Lisbon Treaty?

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

Of course, I am not assuming everyone is a Euro enthusiast and want closer union! The facts are though that citizens THROUGH their elected representatives in government are for closer integration with the Lisbon Treaty. Selfish is the interest of one nation contrasted to the other interests of the member states. Selfish means withholding the greater good for one particular need that benefits only one country/individual, etc. So it is selfish.

Whether you have trust in politicians, that's another issue.

Heineken Helen wrote:

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..

Yes, Italy is one of the big country and a founding member states. This is not the issue. The issue is fair representation. The veto is increasingly not in such a big union.

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

isn't this a contradiction? saying it's not selfish and then claiming you are going to put your country needs first? How is that not selfish from a European perspective?!

Heineken Helen wrote:

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?

You are assuming what's going to happen in the future with no basis in the past though. As I was saying to JordyWordy the ECJ responsibility to uphold EU treaties. Not the Irish government. So you have to extend the issue of trust/mistrust to bureacrats, judges etc etc.

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

So you're claiming it would be better for individual citizens should vote on any single EU issue and do without the European parliament?

What's voters' participation in Ireland? trend are for more apathy in citizens.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.'

Ok, so this is about qualified majority voting... not vetoes. In your earlier posts you mentioned the need for 4 vetoes.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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?

No danger for the UK to be running Europe!!!

How is central Europe choosing for Ireland??? Ireland could still make voting coalition with other states if they agree on the issue. Otherwise, why would the rest of Europe go with what Ireland decides with vetos and referenda?

You see, how you can turn the argument??

Qualified majority voting provides a fairer system for ALL. Not just one country or a few. If you do not find other states that agree on a certain issue, well majority rules, and that's democracy.

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

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?

Because your question omits that in these circumstances the right will be guaranteed because of the mere existence of the ECJ. The ECJ will uphold that right because it will be inscribed in the treaty.

You say you've studied law. Then could you find me an example where the ECJ in its history have ruled against EU treaties and law.

If you cannot you're making a BIG assumption on your neutrality clause not being respected by the EU.

Conversely, how is the neutrality principle in the Irish constitution guaranteed?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Of course, I am not assuming everyone is a Euro enthusiast and want closer union! The facts are though that citizens THROUGH their elected representatives in government are for closer integration with the Lisbon Treaty. Selfish is the interest of one nation contrasted to the other interests of the member states. Selfish means withholding the greater good for one particular need that benefits only one country/individual, etc. So it is selfish.

Whether you have trust in politicians, that's another issue. .

Ok, well then I no longer care if it's selfish or not... although I do believe I'm doing everyone a favour... cos I said it's NOT just the issue of neutrality... EVERYTHING will be taken out of our hands. It's also not about trust... although I wouldn't trust an aquaintance with these issues... why should I trust a bunch of people I've never met and have nothing in common with my life?

Besides you keep suggesting that it's corruption in Irish politics that lead me to feel this way. Perhaps it is... but wasn't there also quite a few scandals in Italian politics? Corruption amongst politicians isn't unique to Ireland.... but better the devil you know, eh?

lgt wrote:

Yes, Italy is one of the big country and a founding member states. This is not the issue. The issue is fair representation. The veto is increasingly not in such a big union..

why is that suddenly not the issue? It is AN issue... obviously not THE issue but it's easy for YOU to say it's not the issue you're the one with the 29 votes.

lgt wrote:

sn't this a contradiction? saying it's not selfish and then claiming you are going to put your country needs first? How is that not selfish from a European perspective?!.

Selfish would be if I were doing it for my OWN needs... but no, I'm voting no for every Irish person and for every european person who wants to vote no but won't get the opportunity to do so. From a globalisation point of view, the situation they are trying to force on us basically scares the shit out of me.

lgt wrote:

You are assuming what's going to happen in the future with no basis in the past though. As I was saying to JordyWordy the ECJ responsibility to uphold EU treaties. Not the Irish government. So you have to extend the issue of trust/mistrust to bureacrats, judges etc etc..

