nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Vote for Europe..ahem..Lisbon.

syklops

So I started reading the Lisbon Treaty, and for some unknown reason I fell asleep. I started reading it again, and for some reason I got this urge to clean the house. I never get those feelings so I went out for a while and then gave up on the whole idea.

What I need is an idiots guide to the whole lisbon treaty. A complete and utter twits guide. Now I would consider myself quite smart. I'm not a dexter from dexter's lab, but I can read thick books with no pictures, I can write code in languages such as C and Perl, I can read maps, and even program my VCR(or I could when we had a VCR). However dispite this, I feel I need a complete flipping moron's explanation of the whole Lisbon thing. To be honest I don't think I am the only person in this situation, and so I am calling on the government(haha I mean the referendum commission, like the govt could give us a well sided discussion!!), as well as the world's most loved clergymen to clue us all in.

This isn't a joke, I think with some digital splicing of Father Ted Footage, one could put together a 30 minute TV program, hosted by Ted and Dougal, explaining what lisbon means for the rest of us. Like they did with Bob Monkhouse and the prostate cancer campaign. I think it would go something like this:

Ted: So Dougal, How are you going to vote in the upcoming election?
Dougal: Ah Ted, I don't know whats going on with that!
Ted: For once Dougal, you know as much as the average Joe.
Dougal: Who's Joe?
Ted: Thats an expression Dougal. I mean, you know the same as most other people.
Dougal:Oh right. So any way what is it all about Ted?
Ted: Well Dougal, Its quite an interesting story. It all started with...

If someone can give me what it did all start with I would be delighted. And if someone else could give me the middle and even a peak at the ending, that would be great. Fellow boardsies, do this for me and I will write up the bones for a 15 minute discussion by the two boys, and may even do the splicing myself., and send it to the referendum commision.

Again, while I encourage this thread to be humorous, I would rather it was funny and related to the topic. I can not think of a situation in relation to this thread where 'Yore' or even 'My' Ma, would be useful, so please try to keep the daft stuff to a minimal.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Neamhshuntasach

What are the latest opinion polls on this? The last i heard was last week where the yes vote was a bit ahead. But i have yet to meet a person who is voting yes. I meet a lot of different people in my line of work. Mainly from working class areas and it is a topic that constantly comes up. I've probably talked to well over a hundred people from all over Dublin in the past few weeks and not one yes voter. What are the demographics for the people voting yes? Upper class? Because from my experiences so far working class people are leaning more towards no.

Agent Smith

I think my sig says it all really....

AARRRGH

dublindude wrote: »

I'm watching this at the moment -

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=173

Haven't finished it, but maybe it'll be interesting for some of you.

Actually, don't bother, it's ****e.

thelordofcheese

Ohh jesus, not again.....

Tails142 wrote:

MY feelings are that the EU works fine as present, we get directives from the EU, enforce them in our own way and everything works fine. Why do we need to change anything.

Because the EU was never really designed to work with as many member states as it has now.
The Three pillar system of the EU is bloated and full of unneeded beaurcracy, the idea of lisbon is to help remove this bloat, remove the three pillar system and help the EU to function better.

Tails142 wrote:

My biggest worry is that we wont have an EU commissioner for 5 out of every 15 years, does this mean that during this time we lose our veto??

No. Most people have no idea what a commissioner does or what they are for. An EU commissioner is sent by a member state to sit on the European commission, essentially a think-tank for the idea of the EU. They're not supposed to act in irelands best interests, they're supposed to act in the EU's best interest.
When they propose a new piece of legislation, it's then passed to the the Council of Ministers (The heads of state) and the European Parliament (our MEPs) who then decide on it.
In addition to this, there are areas that the EU can't effect (like taxation) and areas where we have vetos (like our neutrality).

The reason that the rotation commissioner system is being set up is that currently there are 27 commissioners, which will grow as the EU grows, this makes meetings a bit hard to chair and will only get worse and more inneficient as time goes on.

