Lisbon Treaty?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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. .

But you have said yourself that a good thing about voting yes is that there will be no more national votes to slow things down... that's far from a misconception. And yes, I realise I won't be doing you a favour... however it is MY vote... and your trying to persuade me to vote for europe against my own better judgement is persuading me even further to the contrary I'm afraid . Having had the chance to debate my points I've realised how much of a blatent scam it is and it actually kinda infuriates me.

lgt wrote:

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. .

That's a good point... however it's also a very very valid reason to vote against your government when they haven't been doing well. The government are championing a yes vote... our government are shit... so therefore I should vote against what they want... you can't deny it makes sense. However, I do get the impression from everyone I speak to that people genuinely DO want to be informed. I know nobody who takes their vote lightly.

lgt wrote:

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. .

So why does Poland have 27 votes? Are they one of the major contributors? I thought they're one of the poorest. So that too would be another reason I would vote against... it's all well and good saying it's a great idea when you're country has the most votes.

lgt wrote:

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

Globalisation scares me! I have a very strong sense of national identity and I don't feel the need to surrender that. I just think globalisation makes the rich richer, holds back the poor and makes society in general a less nicer thing to be a part of. But that's just my opinion... based on the changes I've noticed in the world.

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.

You said it yourself... one cannot predict the future. That's the simple point I'm trying to make. You also bring up the point of foreign policy... that is the bigger picture I feel is behind all of this. I just don't want to be a part of it. I think the EU has served its current purpose... the future is a defensive one, to actually compete with America... and I don't want to have anything to do with any of it. Of course, I am merely speaking of potential implications FAR down the line... but anything that's possible certainly can't be ruled out.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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?

June... I think the 12th

They made the exact same mistake with the Nice treaty. No information so people voted no. They were much more careful the second time around. People just wanna know what the fuck we're voting for and not feel like somebody somewhere is trying to fool us.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

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...

It's hard to explain... we've actually been outright TOLD by all kinds of people in power that our neutrality is not at risk at all... in order to get people to vote yes. However, I for one, can't find ANYWHERE it says that! If someone were to point it out to me, fine! But there really are a hell of a lot of chancers trying to fool people into a yes vote with FALSE information. It just seems like an outright lie to me... there is nowhere in the constitution where it would be safeguarded.

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

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.

well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.

The guarantee will be the ECJ.

Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?

What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?

I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.

The guarantee will be the ECJ.

Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?

What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?

I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...

Right now, it's in our constitution that the Irish people have to vote to get rid of our neutrality. I don't see that happening anytime soon - Irish people have enough to be worried about without fighting someone else's war. So putting it in the hands of our government, trusting them to uphold it, would be ridiculous. It's safe as it is.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.

The guarantee will be the ECJ.

Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?

What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?

I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...

so we simply take their word that it WILL be in the lisbon treaty... when it's not IN the lisbon treaty?

And again, IF it will be in the Lisbon treaty it will be at the discretion of our government, who have been fickle about it in the past. not to be patronising, but the fact that you undermine the importance of this suggests you do not understand the importance of this to the Irish people... and it's hugely important to us! It's quite a big bit of what we stand for.

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

well then, exactly. Irish neutrality will be in the Lisbon Treaty.

The guarantee will be the ECJ.

Why would that be less of a guarantee for you than the fact the Irish neutrality is not actually in your own constitution but must be preserved by your own government?

What if your fellow country men elected a parliament and government that will not uphold neutrality?

I struggle to see why one case is more of a guarantee than the other...

No. You're wrong there. The summaries, and reports and politicians say the guarantee is in the Treaty, but when you read the Treaty, it is not there!!!!

The guarantee should be a written sentence in the Treaty explaining HOW it will be protected. THERE IS NO SUCH SENTENCE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

if i could see it, id be happy to vote for it..

Heres an example. If there was no law written down in Italy saying stealing is illegal, then the courts would (technically) not have to protect the victims of stealing.

THE ECJ SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CREATE THE LAW OR MECHANISM OF THE PROTECTION.
(EU Parliaments/Councils/Commission/etc write laws, EU Courts interperet them)


and for your last point:
Neutrality has been an established policy here for over 90 years (since independence). The chance of Irish people changing that is minimal. With Lisbon, the chance seems to be higher

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

But you have said yourself that a good thing about voting yes is that there will be no more national votes to slow things down... that's far from a misconception. And yes, I realise I won't be doing you a favour... however it is MY vote... and your trying to persuade me to vote for europe against my own better judgement is persuading me even further to the contrary I'm afraid . Having had the chance to debate my points I've realised how much of a blatent scam it is and it actually kinda infuriates me.

