You strengthen the powers of the European parliament, which has been the trend recently to counteract the European Council [the national voice of governments pushing for national self-interest] and the European Commission [traditionally more oriented towards a communitarian, federalist view]
You do not hand over all power. You exercise power in the European elections and nationally in your own political elections.
A No vote will derail the European agenda. It will have repercussions on the Euro, etc etc. Just think how the national currencies would have been coping in this turbulent time? It will ultimately affect people in their daily lives.
Btw, it's not just politicians, it's corporations, lobbies, not for profit organisations... all are involved in this. And you as a citizen of the European Union are also involved with this referendum, which is the attempt to continue with the European agenda after the European constitution was scrapped.
I know where you're coming from, believe me... but economy is certainly not the most important thing to me. It may be in the SHORT term... but if we hand over one itsy bitsy slice of power to our politicians... then another one... then another one... it's a slow process but before we know it we'll be wondering how the fuck we coulda been so stupid.
You mention corporations and lobbies in your post also... I feel the same about them as I do for our politicians... I think they all have the interest of the economy in mind, but nothing else. We fought for hundreds of years to be able to govern ourselves and now we just hand it over to central europe? why oh why would we do that?
I don't care if it delays the agenda... if we have to KEEP delaying it til we get it right, well that's what I'M gonna vote for.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
i started out this thread not seeing the problem with the Treaty, and the more i read the more i dont like it
same here... I genuinely didn't start this thread to convince anyone either way... but the more I think of it the more it infuriates me and the more strongly I am a no vote. I told the guys at work about this 'little' loophole and they were just as disgusted so I'm glad a few people are more knowledgeable about it because of this thread
Also the no vote is ahead in the opinion poles I think it's 30something to 30something and 30something percent undecided... let's hope the undecided will decide that if they're not well enough informed they can only vote no. The bullying going on here is ridiculous... they did the same with the Nice treaty. we voted no and it wasn't the end of the world they predicted... but they changed the things that were worrying us (which was NOT giving money and helping out the poorer countries) and then we voted yes. If we vote no here... we're doing Europe a favour. We're one of the few countries who can put an end to this bullshit and we've a pretty big responsibility in our hands
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Dilution of democracy - EU citizens will have more of a say with strengthening of the powers of the European Parliament. [The EU Council is the voice of national governments while the EU Commission is appointed by national governments and bureacracy.] A referendum per se is not the measure of democracy. And it's not legally required in all member states. It is in Ireland I understand because it would require amendment to your constitution [I take your word for it as I do not have time to research it] - and that's why the Irish people have their say. By the same token, Ireland are holding the fate of the other member states at ransom because the Treaty needs unanimous voting to go through. So you could throw the undemocratic argument on its head here. Also note, that the decision to put the European Constitution to popular vote backfired in Holland and France only, which then put a stop to the all process for the other countries.
And that's the problem with an enlarged EU - you have every single country potentially holding to ransom all the rest with veto, unless you introduce more qualified majority voting in the European Council, which this treaty is aiming to do.
Have you heard of the concept of a two-speed Europe?
The Lisbon Treaty is the attempt to move the European agenda forward after some countries rejected the European Constitution. I did not argue that the two were different in essence, because they're not - they are just cosmetic changes so as to get it ratified. The means to actualise it, was different.
There's plenty of information about the Lisbon treaty and its implications on the web. There's no need to rely on your government for that. Indeed, that's actually self-defeatist for the Irish govt - if they want their people to say yes.
Also the European Court of Justice administers on matters of EU law compliance of member states, which is already supreme, regardless of how difficult or costly. Then you have the European Court of Human Rights to uphold the human rights convention for all member states.
It's very interesting to see comments from Irish people so against the EU, I must say.
Dilution of democracy - EU citizens will have more of a say with strengthening of the powers of the European Parliament. [The EU Council is the voice of national governments while the EU Commission is appointed by national governments and bureacracy.] A referendum per se is not the measure of democracy. And it's not legally required in all member states. It is in Ireland I understand because it would require amendment to your constitution [I take your word for it as I do not have time to research it] - and that's why the Irish people have their say. By the same token, Ireland are holding the fate of the other member states at ransom because the Treaty needs unanimous voting to go through. So you could throw the undemocratic argument on its head here. Also note, that the decision to put the European Constitution to popular vote backfired in Holland and France only, which then put a stop to the all process for the other countries.
