The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies

marco_polo · 28-09-2009 1:27pm

aftermn wrote: »

I received my 'polling information card' this morning, it makes interesting reading.

This is the actual wording of the proposed amendment

(a) 6 ; 'No provision of this constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union... from having the force of law in the State.'

Whatever about what the treaty says, this appears to subordinate our constitution to any laws, acts or measures adopted by the new EU.

Enjoy your referendum vote, it will be your last.

Hi have you met our constitution? This is what it currently says in article 29.4.10.

Since you thanked the post IrelandSpirit this is for your benifit too.

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Daftendirekt · 28-09-2009 1:43pm

aftermn wrote: »

I received my 'polling information card' this morning, it makes interesting reading.

This is the actual wording of the proposed amendment

(a) 6 ; 'No provision of this constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union... from having the force of law in the State.'

Whatever about what the treaty says, this appears to subordinate our constitution to any laws, acts or measures adopted by the new EU.

Enjoy your referendum vote, it will be your last.

I wish people would actually read our Constitution before making this claim:

Section 29, Irish Constitution wrote:

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Edit: Damn you Marco Polo!

IrelandSpirit · 28-09-2009 1:45pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Hi have you met our constitution? This is what it currently says in article 29.4.10.

Since you thanked the post IrelandSpirit this is for your benifit too.

Ok, I will confess to having had a few scoops last night and my brain’s not firing on all cylinders today but I can’t see the contradiction… Ireland is a member of the EU, we’ve contracted, we’ve agreed to follow their rules… unless the Irish constitution prohibits it, is that what your saying?

K-9 · 28-09-2009 1:47pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

hmmm, well here's a good one:

“The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

Yet plenty can read it and make points based on it?

Both him and Bonde are obviously biased sources.

marco_polo · 28-09-2009 1:50pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Ok, I will confess to having had a few scoops last night and my brain’s not firing on all cylinders today but I can’t see the contradiction… Ireland is a member of the EU, we’ve contracted, we’ve agreed to follow their rules… unless the Irish constitution prohibits it, is that what your saying?

You thanked a post that attempts to portray this a new addition to the constitution, as a result of Lisbon. Such tactics are profoundly dishonest, and what other conclusion is one to draw but that they get your seal of approval?

Daftendirekt · 28-09-2009 1:53pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Ok, I will confess to having had a few scoops last night and my brain’s not firing on all cylinders today but I can’t see the contradiction… Ireland is a member of the EU, we’ve contracted, we’ve agreed to follow their rules… unless the Irish constitution prohibits it, is that what your saying?

I think you might be missing the point. Aftermn claimed that the amendment to our Constitution would, for the first time, make EU law take precedence over Irish law.

The text Marco Polo quoted from the Constitution, shows that this is already the case, and has been since about 1973.

IrelandSpirit · 28-09-2009 1:56pm

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I think you might be missing the point. Aftermn claimed that the amendment to our Constitution would, for the first time, make EU law take precedence over Irish law.

The text Marco Polo quoted from the Constitution, shows that this is already the case, and has been since about 1973.

Ahhhhhh! Gotch ya! Thanks

scaredoflisbon · 28-09-2009 7:16pm

except now for the first time also the EU is making way too many new laws in order to have more control. don't forget Former French president Gisgard D'estaing said that European Constitution which was rejected bt France and Netherlands would be disguised or hidden in some way in the Lisbon Treaty in order for it to be adopted because no one would vote for it otherwise. :rolleyes:
Gee you could'nt make it up could you?

Why do we need more than 27 countries in the EU anyway? it was 9 when we joined. Dare i say it is a German aspiration at 'the heart of Europe' thats getting too greedy. So glad we were not 'at the heart of Europe' 70 years ago this month we'd have suffered the same fate as Poland.

Never forget what Germany did in the second World war. Many European countries hav never forgiven Germany for what it did.
Germany should never never have that power again. But there it is today only 70 years on, the biggest most powerful economy in Europe after being destroyed near the end of the war but boy did they regroup! I have a very big problem with that.
and here we are only 80 odd years after independence handing over our sovereignty on a plate. Hitler went to a lot of trouble for nuthin'. Think carefully about that.

