Lisbon Treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

* Keep our guaranteed EU Commissioner (seem very unlikely as previous suggestion was permanent one for big countries and small countries sharing the junior roles)

---

I can't believe this issue is still being considered for two reasons.

1. ALL countries will lose their comissioner for five out of every 15 years.
2. Comissioners work for the EU, not their country.

It drove me mad to see Mary Lou McDonald constantly whining on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

That's the spirit, vote No before you even know what you're voting on

---

On the refusal to respect a democratic vote alone, vote No. That's before you look at anything else.

They might be able to tell the French and Dutch to overturn their vote in parliament, but cannot do it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

On the refusal to respect a democratic vote alone, vote No. That's before you look at anything else.

They might be able to tell the French and Dutch to overturn their vote in parliament, but cannot do it here.

---

Yes amending a Treaty and allowing people to vote again is undemocratic alright

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

* Specific policy to exclude Ireland from all Common defence matters

---

Seville Declaration? :confused:

Quote:

---

* Specific clause to ensure veto on all tax matters.

---

We already have that. It was in Lisbon.

Quote:

---

* Keep our guaranteed EU Commissioner (seem very unlikely as previous suggestion was permanent one for big countries and small countries sharing the junior roles)

---

Equality isn't good enough for us?

Quote:

---

* Removal of EU President (not sure if this correct).

---

:confused: Whats the point?

Quote:

---

* Trim down the areas QMV is used (it was pointed out Patricia McKenna wanted to keep for Climate Change issues)

---

Yes because this sounds terrible: Examples of new areas where QMV applies are: the procedure for entry into the euro; administrative cooperation; internal EU financial regulations; humanitarian aid operations; and police cooperation (where Ireland is not obliged to take part but has the right to participate in individual measures).

Quote:

---

* Protection for public services from blocking state subsidies.

---

Labour Party MEP, and Vice President of the European Socialist group, Proinsias de Rossa: "The Lisbon Treaty provides the legal base allowing the adoption of a law to safeguard public services, a longstanding objective of social NGOs and trade unions all across Europe. Indeed, the European Federation of Public Services Union, representing eight million public sector workers across Europe, has said that the activation of these new provisions should be the primary goal of the European Parliament elected next year.

"The EU Court has previously found that public services provided by or paid for by the State, such as education and social welfare are entirely excluded from EU rules, but that public services with a commercial element such as transport and electricity, can be subject to EU competition and state aid rules in certain circumstances. Consequently there has been a long-running campaign to agree EU legislation that clarifies and copper-fastens the protections for public services from competition and state aid rules. Lisbon now achieves this."

That sounds like a bankable commitment, the kind that some would have you believe were absent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

I can't believe this issue is still being considered for two reasons.

1. ALL countries will lose their comissioner for five out of every 15 years.
2. Comissioners work for the EU, not their country.

It drove me mad to see Mary Lou McDonald constantly whining on this subject.

---

I bet if you asked 100 voters if they understood this a majority would say they never knew guaranteed EU Comm already gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I bet if you asked 100 voters if they understood this a majority would say they never knew guaranteed EU Comm already gone.

---

They might quote what we were told by our then commissioner during the Nice campaigns that it'd be 5 years out of 135 that we'd be without a commissioner...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Yes amending a Treaty and allowing people to vote again is undemocratic alright

---

Democratic?? You're having a laugh. :D

They'd quite happily tell Cowen to ratify it through parliament if at all possible. Nothing to do with democracy.

Imo also, the leaders of the political parties who backed a Yes vote, should consider their positions as a result of it. The verdict was not just a refusal to become part of the Grand EU superstate, but a vote of No confidence in their leaderships. Certainly, if Cowen loses the EU elections next year, he should come under pressure to resign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Democratic?? You're having a laugh. :D

They'd quite happily tell Cowen to ratify it through parliament if at all possible. Nothing to do with democracy.

---

You realise they could do this if they felt like it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Imo also, the leaders of the political parties who backed a Yes vote, should consider their positions as a result of it. The verdict was not just a refusal to become part of the Grand EU superstate, but a vote of No confidence in their leaderships. Certainly, if Cowen loses the EU elections next year, he should come under pressure to resign.

---

Quite a reactionary aren't we? Well I suppose you'd have to be being a supporter of a tin pot political party like Sinn Fein

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Imo also, the leaders of the political parties who backed a Yes vote, should consider their positions as a result of it. The verdict was not just a refusal to become part of the Grand EU superstate, but a vote of No confidence in their leaderships. Certainly, if Cowen loses the EU elections next year, he should come under pressure to resign.

