The Lisbon Treaty Referendum Oct 2nd

[Gnevin]

Ireland, and all other Member States, will keep a Commissioner
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/

Yes, for the first 5 years. It will then change. Once ratified the treaty cannot be ignored and the treaty says it will change. You can't decide to implement part of a treaty.

The mandate of the current European Commission will end in November of this year. Under the Nice Treaty the next Commission must be made up of a number of Commissioners less than the number of Member States.

The Lisbon Treaty provides that the next Commission will have one Commissioner per Member State. It envisaged that from 2014 the membership of the Commission would be equal to two-thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council decided unanimously to adjust this number.  As this was identified as a key issue of concern in Ireland, the Taoiseach raised the matter at the December European Council.  It was ultimately agreed, that should the Lisbon Treaty enter into force, there will continue to be one Commissioner per Member State.

The effect of this agreement is that, if Lisbon is ratified, we will retain an Irish Commissioner indefinitely but, if it is rejected, the Nice Treaty provisions will apply and the number of Commissioners will have to be reduced.


What are your other issues?

[Canalman]

Cóir have put up some catchy posters here in Dublin in the past week. Stiil think that the referendum will be passed by an extremely jittery electorate.

Now, if the "no" vote proponents put forward the view that a no vote would topple Cowen ,it might be interesting.

[Zapatista]

The mandate of the current European Commission will end in November of this year. Under the Nice Treaty the next Commission must be made up of a number of Commissioners less than the number of Member States.

The Lisbon Treaty provides that the next Commission will have one Commissioner per Member State. It envisaged that from 2014 the membership of the Commission would be equal to two-thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council decided unanimously to adjust this number.  As this was identified as a key issue of concern in Ireland, the Taoiseach raised the matter at the December European Council.  It was ultimately agreed, that should the Lisbon Treaty enter into force, there will continue to be one Commissioner per Member State.

The effect of this agreement is that, if Lisbon is ratified, we will retain an Irish Commissioner indefinitely but, if it is rejected, the Nice Treaty provisions will apply and the number of Commissioners will have to be reduced.


What are your other issues?

They have agreed an extension of one per member state. Our current commissioner wants the reduction (as do Germany, France, Britain etc) so a unanimous decision will not last beyond one term. The retention of a commissioner is not included as a ' Legal Guarantee' to be attached to a future treaty as it is only an extension.

See here (although the do try to word it as if it is a legal guarantee)

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/

This says the Council have agreed the right to nominate a commissioner. It does not say we have the right to a Commissioner.

This is a new treaty and if it addressed the concerns of the loss of a commissioner it would correct the mistake made at Nice.

[Gnevin]

The mandate of the current European Commission will end in November of this year. Under the Nice Treaty the next Commission must be made up of a number of Commissioners less than the number of Member States.

The Lisbon Treaty provides that the next Commission will have one Commissioner per Member State. It envisaged that from 2014 the membership of the Commission would be equal to two-thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council decided unanimously to adjust this number.  As this was identified as a key issue of concern in Ireland, the Taoiseach raised the matter at the December European Council.  It was ultimately agreed, that should the Lisbon Treaty enter into force, there will continue to be one Commissioner per Member State.

The effect of this agreement is that, if Lisbon is ratified, we will retain an Irish Commissioner indefinitely but, if it is rejected, the Nice Treaty provisions will apply and the number of Commissioners will have to be reduced.


What are your other issues?

They have agreed an extension of one per member state. Our current commissioner wants the reduction (as do Germany, France, Britain etc) so a unanimous decision will not last beyond one term. The retention of a commissioner is not included as a ' Legal Guarantee' to be attached to a future treaty as it is only an extension.

See here (although the do try to word it as if it is a legal guarantee)

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/

This says the Council have agreed the right to nominate a commissioner. It does not say we have the right to a Commissioner.

This is a new treaty and if it addressed the concerns of the loss of a commissioner it would correct the mistake made at Nice.

Did you vote yes to Nice?

[Zapatista]

Did you vote yes to Nice?

I was disenfranchised.

[Donagh]

[thebandit]

Cóir have put up some catchy posters here in Dublin in the past week. Stiil think that the referendum will be passed by an extremely jittery electorate.

Now, if the "no" vote proponents put forward the view that a no vote would topple Cowen ,it might be interesting.

I think people are afraid that a no vote will cost jobs through shutting down export channels

[Tankie]

Cóir have put up some catchy posters here in Dublin in the past week. Stiil think that the referendum will be passed by an extremely jittery electorate.

Now, if the "no" vote proponents put forward the view that a no vote would topple Cowen ,it might be interesting.

