Lisbon would take power from Ireland

limklad

oscarBravo wrote: »

A power shift from the non-directly elected EU bodies to the directly-elected. This is bad, why? This is bad, why? Over matters of EU law. Bad, why? Bad, why? Bad, why? Nope. Same amendment procedure (unanimous ratification by all member states), but no need for a whole treaty for every amendment. Based on what you've posted, I'm not at all clear on why you feel that.

I only mentioned here the changes Lisbon will on the EU if passed. I have posted many on this on other posts about Lisbon. QMV takes more power from Ireland and hand it to Larger States. EU Court have more say on Ireland than our current Court system. Commenting more on Lisbon in this thread takes away from this thread that OP started, so I will not debate this more on this thread.

oscarBravo

limklad wrote: »

QMV takes more power from Ireland and hand it to Larger States.

It takes away the undemocratic power of veto over a handful of not-exactly critical areas. How often have we used our veto?

EU Court have more say on Ireland than our current Court system.

Please explain clearly how this is the case, with reference to the Treaty. You also ignored the bulk of my rebuttals.

K-9

limklad wrote: »

I only mentioned here the changes Lisbon will on the EU if passed. I have posted many on this on other posts about Lisbon. QMV takes more power from Ireland and hand it to Larger States.

I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya! :eek:

There was a thread on this on politics.ie during the campaign, going through all the permutations if the new rules had been applied to older decisions, using statistical analysis etc. Ireland did lose some power, though not near the No side claims.

It turned out that the largest countries did not gain power. Yes Germany did, but France and Britain lost slightly. Overall the big 3 or 4 did not gain power over Ireland, though of course that was the spin by the No side.

Ireland gained over some of the medium sized countries like Spain and Belgium IIRC!

Interestingly the biggest winners would have been Malta and Luxembourg, the smallest countries!

There is no conspiracy against Ireland. 27 Countries have 100% of the power now and would have had if it had been passed. Some would slightly gain, some would lose! It was actually quite fairly designed so that the bigger countries didn't gain more power, exactly because they knew there would be claims otherwise.

Scofflaw

Seanies32 wrote: »

I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya! :eek:

There was a thread on this on politics.ie during the campaign, going through all the permutations if the new rules had been applied to older decisions, using statistical analysis etc. Ireland did lose some power, though not near the No side claims.

It turned out that the largest countries did not gain power. Yes Germany did, but France and Britain lost slightly. Overall the big 3 or 4 did not gain power over Ireland, though of course that was the spin by the No side.

Ireland gained over some of the medium sized countries like Spain and Belgium IIRC!

Interestingly the biggest winners would have been Malta and Luxembourg, the smallest countries!

There is no conspiracy against Ireland. 27 Countries have 100% of the power now and would have had if it had been passed. Some would slightly gain, some would lose! It was actually quite fairly designed so that the bigger countries didn't gain more power, exactly because they knew there would be claims otherwise.

It was discussed rather a lot - I have a couple of old posts on the subject:

This is from a long mathematical analysis of the change in influence in voting for all countries (by a No voter on politics.ie (http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=168)) - it's a measure of the loss of 'decisiveness', where your weight on the Council is the decisive factor in the vote:

Lose none
Germany: 1.0 -> 1.0

Lose around 20%
France: 1.0 -> 0.79

Lose around 25%
United Kingdom: 1.0 -> 0.75
Italy: 1.0 -> 0.74

Lose around 40%
Spain: 0.95 -> 0.57
Poland: 0.95 -> 0.49

Lose around 40%
Romania: 0.55 -> 0.36
Netherlands: 0.51 -> 0.30

Lose around 50%
Greece: 0.48 -> 0.24
Portugal: 0.48 -> 0.24
Belgium: 0.48 -> 0.24
Czech Republic: 0.48 -> 0.23
Hungary: 0.48 -> 0.23

Lose around 50%
Sweden: 0.40 -> 0.22
Austria: 0.40 -> 0.21
Bulgaria: 0.40 -> 0.20

Lose around 40%
Denmark: 0.28 -> 0.18
Slovakia: 0.28 -> 0.18
Finland: 0.28 -> 0.18
Ireland: 0.28 -> 0.17
Lithuania: 0.28 -> 0.16

Lose 0-20%
Latvia: 0.16 -> 0.15
Slovenia: 0.16 -> 0.15
Estonia: 0.16 -> 0.14
Cyprus 0.16 -> 0.13
Luxembourg: 0.16->0.13
Malta: 0.12 -> 0.13

That's relative to Germany, so, for Ireland compared to all other countries:

We lose influence (relative) compared to:

Germany (61% of former relative influence)
France (77% of former relative influence)
UK (81% of former relative influence)
Italy (82% of former relative influence)
Romania (93% of former relative influence)
Denmark, Slovakia, Finland (94% of former relative influence)
Latvia, Slovenia (65% of former relative influence)
Estonia (69% of former relative influence)
Cyprus, Luxembourg (75% of former relative influence)
Malta (56% of former relative influence)

And gain influence compared to:

Spain (101% of former relative influence)
Poland (118% of former relative influence)
Netherlands (103% of former relative influence)
Greece, Portugal, Belgium (121% of former relative influence)
Czech Republic, Hungary (127% of former relative influence)
Sweden (110% of former relative influence)
Austria (116% of former relative influence)
Bulgaria (121% of former relative influence)
Lithuania (106% of former relative influence)

That's based on a comparison of our influence compared to Germany to theirs compared to Germany under old and new systems.

And in summary:

We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)

I'll add that QMV voting is only actually used about a quarter of the time where QMV actually applies - and usually it's just to mark someone's opposition rather than being a real vote. The Council usually operates by consensus.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya! :eek:

There was a thread on this on politics.ie during the campaign, going through all the permutations if the new rules had been applied to older decisions, using statistical analysis etc. Ireland did lose some power, though not near the No side claims.

It turned out that the largest countries did not gain power. Yes Germany did, but France and Britain lost slightly. Overall the big 3 or 4 did not gain power over Ireland, though of course that was the spin by the No side.

Ireland gained over some of the medium sized countries like Spain and Belgium IIRC!

Interestingly the biggest winners would have been Malta and Luxembourg, the smallest countries!

There is no conspiracy against Ireland. 27 Countries have 100% of the power now and would have had if it had been passed. Some would slightly gain, some would lose! It was actually quite fairly designed so that the bigger countries didn't gain more power, exactly because they knew there would be claims otherwise.

Seanie we had this debate many times in the past. While I never had a problem with QMV in Lisbon, overall we do loose influence. That will always happen with Expansion of the European Union in which I am very much in Favour of Expansion and accepting new Members. Sarkozy biggest supporter of Lisbon is Blocking expansion for 10 years even with Lisbon and then claims there will be no expansion without Lisbon.

No matter how you sugar coat it over, the reality is, there is no denying it, we do lose more influence with Lisbon.

Scofflaw: Thanks for you last post

PHB

Isn't the point that we lose control? We are shifting the power from Ireland to Europe, in certain areas, on purpose. Lots of areas we stay the same, but in certain areas, climate change for example, the EU will have more power.

limklad

PHB wrote: »

Isn't the point that we lose control? We are shifting the power from Ireland to Europe, in certain areas, on purpose. Lots of areas we stay the same, but in certain areas, climate change for example, the EU will have more power.

Yes it is, I do not mind handing over some power while there is a consensus vision of the future. So far in areas, we so far have handed over are beginning to bite us in the ass. Before we hand over more power, then we should examine existing areas of power the EU that have effect us badly on the ground.

Latest legislation form the EU is now is that all Baking in baking competitions to be destroy which was part of the competition. They the bakers are not allowed to eat their own creations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4597072.ece

Any competitions I been to, I ate the food afterwards. They were delicious, made from Local produce. I did not end up eating food at the end of the day which came from hundred of miles (no country of origin stated) at the shops or at stands on the day, with the exception of the Kiwi Fruit which was in one cake.
Only a small pieces that were cut put on a plate for Judges to taste. Now having a prized cake destroyed is nonsense and it a shame.