The ECJ is still just run by people... people change... the world changes. We've seen America as a fantastic example of why we do not need to give politicians more power. they're doing the same thing to us that they've done on the americans... scare us into handing them the power and tell us it's all for the good of the poor starving eastern europeans.

lgt wrote:

So you're claiming it would be better for individual citizens should vote on any single EU issue and do without the European parliament?

What's voters' participation in Ireland? trend are for more apathy in citizens.

I'm suggesting that every country has the opportunity that we have... that they can choose for themselves!

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

Helen, why would you wait for politicians to provide you with the information? whichever side you'll hear will be biased anyway. Propaganda. You should read as much as possible then make your own mind and decision.

Isn't that a contradiction though? You don't trust your government and politicians but then you want them to provide you with the information about the issues?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

No danger for the UK to be running Europe!!!

How is central Europe choosing for Ireland??? Ireland could still make voting coalition with other states if they agree on the issue. Otherwise, why would the rest of Europe go with what Ireland decides with vetos and referenda?

You see, how you can turn the argument??

Qualified majority voting provides a fairer system for ALL. Not just one country or a few. If you do not find other states that agree on a certain issue, well majority rules, and that's democracy.

Hmm... yes, we've all seen from the eurovision how block voting is a GREAT advantage to western europe :rolleyes:

France, Germany, Italy and the UK... add Spain and Poland to that and that's almost 200 votes out of 255 needed... 6 countries out of the 27 control well over half of the ENTIRE votes :eek: that's just asking for all kinds of trouble!

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Because your question omits that in these circumstances the right will be guaranteed because of the mere existence of the ECJ. The ECJ will uphold that right because it will be inscribed in the treaty.

You say you've studied law. Then could you find me an example where the ECJ in its history have ruled against EU treaties and law.

If you cannot you're making a BIG assumption on your neutrality clause not being respected by the EU.

Conversely, how is the neutrality principle in the Irish constitution guaranteed?

You don't understand... it does not actually SAY in the treaty ANYWHERE that the Irish neutrality is protected. It says we can decide if, and when, a decision like that should need to be made. However what they don't tell us is that if we vote yes, it will be our politicians making the decision FOR us.

Irish neutrality is a BIG thing in our constitution and always has been!

Nobody's saying the ECJ will or would break any agreements in the treaty. They wouldn't have to cos there's very little if nothing MAKING them break anything

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

Helen, why would you wait for politicians to provide you with the information? whichever side you'll hear will be biased anyway. Propaganda. You should read as much as possible then make your own mind and decision.

Isn't that a contradiction though? You don't trust your government and politicians but then you want them to provide you with the information about the issues?

oh no, I agree completely... what I'm saying is if THEY want us to vote yes... like they keep telling us we SHOULD, perhaps they should try telling the people WHY. That's why I was reading up on it, cos everyone's at a loss as to what the hell we're actually voting FOR. I haven't seen any leaflets... not everybody has internet access either. its easy for me but lots of people have no access to internet.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

Because your question omits that in these circumstances the right will be guaranteed because of the mere existence of the ECJ. The ECJ will uphold that right because it will be inscribed in the treaty.

You say you've studied law. Then could you find me an example where the ECJ in its history have ruled against EU treaties and law.

If you cannot you're making a BIG assumption on your neutrality clause not being respected by the EU.

Conversely, how is the neutrality principle in the Irish constitution guaranteed?

As for specific examples of cases i cant give you any because i studied it 2 years ago. But "ruling against the treaties" is not what i said - if the clause is not even in the treaty then the ECJ cannot rule against it.

If the clause is in the Treaty then i would be happy to vote for it. BUT ive spent some time looking for it and dont see any evidence of it.

Irish people may need the (neutral) information provided because Ireland already has some "opt-outs" in the area of the Policing Pillar of the EU, and Ireland has not joined the Schegen border controls agreement...it would be nice to see what happens to these if we vote yes. its very technical and hard to understand, even courts do not expect the majority of people to understand complicated EU Treaties. This is why the government here has to supply unbiased information to the people before a referendum.