I think we're voting for two different things to be honest. A referendum is definitely A measure of democracy. Our government have been quite lenient with our neutrality and bending it to suit themselves... if we put that completely in their hands, the option to get rid of our neutrality completely is then out of our hands and in theirs. TBH, I'm not voting on behalf of what's best for everyone... we have the option to vote for what's best for our country... and I don't mean financially. There is absolutely no need to have that in the treaty. I can't see how it is benefitting me at all. We're one of hte few countries who can actually decide these things for ourselves... why would we give it up?
I like you and all... but I think you're failing to see the bigger, much more dangerous picture here. Especially in the unsteady world we live in today, this has HUGE implications that are hidden in the small print behind the points about helping the poorer countries. I will vote no and my no vote will actually help those poorer countries who cannot decide for themselves.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
It does make sense... but I disagree. I don't believe the EU is in it for the same reasons anymore... they're allowing other countries to join to make them more powerful. I don't understand why they don't leave it the way it is. I also don't believe any politician actually speaks on my behalf . Well there is one and I'll continue to vote for him... but the rest all speak gibberish. Veto power is great... BUT 4 countries need to veto something in order for it to actually BE vetoed... so basically, I have to elect a politician, more than likely NOT the one I want. A middle aged rich man will go to Europe to represent ME and my thoughts. If he (on behalf of me) disagrees with something... he will have to get 3 other countries to agree with him... and if not it will go ahead. I believe I've a VERY tiny voice in that process. If it ain't broken don't fix it. Yes, Ireland DID benefit very very much from the EU... under the 'broken' system? It doesn't seem very broken from where I am.
Hi by the way
The point is that the ex Soviet states wanted to take part in the European bonanza, and rightly so. Because the EU and its predecessor have been hugely beneficial to continental Europe. The issue is that the institutions need to take into account these new members and become manageable.
Europe is already an important player in the world stage [see the euro and trading]. It's already powerful. The question is to make it more effective considering that in geo-political terms you're now facing China, India, the resurgence of Russia.
The issue is the system is broken because you cannot go any longer without increased qualified majority voting. You'll end up with paralysis, each country vetoing the others according to their interests.
Where did you read about the need for 4 vetoes? Haven't heard of it.
My understanding is that for the Lisbon Treaty if Ireland says no, then it's tough shit for the rest of Europe. Back to the drawing board.
Hi back at ya! I'm resurfacing to procrastinate with work!
I think we're voting for two different things to be honest. A referendum is definitely A measure of democracy. Our government have been quite lenient with our neutrality and bending it to suit themselves... if we put that completely in their hands, the option to get rid of our neutrality completely is then out of our hands and in theirs. TBH, I'm not voting on behalf of what's best for everyone... we have the option to vote for what's best for our country... and I don't mean financially. There is absolutely no need to have that in the treaty. I can't see how it is benefitting me at all. We're one of hte few countries who can actually decide these things for ourselves... why would we give it up?
I like you and all... but I think you're failing to see the bigger, much more dangerous picture here. Especially in the unsteady world we live in today, this has HUGE implications that are hidden in the small print behind the points about helping the poorer countries. I will vote no and my no vote will actually help those poorer countries who cannot decide for themselves.
Why Ireland will have to give up its neutrality? I don't think that's what the treaty is about.
There's not going to be a European Union army.
However, this whole argument highlights the problem. If you want to be a part of a union, you need to take the rough with the smooth. That's the issue; but everyone will start thinking for their own particular interest and you'll have paralysis.
PS which poorer countries are you referring to? those countries have already decided because the government they have ELECTED decided on the issue. It's representative democracy. A referendum is just one way to express your vote.
The point is that the ex Soviet states wanted to take part in the European bonanza, and rightly so. Because the EU and its predecessor have been hugely beneficial to continental Europe. The issue is that the institutions need to take into account these new members and become manageable.
Europe is already an important player in the world stage [see the euro and trading]. It's already powerful. The question is to make it more effective considering that in geo-political terms you're now facing China, India, the resurgence of Russia.
The issue is the system is broken because you cannot go any longer without increased qualified majority voting. You'll end up with paralysis, each country vetoing the others according to their interests.
Where did you read about the need for 4 vetoes? Haven't heard of it.
