Lisbon Treaty

[mypost]

If the punt was still in existance we would be in a very similar position to Iceland. A small, open economy, over-borrowed and reliant on foreign investment at all levels. There's a strong chance the UK is going to be forced into the Euro so what would've made us different?

You've said its well documented that we weren't sheltered, show me where?

Iceland has always been isolated, partly through geography, mostly because of their resistance to EU membership down through the years. They didn't suddenly become isolated in the past 3 or 4 months.

We are already heavily suffering from the economic downturn. Unemployment is the highest in 13 years, and will continue to rise, the pay deal agreed is worthless, exchequer figures have collapsed, growth has stalled for the first time in decades, so we aren't sheltered at all from the financial crisis. We are taking heavy punches. Ratifying Lisbon won't help us in that regard. It hasn't done so anywhere else.

[superfrank]

The guarantee of a comissioner for each state is a joke. Is there really a need for 27 comissioners?

This will never be the peoples choice they will just keep running treaties until the people of Ireland vote yes.
If the No side really believe this, why don't they just vote Yes then and get it over with.

And Declan Ganley might even be forced to reveal his agenda and/or the source of his funding.
If the EU and the Gov put it into the Treaty that they'll stop digging into his affairs, I'm sure Ganley will switch his backing to the Yes side.

[eamo1]

Why have another referendum on whats basically the same document?????There were multiple reasons why we voted NO,and giving us a commisoner is just one of a host of changes that should be made to it but they think just changing that will swing it for them.
I'll be renewing my vigorous campaigning next Autumn,BRING IT ON!!!!!!!

[mypost]

The official reason, is to have the new EU commission formed under Lisbon rules. This appears strange, as the elections will be held under Nice rules. :confused:

The real reason is to link the state of the economy to the vote, in order to spread fear among the electorate, and get the 3 times rejected document past us. The political equivalent of diving to win a penalty in injury time.

[corkboy360]

The guarantee of a comissioner for each state is a joke. Is there really a need for 27 comissioners?

If the No side really believe this, why don't they just vote Yes then and get it over with.

If the EU and the Gov put it into the Treaty that they'll stop digging into his affairs, I'm sure Ganley will switch his backing to the Yes side.
It's more of a fact at this stage

[pete]

The guarantee of a comissioner for each state is a joke. Is there really a need for 27 comissioners?

No. They will have to make up some roles. It will get worse when we have new members. How do you suddenly have 28 Commissioners when you get 1 more member. The same people who complain about this issue are the same ones that complain about EU bureaucracy.

The current list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner) is bad enough.

[celticV3]

The treaty is clearly bad for ireland and its people as a whole. Cowen and Co. will keep pushing it as the lapdogs of european politics that they are.

The people voted No once against political scare tactics and media bias, I'm certain they will vote No again.

[osarusan]

The people voted No once against political scare tactics
To be fair, there was plenty of that from both sides.

[celticV3]

To be fair, there was plenty of that from both sides.
There may have been counter scare tactics but on a much smaller scale and with far less publicity than the efforts of the Yes vote.

[OneRedArmy]

There may have been counter scare tactics but on a much smaller scale and with far less publicity than the efforts of the Yes vote.ok, so which one of the Yes sides scare tactics was bigger than the No sides preposterous forced legalisation of abortion and universal conscrlption scares?

[celticV3]

ok, so which one of the Yes sides scare tactics was bigger than the No sides preposterous forced legalisation of abortion and universal conscrlption scares?

Well I think the whole "we will lose a representative european minister" and the "we will lose out financially" bull that was being fed to us in every national newspaper, television station and radio programme was far more significant than scaring a few conservative aul christians:rolleyes:

[kingdom hoop]

There may have been counter scare tactics but on a much smaller scale and with far less publicity than the efforts of the Yes vote.

:eek:

Not how it's been recorded in history though:


Libertas, the anti-treaty entity run by businessman Declan Ganley, spent more on commercial advertisements than all the political parties put together, according to the figures.

