Irish Times
Quote:
THE SECOND referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will be held in the autumn, Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche said yesterday.
Printable View
Irish Times
Quote:
THE SECOND referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will be held in the autumn, Minister for European Affairs Dick Roche said yesterday.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...n-1738398.html
The underlined bit is what matters to most people.Quote:
Mr Mitchell accepted a rejection of Lisbon would not affect Ireland's ability to draw down structural funds.
We are ineligible for the vast majority of structural funds and have been for a while:confused:
Funnily, Libertas have been complaining about the cost of regional funds, which some parts of Ireland are still eligible for. They say they could cut 10 billion from the budget and list some sports facilities in foreign countries they'd cut funding to.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
BMW regions are the only eligible IIRC and even then are way down the pecking order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Raises an interesting question now that Libertas are pan-European. Do they campaign in every country that they will reduce foreign funding? Seems like exactly their kind of populist nonsense.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46840
There is no explanation there, on how Lisbon will assist/revive/help out member state's economic crisis, or save/create jobs. Yet, that is how it's been sold here. :confused:Quote:
"The treaty will actually increase the democratic legitimacy of EU policy making by increasing the powers of the European Parliament as well as giving more powers to national parliaments to control what happens at the EU level,"
"There is even the possibility of citizens to become directly involved though the Citizens Initiative, whereby one million citizens can make a proposal for legislation to the European Commission."
"the Lisbon Treaty would make the EU more capable to act for example in the field of foreign affairs as it will concentrate authority in the hands of a high representative for foreign policy, If the treaty is ratified, the EU will function more efficiently, and we will be able to leave behind the debate on treaty reform and instead focus on actual policies."
There is a lot of talk about power, positions, proposals, and policies however. Because that's what it is all about. Power, not finance.
Libertas have now come out and advocated the end of free movement and right to work within the EU.
"Pro-European"? You're having a laugh.
Good to see Ganley is polling abysmally. The sooner he practices what he preaches and returns to Watford to continue being a US Department of Defense lackey the better.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...s-1746392.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I have never before heard a losing politician allege they are all out to get him.Quote:
The Libertas leader has made an official complaint to the gardai that up to 2,000 of his posters have been illegally stolen in what his supporters say is a "systematic and organised" campaign.
Proof again Ganley will adopt any policy for votes.Quote:
Some of the canvassers are former Fianna Fail members and one woman says she previously canvassed for former MEP and Eurovision winner Dana Rosemary Scallon who tapped into the pro-life and religious vote that is strong in the north west constituency.
The Ganley campaign is hoping to follow suit -- which is why he was in touch with those at the prayer meeting in Claddagh Church during this canvass.
I am sure hw will tell farmers he will get them EU money but at the same time want EU budget cut.
The Lisbon Treaty is strange as lot of people are anti-FF but pro Lisbon yet seems can't be anti Lisbon & anti Libertas?
Some people see Lisbon as the saviour of our economy, because that's the political spin operation. Which is like saying that pigs do fly. This is a government so broke, that it will continue to run up deficits until at least the next scheduled election!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Quality article from Asia though:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...137_45404.html
Full text of the assurances which the Government wants the EU to agree to.
We should be embarrassed as a nation. I am surprised Brian Cowan has not entered an assurance that the Treaty does not force everyone to wear hats or dye their hair blue. :rolleyes:
This also highlights how poorly the government negotitaed the Treay & ran its initial campaign.
Quote:
Section A
Right to Life, Family and Education
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon attributing legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or in the provisions of that Treaty in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Article 40.3.1. 40.3.2 and 40.3.3, the protection of the family in Article 41 and the protection of the rights in respect of education in Articles 42 and 44.2.4 and 44.2.5 provided by the Constitution of Ireland.
Section B
Taxation
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.
Section C
Security and Defence
The Union’s action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.
The Union’s common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. It does not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of Ireland.
The Lisbon Treaty does not affect or prejudice Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality.
