Anyone for the last few red herrings?

Scofflaw

OK - so far today, we've had the EDA, the "vote No for our fellow Europeans", and "EU INTRODUCES DEATH PENALTY!!" (deleted). I haven't seen "vote No to end NAMA" or "vote No to remove Cowen" yet, but I'm sure we'll get them today.

Is there anything left to debate that's actually in the Treaty or guarantees (or amendment) we're actually voting on?

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrMatisse

Leading Questions????

Faux victorian sign off,
Really-Stressed

Funglegunk

Scofflaw wrote: »

Is there anything left to debate that's actually in the Treaty or guarantees (or amendment) we're actually voting on?

Nothing left that couldn't be found using the search bar! I wonder have most of the 'undecided' people made their minds up by now? Or will they wait till they are at the polling station.

Scofflaw I'd also be curious to know if you have any reservations at all about any of the treaty? Or is it 100% watertight in your view?

Funglegunk

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't seen "vote No to end NAMA" or "vote No to remove Cowen" yet, but I'm sure we'll get them today.

We now have a 'Blair for EU president' one.

humanji

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Leading Questions????

Faux victorian sign off,
Really-Stressed

Bitter much?


Hugs & Kisses,
Humanji.

ei.sdraob

they are crawling out of the woodwork now

Sam Vimes

Vote yes to keep the Irish commissioner.




Oh wait that's true :pac:

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Vote yes to keep the Irish commissioner.




Oh wait that's true :pac:

we should start a thread about that me thinks

any Commissioner threads from last year we can imitate?

turgon

Unfortunately there are no more herrings in Ireland as the EU Elite took our €200 billion worth of fish. For nothing in return. Anyone with a conscience will vote No.

r0nanf

I think Sinn Fein only 4 years after the IRA decommissioning preaching about EU militarization was pretty ironic

meglome

Funglegunk wrote: »

We now have a 'Blair for EU president' one.

I wonder when they're going to create this EU President job? Since it doesn't exist now and won't exist after Lisbon.

Scofflaw

Funglegunk wrote: »

Nothing left that couldn't be found using the search bar! I wonder have most of the 'undecided' people made their minds up by now? Or will they wait till they are at the polling station.

Scofflaw I'd also be curious to know if you have any reservations at all about any of the treaty? Or is it 100% watertight in your view?

I have a couple of minor reservations, as far as I can recall, but I can't remember what they are, because they haven't come up in debate recently. It could go further, would be the main one - the rights in the COFR could be strengthened a good bit, particularly privacy rights, but better to have them than not. I'd like to see further subsidiarity mechanisms, maybe a strengthening of the orange/yellow card system the Dutch introduced (they wanted a red card as well, and I'd go with that).

I'd like to see a clause allowing me personally to amend EU legislation, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Vote yes to jobs. Vote yes to Recovery. Vote yes or we'll be isolated from Europe. those are a few interesting ones.

Cordially,
Scoffbard.

Daftendirekt

Don't think there's anything new that could be thrown up at this stage.

Well, it's been fun, guys. See you all back here for the next big EU referendum and accompanying wave of hysteria, yeah? :pac:

yiddo_til_i_die

I saw one today acutally, from the Ireland for Europe crowd. It was one with a signpost with Recovery in one direction and Ruin in the other.

Bit extreme I thought

yiddo_til_i_die

Funglegunk wrote: »

We now have a 'Blair for EU president' one.

Not a hope, its got to be Biffo!

yiddo_til_i_die

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Vote yes to keep the Irish commissioner.




Oh wait that's true :pac:

whats the deal with the 26+1 thing Ganley was on about? We wouldn't definitely lose our commissioner if we voted no though, not from my understanding anyway. There is only a possibility isn't there?

yiddo_til_i_die

r0nanf wrote: »

I think Sinn Fein only 4 years after the IRA decommissioning preaching about EU militarization was pretty ironic

ah man, tht is a bit much. in fairness Sinn Féin are moving away from miltarisation.

IF you wanna play that card then surely you have to consider the Nazis in germany and how they got to power, and their desire for a massive army

Scofflaw

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

whats the deal with the 26+1 thing Ganley was on about? We wouldn't definitely lose our commissioner if we voted no though, not from my understanding anyway. There is only a possibility isn't there?