It is like destroying Ferrari cars after a competitions because they are environmental unfriendly carbon emitting cars or able to drive too fast for our roads. Yet Trucks on our Roads emits far more pollutions that effect our health.

legislation should have protection in place for the handling and storing of Food in competitions , just like Factories and food shops, restaurants, etc.
Restaurants and Food Shops display their produces and many shops give away test pieces of food to promote them.

This type of bad EU legislation is destroying Local communities and their traditions and it ends up giving conspiracy theorist more ammunition.

EU Bureaucrats Directive wrote:

Brussels says food entered in contests at country shows may cause food poisoning.

Its states that food produced for display purposes, containing fresh ingredients such as eggs, butter and cream, should not be eaten to avoid possible food poisoning outbreaks.

Their excuse is the word "may". There is far more food poisoning in regulated shops, restaurants, factories, and there are allowing food into the EU which is not properly traceable, for example, such as beef from Argentina where many areas have "Foot and Mouth" amongst other diseases. These unregulated food will cause us harm.

I do not know of any baker in a competition who would do anything to cause food poisoning. I doubt they would be prize winning in the Future as bad reputation and any future Judges would be very hesitant from tasting the food in future competitions. Bad news always travel faster than good news.

It also curbs prospective great bakers from show casing their work for future employment in a place where many people gather and come to see and taste their work. Everybody know that seeing and tasting of food are two very different senses.
Destroying good food like this is an environmental waste.

If we keep the EU bureaucrats logic then "May" be we should ban all dairy food, meat, water in the EU as it "may" cause us poisoning. We should ban Drink and Cigarettes for long term health issues. We should ban Cars, planes, trains for killing us, because they may kill or serious harm us in accidents. See how ridiculous their legislation is.

K-9

limklad wrote: »

Seanie we had this debate many times in the past. While I never had a problem with QMV in Lisbon, overall we do loose influence. That will always happen with Expansion of the European Union in which I am very much in Favour of Expansion and accepting new Members. Sarkozy biggest supporter of Lisbon is Blocking expansion for 10 years even with Lisbon and then claims there will be no expansion without Lisbon.

No matter how you sugar coat it over, the reality is, there is no denying it, we do lose more influence with Lisbon.

Scofflaw: Thanks for you last post

It depends what way you look at it. More countries are joining so the rules would change and some will lose a little power, some will not.

It still doesn't change the fact that most things are reached by consensus and look how hard that is to get! (think the current economic turmoil)

Sorry for being short, but the same people who moaned about QMV, more powers etc. etc seem to be the ones moaning about how ineffectual the EU is.

It confuses the hell out of me!

I agree there are some stupid laws, we all know of ones, but our own Govt. and others can come up with them! (the provisional licence springs to mind)

Why concentrate on the negatives when there has been so much positive!

Hitman Actual

limklad wrote: »

Yes it is, I do not mind handing over some power while there is a consensus vision of the future. So far in areas, we so far have handed over are beginning to bite us in the ass. Before we hand over more power, then we should examine existing areas of power the EU that have effect us badly on the ground.

Latest legislation form the EU is now is that all Baking in baking competitions to be destroy which was part of the competition. They the bakers are not allowed to eat their own creations.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4597072.ece

Any competitions I been to, I ate the food afterwards. They were delicious, made from Local produce. I did not end up eating food at the end of the day which came from hundred of miles (no country of origin stated) at the shops or at stands on the day, with the exception of the Kiwi Fruit which was in one cake.
Only a small pieces that were cut put on a plate for Judges to taste. Now having a prized cake destroyed is nonsense and it a shame.

It is like destroying Ferrari cars after a competitions because they are environmental unfriendly carbon emitting cars or able to drive too fast for our roads. Yet Trucks on our Roads emits far more pollutions that effect our health.

legislation should have protection in place for the handling and storing of Food in competitions , just like Factories and food shops, restaurants, etc.
Restaurants and Food Shops display their produces and many shops give away test pieces of food to promote them.

This type of bad EU legislation is destroying Local communities and their traditions and it ends up giving conspiracy theorist more ammunition.

Their excuse is the word "may". There is far more food poisoning in regulated shops, restaurants, factories, and there are allowing food into the EU which is not properly traceable, for example, such as beef from Argentina where many areas have "Foot and Mouth" amongst other diseases. These unregulated food will cause us harm.

I do not know of any baker in a competition who would do anything to cause food poisoning. I doubt they would be prize winning in the Future as bad reputation and any future Judges would be very hesitant from tasting the food in future competitions. Bad news always travel faster than good news.

It also curbs prospective great bakers from show casing their work for future employment in a place where many people gather and come to see and taste their work. Everybody know that seeing and tasting of food are two very different senses.
Destroying good food like this is an environmental waste.

If we keep the EU bureaucrats logic then "May" be we should ban all dairy food, meat, water in the EU as it "may" cause us poisoning. We should ban Drink and Cigarettes for long term health issues. We should ban Cars, planes, trains for killing us, because they may kill or serious harm us in accidents. See how ridiculous their legislation is.

That was discredited ages ago in this thread. People need to stop believing all the BS that stems from the euro-sceptic British tabloid press.

Hitman Actual

Also, while we're on the issue of BS, here's the EU's real position on the death penalty. Any chance the No side could stop bringing up the whole "Lisbon will bring in the death penalty" nonsense now?

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

It depends what way you look at it. More countries are joining so the rules would change and some will lose a little power, some will not.

It still doesn't change the fact that most things are reached by consensus and look how hard that is to get! (think the current economic turmoil)

Sorry for being short, but the same people who moaned about QMV, more powers etc. etc seem to be the ones moaning about how ineffectual the EU is.

It confuses the hell out of me!

I agree there are some stupid laws, we all know of ones, but our own Govt. and others can come up with them! (the provisional licence springs to mind)

Why concentrate on the negatives when there has been so much positive!

You argument was we do not lose more influence with Lisbon, I said we do.
Losing more Influence is a negative. The true question is can we handle that! Some people can and other can't. Lisbon does take more power away so does expansion. I not against Expansion, I love to see more countries Joining. NICE have Rules on QMV on expansion. Certain European Leaders do not like the NICE Rules after agreeing to them.

My biggest problem is that the EU Commission is an unelected body. It does not come from the EU Parliament, like many Ministers from their National Parliaments, and yet they are saying that Lisbon is more democratic which is not, it only show an appearance of democracy, by letting National parliaments know future EU legislation. It allows them talk about it but reality they have little influence and can be ignored.

The EU Commissioners are EU civil Servants and can only representative the EU as a whole not National Interest. They are bureaucrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner

Commissioner Oath wrote:

Having been appointed as a member of the Commission of the European Communities by the Council of the European Union, after the vote of approval by the European Parliament, I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties. I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.
I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising there from and in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits.

Most People Do not know Rules and regulation of the EU Commissioner Job function. also People Keep misinforming themselves and others in how the EU function and them argue their point wrongly.

QMV comes into play in the EU Council of EU Ministers (which is called the Council of the European Union) not in the EU Commission (Put forward Legislation) nor EU Parliament (Absolute majority voting).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QMV

That why I Believe that losing the Commissioner argument in the Lisbon referendum is Bull. I do not care about losing an Commissioner because s/he belongs to the EU not Ireland. All we can do there is appoint a Body to fill a empty role.

limklad

lenny_leonard wrote: »

That was discredited ages ago in this thread. People need to stop believing all the BS that stems from the euro-sceptic British tabloid press.

There is no smoke without fire. No one proved if it was wrong report just smeared it.

Here another one From Mayo News & Irish Times.

Here a Article from South Africa on the EC directive.


Where you proof that it is incorrect than smearing the topic with put down comments like "BS" and "euro-sceptic British tabloid press". You got to do better than that in your post. Making fun or smearing something is not discredited it, it just plain laziness in arguing a point.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

There is no smoke without fire. No one proved if it was wrong report just smeared it.

Oh? So the CIA did get involved in the referendum then? Libertas are hand in glove with Austrian neo-Nazis? The WTC was an inside job? There are aliens regularly visiting earth? People voted No to Lisbon because they were afraid of conscription to an EU army?