It will be for Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality, to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory. Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.
Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.
It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured co-operation or the European Defence Agency.
The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation,
It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.
It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirement, whether or not to participate in any military operation.
Section D
Final Provisions
Annex 2
Solemn Declaration on Workers’ Rights and Social Policy
The European Council confirms the high importance which the Union attaches to:
* Social progress and the protection of workers’ rights;
* Public services, as an indispensable instrument of social and regional cohesion;
* The responsibility of Member States for the delivery of education and health services;
* The essential role and wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest.
In doing so, it underlines the importance of respecting the overall framework and provisions of the EU Treaties.
It recalls that the Treaties as modified by the Treaty of Lisbon:
* Aim at establishing an internal market and working for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment;
* Will give expression to the Union’s values and, through Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, recognise the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
* Aim to combat social exclusion and discrimination, and to promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child;
* Oblige the Union, when defining and implementing its policies and activities, to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health;
* Include, as a shared value of the Union, the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
* Do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise non-economic service of general interest;
* Provide that the Council, when acting in the area of common commercial policy, must act unanimously when negotiating and concluding international agreements in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where those agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them; and
* Provide that the Union recognises and promotes the role of the social partners at the level of the European Union, and facilitates dialogue between them, taking account of the diversity of national systems and respecting the autonomy of social partners.
It reiterates that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European common security and defence policy requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government, and (c) the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law.
Ireland notes that nothing obliges it to participate in permanent structured co-operation as provided for in the Treaty on European Union. Any decision enabling Ireland to participate will require the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law.
Ireland notes also that nothing obliges it to participate in the European Defence Agency, or in specific projects or programmes initiated under its auspices. Any decision to participate in such projects or programmes will be subject to national decision-making and the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with Irish law. Ireland declares that it will participate only in those projects and programmes that contribute to enhancing the capabilities required for participation in UN-mandated missions for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.
The situation set out in this Declaration would be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In the event of Ireland’s ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, this Declaration will be associated with Ireland’s instrument of ratification.
Yes we should be embarrassed. Embarrassed that Cowen didn't carry out the instructions the electorate gave him 12 months ago, to avoid all this nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The "assurances" are a sham and an irrelevance, afaic. This is the same treaty with the same loopholes, the same loss of power and influence for the state in Brussels, and are nothing more than a conjob designed to rig the vote. Not a single word, comma, or full stop has been changed. It's up to our electorate to reject it, followed by the Brits next year.
What instructions did the electorate give Cowan, other than they didn't understand the Treaty?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I agree with Pete. The electorate are fools, but then the last few elections should have told us that anyway.
I suppose everyone should know at this stage the first referendum is just the mock one. Its a bit like the Leaving Cert or driving test.
The common defence opt out is highly hypocritical. I think the addendum states common defence action should be decided unanimously but we still want an opt out. Of course if we were attacked we would be begging for assistance immeadiately. Apparently as a nation we like to be militarily neutral (does that actually exist?) & we don't like the american troops landing in Shannon but really don't care too much if means have to do something about.
New sig for Adam!Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
And like the Leaving Cert and the driving test, I got what I wanted the first time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
i prob wont vote, i have had some second doubts on lisbon, ill be able to vote for the next election but arggh not sure if i would vote yes or no.
There was a war going on in a neighbouring state for 25 years of our EU membership. How much assistance did the EU give them? Nothing. There was some help from America, but us and the other side were mainly left by Brussels to sort it out on our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
As the chance of us being attacked is relatively low these days, this "assistance" applies in reality (as with everything else in the treaty) to the big states getting attacked. We don't have the resources, and now the money, to help them.
For the vast majority of its life the EU was a purely economical unionQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
As shown by when the EU was originally setup - it was known as the European Coal and Steel Community - and then the European Economic CommunityQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
If the changes of us being attacked are relatively low could the same not be said of our EU neighbours?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
That said we have never been purely neutral anyway. We have always been less neutral on the allies or US/Western sides.
