Lisbon. Yes? No? Sell it to me.

bcmf

This is a hypothetical situation but one that I no doubt exists in masses of multiples around the country.

Now I am a citizen of Ireland. A normal pleb.
What Europe means to me.
The Euro. Great for holidays.A pain in the arse when going to Northern Ireland or England But It shows how overpriced we are here FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING.

Its warmer and drier everywhere else.

Ask me to live anywhere else and I wouldn't. I love it here. The pints, the GAA, the people.

I work my arse off yet I simply cant pay the bills and then I am told I have to take a pay cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do the banks and developers get special treatment and get their debts written off when I am getting phone calls from x,y and z about the €100 I owe.

Give me a a grand or two and I will spend it around where I live.Its a great spot

Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.



If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue .:)

bonkey

Moved from Conspiracy Theories.

Anyone following link from CT, please note that the Politics forum rules now apply.

Hitman Actual

This post is a good place to start. But if you're looking for reasons that will translate directly to more money in your pocket, you won't find many. Lisbon is much more of an 'institutional reform' treaty, which should lead to a better running of the EU, which leads to better prosperity for the member states.

Ciaran500

Can we cut the shit and just do this topic properly?

Scofflaw

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Can we cut the shit and just do this topic properly?

Following on from this request, let's state that "selling the Treaty" can only be done on the basis of the Treaty itself, rather than having yet another round of our two sides sniping at each other. We have enough of those already, I think.

I've therefore deleted posts that don't relate to the OP, including my own. Do not attempt to sell your view of the Treaty here on the basis that we're having a second referendum, or on the basis of past goodies from the EU, or even on the implications of the vote itself - just what's good or bad in the Treaty itself, with article numbers.

And no, the 'complexity' or otherwise of the Treaty isn't part of the Treaty. If it's too complicated for you to understand, then don't post here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

simplistic

Scofflaw wrote: »

Following on from this request, let's state that "selling the Treaty" can only be done on the basis of the Treaty itself, rather than having yet another round of our two sides sniping at each other. We have enough of those already, I think.

I've therefore deleted posts that don't relate to the OP, including my own. Do not attempt to sell your view of the Treaty here on the basis that we're having a second referendum, or on the basis of past goodies from the EU, or even on the implications of the vote itself - just what's good or bad in the Treaty itself, with article numbers.

And no, the 'complexity' or otherwise of the Treaty isn't part of the Treaty. If it's too complicated for you to understand, then don't post here.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Just wondering why we arent allowed to use other factors when taking into account a decision?

It exactly like saying that an employer isnt allowed to do a background check to see if the candidate has criminal record and should only focus on the c.v.?

Scofflaw

simplistic wrote: »

Just wondering why we arent allowed to use other factors when taking into account a decision?

It exactly like saying that an employer isnt allowed to do a background check to see if the candidate has criminal record and should only focus on the c.v.?

Basically, because we have umpteen threads already discussing those factors, and allowing those factors to be part of the discussion inevitably seems to result in a discussion only of those factors. This one is convenient for dealing with just the Treaty - which hardly prevents the discussion of all the other factors that's already in motion on all the other threads.

So keep this one for the Lisbon Treaty's CV, and we can discuss the criminal records of its various advocates and detractors to our heart's content elsewhere.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Imposter

Shouldn't it then just be a discussion of the differences between Nice and Lisbon then as that is in effect what is been voted on IF you take everything else out of the equation?

Scofflaw

Imposter wrote: »

Shouldn't it then just be a discussion of the differences between Nice and Lisbon then as that is in effect what is been voted on IF you take everything else out of the equation?

Pretty much, yes. After all, that's what Lisbon is - a series of changes to the Treaties last changed by Nice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Reason 1: Increased democratic oversight of the EU, reduction of the democratic deficit

The European Parliament is the directly elected institution of the EU. Unlike a national parliament, it is not elected in order to form a government, but as a 'watchdog' body for the citizens as opposed to the national governments (who are represented on the Council of Ministers and the European Council) and the EU itself (which is represented by the Commission). As a citizen watchdog, it does not initiate legislation, but amends or rejects it. It also has the power to reject the EU's budget, to accept or reject proposed Commissioners, and to fire the Commission en masse through a motion of censure (the Santer Commission in 1999 resigned rather than be fired). It is not a replacement for national parliaments, nor is it a federal parliament for Europe - it's an oversight body.

Lisbon dramatically increases the watchdog powers of the European Parliament over the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon contains about 68 changes that increase the democratic input from EU citizens. There are no provisions in the Treaty which reduce its oversight powers. Moves to co-decision, where a vote of the Parliament is required in addition to a vote of the Council, is probably the single dominant theme in the Treaty, and the increase in citizen representation goes a long way towards reducing the 'democratic deficit' in the EU, although of course the smaller countries, like Ireland, remain much strongly represented in the Parliament than the larger countries - which balances the somewhat greater weight of the larger countries in the Council.

