Lisbon: Why?

g5fd6ow0hseima

I started this thread on the advice of another poster, so here it goes:

Currently, I myself find myself leaning towards abstaining from voting, as I dont want to vote along the lines of various groups of retards (NO), and voting yes means I will be ratifying a treaty of which its raison d'etre was never clear to me in any sense.

So:

Why does the EU need Lisbon? Why is it that after the EU constitution and Lisbon I were rejected, the EU are still adamant that Lisbon be passed one way or another. This shows the unwillingness of the EU to continue functioning in its current form. This attitude alone is enough to appeal to the NO camp.

Why is it that the EU see no future beyond Lisbon. Why is it such an imperative. I must admit im not very well informed about the EU itself, but I see it as a well ran institution, and no faults are evident to me. What exactly will Lisbon set straight? What problem areas have the EU identified to which Lisbon will serve as something of an improvement mechanism?

Awaiting your coments,

ei.sdraob

Hes refering to this post


and my answer where I told him hes being drowned out and ignored in all the arguing and no one else responding to an important question

PopeBuckfastXVI

If I can snip and quote Scofflaw's post here, I think it's quite relevant:

Scofflaw wrote:

What Lisbon does do is change the way QMV voting operates (without much changing the weights, despite COIR), the way the Parliament's seats are allocated, and the way the composition of the Commission is set. All those changes are actually about making it so that the accession of a new member state is automatically factored into the system, instead of, as at present, requiring a round of horse-trading about voting weights and seat allocations.

Also on the changes to the presidency of the council, historically the presidency has been quite weak in it's rotating 6 month terms, with Nations holding it using it to promote themselves and their pet projects.

Moving to an elected council presidency, for a term of 2.5 years (extendible to 5) is a way of providing continuity and impartiality to the office that doesn't exist at the moment. This will allow the council greater focus and clarity in serving the people of the Union rather than the government of the nation in charge.

Daftendirekt

To put it simply, the EU at present is operating under a system designed for about 15 member states, when it now consists of 27 members.

Hence the need for a move from veto to QMV in certain areas, reduction of the size in Commission (a measure that will no longer be implemented), etc.

You'll also hear people saying the EU is too bureaucratic and undemocratic, with too much power concentrated at the top. Lisbon is also an attempt to address these problems, with the increased influence of the European Parliament, the greater role of national parliaments, the Citizens' Initiative, and forcing the Councils to meet in the open.

At least this is my understanding of why Lisbon is necessary. I'm sure someone else can give you a more detailed explanation, but the purpose of Lisbon can basically be summed up in one word: housekeeping.

P. Breathnach

It's all fairly boring, isn't it?

Not nearly as exciting as making stuff up and trying to scare the voters.

ei.sdraob

Daftendirekt wrote: »

At least this is my understanding of why Lisbon is necessary. I'm sure someone else can give you a more detailed explanation, but the purpose of Lisbon can basically be summed up in one word: housekeeping.

i was recently stopped in my tracks to think about a simple question asked by a friend

"in one sentence tell me what this Lisbon business is about"

i believe i paused and mumbled away something :eek:

to answer the OPs question (on further thinking)

the key to the answer is in the title: Lisbon Reform Treaty

ixtlan

Alisha Angry Whimsy wrote: »

Why does the EU need Lisbon? Why is it that after the EU constitution and Lisbon I were rejected, the EU are still adamant that Lisbon be passed one way or another. This shows the unwillingness of the EU to continue functioning in its current form. This attitude alone is enough to appeal to the NO camp.

Is the glass half empty or half full? Is it really the mark of a good organisation to say that the existing rules are perfect and never need to be changed again? The EU (including Ireland) wants to make decisions more efficiently and fairly.

Alisha Angry Whimsy wrote: »

Why is it that the EU see no future beyond Lisbon. Why is it such an imperative.

There's always going to be another treaty, and there will be after Lisbon. As to why it's imperative, that's not a word I would use, but there is some understandable frustration that it's taken over 7 years to get us to this point. It's not like anything has been rushed.

Alisha Angry Whimsy wrote: »

I must admit im not very well informed about the EU itself, but I see it as a well ran institution, and no faults are evident to me. What exactly will Lisbon set straight? What problem areas have the EU identified to which Lisbon will serve as something of an improvement mechanism?

Sink's 10 reasons... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

It's true that it's quite possible that none of these will directly affect you, but these changes will make the EU function better, which may make it more likely there will be more jobs... may make the environment better... may improve workers rights... may make many subtle improvements, which may indirectly affect you.

I say may because I don't want to hit you over the head with you must vote yes or the world will collapse... I think a No will be a big problem, even if it's only because the EU will be trying to come up with a solution to internal reform rather than working on the problems that it needs to be addressing. A Yes is highly likely to make things better. A No is highly likely to make things worse... IMHO.

Ix.