Lisbon Treaty?

Carlos D

JordyWordy wrote:

what college is that? havent seen those posters myself, but thats mad!

NUI Maynooth.The posters are done by Fine Gael

http://yfg.ie/modules.php?set_albumName=album21&id=Lisbon_female&op=modload&name=NS-gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php
http://yfg.ie/modules.php?set_albumName=album21&id=Lisbon_male&op=modload&name=NS-gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

I think the whole campaign of not explaining the treaty to us and just urging us to vote because they know what's best smacks of something sinister.WE decide in this case what's best,not the government.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

That's my point - everyone can have their say and ensure their interests are heard and safeguarded. There are different mechanisms. It's not just politicians. And the EU is comprised of the Parliament, the Council, the Commission. Why do you think it would be more difficult to go to the European Court of Justice than a national court to hear your case?

Taking cases to the european courts requires more finances, thats why its more difficult.

Our (Irish People's) interest are safeguarded by the Irish Constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann). For The Lisbon Treaty to be legally effective in Ireland requires changing our national Constitution...this referendum is not being held by the government here by choice - they have to do it for the Treaty to be legal here.

I have no problem with the structure of the EU or the idea of a European Constitution - but why is there so little information about this? the Irish government have legal duty to inform both the positive and negative sides of a vote. for the second referendum on Nice Treaty there was very accurate information available. For this referendum there is very little ACCURATE or SPECIFIC information available.

The information says our neutrality will be maintained, but provides no answers as to how they will do it as far as i can see. (it just talks in buzz-words - no hard evidence or structures of processes).

If this Treaty leads to a situation where the EU can require Ireland to assist other nations in wartime then it will have overridden our national constitution which states we are a neutral nation.

Make sense?

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

It had a huge political impact, and the implications could have been pretty severe, hence second try with the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty seems to be the same document with a different name. If Holland and France rejected the old one, why so few changes in the new one?

lgt wrote:

And no referendum except for Ireland, which holds the fate of this treaty because if the No wins this Treaty will have to be rejected thus one country deciding for all. And it was the Irish government to decide for a referendum, no EU imposition.

Irish Constitution requires it. Not the government. The Government here want it to succeed - holding a referendum is making this more difficult for them! not their choice!

JordyWordy

Carlos D wrote:

NUI Maynooth.The posters are done by Fine Gael

http://yfg.ie/modules.php?set_albumName=album21&id=Lisbon_female&op=modload&name=NS-gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php
http://yfg.ie/modules.php?set_albumName=album21&id=Lisbon_male&op=modload&name=NS-gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

I think the whole campaign of not explaining the treaty to us and just urging us to vote because they know what's best smacks of something sinister.WE decide in this case what's best,not the government.

wow, thats a weird and dodgy angle to take. i wonder what genius thought those posters were a good idea, aswell as not providing any information - especially after the whole Nice episode?

i havent seen any posters of notice at all for it on campus here (UCD), which is strange too. maybe its there, but it sure aint noticeable if it is!

Rhinocerous Surprise

Carlos D wrote:

NUI Maynooth.The posters are done by Fine Gael

http://yfg.ie/modules.php?set_albumName=album21&id=Lisbon_female&op=modload&name=NS-gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php
http://yfg.ie/modules.php?set_albumName=album21&id=Lisbon_male&op=modload&name=NS-gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

I think the whole campaign of not explaining the treaty to us and just urging us to vote because they know what's best smacks of something sinister.WE decide in this case what's best,not the government.

It was getting one of those impossibly patronising leaflets that made me want to look deeper into the Lisbon Treaty, only to find that our government's doing a good job of obscuring the issue. A firm "No" vote from me and the rest of my family.

Cosmo

Lisbions need treaties?

Kann

JordyWordy wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty seems to be the same document with a different name. If Holland and France rejected the old one, why so few changes in the new one?



Irish Constitution requires it. Not the government. The Government here want it to succeed - holding a referendum is making this more difficult for them! not their choice!

Because the previous one was called a "constitution" and for some countries (france and holland for instance) a referendum was mandatory. With this treaty congressmen can vote it without asking the people. This is the most shameless antidemocratic shit that our parliament pulled on us. The people reject the first version so they come up with a new one that doesn't need popular vote.
So if you do have the opportunity to vote for it, please remember that diluting democracy is not a good idea.

JordyWordy

Kann wrote:

Because the previous one was called a "constitution" and for some countries (france and holland for instance) a referendum was mandatory. With this treaty congressmen can vote it without asking the people. This is the most shameless antidemocratic shit that our parliament pulled on us. The people reject the first version so they come up with a new one that doesn't need popular vote.
So if you do have the opportunity to vote for it, please remember that diluting democracy is not a good idea.

very well put. that was kinda my point...i was responding to (what i thought was) a suggestion that this treaty is realistically changed from constitution....except its really just a legal loophole to achieve the same result as the constitution.

i started out this thread not seeing the problem with the Treaty, and the more i read the more i dont like it

it really is crazy how theyre trying to hide what theyre doing.

"diluting democracy" - i like that phrase

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Hi Helen,

Why would you want to get out of Europe when Ireland has been one of the key success stories of the European Union and has benefited so much from the funding and EU budget?

You still have a say on the European Union by electing representatives to the European Parliament. Your voice can be heard through them. You delegate power to your Irish Parliament representative and to your Irish European Parliament representative. If you do not approve of their conduct and voting record, you cast your vote to someone else at the next election.

The Nice Treaty is mainly due to the enlargement towards eastern Europe and how you can make decision with 20 plus countries all carrying veto power, regardless of size, population, etc. It's a move towards qualified-majority voting, without creating a two-speed Europe, thereby alienating even more the smaller countries.

Hope this makes sense! [am in a rush!]

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

Heineken Helen

Carlos D wrote:

I'm voting no.Yes the EU's done a lot for us,it doesn't mean we've to give them total power over us though.

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?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen

JordyWordy wrote:

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

lgt

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.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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!

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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?

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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....

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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.