My understanding is that for the Lisbon Treaty if Ireland says no, then it's tough shit for the rest of Europe. Back to the drawing board.
Hi back at ya! I'm resurfacing to procrastinate with work!
If you read the link I posted earlier in the thread, it says the process that everything will go through. They said the same thing about the Nice treaty, that if we say no, it's back to the drawing board... and it was, it was made better and we agreed. In this case, why should we vote for something that's incredibly wrong on so many levels just so it can be implemented quicker? :eek:
The ex soviet states are already benefitting and will continue to do so... I really don't see how voting for the Lisbon treaty is going to make it ANY quicker at all. What do they need to change that we would be holding up by having a referendum that's gonna make people starve while they're waiting for our vote?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Exactly! I mean the yes vote mainly point out how much we've gained from Europe and how it's only the people who want to deny that to other countries who would vote no. Believe me, that's sooooooooo far from my reasoning from voting no! I believe that it's actually a TINY part of what the Lisbon treaty entails. If they actually change it so that our constitution is still in one piece and so we still get to vote on every amendment... I probably WOULD vote yes. But handing all that power over to our government... the power literally to change our constitution without a vote :eek: why the fuck would I ever want to do that?
are you talking about handing power over to your government or the EU to change your constitution?
Now I want to check on the Irish political system....
Why Ireland will have to give up its neutrality? I don't think that's what the treaty is about.
There's not going to be a European Union army.
However, this whole argument highlights the problem. If you want to be a part of a union, you need to take the rough with the smooth. That's the issue; but everyone will start thinking for their own particular interest and you'll have paralysis.
huh? You're suggesting we just accept that we may have to give up our neutrality? :eek: NO WAY... we've had enough fighting in our country so that should never be an option... EVER! That's a pretty big thing to give up just to keep other countries happy!
You're not reading my posts... they're misleading the public. They're telling us our neutrality is safe... however if you READ the treaty... this can be up for vote at any time, our country would have to change it... however by ratifying the lisbon treaty it would simply be up to the politicians without having to run it past the people. It's a simple no from me unless they change that.
And no, I don't actually WANT to be part of a union anymore anyway.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
are you talking about handing power over to your government or the EU to change your constitution?
Now I want to check on the Irish political system....
Any further votes on a european army would be run past all countries... with our government to decide for us. I don't trust our government to MAKE that decision.
So basically I don't like the thought of a couple of politicians making all our decisions regarding Europe (cos I don't like where that's going anyway) so its both the European 'government' and my own government that I don't trust at ALL.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
If you read the link I posted earlier in the thread, it says the process that everything will go through. They said the same thing about the Nice treaty, that if we say no, it's back to the drawing board... and it was, it was made better and we agreed. In this case, why should we vote for something that's incredibly wrong on so many levels just so it can be implemented quicker? :eek:
The ex soviet states are already benefitting and will continue to do so... I really don't see how voting for the Lisbon treaty is going to make it ANY quicker at all. What do they need to change that we would be holding up by having a referendum that's gonna make people starve while they're waiting for our vote?
Back to the drawing board will actually mean then going for a two-speed Europe, since all attempts with the EU constitution and this treaty will have come to nothing. That is, some countries embracing closer co-operation, the rest enjoying the status quo.
All the EU members are benefiting from membership, to varying degrees. As I said, the issue is effective decision-making [the veto and qualified majority voting saga]. The EU aims in its ideal to be more than a trading bloc.
Whether an ever closer union means federalism is debatable, of course. But for sure more co-operation just more than economic [social and justice affairs] is intrinsic.
huh? You're suggesting we just accept that we may have to give up our neutrality? :eek: NO WAY... we've had enough fighting in our country so that should never be an option... EVER! That's a pretty big thing to give up just to keep other countries happy!
You're not reading my posts... they're misleading the public. They're telling us our neutrality is safe... however if you READ the treaty... this can be up for vote at any time, our country would have to change it... however by ratifying the lisbon treaty it would simply be up to the politicians without having to run it past the people. It's a simple no from me unless they change that.
And no, I don't actually WANT to be part of a union anymore anyway.
No I got what you meant. But you seem to misinterpret what I wrote. I did not suggest or imply that Ireland should give up its neutrality. I was questioning how it is an issue. I don't understand where in the Treaty it says that Ireland will lose its neutrality.
