Bullet point off-topic thread

Brigantes

O'Morris wrote: »

No - loss of national sovereignty. I want to be governed from Ireland's capital not Belgium's.

I appreciate I'm getting off-topic here, but how does Lisbon reduce Irish sovereignty?

KermitTheFrog

nouveau_4.0 wrote: »

All the threads in Lisbon seem to go the same way, and this will be no different I'd imagine. I've read about twenty pages and I'm struggling to find a handful of clear reasons for voting either way. There seems to be some very vague reasons for voting from both sides. In this thread can we please keep it simple, specific and true. If you have a valid reason for whichever side you are voting can you please do so in the following format:







Please keep it to one point per post, and make it clear and specific.

No offence to members here but it's the same 5 or 6 people posting over and over again (you know who you are) trying to force their biased beliefs on an individual that this treaty is nothing short of spectacular and that YES is the way to go. I would be far more cautious than that I have to say. As a long time lurker I've noticed that anytime anyone ever mentions the cons of this treaty that they are ridiculed. So in saying that, I'd rather hear what notable experts have to say regarding this treaty and not what self appointed ''experts/bluffers'' on this board would try and lead one to believe. Afterall everyone behind a computer screen is a genius.

cordially,
Kermit.

PopeBuckfastXVI

KermitTheFrog wrote: »

No offence to members here but it's the same 5 or 6 people posting over and over again (you know who you are) trying to force their biased beliefs on an individual that this treaty is nothing short of spectacular and that YES is the way to go. I would be far more cautious than that I have to say. As a long time lurker I've noticed that anytime anyone ever mentions the cons of this treaty that they are ridiculed. So in saying that, I'd rather hear what notable experts have to say regarding this treaty and not what self appointed ''experts/bluffers'' on this board would try and lead one to believe. Afterall everyone behind a computer screen is a genius.

cordially,
Kermit.

Well it was asked that it be one bullet point per post, not that everyone only got one post. Also, it might be pointed out that it was asked what the people of this forum think, which pretty much confers the right of reply, don't you think?

Or perhaps no-one should answer, as there are none of us 'experts' in your eyes? It probably wouldn't make for much of a discussion board though!

Can you point out where O'Morris, Conchubar or Hitman Actual were 'ridiculed' on this thread for their bullet points against Lisbon?

KermitTheFrog

turgon wrote: »

YES - Lisbon makes it easier to handle more than 27 member states


KermitTheFrog, No siders are free to post here too, if they have valuable contributions to make. That is the nature of an Internet forum. So I dont know how there is any kind of "forcing" going on.

Care to mention reasons why one might vote NO for a change, as reasons to vote NO seem to be shut out on this board. Afterall this treaty isn't perfect and must have some faults....

BlitzKrieg

As a long time lurker I've noticed that anytime anyone ever mentions the cons of this treaty that they are ridiculed.

I dont know about ridiculed. I've seen every point debated.

Care for some examples of this ridicule?

Care to mention reasons why one might vote NO for a change, as reasons to vote NO seem to be shut out on this board. Afterall this treaty isn't perfect and must have some faults....

Why do we have to argue the stance of the other side?


But in the air of fairness

No

Only 95% of laws go through the European Parliament.

PopeBuckfastXVI

KermitTheFrog wrote: »

Care to mention reasons why one might vote NO for a change, as reasons to vote NO seem to be shut out on this board. Afterall this treaty isn't perfect and must have some faults....

I personally don't care to mention reasons why one might vote No, I don't have any good ones.

And that's a heck of an accusation that reasons to vote No seem to be 'shut out' on this board.

If you could come up with evidence of this happening you'd have quite a case to make in the Helpdesk forum.

Riskymove

Hitman Actual wrote: »

NO- Retention of the bloated Commission in Lisbon II.

but the Commission is retained either way is it not?

with lots of other changes to make things more democratic/efficient

oscarBravo

I've moved posts here from the bullet point thread that don't fit the spirit of the OP in that thread.

Kermit, if you want to post factual No arguments, please do so.