"There's no smoke with fire" applies to a physical phenomenon. In the world of media, there certainly are articles without any factual basis whatsoever. People make stuff up.*


regretfully,
Scofflaw

*also, Santa doesn't exist. Sorry, kid.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh? So the CIA did get involved in the referendum then? Libertas are hand in glove with Austrian neo-Nazis? The WTC was an inside job? There are aliens regularly visiting earth? People voted No to Lisbon because they were afraid of conscription to an EU army?

"There's no smoke with fire" applies to a physical phenomenon. In the world of media, there certainly are articles without any factual basis whatsoever. People make stuff up.*


regretfully,
Scofflaw

*also, Santa doesn't exist. Sorry, kid.

Scofflaw: what wrong with you? This is not like you. You normal good are coming good arguments rather than taking a low level like this.

K-9

limklad wrote: »

You argument was we do not lose more influence with Lisbon, I said we do.

No, look at my post, I said we do, though not to the extent as some make out. As you point out with expansion we lose and have done, same as everybody else. By the very nature of Expansion every country loses some power.

We lost power to some countries, gained over others.

limklad wrote:

My biggest problem is that the EU Commission is an unelected body. It does not come from the EU Parliament, like many Ministers from their National Parliaments, and yet they are saying that Lisbon is more democratic which is not, it only show an appearance of democracy, by letting National parliaments know future EU legislation. It allows them talk about it but reality they have little influence and can be ignored.

The EU Commissioners are EU civil Servants and can only representative the EU as a whole not National Interest. They are bureaucrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner


Most People Do not know Rules and regulation of the EU Commissioner Job function. also People Keep misinforming themselves and others in how the EU function and them argue their point wrongly.

QMV comes into play in the EU Council of EU Ministers (which is called the Council of the European Union) not in the EU Commission (Put forward Legislation) nor EU Parliament (Absolute majority voting).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QMV

That why I Believe that losing the Commissioner argument in the Lisbon referendum is Bull. I do not care about losing an Commissioner because s/he belongs to the EU not Ireland. All we can do there is appoint a Body to fill a empty role.

We've been through this all before, especially the Commissioner and voting parts.

Your biggest problem is unelected Commissioners, Do you want the EU comissioners to be elected?

Then you seem to go onto say it isn't that important and I'm not that bothered!

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

No, look at my post, I said we do, though not to the extent as some make out. As you point out with expansion we lose and have done, same as everybody else. By the very nature of Expansion every country loses some power.

We lost power to some countries, gained over others.



We've been through this all before, especially the Commissioner and voting parts.

Your biggest problem is unelected Commissioners, Do you want the EU comissioners to be elected?

Then you seem to go onto say it isn't that important and I'm not that bothered!

If they are going to use the same Current EU Commission system with Lisbon then fighting over losing a commissioner is useless. Lisbon will never ever change that.

Yes, I do want them elected from EU Parliament.

Hitman Actual

limklad wrote: »

There is no smoke without fire. No one proved if it was wrong report just smeared it.

Here another one From Mayo News & Irish Times.

Here a Article from South Africa on the EC directive.


Where you proof that it is incorrect than smearing the topic with put down comments like "BS" and "euro-sceptic British tabloid press". You got to do better than that in your post. Making fun or smearing something is not discredited it, it just plain laziness in arguing a point.

The two links in that locked thread I linked to discredited it, not me. I didn't realise I had to formally discredit it myself. There were numerous reports about this at the time (mid-August), and they were proven false. The Irish times followed up on their original report here. The EU issued a statement here. And even the source of the claim later acknowledged that it was false, as noted here, and I quote:

Scottish Women's Rural Institutes wrote:

The SWRI wishes to make it clear that in no way has the EU banned the consumption of competition cakes entered into baking contests at Country Shows. Most Federations within the SWRI hold a show every year or every two years, with hundreds of cakes being made for these shows. They have not ordered their members to destroy all cakes submitted immediately after the prize giving ceremony, however realising the importance of health and safety they do enforce that any cake containing fresh cream, eggs or butter is disposed of at the end of the show, to avoid any outbreak of food poisoning. To avoid food waste the Institute has recommend that their members to bake smaller-sized cakes, but again this is not under any instructions from the EU.

Almost anything that originates in the British tabloid press needs to be checked and double-checked, especially when it comes to knocking the EU, as it generally is BS. There's even a whole page dedicated to their poisonous nonsense here.

limklad

lenny_leonard wrote: »

The two links in that locked thread I linked to discredited it, not me. I didn't realise I had to formally discredit it myself. There were numerous reports about this at the time (mid-August), and they were proven false. The Irish times followed up on their original report here. The EU issued a statement here. And even the source of the claim later acknowledged that it was false, as noted here, and I quote:



Almost anything that originates in the British tabloid press needs to be checked and double-checked, especially when it comes to knocking the EU, as it generally is BS. There's even a whole page dedicated to their poisonous nonsense here.

Your link on the European Commission web page in your post on that thread (you provided) was pulled it got redirected to another index page.
Click on it if you do not believe me.

None of the newspapers pulled their articles or let any comments on the webpage that there was a retraction or inaccuracies. Two Irish Newspapers (Irish Times & Mayo News) and a South African had similar story.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Scofflaw: what wrong with you? This is not like you. You normal good are coming good arguments rather than taking a low level like this.

Thank you - but occasionally I do lose patience. Your post accused another poster of laziness, while using an incredibly lazy "argument-from-proverbs" which doesn't apply at all.

That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.

I don't think I can over-emphasise the importance of that point. A lot of this debate consists of people simply making things up. The Yes side, to pick a contra-example, more or less said that our economic prosperity depended on a Yes vote. They had no evidence for that. Eurosceptics, on the other hand, come up with things like the 'straight banana' story, which anyone buying a banana in a shop can see isn't true, since bananas are still curved, but which nevertheless persists.

These things are, quite literally, myths - that is to say they contain an emotional or psychological truth, not a factual one (sometimes that truth is a truth about the listener, though), or they express a general truth. Euromyths contain the general truth that bureaucrats often make rules that are both arcane and inflexible - but the 'examples' that are used are not factually true.

So, to come back round, I'm really quite prepared to be rude when someone unthinkingly assumes that something in the papers is true because it's in the papers, and therefore, apparently, must have some truth in it. It doesn't have to. It can be an outright lie, and even when they're called on it, the lingering impression is left - and that's what counts to the people who make up these stories.

I hope that explains my rather snappy response, and I apologise if I offended.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Your link on the European Commission web page in your post on that thread (you provided) was pulled it got redirected to another index page.
Click on it if you do not believe me.

None of the newspapers pulled their articles or let any comments on the webpage that there was a retraction or inaccuracies. Two Irish Newspapers (Irish Times & Mayo News) and a South African had similar story.

The Mayo News article specifically claims, several times, that the Directive requires the destruction of all cakes immediately after the judging, and that this has already been made law in Scotland. The source for this, as originally quoted in the Times, is the Scottish Rural Women's Institute, and the Scottish Rural Women's Institute have specifically stated that it is not true. What more should one need?

Someone made this up, by taking the most ridiculous possible interpretation of the Directive, ascribing it to someone else, and then phoning up a variety of people. Those people, in good faith, gave their reaction to the story as it was put to them - but what was put to them was a fabrication. Your reaction is also in good faith, but you too are reacting to something that has no basis in fact - that's the point of these kind of 'stories'. They're part of a permanent eurosceptic PR campaign.

The newspapers are not going to "pull the story" or issue a retraction. The only reason they ever do that is if they are going to be sued, and the EU doesn't sue. And other papers are going to pick up the story without checking the facts, because they don't have time to check facts, and the EU doesn't sue.

I recommend this book: Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media - and this article.

exasperated,
Scofflaw

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thank you - but occasionally I do lose patience. Your post accused another poster of laziness, while using an incredibly lazy "argument-from-proverbs" which doesn't apply at all.

That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.