Any further votes on a european army would be run past all countries... with our government to decide for us. I don't trust our government to MAKE that decision.
So basically I don't like the thought of a couple of politicians making all our decisions regarding Europe (cos I don't like where that's going anyway) so its both the European 'government' and my own government that I don't trust at ALL.
It's not just the Irish government. And there is no European government. The legislative power [not executive] is with the European Commission [nominated by national governments] and the European Parliament [directly voted by you, me and all the EU citizens who bother to vote].
The European Council is composed of national governments.
So the question seems to boil down to trust in the political systems and representation.
So the question seems to boil down to trust in the political systems and representation.
now youre getting it!
The matter regarding the Irish Constitution is as follows:
The Irish constitution was written in the context that we are a neutral nation.
To change any parts of the Constitution requires a popular vote by the Irish people.
The Lisbon Treaty requires this change to be made in essence.
The Treaty states that member countries must aide others in times of war and crisis. It does mention that Irelands neutrality will be safeguarded - BUT PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION OR LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE DONE.
In European Treaties so far, issues that have not been expressly structured are unpredictably interpreted by the ECJ...therefore....
for the irish people a Yes vote for Lisbon is a vote to lose our control of our neutrality. Simple as that.
Back to the drawing board will actually mean then going for a two-speed Europe, since all attempts with the EU constitution and this treaty will have come to nothing. That is, some countries embracing closer co-operation, the rest enjoying the status quo.
All the EU members are benefiting from membership, to varying degrees. As I said, the issue is effective decision-making [the veto and qualified majority voting saga]. The EU aims in its ideal to be more than a trading bloc.
Seeing as i do not know too much about the concept, is this "two-speed Europe" inevitable if Lisbon fails?
surely progress can be made at a slower rate and on terms we can all agree on?
I understand that Members need to acceed rights so that the new members (and current ones consequently) can benefit - but surely theres a more moderate way of doing it?
The matter regarding the Irish Constitution is as follows:
The Irish constitution clearly expresses that we are a neutral nation.
To change any parts of the Constitution requires a popular vote by the Irish people.
The Lisbon Treaty requires this change to be made in essence.
The Treaty states that member countries must aide others in times of war and crisis. It does mention that Irelands neutrality will be safeguarded - BUT PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION OR LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE DONE.
In European Treaties so far, issues that have not been expressly structured are unpredictably interpreted by the ECJ...therefore....
for the irish people a Yes vote for Lisbon is a vote to lose our control of our neutrality. Simple as that.
so you're assuming by saying "unpredictably interpreted" that the European Court of Justice will not uphold a European Treaty??? ie go against its raison d'etre?! that's a major assumption.
Where has in the past the ECJ not upheld what's in the Treaty and European law?
The ECJ is composed of magistrates and lawyers, not politicians.
So, in essence because the Irish have trust issues with their own government [corruption, etc] all the rest of the EU has to bear the brunt. And that was my point. Selfish national interest which the veto defends against what the EU is actually trying to accomplish, i.e. a fairer deal for all member states.
Dilution of democracy - EU citizens will have more of a say with strengthening of the powers of the European Parliament. [The EU Council is the voice of national governments while the EU Commission is appointed by national governments and bureacracy.]
EU citizens will have more of a say? Really? the issue for us is that we will have less of a say!
So you could throw the undemocratic argument on its head here. Also note, that the decision to put the European Constitution to popular vote backfired in Holland and France only, which then put a stop to the all process for the other countries.
Shouldnt this indicate to the EU that the terms of the constitution could be better?
this is the problem - the EU asked 2 populations to vote and they reject it, so how it is politcally or morally acceptable for the EU to now bypass the issue by re-structuring the constitution as a treaty?
so you're assuming by saying "unpredictably interpreted" that the European Court of Justice will not uphold a European Treaty??? ie go against its raison d'etre?! that's a major assumption.
Where has in the past the ECJ not upheld what's in the Treaty and European law?
The ECJ is composed of magistrates and lawyers, not politicians.
So, in essence because the Irish have trust issues with their own government [corruption, etc] all the rest of the EU has to bear the brunt. And that was my point. Selfish national interest which the veto defends against what the EU is actually trying to accomplish, i.e. a fairer deal for all member states.
im not saying the ECJ will go against the Treaty...but having studied EU law there are situations where the ECJ is forced to make decisions when there are no specific legislative sections it can refer to.
how can A treaty that offers no explanation of how neutrality will be safeguarded be relied on to decide the matter?