I presume you know my "mock" quote above was tongue in cheek even if no similie... ;)
That doesn't make sense, if you have doubts about legislation, you should vote against it. Otherwise it risks getting in by default. Either that or take the time to educate yourself better about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by irishultra
You should always vote, no matter how frustrating it is (and yes, it's very frustrating). Even a spoil is better than no vote at all.
adam
http://eirigisligeach.blogspot.com/2...-lisbon-2.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LbqE5AY0hq...+to+lisbon.jpgQuote:
Sligo éirígí activist Gerry Casey has condemned the decision by Brian Cowen’s administration to hold a re-run of the Lisbon Treaty referendum, which was democratically rejected last year.
Casey said the decision exposes the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the European Union and the contempt with which the political establishments in both Dublin and Brussels view the Irish people.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LbqE5AY0hq...+to+lisbon.jpg
He said: “By ignoring the democratic decision of the Irish people last June to reject the Lisbon Treaty and by their decision to re-run the exact same referendum in October, the EU and the Brian Cowen’s administration have shown yet again the utter contempt with which they view the Irish people and the notion of democracy. From the time this Treaty was voted down, nothing whatsoever has been changed in it. Not a single paragraph, not a single word. The referendum the Irish people are being forced to vote for later this year will be exactly the same as that which they rejected last year.”
He added: “The so-called declarations and guarantees being given on certain issues are a red herring. They are meaningless and will have no legal force whatsoever as they will not be part of the Treaty itself. As such, they will not override the actual content of the Treaty. To put it simply, they will be meaningless political promises from untrustworthy politicians at both European and national level."
“Once again, this administration are attempting to bulldoze through, using a combination of coercion and deceit, a treaty that will further increase the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the EU. A vote for the Lisbon Treaty will further erode this state’s sovereignty, speeding up moves towards the creation of an EU super-state. The Treaty will see a further abandonment of the state’s neutrality as the militarisation of the EU will substantially increase, with moves towards an EU army intensifying and the establishment in the Treaty of the so-called mutual defence pact."
“The Treaty also continues to promote the right-wing ideology of greed over need, of privatisation and is fundamentally anti-worker, with negative consequences for the rights of workers, rights which need to be strengthened, not diminished. These are the very policies and values that have created the economic recession that we are currently in, that has led to massive unemployment, wage reductions, income levies and cuts in essential public services, such as health and education. For Irish workers to vote for Lisbon would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.”
Casey concluded: “Cowen and his colleagues have completely ignored the concerns of the Irish people over the Treaty. They have failed to secure any changes to it because they never once sought any changes to it. But Cowen and his cronies in Leinster House and in Brussels need to understand quite clearly that when we said No, we meant No. What part of No do these people not understand?”
Never heard of Sligo éirígí activist Gerry Casey so after bit of googling I see he is part of Socialist Republician fringe far left group. Main "policies" just seem to anti-British & as I have never heard of before I guess represent a very small minority of people given there is no evidence of even local council seats.
Vote No to Europe as the EU caused the Irish recession seems to be the summary. It is fairly clear that blog is anti-EU & not just anti-Lisbon.
I'm pretty sure he's wrong on the guarantees having no legal force too.
I've only heard one person comment on the legality, and their argument was one of precendent, specifally referring to the Danes. It's essentially a gentleman's agreement as far as I can tell, which is about as trustworthy as a handshake or "verbal contract". I'm pretty sure the person that was commenting wasn't a lawyer either.
I don't trust the eurocrats and their treaty. I wonder why that might be.
adam
Actually you are incorrect John. Unless they are included in the treaty itself, which they are not, then the guarantees have as much legal force as a politicians pre-election promiseQuote:
Originally Posted by John83
I was thinking of this article:Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeBrewPlease
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking54.htm
Of course, there are fudges there - "at a future point" and "commitment" aren't "immediately" and "legal guarantee" - but it does seem like they would carry that weight if Cowen gets what he's asking for there.Quote:
Spelling out the "requirement", Mr Cowen wrote that "what I ... require is a clear and unequivocal commitment that at a future point after the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the legal guarantees contained in the decision will be attached to the EU treaties by way of a protocol."