It's also worth noting that is Lisbon is passed this new system won't begin until 2014 (the polish negotiated for this clause for reasons all their own)

darkman2 wrote:

Erm its tax most people are worried about. Some faceless judge in Europe could outlaw our low Corpo tax on the basis of 'distortion of competition' throughout Europe.

No. Coropration tax is classed as a direct taxation and is left up to each member state to set as they see fit. This doesn't change in Lisbon.
Therefore some "faceless" judge in europe can't do anything about it (also, matters of internal markets fall under the jurisdiction of the European Commission, not the ECJ.)

RATM wrote:

They've purposefully written this document in an attempt to fool the ppl.

no, it's a large legal document designed to meet the needs of the EU, which attempts to have many nations, all with different languages, customs and needs.
It can't be a simple document for those reasons, or it would be open to interpretation and potential exploitation.
Y'know kinda like the american second ammendment.

RATM wrote:

They leave it open to interpretation so in a few years time we can all get shafted by some unelected and unaccountable officials in Brussels, thats the whole idea here and then they can turn around and say 'Well you lot voted for it'.

Really? like where?
Come on sunshine. If your so sure of that then show me. I'd love to see it, and were it true, i'd swiftly change my vote.

RATM wrote:

Having unelected officials in the top jobs in the EU is not democracy, no matter which way you want to dress it up.

And where are these people? in what positions?

RATM wrote:

The majority of European people are not being given the chance to even vote on this fundamental issue, I'll be voting no in sympathy for their stolen democratic rights.

Ohh jesus, this one has been explained so many ****ing times you have to be either asleep for the last while or willfully ignorant.
Which is it?

RATM wrote:

Then they'll begin to wake up in Brussels and have no choice but to come back to the Irish with a better deal. Hold off on this and we'll get better concessions, they always have a plan B.

Right, lets say that ireland follows your lead and votes no.
What kind of a better deal do you think we should negotiate for? What are the issues you think we need to bring back to the EU and what do we need to ask for on these issues.

astrofool

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Right, lets say that ireland follows your lead and votes no.
What kind of a better deal do you think we should negotiate for? What are the issues you think we need to bring back to the EU and what do we need to ask for on these issues.

Internet Moneh, Guy!!

$Photo of DonkeyStyle \o/$ DonkeyStyle \o/

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm going to vote no. Only because some of their posters have monkeys on them.

I'd like monkey posters on display all year round, not just at referendum time... which way do I vote to achieve this?
Or do we have to send the treaty back to them like thelordofcheese was talking about?

monkeyfudge

I think the posters with the chimpanzees has swung the vote for a lot of us...

RATM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Ohh jesus, not again.....

no, it's a large legal document designed to meet the needs of the EU, which attempts to have many nations, all with different languages, customs and needs.
It can't be a simple document for those reasons, or it would be open to interpretation and potential exploitation.
Y'know kinda like the american second ammendment.

Thats exactly the beauty of the US Constitution, the very reason it has lasted over 200 years is its simplicity- society is allowed to adapt over time. An example being the Roe V Wade judgement, it facilitates changing attitudes which are in flux over time. You say above that the reason the Lisbon Treaty it is so complicated is that it must facilitate ppl with differing customs, language and needs. In what respect is the US not a nation of ppl made up of differing customs, language and needs? Their Constitution, by its very simplicity, has survived over 200 years with less than 60 amendments. A document like this need not be complicated it is so for the reasons most succinctly put forward by Giscard D'Estang:
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Ohh jesus, not again.....
Really? like where?
Come on sunshine. If your so sure of that then show me. I'd love to see it, and were it true, i'd swiftly change my vote.

The where is not in the asking of the question, it is in the potential of the ratification of the treaty coming back to bite us in the future. Now unless you are willing to rule this possibility out completely then this is a moot point.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Ohh jesus, not again.....And where are these people? in what positions?

