My thoughts on Lisbon!

procure11

Please read before dismissing the post,



I think it is the atrousious arrogance from some Yes proponents that serves as a bane for the Yes side.I have cautiously read a lot of posts on the EU forum over the past months and I have come to the conclusions that:

1.Boards.ie Mods and as a managerial body actively supports the EU treaty although admittedly there are a few Mods that oppose it.

2.The frequent Yes posters have formed a sort of cabal -like group and they usually desend on any form of opposition to the treaty with military precision and employ very dismissive tactics in an attempt to make any opposition look stupid.

3.There have been a very intellectual deficit in arguements by both parties( yes and no proponents) and posts usually degenerate to name calling,abuses and insults are traded on a regular basis.

4.On both sides,we have a few able and intelligent posters that usually set the tone for other respective posters to draw from and this is usually done to a fault.As a result it is very decipherable to notice the lack of originality and critical thinking from a lot of the posters.

( for eg Scofflaw and Popebuckfast from the Yes side and ( within reason) Future Toicheac from the No side) have given very educative and insightful views on the Lisbon treaty.

I am sure it is common knowledege the amount of ridiculous and abysmal reasons to vote either for Yes or No but my own summation is :

> There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Lisbon treaty i.e it does not lead to the imposition of abortion,EU determined minimum wage ,forceful conscription and other ridiculous assertions.

but

>It also leads to some measure of relinquising national powers to the EU in terms of having
A.EU president that talks and acts on behalf of the EU member states .

B.EU Foreign Minister that formulates and executes policy on behalf of the Union(admittedly this is in co-operation with individual member nation's FMs) but it valid to enquire how this would play out .

C.There is no gainsaying that the lisbon treaty is also an attempt to make Europe more federalistic in nature.


I am confused as to - how to vote ( being eligible for the first time after recieving an Irish passport a year ago).I want Ireland to continue to improve its investment development path in terms of both its IFID and OFID which the country desperately needs to compete meaningfully.I also dont want Ireland to regarded as the whipping boy of Europe.

Coversely,I would detest a situation where Ireland is percieved as a weak nation that can easily be manipulated because she has relatively lower influence/population as opposed to say Poland/Uk/Germany or France.Hence I understand the viewpoint of some naysayers that allude that if it was either of the aforementioned countries that initially voted No....they would not have been required to vote again!

Enough of the rant but what are your thoughts like!

bonkey

I'm going to say this once, for the benefit of the OP, and anyone else tempted to follow certain trains of thought from the original post.

Attack the post, not the poster.

Attacks on posters or moderators because of their political views will not be tolerated, nor will allegations or suggestions of bias.

sceptre

I stopped reading at point 1 because it was wrong. Apologies if the rest was better researched but I didn't want to take the chance.

BlitzKrieg

A.EU president that talks and acts on behalf of the EU member states .

A role that already exists, its just being moved from a 6 month rotation between member states to a single position for two and half years selected by the european council and approved by the european parliament. And when you say he talks and acts on behalf of the EU member states, he doesnt he talks and acts on behalf of the European Council (he is the president of the european council not the president of the european union) with the other institutions of the EU. His job is to relay the decisions of the European Council to the council of ministers and the european parliament. His relation to the public is only in converying decisions made by the european council alone. He has no voting power, no legaslative power and no executive power.

When you consider that before Sweden the last two presidents were the Czech Republic where the national issues at home essentially froze that presidency and the one before that was Sarkozy who you need to be a french to actually withstand the man, I would perfer a president who is more consistent and at least the european council have agreed that they like the man.

B.EU Foreign Minister that formulates and executes policy on behalf of the Union(admittedly this is in co-operation with individual member nation's FMs) but it valid to enquire how this would play out .

Another position that already exists in a form in the EU commissioner for external relatiosn and the representative of the common security and foriegn policy. He does have some power as he takes a seat on the Commission (which the commissioner did anyway) but all his proposals require approval from all member states.

C.There is no gainsaying that the lisbon treaty is also an attempt to make Europe more federalistic in nature.

Could you explain what elements make it more federal. Increasing the roles of national parliament powers over the EU lawmaking process would be the opposite to making it more federal I assume? But I guess an increase in QMV would be more federal. except the notion of a federal system would be that more powers would be going into exclusive control of the EU and not co-operation...Which nothing in the Lisbon treaty does. It increases the inter governmental aspect of the EU, but the supranational element remains the same. Though you could argue that an increase in the powers of the EU parliament is more federal since its the only political institute in the EU that operates outside the national governments.

Johnboy1951

2.The frequent Yes posters have formed a sort of cabal -like group and they usually desend on any form of opposition to the treaty with military precision and employ very dismissive tactics in an attempt to make any opposition look stupid.

Having read through lots of the threads concerning the 'treaty' that also has been my impression.

I have decided it is near pointless to try to have a mature discussion on not only the terms of the treaty but the possible use/abuse that may result from a Yes vote.

Apparently all opinions that do not comply with the Yes agenda are just lies.

BTW, I would have no reason to consider your first point relevant and think your post would be better without it.

Regards.