I don't think I can over-emphasise the importance of that point. A lot of this debate consists of people simply making things up. The Yes side, to pick a contra-example, more or less said that our economic prosperity depended on a Yes vote. They had no evidence for that. Eurosceptics, on the other hand, come up with things like the 'straight banana' story, which anyone buying a banana in a shop can see isn't true, since bananas are still curved, but which nevertheless persists.

These things are, quite literally, myths - that is to say they contain an emotional or psychological truth, not a factual one (sometimes that truth is a truth about the listener, though), or they express a general truth. Euromyths contain the general truth that bureaucrats often make rules that are both arcane and inflexible - but the 'examples' that are used are not factually true.

So, to come back round, I'm really quite prepared to be rude when someone unthinkingly assumes that something in the papers is true because it's in the papers, and therefore, apparently, must have some truth in it. It doesn't have to. It can be an outright lie, and even when they're called on it, the lingering impression is left - and that's what counts to the people who make up these stories.

I hope that explains my rather snappy response, and I apologise if I offended.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Apology accepted, I know this behaviour was not like you. I was surprise by it, because you have always been back politely to correct any inaccuracies with good information, and anything we differ we always debated it, in which I very much enjoyed having a good debate, because democracy gives us that freedom to express our different views.
I would not have surprise me if Seanie32 to come back with comments like that.
I had many good discussions with you on the Lisbon Treaty where you provided brilliant incites and correct many inaccuracies by other posters by both "Yes" and "No" People.
Again, I have no problem been corrected, but I have little regards for those who slander and use smearing comments to prove their points. I questioned them more than euro-skeptics. It proves nothing but laziness and disrespectful on the part of the poster, just like School yard bulling.

When I noticed that story and I did do more searching and found other similar stories, Irish Times was one. They did not retract it. The European Commission Link in the other thread provided by lenny_leonard was pulled, you can check it yourself. As you also can see, He did provided another link in this thread which was valid after I responded to Him.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Apology accepted, I know this behaviour was not like you. I was surprise by it, because you have always been back politely to correct any inaccuracies with good information, and anything we differ we always debated it, in which I very much enjoyed having a good debate, because democracy gives us that freedom to express our different views.
I would not have surprise me if Seanie32 to come back with comments like that.
I had many good discussions with you on the Lisbon Treaty where you provided brilliant incites and correct many inaccuracies by other posters by both "Yes" and "No" People.
Again, I have no problem been corrected, but I have little regards for those who slander and use smearing comments to prove their points. I questioned them more than euro-skeptics. It proves nothing but laziness and disrespectful on the part of the poster, just like School yard bulling.

When I noticed that story and I did do more searching and found other similar stories, Irish Times was one. They did not retract it. The European Commission Link in the other thread provided by lenny_leonard was pulled, you can check it yourself. As you also can see, He did provided another link in this thread which was valid after I responded to Him.

Hmm. If you mean this Europa press release, it certainly hasn't been 'pulled', it's been archived, because it's from August.

Newspapers, though, really don't pull stories or issue retractions except under threat of legal action. That puts the EU at something of a disadvantage, because they don't - indeed, can't, I imagine - sue the papers. No legal threat, no retraction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

limklad wrote: »

Again, I have no problem been corrected, but I have little regards for those who slander and use smearing comments to prove their points. I questioned them more than euro-skeptics. It proves nothing but laziness and disrespectful on the part of the poster, just like School yard bulling.

Is that aimed at me? Believe it or not, I rarely have time to write long posts, especially at 2pm in the afternoon. It's nothing to do with "laziness" and being "disrespectful". I assumed the original links were still in place; in most case they would still be alive a couple of months later.

limklad wrote: »

When I noticed that story and I did do more searching and found other similar stories, Irish Times was one. They did not retract it. The European Commission Link in the other thread provided by lenny_leonard was pulled, you can check it yourself. As you also can see, He did provided another link in this thread which was valid after I responded to Him.

The Irish Times posted their original web article on the 27th August (the first link in the locked thread), and posted a second article the following day with the EU response (linked to by sink in the locked thread). The EU response alone should have been enough to discredit the original claim; they did, after all, issue the particular food safety directive. But as usual people prefer to believe that the evil EU will enforce abortion, the death penalty, detention of kids, and disposal of cakes at an agricultural fair.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. If you mean this Europa press release, it certainly hasn't been 'pulled', it's been archived, because it's from August.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No That was the last one he provided in this thread.
I responded to the following comments

lenny_leonard wrote: »

That was discredited ages ago in this thread. People need to stop believing all the BS that stems from the euro-sceptic British tabloid press.

and I looked at his response on that thread.
His post in that thread is
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57067288&postcount=4
I clicked on his link and it got redirected.

I have often stated on Board.ie for all to see that I am Pro-EU and I made no secret about it but the type of EU I preferred differs from what Sarkozy wants for us. I do not want a further Integration into the EU which differs from the original EC/EU that its originators wanted. I prefer we keep our current stance of Neutrality for our Armed forces to continue their work in peacekeeping missions, a reputation they earn through hard work through earn respect from the local populations they serve in. I am a great vocal supporter of our armed forces for the work in the conditions they work in, especially with little resources they have.

I also have respect for many legislation the EU imposed such as electrical directives that forces companies who sell products, to prevent electrical noise been emitted and also make them immune to Noise. Remember in the old days, you either watching TV or listening to the Radio, and someone turn on motor and all you see is static and noise on the TV and radio.
This one area across the Union which are common to all that the EU is very effective in one large Market. Making toys safer, chemicals controls, environment directives to protect the water and air we breath.

But to Give The EU a free hand or to prevent or smear people from speaking about issues or bad legislation is very wrong and it is heading back to the old days of Dictatorship, censorship and it is giving the conspiracy theorist and eurosceptics more ammunition. A part of Democracy is about accountability of our leaders to their people and freedom of it citizens to response to their leaders without duress.

limklad

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Is that aimed at me? Believe it or not, I rarely have time to write long posts, especially at 2pm in the afternoon. It's nothing to do with "laziness" and being "disrespectful". I assumed the original links were still in place; in most case they would still be alive a couple of months later.

I have no proble anyone correcting me , but have proof.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

But as usual people prefer to believe that the evil EU will enforce abortion, the death penalty, detention of kids, and disposal of cakes at an agricultural fair.

You just as bad as the "No campaigners" linking comments above (I have highlighted )from you post to mine. Again You are just Like SF and Liberates from the opposite extreme. Show me Proof I mentioned those other things? again you are slandering my words and posts..

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

No That was the last one he provided in this thread.
I responded to the following comments

and I looked at his response on that thread.
His post in that thread is
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57067288&postcount=4
I clicked on his link and it got redirected.

Yes...that is because the EU Rep archives stories past a certain date. The press release he pointed to is exactly the same as the press release I pointed to. It has been archived, which is why it no longer has a link of its own. That is the way the Europa website works - and I am speaking from a professional perspective as a web developer! Actually it suggests their system is rather old...

You can also read this rather more formal press release.

limklad wrote: »

I have often stated on Board.ie for all to see that I am Pro-EU and I made no secret about it but the type of EU I preferred differs from what Sarkozy wants for us.

You and probably nearly everyone here...

limklad wrote: »

I do not want a further Integration into the EU which differs from the original EC/EU that its originators wanted.

Fair enough, although some of its originators actually wanted a federal Europe.

limklad wrote: »

I prefer we keep our current stance of Neutrality for our Armed forces to continue their work in peacekeeping missions, a reputation they earn through hard work through earn respect from the local populations they serve in. I am a great vocal supporter of our armed forces for the work in the conditions they work in, especially with little resources they have.

Well, my view is that nothing in Lisbon threatened that, since it contained the same guarantees as the previous treaties.

limklad wrote: »

I also have respect for many legislation the EU imposed such as electrical directives that forces companies who sell products, to prevent electrical noise been emitted and also make them immune to Noise. Remember in the old days, you either watching TV or listening to the Radio, and someone turn on motor and all you see is static and noise on the TV and radio.
This one area across the Union which are common to all that the EU is very effective in one large Market. Making toys safer, chemicals controls, environment directives to protect the water and air we breath.