How about starting with the very person Ireland will lose 5 years out of 15? Commissioners are unelected by the ppl yet it is they who set the agenda in Brussels by proposing legislation. Are you suggesting that they do not hold any power in the EU? Analogously would you consider it democratic if TDs, the ppl responsible for proposing legislation in the Dail, were unelected? I find your reasoning here flawed, you seem to think that the very people in charge of proposing legislation in the EU are unimportant in the process and thereby the citizens should have no say on the matter.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Ohh jesus, not again.Ohh jesus, this one has been explained so many ****ing times you have to be either asleep for the last while or willfully ignorant.
Which is it?

Indeed it has, they no longer call it a Constitution but a Treaty in order to avoid giving European ppl their democratic right to have a say on this. Even Ahern admitted :

"I think it's a bit upsetting... to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity"," If you believe in something ...why not let your people have a say in it. I think the Irish people should take the opportunity to show the rest of Europe that they believe in the cause, and perhaps others shouldn't be so afraid of it "

and in reference to the change in name from Constitution to Treaty:-

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."

Mere semantics masqueraded as a denial of ppls rights to vote.You dont deal with my point. By accusing me of being "asleep or willfully ignorant" you avoid the point in hand, showing a level of ignorance yourself IMHO.To do so you will lead yourself down the not so merry road of having to argue against the people of Europe having a democratic right to vote for the way in which the EU will be run in the future, something that affects all of Europe, not just Ireland. Its very simple, this treaty is a denial of the rights of democratic voters of France and Holland and countless other nations if you read the opinion polls on their attitudes to the treaty. You can spin it anyway you like but even the dogs in the street know this is an attempt to deny citizens their fundamental democratic rights.

syklops

When starting this thread I was hoping someone without a bias would give me a condensed, readers digest explanation of what it all means. Hence, the use of Dougal, to represent me and many other people. Having not gotten it yet, I am turning cynical about the matter, and am begining to lean towards a no vote.

Someone posted the following, but my responses, albeit a bit cynical can be found in bold:

This Treaty will:

- Strenghten the EU's capacity to bring greater economic prosperity, which we have shared and will continue to share. So the celtic tiger was thanks to Europe, not Fianna Fail, led by the audacious Mr Ahern? Thats not what I was told. Anyway, so if we vote no, does that mean the economic prosperity will go away?

- Equip the EU to better deal with global warming, energy security and cross border crime, because we cannot do this on our own.

How does the EU intend to fight the ol' GW? Another Tax? More taxes on fuel prices? Another WEEE?

- Limit the size of the European Parliament and the European Commission so that we have less bureaucracy and more efficiency.

If we limit the size of the Parliament, and increase the number of member states, surely we get less of a say in the future? Will they reduce the number of MEP's for each country so that there is just one for each country, or will Germany have 5 and we have none?

- Create a new EU Foreign Affairs Representative who will give us a stronger voice on the World stage, in the UN and dealing with developing countries needs. As China and other regions organise it is important we are not left behind.

I dont think any country can ignore us(EU), due to our size. Also, why is whether we have a foreign affairs representative or not, in the Treaty? If they are going to have a line in the constitution for each individual role, we will never get rid of the bureaucracy. I don't think there is a line in the US or Irish Constitutions saying "There will be a Minister for Defence". Shouldn't the little things be agreed upon by the EP?

- Make the Charter on Fundamental Rights legally binding on EU Institutions and Member States when implementing EU Law, thereby safeguarding the rights of Irish citizens. The Charter for Human rights, is a bit like, I think the UDHR, in that saying "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.", is like saying "All children will grow up to become doctors". Its a nice sentiment, but there is no power in the EU, or anywhere else to actually enforce it. And as we know from the lack of enforcement of some laws in this country, if you can't enforce a law, why have it?

- By extending the powers of our MEPs and strengthening the role of Dáil & Seanad Éireann, make Europe more accountable. We cant make our own TD's accountable for what they do, what chance have we with Europe?