References: 24 TFEU, 36 TEU, 83 TFEU*, 82 TFEU*, 291 TFEU, 318 TFEU, 319 TFEU, 328 TFEU, 87 TFEU*, 88 TFEU*, 17 TEU, 10 TEU, 14 TEU, 9 TEU, 100 TFEU, 116 TFEU, 127 TFEU, 128 TFEU, 129 TFEU, 133 TFEU, 155 TFEU, 177 TFEU, 19 TFEU, 209 TFEU, 225 TFEU, 226 TFEU, 228 TFEU, 230 TFEU, 234 TFEU, 25 TFEU, 281 TFEU, 289 TFEU, 314 TFEU, 43 TFEU, 51 TFEU, 56 TFEU, 59 TFEU, 85 TFEU*, 91 TFEU, 95 TFEU, 156 TFEU, 11 TEU, 118 TFEU, 121 TFEU, 317 TFEU, 125 TFEU, 336 TFEU, 64 TFEU, 84 TFEU*, 315 TFEU, 352 TFEU, 181 TFEU, 207 TFEU, 257 TFEU, 322 TFEU, 194 TFEU, 182 TFEU, 173 TFEU, 195 TFEU, 196 TFEU, 197 TFEU, 294 TFEU, 212 TFEU, 214 TFEU
* indicates Irish opt-out from this Article

cordially,
Scofflaw

PHB

If you want a real direct effect reason to vote for the Lisbon Treaty, ignore the democratic stuff, or the energy policy stuff, or the institutional changes stuff, just focus on the Crime stuff.

Every year countless women get trafficked from Eastern Europe [where 2/3rds of the worlds 500,000 sex slaves come from] to work as Prostitutes all around the world, including Ireland.
Every year billions of euro worth of heroin, cocaine, and much worse gets trafficked around Europe and into Ireland.
Every year millions of euro gets laundered around Europe by criminals looking to hide their profits from imtidation, drug trade, robbery and prostitution.

So far, as individual nations, we've been unable to come up with proper responses to these problems. Because every nation has a veto when it comes to co-operation on these matters, it's impossible to get agreement. Everybody is in favour of doing something, but nobody can agree on what. Some people think this approach, some think the others, and because the rules as they are, nobody's able to step up and get it done.

The Lisbon Treaty transfer the control of these areas to the European Union. What does this mean? We no longer can use our veto when discussions some up. It operates under QMV, which basically means majority voting.

This will massively increase the amount of action taken against crimes like human-trafficking, drug smuggling and money laundering, because there will be a re-newed European effort to tackle them.

This imo is by far the most important thing in the Lisbon Treaty, and massively overlooked in the debate. It is the reason to vote yes. It affects every single man women and child in this country.

Captain Furball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Reason 1: Increased democratic oversight of the EU, reduction of the democratic deficit

The European Parliament is the directly elected institution of the EU. Unlike a national parliament, it is not elected in order to form a government, but as a 'watchdog' body for the citizens as opposed to the national governments (who are represented on the Council of Ministers and the European Council) and the EU itself (which is represented by the Commission). As a citizen watchdog, it does not initiate legislation, but amends or rejects it. It also has the power to reject the EU's budget, to accept or reject proposed Commissioners, and to fire the Commission en masse through a motion of censure (the Santer Commission in 1999 resigned rather than be fired). It is not a replacement for national parliaments, nor is it a federal parliament for Europe - it's an oversight body.

Lisbon dramatically increases the watchdog powers of the European Parliament over the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon contains about 68 changes that increase the democratic input from EU citizens. There are no provisions in the Treaty which reduce its oversight powers. Moves to co-decision, where a vote of the Parliament is required in addition to a vote of the Council, is probably the single dominant theme in the Treaty, and the increase in citizen representation goes a long way towards reducing the 'democratic deficit' in the EU, although of course the smaller countries, like Ireland, remain much strongly represented in the Parliament than the larger countries - which balances the somewhat greater weight of the larger countries in the Council.

References: 24 TFEU, 36 TEU, 83 TFEU*, 82 TFEU*, 291 TFEU, 318 TFEU, 319 TFEU, 328 TFEU, 87 TFEU*, 88 TFEU*, 17 TEU, 10 TEU, 14 TEU, 9 TEU, 100 TFEU, 116 TFEU, 127 TFEU, 128 TFEU, 129 TFEU, 133 TFEU, 155 TFEU, 177 TFEU, 19 TFEU, 209 TFEU, 225 TFEU, 226 TFEU, 228 TFEU, 230 TFEU, 234 TFEU, 25 TFEU, 281 TFEU, 289 TFEU, 314 TFEU, 43 TFEU, 51 TFEU, 56 TFEU, 59 TFEU, 85 TFEU*, 91 TFEU, 95 TFEU, 156 TFEU, 11 TEU, 118 TFEU, 121 TFEU, 317 TFEU, 125 TFEU, 336 TFEU, 64 TFEU, 84 TFEU*, 315 TFEU, 352 TFEU, 181 TFEU, 207 TFEU, 257 TFEU, 322 TFEU, 194 TFEU, 182 TFEU, 173 TFEU, 195 TFEU, 196 TFEU, 197 TFEU, 294 TFEU, 212 TFEU, 214 TFEU
* indicates Irish opt-out from this Article

cordially,
Scofflaw

Please tell me why so much effort?

Scofflaw

Captain Furball wrote: »

Please tell me why so much effort?

To upgrade democracy in the Treaty? Or why do I personally put in so much effort?

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

The Charter of Fundamental Rights. [Article 6 TEU]

The Lisbon Treaty reinforces the protection of fundamental rights in the European Union through incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the EU’s primary legislation making the Charter legally binding in terms of EU law and also providing the EU with the competence to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and binding it to do so

Article 6 TEU

1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.

