Lisbon Treaty

[Bald Student]

A
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.

I'm not certain but I think I read that there'll still be the six month presidency but that the previous country and the next country to get it will help out the current president. It'll mean that there's less strain on the smaller countries and more continuity during the changeovers.

[mypost]

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.

Wrong.

While every country will lose a commissioner, we have to zoom in on Ireland's. The loss of a commissioner for any period, let alone a full EU election term, means that other countries will decide policies for us during that term, with no Irish voice at the table.

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.

How many countries constitute the 55%/65% waffle?? Who are they?? How will it be affected on the acceptance of new states??

If anything, the voting structure weighted in favour of smaller countries is fair, when you think there are 22 of them in the Union. There is nothing wrong with the current voting structure imo.

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.

Explain why the Bold bit is needed.

We have held the Presidency several times. Last time was described as a success. Politically, under current legislation, we have the same entitlement as Germany and France and the other states to hold it, for the same period.

In football, the fixture list for our WC '06 qualifiers was held in Dublin, as a direct result of our holding of the Presidency at the time, which resulted in a more favourable fixture list.

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.

Democracy is the right to have a say on issues, no matter how small it is, or how insignificant it looks. It's not perfect, but it's the best system of rule there is. However, this treaty is anything but democratic. 1 country of 27 will hold a referendum, the national electorates elected their governments on their own domestic affairs, not EU agendas. This is a treaty/constitution by politicians for politicians, the concerns of the people they represent and are affected by it, carry no weight. There is nothing in this treaty to benefit EU citizens.

I'm not certain but I think I read that there'll still be the six month presidency but that the previous country and the next country to get it will help out the current president. It'll mean that there's less strain on the smaller countries and more continuity during the changeovers.

Sorry...

The post, with a 30-month term that can be extended to five years, is to replace a cumbersome system by which European Union leaders and nations rotate holding the presidency every six months.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/...e/20europe.php

The polls out tonight, finally look encouraging for the no side. But nobody is taking anything for granted, as we wait to see how many people will be "persuaded" by the political parties scaremongering tactics over the next week.

[Bald Student]

Sorry...

No need for anyone to be sorry, these are complicated things. I looked it up and we're both half right. The meetings of ministers are still be chaired by each country for 6 months but the meetings of prime ministers will be chaired by the new person.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbo...anges_gov.html

Proposed Changes – Council (of Ministers)

Presidency of the Council

The present six month rotating Presidency will continue for all Councils except the Foreign Affairs Council which will be chaired by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.


Proposed Changes - European Council (Heads of Government)

The European Council is chaired at present on a rotating basis by the head of government or state of the Member State holding the six month EU Presidency. The Treaty provides for a new post of President of the European Council. The President would be elected (by qualified majority) by the European Council for two and a half years and could be re-elected once for a similar term. The President would chair and co-ordinate the European Council’s work.

[A face]

Alright people, Lisbon Treaty, we are getting to the business end of things now .... its as clear as mud at this stage. What way are you voting and why?

Make three reasoned (and substantiated) points to back up you decision. No debate (other threads for that)

No poll, just points

[BohsPartisan]

Alright people, Lisbon Treaty, we are getting to the business end of things now .... its as clear as mud at this stage. What way are you voting and why?

Make three reasoned (and substantiated) points to back up you decision. No debate (other threads for that)

No poll, just points

No because:
1. It is undemocratic - no one else gets to vote.
2. It is a neoliberal treaty - there are passages about increased competition in areas that have hitherto been seen as public services.
3. It is gobbledygook on purpose so people don't know whats in it.

[pete]

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 council.

With 27 members Ireland would only get the Presidency once every 13 years so as you say we lose nothing. Up to now countries tried to complete EU projects within 6 months which has not been possible which lead to them being passed on from country to country so very inefficient.

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.

I agree. I don't think the undemocratic argument carrys much weigh. Politicians pass laws every day of the week (or once a month in Ireland) & the public don't get a chance to have a direct say. Britain is probably not having a referendum as they don't have a constitution. Ireland was the only country to have referendums for Nice. Maastricht scraped through & without we would not have had the Euro.

[mypost]

No need for anyone to be sorry, these are complicated things. I looked it up and we're both half right.

Well, it's a highly technical and complicated document.

The meetings of ministers are still be chaired by each country for 6 months but the meetings of prime ministers will be chaired by the new person.

I interpret the above, as the person, (and associated nation) holding the EU Presidency. They will be elected to co-ordinate the council's work, and the ministers at meetings will still be answerable to the President, during his (their) long term of office.