- Ensure that the EU exercises those responsibilities - but only those responsibilities - that can be carried out more effectively by commonly agreed policies than by Member States acting separately - the "subsidiarity principle"Like...?

thelordofcheese

RATM wrote: »

Thats exactly the beauty of the US Constitution, the very reason it has lasted over 200 years is its simplicity- society is allowed to adapt over time. An example being the Roe V Wade judgement, it facilitates changing attitudes which are in flux over time. You say above that the reason the Lisbon Treaty it is so complicated is that it must facilitate ppl with differing customs, language and needs. In what respect is the US not a nation of ppl made up of differing customs, language and needs?

If the united states were to begin with a series of countries that had existed in one shape of another for hundred of years before they drafted their constitution, then you'd have a point.
But they weren't so you don't.

RATM wrote: »

The where is not in the asking of the question, it is in the potential of the ratification of the treaty coming back to bite us in the future. Now unless you are willing to rule this possibility out completely then this is a moot point.

So in other words you have no proof of this, you just know it to be true.

RATM wrote: »

How about starting with the very person Ireland will lose 5 years out of 15? Commissioners are unelected by the ppl yet it is they who set the agenda in Brussels by proposing legislation. Are you suggesting that they do not hold any power in the EU? Analogously would you consider it democratic if TDs, the ppl responsible for proposing legislation in the Dail, were unelected? I find your reasoning here flawed, you seem to think that the very people in charge of proposing legislation in the EU are unimportant in the process and thereby the citizens should have no say on the matter.

Yes the commissioners are not directly elected, but they are sent by the governments we elect. Do you also find the appointing of ministers to cabinet positions be undemocratic because i'm sure we don't vote on them specifically. Or cabinet reshuffles, that must really stick in your craw.
it's a parlimentary democracy we live in, deal.

RATM wrote: »

Indeed it has, they no longer call it a Constitution but a Treaty in order to avoid giving European ppl their democratic right to have a say on this.

So willfully ignorant it is then. Most Eu nations ratify EU treaties by parlimentary debate and voting. Nobody has been robbed of anything.
I'm not going through this again, because it's been said so many damn times the only reason you're still incapable of grasping the concept is because you choose not to.

RATM wrote: »

and in reference to the change in name from Constitution to Treaty:-

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."

And?
The idea of the constitution was the same, to reform how the Eu works and to remove the beaurocracy. There were elements that the people of france and holland disagreed with, the removed 10%.
People keep wheeling this out as some sort of bad thing, i fail to see how. Then again i'm not seeing the EU boogyman everywhere.

RATM wrote: »

Mere semantics masqueraded as a denial of ppls rights to vote.

Wrong. Each country deals with ratifying treaties like this in their own way according to their laws and constitutions.
It's easy to paint the EU as a big monster out to steal everyones rights if you ignore the reality of the situation.

RATM wrote: »

You dont deal with my point. By accusing me of being "asleep or willfully ignorant" you avoid the point in hand, showing a level of ignorance yourself IMHO.To do so you will lead yourself down the not so merry road of having to argue against the people of Europe having a democratic right to vote for the way in which the EU will be run in the future, something that affects all of Europe, not just Ireland. Its very simple, this treaty is a denial of the rights of democratic voters of France and Holland and countless other nations if you read the opinion polls on their attitudes to the treaty.

I can argue against your inability to grasp how other countries operate. We have a referendum due to our constitution, and other countries ratify it in their own way. And while you claim that the treaty ignored the democratic rights of France and Holland you make a great joke of ignore all the countries that DID ratify it.
Apparently democracy doesn't count unless it fits with your argument.

AARRRGH

syklops wrote: »

This Treaty will:

- Strenghten the EU's capacity to bring greater economic prosperity, which we have shared and will continue to share.

I'd like to know how voting for the Lisbon Treaty will make this happen.

From both the Yes and No crowd, all I hear are really vague phrases like it'll be good for the economy, or it'll be good for the environment, or it'll be good for Ireland.

Those phrases mean nothing to me unless there is some concrete explanation as to why or how the vote will do that.

thelordofcheese

syklops wrote: »

When starting this thread I was hoping someone without a bias would give me a condensed, readers digest explanation of what it all means.