^^from Irish Times in July, link to click (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0730/1217368580622.html)



Also, bear in mind that Libertas today announced that they're running candidates in the European elections in as many Member States as they can. Ganley is touting those elections as countries' mini-referenda on the Lisbon Treaty. Hardly a publicity-prude thing to say. (more at libertas.eu)

That's the machine's structure and engine, the facts.
Nothing overly wrong with publicity per se. But IMO Libertas's campaign is predicated entirely on scare tactics: the oil driving the engine is dirty, there's very little of substance proffered by Ganley or his minions. It's all about the lack of transparency and accountability of Brussels, yet (and leaving aside the seeming hypocrisy of Ganley saying that) in the experience of my ears they haven't offered any examples of how that has manifested or how it might do so - what practical examples are there of the EU acting against the populace's wishes, or in the future, how the structure might be ameliorated (Ganley claims he doesn't want the disintegration of the Union). "The whole blasted thing is corrupt, damn it!" is the message I'm receiving. Seems to ignore worthwhile issues; and instead negatively prey on people's fears rather than positively appeal to our intellect.

[mypost]

The guarantee of a comissioner for each state is a joke. Is there really a need for 27 comissioners?

It's not a joke, it's what we're entitled to as an EU member state, together with the entitlement to hold the Presidency with full autonomy for 6 months. The current plan per Lisbon, is for a permanent unelected EU President for 2.5 years. It's a non-starter imo.

We have had the Nice Treaty for 6, going on 7 years. It allowed for the expansion of the bloc from the then 15 members, which I backed. It has worked very well, without compromising national sovereignty or democracy. There's no better alternative available at the present time.

[superfrank]

No. They will have to make up some roles. It will get worse when we have new members. How do you suddenly have 28 Commissioners when you get 1 more member. The same people who complain about this issue are the same ones that complain about EU bureaucracy.

The current list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner) is bad enough.
Thanks for giving a proper answer pete.

[OneRedArmy]

It's not a joke, it's what we're entitled to as an EU member state, together with the entitlement to hold the Presidency with full autonomy for 6 months. .Just because we're entitled to it doesn't make it right!

We have had the Nice Treaty for 6, going on 7 years. It allowed for the expansion of the bloc from the then 15 members, which I backed. It has worked very well, without compromising national sovereignty or democracy. There's no better alternative available at the present time.Nice hasn't worked well in the current financial crisis. This is pretty much a consensus view of the media, left, right and centre.

[gilberto_eire]

I voted Yes last time, but i'm going to vote no this time, mainly for the fact that after refusing this treaty it's back less then a year later(time?) with no changes.....

[mypost]

Just because we're entitled to it doesn't make it right!

They allow us to have some clout and influence in the EU. We have our entitlements as a member state, and we're under no obligation to give any of them up.


Nice hasn't worked well in the current financial crisis.

The financial crisis however bad, is temporary. Each government reserves the right to decide what policies they should adopt in order to recover. Some have decided to stimulate their economies, others will make cutbacks on public spending, ours have decided to raise taxes.

Lisbon if ratified, is permanent, regardless of economic and other political conditions.

[superfrank]

They allow us to have some clout and influence in the EU. We have our entitlements as a member state, and we're under no obligation to give any of them up.
They're not there to be used in the interests of the country, they're there for the interests of the EU.

Someone put it brilliantly: There is no such thing as an Irish comissioner, there's just a comissioner that happens to be Irish.

If the No idiots (who voted no on that reason) out there realised this, they might not be so outraged.

[mypost]

They're not there to be used in the interests of the country.

We're still entitled to it regardless.

[superfrank]

We're still entitled to it regardless.
pete's post summed it up for me. There's no need for 27 comissioners. It's just adding to the EU bureaucracy.

[mypost]

Saying we don't need 27 commissioners, is like saying a small country like here, doesn't need 83 TD's to form a government. :rolleyes: If that was the case, FF* would be in single-party power permanently.

*They always have the highest amount of party seats, even in opposition.

[osarusan]

mypost, if we accept that you voted 'no' because of serious reservations you held about the benefits this treaty had for the welfare and autonomy of Ireland, then we can assume you are not against new treaties as a rule, but rather you will weigh up a treaty on the merits of that treaty?

Is that fair to say?

[micls]

2) With no protection from our Commissioner, they conscript our menfolk to fight an unjust war.


Dara O brien had some great comments about this 'Any war where they need to conscript from 470million people is a war we need to be apart of, we cant just tell teh little green men that we're neutrl and we had a vote ':D

[mypost]

mypost, if we accept that you voted 'no' because of serious reservations you held about the benefits this treaty had for the welfare and autonomy of Ireland, then we can assume you are not against new treaties as a rule, but rather you will weigh up a treaty on the merits of that treaty?

Is that fair to say?

