Lisbon Treaty?

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

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.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

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?

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

now youre getting 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.

JordyWordy

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.]

EU citizens will have more of a say? Really? the issue for us is that we will have less of a say!

lgt wrote:

A referendum per se is not the measure of democracy.

it is the most direct measure of democracy. more accurate than say, political representation on a multi-national organisation?

lgt wrote:

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?

lgt wrote:

The means to actualise it, was different.

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?

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

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?

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

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.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

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

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?

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

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

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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.

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

EU citizens will have more of a say? Really? the issue for us is that we will have less of a say!

How will they have less of a say?? Because you're delegating Irish power to Europe??

JordyWordy wrote:

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.

JordyWordy wrote:

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.

JordyWordy wrote:

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?

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

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?

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.

Heineken Helen

sorry here's the info that I didn't have time to post earlier with regard to a veto:

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.'

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

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.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

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?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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.