Sinn fein and the new lisbon

wylo

I voted yes in the last treaty having read as much as i could about it, and having read a chunk of the thing itself. While admittedly it was a very tough read I came to my OWN conclusion about the treaty.

Anyway I have to say well done to Sinn Fein if Ireland are given an exception to their main commissioner arguement.
Sinn Fein said we can do better, and better we'll do. I congratulate them for pressing with a No vote last time if thats the case. However if they continue with a No campaign this time despite alterations in the treaty then I'll lose any respect I had for them.

Im just wondering what do you think Sinn Feins stance be on a new treaty if one of their main arguments, "losing our commissioner" will be responded to?

murfie

Sinn fein will more than likely come up with some other reason not to support the treaty and run with it. They are the party that will forever go against the main stream view of their political opposition.

RedPlanet

An ignorant post!
Sinn Fein have a detailed argument about what changes they seek.
Just go to www.sinnfien.ie and click on "Majority View - Minority Report"

WooPeeA

Ireland will lose commissioner under current treaty anyway. Treaty of Lisbon won't make any change in that issue. Hope people won't get lied that easily this time.

murfie

RedPlanet wrote: »

An ignorant post!
Sinn Fein have a detailed argument about what changes they seek.
Just go to www.sinnfien.ie and click on "Majority View - Minority Report"

Ignorant, Ha you wait and see which one of our posts are ignorant.

Patricide

To be honest, i voted No last time and il vote no again regardless of what ammendments are made to lisbon. Simple reason, the people of Ireland voted and the majority of people made there opinion clear on the matter. Its not democracy to keep on voting untill the E.U. gets the answer they want.

PurpleFistMixer

Patricide wrote: »

To be honest, i voted No last time and il vote no again regardless of what ammendments are made to lisbon. Simple reason, the people of Ireland voted and the majority of people made there opinion clear on the matter. Its not democracy to keep on voting untill the E.U. gets the answer they want.

So even if they completely changed the treaty you'd still vote no, because you once voted no to an essentially different treaty that had the same name?

Patricide

Theres a difference between a few ammendments and completely changing the treaty.

the_god_swan

Patricide wrote: »

To be honest, i voted No last time and il vote no again regardless of what ammendments are made to lisbon. Simple reason, the people of Ireland voted and the majority of people made there opinion clear on the matter. Its not democracy to keep on voting untill the E.U. gets the answer they want.

That’s the most stupid argument ive ever heard, and its one that rampant on boards.ie at the moment.

What you’re really saying is you want to piss off the current Irish government because you’re not happy with how they have dealt with the latest home decisions. So what you should really do is not vote them back in, in the next general election.

All you are doing with your above plan is jeopardising Irelands position in Europe as it is, future investment, jobs, financing from the EU. Say good bye to it all if the European Union moves on without us... And they will, because lets face it, Ireland voice in the world is basically nothing as it is.

Patricide

the_god_swan wrote: »

That’s the most stupid argument ive ever heard, and its one that rampant on boards.ie at the moment.

What you’re really saying is you want to piss off the current Irish government because you’re not happy with how they have dealt with the latest home decisions. So what you should really do is not vote them back in, in the next general election.

All you are doing with your above plan is jeopardising Irelands position in Europe as it is, future investment, jobs, financing from the EU. Say good bye to it all if the European Union moves on without us... And they will, because lets face it, Ireland voice in the world is basically nothing as it is.

Well I could just as easily make the argument that what your doing is giving in to europes demands, letting them blackmail you in a way. Its the whole accept the treaty or wel move on without you mentality of the european union that gets on my nerves. True we would be nowhere without them now but still that doesnt give them the right to force a decision on us that the majority of the country has already voted against, which in my opinion is exactly what there doing.

Face it were going to revote again and again untill the treaty goes through anyway but I wont be a part of it. Its not how democracy is meant to work in my opinion.

Personally I think our governments time and manpower would be better off spent trying to sort out the current economic affairs here, not wasting it on another Lisbon. We voted "No", and that should of been the end of it.

ben bedlam

wylo wrote: »

I voted yes in the last treaty having read as much as i could about it, and having read a chunk of the thing itself. While admittedly it was a very tough read I came to my OWN conclusion about the treaty.