Fair enough. I have to say that I thought the competences granted in the Treaty were both reasonable (energy, environment, space, sports/tourism) and, since they were shared competences rather than exclusive ones, not dramatic.

limklad wrote: »

But to Give The EU a free hand or to prevent or smear people from speaking about issues or bad legislation is very wrong and it is heading back to the old days of Dictatorship, censorship and it is giving the conspiracy theorist and eurosceptics more ammunition. A part of Democracy is about accountability of our leaders to their people and freedom of it citizens to response to their leaders without duress.

Um, yes, but the EU doesn't seek to stop people talking - indeed, the EU is rather desperate for communication (although, being bureaucratic, it has a tendency to turn those communications into reports). The national governments, on the one hand, and the eurosceptics on the other, are the ones with a vested interest in keeping the EU and people apart. By and large, they are effective in doing so, partly because the EU is not terribly good at communication.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

limklad wrote: »

I have no proble anyone correcting me , but have proof.

You just as bad as the "No campaigners" linking comments above (I have highlighted )from you post to mine. Again You are just Like SF and Liberates from the opposite extreme. Show me Proof I mentioned those other things? again you are slandering my words and posts..

What are you talking about? The sarcastic nature of the comment I made is not directed at you in particular. I thought that was obvious, so apologies if it wasn't. But I guess being at the opposite extreme to 'Liberates' or 'veritas' or whatever they're called is a good thing. (What is it with people confusing their name the past few days?)

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.

Scofflaw, you have just elaborated everything I have tried to say about Pr1ck Roche's and Labour's attacks on Declan Ganley. I haven't been able to put it this succinctly in about 6 months.

You truly are a wordsmith. I bow to the master

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

That people say things in political debates simply doesn't prove anything other than that people say things in political debates. Not one thing said in a political debate has to be grounded in fact - it can be (and increasingly is) a combination of innuendo and outright fabrications.

Scofflaw, you have just elaborated everything I have tried to say about Pr1ck Roche's and Labour's attacks on Declan Ganley. I haven't been able to put it this succinctly in about 6 months.

You truly are a wordsmith. I bow to the master

And now you just need to bear in mind that it applies to both sides...although for a fact, Dick Roche is much better at plausible deniability and non-answers than Libertas. If you look at what he said about immigration when the Government decided to waive the accession countries' embargo, you'll find that he never ever quite said there wouldn't be a lot of immigration. It looked like that was what he was saying, but when you examine the wording you'll see that everything was deniable. Quite a clever man, under the red-faced shoutiness - just not clever enough to realise that it doesn't quite come off.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

limklad wrote: »

You argument was we do not lose more influence with Lisbon, I said we do.

It would help if you'd read my posts properly.

limklad wrote:

It does not come from the EU Parliament, like many Ministers from their National Parliaments, and yet they are saying that Lisbon is more democratic which is not, it only show an appearance of democracy, by letting National parliaments know future EU legislation. It allows them talk about it but reality they have little influence and can be ignored.

Lisbon gave more power to National Parliaments.

limklad wrote:

That why I Believe that losing the Commissioner argument in the Lisbon referendum is Bull.

Indeed it is Bull. Lisbon had nothing to do with us losing a Commissioner, a Libertas lie.

Seanies32 wrote: »

No, look at my post, I said we do, though not to the extent as some make out. As you point out with expansion we lose and have done, same as everybody else. By the very nature of Expansion every country loses some power.

We lost power to some countries, gained over others.



We've been through this all before, especially the Commissioner and voting parts.

Your biggest problem is unelected Commissioners, Do you want the EU comissioners to be elected?

Then you seem to go onto say it isn't that important and I'm not that bothered!

Sorry you felt that was was an attack, I was genuinely confused.

limklad wrote: »

Yes, I do want them elected from EU Parliament.

The problem there is, it makes Commissioners political and open to lobbying by member states.

limklad wrote: »

I would not have surprise me if Seanie32 to come back with comments like that.

I'm offended you didn't take this up with me directly, when replying to my posts. If you had a problem, you should have said, otherwise I could easily have missed the rest of the thread and not had a chance to defend and apologise.

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

I'm offended you didn't take this up with me directly, when replying to my posts. If you had a problem, you should have said, otherwise I could easily have missed the rest of the thread and not had a chance to defend and apologise.

You use the following on post #3 " it's a conspiracy" which is a put down and it a common phrase to smear people who question facts or leaders etc..
[quote=

I know, it's a conspiracy against Ireland I tell ya!

[/quote]

K-9

limklad wrote: »

You use the following on post #3 " it's a conspiracy" which is a put down and it a common phrase to smear people who question facts or leaders etc..

Grand, still I don't think Ireland was purposefully made weaker in Lisbon. We lost some power, gained a bit from other countries. Indeed, the smallest countries like Malta and Luxembourg gained. For that to happen, others lose a little.

If you look at Scofflaws first post you'll see many countries lost power.

Indeed, the biggest countries actually lose the most influence compared to Germany. The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland all lose from 20-40% against Germany.

Would you agree looking at those statistics that all countries lose power relative to Germany?

Also I did suggest that electing Commissioners may actually make make them political and open to lobbying in the election process? Do you agree?

Also, how do you suggest making the EU more democratic?

The National Parliaments would have had the capability to block some of the EU Laws. What's a better and more democratic alternative?

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

Grand, still I don't think Ireland was purposefully made weaker in Lisbon. We lost some power, gained a bit from other countries. Indeed, the smallest countries like Malta and Luxembourg gained. For that to happen, others lose a little.

If you look at Scofflaws first post you'll see many countries lost power.

Indeed, the biggest countries actually lose the most influence compared to Germany. The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland all lose from 20-40% against Germany.

Would you agree looking at those statistics that all countries lose power relative to Germany?

Also I did suggest that electing Commissioners may actually make make them political and open to lobbying in the election process? Do you agree?

Also, how do you suggest making the EU more democratic?

The National Parliaments would have had the capability to block some of the EU Laws. What's a better and more democratic alternative?

purposefully: No,
but this Thread was started because OscarBravo wanted a debate which stems from another thread "European Union Expansion", in which I did not want to take from the other thread and start debating on this point there.

This Thread is not about other countries losing/gaining power from Lisbon, so please stay on topic. Side note to your last response: Fair play for Luxembourg and Malta for Gaining under Lisbon, but they do not gain us influence. They have their own concerns and agenda and will not always vote our way on matters of concerns to us, for we may have different views from them.

The Commissioner Argument. The Commissioner never gain us power or influence in the first place. If they did, then s/he is breaking their Oath of office for bring their National politics into their job. They are EU Civil Servants and are meant to serve the whole of the EU Citizens. All we did there was our government appoint a body to the role, after that the Commissioner is lost from our influence and is working for the EU. They become bureaucrats from their on for the term of office unless reappointed or move jobs elsewhere, like Britain's Peter Mandelson (who got a new Job in the British government).

Our only influence and power is through two bodies within the EU.

1/. By our Leaders (i.e Brian Cowan) and Ministers and their vote and influence is through current NICE QMV Rules via council of the EU.
2/. Our MEP's who also represents us are through Majority Voting in the European Parliament. We also lose 1 seat in the parliament under Lisbon. but to be fair so does other states, see this article
To bring the number of seats from 785 to 750.

QMV Under Lisbon from the post provided by Scofflaw which is post #4 of this thread. We lose approx 40% influence in repective to Germany under Lisbon.

There is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.

My position on QMV is on post #5 in response to your post.

K-9

limklad wrote: »

purposefully: No,
but this Thread was started because OscarBravo wanted a debate which stems from another thread "European Union Expansion", in which I did not want to take from the other thread and start debating on this point there.

This Thread is not about other countries losing/gaining power from Lisbon, so please stay on topic. Side note to your last response: Fair play for Luxembourg and Malta for Gaining under Lisbon, but they do not gain us influence. They have their own concerns and agenda and will not always vote our way on matters of concerns to us, for we may have different views from them.

But you can't look at it in isolation.

Anyway, Sweden, Austria, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, the Czechs, Hungary and Bulgaria lose power to us, compared to the way it was. Spain, Poland, The Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Slovakia, Finland and Lithuania remain the way they where, we lose relatively to Germany, UK, Italy and France, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg.