The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.

2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties.

3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.

In addition numerous declarations Annexed to the treaty by the Intergovernmental Conference that adopted the Treaty reaffirms that the Charter applies soley to EU law:

1. Declaration concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which has legally binding force, confirms the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined by the Treaties.


53. Declaration by the Czech Republic on the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union

1. The Czech Republic recalls that the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the European Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and division of competences between the European Union and its Member States, as reaffirmed in Declaration (No 18) in relation to the delimitation of competences. The Czech Republic stresses that its provisions are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law, and not when they are adopting and implementing national law independently from Union law.

2. The Czech Republic also emphasises that the Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law and does not establish any new power for the Union. It does not diminish the field of application of national law and does not restrain any current powers of the national authorities in this field.

3. The Czech Republic stresses that, in so far as the Charter recognises fundamental rights and principles as they result from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights and principles are to be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.

4. The Czech Republic further stresses that nothing in the Charter may be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective field of application, by Union law and by international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States' Constitutions.

61. Declaration by the Republic of Poland on the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union

The Charter does not affect in any way the right of Member States to legislate in the sphere of public morality, family law, as well as the protection of human dignity and respect for human physical and moral integrity.

Captain Furball

Scofflaw wrote: »

To upgrade democracy in the Treaty? Or why do I personally put in so much effort?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The latter.

Scofflaw

Captain Furball wrote: »

The latter.

I think it's a very important step for the EU. People may not use the democratic toolkit they're being handed, but it's important to me that it's there.

unsurprisingly,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

bcmf wrote: »

Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.

If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue .:)

I'm not going to try to sell you the Lisbon treaty but I would ask you to remember that, regardless of the benefits, you will still have to pay a price for the product being sold. The salesmen have a responsibility to explain to you the cost of the product as well as the benefits.

bcmf

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm not going to try to sell you the Lisbon treaty but I would ask you to remember that, regardless of the benefits, you will still have to pay a price for the product being sold. The salesmen have a responsibility to explain to you the cost of the product as well as the benefits.

Thanks O'Morris.
I do not expect anything for free but get very disheartned with the cost here.Whether its related to Lisbon- I dont know.

My original post are, from what I can gather, what the ordinary man on the street thinks.But remember I am an ordinary Joe and we live in the EU.

Re: one of the first posts from Scofflaw I really want this to be a laymans (as much as possible) breakdown of the treaty and not what seems to happen on most of the threads I have read and the media coverage which seems to descend into a mud slinging match between the 'Yes' and 'No' sides thus leading to apathy.

Spiritoftheseventies

bcmf wrote: »

Thanks O'Morris.
I do not expect anything for free but get very disheartned with the cost here.Whether its related to Lisbon- I dont know.

My original post are, from what I can gather, what the ordinary man on the street thinks.But remember I am an ordinary Joe and we live in the EU.

Re: one of the first posts from Scofflaw I really want this to be a laymans (as much as possible) breakdown of the treaty and not what seems to happen on most of the threads I have read and the media coverage which seems to descend into a mud slinging match between the 'Yes' and 'No' sides thus leading to apathy.

Im an ordinary joe like yourself. To find out about the treaty, i did some research. It may even be through reading letters in pages of Irish times and then following it up. I dont expect anyone to sell this treaty to me. Basically find out what you need to know. Plenty of issues here which have been debated excellently.

finbar10

bcmf wrote: »

This is a hypothetical situation but one that I no doubt exists in masses of multiples around the country.

Now I am a citizen of Ireland. A normal pleb.
What Europe means to me.
The Euro. Great for holidays.A pain in the arse when going to Northern Ireland or England But It shows how overpriced we are here FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING.

Its warmer and drier everywhere else.

Ask me to live anywhere else and I wouldn't. I love it here. The pints, the GAA, the people.

I work my arse off yet I simply cant pay the bills and then I am told I have to take a pay cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do the banks and developers get special treatment and get their debts written off when I am getting phone calls from x,y and z about the €100 I owe.

Give me a a grand or two and I will spend it around where I live.Its a great spot

Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.



If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue .:)

Hi bcmf,
I intend to vote no (just stating my bias). IMO few things in this treaty are straightforward. Often there's a degree of truth to both yes and no arguments. The actual answer is often quite complicated and both sides can in a sense be right (or at least make an arguable point to some degree). I'm disappointed the referendum commission or our politicians haven't taken much more time to explain the ins and outs of this treaty. At this stage I think we'll end up with a polarized shouting match in the mere four weeks we've left to the referendum, with both sides claiming opposite things.

What I think is the most important change in the treaty is straightforward though. The council of ministers is the most powerful body in the EU. Lisbon would mean we'd lose our veto in most areas. Voting would move from unanimity to qualified majority voting (QMV). This automatically happens in most areas. In most remaining areas we can also give up our veto (defense is an exception but not tax). Once we give up our veto in an area it is gone permanently. But of course we do have a veto on giving up our veto in those remaining areas!

