Next EU Treaty - how will you vote?

[culloty82]

Judging by Sarkozy yesterday and Merkel today, we can expect a new EU treaty regarding the eurozone from next Friday's summit - but are there any proposals that we could actually vote Yes to? Certainly, no-one wants to see the euro collapse, but allowing greater external control over national budgets and possibly ceding control over taxation would be a step too far even for supporters of the EU.

[BonnieShels]

Big fat no. And our govt. Need to start copping on and realising that we should accept no more of this crap.

[mypost]

We won't get to vote in the first place. Lisbon is the bible we live under now, and it's self-amending, so basically they can do what they like.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Hard to see any EU/Euro related referendum getting passed in this country at this stage. There's a solid 20-25% who'll vote no regardless of what's proposed in whatever economic climate for reasons that go from far left to far right. That means a government sponsoring such an amendement requiring a supermajority of the votes hypothetically 'up for grabs'.

They'd have to impress the pants off me to get a yes vote and I'm traditionally favourably disposed in such matters.

[mypost]

As said before, you won't be consulted, so it's effectively a non-issue.

[Lionel Ritchie]

As said before, you won't be consulted, so it's effectively a non-issue.

I'll quote you on that then. Oh look I just have.

[bennocelt]

Agree with mypost, we had our chance in the Lisbon treaty, the politicians arent silly (well the Germans) in that they wont put this too the people. Sarzkozy going on about a uniform tax system again!!!

[culloty82]

I'm in much the same position as Lionel - I've always been pro-EU before now, voted Yes to Lisbon twice because it was mostly administrative and didn't affect our interests, but the reforms they're sugesting now come dangerous close to nation-state territory, where we'd be the Wyoming. It would have be a radically different EU before I'd vote Yes to anything being proposed.

[bennocelt]

I'm in much the same position as Lionel - I've always been pro-EU before now, voted Yes to Lisbon twice because it was mostly administrative and didn't affect our interests, but the reforms they're sugesting now come dangerous close to nation-state territory, where we'd be the Wyoming. It would have be a radically different EU before I'd vote Yes to anything being proposed.

But the fact we wont get to vote on the amendments does affect us then? I was aware from the Lisbon treaty that future amendments to the treaty didnt require any referendum - or was i wrong (we will see I guess)

[mypost]

There have been amendments made since Lisbon was passed here, none of which required a referendum, and so there wasn't one.

My understanding is that there is a proviso for holding one here, but it is merely "optional" rather than "compulsory", and because it's "optional" it won't be allowed to happen. Look at the reaction when Greece proposed a ref over the bailout. They were allowed to riot and strike alright, but actually make decisions on their future, that was going too far in Brussels' eyes. So the threats poured in, and were followed by the inevitable climbdown by the Greek PM.

That's how that lot operate. Threats and warnings should the public threaten to interfere in their way of doing business. They won't allow a referendum here, and they don't have to. Lisbon gives them that authority. After all, we need to be at the "heart of Europe", even though we're not allowed negotiate the new treaty, and "Europe has been good to us". We just have to accept it, whether we like it or not.

[Macy]

How can anyone decide before they bloody see the actual referendum, and associated treaty? And also how it's framed. If it's Yes to stay in the euro and eu, and no, leave the euro and the eu?

If it's setting the parameters and then giving the Government the room to work within that, I'm not sure how I'd vote. My inclination would be vote no, but there is some logic to the argument that we could've done with that oversight for the last 15 years ago, when our own muppets McCreevey, Cowen, Harney and Ahern were fecking blowing it.

As for getting your knickers in a knot about handing over external control of our budgets - did people miss the whole handing over economic sovereignty that the last Government did?

Finally, I don't think anyone is suggesting we won't need a referendum. Maybe the Government will try, but if they did it will certainly be in the supreme court - either through council of state referral or by someone challenging it. For what it's worth, I think they'll fudge the need for treaty change in the short term, and use other mechanisms for a few years. Then the referendum will be basically about continuing how we are.

