10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

Is there any other reasonable way moving from unanimous to majority voting could be interpreted?

If its nuetral and wishes to simplify things its easier to say "will lose the veto". By dressing up the language it tones done the impact.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

If its nuetral and wishes to simplify things its easier to say "will lose the veto". By dressing up the language it tones done the impact.

Many of the areas moving to QMV do not result in the loss of a veto as we have not opted in to these areas, so the commissions statement is a much more accurate statement.

And I would like to hear your opinion on the missing chapters in the abortion story as well.

meglome

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well abortion became an issue in last refererendum because of confusion of what position the European Court of Justice takes on this matter.
If you research the whole issue particularly and particularly to cases in America its a legal minefield.
And outside of Abortion, rulings are made everyday in regards to issues like workers rights by ECJ. Its open to interpretation.
The charter cuts out a lot of confusion now but expect to hear a lot more about the ECJ's role in years to come.
It will play a very important role in shaping EU law in years to come.

Hang on your didn't address my point. These fringe elements are having way more effect on our treaties than they should, given their actual support. Someone is giving them large sums of money to basically mess with our democracy as far I can see.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

If its nuetral and wishes to simplify things its easier to say "will lose the veto". By dressing up the language it tones done the impact.

Or tones it up if it's your way, no? Why not say we gain power over all the other countries who lose their veto, if you really want to sell it?

So, imagine we 'lose' 30 vetoes, we 'gain' power over the 26x30 other 'lost' vetoes = 780!

Net gain to us is 750 vetoes! Woohoo... go Lisbon!

Spiritoftheseventies

meglome wrote: »

Hang on your didn't address my point. These fringe elements are having way more effect on our treaties than they should, given their actual support. Someone is giving them large sums of money to basically mess with our democracy as far I can see.

What do you mean mess with our democracy. Coir are not the only organisation campaigning for a no vote. Which other fringe elements are you referring to.
Its needs to be clarified that not everyone campaigning for a No vote are headbangers. There are real life worries that some groups have about this treaty.
In terms of Abortion, it is still a very emotive issue and I think its far better that there are cast iron guarentees on this. There can be no grey areas here.
If anyone has studied some of the American cases you will see how extremely complex the matter is.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

What do you mean mess with our democracy. Coir are not the only organisation campaigning for a no vote. Which other fringe elements are you referring to.
Its needs to be clarified that not everyone campaigning for a No vote are headbangers. There are real life worries that some groups have about this treaty.
In terms of Abortion, it is still a very emotive issue and I think its far better that there are cast iron guarentees on this. There can be no grey areas here.
If anyone has studied some of the American cases you will see how extremely complex the matter is.

Who campaigning for a 'No' isn't a headbanger, in your opinion?

Is there any chance that Lisbon can be used, if passed, to bring in legal abortion in Ireland, beyond what we already have? A yes or no will suffice.

Stark

bayviewclose wrote:

In terms of Abortion, it is still a very emotive issue and I think its far better that there are cast iron guarentees on this. There can be no grey areas here.

We have layers of protection around this. Both in the Irish constitution which overrules any EU treaty and in the following law as documented by the official journal of the European union: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:0377:0377:EN:PDF

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Who campaigning for a 'No' isn't a headbanger, in your opinion?

Is there any chance that Lisbon can be used, if passed, to bring in legal abortion in Ireland, beyond what we already have? A yes or no will suffice.

The No campaign fronted by the Farmers and Fishermen groups I think would have valid concerns and a lot of them would feel marginalised by the process. So there are two for a start.
Even the other day Martin when addressing the IFO concerns and merely said that they were better off than they were in 1972 and that the shipping fleets had been modernised. Im sure everyone is better off then they were in 1972 but its beside the point.

Stark

The IFA supports the Lisbon treaty: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0827/eulisbon.html

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

The No campaign fronted by the Farmers and Fishermen groups I think would have valid concerns and a lot of them would feel marginalised by the process. So there are two for a start.

Valid concerns about The Lisbon Treaty in your opinion?

And I note that you didn't answer my second question...

