Lisbon Treaty

[KevB76]

Havent read up much on it yet but heard rumblings about if a Yes vote goes
through then the EU can decide on and set some of our tax rates.

I think the tax rates are one of the things that remain under our own governments control ........for now.

What I would be concerned about following a yes vote is that a few years down the line with no representative and a diminsihed vote weighting, that the EU could shift the goalposts on taxation and we would be powerless to do anything about it (dont know if it that could happen but thats my concern).

[mypost]

I think the tax rates are one of the things that remain under our own governments control ........for now.

Oh apparantly, we have a veto.

Give it 6 months, until Sarkosy bullies Cowen and Martin around in Franglais: "Quel veeto?? Sez is EU Constitution now, no Eereesh Constitution."

[John83]

I think the tax rates are one of the things that remain under our own governments control ........for now.

What I would be concerned about following a yes vote is that a few years down the line with no representative and a diminsihed vote weighting, that the EU could shift the goalposts on taxation and we would be powerless to do anything about it (dont know if it that could happen but thats my concern).

I don't think they could force it on anyone, and more importantly, I don't think too many governments would happily give up fiscal policy. We've already given up monetary policy, so giving up fiscal policy would leave us totally unable to moderate the economy.

[pete]

I don't think they could force it on anyone, and more importantly, I don't think too many governments would happily give up fiscal policy. We've already given up monetary policy, so giving up fiscal policy would leave us totally unable to moderate the economy.

The Lisbon Treaty does not affect Taxation Policy. There are several countries with lower corporation tax than Ireland so the EU cannot & will not change this. If they were to harmonise corporation tax why stop there & harmonise VAT & property taxes? The biggest proposers of this on the No side are Libertas who having been deliberately lying about this.

Of the other suggestions from campaigners the Lisbon Treaty also does not:
- privatise the health service (would the French & other countries with 100% public health system approve this?)
- change Neutrality
- introduce abortion
- change our sovereignty
- create a EU army

Virtually all the changes relate to voting rights.

Best idea is to ignore the politicians, read the Ref Comm website & decide if you approve of the changes.

[mypost]

This constitution is all about power centrally controlled to 5 countries and 22 countries beneath them. The EU Constitution, already rejected in 2 member states, as it's name implies, takes priority over all member constitutions. The Constitution renders obsolete, all previous signed and ratified EU treaties by means of multiple amendments to them, in order to "streamline" the decision making process. It involves the automatic loss to the right of a commissioner, voting rights seriously affected, and the loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency. In short, there is nothing on offer to benefit citizens, unless they're politicians.

As the only electorate permitted to vote on it, that's the reality that Irish and European citizens face should our electorate obey Cowen/Kenny/Harney/Gilmore, and the Unions with vested interests next week.

[GavinZac]

This constitution is all about power centrally controlled to 5 countries and 22 countries beneath them. The EU Constitution, already rejected in 2 member states, as it's name implies, takes priority over all member constitutions. The Constitution renders obsolete, all previous signed and ratified EU treaties by means of multiple amendments to them,

You seem a bit confused. You're talking about the Lisbon Treaty, but calling it the Constitution, presumably referring to the Constitutional Treaty that was passed democratically by 18 sovereign nations and rejected by 2, leaving 7 unable to vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_..._of_the_Treaty
Strangely, of course, you talk of the "5 countries" benefiting from the "constitution", yet of the 5 largest countries, only Germany, Italy and Spain passed the CT, with France rejecting it and the UK looking as if it would have rejected it too. Without going into too much detail (we aren't here to talk about the Constitutional Treaty, judging by the title of this thread), why exactly would these countries reject something which gives them far more power? And, given that the Lisbon Treaty explicitly protects against 3 powers such as Germany, Italy and Spain forcing issues, where does the fear of these 3 passing countries putting others "beneath them" come from?

in order to "streamline" the decision making process. It involves the automatic loss to the right of a commissioner, voting rights seriously affected, and the loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency. In short, there is nothing on offer to benefit citizens, unless they're politicians.

Thats a strange contradiction. The politicians lose power, yet they are the only ones to benefit? Nobody has explained this contradiction since I pointed it out a few pages ago.

Havent read up much on it yet but heard rumblings about if a Yes vote goes through then the EU can decide on and set some of our tax rates. ... her mate told her if Yes goes through then we'll all be sent to war.

Just a few example of the lies that are being spread, mostly by ridiculous street-side posters, where they don't feel the need to explain their claims.

The Nice Treaty is a prime example. the electorate showed some backbone in voting no only to crumble when the bertie brigade (AKA Fianna Fail) came out and said "Ah Listen Lad's you've got it wrong you need to be voting yes to this, sure i tell ye what we'll give you another go!"

You can say that as many times as you like but its not bloody true.