The referendum commission are who you are looking for. Nobody on here will have a unbiased explaination, seeing as most people have decided yes or no at this point and those that havn't don't seem to know what lisbon is about.

Dave!

I thought I would learn a bit by listening to/watching the debates in the media, but they are all such absolute liars it's unreal! I'm starting to get frustrated listening to them; it's worse than a general election for bullsh*tting. So I won't be listening to any more coverage of it.

I'll be voting yes

RATM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

If the united states were to begin with a series of countries that had existed in one shape of another for hundred of years before they drafted their constitution, then you'd have a point.
But they weren't so you don't.

Well yes, the US is a bunch of federal states, all with individual laws, just like Europe. It is an even more diverse society than the EU. You still havent dealt with the fact you said earlier that the treaty needed to be complicated to deal with many customs, languages of the EU. I said this was no different in the US which also needs to deal with many customs and languages but their Constitution is a terrifically simple document. The history of the EU is not what this treaty is about, the treaty is concerned with the future so appealing to the history of the US in an effort to quash my very valid analogy is futile. Try again, but this time deal with why the US has a simple Constitution which has provided stable government for over 200 years but the EU needs a complicated one to do likewise.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So in other words you have no proof of this, you just know it to be true.

Incorrect. I cannot prove what the future will hold. However to deny this point is to say you can prove that political outcomes in the future EU can not be to Ireland's disadvantage because of the treaty. Of course they can, with QMV anything is possible.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Yes the commissioners are not directly elected, but they are sent by the governments we elect. Do you also find the appointing of ministers to cabinet positions be undemocratic because i'm sure we don't vote on them specifically. Or cabinet reshuffles, that must really stick in your craw.
it's a parlimentary democracy we live in, deal.

Answer this, it is a dichotomous question: Do you think it is democratic for the people responsible for proposing Dail legislation to be unelected?
I can only presume your answer would be no. Why then would you think the same should not apply at EU level? I dont get it you seem to say one thing is ok at a national level but we should have a completely undemocratic process at EU level, its contradictory.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So willfully ignorant it is then. Most Eu nations ratify EU treaties by parlimentary debate and voting. Nobody has been robbed of anything.
I'm not going through this again, because it's been said so many damn times the only reason you're still incapable of grasping the concept is because you choose not to.

Explain to me the reasons why they dropped the 10% without putting it back to the people as was originally planned? Because they knew well it was not what the ppl wanted perhaps? And theres plenty of EU-wide opinion polls that support me on this, you can call me ignorant all you like but you cant change the fact that EU public opinion is against this. And you cant change the fact that they are not ratifying it in a public vote is because they looked at said opinion polls and decided to pull the plug before reformulating the Constitution as a Treaty. It doesnt matter what the name on it is, at the 90% level it still achieves its same purpose, minus the need to ask the people is it ok.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I can argue against your inability to grasp how other countries operate. We have a referendum due to our constitution, and other countries ratify it in their own way. And while you claim that the treaty ignored the democratic rights of France and Holland you make a great joke of ignore all the countries that DID ratify it.
Apparently democracy doesn't count unless it fits with your argument.

Are you seriously claiming this treaty has not ignored the democratic rights of France and Holland? How do you come to this formulation, at what point was their opinion respected? Im really thinking you are beginning to sound like an apologist for the erosion of democracy, maybe you should review some of your reasons for voting yes.

Nolanger

It's 2100 and we are part of the USE - United States of Europe.
All convicted criminals in this USE are placed unsupervised on an island somewhere on the Western outskirts of the USE. Armed patrol boats scour the surrounding waters to ensure no criminal escapes. All former residents of this island have been moved to the continental mainland.

thelordofcheese

RATM wrote: »

Well yes, the US is a bunch of federal states, all with individual laws, just like Europe. It is an even more diverse society than the EU. You still havent dealt with the fact you said earlier that the treaty needed to be complicated to deal with many customs, languages of the EU. I said this was no different in the US which also needs to deal with many customs and languages but their Constitution is a terrifically simple document.