If we do have a referendum, can we add "not needing referendums on treaty change" to conscription for an eu army, and abortion for all, to the lies the no side spouted on Lisbon 1 and 2?

[bennocelt]

Well we will see then!

[Lim till i die]

If we do have a referendum, can we add "not needing referendums on treaty change" to conscription for an eu army, and abortion for all, to the lies the no side spouted on Lisbon 1 and 2?

Neither side held the monopoly on lying during the Lisbon debates tbf:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/11/3946820635_8284b6e18b.jpg




I shall be voting No, no matter what it's about or how they frame it. If there's a government im again' it for the forseeable. :)

[Macy]

Neither side held the monopoly on lying during the Lisbon debates tbf:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/11/3946820635_8284b6e18b.jpg
Can we not just agree to shoot (the remaining) messenger?

[thebooboys]

People saying a referendum is not required are correct technically but Crotty Judgement of 1987 sets a precedent somewhat. The government would be advised to hold one or face legal challenge through High Court & Supreme Court. Politically speaking it would be political suicide to try and railroad this. If Lab/FG try to railroad this through I foresee government collapse, backbenchers fearing for seats won't have it.

[Charlie Darwin]

We won't get to vote in the first place. Lisbon is the bible we live under now, and it's self-amending, so basically they can do what they like.
This is nonsense. Yes, the Lisbon Treaty can be substantially amended without a referendum, but strictly speaking a referendum wasn't required to pass it to begin with. Ireland traditionally plays it safe and passes an amendment for all treaties that may impact the country's sovereignty and that will continue to be the case in future. Don't get me wrong, EU elites don't give a stuff about democracy and will push things through if ever possible, but that would be the case regardless of whether Lisbon had passed.

[bennocelt]

This is nonsense. Yes, the Lisbon Treaty can be substantially amended without a referendum, but strictly speaking a referendum wasn't required to pass it to begin with. Ireland traditionally plays it safe and passes an amendment for all treaties that may impact the country's sovereignty and that will continue to be the case in future. Don't get me wrong, EU elites don't give a stuff about democracy and will push things through if ever possible, but that would be the case regardless of whether Lisbon had passed.

?????

[Charlie Darwin]

You'll have to phrase that as a question, benno.

[mypost]

This is nonsense. Yes, the Lisbon Treaty can be substantially amended without a referendum, but strictly speaking a referendum wasn't required to pass it to begin with. Ireland traditionally plays it safe and passes an amendment for all treaties that may impact the country's sovereignty and that will continue to be the case in future. Don't get me wrong, EU elites don't give a stuff about democracy and will push things through if ever possible, but that would be the case regardless of whether Lisbon had passed.

The point is they won't have future refs, because they don't have to. The common consent was because of previous ones, a new one had to be held per treaty. Then Lisbon was passed, new rules apply, so what is in the EU Constitution overrules ours, if there are conflicts. A referendum is not required as confirmed above, so any challenge in the Supreme Court would imo, be dismissed on that basis.

[Charlie Darwin]

No constitution overrules ours, especially not the EU Constitution, because there's no such thing. EU law overrules Irish law, but that's not the same thing.

[dahamsta]

EU law doesn't overrule Irish law, in fact strictly speaking there aren't any EU laws, there are just directives that are transposed into the law books of member states.

[The Fly]

EU law doesn't overrule Irish law, in fact strictly speaking there aren't any EU laws, there are just directives that are transposed into the law books of member states.

EU law does overrule Irish law in all those areas covered by our membership.

I'm not sure why you have suggested that there is no such thing as EU law. That's rather puzzling.

Directives are forms of EU law which are only binding to the members concerned, but where the mode of enforcement has not been specified, thus leaving it to the member state to choose the method by which it is incorporated, or as you have stated - 'transposed', into national law. Regulations are the most powerful form of EU law; they are immediately enforceable, binding in their entirety and applicable in all member states. Once they come into effect, they overrule all national law in the area concerned.