This will no doubt streamline and make more efficient the running of the EU. But to do this the national governments are giving up power to the EU institutions. There are a few checks to try to compensate for this flow of power to the centre. This is the "orange card" procedure for national governments. If more than 1/3 of national parliaments object to some proposed EU law then they can get this proposed law reviewed or get an explanation from the commission why it goes against subsidiarity. But this is not really a power to block the legislation. The legislation may still be enacted anyway regardless. There is also a provision for a citizen's initiative. If more than 1 million EU citizens sign a petition the EU has to consider it. But it doesn't necessarily have to do anything.

That's the main reason I intend to vote no: we've ceding more power to the EU (sharing sovereignty as some describe it). We're doing this for reasons of efficiency and streamlining. I'm not convinced the EU needs this extra efficiency. I'm not sure the EU is such a disaster with the current set up. Previous treaties had big ideas associated with them, the Euro or large scale accession of former Eastern block countries. This treaty is a harder sell. The aim is more boring but not unimportant. The EU becomes more efficient by taking some more powers to the centre. It continues a process which has been going on for a long time.

Lisbon would give the EU parliament more powers also. I'd have less problem with this. The parliament is the most directly democratic body in the EU (even if it is still arguably the least powerful).

One other important change with the Lisbon would be the charter of fundamental rights (which is attached to the Lisbon treaty and has the same status). It's likely this will lead to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) becoming more powerful. Any EU citizen will be able to take a case to the court if they feel their rights in this charter are being violated. In some ways this is a good thing. But again it is an example of powers moving away from national courts to the European court. There are supposed to be checks and balances again. The ECJ is only supposed to be able to rule on EU law. But these days EU law touches on just about everything. It's likely that ratification will strengthen the ECJ in relation to our own supreme court. Again like most things in Lisbon this is arguable and the extent to which this will happen is unclear. European law already is superior to our own constitution, but it will likely mean the ECJ will be able to make rulings in far more areas (there are explicit protections for abortion though, so that is an area that is fairly well protected).

There are positive aspects to Lisbon. The environment and energy are made competences of the EU (which means the EU can make binding laws in these areas). This is a good thing, but not enough to make me reconsider my vote.

There are various protections for our neutrality (such as it exists). The constitutional amendment will forbid the government from joining any European common defence without a referendum. There's still the triple lock preventing us from deploying troops without Dáil approval and a UN mandate. But I would feel Lisbon does move the EU generally in a more militaristic direction. We may stay somewhat outside this common defence policy, but Lisbon commits the EU in general to developing one. The European Defence Agency is given official status (and gives the armaments industry a seat at the EU table).

Overall I feel Lisbon would continue the process of the EU institutions gaining power at the expense of national parliaments. I feel the checks and balances to compensate are not enough. I don't feel extra efficiency is a good enough reason for all this.

gline

All I would say on this matter is.... Only vote on the lisbon treaty if you have read it and understand what it entails. If you cant understand it, research it. Its like a contract, why sign it if you dont understand what it entails.

The funny thing you may well realise is that the only side showing you what the Lisbon treaty really entails is the No side, the yes side do not explain any of the finer points at all, so that in itself says something, to me it is saying that the "yes" side either dont know the facts or they are hiding them

Scofflaw

gline wrote: »

All I would say on this matter is.... Only vote on the lisbon treaty if you have read it and understand what it entails. If you cant understand it, research it. Its like a contract, why sign it if you dont understand what it entails.

The funny thing you may well realise is that the only side showing you what the Lisbon treaty really entails is the No side, the yes side do not explain any of the finer points at all, so that in itself says something, to me it is saying that the "yes" side either dont know the facts or they are hiding them

Since many of the No side claims really do involve making erroneous claims about the Treaty, with a regular feature being the citation of part of an article with important provisos left out, claiming that "the only side showing you what the Lisbon treaty really entails is the No side" is itself an enormously inaccurate claim. The best you can say is that the No side use "material from the Treaty" to make their claims.

The other half of your claim, though, that the official Yes campaigns (at least last time round) didn't explain any of the finer points at all, is undeniably the case.

However, we are drifting off-topic again, into 'sales techniques' rather than the contents of the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

gline wrote: »

All I would say on this matter is.... Only vote on the lisbon treaty if you have read it and understand what it entails. If you cant understand it, research it. Its like a contract, why sign it if you dont understand what it entails.

The funny thing you may well realise is that the only side showing you what the Lisbon treaty really entails is the No side, the yes side do not explain any of the finer points at all, so that in itself says something, to me it is saying that the "yes" side either dont know the facts or they are hiding them

I think you're mistaking the No side making stuff up to sound sensationalist and the Yes telling the fairly dull truth. Lisbon isn't that exciting just needed.

gline

meglome wrote: »

I think you're mistaking the No side making stuff up to sound sensationalist and the Yes telling the fairly dull truth. Lisbon isn't that exciting just needed.

any examples of them "making stuff up"?
I think they are more showing "what is possible" if it is voted in, not things that will definitly happen, just showing that we will lose our power to stop it.

ei.sdraob

gline wrote: »

any examples of them "making stuff up"?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0831/1224253511501_1.jpg

take a pick of prime "making stuff up" material

just showing that we will lose our power to stop it.

what power exactly will we loose under Lisbon, please do answer

gline

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0831/1224253511501_1.jpg

take a pick of prime "making stuff up" material



what power exactly will we loose under Lisbon, please do answer

So is "weighted voting" fake? e.g. some legislation will have to go through voting in the Eu?? no?? If it is majority weighted, do you think Ireland will have the majority?