If you honestly think the birth of the united states is analgous to the formation and continued operation of of the EU then i've no time for you. If you can't see why a document that is designed to help all the nations of the EU and future as yet unjoined nations to co-operate together when some use different currencies, with a wide range of languages and fully developed legal systems and economies needs to be this complex then i'm afraid there is no point in continuing this line of debate.
The american constitution is far too loosely worded to be aplicable in this case.

RATM wrote: »

Incorrect. I cannot prove what the future will hold. However to deny this point is to say you can prove that political outcomes in the future EU can not be to Ireland's disadvantage because of the treaty. Of course they can, with QMV anything is possible.

So your entire point is that it could potentially be bad in scenarios you can only dream of, so we should vote no. Yet it could equally be amazing for ireland and we'll all get free blowjobs. **** it, seeing as we're pulling **** out of our asses, we'll get flying cars too.

The best we can do is look at what the treaty does, who it empowers and in what way. Now if you're so sure that it will be bad for us, surely you can posit a scenario in which this would happen, or are you just going to hide behind drivil like "you can't prove it'll all be roses forever and ever, i'm voting no"

RATM wrote: »

Answer this, it is a dichotomous question: Do you think it is democratic for the people responsible for proposing Dail legislation to be unelected?
I can only presume your answer would be no. Why then would you think the same should not apply at EU level? I dont get it you seem to say one thing is ok at a national level but we should have a completely undemocratic process at EU level, its contradictory.

no it's not.
Because in Ireland the same people who propose the legislation are the same people who vote on it. In the EU it isn't. If the commissioners also had the power to put their proposals into law, then you'd have a point. But once again, they can't so you don't.
Do you see?

RATM wrote: »

Explain to me the reasons why they dropped the 10% without putting it back to the people as was originally planned? Because they knew well it was not what the ppl wanted perhaps? And theres plenty of EU-wide opinion polls that support me on this, you can call me ignorant all you like but you cant change the fact that EU public opinion is against this. And you cant change the fact that they are not ratifying it in a public vote is because they looked at said opinion polls and decided to pull the plug before reformulating the Constitution as a Treaty. It doesnt matter what the name on it is, at the 90% level it still achieves its same purpose, minus the need to ask the people is it ok.

Firstly, it's 'people' not 'ppl'.
Secondly, very few european nations require by their own laws to have a referendum on EU treaties, i know i keep saying this, im just hoping it'll eventually sink in.
And it's not a new thing either. You act like Lisbon was designed to rob everyone of the right to vote on it, when it is nothing of the sort.
And as for these opinion polls, if the french who voted down the constitution were so upset that they've been robbed of the right to vote (as you see it), then why are they being so docile about it?
If you're right, then surely the french, who are well known for their love of striking and marching on anything they don't like, would have made their voices known.
But not a peep.

RATM wrote: »

Are you seriously claiming this treaty has not ignored the democratic rights of France and Holland?

yes i am, because the french have already ratified it.
The Dutch are due to have their first round of debate and voting on the 5 June 2008.
Of couse if you hold that by ratifying it in parliment is somehow undemocratic then i'm sure you could make a case other wise. I means it's not like parliments are made up of people democratically elected to represent the people, that'd be madness

ninty9er

darkman2 wrote: »

Enough of the bulls*t tbh. No one fully understands it so vote NO. No wonder they think we are the stupid Irish. Your stupid if you vote yes to something no one understands.

If you don't understand it's as much reason to vote yes as it is to vote no really.

There are numerous organisations saying loads of things. Including my own; FF; they can't all be right, but each and every one of them could be wrong.

Winters

@thelordofcheese +1

For anyone who is planning on voting No just becuase you dont understand it, I would please ask you to either not vote or go out and read up on it. Voting No as you dont understand it is as bad as voting Yes if you dont understand it.

If you don't understand something don't vote on it until you read and understand what you are voting on. There is enough unbiast articles on it if you go out in search of them, check the referendum committee, the bbc site etc.