God help us all.

ei.sdraob · 28-09-2009 7:18pm

scaredoflisbon wrote: »

except now for the first time also the EU is making way too many new laws in order to have more control. don't forget Former French president Gisgard D'estaing said that European Constitution which was rejected bt France and Netherlands would be disguised or hidden in some way in the Lisbon Treaty in order for it to be adopted because no one would vote for it otherwise. :rolleyes:
Gee you could'nt make it up could you?

Why do we need more than 27 countries in the EU anyway? it was 9 when we joined. Dare i say it is a German aspiration at 'the heart of Europe' thats getting too greedy. So glad we were not 'at the heart of Europe' 70 years ago this month we'd have suffered the same fate as Poland.

Never forget what Germany did in the second World war. Many European countries hav never forgiven Germany for what it did.
Germany should never never have that power again. But there it is today only 70 years on, the biggest most powerful economy in Europe after being destroyed near the end of the war but boy did they regroup! I have a very big problem with that.
and here we are only 80 odd years after independence handing over our sovereignty on a plate. Hitler went to a lot of trouble for nuthin'. Think carefully about that.

God help us all.

god help you

marco_polo · 28-09-2009 7:20pm

scaredoflisbon wrote: »

except now for the first time also the EU is making way too many new laws in order to have more control. don't forget Former French president Gisgard D'estaing said that European Constitution which was rejected bt France and Netherlands would be disguised or hidden in some way in the Lisbon Treaty in order for it to be adopted because no one would vote for it otherwise. :rolleyes:
Gee you could'nt make it up could you?

Why do we need more than 27 countries in the EU anyway? it was 9 when we joined. Dare i say it is a German aspiration at 'the heart of Europe' thats getting too greedy. So glad we were not 'at the heart of Europe' 70 years ago this month we'd have suffered the same fate as Poland.

Never forget what Germany did in the second World war. Many European countries hav never forgiven Germany for what it did.
Germany should never never have that power again. But there it is today only 70 years on, the biggest most powerful economy in Europe after being destroyed near the end of the war but boy did they regroup! I have a very big problem with that.
and here we are only 80 odd years after independence handing over our sovereignty on a plate. Hitler went to a lot of trouble for nuthin'. Think carefully about that.

God help us all.

Have you considered becoming a subscriber and changing your username to ScaredOfGermany.

It would seem more appropriate.

meglome · 28-09-2009 7:22pm

scaredoflisbon wrote: »

except now for the first time also the EU is making way too many new laws in order to have more control. don't forget Former French president Gisgard D'estaing said that European Constitution which was rejected bt France and Netherlands would be disguised or hidden in some way in the Lisbon Treaty in order for it to be adopted because no one would vote for it otherwise. :rolleyes:
Gee you could'nt make it up could you?

Why do we need more than 27 countries in the EU anyway? it was 9 when we joined. Dare i say it is a German aspiration at 'the heart of Europe' thats getting too greedy. So glad we were not 'at the heart of Europe' 70 years ago this month we'd have suffered the same fate as Poland.

Never forget what Germany did in the second World war. Many European countries hav never forgiven Germany for what it did.
Germany should never never have that power again. But there it is today only 70 years on, the biggest most powerful economy in Europe after being destroyed near the end of the war but boy did they regroup! I have a very big problem with that.
and here we are only 80 odd years after independence handing over our sovereignty on a plate. Hitler went to a lot of trouble for nuthin'. Think carefully about that.

God help us all.

I was going to point out carefully that this post is nonsense but even that would be a waste of time.

How many logins are you using now?

IrelandSpirit · 28-09-2009 7:25pm

scaredoflisbon wrote: »

except now for the first time also the EU is making way too many new laws in order to have more control. don't forget Former French president Gisgard D'estaing said that European Constitution which was rejected bt France and Netherlands would be disguised or hidden in some way in the Lisbon Treaty in order for it to be adopted because no one would vote for it otherwise. :rolleyes:
Gee you could'nt make it up could you?

Why do we need more than 27 countries in the EU anyway? it was 9 when we joined. Dare i say it is a German aspiration at 'the heart of Europe' thats getting too greedy. So glad we were not 'at the heart of Europe' 70 years ago this month we'd have suffered the same fate as Poland.

Never forget what Germany did in the second World war. Many European countries hav never forgiven Germany for what it did.
Germany should never never have that power again. But there it is today only 70 years on, the biggest most powerful economy in Europe after being destroyed near the end of the war but boy did they regroup! I have a very big problem with that.
and here we are only 80 odd years after independence handing over our sovereignty on a plate. Hitler went to a lot of trouble for nuthin'. Think carefully about that.