We lose to 10, gain over 8 and stay the same with 8. That is actually not a bad distribution, nearly 50/50.

As regards us putting ourselves first, of course we should, but is it realistic to expect to gain power in every single Treaty? If every country took that stance, the EU would get nowhere.

limklad wrote:

The Commissioner Argument. The Commissioner never gain us power or influence in the first place. If they did, then s/he is breaking their Oath of office for bring their National politics into their job. They are EU Civil Servants and are meant to serve the whole of the EU Citizens. All we did there was our government appoint a body to the role, after that the Commissioner is lost from our influence and is working for the EU. They become bureaucrats from their on for the term of office unless reappointed or move jobs elsewhere, like Britain's Peter Mandelson (who got a new Job in the British government).

Indeed, but that doesn't answer my question about you wanting them elected. Why do you want EU Civil Servants elected?

Personally I think the EU has considered electing them but thinks, while the current system isn't perfect, it's the best solution.

limklad wrote:

Our only influence and power is through two bodies within the EU.

1/. By our Leaders (i.e Brian Cowan) and Ministers and their vote and influence is through current NICE QMV Rules via council of the EU.
2/. Our MEP's who also represents us are through Majority Voting in the European Parliament. We also lose 1 seat in the parliament under Lisbon. but to be fair so does other states, see this article
To bring the number of seats from 785 to 750.

QMV Under Lisbon from the post provided by Scofflaw which is post #4 of this thread. We lose approx 40% influence in repective to Germany under Lisbon.

There is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.

My position on QMV is on post #5 in response to your post.

Even under QMV, the one country, one vote system still applies. You could technically have the 12 biggest countries representing 85/90% of the EU Population for a vote, but the 15 smallest could stop it. This would never happen, but shows you how powerful the small states can be.

K-9

There comes a point Limklad, where you have to ask yourself, "is what I'm looking for realistic in a 27 member state political Union?"

I think that's what a lot of Yes voters find very frustrating. Not the fact that the No voters won, but some just didn't realistically question why they where voting No.

Eg. Yes we lost power to some states, but realistically we cannot expect to gain power or stay the same under every Treaty, especially with expansion. It's impossible in a political Union.

So as you say, you have no problem with expansion, do you expect them to join at a disadvantage to Ireland power wise?

Germany gained power because there was a valid argument that they where unrepresented.

IRLConor

limklad wrote: »

QMV Under Lisbon from the post provided by Scofflaw which is post #4 of this thread. We lose approx 40% influence in repective to Germany under Lisbon.

There is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.

My position on QMV is on post #5 in response to your post.

There's more info about QMV and the exact voting weights in an older thread.

The program I used to generate the results is available here: http://www.mcdermottroe.com/misc/lisbon/voting/. I welcome any comments or critiques of the code or methods.

It has been extended to include the concept of "influence". I defined influence as a scenario where a member state changing its vote would change the result of the overall vote. The previous notion of a "win" (where the overall vote is equal to the member state's vote) is still calculated.

In both the "wins" and "influences" models there is a swing in power away from the bigger countries towards the smaller ones. I don't know quite how it was calculated that we lose 40% influence versus Germany but my calculations don't seem to show that.

In almost all cases, everyone loses "wins" or "influences". The only cases where that isn't true are for Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta & Slovenia (the smallest countries) when changing from the "Nice 67%" method to the "Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union 238 (2)" method.

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

But you can't look at it in isolation.

Anyway, Sweden, Austria, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, the Czechs, Hungary and Bulgaria lose power to us, compared to the way it was. Spain, Poland, The Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Slovakia, Finland and Lithuania remain the way they where, we lose relatively to Germany, UK, Italy and France, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg.

We lose to 10, gain over 8 and stay the same with 8. That is actually not a bad distribution, nearly 50/50.

Yes I can, because That what this thread is about Ireland!! not other EU countries and the Impact of losing power & Influence with Lisbon Treaty.

Seanies32 wrote: »

As regards us putting ourselves first, of course we should, but is it realistic to expect to gain power in every single Treaty? If every country took that stance, the EU would get nowhere.



Indeed, but that doesn't answer my question about you wanting them elected. Why do you want EU Civil Servants elected?

Personally I think the EU has considered electing them but thinks, while the current system isn't perfect, it's the best solution.

Not applicable to this thread as you are straying from Ireland losing influence and power from Lisbon Treaty argument. EU Commissioners are neutral and cannot be influence by their own nation.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Even under QMV, the one country, one vote system still applies. You could technically have the 12 biggest countries representing 85/90% of the EU Population for a vote, but the 15 smallest could stop it. This would never happen, but shows you how powerful the small states can be.

It more complicated than that, as each Country vote is under % weight, therefore each country vote are not equal. Because of this smaller nation feared the policies may be force upon them without any input, so there was an additional rules depending where the bill came from.
The 50% or 67% of countries (one equal vote per country) depends on where the bill came from and area of legislation.
The 74% mentioned below is the total Voting weight need to pass.
(It is easy to get confused by it).
Last is population majority.

Read the Following NICE Rules.

• To pass: Majority of countries (50% or 67%) and votes (74%) and population (62%)
• To block: Condition to pass a vote not achieved

This is the currently applicable voting system. According to the procedure, each member state has a fixed number of votes. The number allocated to each country is roughly determined by its population (see table on the right), but progressively weighted in favor of smaller countries. To pass a vote, both of the following conditions must apply to establish qualified majority voting (QMV) – the bloc's key way of decision-making in the absence of a consensus:

• the proposal must be backed by a majority of member states (or two thirds in certain cases: see below);
• the proposal must be supported by 255 votes from a total of 345 — about 73.9% of the votes.

Furthermore, a member may request the verification of the population condition (which is then also required for the resolution to be adopted):

• the countries supporting the proposal must represent at least 62% of the total EU population.

The population requirement is almost always already implied by the condition on the number of votes. The rare exceptions to this happen in certain cases when a proposal is backed by exactly two of the five most populous member states but not including Germany, that is, two of France, UK, Italy and Spain, and by all or nearly all of the 22 other members.
Furthermore, when the European Council is not acting on a proposal of the Commission, the qualified majority requires backing by two thirds (rather than a simple majority) of the member states.
Note that mechanisms by which the Commission makes a proposal may not require weighted votes. For example, the Anti-Dumping Advisory Committee (ADAC) can approve a proposal to impose tariffs based on a simple, unweighted majority. Since this simple majority vote leads to a Commission proposal to the Council, the simple majority effectively requires a qualified majority to overturn it (because overturning the recommendation of the ADAC means voting against a Commission proposal). This greatly increases the power of small member states in such circumstances.
The declarations of the conference which adopted the treaty of Nice contained contradictory statements concerning qualified majority voting (QMV) after the enlargement of the European Union to 25 and 27 members: one declaration specified that the qualifying majority of votes would increase to a maximum of 73.4%, contradicting another declarationwhich specified a qualifying majority of 258 votes (74.78%) after enlargement to 27 countries. But the treaties of accession following the Treaty of Nice clarified the actual required majority.

Read more about it on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union

Treaty of Lisbon (proposed)

• To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
• To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

The Constitution envisaged the "double majority" system for the QMV which according to some countries better reflects the true size of populations and at the same time acknowledges the smaller member states' fears of being overruled by the larger countries. The Treaty of Lisbon has adopted this method. The second condition of at least 4 countries against the proposal is to ensure that the most populous Member States cannot block decisions and is important in 10 different voting scenarios where legislation requiring QMV can be passed although the population requirement isn't fulfilled and all member states except:
Germany and France and one of UK, Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and UK and one of Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and Italy and one of Spain or Poland
France and UK and Italy
are for the proposal. In practice one has to take into account the political likelihood for each minority.

Also Scofflaw added the calculation difference between NICE and Lisbon Rules about in post #4 using Germany as comparison.

Scofflaw wrote:

We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)

Both Passing and Blocking power neutralised themselves out.
Weighting power changes which makes us less decisive by 36% by voting weight, which means less influence and power in Lisbon and do not forget that there is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.

limklad

IRLConor wrote: »

There's more info about QMV and the exact voting weights in an older thread.