Spiritoftheseventies

Stark wrote: »

The IFA supports the Lisbon treaty: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0827/eulisbon.html

Sorry to confirm there are small bunch of farmers campaigning against this.

http://irishfarming.ie/2009/08/21/rebel-farmers-defy-ifa-with-call-for-no-vote/

Stark

You will always have a minority of cranks against everything.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Valid concerns about The Lisbon Treaty in your opinion?

And I note that you didn't answer my second question...

No. But why were these gaurentees not in place the last time. Because no one asked questions. What kind of Europe do you want. Where nothing is never questioned. Thats a very dangerous place to be in. You only have to see what happened here. Everyone laughed at those "cranks" who were predicting that the boom times were not going to last forever.

Furious-Dave

bayviewclose wrote: »

No. But why were these gaurentees not in place the last time. Because no one asked questions. What kind of Europe do you want. Where nothing is never questioned. Thats a very dangerous place to be in. You only have to see what happened here. Everyone laughed at those "cranks" who were predicting that the boom times were not going to last forever.

They weren't in place because no one thought that Libertas and Cóir would come out with blatant lies, which is what the guarantees refute, and that people would actually believe them. The need for the guarantees only became evident in the polls done after the referendum.

Spiritoftheseventies

Furious-Dave wrote: »

They weren't in place because no one thought that Libertas and Cóir would come out with blatant lies, which is what the guarantees refute, and that people would actually believe them. The need for the guarantees only became evident in the polls done after the referendum.

Okay. On to the treaty and MNCs. 350 jobs lost in Teva which manufactures tablets. Teva blames prohibitive costs.
Voting for Lisbon it is said will attract foreign investment in a country with prohibitive costs.
Will you concede that voting in this treaty will only attract foreign investment where costs are competitive?

marco_polo

Furious-Dave wrote: »

They weren't in place because no one thought that Libertas and Cóir would come out with blatant lies, which is what the guarantees refute, and that people would actually believe them. The need for the guarantees only became evident in the polls done after the referendum.

As well as a triple lock neutrality, we will soon have quadruple lock on abortion.

1) Member states constitution > EU Treaties.
2) Nothing in EU treaties that allows EU to pass laws in the area.
3) Protocol in existing treaties reafirming point 1 + 2 with regard to abortion.
4) Guarantees for Lisbon treaty reafirming point 1 + 2 with regard to abortion.

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

As well as a triple lock neutrality, we will soon have quadruple lock on abortion.

1) Member states constitution > EU Treaties.
2) Nothing in EU treaties that allows EU to pass laws in the area.
3) Protocol in existing treaties reafirming point 1 + 2 with regard to abortion.
4) Guarantees for Lisbon treaty reafirming point 1 + 2 with regard to abortion.

The abortion issue was settled a long time ago but my argument was that clarifications were needed.
But you will find yes campaigns will continually lock on the Coir and Libertas arguments from last treaty to tar the no campaigners with the same brush. Ie triple locks on Neutrality and Abortion in place so no reason not to vote yes now.
How many of the MNCS are going to come out now and say treaty will bring foreign investment here given what happened in Waterford.
12,000 unemployed there. Teva said they could operate at one third of the costs abroad so how are MNCs going to come here if they can operate in lower cost economies.

molloyjh

bayviewclose wrote: »

The abortion issue was settled a long time ago but my argument was that clarifications were needed.
But you will find yes campaigns will continually lock on the Coir and Libertas arguments from last treaty to tar the no campaigners with the same brush. Ie triple locks on Neutrality and Abortion in place so no reason not to vote yes now.
How many of the MNCS are going to come out now and say treaty will bring foreign investment here given what happened in Waterford.
12,000 unemployed there. Teva said they could operate at one third of the costs abroad so how are MNCs going to come here if they can operate in lower cost economies.

Many might not unless we lower our costs. But what exactly has that got to do with Lisbon and the EU? We drove wage costs up here in Ireland, the EU didn't do it for us. We need to address the issue here in some way.

Spiritoftheseventies

molloyjh wrote: »

Many might not unless we lower our costs. But what exactly has that got to do with Lisbon and the EU? We drove wage costs up here in Ireland, the EU didn't do it for us. We need to address the issue here in some way.