Jk_Eire

procure11 wrote: »

Please read before dismissing the post,



I think it is the atrousious arrogance from some Yes proponents that serves as a bane for the Yes side.I have cautiously read a lot of posts on the EU forum over the past months and I have come to the conclusions that:

1.Boards.ie Mods and as a managerial body actively supports the EU treaty although admittedly there are a few Mods that oppose it.

2.The frequent Yes posters have formed a sort of cabal -like group and they usually desend on any form of opposition to the treaty with military precision and employ very dismissive tactics in an attempt to make any opposition look stupid.

3.There have been a very intellectual deficit in arguements by both parties( yes and no proponents) and posts usually degenerate to name calling,abuses and insults are traded on a regular basis.

4.On both sides,we have a few able and intelligent posters that usually set the tone for other respective posters to draw from and this is usually done to a fault.As a result it is very decipherable to notice the lack of originality and critical thinking from a lot of the posters.

( for eg Scofflaw and Popebuckfast from the Yes side and ( within reason) Future Toicheac from the No side) have given very educative and insightful views on the Lisbon treaty.

I am sure it is common knowledege the amount of ridiculous and abysmal reasons to vote either for Yes or No but my own summation is :

> There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the Lisbon treaty i.e it does not lead to the imposition of abortion,EU determined minimum wage ,forceful conscription and other ridiculous assertions.

but

>It also leads to some measure of relinquising national powers to the EU in terms of having
A.EU president that talks and acts on behalf of the EU member states .

B.EU Foreign Minister that formulates and executes policy on behalf of the Union(admittedly this is in co-operation with individual member nation's FMs) but it valid to enquire how this would play out .

C.There is no gainsaying that the lisbon treaty is also an attempt to make Europe more federalistic in nature.


I am confused as to - how to vote ( being eligible for the first time after recieving an Irish passport a year ago).I want Ireland to continue to improve its investment development path in terms of both its IFID and OFID which the country desperately needs to compete meaningfully.I also don't want Ireland to regarded as the whipping boy of Europe.

Coversely,I would detest a situation where Ireland is percieved as a weak nation that can easily be manipulated because she has relatively lower influence/population as opposed to say Poland/Uk/Germany or France.Hence I understand the viewpoint of some naysayers that allude that if it was either of the aforementioned countries that initially voted No....they would not have been required to vote again!

Enough of the rant but what are your thoughts like!

A. I think this would be far more efficient than the current rotating system. It will add consistency to how the EU gets it's message across and will allow more time to efficiently fulfill set out agendas.

B. Kissinger once asked who do I call for Europe. This answers the question.
I'd disagree on the power of the role. Member states would approve the formula, and influence it heavily. They would then allow the EU foreign minister (High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, correct title) to execute it on their behalf. More spokesperson than holder of real executive power.

C. The federalist argument never plays for me. It seems that every time a new treaty comes along that it's a power grab towards a federalist Europe. With such paranoia and vehement safeguarding among member states surrounding their sovereignty, and the fact that it would require member states themselves to decide on a federalist future for Europe, I see the federalist argument as plain scaremongering.


I'd say the new system equally takes and gives power to the bigger and smaller states on an equal basis.

Some explanation of the new double majority voting system proposed under Lisbon

When a vote that does not require unanimity is to be taken in the Council of the European Union, and consensus (general agreement) cannot be reached among member states, the vote will be put to a Qualified Majority Vote.

Using their one vote each, 55% of member states will be needed to pass the legislation.
If at least 15 (55.5%) countries vote in favour of the legislation the first hurdle has been passed.
Then, the total population of these 15 countries must add up to at least 65% of the EU's total population in order for the second hurdle to be passed.

Only then can the legislation be adopted.

Also, to prevent just three of the larger countries coming (eg France, Germanu and UK) together to combine populations to make a 35% blocking minority, this minority must contain at least four different member states.

The benefits of this system are that all countries get a single vote, but population sizes are taken into consideration since 65% of the EU is needed.
This also means that bigger countries using their large populations to their favour, will always need the backing of a combination of smaller countries and larger countries.

BlitzKrieg

Personnally I am sorry if an impression has created that there is sort of cabal. I know some fuses have gotten quite short because honestly some points get repeated again and again which were shown to be false so as you expect some posters have gotten quite short when they show up again in an almost copy and paste fashion.

My own personal demon would be the 35% requirement misunderstanding with the QMV system that has been repeated a number of times and its clearly wrong. Though I hope I havnt been unnecesarily aggressive with anyone when I correct the point.


EDIT:

ahh look the myth returns in this very thread

Also, to prevent just three of the larger countries coming (eg France, Germanu and UK) together to combine populations to make a 35% blocking minority

the 35% blocking element only applies in QMV votes where not all member states are voting, and its 35%+1 of the countries taking part in the vote instead of 4 countries. In full QMV's its 4 countries only, no min pop requirement.

Plotician

This is an open question - from what i can find about the general role of forum moderators (the 'job definition') is that they should be politically neutral when performing the moderator role (i.e personal opinion left to one side).

Is this a policy on boards.ie, or is there allowance within the guidelines for political opinion to be expressed?