Torakx

well considering i couldnt find an actual copy of the treaty only amendments i have to go by that alone for now. god knows what they were amending from the original lol

but from the amendments i found with the majority voting aside,
that if the treaty is passed yes the eu will run a little smoother in that the irish gov will not need to consult its people on decisions with new legislation on alot of matters,
instead the voting is done in the eu parliament.
so it looks like to me.
before the treaty: irish gov wants to change something important they ask the people to vote.

after treaty
the eu wants to change something it is voted on by the gov not the people. and on top of that some really major legislation is done by majority.
so really it looks like the people of ireland in general will have not much say at all regarding any legislation.much like america now.they rely on congress instead to pass it.and if you can get some of congress in your pocket you are doing well with getting your way. you bypass most of the people it affects.

as i said before it isnt all positive stuff in there.
also there is a thread made by someone who says they are reading the actual treaty i hope it is the real one and not just amendments alone as i would love to get a copy of the real treaty aswell!
anyone got a link to it? id appreciate it.

BlitzKrieg

i would love to get a copy of the real treaty aswell!
anyone got a link to it? id appreciate it.

here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:EN:HTML

ei.sdraob

gline wrote: »

So is "weighted voting" fake? e.g. some legislation will have to go through voting in the Eu?? no?? If it is majority weighted, do you think Ireland will have the majority?

yes. the 0.8% issues has been done to death on this forum, please read past threads

for your benefit ill go again

start here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61652458

read the linked pdf in first post
http://www.jasonomahony.ie/The_Improved_Spoofers_Guide_To_The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf
or backup link http://ifile.it/y5aw17m/The_Improved_Spoofers_Guide_To_The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

heres the relevant bit

In the Lisbon Treaty it is proposed to change the system to a simpler double majority, which
means that any proposal will need a simple 55% of countries representing 65% of the population
to get through. Irish Eurosceptics went ballistic at this proposal, because it meant that Ireland,
with a massive 0.8% of the population of the EU, would only get a tiny 0.8% of the vote. Meanwhile,
Germany, with a piddly 14% of the population, was getting a massive 14% of the vote. The bastards.
Fact: Ireland does not rely on the size of its population to negotiate what we need within the EU.
How the hell do you think a country with 0.8% of the population negotiated €30 billion in aid?

Torakx

@blitzreig
thanks for the link. is that definetly all of the treaty? i have read this about 5 months ago or so.

by the way what does consolidated version mean?
i heard the real treaty was something like 3000 pages.

BlitzKrieg

Torakx wrote: »

@blitzreig
thanks for the link. is that definetly all of the treaty? i have read this about 5 months ago or so.

by the way what does consolidated version mean?
i heard the real treaty was something like 3000 pages.

Consolidated version means its the lisbon treaty as it is applied to the other treaties. As it is an amendment treaty the unconsolidated version does not explain what it is changing only giving the article numbers and the change.

Much like a patch or hotfix for computer software.

The consolidated version fills in those details as they would appear if you had all the treaties in one place.

the treaty is broken into sections.

1.The treaty of the european union

2.The treaty of the functioning of the european union

3.Protocols


Essentially these would be:

1. The structure of the European Union, how it relates to its member states and how it conducts itself

2. The structure of responsibilities of the individual institutions and the their role in each aspect of life that the EU has some aspect of influence.

3. These would be exceptions that individual member states have for specific aspects of the treaty


So when reading the lisbon treaty.

the treaty of european union will give you an idea of what sort of body the organisation is, while the functioning section will give you an idea of its powers and stance on key international topics.

Protocols are where national concerns are addressed. For example the irish position on abortion has been protected by protocol 35 for years now and has never been an issue in lisbon.

Torakx

do you happen to have a link to the original treaty?
for me this is the most important of all.
it tells us exactly the mindset of those making it and gives a better idea of where we will be in 10 years or less should we agree to the amended version.
after all there is not much stopping them from changing it over the years to slowly turn inot the original. thanks to the way the system is looking to be setup.

BlitzKrieg

Do you mean the original lisbon treaty?

the original amendment treaty is here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML

But the treaty was designed as an amendment treaty so those who wrote it up wrote it to become part of the other treaties so the consoludated version is the most accurate version of what it is intended to do.

gline

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Fact: Ireland does not rely on the size of its population to negotiate what we need within the EU.
How the hell do you think a country with 0.8% of the population negotiated €30 billion in aid?

So by this are you saying that the EU already works this way i.e. weighted voting?

From what I can see from the treaty and the way we will lose "some" power by the fact that if "Europeans" want to pass a legislation/law and "Irish" people dont want this to be in effect, we cannot stop it. Are you saying this is definitly not true? i'll admit I havent personally read the whole treaty as I dont have the time or will to read the whole thing, so I'm not saying I'm an authority on it or anything. My problem is, one side is telling us of possible major negatives of the treaty and one side are saying that this is lies, yet the people disscussing it and campaigning either "no" or "yes" havent read the whole treaty and hence do not know the whole impact of it. This is a potentially dangerous situation. If the EU want us to vote on it why arent they giving us a copy first, or at least giving us a breakdown of all the implications of it that we can cross reference with the actual treaty?