God help us all.

There’s a lot of similarities with it all. I agree. It seems like what they couldn’t achieve by force, they’re now getting by stealth…

scaredoflisbon · 28-09-2009 8:42pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

god help you

I've got my eyes wide open, mate. I'm just fed up of the PC generation:p

IrelandSpirit · 28-09-2009 11:43pm

From:

The Dummies Guide to The Lisbon Treaty

(44th edition 2099 AD)

Section One, paragraph two:

“The euro man promised Treaty good for Irish Tribes, I realise now they speak with forked tongue. The mighty Dell did not return. The twenty six tribes of the euro council turned their backs on us. Our elders were shamed. Their promises I have carried on my back like broken hurling sticks for many winters. Now we cannot hold our own with the euro men. We are like chips with no curry sauce. They are like Big Mac with double brandy and coke. I do not understand for why there is bad guinness between us. We were contented to let things remain as the Great Spirit Taoiseach made them. They were not, and would change the rules of hurling if they did not suit them...”

Testimony of ‘Running Wild With Tayto’, a refugee of the third Corrib Gasline disaster. April, 2026

johnwillnot · 29-09-2009 7:14am

Go to Youtube and do a search for Lisbon Treaty or Lisbon Treaty 2009. I think the Anti Lisbon side have taken full advantage of social media to get the important issues across. All the Yes side say is that it's good for jobs and investment. I know you can't believe everything you see on Youtube but it is a good starting point. I am voting No myself.
The main reasons are:
(1) It's a self amending treaty (They can make changes in the future without taking it to the people.
(2) Less voting power (Will be like the Eurovision song contest, Ireland will have less say in what goes on)
(3) Tony Blair is the favourite to become the first president of Europe.

x MarK x · 29-09-2009 7:38am

1. This treay is self ratifiing. This simple truth should be feared, it is the same as writing a blank cheque.
2. Our low corporate tax rate ( which lures big multinationals here ) and helps create jobs, willl be under treat. New powers within the lisbon treaty, and the ECJ may rule these low tax rates as a distortion of competition. So if that happens, lisbon could be a disaster for jobs.
3. The French and Dutch already said no to this (albeit under the name "the european constitution"), its the same, we said no last year, when will the EU actually listen to democracy?
4. Dont be fooled, people telling you, if you say no, your anti european!!, what a load of crap. As already proven, this aint even a treaty, its a pile of amendments to existing treaties.
5. My finishing argument... Our politician's say our image will be tarnished in europe if we say no... LIE. They say its good for jobs.... CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE. They say it will give us a stronger voice in europe... QMV, HALVES OUR POWER. (if our voice was to be so much stronger, how come they didnt hear our last vote?)
Please, please, dont be fooled by the proaganda. Whats the harm in sending them back to the drawing board? As already stated, once we ratify this....... there IS NO GOING BACK.

passive · 29-09-2009 10:07am

x MarK x wrote: »

Please, please, dont be fooled by the proaganda.

Oh phew... And there was me thinking you wanted people to believe those old lies you're spewing... Good retraction.

seamus · 29-09-2009 10:23am

x MarK x wrote: »

1. This treay is self ratifiing. This simple truth should be feared, it is the same as writing a blank cheque.

The treaty allows for amendments, provided that those amendments are approved by every country's parliament. This is no different to the domestic scenario where we allow our government to make changes to our legislation and policies without having to go back to the people. This is a massive step forward in efficiency and democracy because important issues can't be hijacked by non-elected third parties with agendas.

2. Our low corporate tax rate ( which lures big multinationals here ) and helps create jobs, willl be under treat. New powers within the lisbon treaty, and the ECJ may rule these low tax rates as a distortion of competition. So if that happens, lisbon could be a disaster for jobs.

Nonsense. Lisbon provides no extra power for the EU to challenge our corporate tax than they already have.

3. The French and Dutch already said no to this (albeit under the name "the european constitution"), its the same, we said no last year, when will the EU actually listen to democracy?

The French said Yes to this, when Sarkozy said that he would ratify it, if elected. And they dly elected him. The French said No to piss off their government, not because of the content of the document.

4. Dont be fooled, people telling you, if you say no, your anti european!!, what a load of crap. As already proven, this aint even a treaty, its a pile of amendments to existing treaties.