Riskymove

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've moved posts here from the bullet point thread that don't fit the spirit of the OP in that thread.

Kermit, if you want to post factual No arguments, please do so.

just noticed this but have already posted in other, feel free to move

Hitman Actual

Riskymove wrote: »

but the Commission is retained either way is it not?

with lots of other changes to make things more democratic/efficient

In Lisbon, the Commission was supposed to be reduced to one for two thirds of member states, whereby every member state would be able to appoint a Commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years. However, with the Irish guarantees in Lisbon II, the Commission will remain at one appointment per member state (so 27 Commissioners after Lisbon).

Personally, I don't think the larger Commission works in line with the notion of a more efficient EU, as it gives the potential of more legislation being proposed, with more work for the Council and Parliament, more work for Comitology groups, etc. This leads to more cost, greater time for legislation to be implemented, and a potential reduced quality of legislation. So for me, this would be a reason to vote No, but there are plenty of other benefits in Lisbon which outweigh this one point.

Riskymove

Hitman Actual wrote: »

In Lisbon, the Commission was supposed to be reduced to one for two thirds of member states, whereby every member state would be able to appoint a Commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years. However, with the Irish guarantees in Lisbon II, the Commission will remain at one appointment per member state (so 27 Commissioners after Lisbon).

Personally, I don't think the larger Commission works in line with the notion of a more efficient EU, as it gives the potential of more legislation being proposed, with more work for the Council and Parliament, more work for Comitology groups, etc. This leads to more cost, greater time for legislation to be implemented, and a potential reduced quality of legislation. So for me, this would be a reason to vote No, but there are plenty of other benefits in Lisbon which outweigh this one point.

so you are taking about numbers of Commissioners rather than the Commission itself?

I agree that the original plan was better and have posted about that before. I can't understand why the role of a commissioner can't be properly explained to people and that not having a commissioner for "some" time (not all the time) is not really a big detriment to ireland. In fairness the change back is down to the confusion over the issue here in ireland.

However, I guess my point would be that there are a number of other things which bring about change in a good way (imo) and therefore I would not throw all those out over the number of commissioners.

Hitman Actual

KermitTheFrog wrote: »

No offence to members here but it's the same 5 or 6 people posting over and over again (you know who you are) trying to force their biased beliefs on an individual

Eh... the OP got what he asked for! No voters are entitled to post reasons as well, except that so far on this forum there haven't been many Treaty-based reasons to vote No. Being a long-time lurker I'm sure you've seen that as well

As regards "biased beliefs", just because someone supports a Yes result, it doesn't mean they haven't researched their reasons thoroughly. Personally I base my "biased beliefs" on the Treaties themselves as interpreted by EU law blogs/websites, Irish DFA links (the few there are), and, probably the best of the lot, UK Government law-based analyses.

I've added Article numbers to my reasons in the other thread- if you believe something is incorrect, argue it in this thread.

Hitman Actual

Riskymove wrote: »

so you are taking about numbers of Commissioners rather than the Commission itself?

Yep, exactly.

Riskymove wrote: »

I agree that the original plan was better and have posted about that before. I can't understand why the role of a commissioner can't be properly explained to people and that not having a commissioner for "some" time (not all the time) is not really a big detriment to ireland. In fairness the change back is down to the confusion over the issue here in ireland.

The confusion thing is the big issue, I agree. Some of the more vocal No campaigners have a lot to answer for that, especially as the reduction of Commissioners was legally-binding in Nice, and if Lisbon is not ratified, then another method of reduction will have to be agreed.

Riskymove wrote: »

However, I guess my point would be that there are a number of other things which bring about change in a good way (imo) and therefore I would not throw all those out over the number of commissioners.

A good way to put it, I couldn't agree more.

beneton

tonycascarino wrote: »

NO - Be a self-amending Treaty which would allow the EU Prime Ministers to shift most of the remaining policy areas where unanimity is required and a national veto still exists, to qualified majority voting on the EU Council of Ministers, without need of further Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU).