[punkrocket]

Yes indeed.
Do you really think that we would have bothered with all that recycycling malarkey unless we were bound to by EU directives?

[The Fly]

Yes indeed.
Do you really think that we would have bothered with all that recycycling malarkey unless we were bound to by EU directives?

Stutter?

[punkrocket]

Stutter?
Thats nothing, you want to hear (read) me try waste mininimimisation

[jebus]

I'm torn on this to be honest.

On the one hand I've always been quite pro-Europe, but on the other I look at Iceland and wish I was a citizen of their country. If it comes down to it I'll vote yes I reckon because, and people might take this as a wind up but it isn't, I lost faith in the Irish people's ability to govern ourselves about 10 years ago, nothing that has happened since makes me think that we, as a people, could ever run a fair and just society anyway. We're just too greedy at heart and have zero community spiriti, everyone is just out to milk whatever system they can dry.

I'm not saying the French or German governments are less greedy, but I will contend that they are far more competent than the Irish, well the Germans are anyway, so I'd rather they were in charge

[mypost]

The Germans don't want Merkel running them, but we want her running here?

What Brussels doesn't understand, is that people crave and fight for independence in Europe. A Texan isn't all that bothered if someone in an ivory tower in Washington rules him, but someone in Bratislava or Belfast doesn't want to be ruled by a bureaucrat in Brussels. That will never change.

[The Fly]

A Texan isn't all that bothered if someone in an ivory tower in Washington rules him, but someone in Bratislava or Belfast doesn't want to be ruled by a bureaucrat in Brussels.

You obviously haven't met many Texans.

[Lionel Ritchie]

I'm torn on this to be honest.

On the one hand I've always been quite pro-Europe, but on the other I look at Iceland and wish I was a citizen of their country. If it comes down to it I'll vote yes I reckon because, and people might take this as a wind up but it isn't, I lost faith in the Irish people's ability to govern ourselves about 10 years ago, nothing that has happened since makes me think that we, as a people, could ever run a fair and just society anyway. We're just too greedy at heart and have zero community spiriti, everyone is just out to milk whatever system they can dry.
There's a lot I'd agree with in that sadly and I think I've said so before. Ireland is an instictively conservative place with an instinctively conservative electorate. Pretty much every piece of progressive legislation that we have -be it social, environmental, whatever... we have been dragged kicking and screaming to by big, bad Europe. As a nation we hang together very loosely and expect laws to apply to everyone else but to stop at our gate.



What Brussels doesn't understand, is that people crave and fight for independence in Europe. A Texan isn't all that bothered if someone in an ivory tower in Washington rules him, but someone in Bratislava or Belfast doesn't want to be ruled by a bureaucrat in Brussels. That will never change. Excellent use of alliteration.

[culloty82]

It seems completely pointless for Cameron to have walked away from the talks - after all the UK's political and economic interests are tied up with those of the PIIGS, so he'd stayed at the fiscal union talks, it would have indirectly met our concerns, and the treaty would be more fairly balanced towards the smaller member states.

[boovidge]

He had no choice. Germany and France have their eyes on London's financial sector and pressure at home for an EU referendum would have reached fever pitch if he'd agreed to anything.

[dahamsta]

I wasn't subscribed to this thread, so I'm a bit late in responding: A directive isn't a law, it's a condition in a contract. Again, EU directives only become laws when they're transposed onto the books of the member countries.

[mypost]

There's a lot I'd agree with in that sadly and I think I've said so before. Ireland is an instictively conservative place with an instinctively conservative electorate. Pretty much every piece of progressive legislation that we have -be it social, environmental, whatever... we have been dragged kicking and screaming to by big, bad Europe. As a nation we hang together very loosely and expect laws to apply to everyone else but to stop at our gate.

Isn't that the case with everybody? The Brits walked away from the negotiating table, because the conditions didn't suit them. The French want our corpo tax rate increased so FDI goes to France. The Germans don't want to bail out other countries, but think other countries should behave like them, and follow their rules. They might all be at summits, but they're really all looking out for themselves.