---

This would be hilarious if you weren't serious.

I'm genuinely interested in how the No voters see it going from here.

Not what they want to see happen, but what they think will actually happen. Can they explain how Ireland will influence the other members to get a result that it can sell to the people.

FWIW, I think a 2nd referendum would likely result in a stronger No vote (again for the wrong reasons but we'll agree to differ on that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

You realise they could do this if they felt like it?

---

If, consitutionally, they could've got away without a referendum this time (or any time) they would. It still means Lisbon is dead, as it'd still need a new treaty missing out those elements. It'd also be challeged legally, and I can't see how the main opposition parties could really support it going with this method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

If, consitutionally, they could've got away without a referendum this time (or any time) they would.

---

No, they wouldn't. I think they saw this as a mid-term fish-in-barrel shooting contest to give them a nice boost 12 months in. Unfortunately the government performed woefully here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I'm genuinely interested in how the No voters see it going from here.

---

Tough call. There'll be more recriminations, more bullying, more shrill threats from the media. I wouldn't rule out a series of threats from France and Germany to kick us out, some artists impressions in tabloid papers of what Ireland would look like if there was a second famine and Big Brian on TV every day to repeat the mantra that there'll be chaos, chaos!

Meanwhile there will be more protest across Europe as governments insist on ratifying the treaty without their people's consent, maybe major political strikes in France and Germany and the whole thing getting shelved because the ruling elite fear another 1968.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I'm genuinely interested in how the No voters see it going from here.

---

They'll identify the issues that soft no voters went with, and try and solve them as much as possible.

For example most of the unions could be brought on side by committments on workers rights (personally I'd be looking for legislation rather than just committments). How that'd play with IBEC would be interesting, but hard for them to argue us being in line with the rest of Europe.
Express committments about public services and privatisation
Express committments on tax and militarisation.

Even if they believe these are in the treaty, or already stand from previous ones, they'll have to get those committments again.

That probably would be enough to get it through I would've thought, with a proper campaign by the Government. It'd have to be a fair way down the line, as I think the comments and actions in Europe since the result will have hardened the No vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Meanwhile there will be more protest across Europe as governments insist on ratifying the treaty without their people's consent, maybe major political strikes in France and Germany and the whole thing getting shelved because the ruling elite fear another 1968.

---

By ruling elite you mean the democratically elected representitives of the people of Europe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

They'll identify the issues that soft no voters went with, and try and solve them as much as possible.

For example most of the unions could be brought on side by committments on workers rights (personally I'd be looking for legislation rather than just committments). How that'd play with IBEC would be interesting, but hard for them to argue us being in line with the rest of Europe.
Express committments about public services and privatisation
Express committments on tax and militarisation.

Even if they believe these are in the treaty, or already stand from previous ones, they'll have to get those committments again.

That probably would be enough to get it through I would've thought, with a proper campaign by the Government. It'd have to be a fair way down the line, as I think the comments and actions in Europe since the result will have hardened the No vote.

---

I think thats conceivable, but my worry would be that as time goes by and (likely) our economy heads further down the tubes, that the 'protest' No vote will only increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I think thats conceivable, but my worry would be that as time goes by and (likely) our economy heads further down the tubes, that the 'protest' No vote will only increase.

---

Could be spun as part of the reason for economic slippage and, as being the saviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Could be spun as part of the reason for economic slippage and, as being the saviour.

---

If you subscribe to the view (I don't, but clearly many do) that in terms of costs vs benefits of EU membership, we are or are moving towards a negative marginal position (interest rates, fishing, immigration etc.) then the anti-EU feeling is only going to increase.

Its clear the Irish electorate ignored the "Europe has been good to us so vote yes" argument (with some good reason) and if people are looking to see where the EU will benefit Ireland going forward its hard to make a clear case.

Efficiency is a hard sell, to paraphrase someone (Ivan Yates?) on Newstalk over the weekend.

Does any one know if there is anything to stop the other 26 countries from continuing without us? I know EU Commissioners, EU President & QMV changes would require us to sign up but many other issues may not...

Lets say Germany & France want to create their own army. Is it democratic that we stop them as opposed to just opting out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

You realise they could do this if they felt like it?

---

Wrong.

Not in this country they couldn't. End of discussion.

Quote:

---

Well I suppose you'd have to be being a supporter of a tin pot political party like Sinn Fein

---

Wrong again.

I'm not a supporter of SF or any political party for that matter. I am a supporter of a free Europe, not a federal Europe.