I'm afraid not. The rules that apply if Lisbon isn't ratified are the Nice Enlargement rules, and they specify a reduction in the Commission without any alternative option. People occasionally claim that because the exact size of the reduction has to be unanimously agreed, Ireland could simply hold out for unanimous agreement not to reduce the Commission - but under the Nice rules, that's not a legal option, and such a Commission would be illegal.

That's the thing - a No vote isn't a vote for the status quo.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

whats the deal with the 26+1 thing Ganley was on about? We wouldn't definitely lose our commissioner if we voted no though, not from my understanding anyway. There is only a possibility isn't there?

Not definately, I am not sure how it would be decided. I imagine we would be among the strong favourites to be the one though.

oscarBravo

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

We wouldn't definitely lose our commissioner if we voted no though, not from my understanding anyway. There is only a possibility isn't there?

If we vote "no", the size of the commission must be reduced to fewer than 27 next month.

MrMatisse

humanji wrote: »

Bitter much?


Hugs & Kisses,
Humanji.

Is in response to another thread where it was suggested that some threads are being started with leading questions shock horror.

Off to eat my vegetables,
Really-Stressed

Ritchi

There was a guy walking down Grafton Street yesterday, handing out leaflets, and shouting out "No to NAMA, no to Lisbon".

MrMatisse

Ritchi wrote: »

There was a guy walking down Grafton Street yesterday, handing out leaflets, and shouting out "No to NAMA, no to Lisbon".

There was a guy on tv yesterday saying yes to NAMA, its a great idea, yes to Lisbon. Think his name was Brian Cowen.

hatrickpatrick

Is there any truth whatsoever in the rumor that the new powers of the EU for energy policy could force states to go nuclear, in terms of either using nuclear power or actually hosting nuclear power stations?

I'm almost certain something like that wouldn't have made it into the treaty but one must check up on all the rumors...

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is there any truth whatsoever in the rumor that the new powers of the EU for energy policy could force states to go nuclear, in terms of either using nuclear power or actually hosting nuclear power stations?

Did any of those rumours bother to explain exactly how the new competences would achieve this?

hatrickpatrick

^ It was just something I heard being bandied around and to be honest my first thought was "oh great, more stupidity". Just wanted to verify that it is indeed impossible.

Ritchi

Really-Stressed wrote: »

There was a guy on tv yesterday saying yes to NAMA, its a great idea, yes to Lisbon. Think his name was Brian Cowen.

I meant that is was wrong to be associating NAMA to the vote on the treaty, and to insinuate they were interlinked.

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is there any truth whatsoever in the rumor that the new powers of the EU for energy policy could force states to go nuclear, in terms of either using nuclear power or actually hosting nuclear power stations?

I'm almost certain something like that wouldn't have made it into the treaty but one must check up on all the rumors...

This part of the energy policy says that selection of power sources is completely up to member states.

Such measures shall not affect a Member State’s right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply, without prejudice to Article 175(2)(c)

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is there any truth whatsoever in the rumor that the new powers of the EU for energy policy could force states to go nuclear, in terms of either using nuclear power or actually hosting nuclear power stations?

I'm almost certain something like that wouldn't have made it into the treaty but one must check up on all the rumors...

No, there's no truth in it whatsoever - indeed it's a fine red herring you have there!

This is the article that established energy competence:

Article 194 Lisbon wrote:

1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:
(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;
(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union;
(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and
(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.

2. Without prejudice to the application of other provisions of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the measures necessary to achieve the objectives in paragraph 1. Such measures shall be adopted after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Such measures shall not affect a Member State's right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply, without prejudice to Article 192(2)(c).

3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein when they are primarily of a fiscal nature.

Article 192, which is referenced here, deals with environmental measures, which usually fall under QMV and codecision. Article 192(2)(c) is a specific requirement for unanimity instead where adopting:

measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

In other words, the Treaty both states that the energy competence of the EU does not include dictating the choice of energy supply, and also prevents any environmental measures from having that effect.

I've said it before - the Treaty's actually quite an elegant piece of work.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Right, thanks for clearing that up!