Overall, I think you're right about EU being about more countries benefitting from each other etc and , apart from the issues around neutrality - i have NO problems with the rest of it.




Once i can see something that clearly says neutrality will not be affected, ill be happy. But i cant find that anywhere. thats just me

JordyWordy

Neutrality isnt specifically protected in our constitution, but the constitution was drafted by a government that supported neutrality so Neutrality features in it and is suggested in it.

The government has voted to defend neutrality here before, ie (WW2). But how or whether the government will defend neutrality under the new Treaty hasnt been explained by the government yet and thats very off-putting for people.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

Ok, well then I no longer care if it's selfish or not... although I do believe I'm doing everyone a favour... cos I said it's NOT just the issue of neutrality... EVERYTHING will be taken out of our hands. It's also not about trust... although I wouldn't trust an aquaintance with these issues... why should I trust a bunch of people I've never met and have nothing in common with my life?

Well, I can assure you that you won't be doing THIS European citizen a favour! [if it wasn't clear enough! ]

That's the misconception - that everything will be taken out of your hands.

Heineken Helen wrote:

Besides you keep suggesting that it's corruption in Irish politics that lead me to feel this way. Perhaps it is... but wasn't there also quite a few scandals in Italian politics? Corruption amongst politicians isn't unique to Ireland.... but better the devil you know, eh?

I mentioned corruption [topical with the resignation of Aherne - not allusion that it's more endemic to Ireland!] and other issues as an example of considerations that voters may have when casting their ballots, ie the opportunity to have a say about national grievances even if the vote is about European issues. That happened in the Netherlands and France, and it is quite common. It's happening now in the British local elections. Voters using their votes against the national government even if their local council has performed well.

Heineken Helen wrote:

why is that suddenly not the issue? It is AN issue... obviously not THE issue but it's easy for YOU to say it's not the issue you're the one with the 29 votes.

Italy having more votes than Ireland is not the issue for me. Of course, it's fair that bigger states have more votes. Germany or Italy or France are bigger states, with bigger economies, populations than the smaller states bigger budget contributions too, btw. The issue is whether to increase qualified majority voting rather than sticking with country veto.

Heineken Helen wrote:

Selfish would be if I were doing it for my OWN needs... but no, I'm voting no for every Irish person and for every european person who wants to vote no but won't get the opportunity to do so.
From a globalisation point of view, the situation they are trying to force on us basically scares the shit out of me. The ECJ is still just run by people... people change... the world changes. We've seen America as a fantastic example of why we do not need to give politicians more power. they're doing the same thing to us that they've done on the americans... scare us into handing them the power and tell us it's all for the good of the poor starving eastern europeans. I'm suggesting that every country has the opportunity that we have... that they can choose for themselves!

What is it that scare you? Do you think Ireland will fare better on its own in an age of increasing globalisation?

The ECJ upholds the rule of law against non conformity of the Treaty. It is a guarantee for citizens. Of course, one cannot predict the future. But to be honest, the stronger Europe voice gets on the world stage the better it will be, to provide an alternative view. Whether that's going to happen... it's highly unlikely. In foreign policy, as past years have shown, you still have the UK going on its own, against the EU, but following the US lead.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

Hmm... yes, we've all seen from the eurovision how block voting is a GREAT advantage to western europe :rolleyes:

France, Germany, Italy and the UK... add Spain and Poland to that and that's almost 200 votes out of 255 needed... 6 countries out of the 27 control well over half of the ENTIRE votes :eek: that's just asking for all kinds of trouble!

You never know! 21 countries could forge alliances still. Plus, the UK really is the black sheep, as it were. It's always been France and Germany and Italy the engine of European integration, but in the current political climate there won't be much drive towards it.