The misconception is that you're giving power to Europe, some undefined entity. With this treaty you will actually be giving yourself as EU citizen more power because the European Parliament will have stronger powers. Otherwise, decision-making has always been made by the Council, the voice of the national elected governments and the EU Commission, which even though it favoured a more collaborative agenda was still appointed by governments, not directly by citizens.

Heineken Helen wrote:

That's a good point... however it's also a very very valid reason to vote against your government when they haven't been doing well. The government are championing a yes vote... our government are shit... so therefore I should vote against what they want... you can't deny it makes sense. However, I do get the impression from everyone I speak to that people genuinely DO want to be informed. I know nobody who takes their vote lightly.

But that's not what the referendum is about. Why mixing these issues up? That does not make sense to me. You have political election to air your grievances for what your local or central administration have been doing. This is a European issue. And therein lies the danger.

Can you not contact your local MEP about your concerns? It'd be interesting to see what they say.

Heineken Helen wrote:

So why does Poland have 27 votes? Are they one of the major contributors? I thought they're one of the poorest. So that too would be another reason I would vote against... it's all well and good saying it's a great idea when you're country has the most votes.

They're one of the bigger states in population. And that's why majority voting will help, otherwise one veto and that's it. Deadlock.

Heineken Helen wrote:

Globalisation scares me! I have a very strong sense of national identity and I don't feel the need to surrender that. I just think globalisation makes the rich richer, holds back the poor and makes society in general a less nicer thing to be a part of. But that's just my opinion... based on the changes I've noticed in the world.

One doesn't preclude the other though. You cannot roll back globalisation but you can mitigate its worst effects. The question is how. Do you think isolating Ireland will do that? Will it leave the eurozone as well?

Heineken Helen wrote:

You said it yourself... one cannot predict the future. That's the simple point I'm trying to make. You also bring up the point of foreign policy... that is the bigger picture I feel is behind all of this. I just don't want to be a part of it. I think the EU has served its current purpose... the future is a defensive one, to actually compete with America... and I don't want to have anything to do with any of it. Of course, I am merely speaking of potential implications FAR down the line... but anything that's possible certainly can't be ruled out.

But a common EU voice, or as common as possible in the world stage vis-a-vis the US and the UK can only be beneficial. Consider also that China and India are becoming major players and Russia is not so much dormant nowadays considering what's happened with the gas supply, etc. So a less belligerant voice should be welcome.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Well that was nothing if not unanimous.:p

Umm... the three Irish posts about neutrality. LGT posted as I was typing.:o

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

so we simply take their word that it WILL be in the lisbon treaty... when it's not IN the lisbon treaty?

And again, IF it will be in the Lisbon treaty it will be at the discretion of our government, who have been fickle about it in the past. not to be patronising, but the fact that you undermine the importance of this suggests you do not understand the importance of this to the Irish people... and it's hugely important to us! It's quite a big bit of what we stand for.

???

how am I undermining the importance of neutrality???

Also, first it's been said that neutrality will be guaranteed in the Lisbon Treaty, now it's not??

Which is which?

Heineken Helen

JordyWordy wrote:

if i could see it, id be happy to vote for it..

If I could see a statement that guarantees Irish neutrality will NOT be changed without an Irish referendum, I would probably be inclined to reconsider my stance too. Until it's there though, there's nothing would make me change my mind.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

???

how am I undermining the importance of neutrality???

Also, first it's been said that neutrality will be guaranteed in the Lisbon Treaty, now it's not??

Which is which?

I've never said it was there... what I said was we've been TOLD Irish neutrality is fine... by plenty of politicians, but I've just yesterday discovered that it's actually not. My claim all along is that Irish neutrality is not safe with this treaty, cos I can't find any mention of it in there, and that hasn't changed.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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.

Ok, so Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty.

And Irish neutrality is inscribed in the Irish constitution.

Is this correct?

So, nowadays if the Irish government wants to change the constitution to abolish neutrality it will have to hold a referendum.

But you're saying that in the Lisbon treaty it says that the Irish government does not need to hold a referendum on the issue of neutrality and they can revoke it like that.

Do you have a source for this claim?

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

???

how am I undermining the importance of neutrality???

Also, first it's been said that neutrality will be guaranteed in the Lisbon Treaty, now it's not??

Which is which?

you undermine the importance of neutrality by suggesting that a no vote on this basis is selfish and that it suggests we don't care about the needier countries. We do care but we're not sacrificing our neutrality to prove that we care... and there's absolutely no reason why we should either. A very simple paragraph stating that Irish neutrality can only be changed by an Irish referendum would completely change this. It's been clear since Nice Treaty part 1 that it would be a major issue in order for us to accept anything. They've had years now to rectify it and make it clear and yet there's nothing at all there.

lgt

JordyWordy wrote:

No. You're wrong there. The summaries, and reports and politicians say the guarantee is in the Treaty, but when you read the Treaty, it is not there!!!!