It would be fair. Any treaty though would have to preserve our entitlements as stated above, in order for me to back it. That Presidency issue is not just important for us, but also vital in case the current President's relations with other countries are strained at any given time.

Round Two has been regrettably announced by Cowen and co. Instead of putting his head on the block over domestic issues, he's decided to risk his career and credibility on getting Lisbon passed at considerable expense to the country's depleted resources. Best have it in September really. There's no point in a big recess during the summer, recalling parliament amid a reshuffle in the last week of September, then put everything on hold again in October over the EU Constitution.

But whenever it's called, we'll be ready to remind him what we said 6 months ago.

[OneRedArmy]

We're still entitled to it regardless.

And we're entitled to vote by reforenda as many times as we want on whatever subject the Government of the day see fit.

Glad we cleared that up. That's one less ridiculous argument for you to use.

[pete]

For what it is worth I think Lisbon II will probably pass. It is a year before thsi will be held & the voters will take their domestic frustrations out of the government in the Local & Euro elections.

While i think the legal guarantees are pathetic & embarrassing as a nation they will prevent the No side campaigning on those issues. If the NO side cannot campaign on EU Commissioner, Abortion or Neutrality what is left?

Permanent EU President for 2 1/2 years is a perfectly reasonable improvement to the structures of the EU. When a small nation like Ireland held the Presidency Bertie was awol on domestic issues for that time. We also need a figurehead of the Union as issues cannot be solved in 6 monthly cycles.

[Bald Student]

While i think the legal guarantees are pathetic & embarrassing as a nation they will prevent the No side campaigning on those issues. If the NO side cannot campaign on EU Commissioner, Abortion or Neutrality what is left?They'll make some other stuff up to scare us. The other side will probably do the same and we'll end up with a similar campaign as last time.

The only thing that might make a change is the fact that Cowen's job will be on the line so FF might put their weight properly behind the campaign. But that's a double edged sword.

[mypost]

For what it is worth I think Lisbon II will probably pass.

That's what most thought last time, until the boxes were opened.


When a small nation like Ireland held the Presidency Bertie was awol on domestic issues for that time.

Such as?? :confused:


We also need a figurehead of the Union as issues cannot be solved in 6 monthly cycles.

They have been. See our role as President.


While i think the legal guarantees are pathetic & embarrassing as a nation they will prevent the No side campaigning on those issues. If the NO side cannot campaign on EU Commissioner, Abortion or Neutrality what is left?

Plenty left. How about;


The loss of our voting weights, the qmv system, workers rights?? or

The refusal to respect Lisbon 1, the refusal to grant more countries referendums, the insulting by the "leader" of our electorate in calling another one here?? or maybe even

The lies stated, aka "guarantees" which are not protocols, and therefore not legal, the "common defence" issues which still remain unchanged, and the point blank refusal to get a better deal for this country and for EU citizens??


That's just for starters. Take your pick. :)

If he thinks he's going to reverse the result of 33 constituencies last June, on the basis of one miserly concession, he can think again.

[pete]

The loss of our voting weights, the qmv system, workers rights?? or


It is currently undemocratic that a person in Ireland has 14 times the voting power of a German person. Only correct we reduce that a bit. New QVM rules protect the power of small countries by ensuring need significant majority of both population & country numbers. large countries cannot push through issues. Workers rights? Without the EU we wouldn't need to worry about that as wouldn't have any jobs.



The refusal to respect Lisbon 1, the refusal to grant more countries referendums, the insulting by the "leader" of our electorate in calling another one here?? or maybe even


The EU is made up of sovereign nations governed by their own laws. We cannot force other countries to have referendums. I suppose the government would argue that they have addressed the concerns of people after Lisbon I.



The lies stated, aka "guarantees" which are not protocols, and therefore not legal, the "common defence" issues which still remain unchanged, and the point blank refusal to get a better deal for this country and for EU citizens??


Do you really think the EU want the Irish army so badly they have to trick us into it even using false legal guarantees? As said above if they need us so badly it would be a War we could not opt out as would be so big.

We already participate with the EU force in Chad. The EU would better off peacekeeping in conflict zones without the restrictions of UN security council whims. We should be proud to be part of that.