It is related to Lisbon because if businesses supporting the Yes Campaign say it will attract foreign companies that clearly can happen given our costs. Three companies in last year in Waterford have have gone out of business. Waterford Crystal, Bausch and Lomb and now Teva

Furious-Dave

bayviewclose wrote: »

The abortion issue was settled a long time ago but my argument was that clarifications were needed.
But you will find yes campaigns will continually lock on the Coir and Libertas arguments from last treaty to tar the no campaigners with the same brush. Ie triple locks on Neutrality and Abortion in place so no reason not to vote yes now.
How many of the MNCS are going to come out now and say treaty will bring foreign investment here given what happened in Waterford.
12,000 unemployed there. Teva said they could operate at one third of the costs abroad so how are MNCs going to come here if they can operate in lower cost economies.

The economy is crap everywhere at the moment anyway, so MNCs will be cautious where they set up. A counter point to your argument is that a No result in the referendum will create political uncertainty. This is also something that MNCs take into account. Firstly Ireland will be out of favour with the rest of the EU, who will have to go back to the drawing board. - Secondly a lot of Irish people are already looking to get rid of the current Government, this will increase with a No result - I suppose the second point is invalid as the Government are screwed either way.

Spiritoftheseventies

Furious-Dave wrote: »

The economy is crap everywhere at the moment anyway, so MNCs will be cautious where they set up. A counter point to your argument is that a No result in the referendum will create political uncertainty. This is also something that MNCs take into account. Firstly Ireland will be out of favour with the rest of the EU, who will have to go back to the drawing board. - Secondly a lot of Irish people are already looking to get rid of the current Government, this will increase with a No result - I suppose the second point is invalid as the Government are screwed either way.

I think its a certainty that government wont last the full term. A No vote is really the least of their worries. They haven't the money to deliver on the promises they made before the election. Schools in certain counties operating in rented prefabs without proper facilities, hospital services being cut and then of course NAMA.
Don't think a yes vote will save the government to be honest.

K-9

bayviewclose wrote: »

It is related to Lisbon because if businesses supporting the Yes Campaign say it will attract foreign companies that clearly can happen given our costs. Three companies in last year in Waterford have have gone out of business. Waterford Crystal, Bausch and Lomb and now Teva

If you are looking for something that will specifically attract foreign investment, I don't think you will find it.

If you are looking for things that may attract it, if our Govt. uses them correctly, I'd say there is.

Spiritoftheseventies

K-9 wrote: »

If you are looking for something that will specifically attract foreign investment, I don't think you will not find it.

If you are looking for things that may attract it, if our Govt. uses them correctly, I'd say there is.

Well regaining our competitiveness is a start. But I think businesses promoting this treaty with regards to attracting foreign investment need to cop on. 12,000 now unemployed in Waterford. Immediately the social welfare bill goes up.
Its putting the cart before the horse. Attracting Foreign companies a waste of time if costs are putting them off.

Furious-Dave

bayviewclose wrote: »

I think its a certainty that government wont last the full term.

Perhaps, however, I think getting rid of them prematurely is dangerous, regardless of how incompetent they are. A change of political direction, no matter how slight, is the last thing we need right now.

bayviewclose wrote: »

Don't think a yes vote will save the government to be honest.

I agree. The issues of Lisbon and 'getting rid of FF' need to be kept entirely separate.

sensibleken

i hope you dont mind bit i have borrowed this list and posted to my facebook. well done

roosh

sink wrote: »

The Official Yes campaigns last referendum were pathetic, they relied on empty catch phrases from empty politicians who had lost public confidence long ago. The entire campaign was almost vacant of any mention of what was actually in the Treaty of Lisbon and why it is good; you know the real reasons for voting Yes! Due to this massive oversight and the utter contempt I have for the main political campaigns I decided to gather together the reasons I voted yes to Lisbon and will do so again next time. Here are my top 10.


1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]

At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.

4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]

National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.

5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]

The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).

The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing).

6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]

The treaty introduces a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of internal EU policy (i.e. concerning the functioning of the EU’s institutions). This method allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to hold an Intergovernmental Conference and draft an entire new international treaty, which is extremely time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which still will require a referendum in this country if it’s not compatible with our constitution. Hopefully this will cut down the complexity of future EU referenda as rather than having to vote on a huge number of changes at once, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU that will still require a entire new treaty.