What is wrong with national interest?
The French and Dutch seem to have it?
Seeing as i do not know too much about the concept, is this "two-speed Europe" inevitable if Lisbon fails?
surely progress can be made at a slower rate and on terms we can all agree on?
I understand that Members need to acceed rights so that the new members (and current ones consequently) can benefit - but surely theres a more moderate way of doing it?
It's not inevitable at all, especially in the current political climate. But it is a possibility, and has always been as such with enlargement of the EU from its original 6 members. Behind the concept, different views of what the EU is meant to be: defense of national soveirgnty [in an increasingly globalised world, btw] versus federalism and in the middle between these two polar opposites, closer union/co-operation.
If Ireland says no, there will be of course a pause - hopefully, not a stalemate - in the progress of the European agenda.
But considering that the European national governments, the key member states/ players are led by Eurosceptics leaders [Sarkozy, Brown, Berlusconi - not sure about Angela Merkel... ] I am not too hopeful.
So you see, the European discourse is dictated by one country, in this case, Ireland. What's so democratic about that then? One country when the rest, through their elected government, expressed yes, we want this.
So you see, the European discourse is dictated by one country, in this case, Ireland. What's so democratic about that then? One country when the rest, through their elected government, expressed yes, we want this.
very well explained.
I think if the EU and Irish government had created some clarity and clear structures to guarantee our neutrality then there wouldnt have been a problem.
and on a large scale i understand your democracy point (one dissent stops progress).
but i do think progress should not be pushed ahead when there is widespread dissent in the ranks.
Yes the goverments have agreed it, including France and Holland - but when those countries were offered the same deal in referendum they rejected it too.
acceptance of this among the populations is not equivalent to governmental unity on the issue
So, in essence because the Irish have trust issues with their own government [corruption, etc] all the rest of the EU has to bear the brunt. And that was my point. Selfish national interest which the veto defends against what the EU is actually trying to accomplish, i.e. a fairer deal for all member states.
how is it selfish? Should it be a fair deal for everyone EXCEPT us? You seem to think EVERYONE in Europe wants a yes vote? Just cos their governments agree... cos they didn't get a vote. Kann isn't Irish and is encouraging us to vote no. Do you really believe that all governments speak on behalf of their people? this is getting frustrating.
Sure it's good for you... you're Italian... whatever way your country votes is worth 29 votes (I think you're one of the big ones?) Our vote is 7. Basically, your countrys voice is worth 4 times the voice of mine.
I see absolutely nothing selfish in what I'm trying to say here. I LIVE, work and breathe in Ireland... of course I'm going to put our immediate needs before any other country. The treaty does NOT say Ireland will LOSE our neutrality... the government is trying to tell us that we will NOT... but the simple fact is that for NOW we will not, but any future decisions on that will be up to our government... that could be in a month, it could be in 10 years, it may never happen... but why should we give up our RIGHT to vote on it that we fought so hard to win? I really don't see why you think I should just ignore that loophole and vote for the good of Europe? It makes no sense to me. Oh and it's not just about neutrality either. I actually think every country should put each amendment to the vote rather than their government deciding for them.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
it is the most direct measure of democracy. more accurate than say, political representation on a multi-national organisation?
Depends also on how many cast their votes in a referendum. There is no direct democracy in Europe, it's parliamentary/representative. That's how you get your say. Referenda are additional means to express your views, mandatory for some countries [as you said for Ireland and amendment to the constitution] not so for others.
Shouldnt this indicate to the EU that the terms of the constitution could be better?
Based on two countries out of 20 plus and in order not to jeopardise and derail the whole project it was rewritten, again in cosmetic changes not essence.
this is the problem - the EU asked 2 populations to vote and they reject it, so how it is politcally or morally acceptable for the EU to now bypass the issue by re-structuring the constitution as a treaty?
Again, only two countries rejected it and you need to analyse why they did.
Voters use issues or grievances in their own national political agenda with their votes, without fully understanding the implications for the whole of Europe. How is it morally and political acceptable for the rest of Europe?
'In addition, at least four Member States must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just 3 of the larger Member States acting together.