That's what a treaty generally is. Unless you're starting from scratch, a treaty will invariably be a suite of amendments to existing agreements. This is what all of the other treaties this far have been.

Sam Vimes · 29-09-2009 10:37am

x MarK x wrote: »

1. This treay is self ratifiing. This simple truth should be feared, it is the same as writing a blank cheque.
2. Our low corporate tax rate ( which lures big multinationals here ) and helps create jobs, willl be under treat. New powers within the lisbon treaty, and the ECJ may rule these low tax rates as a distortion of competition. So if that happens, lisbon could be a disaster for jobs.
3. The French and Dutch already said no to this (albeit under the name "the european constitution"), its the same, we said no last year, when will the EU actually listen to democracy?
4. Dont be fooled, people telling you, if you say no, your anti european!!, what a load of crap. As already proven, this aint even a treaty, its a pile of amendments to existing treaties.
5. My finishing argument... Our politician's say our image will be tarnished in europe if we say no... LIE. They say its good for jobs.... CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE. They say it will give us a stronger voice in europe... QMV, HALVES OUR POWER. (if our voice was to be so much stronger, how come they didnt hear our last vote?)
Please, please, dont be fooled by the proaganda. Whats the harm in sending them back to the drawing board? As already stated, once we ratify this....... there IS NO GOING BACK.

None of that is true

IrelandSpirit · 29-09-2009 11:31am

x MarK x wrote: »

1. This treay is self ratifiing. This simple truth should be feared, it is the same as writing a blank cheque.
2. Our low corporate tax rate ( which lures big multinationals here ) and helps create jobs, willl be under treat. New powers within the lisbon treaty, and the ECJ may rule these low tax rates as a distortion of competition. So if that happens, lisbon could be a disaster for jobs.
3. The French and Dutch already said no to this (albeit under the name "the european constitution"), its the same, we said no last year, when will the EU actually listen to democracy?
4. Dont be fooled, people telling you, if you say no, your anti european!!, what a load of crap. As already proven, this aint even a treaty, its a pile of amendments to existing treaties.
5. My finishing argument... Our politician's say our image will be tarnished in europe if we say no... LIE. They say its good for jobs.... CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE. They say it will give us a stronger voice in europe... QMV, HALVES OUR POWER. (if our voice was to be so much stronger, how come they didnt hear our last vote?)
Please, please, dont be fooled by the proaganda. Whats the harm in sending them back to the drawing board? As already stated, once we ratify this....... there IS NO GOING BACK.

The Dummies Guide to The Lisbon Treaty

Continued…

(44th edition 2099 AD)

Section One, paragraph three:

“… Many of our wise warned the euro men spoke with forked tongue. They warned the euro men were ruled by cowards, like Tony Blair Taoiseach, who had sent many young warriors to die in wars for black gold, and yet never once fought himsef. I did not believe. Tales to scare young children. But then the euro men changed the Treaty, they made laws to suit themselves. Tax, tax, tax, their purse grew heavy with our sweat. We were powerless to protest. When they declared war with the great nations of the east, our voice in the council of the 27 euro tribes was weaker than guinness at electric picnic…”

Testimony of ‘Running With Wild Tayto’, a refugee of the third Corrib Gasline disaster. April, 2026

robna · 29-09-2009 4:59pm

Hi, this is in response to chachabinx's question. This is a synopsised rundown of the treaty. I didn't write it but a friend of mine did who's well-up on the EU and politics in general. He sent this around to mates who were asking him for an explanation to everything the during the run-up to the first referendum, so bear in mind it the treaty has been rectified since the last time to supply the guarantees the No camp sought (which apparently are worthless now, according to some). One of the major issues the last time was in regards to the Commission which, as this explains, doesn't even represent Irish interests but rather EU interests. So just be very wary when you hear No campers complaining about the Commisioner, when it has very little relevence to this country at all. Though I must say, the yes side are making a right b*****ks of it all too, as they did the first time round:

The EU

Ok, to understand the treaty you have to first understand the EU, which in three lines is basically:

Parliament (made up of MEPs)
- represents the interests of the citizens, think parliament-people

Council (made up of national government ministers)
- represents the interests of member states, think council-countries

Commission (made up of government reps, "commissioners")
- represents the interests of the EU as a whole

Now, currently around half of decisions made are approved only by Council. So if there's a decision on environment law, the Irish Minister for the Environment will meet with the 26 other Ministers of the Environment in a room, and decide a common law.