[Macy]

Interesting timing of the "Independent" Referendum Commission intervention. Pity they blew it for the Yes side by not being able to answer a question about the treaty. The People are expected to vote Yes on Treaty that even the bloody quango set up to explain it can't answer questions on.

[Block G Raptor]

You can say that as many times as you like but its not bloody true.

What part is not true. The Irish people rejected the Nice Treaty and after a government campaign of scaremongering and doomsday scenarios the VERY SAME treaty was put to the Irish people again and they (I dont use we here because I voted no both times) accepted it. that is documented fact so I don't know how many times I have to say it before you accept it as such

[mypost]

You're talking about the Lisbon Treaty, but calling it the Constitution.

There's no confusion. I prefer to call it the Constitution, basically because it is, under the guise of "Treaty".

Strangely, of course, you talk of the "5 countries" benefiting from the "constitution", yet of the 5 largest countries, only Germany, Italy and Spain passed the CT, with France rejecting it and the UK looking as if it would have rejected it too. why exactly would these countries reject something which gives them far more power? And, given that the Lisbon Treaty explicitly protects against 3 powers such as Germany, Italy and Spain forcing issues, where does the fear of these 3 passing countries putting others "beneath them" come from?

Germany, Italy, and Spain all ratified it through parliament, where the outcome is rigged. France and the UK, won't put it to referendums either, as the only way they'll get it through is by denying the public they represent the chance to vote on it. "EU Democracy?? You're having a laugh."

[Student Mullet]

What part is not true. The Irish people rejected the Nice Treaty and after a government campaign of scaremongering and doomsday scenarios the VERY SAME treaty was put to the Irish people again and they (I dont use we here because I voted no both times) accepted it. that is documented fact so I don't know how many times I have to say it before you accept it as such

Some of it is fact and some of it is opinion.

[osarusan]

What part is not true. The Irish people rejected the Nice Treaty and after a government campaign of scaremongering and doomsday scenarios the VERY SAME treaty was put to the Irish people again and they (I dont use we here because I voted no both times) accepted it. that is documented fact so I don't know how many times I have to say it before you accept it as such

The Irish government, having obtained the Seville Declaration on Ireland's policy of military neutrality from the European Council, decided to have another referendum on the Treaty of Nice on Saturday, 19 October 2002. Two significant qualifications were included in the second proposed amendment, one requiring the consent of the Dáil for "enhanced cooperation" under the treaty, and another preventing Ireland from joining any EU common defence policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice

[pete]

I can't defend FF running the Nice Treaty referendum twice but lets face it the Irish electorate did not care as no evidence any great numbers voted against FF because of that. Nice has been good for Ireland & the EU so lucky we passed it.

[Macy]

I can't defend FF running the Nice Treaty referendum twice but lets face it the Irish electorate did not care as no evidence any great numbers voted against FF because of that. Nice has been good for Ireland & the EU so lucky we passed it.

Nice 1 forced the Government to get express committments on the issues people were concerned about. If a no vote this time does the same, then Lisbon 2 will probably pass too.

[pete]

Nice 1 forced the Government to get express committments on the issues people were concerned about. If a no vote this time does the same, then Lisbon 2 will probably pass too.

Done my Wikipedia research & you are correct. Nice 2 seemed to be about implementing neutrality guarantees in Irish law so the actual Treaty itself did not change.

Is there a single issue that could be changed to get a Lisbon 2 passed?

[Block G Raptor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice

I stand corrected, the old memory is not what it used to be. Still stand over my comment that goverment has no mandate to tell the electorate that they voted wrongly. Also just as a point of interest does anyone find it strange that a democratically elected government should actively try to swing the outcome of a referendum, should it not be the governments job to ensure that the electorate know how the treaty benefits/inhibits the nation and then leave it up to the electorate to decide

[GavinZac]

I stand corrected, the old memory is not what it used to be.

If you don't actually know what you're talking about, could you try not to bleat it over and over again despite being repeatedly told that it's false?

Still stand over my comment that goverment has no mandate to tell the electorate that they voted wrongly. Also just as a point of interest does anyone find it strange that a democratically elected government should actively try to swing the outcome of a referendum, should it not be the governments job to ensure that the electorate know how the treaty benefits/inhibits the nation and then leave it up to the electorate to decide

Er, no? Fianna Fail represent a political party that were elected with a series of policies and given a mandate to make decisions for the greater good of the Republic of Ireland. They aren't supposed to be neutral on things like referendums; especially when concerned with things they are involved in i.e. sending ministers to Europe. The people who elected them gave them the power with all the trust that is implied in doing so. If they screwed us over, they'd be signing their own P45s. Which leads me to...

Germany, Italy, and Spain all ratified it through parliament, where the outcome is rigged. France and the UK, won't put it to referendums either, as the only way they'll get it through is by denying the public they represent the chance to vote on it. "EU Democracy?? You're having a laugh."