With 27 members Ireland would only get the Presidency once every 13 years so as you say we lose nothing. Up to now countries tried to complete EU projects within 6 months which has not been possible which lead to them being passed on from country to country so very inefficient.

What's the hurry?? Will there be a terrorist attack on Malta tomorrow if things are not agreed??

They got the constitution/treaty agreed, not at a time that suited the big countries, but when it suited everyone. That's why we have 27 and more countries. Everyone has a say, and laws/bills are passed when they suit states, not by the EU's deadlines.

I agree. I don't think the undemocratic argument carrys much weigh. Politicians pass laws every day of the week (or once a month in Ireland) & the public don't get a chance to have a direct say. Britain is probably not having a referendum as they don't have a constitution.

Britain chose not to have a referendum second time around. An Irish TD is answerable to his electorate, and may in extreme cases, be dismissed. When was an EU politician last dismissed from Brussels?? Even Dana lasted her full 5 years.

[Dodge]

2. It is a neoliberal treaty...
3. It is gobbledygook on purpose so people don't know whats in it.

He hee hee

[Block G Raptor]

NO!
1. As BP says it's pretty tough to understand exactly what is in it, as John Lennon once famously said "If in Doubt F**K IT"
2. I have yet to hear 1 politician in the Yes camp give a straight answer to the Question "In what way will Ireland benefit from the Lisbon treaty?", Alls I've heard in response to that question is that the EU has been good for Ireland and we should be good Europeans blah blah
3. I am a strong believer in Irish Sovereignty (I make no apologies for this) and really really do not want to see that Sovereignty diluted unless their are clearly defined benefits to all people on the Island, I can't list one benefit of the Lisbon treaty to the ordinary joe on the street

[jebus]

Yes

1. I'm in favour of taking some of the decision making away from Dublin
2. I'm in favour of the EU having a common defence policy
3. I don't trust Libertas, Sinn Fein or the Catholic Church

[anto1208]

YES

1. The less power our goverment has the better
2. Europe and the EU arent out the get us and con us like the NO campain seems to be suggesting they will work in everyones best interest.
3. Sinn Fein said vote No thats a good enough reason for me to vote yes
4. Voting no because you dont understand something is stupid if you dont know what it does dont vote ! Or find out what it does then make up your mind i read the little book sent out to everyone and im happy to vote yes.

[Block G Raptor]

YES
i read the little book sent out to everyone and im happy to vote yes.

A little book that neither I nor my parents house received

[Only1Rovers]

When put to the test, twice the constitution was shot down by founding members of the European Union, The French and Dutch, so the argument that we should be good Europeans and vote yes does not hold water.

The original author of the Treaty, Valery Giscard d'Estaing has stated, "Public opinion will not be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly....All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way".

Somewhat worrying.

Corporation tax WILL be harmonized/standardised which will mean a significant raise in taxes here (in Ireland) to complement taxation in Germany and France. Ireland's economic boom has been substantially due to our low corporate tax rate of 12.5%. France and Germany's corporate tax is twice ours of 34.4% and 38.6% respectfully.

I'm no fan of Sinn Fein and don't know the background to Libertas but I will be voting no.

However, if I was promised a new playing surface in the Showgrounds and we could keep Faz I would vote YES YES YES!

Until then....

[superfrank]

A little book that neither I nor my parents house received

Or mine.

Yes
1. It makes the voting system in Europe more democratic for all nations.
2. The common tax base will equalise options for multi-nationals in Europe.
3. The EU defence force.

[pete]

Yes.
- More efficient decision making & democratic structure in Europe.
- I don't agree with SF, Libertas, Racist or Religions Nutjob groups.
- Can find anything in the Treaty I disagree with.

[anto1208]

At a glance it seems any one that has read up on it is voting YES and the ones that are going on the sound bites are voting NO.

Im still hearing people saying things like it will bring Abortion , the Death penalty in here , we would lose our Nutrality ( thats debatable at the moment anyway) and Veto etc etc All released by the NO campain and all clearly wrong.

[dahamsta]

How about all the politicians that are recommending a Yes, but haven't actually read it, how would you categorise them?

[micls]

How about all the politicians that are recommending a Yes, but haven't actually read it, how would you categorise them?

As idiots. The same way Id class anyone who voted without reading up on it

[mypost]

As idiots. The same way Id class anyone who voted without reading up on it

If the politicians haven't read the treaty, why should the electorate?? We still have to cast our vote on it regardless.

[jebus]

If the politicians haven't read the treaty, why should the electorate?? We still have to cast our vote on it regardless.

No you don't. The people I know that haven't read it aren't going to vote either way, that seems to be the sensible option to take if you haven't been swayed by the government's lack of knowledge or Libertas' spreading of lies