[Réiteoir]

Nothing overly wrong with publicity per se. But IMO Libertas's campaign is predicated entirely on scare tactics: the oil driving the engine is dirty, there's very little of substance proffered by Ganley or his minions. It's all about the lack of transparency and accountability of Brussels, yet (and leaving aside the seeming hypocrisy of Ganley saying that) in the experience of my ears they haven't offered any examples of how that has manifested or how it might do so - what practical examples are there of the EU acting against the populace's wishes, or in the future, how the structure might be ameliorated (Ganley claims he doesn't want the disintegration of the Union). "The whole blasted thing is corrupt, damn it!" is the message I'm receiving. Seems to ignore worthwhile issues; and instead negatively prey on people's fears rather than positively appeal to our intellect.

Reminds me somewhat of the tactics employed by these lot back in the 90s:

http://bellaciao.org/en/IMG/gif/PAdemoneyes.gif

[mypost]

It is currently undemocratic that a person in Ireland has 14 times the voting power of a German person. Only correct we reduce that a bit.

Not all Germans live in Germany. Several million live in much smaller countries, several thousand more live here. Should they be punished for that? That's what you're advocating.


New QVM rules protect the power of small countries by ensuring need significant majority of both population & country numbers. large countries cannot push through issues.

They will if consisted of the biggest 5, who will constitute the required percentage on any issues.


Workers rights? Without the EU we wouldn't need to worry about that as wouldn't have any jobs.

Manyof the multinational firms based here came from the USA, creating thousands of new jobs. With or without Lisbon, they'll still be coming here due to our location and tax rate advantages over other EU states.


The EU is made up of sovereign nations governed by their own laws.

Not under Lisbon. The requirements are common foreign, defence, security policies. The populations of the member states have a right to be asked if they agree with that scenario or not, not in just one country.


I suppose the government would argue that they have addressed the concerns of people after Lisbon I.

They addressed one concern. One that rated low on the reasons why the treaty was rejected.


Do you really think the EU want the Irish army so badly they have to trick us into it even using false legal guarantees? As said above if they need us so badly it would be a War we could not opt out as would be so big.

The guarantees are not legal, the Irish army will still be required to aid other member states should they be attacked, and will have to improve military spending, both at a time when we can least afford it. So they have not addressed any neutrality concerns.

[pete]

They will if consisted of the biggest 5, who will constitute the required percentage on any issues.


Incorrect. Do you work for Libertas?

QMV in Lisbon Treaty (http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html)



* 55% of the Member States must agree: (for example, while there are 27 Member States, 15 Member States must agree);
* those Member States supporting the decision must represent 65% of the EU population.


To get 55% of the member states you would need at least France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Romania, The Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal & Austria.

The change is actually better for small countries as there is currently no requirement for majority of member states just votes.

[mypost]

The change is actually better for small countries as there is currently no requirement for majority of member states just votes.

What countries have the most votes?? :D:rolleyes:

We have very little power in the European Union, and a restricted number of political entitlements as a member state. It's important that we preserve them in order to remain an influential member of the Union.

[mypost]

Watched the TD and Senator statements from earlier in the year recently, and while there was a lot of huff and puff about Ireland been in "unchartered waters" and "isolated", there was little if any specific explanation about what exactly that meant.

Despite repeated declarations of "respecting the result" of the referendum from the Yes side, the general attitude was, "sure weren't we a bunch of thicks for voting No". :rolleyes: Senator Paschal Donoghue claimed that he felt "marginalised" and "feeling lonely" when the result was announced, and complained that his "social wealth" would be threatened as a result. He would later chair the sham EU Committee in the Autumn. With respect, Paschal Donoghue is not someone who is signing on, or living on €200 a week, or about to lose his home. That is what "feeling lonely", and "marginalised" is. There were just 6 speakers on the No side, 2 SF TD's and 4 Senators, including Shane Ross. Indeed it was Ross who made the best speech of all, indicating what the government would do with our corporation tax veto.

The Dail Statements were split into two parts, while the Seanad's commenced 5 hours into the day's proceedings. The speeches are all currently available here (http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/livewebcast/Web-Live.htm&CatID=83&m=o) in the Dail/Seanad Webcast Playback section, dated 18 June last.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Who cares?

We gonna sign eventually;in no position to argue against ultimately........

[mypost]

More bullying, this time from the business class: :mad:


"It sets up an unhealthy situation for Irish-based American companies to be operating its European operations from a place that has made clear its ambivalence to the European Union, American firms want certainty, to be secure that the operating conditions will not change after they relocate."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0102/1230842350072.html

Fair enough, pay the higher tax rates in other countries then. Or to avoid it, go to India, a well-known politically stable EU country. :rolleyes:

You can't have it every way. Good luck.