Come on then, answer me. If its only good for our politicians, how is it denuding them of power? If its only good for the top 5 countries, why were 2 of them the ones to publicly state it would not pass, referendum or not? The Public elects its politicians. If a politician forced through something which the public did not like, they'd be out on their arses, either within a week or at election time. Whats the point? Whats in it for a politician to force this through, if it strips them of power before dumping them out after the electorate realise they've done such a horrible deal (which we're told time and time again will happen, but wouldn't you know it, the country is still relatively wealthy and FF still relatively well supported. Of course none of the other scare tactics came true, like EU armies and military escalation and such. Most people when they're 'betting' would take a look at the form.)

[mypost]

Fianna Fail represent a political party that were elected with a series of policies and given a mandate to make decisions for the greater good of the Republic of Ireland. They aren't supposed to be neutral on things like referendums; especially when concerned with things they are involved in i.e. sending ministers to Europe. The people who elected them gave them the power with all the trust that is implied in doing so. If they screwed us over, they'd be signing their own P45s.

Can you tell us how exactly this refers to the constitution?? If you vote FF, you vote for the Yes side, if you vote for FG, you vote for the yes side, if you vote for the PD's, you vote for the yes side, if you vote for Labour, you vote for the yes side. If you vote for the Greens, you vote for the no side, unless they're with FF in power, which they are, i.e., there is no choice but to vote for one of the "yes" side parties. So none of them can be voted out due to their stance on the constitution. When people vote at election time, as has been explained before, they vote on 10's of factors, I won't take the trouble to write them out again.

If its only good for our politicians, how is it denuding them of power?

The public lose power, the politicians keep it. They negotiated this joke, agreed, signed, and ratified it through their own parliaments. Was the public consulted?? No. Were they allowed to have a referendum on it?? No. We are, by our constitution requirements only, do you think we would have one, if it wasn't?? No.

wouldn't you know it, the country is still relatively wealthy and FF still relatively well supported.

Irrelevant. People should consider the referendum's issues before casting their vote, not what party they usually vote for. If anything, the country is getting poorer, with wage freezes in the pipeline, and job losses an everyday occurrence.

Of course none of the other scare tactics came true, like EU armies and military escalation and such.

Only 15 countries have ratified it yet. When they all do, then the changes will come into effect.

[BohsPartisan]

Of the other suggestions from campaigners the Lisbon Treaty also does not:
- privatise the health service (would the French & other countries with 100% public health system approve this?)
- change Neutrality
- introduce abortion
- change our sovereignty
- create a EU army

Virtually all the changes relate to voting rights.

It includes plenty on what it calls "liberalisation of services" and "removing barriers to competition". This in effect means privatisation. (The guy who drafted the original EU constitution admitted that this version was deliberately obscure for some of these reasons (see today's Irish times - hidden in an opinion piece). As for would the French agree to privatising health - thats why they don't get to vote on it this tme around. Sarkozy certainly has designs on doing this and using the provisions in the treaty (self admitted) to push for an EU army.

http://www.caeuc.org/files/HealthLib.pdf

[dahamsta]

GavinZac, this is your final warning: lose the attitude or lose posting privileges in here.

adam

[Poor Student]

It involves the automatic loss to the right of a commissioner, voting rights seriously affected, and the loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency. In short, there is nothing on offer to benefit citizens, unless they're politicians.

All countries are affected equally by the "loss" of a commissioner. Each country will have a commissioner for two out of every three terms. A commissioner is supposed to act in the interests of the Union and not just their member state so it's no particular problem.

You say "voting rights seriously effected". So what? Who says that the voting structure is ok the way it is? It's disproprtionately weighted in favour of smaller countries. To be honest the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. There will be two voting criteria to pass legislation with the Council, 55% of member states and they must represent at least 65% of the Union's population. The first criteria is the most important and the second one is very sensible and that's in areas where QMV is required, there are of course key areas where unanimity is required. There's some very disingenous nonsense being put around like "Ireland's voting power will be halved". Also, four countries can block a proposal. Big countries won't be able to just barge stuff through, that's assuming they're even all acting in unison and on the same page.

Also, the directly elected European Parliament is receiving futher empowerment on decision making as a result of the Lisbon Treaty.

Loss of the right to hold the EU Presidency? The whole six month rotating process isn't necessary. To have a six month rotating process with 27 and expanding members is a bit of a joke. Holding the Presidency for Slovenia put quite a strain on things for example. Personally, I feel it's more stable and sensible to elect the President to chair the council, it'll also put a more public face on the coucil.

As the only electorate permitted to vote on it, that's the reality that Irish and European citizens face should our electorate obey Cowen/Kenny/Harney/Gilmore, and the Unions with vested interests next week.

Elected goverments have ratified the treaty. As Gavin Zac explained, the politicians are elected with mandates to carry out whatever defined matters in each state. If you want direct democracy where you have your personal say in every matter you're in the wrong millenium. It's not practical or plausible.