One last nagging question...

jonnyfingers

I started off as a resolute no voter and after weeks of research I'm on the verge of voting yes. However one question remains in my mind. If the No vote wins and it is decided to scrap Lisbon and draw up a new treaty what changes could be made to it, both beneficial or detrimental?

Lisbon was drawn up a number of years ago. I think we'd all agree that the world was a slightly different place back then. If a new treaty was drawn up during these stark economic times would it affect the new treaty in any way?

If you're happy to vote "Yes" today is there anything you'd ideally like added or removed to the treaty that would benefit yourself, your country or the EU as a whole? Is there anything that would make it a so called "Better Deal" for want of a better expression.

Alternatively if you intend to vote "No" but find out that there isn't much that can be changed that would further benefit you, your country or the EU as a whole would you reconsider your vote? If Lisbon is not exactly what you want but is the best way forward possible should you not vote it in?

Further ponderings lead me to the question of if it took a number of years to draw up a new treaty, which is likely, would the political landscape of Europe have changed significantly by then to affect ratification, e.g. if the Tories get into power in GB would they ratify it, etc.? In that case could voting "No" today condemn Europe to decades of operating under the Nice treaty and if so how would that effect the EU?

I hope I'm portraying that I'm trying to see the big picture here and realise the ramifications of my single vote today, no matter how small or insignificant it might seem on its own.

What are your thoughts, opinions, musings?

jhegarty

The conservative will be in power long before another treaty can be agreed. So there should be a vote on it in the UK.

In my option anything that has a hope of getting by the UK electorate will have to very watered down on what's proposed in Lisbon.

dmfod

i don't want the EU to gain further powers until it is significantly democratised and changed to serve workers rather than big business interests. this is unlikely to happen in the immediate future, so i'd rather not delegate more power to it until such time as greater systemic change is possible.

i also think it's easier to achieve change at the national level and that it's much harder for the average person to influence EU than national policy. therefore I don't want the irish gvt to give away more power to the EU.

meglome

dmfod wrote: »

i don't want the EU to gain further powers until it is significantly democratised and changed to serve workers rather than big business interests. this is unlikely to happen in the immediate future, so i'd rather not delegate more power to it until such time as greater systemic change is possible.

i also think it's easier to achieve change at the national level and that it's much harder for the average person to influence EU than national policy. therefore I don't want the irish gvt to give away more power to the EU.

Hang on did you read the Lisbon treaty, because it does the exact opposite of what you're saying. The Lisbon treaty makes the EU far more accountable to the ordinary people of the EU.

Yeah the organisation that brought us 80% of our workers rights legislation is anti-worker, makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

And are you honestly saying we'd be better off with our politicians? really? What country do you live in?

10 Real reasons to Vote Yes

Tarobot

jonnyfingers wrote: »

If the No vote wins and it is decided to scrap Lisbon and draw up a new treaty what changes could be made to it, both beneficial or detrimental?

Lisbon was drawn up a number of years ago. I think we'd all agree that the world was a slightly different place back then. If a new treaty was drawn up during these stark economic times would it affect the new treaty in any way?

To be honest, it has taken us 8 years to get to this stage. It would be a very long time before we get to a new Treaty again. In the meantime, some EU countries may decide to go forward themselves.

If you're asking could we scrap Lisbon and get a new treaty that takes into account the economic crisis, just remember it did take us 8 years to get here...

jonnyfingers wrote: »

If you're happy to vote "Yes" today is there anything you'd ideally like added or removed to the treaty that would benefit yourself, your country or the EU as a whole? Is there anything that would make it a so called "Better Deal" for want of a better expression.

I would make the environmental objectives stronger but hey, it's a compromise between 27 member states and as such I'm happy with it.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

if the Tories get into power in GB would they ratify it, etc.? In that case could voting "No" today condemn Europe to decades of operating under the Nice treaty and if so how would that effect the EU?

Cameron has promised a referendum if Lisbon fails. But if Lisbon fails, it is dead so his referendum will have to be on something else. It could very easily turn into a referendum on the depth of UK's involvement with the EU - and there are a lot of EU sceptics floating around the UK.

Moreover, I think that if Lisbon doesn't pass, the EU will continue to be preoccupied with institutional reform at a time when other pressing issues should be top of the agenda, such as climate change and the economy.

dmfod wrote: »

i also think it's easier to achieve change at the national level and that it's much harder for the average person to influence EU than national policy. therefore I don't want the irish gvt to give away more power to the EU.

I disagree. I think that being in the EU gives Ireland a much bigger voice in the world and therefore magnifies the influence of the Irish people.

Rb

I have voted yes. Overall, I think it's quite a fair document and there's nothing I would really change in it.

It took quite a bit of thought but I've concluded that I am happy with where the EU is going, and I want Ireland to be a part of it, and see nothing in this treaty that would warrant it being re-written.

robindch

jonnyfingers wrote: »

I started off as a resolute no voter and after weeks of research I'm on the verge of voting yes. However one question remains in my mind. If the No vote wins and it is decided to scrap Lisbon and draw up a new treaty what changes could be made to it, both beneficial or detrimental?