Vinegar Hill

I have spent days reading it. I am voting NO

andrew

Some of the posts in this thread make me angry..so ANGRY fvjffdodsjbdlvb <---keyboard mashing rage.

biko

There has been plenty of TV debates, live debates, leaflets, websites & boards threads.
Look around you

Conor108

Ah sure we'll vote yes! Lose our neutrality, bit of excitement:D

thelordofcheese

andrew wrote: »

Some of the posts in this thread make me angry..so ANGRY fvjffdodsjbdlvb <---keyboard mashing rage.

Let it out man, let it out.
keepin' the rage in isn't healthy.

Marcus.Aurelius

I was going to type a really well-written, cleverly presented theory here. Then I took a look at the referendum commission report.

So here is my idea: ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

doonothing

Someone make a Lisbon treaty Poll please, I don't care anymore, I just wanna see who's winning... Can this thread be made into a poll?

Capt'n Midnight

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.

be a bit difficult now she's dead

Capt'n Midnight

RATM wrote: »

Thats exactly the beauty of the US Constitution, the very reason it has lasted over 200 years is its simplicity- society is allowed to adapt over time.

The preamble to the US constitution starts "We the people"
But the 13th ammendment was only fully ratified in 1995, so for over 200 years the US constitution did not recognise the people.

Stealdo

OP there's so much guff and some downright lies on this thread, but then did you really expect to get a decent answer?

For what it's worth, the only simple way I can see of looking at this is...

If you believe in the idea of politcal and judicial integration into a Federal Europe where Ireland will have a (slightly more than) proportional vote in the affairs of the federal state etc, and the European judciary's interpretation of the charter of rights taking precedence over any national laws (including constitutional law) vote yes.

If you do not believe in the idea of that level and type of integration, and would prefer the EU to remain a mainly economic entity vote no.

Any other ideas such as voting yes not to annoy the politicians or voting no to get a better deal aren't worth entertaining, neither will gain anything for Ireland. The fundamental principle in play here is political integration. If you agree with it, vote for it, if you don't, vote against it.

andrew

Stealdo wrote: »

OP there's so much guff and some downright lies on this thread, but then did you really expect to get a decent answer?

For what it's worth, the only simple way I can see of looking at this is...

If you believe in the idea of politcal and judicial integration into a Federal Europe where Ireland will have a (slightly more than) proportional vote in the affairs of the federal state etc, and the European judciary's interpretation of the charter of rights taking precedence over any national laws (including constitutional law) vote yes.

If you do not believe in the idea of that level and type of integration, and would prefer the EU to remain a mainly economic entity vote no.

Any other ideas such as voting yes not to annoy the politicians or voting no to get a better deal aren't worth entertaining, neither will gain anything for Ireland. The fundamental principle in play here is political integration. If you agree with it, vote for it, if you don't, vote against it.

Word.

Post's like this make me less angry.

RATM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

If you honestly think the birth of the united states is analgous to the formation and continued operation of of the EU then i've no time for you. If you can't see why a document that is designed to help all the nations of the EU and future as yet unjoined nations to co-operate together when some use different currencies, with a wide range of languages and fully developed legal systems and economies needs to be this complex then i'm afraid there is no point in continuing this line of debate.
The american constitution is far too loosely worded to be aplicable in this case.[/I]

Im thinking you may need to look up the definition of the word analogous. It means to be similar, not to be the same. Im not claiming that the US Constitution and this Treaty are the same, merely that there are some similarities between then, ie governing large amounts of ppl over a vast geography. You claimed that such a document needs to be complicated to achieve this and I raised the point that the US has achiveed this for the last 200 years with an amazingly simple document which provided for stable government. The reasons, I claimed, the document is complicated is revealed in comments like such:

Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
V.Giscard D'Estaing

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So your entire point is that it could potentially be bad in scenarios you can only dream of, so we should vote no. Yet it could equally be amazing for ireland and we'll all get free blowjobs. **** it, seeing as we're pulling **** out of our asses, we'll get flying cars too.
The best we can do is look at what the treaty does, who it empowers and in what way. Now if you're so sure that it will be bad for us, surely you can posit a scenario in which this would happen, or are you just going to hide behind drivil like "you can't prove it'll all be roses forever and ever, i'm voting no"[/I]