If there are fewer than 4 Member States opposed to a decision then the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached even if the population criterion is not met.'
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
very well explained.
I think if the EU and Irish government had created some clarity and clear structures to guarantee our neutrality then there wouldnt have been a problem.
and on a large scale i understand your democracy point (one dissent stops progress).
but i do think progress should not be pushed ahead when there is widespread dissent in the ranks.
Yes the goverments have agreed it, including France and Holland - but when those countries were offered the same deal in referendum they rejected it too.
acceptance of this among the populations is not equivalent to governmental unity on the issue
well, the whole issue is whether you trust the masses to really understand what's at stake, taking into account national interests and issues, wider geo-political considerations and on the other hand, how you can have validation for new institutions created from above such as the EU [it was a government decision to create it in 1956.] That's how you explain the drive for a stronger EU parliament.
Based on two countries out of 20 plus and in order not to jeopardise and derail the whole project it was rewritten, again in cosmetic changes not essence.
c'mon, I'm not gonna vote for something just because to vote against it will derail it! I don't vote for things I don't agree with... it's why we HAVE a vote in this country, so we can choose what we want... not have central Europe choose FOR us, which will be how it is... France, Germany, Italy & UK will be running europe, how is that good for ANY of the rest of us?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Corruption and other issues might not be the reason for you but might be for other people.
Again, it is your assumption based on what the ECJ might do that Ireland neutrality will be taken away with this Treaty. So far no evidence.
Obviously there's no evidence.. this is a loophole that COULD be taken advantage of down the line if we vote yes. That is more than enough to DEMAND changes in it. It is a blatent scam to mislead Irish voters and I really doubt that if this loophole affected something that you care about you'd be so quick to support a yes vote.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Corruption and other issues might not be the reason for you but might be for other people.
Again, it is your assumption based on what the ECJ might do that Ireland neutrality will be taken away with this Treaty. So far no evidence.
ha, thats all fine & dandy BUT....
you didnt answer my question.
If you had the opportunity to vote on a Treaty which purports to guarantee a right, but doesnt explain how, and also erradicates that right from your national constitution, WOULD U VOTE FOR THAT?
put your money where your mouth is.
My assumption is based on having studied law, and knowing that nothing is guaranteed unless its in writing, and theres nothing express or specific about the terms of this treaty.
Alternatively, can you explain to me How the ECJ can uphold a right when there are no specific provisions for it to do so?
well, the whole issue is whether you trust the masses to really understand what's at stake, taking into account national interests and issues, wider geo-political considerations and on the other hand, how you can have validation for new institutions created from above such as the EU [it was a government decision to create it in 1956.] That's how you explain the drive for a stronger EU parliament.
What's at stake? That's all we hear is about how we don't actually understand what's at stake by patronising politicians, gimme a break... if we don't understand MAKE us understand... but there are two options on the ballot sheet... make us understand both! So far they've done neither.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Comments
You mention corporations and lobbies in your post also... I feel the same about them as I do for our politicians... I think they all have the interest of the economy in mind, but nothing else. We fought for hundreds of years to be able to govern ourselves and now we just hand it over to central europe?
I don't care if it delays the agenda... if we have to KEEP delaying it til we get it right, well that's what I'M gonna vote for.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Also the no vote is ahead in the opinion poles
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
And that's the problem with an enlarged EU - you have every single country potentially holding to ransom all the rest with veto, unless you introduce more qualified majority voting in the European Council, which this treaty is aiming to do.
Have you heard of the concept of a two-speed Europe?
The Lisbon Treaty is the attempt to move the European agenda forward after some countries rejected the European Constitution. I did not argue that the two were different in essence, because they're not - they are just cosmetic changes so as to get it ratified. The means to actualise it, was different.
There's plenty of information about the Lisbon treaty and its implications on the web. There's no need to rely on your government for that. Indeed, that's actually self-defeatist for the Irish govt - if they want their people to say yes.
Also the European Court of Justice administers on matters of EU law compliance of member states, which is already supreme, regardless of how difficult or costly. Then you have the European Court of Human Rights to uphold the human rights convention for all member states.
It's very interesting to see comments from Irish people so against the EU, I must say.