Heineken Helen

JordyWordy wrote:

The government has voted to defend neutrality here before, ie (WW2). But how or whether the government will defend neutrality under the new Treaty hasnt been explained by the government yet and thats very off-putting for people.

especially considering how Bertie and his government didn't seem to respect our neutrality very much either. I think he even said at one stage something about how we're only neutral cos we say we are.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

You don't understand... it does not actually SAY in the treaty ANYWHERE that the Irish neutrality is protected. It says we can decide if, and when, a decision like that should need to be made. However what they don't tell us is that if we vote yes, it will be our politicians making the decision FOR us.

Irish neutrality is a BIG thing in our constitution and always has been!

Nobody's saying the ECJ will or would break any agreements in the treaty. They wouldn't have to cos there's very little if nothing MAKING them break anything

Wait, I thought JordyWordy said that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty but not specified how it will be and that's why the panic that it could not be respected in future years.

I'm confused...

let me do a quick search. gee, I should be doing some work instead!!

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

oh no, I agree completely... what I'm saying is if THEY want us to vote yes... like they keep telling us we SHOULD, perhaps they should try telling the people WHY. That's why I was reading up on it, cos everyone's at a loss as to what the hell we're actually voting FOR. I haven't seen any leaflets... not everybody has internet access either. its easy for me but lots of people have no access to internet.

Looks like the Irish government will score a own goal then. You can tell information has not been comprehensive nor effective.

When do you guys vote?

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

Wait, I thought JordyWordy said that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty but not specified how it will be and that's why the panic that it could not be respected in future years.

I'm confused...

let me do a quick search. gee, I should be doing some work instead!!

From what I gather, the Lisbon Treaty doesn't take away Ireland's neutrality.

However, it does take away the need for the Irish government to hold a referendum if the topic of losing our neutrality comes up. And I think I speak for most Irish people when I say I don't trust ANY government with that kind of decision.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

What is it that scare you? Do you think Ireland will fare better on its own in an age of increasing globalisation?

To be fair, Ireland is one of the most open, unregulated markets on earth.

lgt wrote:

The ECJ upholds the rule of law against non conformity of the Treaty. It is a guarantee for citizens. Of course, one cannot predict the future. But to be honest, the stronger Europe voice gets on the world stage the better it will be, to provide an alternative view. Whether that's going to happen... it's highly unlikely. In foreign policy, as past years have shown, you still have the UK going on its own, against the EU, but following the US lead.

Very true about the UK.
Again, like Rhinocerous said, the problem is that the government could be able to decide for itself, without asking the people.
Surely there is a way for this to be avoided?

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

As for specific examples of cases i cant give you any because i studied it 2 years ago. But "ruling against the treaties" is not what i said - if the clause is not even in the treaty then the ECJ cannot rule against it.

If the clause is in the Treaty then i would be happy to vote for it. BUT ive spent some time looking for it and dont see any evidence of it.

Irish people may need the (neutral) information provided because Ireland already has some "opt-outs" in the area of the Policing Pillar of the EU, and Ireland has not joined the Schegen border controls agreement...it would be nice to see what happens to these if we vote yes. its very technical and hard to understand, even courts do not expect the majority of people to understand complicated EU Treaties. This is why the government here has to supply unbiased information to the people before a referendum.

Overall, I think you're right about EU being about more countries benefitting from each other etc and , apart from the issues around neutrality - i have NO problems with the rest of it.




Once i can see something that clearly says neutrality will not be affected, ill be happy. But i cant find that anywhere. thats just me

Wait, you said earlier on that "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.

and that's why I dragged the ECJ into it by explaining that since its duty is to uphold EU law and conformity to the treaty this should provide you with reason/relief that Irish neutrality will be safeguarded.

have you guys read the source first of all? The EU website?

here's a link:

Q&A on the treaty

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm

Treaty at a glance:

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm

Looks like the Irish neutrality issue has been the key topic for the No side...

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

Wait, I thought JordyWordy said that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty but not specified how it will be and that's why the panic that it could not be respected in future years.

I'm confused...

let me do a quick search. gee, I should be doing some work instead!!

Kind of. I said that the Lisbon Treaty *claims* to guarantee Irish neutrality. But doesnt explain how.

It doesnt sound like a guarantee to me.