the referenced Lisbon debate

wylo

Sorry if this has been done before , if it has Id appreciate a link as I cant find anything. This thread is for the purpose of a debate about the Lisbon treaty, however with a certain rule.

You must make a reference for your point.
This will eliminate any lies from people just coming up with their own conclusions behind a keyboard.

I understand there are people that are voting no because they do not understand the treaty, or because no other country is getting a vote,etc. This thread is not for you unfortunately , those points have been made a million times. This thread is for people that want to understand the treaty and want to come up with a reasonably educated , informed vote.
If you are copying and pasting something please refrain from copying just one or 2 lines as this prevents information being taken out of context.


E.g. (copied from Popebuckfasts and PHBs posts in the *POSITIVE* reasons only thread)

Vote: Yes
Reason: The 27 EU countries will be better able to work together on peacekeeping missions, on a case-by-case basis. Each country is free to opt in or out in all these missions.
Reference :(Article 42(4) TEU; Article 31(1) TEU)

Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded.

When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted.

I invite voters from both sides of the arguement please!!!

BlitzKrieg

This will end up like most of the other threads, because the issue is not if someone has a reference or not, its whether you a) accept that reference (in the case of quotes, reports etc) or in the case of the treaty itself b) interpet the reference the same way.

The prime example being the militarisation of the EU being focused around the article that specifies that member states should seek to improve their military capabilities. One could say every member state already automatically improves their own member states each year therefore the article has no major effect, while others would say its a sign that the EU wants to increase military spending etc.

In the end until someone/something somewhat official gives an interpetation there is no conclusive answer and we end up back at issue A, do you accept that official answer?

wylo

Well , as a part of the rule, only a reference to the treaty itself should be allowed.
As for the references being interpreted differently, the idea would be that if enough of the reference was quoted then the poster couldn't skewer the quote in his favour. This would leave the reader make his own decision on how it should be interpreted.

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

This will end up like most of the other threads, because the issue is not if someone has a reference or not, its whether you a) accept that reference (in the case of quotes, reports etc) or in the case of the treaty itself b) interpet the reference the same way.

The prime example being the militarisation of the EU being focused around the article that specifies that member states should seek to improve their military capabilities. One could say every member state already automatically improves their own member states each year therefore the article has no major effect, while others would say its a sign that the EU wants to increase military spending etc.

In the end until someone/something somewhat official gives an interpetation there is no conclusive answer and we end up back at issue A, do you accept that official answer?

Which would suggest that the thread should also allow reference to the guarantees - since the example above is specifically covered in them:

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

cordially,
Scofflaw