The other half of decisions are approved by the Council and Parliament together, which means a lot more people are represented, but as a result no one Minister or MEP can block a law. This is "codecision". The Commission draws up the first draft of laws, and acts as a mediator.

The Council and Parliament behave very differently, for two main reasons.

Council is a gathering of centre-right and centre-left government ministers, while Parliament is a mish mash of seven pan-European political "parties", covering every kind of political view.

The Parliament has voters to answer to, Council has governments to answer to.

The big change

The biggest change with Lisbon is that pretty much all decisions will be made with approval from Council andParliament together. So codecision becomes the norm. This has a few implications, it will be harder for an Irish government minister to stop legislation, but the process overall will be a lot more transparent and democratic. Voting requirements are tough, and a little complicated. For a bill to pass it must be endorsed by:

55% of countries ministers, representing...
65% of EU's population
+ majority in the European Parliament
+ usually Commission approval as well

Only on "sensitive issues" (tax, foreign policy, defence and a few others), will we still see the Ministers decide on their own, in which case each country will usually have a national veto.

The other changes

The other big changes are as follows:

2. National parliaments such as the Dáil can delay legislation if they don't like it.

3. The Commission gets smaller. Currently every country has a commissioner but we would now have one two thirds of the time on a rotating basis. (remember: Commission works in interests of the EU as a whole and doesn't represent national interests)

4. The Parliament gets a bit smaller, and can never go above 751 MEPs.

5. The Council gets a president.

6. The EU gets a Representative for External Affairs.

7. There's a legal option of leaving the EU.

8. The EU gets a legal identity.

9. Fighting climate change and energy security are mentioned for the first time as objectives.

10. EU countries help each other in the case of natural disaster or terrorist attack.

11. The Commission has to take big petitions seriously.

"But it's such a complicated treaty"

It is indeed complicated, but so is everything in law. The summary of the Irish government's 2008 budget runs to forty pages, just the summary! The full text isn't even available as a single document. And that's just an annual budget in our wee little country, the Lisbon Treaty will have an effect on the half a billion people who live in the EU, of course it's going to be complicated. But "complicated" doesn't necessarily mean "bad", and just as with the budget, it's the job of lawyers, politicians and journalists to make the information digestible.

Dispelling some campaign lies

If we vote no...
The EU will not collapse
The Irish economy will not collapse
Ireland will not lose all its influence in the EU
but - the EU & Ireland would go through a political crisis

If we vote yes...
The EU will not become a superstate
Ireland will not lose its foreign policy or "neutrality"
We will not harmonise taxes, unless we want to
but - the EU will probably start to be more assertive on the world stage

In fact the main people will who suffer from a No vote are in Croatia and Macedonia, both of which are trying to get into the EU but are very unlikely to do so if we reject the treaty. The main victim of a Yes vote could be Russia, which is keen to keep the "divide and conquer" status quo when it comes to supplying gas to Europe.

There's no point in having a referendum on this issue if the whole debate centres on attempts to scare people about the consequences of voting the other way.

So basically...

Vote on the content of the Treaty!

There is a choice between two types of European Union. Whether you love or hate the EU, you still only have these two options to choose from. The first option is the EU as it is now. It works...it wasn't designed for this many countries but it still works! The second option is outlined at the beginning of this email, which to sum up even more briefly is:

-The role of the European Parliament will grow.
-The role of national government reps in Brussels will decline.
-National parliaments can delay legislation if they don't like it.
-Commission get smaller.
-Council gets a president, and EU gets a Representative for External Affairs.
-EU gets a legal identity and an official way for countries to leave.
-EU will work on natural disasters, terrorism, climate change and energy.

Finally

The treaty is an attempt to make the EU more democratic (power goes from Council to Parliament) and more efficient (Commission reduced in size).