It seems completely pointless for Cameron to have walked away from the talks - after all the UK's political and economic interests are tied up with those of the PIIGS, so he'd stayed at the fiscal union talks, it would have indirectly met our concerns, and the treaty would be more fairly balanced towards the smaller member states.

He seemed thrilled to be isolated and out of the Euro. As if having a 980 billion Pound deficit to deal with, is a much better situation. :rolleyes:

[paudie]

while the likes of Greece and ourselves didn't have much choice but to go along with this deal I'm really surprised conuntries that aren't in a big debt hole eg, Finland, Holland and even countries outside the euro, like Denmark, seem to have agreed so readily to what seems to amount to fiscal union.

[BonnieShels]

He seemed thrilled to be isolated and out of the Euro. As if having a 980 billion Pound deficit to deal with, is a much better situation. :rolleyes:

Shhhh. The elephant in the room might hear.

[geysir]

No constitution overrules ours, especially not the EU Constitution, because there's no such thing. EU law overrules Irish law, but that's not the same thing.
Of course we can vote to eliminate any mention of the Lisbon Treaty from the constitution but as long as it is there,
the Lisbon treaty overrides our constitution.
As Ireland is a member state of a federal union, the federal constitution prevails.

Under the Lisbon treaty, 55 national vetoes - allowing Britain and any member state to block EU measures that are against their national interests - are scrapped outright.

Quoted From the Lisbon Treaty as explained by the referendum commission
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_extended_guide.pdf

EU laws are made by ‘Special Legislative Procedures’.
Role of national parliaments
At present, national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision-making. If the Treaty enters into force then national parliaments – in Ireland’s case, the Dáiland Seanad - will have time to vet proposals and offer an opinion.
If a number of national parliaments object to a proposal it must be reviewed.Each national parliament has two votes, one for each house of parliament; the Dáiland Seanad have one vote each. In certain circumstances, the review must takeplace if one third of the national parliaments request this. In the case of judicialco-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, fewer national parliaments– a quarter - would be able to require a review. The Treaty would also give nationalparliaments a specific role in relation to proposed changes to the Treaties.


There are defined areas where Ireland may opt in or out, apart from those defined areas, the process would operate as follows:


The national parliaments must be provided with all relevant policy and legislative documents (for example, green papers, white papers, proposals for directives and regulations)

The parliaments would ordinarily have eight weeks to consider the proposals

The parliaments may send a ‘reasoned opinion’ to the
eu institutions on whether draft legislation complies with the principle of subsidiarity – which is that decisions should be taken at local or national level, rather than at eu level, if possible.
If enough national parliaments vote to send a reasoned opinion, the draft legislation must be reviewed
Each national parliament has two votes. the dáil and seanad have one vote each. in general, one third of the available votes (18 at present) are required to ensure a review; one quarter of the votes (14 at present) is enough in the case of draft legislation in the areas of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation
The review does not mean that the proposal must be withdrawn. if the proposer (usually, the Commission) wishes to continue with the proposal, it must set out a reasoned opinion on why it considers that the principle of subsidiarity has not been breached

[geysir]

Though the EU has clearly made some fundamental mistakes, the effort to create a large common economic zone is an inevitable trend. Eventually, the entire world will become a single economic zone.
By fundamental mistakes, I refer to the fanaticism of its devotion to the altar of free market neo-liberalism.
This dogma has been exposed as utterly failed and beyond repair. The Lisbon Treaty is a failed treaty but the EU is not beyond repair.


Is it any surprise that neo-liberalism has failed in Europe? These economists have built their theory on a fairytale notion of what Adam Smith was on about, when he introduced the concept of the "hidden hand" in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" in 1759.