I like you and all... but I think you're failing to see the bigger, much more dangerous picture here. Especially in the unsteady world we live in today, this has HUGE implications that are hidden in the small print behind the points about helping the poorer countries. I will vote no and my no vote will actually help those poorer countries who cannot decide for themselves.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The point is that the ex Soviet states wanted to take part in the European bonanza, and rightly so. Because the EU and its predecessor have been hugely beneficial to continental Europe. The issue is that the institutions need to take into account these new members and become manageable.
Europe is already an important player in the world stage [see the euro and trading]. It's already powerful. The question is to make it more effective considering that in geo-political terms you're now facing China, India, the resurgence of Russia.
The issue is the system is broken because you cannot go any longer without increased qualified majority voting. You'll end up with paralysis, each country vetoing the others according to their interests.
Where did you read about the need for 4 vetoes? Haven't heard of it.
My understanding is that for the Lisbon Treaty if Ireland says no, then it's tough shit for the rest of Europe. Back to the drawing board.
Hi back at ya!
Why Ireland will have to give up its neutrality? I don't think that's what the treaty is about.
There's not going to be a European Union army.
However, this whole argument highlights the problem. If you want to be a part of a union, you need to take the rough with the smooth. That's the issue; but everyone will start thinking for their own particular interest and you'll have paralysis.
PS which poorer countries are you referring to? those countries have already decided because the government they have ELECTED decided on the issue. It's representative democracy. A referendum is just one way to express your vote.
The ex soviet states are already benefitting and will continue to do so... I really don't see how voting for the Lisbon treaty is going to make it ANY quicker at all. What do they need to change that we would be holding up by having a referendum that's gonna make people starve while they're waiting for our vote?
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
are you talking about handing power over to your government or the EU to change your constitution?
Now I want to check on the Irish political system....
You're not reading my posts... they're misleading the public. They're telling us our neutrality is safe... however if you READ the treaty... this can be up for vote at any time, our country would have to change it... however by ratifying the lisbon treaty it would simply be up to the politicians without having to run it past the people. It's a simple no from me unless they change that.
And no, I don't actually WANT to be part of a union anymore anyway.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
So basically I don't like the thought of a couple of politicians making all our decisions regarding Europe (cos I don't like where that's going anyway) so its both the European 'government' and my own government that I don't trust at ALL.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Back to the drawing board will actually mean then going for a two-speed Europe, since all attempts with the EU constitution and this treaty will have come to nothing. That is, some countries embracing closer co-operation, the rest enjoying the status quo.
All the EU members are benefiting from membership, to varying degrees. As I said, the issue is effective decision-making [the veto and qualified majority voting saga]. The EU aims in its ideal to be more than a trading bloc.
Whether an ever closer union means federalism is debatable, of course. But for sure more co-operation just more than economic [social and justice affairs] is intrinsic.
No I got what you meant. But you seem to misinterpret what I wrote. I did not suggest or imply that Ireland should give up its neutrality. I was questioning how it is an issue. I don't understand where in the Treaty it says that Ireland will lose its neutrality.
It's not just the Irish government. And there is no European government. The legislative power [not executive] is with the European Commission [nominated by national governments] and the European Parliament [directly voted by you, me and all the EU citizens who bother to vote].
The European Council is composed of national governments.
So the question seems to boil down to trust in the political systems and representation.
now youre getting it!
The matter regarding the Irish Constitution is as follows:
The Irish constitution was written in the context that we are a neutral nation.
To change any parts of the Constitution requires a popular vote by the Irish people.
The Lisbon Treaty requires this change to be made in essence.
The Treaty states that member countries must aide others in times of war and crisis. It does mention that Irelands neutrality will be safeguarded - BUT PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION OR LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE DONE.
In European Treaties so far, issues that have not been expressly structured are unpredictably interpreted by the ECJ...therefore....
for the irish people a Yes vote for Lisbon is a vote to lose our control of our neutrality. Simple as that.
Seeing as i do not know too much about the concept, is this "two-speed Europe" inevitable if Lisbon fails?
surely progress can be made at a slower rate and on terms we can all agree on?
I understand that Members need to acceed rights so that the new members (and current ones consequently) can benefit - but surely theres a more moderate way of doing it?
so you're assuming by saying "unpredictably interpreted" that the European Court of Justice will not uphold a European Treaty??? ie go against its raison d'etre?! that's a major assumption.