Anyway I have to say well done to Sinn Fein if Ireland are given an exception to their main commissioner arguement.
Sinn Fein said we can do better, and better we'll do. I congratulate them for pressing with a No vote last time if thats the case. However if they continue with a No campaign this time despite alterations in the treaty then I'll lose any respect I had for them.

Im just wondering what do you think Sinn Feins stance be on a new treaty if one of their main arguments, "losing our commissioner" will be responded to?

You claim there that there are "alterations in the treaty". No there are not. The Lisbon treaty is a binding legal document. If even one comma in the treaty is changed, it becomes a new legal document and must be re-ratified by all member states again.

The EU deal is that they will grant these alterations to Ireland in a new treaty ONLY IF Ireland vote yes to Lisbon. Lisbon itself remains unchanged and by voting yes, we would vote yes to enforce all clauses in the original document, all of the clauses that have made people vote no in Lisbon 1. Lisbon 2 IS IDENTICAL to Lisbon 1

RedPlanet

murfie wrote: »

Sinn fein will more than likely come up with some other reason not to support the treaty and run with it. They are the party that will forever go against the main stream view of their political opposition.

The reason it's an ignorant post murfie, is that: while i'm confident SF will come out against the Lisbon II, it's not that they are just inventing some other reason; rather it's that they've stated what they'd prefer to see for an EU teaty. So their terms for supporting or not supporing, are already in the public domain.

carveone

the_god_swan wrote: »

That’s the most stupid argument ive ever heard, and its one that rampant on boards.ie at the moment.

Ah yeah. The "no should be final" argument. Which is not what even Sinn Fein said at the time - they said "we want some amendments/assurances". Besides, it's a woman's perogative to change her mind right? Man's too

Most of the No voters on boards.ie in June were saying either they'd vote no to be safe (what harm could it do) or they'd vote no cause they disliked the way other countries were run.

All you are doing with your above plan is jeopardising Irelands position in Europe as it is, future investment, jobs, financing from the EU. Say good bye to it all if the European Union moves on without us... And they will, because lets face it, Ireland voice in the world is basically nothing as it is.

Yes. They will. However, I believe the current situation will concentrate people's minds more. I'd seriously consider bailing out of the country if we voted No again. It's not as if I have a job anymore anyway...

wylo

ben bedlam wrote: »

You claim there that there are "alterations in the treaty". No there are not. The Lisbon treaty is a binding legal document. If even one comma in the treaty is changed, it becomes a new legal document and must be re-ratified by all member states again.

The EU deal is that they will grant these alterations to Ireland in a new treaty ONLY IF Ireland vote yes to Lisbon. Lisbon itself remains unchanged and by voting yes, we would vote yes to enforce all clauses in the original document, all of the clauses that have made people vote no in Lisbon 1. Lisbon 2 IS IDENTICAL to Lisbon 1

Ok fair enough, today I had understood it as the opposite,i.e. Ireland will hold another referendum ONLY IF there are changes made to the treaty, and yes that would mean every country having to reratify.
Ps that Sinnfein.ie link is down, how convenient:D edit:sorry was typing it wrong:o

sink

I think the main concern with Sinn Fein is that they haven't a hope in hell of getting 99% of what the want. Some of their proposals fly directly in the face of key goals of other members which they will not concede ever! They seem to fail to realise that the EU is a club of 27 and their us vs them attitude is awfully simplistic.

WooPeeA

Patricide wrote: »

To be honest, i voted No last time and il vote no again regardless of what ammendments are made to lisbon. Simple reason, the people of Ireland voted and the majority of people made there opinion clear on the matter. Its not democracy to keep on voting untill the E.U. gets the answer they want.

And again, you won't vote on the Treaty, but on country's inside problem.

It's not the EU who demanded another referendum. EU asked Cowen for some solution, in reply he asked for more time. Then, after about 6 months of parliament debates, he decided that best solution will be new and honest referendum.