The guarantee should be a written sentence in the Treaty explaining HOW it will be protected. THERE IS NO SUCH SENTENCE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.

if i could see it, id be happy to vote for it..

Heres an example. If there was no law written down in Italy saying stealing is illegal, then the courts would (technically) not have to protect the victims of stealing.

THE ECJ SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CREATE THE LAW OR MECHANISM OF THE PROTECTION.
(EU Parliaments/Councils/Commission/etc write laws, EU Courts interperet them)


and for your last point:
Neutrality has been an established policy here for over 90 years (since independence). The chance of Irish people changing that is minimal. With Lisbon, the chance seems to be higher

You're contradicting yourself.... You claim that Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon Treaty then it is not there.

The guarantee is implicit in the EU institutions. Before I told you that the ECJ upholds the EU treaty and EU law so if it is enshrined in the Lisbon treaty Irish neutrality is safe.

Where did you find this??

Heres an example. If there was no law written down in Italy saying stealing is illegal, then the courts would (technically) not have to protect the victims of stealing.

THE ECJ SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CREATE THE LAW OR MECHANISM OF THE PROTECTION.
(EU Parliaments/Councils/Commission/etc write laws, EU Courts interperet them)

I have never said that the ECJ has to create laws!!! It protects them by providing interpretation and ruling in favour and against and thereby upholding current EU law. Creating laws is the responsibility of national parliament and the EU parliament can create legislation.

Therefore the ECJ will protect, safeguard the Irish neutrality clause if it's there.

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

you undermine the importance of neutrality by suggesting that a no vote on this basis is selfish and that it suggests we don't care about the needier countries. We do care but we're not sacrificing our neutrality to prove that we care... and there's absolutely no reason why we should either. A very simple paragraph stating that Irish neutrality can only be changed by an Irish referendum would completely change this. It's been clear since Nice Treaty part 1 that it would be a major issue in order for us to accept anything. They've had years now to rectify it and make it clear and yet there's nothing at all there.

No, my point about selfishness was not specifically related to neutrality but in general to issues of national interests [it could be neutrality for Ireland, the CAP for France, whatever] compared to the wider interests of the European project, which includes all countries, needier or not needier.

I have not dismissed the issue of neutrality for Ireland. I actually tried to understand it trying to discuss it with you guys.

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

Ok, so Irish neutrality is guaranteed in the Lisbon treaty.

And Irish neutrality is inscribed in the Irish constitution.

Is this correct?

So, nowadays if the Irish government wants to change the constitution to abolish neutrality it will have to hold a referendum.

But you're saying that in the Lisbon treaty it says that the Irish government does not need to hold a referendum on the issue of neutrality and they can revoke it like that.

Do you have a source for this claim?

There's a difference between the Lisbon Treaty not specifically taking away our neutrality, and specifically guaranteeing it. From what I understand - and I'll openly admit I'm not as clued in as Jordy Wordy - it simply grants our government the option of discarding it if/when they want, without throwing it to a referendum. I think this was all discussed on the first page really - I'm sorta redundant here.:p

lgt

The issue is that it preserves Irish neutrality but without specifying how it is guaranteed.

What I don't understand is where it says that the Irish government can do away with neutrality even if it is in the Irish constitution? Is this an assumption/fear or is it actually written in the Treaty as a possible scenario?

BTW, how is peace-keeping justified with Irish neutrality? Is that even an issue?

JordyWordy

lgt wrote:

The issue is that it preserves Irish neutrality but without specifying how it is guaranteed.

What I don't understand is where it says that the Irish government can do away with neutrality even if it is in the Irish constitution? Is this an assumption/fear or is it actually written in the Treaty as a possible scenario?

BTW, how is peace-keeping justified with Irish neutrality? Is that even an issue?

It is an issue. It is controversial for some people in Ireland: theres a group called PANA that are very opposed to it. But i think politicians justify it on the ground that it is done in attempts to avoid conflict, not take sides in one, (i.e. usually only done for UN missions).

JordyWordy

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

There's a difference between the Lisbon Treaty not specifically taking away our neutrality, and specifically guaranteeing it. From what I understand - and I'll openly admit I'm not as clued in as Jordy Wordy - it simply grants our government the option of discarding it if/when they want, without throwing it to a referendum. I think this was all discussed on the first page really - I'm sorta redundant here.:p

im not really that clued in, I just like to sound like i am!