[Student Mullet]

You can't have it every way.I think that's the key point.

[mypost]

Good interview with Klaus in the "Prague Daily Monitor" here (http://praguemonitor.com/2009/01/05/edit-v%C3%A1clav-klaus-whats-problem-im-right)

A lot of media complaining that Klaus is now EU President, when he's not. Saying he is, is like saying Mary McAleese was/is President of the EU, when we get to hold it, when actually it's the Taoiseach instead.

Imo, it is also highly insulting to the Czechs, that Sarkosy invited himself to Egypt to try and sort out the latest Israel-Palestine crisis. What part of "you're no longer EU President" does he not understand?

[OneRedArmy]

Imo, it is also highly insulting to the Czechs, that Sarkosy invited himself to Egypt to try and sort out the latest Israel-Palestine crisis. What part of "you're no longer EU President" does he not understand?The French have historically had close relationship to the region, but don't let the truth get in the way of a rant....

[mypost]

I'm aware of that, but it's the Czechs job to represent the EU on these matters now, not his.

[OneRedArmy]

I'm aware of that, but it's the Czechs job to represent the EU on these matters now, not his.I thought we didn't have an EU president?

Also, did he say specifically that he was representing the EU?

[pete]

I'm aware of that, but it's the Czechs job to represent the EU on these matters now, not his.

Has Sarkovzy claimed he is representing the EU?

[osarusan]

Also, did he say specifically that he was representing the EU?


Has Sarkovzy claimed he is representing the EU?
To be fair, either he is there as a representative of the EU, or he shouldn't be there at all without haveing ensured that what he's saying/offering is what the EU are saying/offering.
He may have run it all by the EU already, I have no idea. But if he hasn't, I don't think that the president of an EU member state should be unilaterally doing what Sarkozy is doing.

[mypost]

did he say specifically that he was representing the EU?


Has Sarkovzy claimed he is representing the EU?

:rolleyes:

He didn't, and I never said he did.

[pete]

To be fair, either he is there as a representative of the EU, or he shouldn't be there at all without haveing ensured that what he's saying/offering is what the EU are saying/offering.
He may have run it all by the EU already, I have no idea. But if he hasn't, I don't think that the president of an EU member state should be unilaterally doing what Sarkozy is doing.

There is no common EU foreign policy. Independent countries do as they please. France does not hold the Presidency anymore.

[Macy]

He may have run it all by the EU already, I have no idea. But if he hasn't, I don't think that the president of an EU member state should be unilaterally doing what Sarkozy is doing.
As pete says, there's no common EU foreign policy, so it's not like he's causing a policy conflict one way or another.

[OneRedArmy]

Imo, it is also highly insulting to the Czechs, that Sarkosy invited himself to Egypt to try and sort out the latest Israel-Palestine crisis. What part of "you're no longer EU President" does he not understand?


The French have historically had close relationship to the region, but don't let the truth get in the way of a rant....


I'm aware of that, but it's the Czechs job to represent the EU on these matters now, not his.


I thought we didn't have an EU president?
Also, did he say specifically that he was representing the EU?


:rolleyes:

He didn't, and I never said he did.
Well thats what you inferred with your bolded comment above.

So are you just making it up?

[osarusan]

There is no common EU foreign policy.


As pete says, there's no common EU foreign policy, so it's not like he's causing a policy conflict one way or another.

I know this, but the EU does release statements on conflicts like the current conflict, and I just mean that member states should be careful that what an individual member state says doesn't undermine such statements or positions.

EDIT : I'm basing this on the assumption that an EU statement is supposed to be representative of an EU opinion or position, and therefore represents or includes the positions of the member states. If this is not the case, then forget everything I've said!

[mypost]

the EU does release statements on conflicts like the current conflict, and I just mean that member states should be careful that what an individual member state says doesn't undermine such statements or positions.

Which is my point.

[mypost]

Cowen on the warpath (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/parties-unite-to-toast-90-years-of-the-dail-1608267.html) in the Mansion House yesterday, according to the Irish Independent.


"Our membership of the union gives life to the aspirations of the First Dail. It is surprising, therefore, to hear some so consistently question our role within the union,"

It's called opposition, that politicians never like.

Having only recently broken free from the grip of one Union, the first Dail had, almost certainly to the contrary, no aspirations of becoming part of another. This Dail however, are intent on doing whatever it takes to satisfy the European Union, rather than co-operate with the mandate it's own electorate gives them.