RedPlanet

wylo wrote: »

Ok fair enough, today I had understood it as the opposite,i.e. Ireland will hold another referendum ONLY IF there are changes made to the treaty, and yes that would mean every country having to reratify.
Ps that Sinnfein.ie link is down, how convenient:D edit:sorry was typing it wrong:o

http://www.sinnfein.ie/
The link works for me.

BOHSBOHS

ben bedlam is right

THERE WONT BE ANY CHANGES to the treaty

we might get a few worthless "declarations" made in relation to it
like granting ireland a "commissioner with special responsiblity for seating alignment" or some crap (our politicians like those kinda titles :-) )

ShooterSF

wylo wrote: »

Ok fair enough, today I had understood it as the opposite,i.e. Ireland will hold another referendum ONLY IF there are changes made to the treaty, and yes that would mean every country having to reratify.
Ps that Sinnfein.ie link is down, how convenient:D edit:sorry was typing it wrong:o

The problem there is that if the other countries have to ratify, the conservatives may be in power in the UK and have promised a referendum if the oportunity arises. By keeping it the same and tacking on their promises in a new treaty they can avoid this as The UK has already ratified the treaty as is and couldnt repeal it as it modifies others.
Why do you think the EU presidency demanded other countries continued ratifying a treaty which renegotiated would have to by ratified again?

techdiver

Let me preface this with a comment that I am not nor ever have been associated with any political party.

Having Sinn Féin opposed to the Lisbon Treaty is one reason for voting yes in my opinion.

They have yet to prove their worth as a main stream political entity since their transition to main stream politics.

Their economical policies are laughable and they still surround themselves with an "unsavoury" element in Irish life. The party lacks the serious leaderships and direction required in modern politics.

I actually hope that as time goes on, they will prove me wrong as we desperately need more alternatives in Irish politics, and a strong alternative opposition party would be good for the country.

I think it's time for them to move on and put new faces forward and put the old out to pasture, Mary Lou included!

techdiver

techdiver wrote: »

Let me preface this with a comment that I am not nor ever have been associated with any political party.

Having Sinn Féin opposed to the Lisbon Treaty is one reason for voting yes in my opinion.

They have yet to prove their worth as a main stream political entity since their transition to main stream politics.

Their economical policies are laughable and they still surround themselves with an "unsavoury" element in Irish life. The party lacks the serious leaderships and direction required in modern politics.

I actually hope that as time goes on, they will prove me wrong as we desperately need more alternatives in Irish politics, and a strong alternative opposition party would be good for the country.

I think it's time for them to move on and put new faces forward and put the old out to pasture, Mary Lou included!

:rolleyes:

techdiver

techdiver wrote: »

Having Sinn Féin opposed to the Lisbon Treaty is one reason for voting yes in my opinion.

To base any vote on that reason is a waste of a vote whether it be yes or no :rolleyes:

carveone

BOHSBOHS wrote: »

like granting ireland a "commissioner with special responsiblity for seating alignment" or some crap (our politicians like those kinda titles :-) )

I was just thinking that yesterday. I mean, what else are they going to do with 27 commissioners anyway? They'll have to be at least 10 which have titles like the one you aptly suggested. I'd say that after all this mess, Ireland will have the Commissioner for dealing with whiny countries on the periphery. Or Commissioner for bog roll softness.

Not that Ireland has a commissioner anyway of course (to reiterate that point for the millionth time), there just happens to be one that's Irish. Can you imagine if the Commissioner for Social Affairs in '73, Patrick Hillery (Irish of course), hadn't told O'Leary and the FG-Labour Government to go and shove it over equal pay (for women). We'd probably still have the Marriage Bar... That's the EU telling us. Guess that's why he was recalled in 76.

Patricide

It may be biffo whos implementing the second refferendum but obviously he wouldnt do this without feeling the pressure from the E.U.

That is that if the E.U. werent pressuring him to get Ireland as a whole to step in line with what the E.U. want then there would be no second refferendum.

The first time i voted on lisbon it wasnt just to spite the european union it was because I genuinely disagree with certain aspects of it. I still disagree with certain aspects of it so I will be voting no again although this time it will be not just because of this factor but I believe its going against the idea of democracy in my opinion. The whole thing reminds me of the corruption you would expect to see in some 3rd world countries. Vote till you get the "right" result.

