treaty. Therefore our vote has effectively been ignored.

Our vote would be respected in that case as we stated that we didn't want it so we didn't get it. We let everyone else make up their own mind.

nhughes100

Then explain the statement that Lisbon cannot come into effect until all 27 member states have ratified the treaty.