10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

Bob_Harris

K-9 wrote: »

And how do we get that?

Go back in time, or worst case scenario stay where we are right now.

Mark#1

I've left it this late to try to get some understanding of what this is all about and what either a yes or a no vote will mean for me, my wife and my children.

Shame on me.

But...

For anyone who can tolerate an analogous digression:

My maths teacher in secondary school was afflicted with that covers-it-so-well, throwaway term, "really knew maths, just couldn't teach it". I failed maths in my leaving cert because of him. Yes, because of him, not because I was stupid or lazy - I did okay in all my other subjects, including tech drawing. Other students did okay with this maths teacher, so why did I fail? Simple - I just didn't get maths. It never clicked. That moment when a single simple event brings glorious understanding never occurred for me. That teacher should have singled me out and focussed on me. He should have been like the lead singer of Stillwater in the movie, Almost Famous, when he said "I look for the one guy in the crowd who isn't getting off, AND I GET HIM OFF!!"

But he didn't. He had his own reasons, I'm sure. Maybe I had too much stubble for a 16 year old kid. Maybe he didn't like the bands whose names I had written on my schoolbag. Maybe my dad called him a twat in the pub. Who knows...

But the important outcome of all this was that a 17 year-old guy left school without maths. What prospects had I? This man had denied me opportunities that other kids had - kids who were simply luckier than me in that they "got" maths. I "got" guitar, they didn't. They "got" maths, I didn't.

Luckily I've done okay - I spent the last 5 years creating performance analysis metrics in my job...

The government are that maths teacher. Joe Public is me. I don't understand what the success or failure of the Lisbon Treaty will mean for me, my wife and my children. It's the government's responsibility to ensure I understand what it'll mean. How easy have the government made it for me to glean a decent understanding on Lisbon? How hard have I gone out of my way to search for understandable information on Lisbon?

Not very. Anything I've attempted to read was either biased or too difficult to interpret.

I'd boxed off tonight to try to find out what I could. Again, shame on me. I'd hoped that a forum like boards would help - it has on so many other topics. I've read pages 1 - 8 and 12 and 13 of this thread. Sorry to anyone who posted on pages 9, 10 & 11, for not reading your post.

What I'd hoped would be informative was largely a tit-for-tat display of trivial bickering and nit-picking, not about the treaty, but about the poster's grammar and typing skills...

However, I did catch some points that interested me:

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]

So Ireland would have more or less autonomy within the EU than it currently has? Does "Increase of power to the European Parliament" mean "Shift of power to the European Parliament"? Or "Loss of power to the European Parliament"?

sink wrote: »

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.

So instead of pushing their own interests for just six months, they'll then have 2.5 years to push?

sink wrote: »

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.

Ahh, full open, transparent dealings, eh? Yyyyehh....

sink wrote: »

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.

Remember how Boss Hog's plans for the deforrestation of Hazzard county were supposed to sail through the court till Bo & Luke scuppered the sherrif's attemt to make sure the courtroom was empty... Or was that an episode of The Simpsons? Nah, that's too far fetched. Did someone mention a conspiracy thoery forum?

sink wrote: »

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).

As Average Joe, this paragraph sounds good to me.

sink wrote: »

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).

"if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own." So who determines that? The individual state or the EU?

sink wrote: »

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.

Being able to vote on individual items is more apealling to me than having loads piled together, where some important ones might get overlooked in the blurb... Hey, wait a minute...

sink wrote: »

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]

Wish I had an opinion...

sink wrote: »

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.

Depending on what you read, the planet's environmental state may not be as influenced by man's activities as some would suggest. How long has the planet been sustaining life? How long have we been burning fuel?

sink wrote: »

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

From the CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION (quotes are not necessarily in the order as read in the document):

[All the member states]

“DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields”

So does this mean that if 500,000 migrant workers move into Ireland, something will be in place to ensure Paddy will still be able to retain his current standard of living?

“RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries”

“RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”

So we’ll all be EU citizens, instead of/as well as citizens of our own nations, free to move between all member states? As if it needs to be asked, what controls will be in place to ensure that the currently existing state of a nation’s population’s safety/security will be at least maintained, if not improved, bearing in mind that there are some colossal and obvious differences between some member state’s population’s safety/security?

“RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence in accordance with the provisions of Article 42, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world”

So there could be a common EU army? I’m sure this one’s been done to death, and if I understand things correctly, despite this quote, there’s no actual threat that Irish citizens will be forced to join an army – how does that work? Also, if I understand things correctly, Article 42 seems to refer largely, if not completely, to migrant worker’s welfare rights in states other than their own, so what’s the relevance of the line I’ve bolded?

“RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity”

But what? Tough if it’s not possible?

“Plenipotentiaries”

HUH? Is this meant to be the simplified document for Average Joe?

From Article 3 (ex Article 2 TEU):

“2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal
frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.”

But what about appropriate measures with respect to existing and potential jobs for the existing workforce in a nation? Is it just your tough luck if you don’t want to migrate to another country and would prefer to live and work in your home nation, but are forced out because migrant workers/spongers from other member nations do want to live/work/sponge in your nation?

Okay, it’s 12:30am. I’ve read the first 11 pages of the CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION and I can’t read any more. Even that simplified document is tough going when you’re not used to reading such a style of writing. It’s hard to escape the feeling that it’s all deliberately written such that Average Joe will make an attempt, but will ultimately struggle and look elsewhere for even simpler versions or better again, find someone to tell him whether he should vote yes or no…


Posts that caught my attention:

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

...although seeing as you have trust issues, maybe you won't!?, and that it's perfectly valid to take a summary of the treaty from a trusted source like Refcom, the EU itself or the DFA...

Is there a single intelligent member of Irish society that shouldn't have trust issues? Are we not in the doo-doo because we let dishonest, self-interested, brazen men & women put us in it? And keep letting them shovel more on top?

Have I been out of work since February because of anything I did? Or is it because the company I worked for found a cheaper place in Europe to have the work I was doing done? Hmmm? And how did that come about?

How much of the money that I wilfully submitted to the government (under the presumption that it was buying buy me (and my neighbour) a better health service, a better road network, a better life) was either squandered on bogus, dead-duck inevitable-failure-but-let's-do-it-anyway-cos-you-and-me-will-make-a-packet-and-these-schmucks-won't-have-the-balls-to-raise-a-peep-about-it projects, or directly and brazenly pocketed to secure theirs and their family's immunity to the certain financial catastrophe that they knew they were creating and nourishing, or "spent" on court cases that were supposed to determine facts about the suspicious behaviours of the "leaders" certain members of society had an interest in voting into power?

We should all have trust issues in this country. Those who don't, why not?

steamjetjoe wrote: »

There shouldnt be 10 reasons to vote for lisbon or 10 reasons not to vote for lisbon. All average joe needs to know is

1. Will any changes take money out of my pocket?

2. Will it im prove my quality of life?

Simple Pimple:D

Possibly the canniest points posted, or at least the most pertinent to the vast majority of the population.

onq wrote: »

I ask questions of people who are supposed to be running the country.

You should too.

ONQ

Absolutely we should. It's a shame that by now, all but the freshest questioner can only expect in answer, lies and waffle, repeated till apathy sets in and the latest farce seeps under another carpet.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

(This is a quote of a quote)[ 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.] I actually agree that this is a good thing. But did you know that in Ancien Regime France, the common people were also allowed to enter the Palace of Versailles to watch the king? Did that make Ancien Regime France democratic? I think not. They should be doing this anyway.

And there it is - we don't know what our "leaders" are doing till it's all signed, sealed & delivered, and oh - what's this? if we don't like it, tough! And we can't do anything to you even if we don't like it? Hmmm...

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not many of the arguments from the NO side have much to do with Lisbon

unfortunately it didn't stop the Joe Average believing them last year

Ei.sdraob, I'm having a little trouble with this. I see myself, in terms of political awareness, as Average Joe - can you clarify what you mean by this?

One more analogy...

I was heating potato farls last night for my kid's supper. From the pack of 8, I thought the two younger kids would have one each, and the oldest would have two. Mam might have one, leaving me three. And that's exactly what happened. But the younger kids asked for more and I told them they were all gone. My wife said, "but there were 8 in the pack". "Yes, I had three".

She said she wouldn't have eaten any till she knew the kids and me had had enough, and that even if that meant she got none, that was okay - there was plenty of other grub in the cupboard.

To state the obvious, this is what a democratically-elected political leader should be doing - ensuring the people are okay before securing their own comfort, not the other way round...

So...