For instance I have heard from various sources "possibly not reliable" that the top European council have the power to make a law and enforce it without the need for any voting from anyone else. Then I hear from the "yes" side saying this is completly false, yet not actually quoting from the treaty, showing proof that this is false.

This is just one example and it maybe false. But what it seems to come down to is 2 sides giving their argument without actually reading the whole treaty or quoting from the full treaty to back their statements up. To me it just seems like the EU are adding another power structure above ours, so that the ordinary Irish people now have to go through another channel to get something changed/stopped etc and our government is turning into a "middle-man". Why do they need to bring this in? Can we not continue the way things are going without a European "government" above our Irish government?

marco_polo

Torakx wrote: »

do you happen to have a link to the original treaty?
for me this is the most important of all.
it tells us exactly the mindset of those making it and gives a better idea of where we will be in 10 years or less should we agree to the amended version.
after all there is not much stopping them from changing it over the years to slowly turn inot the original. thanks to the way the system is looking to be setup.

All the previous EU treaties can be found here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm

Any changes to the treaty must be agreed by all member states unanimously, and if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum then that what must happen.

BlitzKrieg

For instance I have heard from various sources "possibly not reliable" that the top European council have the power to make a law and enforce it without the need for any voting from anyone else. Then I hear from the "yes" side saying this is completly false, yet not actually quoting from the treaty, showing proof that this is false.

Did they specify what kind of law? Depending what legal area it is in, it would require quoting from a different aspect of the treaty. Usually for the big ones (the ones changing the treaty and its power) the catch all quote would be Article 48 TEU sections 4 and 6

That decision shall not enter into force until it is
approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

but if you want to know the EU's power in maing law you will probably need to specify an area (like taxation or immigration or sports etc) and it will be explained in the corrasponding section in the treaty for the functioning of the european union.

gline

So if the EU want to bring in a new law, like say an enviornmental law (maybe an example would be a new tax for something) that is against our constitution. What happens? Will it have to be voted on by the Irish people?

@marco_polo - when you say - "if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum then that what must happen. "

What happens if we vote no? Didnt we already vote no on the Lisbon Treaty and yet for some reason we have to vote on it again? I know they ammended it, but how many ammendments to somehting, that we have to vote on can the EU make, before they decide that it is definitley not going to come into effect in Ireland? Is there a set number?

Also "if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum"....... Who decides if it needs a referendum?

nesf

gline wrote: »

So if the EU want to bring in a new law, like say an enviornmental law (maybe an example would be a new tax for something) that is against our constitution. What happens? Will it have to be voted on by the Irish people?

Let me put it this way. Any change to the EU that would require a referendum in this country to go ahead will still require a referendum for it to be passed in Ireland post-Lisbon. All that Governments can pass without a referendum post-Lisbon are changes that don't require a referendum. What requires a referendum to be passed doesn't actually change with Lisbon (strictly speaking, we're only having a referendum because some parts of Lisbon appear to require one to be passed, not because an EU treaty requires one by default [these parts are the changes to EU competencies and other areas]).

Does that answer your question?

As an example: The EU has no power over direct taxation at the moment so long as the Government don't introduce any taxation that impedes the European Free Market (like putting a special tax on EU people working here or charging more tax on inheritances from inside the EU to someone living here or similar)*. If they wanted to change this so that the EU could have power over direct taxation this would require a referendum, both before and after Lisbon if it is passed.

*The example that came up recently was the UK tried to introduce a tax credit system that basically meant lower inheritance tax for people inheriting from sources within the UK. So if I was working and resident in Britain and my parents died and left me 50K, I'd have paid more tax on this (because it originated in the Republic) then had my parents been resident in Britain. Such would be an obvious breach of free movement of capital within EU countries (i.e. we've all pledged not to tax people for transferring money from one EU country to another) and would act as a strong disincentive to be resident in Britain if there was any chance you'd be inheriting in the short term.

Some people try to misconstrue this as the EU legislating on direct taxation outside of its competency but it's clearly not the case.

O'Morris

gline wrote:

What happens if we vote no? Didnt we already vote no on the Lisbon Treaty and yet for some reason we have to vote on it again? I know they ammended it

The Lisbon treaty hasn't been amended.

gline wrote:

Also "if it is the case that any change requires us to have a referendum"....... Who decides if it needs a referendum?

From what I understand, the only changes that would require a referendum would be changes that give increased competency to the EU. That doesn't include the handing over of more of our vetoes. If Lisbon is passed, they will be able to amend the treaties to move more areas from unanimity to QMV. Under the current set-up they would only be able to do this by having a new treaty and putting it to each of the member states for ratification.

If Lisbon is passed not only will we lose at least 30 of our vetoes but we'll also give the government the power to hand over many of the remaining vetoes without them having to ask for our consent through a referendum.

MrMicra

gline wrote: »

So if the EU want to bring in a new law, like say an enviornmental law (maybe an example would be a new tax for something) that is against our constitution. What happens? Will it have to be voted on by the Irish people?

Yes if it against our constitution it will have to be voted on in a referendum. This would happen if our government decided that the law was beyond the agreed power of the EU and challenged it but then decided that it was a good idea and held a referendum to allow it.

The EU does make laws all the time. You mention an environmental law the law on lightbulbs that comes in today is an EU regulation.