Where has in the past the ECJ not upheld what's in the Treaty and European law?
The ECJ is composed of magistrates and lawyers, not politicians.
So, in essence because the Irish have trust issues with their own government [corruption, etc] all the rest of the EU has to bear the brunt. And that was my point. Selfish national interest which the veto defends against what the EU is actually trying to accomplish, i.e. a fairer deal for all member states.
EU citizens will have more of a say? Really? the issue for us is that we will have less of a say!
it is the most direct measure of democracy. more accurate than say, political representation on a multi-national organisation?
Shouldnt this indicate to the EU that the terms of the constitution could be better?
this is the problem - the EU asked 2 populations to vote and they reject it, so how it is politcally or morally acceptable for the EU to now bypass the issue by re-structuring the constitution as a treaty?
im not saying the ECJ will go against the Treaty...but having studied EU law there are situations where the ECJ is forced to make decisions when there are no specific legislative sections it can refer to.
how can A treaty that offers no explanation of how neutrality will be safeguarded be relied on to decide the matter?
What is wrong with national interest?
The French and Dutch seem to have it?
It's not inevitable at all, especially in the current political climate. But it is a possibility, and has always been as such with enlargement of the EU from its original 6 members. Behind the concept, different views of what the EU is meant to be: defense of national soveirgnty [in an increasingly globalised world, btw] versus federalism and in the middle between these two polar opposites, closer union/co-operation.
If Ireland says no, there will be of course a pause - hopefully, not a stalemate - in the progress of the European agenda.
But considering that the European national governments, the key member states/ players are led by Eurosceptics leaders [Sarkozy, Brown, Berlusconi - not sure about Angela Merkel... ] I am not too hopeful.
So you see, the European discourse is dictated by one country, in this case, Ireland. What's so democratic about that then? One country when the rest, through their elected government, expressed yes, we want this.
curruption is not the issue - it is this -
If your government held a referendum to remove your rights to avoid war would you vote for it?
very well explained.
I think if the EU and Irish government had created some clarity and clear structures to guarantee our neutrality then there wouldnt have been a problem.
and on a large scale i understand your democracy point (one dissent stops progress).
but i do think progress should not be pushed ahead when there is widespread dissent in the ranks.
Yes the goverments have agreed it, including France and Holland - but when those countries were offered the same deal in referendum they rejected it too.
acceptance of this among the populations is not equivalent to governmental unity on the issue
Sure it's good for you... you're Italian... whatever way your country votes is worth 29 votes (I think you're one of the big ones?) Our vote is 7. Basically, your countrys voice is worth 4 times the voice of mine.
I see absolutely nothing selfish in what I'm trying to say here. I LIVE, work and breathe in Ireland... of course I'm going to put our immediate needs before any other country. The treaty does NOT say Ireland will LOSE our neutrality... the government is trying to tell us that we will NOT... but the simple fact is that for NOW we will not, but any future decisions on that will be up to our government... that could be in a month, it could be in 10 years, it may never happen... but why should we give up our RIGHT to vote on it that we fought so hard to win? I really don't see why you think I should just ignore that loophole and vote for the good of Europe?
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Corruption and other issues might not be the reason for you but might be for other people.
Again, it is your assumption based on what the ECJ might do that Ireland neutrality will be taken away with this Treaty. So far no evidence.
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html
'In addition, at least four Member States must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just 3 of the larger Member States acting together.
If there are fewer than 4 Member States opposed to a decision then the qualified majority will be deemed to have been reached even if the population criterion is not met.'
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
well, the whole issue is whether you trust the masses to really understand what's at stake, taking into account national interests and issues, wider geo-political considerations and on the other hand, how you can have validation for new institutions created from above such as the EU [it was a government decision to create it in 1956.] That's how you explain the drive for a stronger EU parliament.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
ha, thats all fine & dandy BUT....
you didnt answer my question.
If you had the opportunity to vote on a Treaty which purports to guarantee a right, but doesnt explain how, and also erradicates that right from your national constitution, WOULD U VOTE FOR THAT?
put your money where your mouth is.
My assumption is based on having studied law, and knowing that nothing is guaranteed unless its in writing, and theres nothing express or specific about the terms of this treaty.
Alternatively, can you explain to me How the ECJ can uphold a right when there are no specific provisions for it to do so?
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you