I didnt think Id have to qualify my above comments on the matter as is so glaringly obvious to all and sundry what could happen in the future because of this treaty. However, I shall as you seem to need clarification. With the treaty we will move from Unanimous voting to QMV, the % needed to block legislation from an Irish point of view will rise from 27% to 35%, in other word it will be very easy for the big states like Germany and France ( who nearly double their voting powers under this treaty ) to dictate to smaller states EU policy. Put simply, any effective voice we have will be lost. To make matters worse here are just some of the over 60 areas where we lose our veto:
Transport
European Research Area
Space Policy
Energy Policy
Border checks
Common Immigration Policy
Integration of Migrants
Culture
Tourism
Sport
EU Budget oversight
Principles of European Administration
Election of European Council President
Powers of Europol and Eurojust
Employment Policy
ECB powers over financial regulation
Various aspects of Foreign and Security Policy including proposals from the new (unelected) Foreign Minister; terrorism and mutual support; consular issues; and the budget for the EU foreign policy fund
Social Security
Customs Cooperation between member states and the Commission
Amendments to certain parts of the Statutes of the European Central Bank
Measures relating to the broad economic guidelines and excessive deficit procedure

Now if you want to tell me it is a good thing to lose our veto in these areas then work away. If you cant imagine a scenario where this treaty will come back to bite us, especially as out voting powers are compromised, then you are living in the clouds.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

no it's not.
Because in Ireland the same people who propose the legislation are the same people who vote on it. In the EU it isn't. If the commissioners also had the power to put their proposals into law, then you'd have a point. But once again, they can't so you don't.
Do you see?[/I]

For the second time you miss my point, look back to the original post so you can get with the programme. I never said the commissioners have the power to put anything into law, their role is to propose legislation and in that role it is my opinion that they should be elected by the ppl not by parliament.

I dont think you seem to understand what exactly this means- they actually have more power per head that any MEP. An MEP gets to vote on legislation, a commissioner gets to propose it. Therefore they are the ones who control the agenda on anything that passes the EU corridors, they say whats laws will go forth and what will not. Much like a newspaper editor, they are responsible for shaping the very institution of the EU by the power they have vested in them to keep some issues off the agenda and and proceed with others. There's considerable academic literature on this topic in Political Science about where the power lies in the EU and many in this field hold the Commissioners to have undue power in this regard. To say that the people who propose legislation should not be democratically elected is just farcical, they set the agenda therefore they should be democratically accountable to the ppl, just like TD's are.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Firstly, it's 'people' not 'ppl'.
Secondly, very few european nations require by their own laws to have a referendum on EU treaties, i know i keep saying this, im just hoping it'll eventually sink in.
And it's not a new thing either. You act like Lisbon was designed to rob everyone of the right to vote on it, when it is nothing of the sort.
And as for these opinion polls, if the french who voted down the constitution were so upset that they've been robbed of the right to vote (as you see it), then why are they being so docile about it?
If you're right, then surely the french, who are well known for their love of striking and marching on anything they don't like, would have made their voices known.
But not a peep.[/I]

I think Sarkozys comment says it all on this one:
"There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK... Now we have got to resolve the political issues and to broach them without fear. We have got to debate them without taboos: budgetary policy, trade policy, monetary policy, industrial policy, taxation, all policies, any policies. "

There were protests at this decision, to say there wasn't a peep from the French over this is just factually incorrect. Google it and you shall find. But clearly you are in favour of their democratic decisions not being respected. Even if I grant you other nations in the EU you still have not dealt the the French and Dutch problem and Id like to hear your opinion on it. How can you hold this to be a democratic decision on their part? They had their say, they voted overwhelmingly No and yet their governments turn around, knock 10% off the Constitution and then rebrand it a Treaty so it can be ratified in Parliament and kept away from the meddling ppl who disagree. Is this the way democracy should work?