The people who oppose this treaty (Sinn Féin, the far left and the left wing of the Green Party) are the same people who call for more transparency, more democracy, more efficiency and a "social Europe". Yet the Treaty provides all those things, and they oppose it! Sinn Féin et al's real problem is that they want a left-wing treaty, and Lisbon is a compromise, smack bang in the political centre. A very good compromise too, so good that every single parliament on the continent is willing to endorse it. Romania's parliament voted yes to Lisbon by 387 to 1! Denmark, a country which cherishes its neutrality a lot more than we do, passed it in their parliament by 90 to 25. Even in the UK, the most eurosceptic of all member states, it passed through the House of Commons with a majority of 346 to 206. If you can get that many people across that many cultures, languages and political ideologies to agree on a text, it surely can't be that bad!

eightyfish · 29-09-2009 6:42pm

robna - That's the best simplified summary I've read. It's even better then the referendum commission's attempt. I've just sent it to a bunch of friends. Thanks.

cornbb · 29-09-2009 6:46pm

robna, that's an excellent synopsis. A silver lining to the cloud of misinformation that this campaign has been.

scaredoflisbon · 30-09-2009 12:59pm

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

The Dummies Guide to The Lisbon Treaty

Continued…

(44th edition 2099 AD)

Section One, paragraph three:

“… Many of our wise warned the euro men spoke with forked tongue. They warned the euro men were ruled by cowards, like Tony Blair Taoiseach, who had sent many young warriors to die in wars for black gold, and yet never once fought himsef. I did not believe. Tales to scare young children. But then the euro men changed the Treaty, they made laws to suit themselves. Tax, tax, tax, their purse grew heavy with our sweat. We were powerless to protest. When they declared war with the great nations of the east, our voice in the council of the 27 euro tribes was weaker than guinness at electric picnic…”

Testimony of ‘Running With Wild Tayto’, a refugee of the third Corrib Gasline disaster. April, 2026

So relieved that in 2026 we have retained some of our 'national identity' ie TAYTO......yum

I'm sure Lisbon is a lovely place to visit,!!! but its a No from me on Friday. I did actually think about voting Yes but it just does'nt feel right. I 'm going with my gut instinct rightly or wrongly.

RepublicanEagle · 30-09-2009 1:06pm

I am a student in UCC,doing a BA European Development Studies & French,and as a scholar in European economics and law,and from reading the treaty,I am voting No to Lisbon,I support what the EU has done for us,but they have earned millions from our fishing grounds,and placed quotas on agricultural goods that favor the big farmers all over France and Germany,the countries responsible for drafting up the CAP and CFP.Coincidence,I think not.However if the EU was to put people before profit in their policies and Lisbon,I would vote yes.
But this is not the case,it is beaucracy and profit before the people.
The Yes campaign are advocating that the No side,is anti European.That is pure and utter tripe.I hate this governent in Ireland and their policies.Does that make me anti-Irish?I think not.The Yes people who are voting,are under the delusion that it will create jobs and bring economic recovery?Where in the Treaty does it state that?And where has the EU been within the last 12 months,where jobs are being lost left right and centre,along with the rising dole queues.Nowhere.
Remember what happened to Dell in Limerick who relocated to Poland after the Polish offered them hundreds of thousands of euro?The EU did nothing about it,nothing,because Poland is actually becoming very powerful industrially and militarily,therefore have strong political influence on the EU Commission and Council.
The reality is,the Lisbon treaty,will favor the powerful states,not the small states such as Ireland.I guarantee that any citizen with any shred of civic responsibilty and intelligence,will know that this will repeat itself,if this referendum is passed.Before you vote read this treaty,most of have not,you follow the government like cattle to the slaughter,even after what they have done to us.Shame on all of you.

marco_polo · 30-09-2009 1:15pm

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

I am a student in UCC,doing a BA European Development Studies & French,and as a scholar in European economics and law,and from reading the treaty,I am voting No to Lisbon,I support what the EU has done for us,but they have earned millions from our fishing grounds,and placed quotas on agricultural goods that favor the big farmers all over France and Germany,the countries responsible for drafting up the CAP and CFP.Coincidence,I think not.However if the EU was to put people before profit in their policies and Lisbon,I would vote yes.
But this is not the case,it is beaucracy and profit before the people.
The Yes campaign are advocating that the No side,is anti European.That is pure and utter tripe.I hate this governent in Ireland and their policies.Does that make me anti-Irish?I think not.The Yes people who are voting,are under the delusion that it will create jobs and bring economic recovery?Where in the Treaty does it state that?And where has the EU been within the last 12 months,where jobs are being lost left right and centre,along with the rising dole queues.Nowhere.
Remember what happened to Dell in Limerick who relocated to Poland after the Polish offered them hundreds of thousands of euro?The EU did nothing about it,nothing,because Poland is actually becoming very powerful industrially and militarily,therefore have strong political influence on the EU Commission and Council.
The reality is,the Lisbon treaty,will favor the powerful states,not the small states such as Ireland.I guarantee that any citizen with any shred of civic responsibilty and intelligence,will know that this will repeat itself,if this referendum is passed.Before you vote read this treaty,most of have not,you follow the government like cattle to the slaughter,even after what they have done to us.Shame on all of you.