The Corinthian

Patricide wrote: »

Theres a difference between a few ammendments and completely changing the treaty.

And everyone who voted no wanted the treaty completely changed?

RedPlanet wrote: »

The reason it's an ignorant post murfie, is that: while i'm confident SF will come out against the Lisbon II, it's not that they are just inventing some other reason; rather it's that they've stated what they'd prefer to see for an EU teaty. So their terms for supporting or not supporing, are already in the public domain.

So was Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in 1914.

The thing about conditions is that it's very easy to put enough of them in so as to guarantee that they'll be rejected, but you'll be able to hold your head up high and say that you sought a compromise and it was rejected.

Couldn't actually find what the conditions were that Sinn Fein are seeking on their site, btw. Only thing I found was that, even before any announcement has been made on concessions, that they will oppose it. What a surprise.

Patricide

Nope, but im not speaking for everyone. Im speaking about me and my vote.

RedPlanet

The Corinthian wrote: »

Couldn't actually find what the conditions were that Sinn Fein are seeking on their site, btw. Only thing I found was that, even before any announcement has been made on concessions, that they will oppose it. What a surprise.

Sorry, i got that wrong earlier.
Go to http://www.no2lisbon.ie/ and click on the link for "A better deal for Ireland and the EU" for SF's detailed submission as to an acceptable EU treaty.

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

And everyone who voted no wanted the treaty completely changed?

So was Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in 1914.

The thing about conditions is that it's very easy to put enough of them in so as to guarantee that they'll be rejected, but you'll be able to hold your head up high and say that you sought a compromise and it was rejected.

Couldn't actually find what the conditions were that Sinn Fein are seeking on their site, btw. Only thing I found was that, even before any announcement has been made on concessions, that they will oppose it. What a surprise.

Well, on balance, Sinn Fein's opposition to Lisbon II, whatever the package of concessions, was as inevitable as a second referendum. The only reason Sinn Fein don't actually say they're opposed to the EU is because they don't feel it would be a popular message, but it's not possible for a party that believes in undiluted Irish sovereignty to support Irish engagement in the EU. Definitely not at the political level - and based on the evidence of SF's historical EU treaty campaigns, not at any level.

Still, I prefer that principled opposition to the apparent political opportunism shown by Libertas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

murfie wrote: »

Sinn fein will more than likely come up with some other reason not to support the treaty and run with it. They are the party that will forever go against the main stream view of their political opposition.

That's not the case any more I think, SF have been trying to build themselves up as a serious alternative for a while now. They didn't do well in the last general election, but if they play this next referendum right and are on the winning side twice in a row they will be considered more seriously come the next election (although not by me).

Eurosceptic2008

Their response will probably be that the Treaty is not being changed and that the assurances from the European Council are not of themselves legally-binding. Essentially we are being asked to trust the word of Cowen and the other EU govts - many of whom called their trustworthiness into question by breaking promises to hold referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon in their respective countries e.g. Poland, the UK, Denmark. And even then, the changes wouldn't come into effect unless the Croatian people vote for their Accession treaty which is the document the changes will be included. So effectively, what we are being offered is a promise thrice-removed from Cowen. Not exactly reassuring.

passive

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Their response will probably be that the Treaty is not being changed and that the assurances from the European Council are not of themselves legally-binding. Essentially we are being asked to trust the word of Cowen and the other EU govts - many of whom called their trustworthiness into question by breaking promises to hold referenda on the EU Constitution/Lisbon in their respective countries e.g. Poland, the UK, Denmark. And even then, the changes wouldn't come into effect unless the Croatian people vote for their Accession treaty which is the document the changes will be included. So effectively, what we are being offered is a promise thrice-removed from Cowen. Not exactly reassuring.

While I appreciate that you're honest enough to wear your colours and be anti-EU in your username, I'd really appreciate if you'd stop lying about the guarantees/resolutions. You know that when they say they will print out in huge letters "THE LISBON TREATY WILL NOT MAKE X/Y/Z HAPPEN" and sign it, then that is the case, and people should not vote based on their fears about X, Y and Z. Hell I'd go so far as to say you knew in the last referendum that X, Y and Z weren't part of Lisbon, but you and others like you are taking advantage of other people's inability to see that.