What will a no vote mean for me & my family in real-life, everyday terms, now and in 5, 10, 20 years?

What will a yes vote mean?

Does any vote this time matter? The last one didn't...


Mark

K-9

Mark#1 wrote: »

What I'd hoped would be informative was largely a tit-for-tat display of trivial bickering and nit-picking, not about the treaty, but about the poster's grammar and typing skills...

True and it sums up the whole campaign well, on both sides.

Mark#1 wrote:

So Ireland would have more or less autonomy within the EU than it currently has? Does "Increase of power to the European Parliament" mean "Shift of power to the European Parliament"? Or "Loss of power to the European Parliament"?

I'd say more a shift. It has oversight over about 60/70% of EU Law now, this will make it about 95%

Mark#1 wrote:

So instead of pushing their own interests for just six months, they'll then have 2.5 years to push?

But they'll just be a chairman. Yes you could argue that, though I could argue the 2.5 year term reduces any influence as it makes it more EU centred rather than just a 6 month term that goes from one to another.

Mark#1 wrote:

Ahh, full open, transparent dealings, eh? Yyyyehh....

Small change but it will be good to see those meetings that you see our Ministers scuttling into behind closed doors.

Mark#1 wrote:

Remember how Boss Hog's plans for the deforrestation of Hazzard county were supposed to sail through the court till Bo & Luke scuppered the sherrif's attemt to make sure the courtroom was empty... Or was that an episode of The Simpsons? Nah, that's too far fetched. Did someone mention a conspiracy thoery forum?

Well, personally I like it as it gives less credence to the usual Govt. line, sure the EU brought that in! At least we can say, sure you knew about and what input and changes did you suggest? Puts more pressure on Govts as the Dail and the press will have access.

Mark#1 wrote:

"if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own." So who determines that? The individual state or the EU?

1/3 of the individual States. The Commission has to consider. They could just ignore it but why would they want it to be rejected again?

Mark#1 wrote:

Being able to vote on individual items is more apealling to me than having loads piled together, where some important ones might get overlooked in the blurb... Hey, wait a minute...

Not sure how practical that is, but it's a fair point of view.

Mark#1 wrote:

Depending on what you read, the planet's environmental state may not be as influenced by man's activities as some would suggest. How long has the planet been sustaining life? How long have we been burning fuel?

True, but the majority opinion seems to be against that. You can indeed believe that, but is that really a Lisbon issue, or something else?

K-9

Mark#1 wrote: »

From the CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION (quotes are not necessarily in the order as read in the document):

[All the member states]

“DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields”

So does this mean that if 500,000 migrant workers move into Ireland, something will be in place to ensure Paddy will still be able to retain his current standard of living?

Well there is still the existing minimum wage and Labour Court registered pay agreements. These have to be respected. If they aren't, that is our own fault through lack on inspections etc., nothing to do with the EU.

Mark#1 wrote:

“RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries”

“RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”

So we’ll all be EU citizens, instead of/as well as citizens of our own nations, free to move between all member states? As if it needs to be asked, what controls will be in place to ensure that the currently existing state of a nation’s population’s safety/security will be at least maintained, if not improved, bearing in mind that there are some colossal and obvious differences between some member state’s population’s safety/security?

EU as well as Irish citizens. Ireland and the UK has opted out of a lot of these measures. There is provisions for better cooperation and sharing of information.

Mark#1 wrote:

“RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence in accordance with the provisions of Article 42, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world”

So there could be a common EU army? I’m sure this one’s been done to death, and if I understand things correctly, despite this quote, there’s no actual threat that Irish citizens will be forced to join an army – how does that work? Also, if I understand things correctly, Article 42 seems to refer largely, if not completely, to migrant worker’s welfare rights in states other than their own, so what’s the relevance of the line I’ve bolded?

No and it clearly states this in the Guarantees in the sticky on this forum.

I think Article 42 of the TEU, not the consolidated version, refers to the common defence measures in it. Ireland has opted out and it also respects Irish and other countries Neutrality.

Mark#1 wrote:

“RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity”

But what? Tough if it’s not possible?

Yep, as we'll have future Referenda to decide that.


There is nothing stopping the Govt. having another go but there is no precedent and even I'd vote No.

smokingman

I don't need ten reasons, I have just two - I can't find anything the no side says that's true and more importantly, I'm proud to be an Irishman AND a European!