The program I used to generate the results is available here: http://www.mcdermottroe.com/misc/lisbon/voting/. I welcome any comments or critiques of the code or methods.

It has been extended to include the concept of "influence". I defined influence as a scenario where a member state changing its vote would change the result of the overall vote. The previous notion of a "win" (where the overall vote is equal to the member state's vote) is still calculated.

In both the "wins" and "influences" models there is a swing in power away from the bigger countries towards the smaller ones. I don't know quite how it was calculated that we lose 40% influence versus Germany but my calculations don't seem to show that.

In almost all cases, everyone loses "wins" or "influences". The only cases where that isn't true are for Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta & Slovenia (the smallest countries) when changing from the "Nice 67%" method to the "Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union 238 (2)" method.

Welcome and thanks for the Information.
I am only interested about effect of the Lisbon Treaty on Ireland.

K-9

limklad wrote: »

Yes I can, because That what this thread is about Ireland!! not other EU countries and the Impact of losing power & Influence with Lisbon Treaty.

Any answers to my questions then?

I really don't think that attitude would work in a political Union, one of all out for themselves. Do you think it would?

limklad wrote:

Not applicable to this thread as you are straying from Ireland losing influence and power from Lisbon Treaty argument. EU Commissioners are neutral and cannot be influence by their own nation.

You brought up the point of electing Commissioners in your own thread. Why will you not answer?


I'll take a look at the rest later.

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

There comes a point Limklad, where you have to ask yourself, "is what I'm looking for realistic in a 27 member state political Union?"

I think that's what a lot of Yes voters find very frustrating. Not the fact that the No voters won, but some just didn't realistically question why they where voting No.

Eg. Yes we lost power to some states, but realistically we cannot expect to gain power or stay the same under every Treaty, especially with expansion. It's impossible in a political Union.

So as you say, you have no problem with expansion, do you expect them to join at a disadvantage to Ireland power wise?

Germany gained power because there was a valid argument that they where unrepresented.

These arguments are for another thread.

K-9

So then what is it you want regarding Irelands power in the EU?

PS. I could set up a thread on electing Commissioners but it could be very easily answered here.

IRLConor

limklad wrote: »

Welcome and thanks for the Information.

You're welcome.

limklad wrote: »

I am only interested about effect of the Lisbon Treaty on Ireland.

Well, in summary here's the results just for Ireland:

For situations where the Treaty on European Union, Article 16, part 4 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.86% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 99.56%.

For situations where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 238, part 2 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.14% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 15.28%.

So, we "get our way" almost exactly the same portion of the time but we're less able to hold the vote hostage by threatening to change our mind.


I have to say though, to examine Ireland's change in influence on its own is a flawed way of examining the situation. Influence is relative, not absolute, so you must include the other member states in any analysis. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)

Both Passing and Blocking power neutralised themselves out.
Weighting power changes which makes us less decisive by 36% by voting weight, which means less influence and power in Lisbon and do not forget that there is also areas where we hand over from unanimous decision to QMV's.

That 'decisive' is pretty technical - it would apply only to the comparison of where we currently hold the 'balance of power' under the two systems. The amount of situations in which we would do so is negligible under either system, because of our very small voting weight.

It's also very important to realise that none of these QMV calculations, fun though they are, have any real relationship with the extent of Irish influence in the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's also very important to realise that none of these QMV calculations, fun though they are, have any real relationship with the extent of Irish influence in the EU.

+1

I don't have any stats on how many decisions are brought to a vote rather than passed by consensus, nor do I have any stats on how frequently each of the voting methods is used.

K-9

limklad wrote:

EU Commissioners are neutral and cannot be influence by their own nation.

Indeed, don't know why you keep repeating it. You want them elected by the Parliament which IMO is far worse than the current situation and leaves them open to be influenced, but sure you don't seem to want to address that on your own thread! Me wonders why you brought it up?

To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met

In state terms, it needs 15 or 20 states.

To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

So, 4 can block or in certain areas, or 4 countries representing 35% of the population plus one other state.

The Constitution envisaged the "double majority" system for the QMV which according to some countries better reflects the true size of populations and at the same time acknowledges the smaller member states' fears of being overruled by the larger countries. The Treaty of Lisbon has adopted this method. The second condition of at least 4 countries against the proposal is to ensure that the most populous Member States cannot block decisions and is important in 10 different voting scenarios where legislation requiring QMV can be passed although the population requirement isn't fulfilled and all member states except:
Germany and France and one of UK, Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and UK and one of Italy, Spain or Poland
Germany and Italy and one of Spain or Poland
France and UK and Italy
are for the proposal. In practice one has to take into account the political likelihood for each minority.

The likelihood is very important as it reflects the realities of EU politics. I wonder how often the above scenarios have happened.

I wonder what exactly is meant by less decisive and how important it is if the we lose power to pass by 6% and gain power to block by 6%.

The 6% would seem to be a reflection of EU realities, the 36% of hypothetical situations.

K-9

IRLConor wrote: »

I have to say though, to examine Ireland's change in influence on its own is a flawed way of examining the situation. Influence is relative, not absolute, so you must include the other member states in any analysis. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

I do find that baffling, especially in relation to a political Union of 27 states and with further expansion on the cards.

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

+1

I don't have any stats on how many decisions are brought to a vote rather than passed by consensus, nor do I have any stats on how frequently each of the voting methods is used.

QMV is used only about a quarter of the time it could be used as opposed to consensus - and it's usually used to register opposition formally/publicly to a done deal:

Abstract: In the EU Council of Ministers, decisions can be made either by unanimity or by qualified majority voting (QMV). Yet, QMV is not used very often, and most of the time, ministers decide by consensus.

The descriptions of the practice of consensus show that it is not similar to unanimity strictly speaking. Indeed, when a decision is made by consensus, the President makes a proposal and asks only if anybody has objections against it, without counting the votes. The absence of objections is sufficient in order to adopt a measure by consensus. It means that consensus can be only apparent, since member states which are opposed to the President's proposal might choose not to express their disagreement.

Besides, when QMV is used by the ministers – in about one quarter of eligible cases – participants are already aware of the distribution of preferences and know that the measure can be adopted; voting is used only for "public display", in order to show publicly that one or more member states are outvoted.

Source: Novak, S. J. , 2007-04-12 "The Mystery of Consensus in the EU Council of Ministers" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, IL Online

So, vetoes are virtually never actually used, and QMV is used only rarely. Unfortunately, we in Ireland are used to oppositional politics, so we assume that what is important is voting weight and vetoes - they are not. What is important is that nebulous force, goodwill - something we have lost a lot of with the No vote. Our representatives can hardly claim much credibility when they cannot claim to speak for Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

IRLConor wrote: »

You're welcome.

Thanks, nice to get someone else with a different perceptive in discussion. I like to see all angles of issues before deciding on matters.

IRLConor wrote: »

Well, in summary here's the results just for Ireland:

For situations where the Treaty on European Union, Article 16, part 4 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.86% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 99.56%.

For situations where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 238, part 2 applies, Ireland "wins" in 0.14% less of the 134,217,728 voting permutations than under Nice. The number of situations where Ireland holds a casting vote, goes down by 15.28%.

So, we "get our way" almost exactly the same portion of the time but we're less able to hold the vote hostage by threatening to change our mind.

Most decisions are fairly clear cut before they come to a vote in the EU Council as it is heavily debated behinds the scenes by the civil service and by the time they come to a vote, it easy for the Ministers of each State to vote within a few hours of all the work of legislations. You got also to note that most legislations originate from the EU than from our own parliament. If our ministers have to go and horsetrade each of them and then Vote on them, they be sitting full time in Brussels or in EU country of Presidency (Currently France, next Czech republic in January 2009). We have civil Service to vet the legislations before been offered for voting in the EU council.

If you, me, Seanie32 and Scofflaw had our own civil servants and had to vote on each legislations, we too would agree on most, because the legislation would not get to the vote if they are going to be big oppositions. Working Relationship needs to be taken into consideration in order to get legislation passed within the EU. Problematic legislation are set aside until a deal can be worked out.