You are choosing to fudge the issues and play on peoples fears. If you can't convince people to vote no based on the actual issues at hand, or your actual reasons for opposing it (you want us out of the EU, I assume?) then please just give up and get a new hobby. Stop spreading lies.

Frankie Lee

A bit off topic but a good read in relation to matters of defence:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Third Report


[SIZE=+1]7 European Security and Defence Policy [/SIZE]

204. The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) grew from a UK-French initiative agreed at St Malo in 1998, with the aim of developing an EU military capacity that would be in some sense autonomous of the US. The ESDP remains in its infancy, but has developed extremely rapidly. At the end of 2007, there were eight concluded, ten active and two planned ESDP missions, in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Western Balkans and the former Soviet Union.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note462"]462[/URL
205. President Sarkozy of France has already made clear that, ten years after St Malo, the development of EU defence will be a priority of France's EU Presidency in the second half of 2008.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note463"]463[/URL
206. We are aware that the Defence Select Committee is conducting a major Inquiry into NATO and European Defence, which is likely to report before NATO's Bucharest summit in April 2008, and which is likely to consider the ESDP and the impact on it of the Lisbon Treaty in some detail. The Ministry of Defence, not the FCO, is also the lead UK department for ESDP matters. In this chapter, therefore, we confine ourselves to noting the main relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and reporting the comments of our witnesses.
General ESDP provisions
207. Lord Owen drew our attention to an apparent inconsistency in the language about the ESDP in the Lisbon Treaty. At the opening of the CFSP chapter, the Lisbon Treaty text makes reference to "the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence" (emphasis added).URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note464"]464[/URL However, in the subsection dealing specifically with the ESDP, the Treaty text states that "The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides" (emphasis added).URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note465"]465[/URL Both versions were already contained in the Constitutional Treaty, which added the stronger language to the existing Treaty provision referring to "might".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note466"]466[/URL Lord Owen told us that "we cannot put into law two phrases which are mutually exclusive."URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note467"]467[/URL However, the Foreign Secretary said that he was "not sure that there is the distinction" and referred only to the "will" version of the wording.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note468"]468[/URL We understand the argument that the apparent contradiction between the two propositions is not a real contradiction, i.e. it is not incompatible to assert (a) that something might happen and (b) that it will happen if certain circumstances obtain (in this case, that the European Council gives its unanimous approval). We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty retains from the Constitutional Treaty a wording that on the surface at least is clumsy and ambiguous in its references to the prospect that the European Security and Defence Policy both "might" and "will" lead to a common defence. We therefore recommend that in its response to this Report the Government states whether or not it agrees that this is the case, providing such clarification as is necessary.
208. The Lisbon Treaty includes a form of mutual defence clause. This is as follows:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and co-operation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those states which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note469"]469[/URL
209. The Lisbon Treaty provides for the establishment of new procedures to provide "rapid access" to the EU budget and to create a "start-up fund" of Member State contributions, outside the EU budget. Both initiatives would be to finance "urgent initiatives" under the CFSP, and in particular preparatory activities for ESDP missions.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note470"]470[/URL Decisions on both proposals would be made by qualified majority vote, with the High Representative drawing up the proposal on the "start-up fund". The High Representative would also be authorised to use the fund. According to Open Europe, the new "start-up fund" "is seen by many as the first step towards a common defence budget for the EU."URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note471"]471[/URL
210. Under the Lisbon Treaty, ESDP decisions—including those initiating an ESDP mission—would be taken by the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative or a Member State.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note472"]472[/URL We have noted elsewhere the way in which CFSP decisions with military or defence implications would be excluded from current or possible future qualified majority voting under the Treaty.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note473"]473[/URL Professor Whitman included the ESDP in his general view that the Treaty would preserve the intergovernmental nature of the CFSP.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note474"]474[/URL
Lisbon Treaty changes
211. Under the Lisbon Treaty the ESDP would gain an expanded and more distinctive Treaty base. In the existing TEU, the ESDP is dealt with in a single Article, which is subsumed within the CFSP provisions and which Professor Whitman told us was "feeling increasingly threadbare".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note475"]475[/URL Under the Lisbon Treaty, the ESDP would have five Articles, gathered in a dedicated named subsection of the TEU's CFSP chapter.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note476"]476[/URL
212. Professor Whitman identified five substantive changes which the Lisbon Treaty would make to the existing Treaty provisions on the ESDP.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note477"]477[/URL The five changes are:

