Consequences of the Lisbon Treaty

melekalikimaka · 24-05-2011 11:11AM

the groutch wrote: »

abtw, it was fuelled by the ECB throwing cheap money at Irish banks.

blame anyone but themselves mentality again

the groutch · 24-05-2011 11:13AM

melekalikimaka wrote: »

...

you think we would have been better to leave the eu after lisbon vote?

well done on dodging my question

silverspoon · 24-05-2011 11:16AM

It's somewhat ironic that a Treaty designed to bring more clarity to the workings of the EU has in fact brought about more distrust in the EU. The big issue in the late 90's/early 00's regarding the Union/Communities, was the issue of 'competence creep', whereby it was seen as (and pretty much did) decide suddenly that it had a new area in which it had competence, taking power from Member States that wasn't expressly in the Treaties. Lisbon is the first Treaty to specifically delineate what are exclusive competences of the Union, what competence it shares with the States, and so on.

The big thing that Lisbon did, was that it completely changed the structure of the EU. Prior to Lisbon, the Union existed on the basis of three 'pillars', the first being the Communities, the second involving foreign policy matters re: the Union, and the third involving criminal matters. The second and third pillars operated pretty informally, on the basis on intergovernmental co-operation, and needed unanimity in decision-making. No decisions could be imposed on a State who was not party to the agreement, unlike the Communities.

Lisbon got rid of the pillar system. There are now no Communities; the Union now has legal personality and the same power as the Communities, but this encompasses a much broader area in which power can be exercised. This doesn't yet have much of an effect on foreign policy issues, but the biggest change has been to the area of security, freedom and justice - i.e., criminal law. I assume most of you aren't criminals, but if you were a suspect in a transnational crime, the Union has much more power to get involved. There are cries that it might lead to the standardisation of criminal justice systems, which is a fairly big issue due to differing standards of evidence, the trial by jury, the differing status of the defence etc. etc. It's a pretty big problem actually, how the Union expects copy-and-paste measures to cope with big disparities in criminal justice systems to work. If you want an example of how this isn't really working, look at the Ian Bailey extradition case.

Economically, it hasn't introduced any measures which erode Member States' autonomy regarding tax/wage issues. The calls for our tax rate to be tinkered with is coming from an intergovernmental agreement between France and Germany etc., but I don't see how that agreement could be legally binding on us if we're not a party to it. Only the EU has the power to impose measures on unwilling Member States.

I haven't (obviously) talked about everything, but these are just a few bits that haven't been mentioned yet.

K-9 · 24-05-2011 11:23AM

the groutch wrote: »

ah, the infamous WE again.

btw, it was fuelled by the ECB throwing cheap money at Irish banks.
do you really think that the Irish Central Bank would have kept interest rates at 2%?

An Irish Central Bank probably would have had higher rates like Iceland did, worked out well for them too.

Interest rates did rise in 2006 and the Government and opposition wanted policies to boost the stagnant market, stamp duty change etc. They doubled mortgage interest relief so a first time buyer couple could get tax relief on a mortgage with €20,000 a year interest, €1,666 a month!

Amazing how they could act to boost the market but not dampen it.

silverspoon · 24-05-2011 11:25AM

Also, not really getting why Lisbon is being blamed for banking crises of any stripe. It didn't come into effect until Dec. 2009 - well after the damage was done.

This thread is specifically about the Lisbon Treaty. Talk about the travesty the is the ECB's handling of the banking crises all you like but the Lisbon Treaty didn't introduce any changes which suggest that, but for it, we would all be sitting pretty on our money piles.

TheZohanS · 24-05-2011 11:35AM

the groutch wrote: »

HOW?

How dare you question anything. :mad:

sensibleken · 24-05-2011 11:59AM

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I would disagree, the property bubble was fuelled by Irish peoples greed and lack of foresight, and supported by out banks and political system. We would be in alot better state if we didnt try keeping up with the Jones' for the last 10 years

hindsight is fantasic in condemning a country where everyone is an economist.

as someone else said. 'we', speak for yourself, some of us lived within our means. But we'll just have to agree to disagree, this thread is about lisbon, not the unrelated property buble/banking crisis

darragh666 · 24-05-2011 12:12PM

silverspoon wrote: »

It's somewhat ironic that a Treaty designed to bring more clarity to the workings of the EU has in fact brought about more distrust in the EU. The big issue in the late 90's/early 00's regarding the Union/Commission, was the issue of 'competence creep', whereby it was seen as (and pretty much did) decide suddenly that it had a new area in which it had competence, taking power from Member States that wasn't expressly in the Treaties. Lisbon is the first Treaty to specifically delineate what are exclusive competences of the Union, what competence it shares with the States, and so on.

The big thing that Lisbon did, was that it completely changed the structure of the EU. Prior to Lisbon, the Union existed on the basis of three 'pillars', the first being the Commission, the second involving foreign policy matters re: the Union, and the third involving criminal matters. The second and third pillars operated pretty informally, on the basis on intergovernmental co-operation, and needed unanimity in decision-making. No decisions could be imposed on a State who was not party to the agreement, unlike the Commission.

