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!

mickdw

It is explained to us that we are giving away some decision making but we are keeping a direct veto in other areas due to the requirement of unanimous decision from all member states. Now this is great voting yes safe in the knowlefge that we can stop certain actions by using our veto but realistically when it comes down to it, it is obvious that should ireland try to veto something in the future (kinda like lisbon at the minute), much pressure might come from europe threatening all sorts against ireland and proposing to 'move on' without ireland. IMO this vote makes a mockery of the whole unanimous decision idea. They might as well have just said in the treaty that from now on, majority wins.
Also, would it not be true to say that if for example we vote no tomorrow and if as has been said the remainder of the member states would wish to move ahead anyway on this, wouldnt each & every member state have to be given the option to sign up to any new agreement even if it was again practically identical to the lisbon treaty but by some means not requiring agreement from all member states.
On a seperate point, I would love to know the true figures in relation to value of fish stocks given to europe compared to funding coming into the country as there is alot of false info going around on this. It is an important point though I think

Scofflaw

mickdw wrote: »

It is explained to us that we are giving away some decision making but we are keeping a direct veto in other areas due to the requirement of unanimous decision from all member states. Now this is great voting yes safe in the knowlefge that we can stop certain actions by using our veto but realistically when it comes down to it, it is obvious that should ireland try to veto something in the future (kinda like lisbon at the minute), much pressure might come from europe threatening all sorts against ireland and proposing to 'move on' without ireland. IMO this vote makes a mockery of the whole unanimous decision idea. They might as well have just said in the treaty that from now on, majority wins.

It's entirely up to the Irish government to use any existing vetoes - but nobody actually uses vetoes. Instead, nobody ever proposes anything but the most inoffensive legislation in those areas, just in case.

mickdw wrote: »

Also, would it not be true to say that if for example we vote no tomorrow and if as has been said the remainder of the member states would wish to move ahead anyway on this, wouldnt each & every member state have to be given the option to sign up to any new agreement even if it was again practically identical to the lisbon treaty but by some means not requiring agreement from all member states.

That we have no idea about, really, and neither does anyone else.

mickdw wrote: »

On a seperate point, I would love to know the true figures in relation to value of fish stocks given to europe compared to funding coming into the country as there is alot of false info going around on this. It is an important point though I think

There are good figures here - click the link that says "Show tabular data". The real figures for fish caught in Irish waters is about €8.5 billion, of which we've had about €2.9 billion. We've also had about €2.8 billion from UK waters courtesy of the EU (UK figures are here), so it's hardly a case of Ireland being always on the receiving end.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Well, here's a novel thought. The whole point of the Supreme Court ruling in Crotty was that it was the competence changes in the SEA on CFSP that required the SEA referendum (as these effected sovereignity).

Therefore, the relevant parts of the Treaty we could concentrate on are the ones where sovereignity is actually effected due to competence changes in Lisbon.

If I recall correctly, the 3 areas identified by the DFA where competences are changed by Lisbon are - wait for it - Administrative Cooperation, Space Policy (formulation) and Sport (again policy formulation, I presume).

Perhaps, we could have a thread where the No posters here can outline why it is a bad idea to give the EU more competence in these areas and the Yes posters could then respond (or vice versa)?

brianthebard

Ritchi wrote: »

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

Are people not allowed hold a position on multiple issues now?

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

Are people not allowed hold a position on multiple issues now?

Relevant question is is it ok to hold different positions on the two issues?

For instance, I am against NAMA, I'll let you guess how I feel about Lisbon...

sensibleken

there was a proper bat**** crazy ad in the independant today from some bloke. well worth a read if your up for a laugh. it was mostly incoherent but it was all

vote no to the anti- catholic freemason silly lisbon treaty. it then goes on to say that ex nazis are gonna be in a european police force, i would have thought theyd be a bit past retirement age. then theres lots of rambling incoherently

seriously funny stuff. it actually makes coir look like a bastion of sanity

turgon

Scofflaw: am I right in thinking that Ireland only used its veto once since it joined the EU?

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Scofflaw: am I right in thinking that Ireland only used its veto once since it joined the EU?

"It was used once, in 1983, in respect of the milk quota."

Source

cordially,
Scofflaw

SafeSurfer

turgon wrote: »

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.

Anyone with a conscience would not blatantly lie about the value of fish the EU Elite "took" from Irish waters as €200 billion.

The true value of fish that Ireland sacrificed was for something in return, not for nothing as you say. We have received €70 billion in transfers since we joined, we have even received millions to upgrade our fishing fleet and processing facilities over the years.

Also anyone with a conscience will vote as their concience dictates, not as you demand.

Whatever about red herrings your arguments have turned out to be a damp squib.

Daftendirekt

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Anyone with a conscience would not blatantly lie about the value of fish the EU Elite "took" from Irish waters as €200 billion.

The true value of fish that Ireland sacrificed was for something in return, not for nothing as you say. We have received €70 billion in transfers since we joined, we have even received millions to upgrade our fishing fleet and processing facilities over the years.

Also anyone with a conscience will vote as their concience dictates, not as you demand.

Whatever about red herrings your arguments have turned out to be a damp squib.

I think turgon may have been a little bit sarcastic there?

prinz

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Anyone with a conscience would not blatantly lie about the value of fish the EU Elite "took" from Irish waters as €200 billion....

:pac: SafeSurfer meet turgon, turgon meet SafeSurfer... :pac: It was a joke! One of the red herrings some on the no side like to throw about.

The_Minister

Got a big shiny paper in today telling me that Lisbon is a front for the drug and oil cartels.

The_Minister

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...

As well as the sections linked to by others responding to your post, this may also refer to the Euratom treaty which Ireland has been a member of since the 1970's.

Either way it is not true.

hatrickpatrick

One more red herring lads if you wouldn't mind

(36) Member States whose currency is the euro, common position and unified
representation on the international scene (article 115C FEU treaty) [Consolidated Article Number 138]

Description: When acting in an international context member states whose currency is the euro shall adopt positions on international matters of common interest vias QMV.

When they say areas of common interest, what does this refer to? Economic, political, military, etc? The foreign policy is still unanimous, so what here is being moved to QMV instead?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When they say areas of common interest, what does this refer to? Economic, political, military, etc? The foreign policy is still unanimous, so what here is being moved to QMV instead?

I don't know where you got the text from - got a source?

Article 138 in my copy of the consolidated TFEU says this:

1. In order to secure the euro's place in the international monetary system, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt a decision establishing common positions on matters of particular interest for economic and monetary union within the competent international financial institutions and conferences. The Council shall act after consulting the European Central Bank.

2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt appropriate measures to ensure unified representation within the international financial institutions and conferences. The Council shall act after consulting the European Central Bank.

3. For the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, only members of the Council representing
Member States whose currency is the euro shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority of the said members shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a).

I think it's clear from this that the "unified representation" is only on matters directly pertaining to the Euro.

It's possible we're talking about different things here, so I'd like to see your source.

hatrickpatrick

It was the "QMV changes in Lisbon" thread here:
http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62202241

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It was the "QMV changes in Lisbon" thread here:

OK - that seems to be an "executive summary" sort of thread. My quote is from the treaty, and is more authoritative. Does it answer your question?

hatrickpatrick

Yes indeed, thanks!

oscarBravo

Well? Did I turn you from the Dark Side at the eleventh hour?