• expanded "aims and ambitions" for the policy, in particular as regards Member State military capabilities;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note478"]478[/URL
• an expansion in the list of "Petersberg tasks", i.e. the humanitarian, crisis management and peace-building tasks which the EU may undertake;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note479"]479[/URL
• the introduction into an EU Treaty for the first time of reference to the European Defence Agency, a body aimed at encouraging greater and more co-ordinated defence capabilities development among Member States, which Member States may join voluntarily and which was already established in 2004 by a decision of the Member States;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note480"]480[/URL
• the introduction of the possibility of what Professor Whitman called "sub-contracting" of ESDP tasks to "coalitions of the able and willing" among the Member States;URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note481"]481[/URL and
• the introduction of the possibility of "permanent structured co-operation",URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note482"]482[/URL an arrangement among a group of Member States possessing greater military capabilities which could be established by a qualified majority decision of the full Council. The Foreign Secretary told us in December that the creation of "permanent structured cooperation" is about "enhancing capability for European defence; EU-led operations in respect of security in the European neighbourhood".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note483"]483[/URL

213. Of the ESDP changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, that concerning "permanent structured co-operation" has aroused most attention. Mr Donnelly noted that the provision allowing "permanent structured co-operation" to be established by qualified majority vote had "aroused some critical comment" in the UK.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note484"]484[/URL However, Mr Donnelly told us that
given the universal recognition throughout the European Union that 'structured cooperation', however it evolves, will have no credibility or even reality without the full engagement in it of the United Kingdom, it strains the bounds of credibility to imagine that the membership of this intergovernmental sub-set would ever be one unacceptable to the United Kingdom […] If 'structured co-operation' in fact proceeds beyond its present largely aspirational nature, the United Kingdom will be more fully associated with its genesis and evolution than has been the case in any other area of the European Union's activities. The likelihood that this sub-set of 'structured co-operation' might over time develop in a way inimical to the United Kingdom's interests is remote in the extreme.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note485"]485[/URL
Dr Solana similarly affirmed that "structured cooperation"
would be inconceivable without the United Kingdom, which is at the core of our security and defence capability. Structured cooperation will increase the defence capabilities and efficiency of the European Union, so [the UK's] presence or absence will be a yes or no—it will not happen without [the UK]. That is very clear to me.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note486"]486[/URL
214. In written follow-up evidence after his appearance before the Committee in December, the Foreign Secretary told us that:
Permanent Structured Cooperation […] is a new provision that specifically addresses capability development. It provides a mechanism designed to help develop more effective military capabilities amongst EU Member States and is line with UK objective [sic] for improving the capabilities available for EU-led operations. It should be noted that PSC and Enhanced Cooperation are completely different and distinct provisions with different criteria for establishment […] A Council decision is required to launch PSC, to accept new Members into it and to suspend membership of a Member State that no longer fulfils the membership criteria. These decisions are taken by QMV. The use of QMV for these aspects is in UK interests since it prevents an individual Member State from blocking PSC establishment, from blocking another Member State from subsequently joining or from blocking suspension of a non-performing Member State […] Since improved capability development amongst Member States is a key UK objective, it is likely that we would look to launch PSC as soon as practicable, in cooperation with other like minded Member States.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note487"]487[/URL
We advise that the suggestion for UK involvement should not overlook the requirements laid down in the Protocol on Permanent Structured Co-operation, whereby participants undertake to "bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by harmonising the identification of their military needs", as well as "possibly reviewing their national decision-making procedures".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note488"]488[/URL
215. Mr Donnelly felt that the "possibility that 'structured co-operation' will remain a name without substance" was "much more pertinent" than the possibility of the arrangement developing in a way opposed by the UK.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note489"]489[/URL Professor Whitman similarly suggested that, given the somewhat cumbersome procedures involved in establishing and operating "permanent structured co-operation", it might prove to be a little-used device.URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note490"]490[/URL Indeed, Professor Whitman suggested that "permanent structured co-operation" was "likely to go absolutely nowhere".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note491"]491[/URL Professor Whitman felt that the possibility of "coalitions of the able and willing" in the military field might be of greater interest because their organisation under the Lisbon Treaty was relatively "light-touch".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note492"]492[/URL
216. The Foreign Secretary rejected the view that the EU should develop a common military leadership for its ESDP missions, arguing that having a particular Member State in the lead for a particular ESDP mission was not the problem. According to the Foreign Secretary, "the European problem is not an institutional one, it is to do with capabilities and coordination".URL="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm#note493"]493[/URL
217. The FCO's overall assessment of the ESDP element in the Lisbon Treaty is as follows:
The provisions for European defence in the Reform Treaty meet UK objectives to ensure the development of a flexible, militarily robust and NATO-friendly ESDP. The Reform Treaty preserves the principle of unanimity for ESDP policy decisions and on initiating missions as well as confirming the prerogatives of Member States for defence and security issues. 'Enhanced cooperation' will be extended to ESDP, allowing smaller groups of Member States to pursue particular ESDP projects. The requirement for a unanimous Council decision will ensure that the mechanism cannot be used against UK interests.