Lisbon got rid of the pillar system. There is now no Commission; the Union now has legal personality and the same power as the Commission, but this encompasses a much broader area in which power can be exercised. This doesn't yet have much of an effect on foreign policy issues, but the biggest change has been to the area of security, freedom and justice - i.e., criminal law. I assume most of you aren't criminals, but if you were a suspect in a transnational crime, the Union has much more power to get involved. There are cries that it might lead to the standardisation of criminal justice systems, which is a fairly big issue due to differing standards of evidence, the trial by jury, the differing status of the defence etc. etc. It's a pretty big problem actually, how the Union expects copy-and-paste measures to cope with big disparities in criminal justice systems to work. If you want an example of how this isn't really working, look at the Ian Bailey extradition case.

I agree with your post but I think you meant Communities where you said Commission.

reprazant · 24-05-2011 12:41PM

the groutch wrote: »

ah, the infamous WE again.

btw, it was fuelled by the ECB throwing cheap money at Irish banks.
do you really think that the Irish Central Bank would have kept interest rates at 2%?

So what you are saying is that it is the ECB's fault that the government refused to dampen the vastly over-heated property market, that the regulator refused to do his job, that the banks lent out money to people who couldn't afford it and people borrowed money the obviously could not afford?

Boo to Europe! Boo to personal responsibility!

Shenshen · 24-05-2011 01:34PM

zephyrz wrote: »

I for one was not old enough to vote at the time of the two referendums held for the lisbon treaty? I remember at the time the two main parties were in favour of it even though the people voted no the first time around! This to me seems very undemocratic!

So, basically what do you think are the consequences of the lisbon treaty for the future of Ireland? Please stay on topic. Cheers

Well, in the last election, the public decided they want Fine Gael to run the country. So will we leave them in power indefinitely, as this would be the democratic thing to do?

zephyrz · 24-05-2011 01:40PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So you are what 18 or 19 years of age? And you are spending your spare time listening to Nigel Farage.

I call bullsh1t on this story.

I didn't realise you have to be over a certain age to be interested in politics, sorry about that!

zephyrz · 24-05-2011 01:56PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Of course I do, I was quite the political nerd myself at that age.

But this just seems too obvious - new poster claiming quizzical interest in the issue to get a debate going, then making it clear they actually have a rather fixed and unwielding position, then recommending people go and research the teachings of Nigel Farage.

You know what, maybe it is all genuine and I'm just being a cynic. Carry on.

Ah now c'mon, I don't have a fixed and unwielding position on this subject, if I did I wouldn't be asking about it! I just heard so much pro lisbon treaty politicians that I wanted to hear someone on the otherside of the argument and I came across Farage!

zephyrz · 24-05-2011 02:04PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, in the last election, the public decided they want Fine Gael to run the country. So will we leave them in power indefinitely, as this would be the democratic thing to do?

Under the Constitution of Ireland a general election for Dail Eireann must occur once in every seven years, but a five year limit is currently specified by statute! So no, it would not be democratic to leave them in power indefinitely

silverspoon · 24-05-2011 04:02PM

darragh666 wrote: »

I agree with your post but I think you meant Communities where you said Commission.

Yeah, you're right, I got confused!

melekalikimaka · 24-05-2011 04:06PM

the groutch wrote: »

ah, the infamous WE again.

btw, it was fuelled by the ECB throwing cheap money at Irish banks.
do you really think that the Irish Central Bank would have kept interest rates at 2%?

fuelled yes, not caused, it was caused by greed, no one forced the mortgages down out throats, not that i am personally in debt, I'm just tired and somewhat ashamed of how people are looking everyelse else but the mirror to blame someone about the state of our banks.

Of course FF and the banks and ECB are big players in the game, but they couldnt have done it without the support of the irish people, well actually developers had their own agenda but they seem to be on another level to the general public :rolleyes:

Shenshen · 25-05-2011 09:38AM

zephyrz wrote: »

Under the Constitution of Ireland a general election for Dail Eireann must occur once in every seven years, but a five year limit is currently specified by statute! So no, it would not be democratic to leave them in power indefinitely

Aren't you confusing undemocratic with unconstitutional?

They are two very different things.

inforfun · 25-05-2011 10:16AM

zephyrz wrote: »

Is it true the french and Dutch said no to the European constitution, and the EU just renamed it the lisbon treaty, so only Ireland would have to hold a referendum to accept it?

The French and Dutch did indeed vote against it and that was the end of the European Constitution. I might be wrong here but i dont even think it did matter anymore what Ireland would vote.

Then they came up with the Lisbon treaty and the Dutch governement ****ed over their electorate by not holding a referendum on that one.
They just passed it themselves.

You can complain all you want here, at least you got the chance to vote for it a 2nd time.

Consequences of the Lisbon Treaty

Comments