Cowen was perfectly satisfied with the treaty as it was. What possible motivation would he have to chase down that meaningless "commitment" once he gets his way and the treaty is passed?
Votes. He's not exactly sitting on impressive polls at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheridan
For the record, that's what happened with the Danes, however it's important to point out that they weren't attached to the Maastricht Treaty, they were attached to another, later treaty. That's what the Irish Government is looking for here, in what has been described as a "belt and braces" approach. The problem being that the belt has no notches and is thus useless, and the braces are in the post from North Korea.
TBH, my time as a supporter of Europe is nearly at an end. While I believe in the concept in much the same way I believe in the concept of true socialism, I don't think it can work in practice. The communists ruined socialism with their greed for more and more power, and that's exactly what the eurocrats are doing to Europe. I don't think we should leave Europe, I don't think there's anything to be gained by it in the short to medium term, and I do think that the petty eurocrats would do everything in their power to truly shaft us.
I don't think Europe has the balls to throw us out either though, for many reasons including the accessions. So I think we should just plain do what we damned well please, including borrowing as much as a we damned well need to get ourselves out of this recession properly, and giving two figers to the EU when they wave their finger at us about it.
Either way, if Lisbon goes through, my support of the EU project is over.
adam
Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
The only way they would be legal would be for them to be part of a treaty. For that to happen we are dependent on the word of not just Cowen and the Irish government but also all the other governments in the EU who would also have to agree down the road to include those necessary protocols. To be honest they cannot be trusted to do so.
Do you remember Fianna Fáil's commitment to hold a referendum before allowing Ireland join NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP)? That promise wasn't long going into the bin was it?
Bottom line is, if it's not in the treaty then it has no legal standing and as I already said, it is as relaiable as a politicians pre-election promise. In other words, it is not in any way reliable
I'm not convinced the guarantees are worth much anyway - much of it seems to be grandstanding to appease the kind of people who voted no to stop the EU army conscripting their sons. Perhaps I've missed something there, and there actually is some value to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
At any rate, none of this is going to change my "We already voted no to this, you undemocratic *******" no vote.
Votes don't come into it. Once the referendum is out of the way, the issue can be put off and spun indefinitely, or at least until the Croatian accession treaty. That gives FF plenty of time to sweep it under the carpet. In any case, FF is now so firmly ensconced in the back pockets of the neoliberal lobby that it has abandoned its previous populism (witness the imminent slashing of social welfare.) The know that come election time, a lot of yokels will still be stupid enough to vote for them.
They rejected the treaty. They voted NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
There were two choices - Yes or No. They chose No.
Nowhere on the ballot paper did I see an option that said
No- I dont understand it or
No- but please ask me the exact same question again next year
Did you?
A No vote shouldnt automatically mean it can't be brought forward again...
And in light of this we should definitely get a second bash of the general election this year as we clearly got that one wrong too......
Even though it is the exact same question? So if we voted yes this time should we have another go - best out of three sort of thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Perhaps the government could have told us all that the result of the first referendum wouldnt count anyway before we voted and we could have just stayed at home and waited for the second one before wasting our energy getting up and going out to vote
They can't throw us out anywayQuote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
HBP, if you read all of micls post, you'd see that it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Is your statement in response to me wishful thinking or is there a legal reason?
Or the government could try to identify the issues the people had with the treaty, check if they were valid complaints, go get confirmation that they were not, and then present the treaty properly a second time with less misinformation possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeBrewPlease
Thank feck we don't live in a country where we can't have second goes at referenda. Imagine how embarrassing it'd be to live in a nation where we're still living on a 2:1 decision by our parents to ban divorce!
Gavin, if it's a yes vote this time, do you think there should be a third one as a decider?