Nope - not true.

cooperguy

tonycascarino brought up a large number of points in the bullet point thread. Im wondering how many of these the Yes side agree will happen?

Dinner

cooperguy wrote: »

tonycascarino brought up a large number of points in the bullet point thread. Im wondering how many of these the Yes side agree will happen?

A large number of posts that have been dealt with many times before. Yet he still keeps hammering home the same ones. the best example is the one quoted by beneton on Article 48. No matter how many times it has been pointed out on this forum, some people just don't want to know.

Scofflaw

cooperguy wrote: »

tonycascarino brought up a large number of points in the bullet point thread. Im wondering how many of these the Yes side agree will happen?

Virtually none of them - as Dinner says, they've all been dealt with before, yet here they are again, like a collection of bad pennies. And some of them are just vague:

tonycascarino wrote:

NO - Lisbon would be a constitutional revolution in the EU and its Member States. It would give Government Ministers and the Big EU States huge new powers, while taking power away from ordinary citizens across the EU, and from the National Parliaments they elect. That is why only Ireland is being allowed a vote on it - because of our Constitution. Only we Irish can save democracy in the EU by refusing to allow ourselves to be bullied or bamboozled into overturning our rejection of Lisbon last year - thereby holding open for the people of Britain and our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland the chance of voting No to Lisbon in a UK referendum next summer.

Now, what "huge new powers"? Unless tony means the ones he has outlined in the other bullet points - which are a long way from 'huge' - why has he not bullet-pointed these "huge new powers"? How is Lisbon a "constitutional revolution"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

working my way through them:

NO - Hand over to the EU the power to make laws binding on us in 32 new policy areas, such as public services, crime, justice and policing, immigration, energy, transport, tourism, sport, culture, public health and the EU budget. Member States would lose the national veto they have at present in the policy areas concerned, and their National Parliaments would no longer decide laws or policy for these areas.

lets see:

public health

TITLE XIV
PUBLIC HEALTH
Article 168
(ex Ar ticle 152 TEC)
1. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation
of all Union policies and activities.
Union action, which shall complement national policies, shall be directed towards improving public
health, preventing physical and mental illness and diseases, and obviating sources of danger to physical
and mental health. Such action shall cover the fight against the major health scourges, by promoting
research into their causes, their transmission and their prevention, as well as health information and
education, and monitoring, early warning of and combating serious cross-border threats to health.
The Union shall complement the Member States' action in reducing drugs-related health damage,
including information and prevention.

2. The Union shall encourage cooperation between the Member States in the areas referred to in
this Article and, if necessary, lend support to their action. It shall in particular encourage cooperation
between the Member States to improve the complementarity of their health services in cross-border
areas.
Member States shall, in liaison with the Commission, coordinate among themselves their policies and
programmes in the areas referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission may, in close contact with the
Member States, take any useful initiative to promote such coordination, in par ticular initiatives aiming
at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the
preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation. The European
Parliament shall be kept fully informed.
3. The Union and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the
competent international organisations in the sphere of public health.
4. By way of derogation from Ar ticle 2(5) and Ar ticle 6(a) and in accordance with Article 4(2)(k)
the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure
and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall
contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Ar ticle through adopting in order to
meet common safety concerns:
(a) measures setting high standards of quality and safety of organs and substances of human origin,
blood and blood derivatives; these measures shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining
or introducing more stringent protective measures;
(b) measures in the veterinary and phytosanitary fields which have as their direct objective the
protection of public health;
(c) measures setting high standards of quality and safety for medicinal products and devices for
medical use.
5. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative
procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions, may also adopt incentive measures designed to protect and improve human health and in
particular to combat the major cross-border health scourges, measures concerning monitoring, early
warning of and combating serious cross-border threats to health, and measures which have as their
direct objective the protection of public health regarding tobacco and the abuse of alcohol, excluding
any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.
6. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may also adopt recommendations for the
purposes set out in this Article.
7. Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their
health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health ser vices and medical care. The
responsibilities of the Member States shall include the management of health services and medical care
and the allocation of the resources assigned to them. The measures referred to in paragraph 4(a) shall
not affect national provisions on the donation or medical use of organs and blood.