MrMicra

gline wrote: »

pen. "

What happens if we vote no? Didnt we already vote no on the Lisbon Treaty and yet for some reason we have to vote on it again? I know they ammended it, but how many ammendments to somehting, that we have to vote on can the EU make, before they decide that it is definitley not going to come into effect in Ireland? Is there a set number??

It hasn't been amended, what has happened is that binding guarantees have been given that abortion, gay marriage, tax and neutrality are not covered by the Lisbon treaty and never were covered by the Lisbon treaty. If we vote no this time Lisbon falls and alot of civil servants will be annoyed for a couple of weeks and then get back to work.

This has been done because there is a perception that some people may have voted NO before because they believed that our neutrality was threatened or abortion would be brought in by the Lisbon treaty. It is hoped that this will allay their fears.

peaaceful

Firstly , i do not understand how they can make the Irish vote again on something that has already been thrown back into the water by the Irish people.

I am of Irish/English lineage and if the people in England had their referendum as they were promised, i would hope the English would have done the same to the treaty as the Irish, but they were not. The European Union already has to much of a stranglehold on the English people.

In fact if the Lisbon treaty went through, the Irish will be in the same position as the rest of the member states...no voice at all

The English government have already stated that the changes to the treaty will make no real changes. Its an illusion to fool the Irish into thinking they will be listened to.

If you want a voice in Europe and value your republic, please please vote
No to the treaty

It will put 27 unelected dictators into power and the Irish are the only people who can stop this. Keep this power you hold with your republic and save the rest of us from ID cards, mandatory vaccinations and more ridiculous laws alledgedly for our benefit that do nothing more than take away our freedoms.

With respect and love

Peaceful

Spiritoftheseventies

bcmf wrote: »

This is a hypothetical situation but one that I no doubt exists in masses of multiples around the country.

Now I am a citizen of Ireland. A normal pleb.
What Europe means to me.
The Euro. Great for holidays.A pain in the arse when going to Northern Ireland or England But It shows how overpriced we are here FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING.

Its warmer and drier everywhere else.

Ask me to live anywhere else and I wouldn't. I love it here. The pints, the GAA, the people.

I work my arse off yet I simply cant pay the bills and then I am told I have to take a pay cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do the banks and developers get special treatment and get their debts written off when I am getting phone calls from x,y and z about the €100 I owe.

Give me a a grand or two and I will spend it around where I live.Its a great spot

Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.



If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue .:)

Lisbon Treaty. I havent a clue whats its about and to be honest I dont care.



"If you choose to reply to this remember.An ordinary Joe with ordinary worries.
Sell it to me cause I havent a clue ".

Sorry only caught last line of your post having re read it. If you dont care what Lisbon treaty is about why should anyone sell it you.
Folks Ill say it again. Vote or dont vote. But dont make an uninformed decision. Thats the end all and be all. Radio, Newspapers, TV are now debating this. And plenty of information.
You either care enough about the issues or you dont to make a vote. that simple.

ei.sdraob

peaaceful wrote: »

With respect and love

Peaceful

i was thinking of you when i wrote this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055667502

Hitman Actual

O'Morris wrote: »

From what I understand, the only changes that would require a referendum would be changes that give increased competency to the EU. That doesn't include the handing over of more of our vetoes. If Lisbon is passed, they will be able to amend the treaties to move more areas from unanimity to QMV. Under the current set-up they would only be able to do this by having a new treaty and putting it to each of the member states for ratification.

This is the Passerelle Clause you're talking about, and it's not new- both Nice and Maastricht included areas which could be moved from unanimity to QMV. Also, unanimity of all member states is required for an area to move from unanimity to QMV, so we still have full control over the area i.e. we can veto the move to QMV.

O'Morris wrote: »

If Lisbon is passed not only will we lose at least 30 of our vetoes but we'll also give the government the power to hand over many of the remaining vetoes without them having to ask for our consent through a referendum.

No, not quite right. The Passerelle Clause cannot be used to confer more power on the EU, so we wouldn't be having a referendum anyway.

More information here, or just the relevant points below:

lisbontreaty.ie wrote:

10. It was also agreed to provide a further simplified revision procedure, known as the “general passerelle” arrangement (as set out in Chapter 8 on decision-making). Under this arrangement the European Council can decide to change the decision-making procedure in a given area from unanimity to QMV, or from a special to the ordinary legislative procedure. The Treaty states that any decision to move to QMV or to the ordinary legislative procedure must have the unanimous agreement of the European Council. In addition to the veto held by any Head of State or Government at the European Council, any national parliament can veto such a change. This procedure deals solely with changes to decision-making procedures; accordingly, no new powers may be conferred on the Union under this provision. It cannot be used to change institutional arrangements, for example. The Treaty specifically states that this arrangement “shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence”.


11. Under the terms of the proposed constitutional amendment, any proposal to avail of a passerelle clause would require the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

O'Morris

Hitman Actual wrote:

This is the Passerelle Clause you're talking about, and it's not new- both Nice and Maastricht included areas which could be moved from unanimity to QMV.

The Lisbon treaty goes much further. Lisbon would allow the politicians to make amendments to the EU treaties in any area, apart from defence, that doesn't involve increasing the EU's powers.

Hitman Actual wrote:

Also, unanimity of all member states is required for an area to move from unanimity to QMV, so we still have full control over the area i.e. we can veto the move to QMV.