"They (the few lordly masters) are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earthbeen divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it,without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplicationof the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neitherforgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last tooenjoy their share of all that it produces. In what constitutes the real happiness of human life,they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. "

What we have in that text is quasi religious nonsense about Providence having divided the wealth of the earth between a few wealthy masters who are led by an invisible hand (Providence) to distribute the fruits

Some years later, Smith used the "hidden hand" phrase in "The Wealth of Nations" however it is incorrectly interpreted by modern neo-liberal and other economists as referring to the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.
Therein lies the foundation of modern neo-liberal thinking.
More, less or equally as much a fairytale as the Book of Genesis?

[Macy]

Fair play the Martin - criticising the content of the agreement and Kenny's performance in the negotiations on the way in to the meeting where he was going to get the details of the said agreement and negotiations! What a feckin muppet, regardless of whether the comments are ultimately justified.

[Mr A]

The above illustrates why I am increasingly frustrated with both politics and probably even more so the media in this country. The tendency towards hysteria and constantly looking for the next sound-bite or angle of attack is smothering all hope of rational debate.

Take the change in disability allowances- I happened to be chatting to a lady who works with the blind and visually impaired (and many of whom have other disabilities) and she said she was all for this as getting too much too soon tends to make recipients dependent and removes the motivation towards getting into the world of work. Noonan said at the time that this change was made after consultation with people in the area. Now, whether the change was sensible or not is one thing- but has it been debated properly at all since the budget? Not that I have seen.

And debates related to the EU are among the very worst of them. They're incredibly important but are all too often hijacked by the people on the extremes because their rantings make better copy.

Even in local media I see a greater and great tendency towards the tabloid culture.

And the worst thing is that it leads to crap government because they're always scared of getting caught on some issue. "When you're explaining you're losing". Except that things are not always simple and sometimes there's a need for calm analysis and a bit of thought.

Not holding my breath though.

[Eminence Grise]

Well said! There's a dreadfully low standard of proper debate on political matters. Far too many knee-jerk reactions and playing to the gallery. On top of that, I dislike the sterile language of debate: it's all Carr Communications / Communications Clinic cliche-ridden waffle. I'm half-dreading the next three months waiting for a decision on whether a referendum will be needed or not; all that time for the usual suspects to be trotted out by an increasingly jaded media to regurgutate the same old stories about conscription, abortion, federalism and solidarity - depending on which side of the fence they're on.

On an aside, I suppose that having successfully dumped Kevin Cardiff on Brussels we'll feel all guilty over it and vote in favour of whatever comes our way...

[mypost]

The above illustrates why I am increasingly frustrated with both politics and probably even more so the media in this country. The tendency towards hysteria and constantly looking for the next sound-bite or angle of attack is smothering all hope of rational debate.

Even in local media I see a greater and great tendency towards the tabloid culture.

You'll never be a journalist so.

Journalism is the same as every other business. A journo will never refuse ink, and whatever sells, goes. Even lies if necessary. A two-word newspaper headline in Bold Font and exclamation marks, will attract people's attention and make them more likely to buy it, than a rational well-thought out full sentence in normal print.

There are 24hour news channels. Journos and reporters will always go the extra mile often in the same location and difficult environment, to get the interview or story that will make you watch their report over someone else's. If they can lie, they will. If they can exaggerate a story in the process, they will. They don't really care what you think, they rarely show any emotion in their reports. As long as you get their attention, that's their job done.

If Brussels allows a referendum here, all the media will as usual be on the government's side, and the threats will pour in. Before it's even drafted, Noonan has made it clear what it is about. Well in his eyes anyway.

[culloty82]

If Brussels allows a referendum here, all the media will as usual be on the government's side, and the threats will pour in. Before it's even drafted, Noonan has made it clear what it is about. Well in his eyes anyway.

Well, the parameters are already being set - people will be far less inclined to reject a referendum with euro membership at stake.

[Eminence Grise]

Journalism is the same as every other business. A journo will never refuse ink, and whatever sells, goes. Even lies if necessary. A two-word newspaper headline in Bold Font and exclamation marks, will attract people's attention and make them more likely to buy it, than a rational well-thought out full sentence in normal print.