Sport

TITLE XII
EDUCATION, VOCATIONAL TRAINING, YOUTH AND SPORT
Article 165
(ex Ar ticle 149 TEC)
1. The Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging
cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action,
while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the
organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.
The Union shall contribute to the promotion of European spor ting issues, while taking account of the
specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational
function.
2. Union action shall be aimed at:
— developing the European dimension in education, par ticularly through the teaching and
dissemination of the languages of the Member States,
— encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging inter alia, the academic recognition
of diplomas and periods of study,
— promoting cooperation between educational establishments,
— developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems
of the Member States,
— encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational
instructors, and encouraging the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe,
— encouraging the development of distance education,
— developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting
competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the
physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and spor tswomen, especially the youngest spor tsmen
and spor tswomen.
3. The Union and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the
competent international organisations in the field of education and sport, in particular the Council of
Europe.
4. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article:
— the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative
procedure, after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions, shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations
of the Member States,

— the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations.

Tourism

TITLE XXII
TOURISM
Article 195
1. The Union shall complement the action of the Member States in the tourism sector, in
particular by promoting the competitiveness of Union under takings in that sector.
To that end, Union action shall be aimed at:
(a) encouraging the creation of a favourable environment for the development of under takings in this
sector;
(b) promoting cooperation between the Member States, particularly by the exchange of good practice.
2. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative
procedure, shall establish specific measures to complement actions within the Member States to
achieve the objectives referred to in this Ar ticle, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and
regulations of the Member States.

I could go on, but I think you see the point.

NO - Be a power-grab by the Big States, in particular Germany, for control of the EU. By basing EU law-making primarily on population size, the Lisbon Treaty would double Germany's voting weight on the EU Council of Ministers from its present 8% under the Nice Treaty to 17%. France's vote would go from 8% to 13%, Britain's and Italy's from their current 8% each to 12% each, while Ireland's voting weight would be halved from 2% to 0.8% (Art.16 TEU)

Ignoring the double majority voting is a bad idea, seeing as it takes both population and nationality into account. *sigh*

NO - Abolish each State's present right to "propose" and decide who its national Commissioner is, by replacing it with a right to make"suggestions" only for the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). The Commission, which is appointed not elected, has the monopoly of proposing all European laws. Ireland's No vote last year secured a commitment to a permanent Commissioner for all. But what is the point of every EU State continuing to have its own Commissioner post-Lisbon when it can no longer decide who that Commissioner will be? Under the present Nice Treaty Member States would continue to decide that, and can continue too to have their own national Commissioner indefinitely as well.

So instead of letting fianna fail who's track record of picking the right man for the right job has been...well abysmal. The EU will let the government suggest a candidate and if they feel that the government is just trying to offload dead weight (which people have shockingly accused our government of doing) they can refuse the suggestion, maybe god forbid taking the suggested candidate from the opposition.

I fail to see the problem.

NO - Enable the 27 EU Prime Ministers to appoint an EU President for up to five years without allowing voters any say as to who he or she would be - thereby abolishing the present six-monthly rotating EU presidencies (Art.15.5 TEU). Appointment rather than democratic election to this and other top EU jobs typifies the undemocratic nature of the proposed Lisbon Constitution. It is the Prime Ministers of the Big States who would have the key say in filling them because of the big increase in their voting weight under Lisbon.

This has already been explained numerous times. The president has no powers, so its a waste of the peoples time and money to elect a glorified middle management with no voting power nor any legislative powers. Also seeing as the big states still only get 1 vote each in The European Council as much as the smaller states, I fail to see how the big states are going to abuse this?

NO - Be a self-amending Treaty which would allow the EU Prime Ministers to shift most of the remaining policy areas where unanimity is required and a national veto still exists, to qualified majority voting on the EU Council of Ministers, without need of further Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU).

old faithful. Article 48 section 4:

A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by
the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be
made to the Treaties.
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with
their respective constitutional requirements.