7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability

The Treaty creates a new role known as the ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs’ [Article 18, TEU]. It merges many existing positions including the 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' into one position. This is to provide a more coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, foreign governments are confused about who to contact in regards to specific areas and the unions’ voice is disjointed and less coherent. The Lisbon treaty also creates an EU diplomatic corps know as the External Action Service to better facilitate the EU’s foreign policy.[Article 27, TEU]

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]

For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.

Maybe the reason that the actual changes the Treaty of Lisbon makes garner so little attention is due to the fact that they are pretty mundane, but then Lisbon is a fairly tame treaty in comparison to previous ones such as Maastricht. So I guess my best advice is don’t listen to the media hype who are only interested in selling newspapers and don’t listen to the political campaigns who are only interested in promoting their own political ambitions, read the white paper on Lisbon and refer to the treaty to arbitrate on any contentious issues.

All references refer to the consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon which can be found here.
*TEU = Treaty on European Union
*TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

For further reading and more detailed information I recommend the 'White paper on Lisbon' prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs which can be found here.

Regards,
Sink

Just something that should be pointed out, I feel. The White Paper has been produced by a government department who are campaigning for a Yes vote, so the possibility of inherent bias should be noted.

This bias could perhaps be seen with one of the opening points in the white Paper:

1. The Lisbon Treaty cannot be seen in isolation from Ireland’s experience
of more than thirty-five years of EU membership. Nor can it be separated
from our aspirations for the future, or from the realities of the world around us.

This is a fallacious argument. The Lisbon Treaty has to be seen in isolation from Ireland's experience in the EU. It has to be evaluated on its own merits, and on whether or not it is a positive thing for the people of this country and indeed Europe.

If it were such a positive thing, then why has there not been the openess and transparency with regard to ratifying it, that Lisbon hopes to promote? If it weren't for the constitution of this country this Treaty would simply be pushed through without any concern for what the people of Europe actually think.

The White Paper continues with the fallacious proposition that because we have an obligation to Europe, we should vote Yes on Lisbon. We have no obligation to Europe. We are in Europe on the terms and legislation of the EU. We are playing by the rules here. Just because we have had a good time under the EU, it does not mean that everything that the EU churns out is going to be positive, and that we should therefore back it. On the contrary, it is our duty as citzens of Europe to question what is put before us, to question the leaders that have led us from boom to bust.

It is our duty as citzens of Ireland to question the shambolic politics that has lead us to this particular situation, where we would only vote yes out of a sense of obligation, out of fear and as a means to save face. Is this suitable criteria for making a decision? I would hope not.

This has become more than just a vote on the Lisbon Treaty. This has become about how we want to see politics done in the future. If we vote Yes, we are sending a clear message that empty, rhetoric, propoganda and logical fallacies, is the acceptible means for presenting issues to us.

If you would prefer open debate, clear presentation of the issues and democracy, then voting against Yes is the only possible way to do so in this referendum. Its not necessarily a case of supporting the No campaign, rather showing the leaders of this country (and the next government will come from the Yes campaigners), that we won't simply be hoodwinked, molly coddled and cajoled into helping them save face

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

If you would prefer open debate, clear presentation of the issues and democracy

go on join the debate


they have trouble finding NO siders


lets see how you fare in a proper debate

Bob_Harris

I see this thread is linked to a lot and appears in many signatures. I've read these 10 reasons and feel utter indifference about them:

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament
No thanks.

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]
No thanks.

3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]
Wow.

4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]
Parliaments who automatically say yes to the EU anyway.

5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]
Yawn.

6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]
Bleh.

7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability
No thanks.

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]
Petitions never work.

9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]
Bleh.

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]
Oh please tax me more to save the world from natural climate change.


I still see no reason to vote yes to a constitution nobody asked for and something we already said no to.

An EU based on nothing more than economical links between a set of countries for me please.

K-9

Bob_Harris wrote: »

An EU based on nothing more than economical links between a set of countries for me please.

And how do we get that?

oscarBravo

Bob_Harris wrote: »

I see this thread is linked to a lot and appears in many signatures. I've read these 10 reasons and feel utter indifference about them:

As I've said repeatedly, being opposed to the EU is one of the few sane reasons for a "no" vote.

An EU based on nothing more than economical links between a set of countries for me please.

That EU doesn't exist, and never has.