As a scollar in European economics and law under what mechanisms could the EU have stopped Dell moving to Poland?

Also you are surely also aware that we are not having a vote of confidence in the Government but a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Finally I am also intrigued by your repeated use of the phrase 'People before Profit'. A member of any socities down in UCC by any chance?

RepublicanEagle · 30-09-2009 1:16pm

If we vote yes...
The EU will not become a superstate
Ireland will not lose its foreign policy or "neutrality"
We will not harmonise taxes, unless we want to
but - the EU will probably start to be more assertive on the world stage

Actually the EU will eventually become a superstate,that is the final goal of the EU ever since it was established,even though the wording is quite vague,you would have to have sufficient knowledge in law to comprehend the articles.

Ireland may not lose "complete" control over its foreign policy,but with Lisbon,the EU will decide on key international affairs and policies without
our consent,thus it will interfere with our foreign policies.

Taxes,will be harmonised eventually,they French Finance Ministry and its Minister,has stated that it will be given high priority.

And believe it or not,militarisation is in it,in fact it is riddled with it,I will post links up soon to sections of the Treaty that have this.

But yes,the EU will become more assertive on the world stage,but at what expense to the ordinary working people of Europe?

P. Breathnach · 30-09-2009 1:48pm

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Actually the EU will eventually become a superstate,

Only if we, the people, so decide. And if we so decide, is it wrong to prevent it?

that is the final goal of the EU ever since it was established,

The only goals that the EU can pursue are those decided by its members. It does not have a constitutional imperative to evolve into a federation.

even though the wording is quite vague,you would have to have sufficient knowledge in law to comprehend the articles.

Some of us here are moderately intelligent, and can understand lawspeak. Point us to the law on which you base your remarks.

Ireland may not lose "complete" control over its foreign policy,but with Lisbon,the EU will decide on key international affairs and policies without
our consent,thus it will interfere with our foreign policies.

Particulars, please.

Taxes,will be harmonised eventually,they French Finance Ministry and its Minister,has stated that it will be given high priority.

That can happen only with our consent. I do not see that consent being given in the foreseeable future.

And believe it or not,militarisation is in it,in fact it is riddled with it,I will post links up soon to sections of the Treaty that have this.

I can't wait!

But yes,the EU will become more assertive on the world stage,but at what expense to the ordinary working people of Europe?

Clearly you have an opinion on this. You tell us what the expense is.

eightyfish · 30-09-2009 2:02pm

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

The Yes campaign are advocating that the No side,is anti European.That is pure and utter tripe.

Name one body campaigning against the Lisbon treaty that has ever campaigned for any European treaty in the past.

x MarK x · 30-09-2009 4:02pm

seamus wrote: »

The treaty allows for amendments, provided that those amendments are approved by every country's parliament. This is no different to the domestic scenario where we allow our government to make changes to our legislation and policies without having to go back to the people. This is a massive step forward in efficiency and democracy because important issues can't be hijacked by non-elected third parties with agendas.

Nonsense. Lisbon provides no extra power for the EU to challenge our corporate tax than they already have.
The French said Yes to this, when Sarkozy said that he would ratify it, if elected. And they dly elected him. The French said No to piss off their government, not because of the content of the document.
That's what a treaty generally is. Unless you're starting from scratch, a treaty will invariably be a suite of amendments to existing agreements. This is what all of the other treaties this far have been.

Amendments can be made, and by two ways too! First through QMV system, if majority agree with an EU decision. Second, if the EU decide that something we object to requires legal debate, it would then go to the ECJ, and their rulings are above the treaty. Do your homework, before you come on here with your bullsh.it.
Also our corporate tax rate can be changed, again through the ECJ, they have already hinted at it, saying its a distortion of competition. FACT.
As for the dribble you spew of the French vote, it highlights the rubbish the NO side come up with time and time again. You think when the French people expressed democracy, you knew their feelings!!!, and because that little French f.uck sarkozy ratifies it, it is then the will of the people. I suppose you think the Dutch NO vote falls under the same retarded logic???

The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies

Comments