I know its from a UK point of view but the last paragraph should be noted.

Keith186

Have to say fair ****s to them too.

I'm going to vote no again as the rest of Europe has NO vote. It's not about pissing off the Government for me.

passive

Keith186 wrote: »

Have to say fair ****s to them too.

I'm going to vote no again as the rest of Europe has NO vote. It's not about pissing off the Government for me.

the rest of Europe already voted. They voted for their governments. Their governments signed a treaty. The rest of them don't have the same constitutional issues as us, thus didn't require referendums (referenda? I dunno..)

Please reconsider on the basis of how good the EU is for Ireland and how this treaty benefits everyone. Your current reason isn't part of it.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

A bit off topic but a good read in relation to matters of defence:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm


I know its from a UK point of view but the last paragraph should be noted.

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that common defence would include the State.

Obviously, that is of no relevance if what one objects to is the EU developing any capability for military action at all - if, on the other hand, one is concerned about Ireland's role in that, we have already opted out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

LordSutch

wylo wrote: »

Anyway I have to say well done to Sinn Fein if Ireland are given an exception to their main commissioner arguement.
Sinn Fein said we can do better, and better we'll do. I congratulate them for pressing with a No vote last time if thats the case.

Didnt 'Libertas' headed by Declan Ganley have something to do with the NO Vote?

The Corinthian

Camelot wrote: »

Didnt 'Libertas' headed by Declan Ganley have something to do with the NO Vote?

Ahhh, but Sinn Fein got the moral victory...

ChocolateSauce

Frankie Lee wrote: »

A bit off topic but a good read in relation to matters of defence:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/120/12010.htm


I know its from a UK point of view but the last paragraph should be noted.

Paragraph?

Eurosceptic2008

One argument they are already using - correctly - is that under Lisbon - for the first time - our Commissioner will no longer be chosen by the Irish govt. We will only have the power to "nominate" our Commissioner, but Brussels will make the final decision. That is a fair point.

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

One argument they are already using - correctly - is that under Lisbon - for the first time - our Commissioner will no longer be chosen by the Irish govt. We will only have the power to "nominate" our Commissioner, but Brussels will make the final decision. That is a fair point.

I have some dreadful news for you. Brussels has final say as to who becomes Commissioner right now, under Nice.

regards,
Scofflaw

RedPlanet

Scofflaw wrote: »

.. concerned about Ireland's role in that, we have already opted out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

According to "DRAFT REPORT on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU"
All member states must do things like attend EU-NATO meetings regardless of their positions.
Also, all member states must upgrade their forces.
There are other juicy bits contained in the report, from Oct 2008
I encourage you all to have a read.


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/draftReportsCom.do?language=EN&body=AFET#
Scroll down to:

Ari Vatanen

16 October 2008
DRAFT REPORT
The role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU

Frankie Lee

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Paragraph?