But the veto will be in the hands of the politicians. Under the current set-up the veto is in the hands of the Irish electorate because they are the people who have to approve any changes to the EU treaties. If Lisbon is passed, the politicians will be able to amend the treaties on our behalf without the need to put the changed treaty to the people in a referendum.

Hitman Actual wrote:

No, not quite right. The Passerelle Clause cannot be used to confer more power on the EU, so we wouldn't be having a referendum anyway.

I didn't say it would confer more power on the EU. It would give our government the power to assent to non-competency-conferring amendments to the treaties without the requirement to put those changes to a referendum.

Hitman Actual

O'Morris wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty goes much further. Lisbon would allow the politicians to make amendments to the EU treaties in any area, apart from defence, that doesn't involve increasing the EU's powers.

Exactly, it doesn't increase the EU's powers, it's more for the internal working of the EU. I have no problem with a quicker, more efficient mechanism to change internal procedures.

O'Morris wrote: »

But the veto will be in the hands of the politicians. Under the current set-up the veto is in the hands of the Irish electorate because they are the people who have to approve any changes to the EU treaties. If Lisbon is passed, the politicians will be able to amend the treaties on our behalf without the need to put the changed treaty to the people in a referendum.

Would any such changes require a referendum now?

O'Morris wrote: »

I didn't say it would confer more power on the EU. It would give our government the power to assent to non-competency-conferring amendments to the treaties without the requirement to put those changes to a referendum.

Would any such changes require a referendum now?

You're trying to make out that the new revision procedures are radically different to what we have now. They're not. The Simplified Revision Procedure and Passerelle mechanisms can't grant the EU more competency, so they wouldn't require a referendum, but currently any such changes wouldn't require a referendum anyway.

Spiritoftheseventies

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Exactly, it doesn't increase the EU's powers, it's more for the internal working of the EU. I have no problem with a quicker, more efficient mechanism to change internal procedures.


Would any such changes require a referendum now?


Would any such changes require a referendum now?

You're trying to make out that the new revision procedures are radically different to what we have now. They're not. The Simplified Revision Procedure and Passerelle mechanisms can't grant the EU more competency, so they wouldn't require a referendum, but currently any such changes wouldn't require a referendum anyway.

Okay lets spell this out. The NAMA leglislation in whatever shape or form it goes through by whatever government will be funded by the EU.
So in that effect we cant be seen to be taking money off them and then snubbing them again.
Put simply we have put ourselves in a position now where we have no hand to play. We had in last treaty vote
As Gilmore said yesterday to punish government by voting no simply does not solve the problem.
Reservations I have about the treaty are about how much power the European Court of Justice have. They will make a lot of key decisions that will ultimately shape Europe in the years to come.
What we should be ensuring that we have a voice there.
Bottom line is are we partners in Europe or servants. Our borrowing is out of control. It will take only one wrong step and the IMF takes over.
We took our eye of the ball in boom times. We messed up. Now the EU is coming in to clean the mess.

Hitman Actual

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay lets spell this out. The NAMA leglislation in whatever shape or form it goes through by whatever government will be funded by the EU.
So in that effect we cant be seen to be taking money off them and then snubbing them again.
Put simply we have put ourselves in a position now where we have no hand to play. We had in last treaty vote
As Gilmore said yesterday to punish government by voting no simply does not solve the problem.
Reservations I have about the treaty are about how much power the European Court of Justice have. They will make a lot of key decisions that will ultimately shape Europe in the years to come.
What we should be ensuring that we have a voice there.
Bottom line is are we partners in Europe or servants. Our borrowing is out of control. It will take only one wrong step and the IMF takes over.
We took our eye of the ball in boom times. We messed up. Now the EU is coming in to clean the mess.

If that's really meant to be a reply to my post, can you clarify why? I'm talking about the Simplified Revision Procedure and the Passerelle mechanism in Lisbon. Your reply makes no sense to me.

Freeborn John

Scofflaw wrote: »

Reason 1: Increased democratic oversight of the EU, reduction of the democratic deficit...

The powers of the EU Parliament have been increased since 1979 and the EU crisis of democratic legitimacy has grown during this time. Lisbon would only perpetuate an approach (giving the EU Parliament more powers) that has been a failure for 30 years and which is therefore guaranteed to only make the democratic legitimacy problem even worse.

This is because the EU Parliament has lower democratic legitimacy that the other bodies (national parliaments and governments in the EU Council of Ministers) from whom the power has been taken to give to the EU Parliament.

Freeborn John

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Exactly, it doesn't increase the EU's powers, it's more for the internal working of the EU

That's total rubbish. Lisbon gives the EU new 'competences' (powers). And it 'collapses the pillar structure' making the federalist community method the 'ordinary legislative procedure' across almost the entire range of policies in which the EU has power. When the 'ordinary legislative procedure' is used the EU Commission is able to use its monopoly on all proposals for new or changed EU law to set the legislative agenda. And once the EU law has come into force no-one you elect can change it in the future without another Commission proposal and the agreement of many other governments who are ignoring their own voters on Lisbon and will certainly take no notice of you.

Lisbon is a framework for more undemocratic political union in more policy areas that should be decided by the democratic process in national elections. It is the latest step in a process of political integration that is neutralizing national parliaments and disenfrachising the voters who elect them.