Difficult to know, since most of the changes are either relatively unimportant -- a few small institutional tweaks here, the improvement of a democratic credential there -- or badly needed (see below).

The EU will certainly suffer from a universal crisis of direction if a small section of voters here in Ireland decide to reject it, and it will be difficult to know how to respond to that, since (as I said) most of the proposed new areas of co-operation are necessary and useful.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

If you're happy to vote "Yes" today is there anything you'd ideally like added or removed to the treaty that would benefit yourself, your country or the EU as a whole? Is there anything that would make it a so called "Better Deal" for want of a better expression.

Personally, I'd like the treaty to be much stronger -- the text that's there as so many opt outs, and so many caveats, that it's going to take a long time for universal co-operation in all areas where the EU's allowed to operate to become the normal.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Further ponderings lead me to the question of if it took a number of years to draw up a new treaty, which is likely, would the political landscape of Europe have changed significantly by then to affect ratification, e.g. if the Tories get into power in GB would they ratify it, etc.?

It's already been ratified in the UK, and has received royal assent. David Cameron has only agreed to reopen the debate if the treaty hasn't been signed into European law by the time he gets elected in the general election that must take place in the UK next year.

jonnyfingers wrote: »

In that case could voting "No" today condemn Europe to decades of operating under the Nice treaty and if so how would that effect the EU?

It will make it difficult for new states to join (Moldova, Croatia and others), it will disillusion a lot of well-meaning people; it will cheese off the European Central Bank which is bailing Ireland out of the mess it's got itself into; and it will leave the founding treaties of the EU in a series of separate documents, rather than one; it'll also make it hard for the EU to tackle global warming and especially, it will make it difficult for the EU to respond to Russian games-playing with energy supplies; and it will do much else too, which Scofflaw will be able to document much better than I.

Plotician

I would remove all references to militarisation from it. These create a dilemma where on one hand there is potentially some economic advantages in approving the treaty, and on the other hand you end up being party to validating Europe's direction on the military front.

Economic recovery is at best only partially dependent on Europe (although i have my own questions about that), but I believe it will be our own ingenuity and productiveness that eventually pulls us out of the current mess.

On the military front there is no going back after Lisbon. The EU has a clear agenda on this one and that for me means a no vote later today.

To add a point, what we are (should be) voting on is the effect Lisbon will have on Europe first, and Ireland second.

jonnyfingers

Off to vote! Wish me luck.

turgon

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Lisbon was drawn up a number of years ago. I think we'd all agree that the world was a slightly different place back then. If a new treaty was drawn up during these stark economic times would it affect the new treaty in any way?

I dont think so. The policy of the EU might be different but the framework in which the EU works - that is whats in Lisbon - would probably be the same.

Is there any specific reservations you have?

Plus, great and all as it is to hypothesis "in the next Treaty" the EU really needs this Treaty now, its been 7 years since Nice and how long more until we finally get the reform necessary to make the EU more democratic and efficient?

ei.sdraob

jonnyfingers wrote: »

Off to vote! Wish me luck.

best of luck, enjoy your democracy while it lasts

(i kid, i kid )

ixtlan

Plotician wrote: »

I would remove all references to militarisation from it. These create a dilemma where on one hand there is potentially some economic advantages in approving the treaty, and on the other hand you end up being party to validating Europe's direction on the military front.

On the military front there is no going back after Lisbon. The EU has a clear agenda on this one and that for me means a no vote later today.

This would be an interesting debate. If this were on the agenda I would be leaning towards keeping the military aspects, but what I do know, and have said several times is that we need to first have a debate on what neutrality means.

What I tend to believe is that due to all 27 states needing too agree, any military interventions are going to be very heavily supported by the public. Meaning that they will be the kind of thing that even PANA will be embarassed to block. You don't see them picketing army barracks about the Chad expedition do you?

I do accept that people have valid concerns about the EDA because of it's dual-mandate... 1/ save money, and I think it will save money, not increase military spending... 2/ develop the EU arms industry. Obviously for some states this is linked with creating jobs at home. In fact we have some dual-use companies based in Ireland that may benefit. I too have concerns about this, but generally somone is going to create those arms and I think inside the group we will have more influence rather than completely isolating ourselves from it. Let's say Saudi Arabia puts down an uprising with jets sold from the EU with the assistance of the EDA, even though ireland objected to the sale. Maybe that's blood on our hands? Let's say Saudia Arabia puts down an uprising with jets sold from the EU with assistance from the EDA, where it was no longer mentioned in the treaty and Ireland was not a member, and we made no comment at all on the sale because it was none of our business and had no input. So, knowing that we might have had an input is that blood on our hands? A tough call perhaps?

Regarding going back, there is always that option. If we feel strongly enough about it a future government will get changes in a future treaty.

Ix