Sorry section 217. Mainly "The provisions for European defence in the Reform Treaty meet UK objectives to ensure the development of a flexible, militarily robust and NATO-friendly ESDP."

Frankie Lee

RedPlanet wrote: »

According to "DRAFT REPORT on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU"
All member states must do things like attend EU-NATO meetings regardless of their positions.
Also, all member states must upgrade their forces.
There are other juicy bits contained in the report, from Oct 2008
I encourage you all to have a read.


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/draftReportsCom.do?language=EN&body=AFET#
Scroll down to:

Ari Vatanen

16 October 2008
DRAFT REPORT
The role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU

These are the real issues involved with the Lisbon Treaty but how often do you hear them mentioned in the mainstream media.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

These are the real issues involved with the Lisbon Treaty but how often do you hear them mentioned in the mainstream media.

What are the real issues? That nearly all the EU countries are in NATO, and that nearly all of NATO is made up of EU countries? And that we're not? In what way are those the real issues?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Frankie Lee

Scofflaw wrote: »

What are the real issues? That nearly all the EU countries are in NATO, and that nearly all of NATO is made up of EU countries? And that we're not? In what way are those the real issues?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

Did you read Ari Vatanen's report?
It is my belief that one of the key reasons that the Lisbon treaty was drafted (apart from improving internal workings etc.) was to pave the way increased militarisation of the EU.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Did you read Ari Vatanen's report?
It is my belief that one of the key reasons that the Lisbon treaty was drafted (apart from improving internal workings etc.) was to pave the way increased militarisation of the EU.

I did read it, hence my questions! What's the objection, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Frankie Lee

I don't agree with Europe's foreign policy being shaped by a US led NATO and I don't agree militarisation.

Scofflaw

Frankie Lee wrote: »

I don't agree with Europe's foreign policy being shaped by a US led NATO and I don't agree militarisation.

Hmm. The issue with the first one is that most of the EU is in NATO, and regards NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, so there's always going to be a strong NATO element. That doesn't mean that European foreign policy is shaped by NATO or the US, since there's a lot more to foreign policy than military action.

As to the second, the problem there is the EU contains rather a lot of military powers - admittedly second-rank ones. They're not about to abandon military power (heck, neither are we).

So to my mind, we can either have a Europe which acts militarily solely through NATO, we can have a Europe that acts militarily solely through the EU, we can have some blend or cooperation between the two, or we can abandon military force entirely.

Now, option 1 you presumably object to (NATO-led Europe), option 2 you presumably object to (militarised EU), and option 4 isn't going to happen. Option 3 is what's happening, and what you're objecting to.

What am I missing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Frankie Lee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. The issue with the first one is that most of the EU is in NATO, and regards NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, so there's always going to be a strong NATO element. That doesn't mean that European foreign policy is shaped by NATO or the US, since there's a lot more to foreign policy than military action.

As to the second, the problem there is the EU contains rather a lot of military powers - admittedly second-rank ones. They're not about to abandon military power (heck, neither are we).

So to my mind, we can either have a Europe which acts militarily solely through NATO, we can have a Europe that acts militarily solely through the EU, we can have some blend or cooperation between the two, or we can abandon military force entirely.

Now, option 1 you presumably object to (NATO-led Europe), option 2 you presumably object to (militarised EU), and option 4 isn't going to happen. Option 3 is what's happening, and what you're objecting to.

What am I missing?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Option 3 as you put it mhust be a combination of option 1 and 2 if that is that is the case and yes I do object to it.
Europe is the safest place on the planet and does not require an increase in military spending at the expense of social projects.

Steviemak

Frankie Lee wrote: »

Europe is the safest place on the planet and does not require an increase in military spending at the expense of social projects.

Europe is the safest place on the planet because of our military power. (it is also the most socially democratic - where else are people and workers treated so well?) No other place in the world has been so shaped and so defined by WAR as Europe. Its the reason we are so peaceful. We understand it more than anywhere. That is what makes the EU so great. It was born from the rubble to ensure it never happened again. It is a fragile project.

But I guess we can give it all up and go back to fighting! What part of NO don't people understand!!!