There are 24hour news channels. Journos and reporters will always go the extra mile often in the same location and difficult environment, to get the interview or story that will make you watch their report over someone else's. If they can lie, they will. If they can exaggerate a story in the process, they will. They don't really care what you think, they rarely show any emotion in their reports. As long as you get their attention, that's their job done.

If Brussels allows a referendum here, all the media will as usual be on the government's side, and the threats will pour in. Before it's even drafted, Noonan has made it clear what it is about. Well in his eyes anyway.

I fully agree with the last part - the links between the media and politicians are far too close and they are too inter-dependent. Whether it's journalists becoming political press officers, or politicians becoming columnists, it's not conducive to open debate.

But I disagree with your criticism before that. I've been teaching/lecturing politics to journalists for over a decade and most journalists I've met in that time, from local papers and radio stations to RTE, have been fair-minded and impartial. What you call not showing emotion others call dispassion, or objectivity (it takes a certain demeanour to calmly report on, say, the details of a prosecution for child abuse, and OTT treatments are invariably the domain of red-top columnists and shock jocks.) Most journalists I've met/taught would baulk at telling a lie; even exaggeration they consider beyond the pale. Now, I'm excluding from that columnists with well-grinded axes, tabloid muckrackers, and hacks who wanna tell us the colour of Cheryl Cole's knickers - I don't see that as journalism. One thing that I do acknowledge, though, is that a lot of younger journalists are too reliant on press releases, and haven't the skills or knowledge to dig deeper into a story. Laziness, though, is a different sin to manipulation.

[Spudulika]

EG, I think you also have to account for producers and/or editors in all of this. A journo will do as they're told - it's their job and livelihood after all. So no matter how upright or honest a person wants to be, if they're told to report in a certain fashion, they have to or risk taking a number in the dole office. I hardly think the journo's in the Indo are completely off their rockers, despite their best efforts to portray themselves as being raving lunatics. I'm not talking about polemicists and talking heads, but actual reporters (sports a perfect example). And this comes down from what the owner wants sent out.

[mypost]

But I disagree with your criticism before that. I've been teaching/lecturing politics to journalists for over a decade and most journalists I've met in that time, from local papers and radio stations to RTE, have been fair-minded and impartial. Most journalists I've met/taught would baulk at telling a lie; even exaggeration they consider beyond the pale.

2 weeks ago, One Irish edition tabloid broke the news of a civil servant getting a modest (by their standards) pay rise. It's been blown completely out of proportion in the media generally, and the paper that broke it are still banging on about it at every opportunity. 5 years ago, if a civil servant got such a pay rise in that way, it wouldn't even make Page 23. But it's now on Page 1, the inside pages, the columnist pages, and the editorial. It sold, it still sells, and that's what a journalist has to do.

[mypost]

Back on-topic, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty, the following is revealed:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0119/eutreaty.html

[Charlie Darwin]

Nope, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

[culloty82]

Well in fairness, Article 48 could be interpreted that way, but that has nothing to do with this instance, more that an "inter-governmental agreement" between certain member states isn't as constitutionally binding as a treaty between all 27.

[horton]

2 weeks ago, One Irish edition tabloid broke the news of a civil servant getting a modest (by their standards) pay rise. It's been blown completely out of proportion in the media generally, and the paper that broke it are still banging on about it at every opportunity. 5 years ago, if a civil servant got such a pay rise in that way, it wouldn't even make Page 23. But it's now on Page 1, the inside pages, the columnist pages, and the editorial. It sold, it still sells, and that's what a journalist has to do.
O/T but was this that fella that got a 35k bump days after Edna went on tv saying public sector from top down wouldn't be getting pay rises?

[mypost]

Well in fairness, Article 48 could be interpreted that way, but that has nothing to do with this instance, more that an "inter-governmental agreement" between certain member states isn't as constitutionally binding as a treaty between all 27.

Whatever term some wish to use, it is widely recognised as a "treaty" in it's own right, and this is the first treaty drafted since Lisbon, where we are not legally required to have a referendum, because of Article 48 of Lisbon. And if it's not required, it won't be granted.