Also most EU legislations benefits us all.
QMV was designed to prevent Larger nations over ruling smaller nations and imposing unwanted legislations on them, otherwise the EU would never have been born. It also worked an advantage between larger nations when they disagree as they can gather support from smaller nations to block the policies. France and Britain have clashed.

IRLConor wrote: »

I have to say though, to examine Ireland's change in influence on its own is a flawed way of examining the situation. Influence is relative, not absolute, so you must include the other member states in any analysis. Anything else just doesn't make sense.

According to EU Leaders Lisbon is set in stone. According to the most powerful EU Leaders, there will be NO renegotiation.

We have to deal with the consequences of any changes and effects Lisbon Treaty have on us. We have to decide if the Changes are right for us. If we feel, that the deal leaves us in unfavourable position from previous deals then it is us who will feel the pain, not other EU countries. Feeling sympathy for other EU larger states are not our concern as they are very well able to look after themselves in negotiations. There is always winners and losers, we need to make sure we do not lose badly.
So we have to Look and understand the Current arrangements (Up to NICE) and then look at Lisbon and compare them.
The question is can we live with Lisbon new Rules. So far the People Disagree, but it is not over yet, unless Germany (Courts), Czech republic (Courts) or Finland (Aland Islands) kill it first before it comes back to us again.

I haven't got time to look at your analysis of QMV yet. Hopefully I get to read it by next weekend and comment on it. I may have some questions during the weekend about it to get a better understanding from your point of view.

QMV have changed considerable in Lisbon, so comparing Like with like is difficult. To use an anology, Just Like Red and White wine. They only thing we can agree on is that Red and White Wine are wine made from grapes and they will get us drunk! but both of them are very different, effect us both differently (One of us could get drunk quicker that the other), we both have different tastes sensitivity to Red/white wine. Also Population changes in each country effects QMV. That too have to be taken into account. Therefore using NICE QMV from 2001 is not the same as NICE 2008 QMV Voting weight. I do hope when people were calculating the QMV between NICE and Lisbon that they use 2008 or even 2014 (Estimated) Population figures for better camparsion when Lisbon rules come into effect if Lisbon is passed.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, vetoes are virtually never actually used, and QMV is used only rarely. Unfortunately, we in Ireland are used to oppositional politics, so we assume that what is important is voting weight and vetoes - they are not. What is important is that nebulous force, goodwill - something we have lost a lot of with the No vote. Our representatives can hardly claim much credibility when they cannot claim to speak for Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As you quoted have stated, once a deal have been reach behinds the scene once they knew it will pass.

As of Interest, do you know of any EU Council that Failed? I am curious about this. I have not hear any, as the Vote in the Council is to show others (politicians citizens) outside the Council if questioned on the legislation afterwards.
It also goes to show that the Deals are done before going to the Council that is where we lose influence if Lisbon is not right for us. That is where QMV is effective, not on the Council as the result is known beforehand, and the business of voting can go smoothly and for the EU Leaders/Ministers can all to go for a drink/dinner, congratulate themselves for work done and go home afterwards without any marathons/embarrassments involved.

IRLConor

limklad wrote: »

I haven't got time to look at your analysis of QMV yet. Hopefully I get to read it by next weekend and comment on it. I may have some questions during the weekend about it to get a better understanding from your point of view.

If you're not a programmer the code might be a little tricky to understand, but I have provided a precomputed set of results at http://www.mcdermottroe.com/misc/lisbon/voting/ so that you don't need to compile & run the program.

I'll still leave up the source code so that you or others can validate that the algorithm is consistent.

If anyone can suggest a different metric for measuring the outcomes of voting methods then feel free to PM me and I'll try to integrate them into the program.

limklad

Seanies32 wrote: »

If you look at Scofflaws first post you'll see many countries lost power.

Indeed, the biggest countries actually lose the most influence compared to Germany. The UK, France, Italy, Spain and Poland all lose from 20-40% against Germany.

Would you agree looking at those statistics that all countries lose power relative to Germany?

Lose power to Germany yes, you are assuming that we are always in opposition to Germany, That why you need to Look at other countries where we had opposition in the past, which happens behind the closed doors where negotiations take place, where we do not have access to observe. Even with EU council voting been open to public scrutiny, it still do not expose what deals goes on behind close doors before voting.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Also I did suggest that electing Commissioners may actually make make them political and open to lobbying in the election process? Do you agree?

I answered this in another thread as it is not applicable to this thread.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Also, how do you suggest making the EU more democratic?

This needs it own thread as it a different topic and have been discussed in other threads. Lisbon Treaty and EU is complicated and cannot be discussed in one thread alone, we need various threads to break down the European Union in parts to understand it before applying Lisbon to it and understanding that.

Seanies32 wrote: »

The National Parliaments would have had the capability to block some of the EU Laws. What's a better and more democratic alternative?

This is border line in this argument if only referring to Irish Parliament (Only have veto if other countries veto the same legislation as well). If we are on our own we are overruled. It probably needs it own thread as it need lot of information to explain current structures of each country in how it effect the EU, If you are going to Argue on the EU government Parliament then it not relevant to This thread: Ireland losing power with Lisbon

Before we continue to argue on this, we need to understand what the Referendum Commission states about what Lisbon Treaty will do for our Dail and Seanad.

lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_role_of_national_parl.html

The national parliaments must be provided with all relevant policy and legislative documents (for example, green papers, white papers, proposals for directives and regulations).

The parliaments have 8 weeks to consider the proposals.

The parliaments may send a "reasoned opinion" to the EU institutions on whether draft legislation complies with the principle of subsidiarity. There is also a Protocol on subsidiarity which requires that draft legislative proposals are justified on the basis of subsidiarity and proportionality.

If enough national parliaments vote to send a reasoned opinion the draft legislation must be reviewed.

Each national parliament has two votes. The Dail and Seanad have one vote each. In general, one third of the available votes (18 at present) are required to ensure a review; one quarter of the votes (14 at present) is enough in the case of draft legislation in the areas of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation.

The review does not mean that the proposal must be withdrawn. If the proposer (usually, the Commission) wished to continue with the proposal, it must set out a reasoned opinion on why it considers that the principle of subsidiarity has not been breached.

See my highlights in the quote above, This is why this argument is flawed, and it means that they can continue even if our government objects in the EU council. So the "Yes" side comments were misleading about the impact of our Parliaments do for us. I have no difficulty with national Parliaments discussing and debating EU legislation before hand, allowing the opposition to argue and highlight about any issues. Which in this Country will be very little since Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Labour usually agree when it comes to Europe. The Greens will stay quite while in government. We won't mention the remainder as they have very little influence except Jackie Healy Rae, probably getting EU money for Roads in South Kerry. I wish he could spread that money to include bypasses for Limerick Towns and Villages on Major Roads to Kerry (N21/N69) and Cork (N20) so we in Limerick can have our social centres back. :eek
But back to Parliament bit in Lisbon Treaty. While it would be great to have national Parliament discussing, and it would make us and our Politicians feel closer to the EU and we hear about more legislation from the EU in our news media (without euro-sceptics filtering) but It's Veto impact or ability to gain us influence in Europe is very very limited (talking shop influence) and that influence stated by the "Yes" campaign during the referendum was very misleading, which infuriate me as an undecided voter as it was a blatant lie.

To quickly make a short point if you want to discuss further for your new thread on Parliament vetos would actually would have make an major impact:

All Parliaments elect their governments who is representative on the EU Council. They are not going to reject against their governments or else their governments will fall. Look at Belgium, they still cannot find a solution to their issues. There are suffering from government failing since their last election and the Marathons are ongoing to form a stable government, it is becoming a running joke in that country. If more countries are like this then the EU is in big crises and the EU will definitely grind to a halt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Belgian_government_formation
Italians have been known to go from government to government like changing fashion with the seasons (well to be honest slightly longer than the seasons but just). I do not have enough history on eastern Europe and other EU Countries as they are not majority reported here in the media. Euronews is the best I can get to and that rare!!

By European Standard, Our Governments are very Stable, despite two coalition failing in my living recent memory.