One of the reasons why neutrality is promoted is that over the longer term it apparently helps the success of a forum itself.

I guess the idea is that a moderators role should be a controlling one as opposed to an influencing one..

BlitzKrieg

This is an open question - from what i can find about the general role of forum moderators (the 'job definition') is that they should be politically neutral when performing the moderator role.

Key aspect of that sentance. I'm moderator of the xbox forum I can rant on how halo is a horrible waste of space and the worse thing ever to happen to the console that is my opinion as a poster and there is nothing wrong with that. But if I start locking or deleting threads simply because they are made by people who said Halo is great. Thats me not being neutral in my role as mod.

BUT

if someone comes on does a thread on halo and breaks a charter rule (say link to a warez site [which did happen recently] and I delete the thread.

Is that me deleting it cause I dont like Halo or because its the rules and I am required as moderator?


THe answer is obvious.

[btw I dont hate Halo, and I dont love it. Its ok.]

Sam Vimes

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Apparently all opinions that do not comply with the Yes agenda are just lies.

No the only things that get called lies are lies. Unless you can give examples?

K-9

That is a decent post.

Personally I'd point out Sam's point.

This is like debating the existence of God.

To me absolute sovereignty is the belief in God.

I respect it, totally so don't say it is being ignored etc.

However, sovereignty is an absolute with them. There is no compromise, despite arguments to the contrary.

Can you name me a case were our sovereignty was disrespected?

Randy_Bobandy

K-9 wrote: »

Can you name me a case were our sovereignty was disrespected?

Our first vote didn't count. I rest my case

K-9

Randy_Bobandy wrote: »

Our first vote didn't count. I rest my case

Fair enough. There are guarantees on certain issues, but if they don't address your concerns, fair enough.

the_dark_side

as usual K-9, I have had to read through your post several times to try and comprehend it. It is a combination of vague statements and to top it off, a rehtorical question. Can you please be a bit more specific. It is an age old tactic of the self percieved 'ruling class', to talk in tongues, so as to appear to have superior insight and knowledge; a higher wisdom if you like.... and such is your tone... if you dont mind me saying. Level with us now, and give us your insight, without the smoke and mirrors please

K-9

the_dark_side wrote: »

as usual K-9, I have had to read through your post several times to try and comprehend it. It is a combination of vague statements and to top it off, a rehtorical question. Can you please be a bit more specific. It is an age old tactic of the self percieved 'ruling class', to talk in tongues, so as to appear to have superior insight and knowledge; a higher wisdom if you like.... and such is your tone... if you dont mind me saying. Level with us now, and give us your insight, without the smoke and mirrors please

What's the problem? Maybe quote the parts you don't understand and Ask questions?

I prefer answering specific points than general slurs.

The dark_side, maybe you can answer with a case that our wishes have been undermined.
I know you are full of wisdom, so will be able to answer a previously asked question.

meglome

Just a general observation. I keep hearing how this forum is Yes biased but I think it's simply truth and fact biased. Each and every day that goes by some No voter is put on the spot to back-up their claims and fails to do so. I've seen certain more prolific No voters asked several times to back up claims and just ignoring it. One of the better No campaigners Future Taoiseach was banned for continually making claims he couldn't prove. Some people really need to understand the different between their opinion and provable fact.

So far I've seen claims that pretty much every organisation with an opinion is biased against the No campaign. It's fluppen ridiculous people, how likely in reality is that to be true. Instead of assuming bias maybe people should have a long think about why all these different groups and people disagree with them. I dunno, maybe you're just wrong.

the_dark_side

K-9 wrote: »

What's the problem? Maybe quote the parts you don't understand and Ask questions?

I prefer answering specific points than general slurs.

The dark_side, maybe you can answer with a case that our wishes have been undermined.
I know you are full of wisdom, so will be able to answer a previously asked question.

1. You are immediatley assuming that there are aspects of the treaty that I 'dont understand'.... what gave you this impression?

2. 'I prefer answering specific points...' you have answered nothing, and where did this 'I prefer' come from... who are you, the Tanaiste?

3. "maybe you can answer with a case that our wishes have been undermined.
I know you are full of wisdom, so will be able to answer a previously asked question".....

I dont understand any of this last sentence. Answer with a case what? What previously asked question????

K-9

the_dark_side wrote: »

1. You are immediatley assuming that there are aspects of the treaty that I 'dont understand'.... what gave you this impression?

Where? with quotes.

the_dark_side wrote:

2. 'I prefer answering specific points...' you have answered nothing, and where did this 'I prefer' come from... who are you, the Tanaiste?

I'll leave that to the OP and posters I responded to. You have contributed little to this thread. Your first response on this thread was to attack me, nothing relevant.

The third point is crap.

Some would think you are trying to derail a thread that you haven't contributed to, other than launch personal attacks.

So, what is your opinion on the OP, other than personal attacks on posters?

the_dark_side

I dont understand... I didnt think I was personally attacking anyone?

K-9

the_dark_side wrote: »

I dont understand... I didnt think I was personally attacking anyone?

Grand, care to answer the other questions?