I think people are afraid that a no vote will cost jobs through shutting down export channels

I just hope all the clowns that have never voted before and all of a sudden took an interest in lisbon and voted no because they couldnt understand it (but never tried to read it) just stay at home and let the people with an IQ vote this in...as for Sinn Fein have they ever said yes to anything or do they just disagree with everything as a point of principle?

[Hound]

I hate all the crap about the Commissioners, as if that if Ireland might lose one if 5 or more years that it will somehow impact on us!! What total and utter nonsense.

Does anyone really think that by not having a commissioner for 5 years out of 15 (or whatever it was planned to be) would negatively impact Ireland or any other country?? All the No campaaign has really achieved is clarification for those of low IQ (as Tankie might say) that Lisbon won't impact abortion or conscription and they have secured more "jobs for the boys". And conrgatulations on that waste of money as European taxpayers will have to stump up for a far more than needed number of Commissioners, who get huge wedge, and who's main focus will be to show that they are not biased towards their own country (because that's about the only way they could get sacked).

I'm also annoyed that both the Yes and No campaigns (or at least the posters that have gone up this week) are copying the previous No campaign. "Forget the facts, we'll just try and scare the people into voting the way we want them to."

[Zapatista]

I think people are afraid that a no vote will cost jobs through shutting down export channels

This is not relevent.

I just hope all the clowns that have never voted before and all of a sudden took an interest in lisbon and voted no because they couldnt understand it (but never tried to read it) just stay at home and let the people with an IQ vote this in...as for Sinn Fein have they ever said yes to anything or do they just disagree with everything as a point of principle?

The turnout for Lisbon was lower than normal making your point, pointless.

SF supported the GFA. I honestly do not believe for one minute that anyone would just disagree with everything as a point of principle . How would that be a principle? Seriously, you complain about low IQs and then dumb down the debate. Have you ever voted No? Actually don't answer that as it's pointless and a discussion i can't be bothered with.

[Hardy]

Could one of you intellectuals let us of low IQ know what the phrase "the heart of Europe" means, in constitutional terms? And how we're going to be banned from it if we fail to do the bidding of our intellectual superiors? And what I would actually be voting FOR (as opposed to the fearful fate of banishment from the heart of Europe that I'd be voting to avoid) were I to  vote 'yes'?

Thanks.

[Zapatista]

I hate all the crap about the Commissioners, as if that if Ireland might lose one if 5 or more years that it will somehow impact on us!! What total and utter nonsense.

Does anyone really think that by not having a commissioner for 5 years out of 15 (or whatever it was planned to be) would negatively impact Ireland or any other country?? All the No campaaign has really achieved is clarification for those of low IQ (as Tankie might say) that Lisbon won't impact abortion or conscription and they have secured more "jobs for the boys". And conrgatulations on that waste of money as European taxpayers will have to stump up for a far more than needed number of Commissioners, who get huge wedge, and who's main focus will be to show that they are not biased towards their own country (because that's about the only way they could get sacked).

I'm also annoyed that both the Yes and No campaigns (or at least the posters that have gone up this week) are copying the previous No campaign. "Forget the facts, we'll just try and scare the people into voting the way we want them to."

The arrogance and self entitlement here is obvious and reflects that of our Government, in that regard I suppose it can be forgiven.

A commissioner is important especially as we move closer to QMV were small countries have less voting power. It's like your constituency having no TDs for 5 years and relying on councillors to represent you. For some reason Charlie McCreevy was the pride of Ireland and doing an altogether great job ntill this treaty came along and now the job he held doesn't seem important at all.



BTW I attended a debate last night with Leo Varadker, Mary Lou McDonald, Vincent Brown and Lucinda Creighton. There was a good crowd at it and it was a good debate. From the comments and questions from the floor I'd say this could be a close one yet.

[Gnevin]

Could one of you intellectuals let us of low IQ know what the phrase "the heart of Europe" means, in constitutional terms? And how we're going to be banned from it if we fail to do the bidding of our intellectual superiors? And what I would actually be voting FOR (as opposed to the fearful fate of banishment from the heart of Europe that I'd be voting to avoid) were I to  vote 'yes'?

Thanks.

The heart of Europe isn't a constitutional term and you know that. I've hear directly from Irish civil servants of the effect of the last no vote had to our position in the scheme of things .


Can the No lads tell us what a no will achieve SF told us last time it would get the entire thing thrown out and rewritten just for us little old Irish.

[Hound]

The arrogance and self entitlement here is obvious and reflects that of our Government, in that regard I suppose it can be forgiven.

A commissioner is important especially as we move closer to QMV were small countries have less voting power. It's like your constituency having no TDs for 5 years and relying on councillors to represent you. For some reason Charlie McCreevy was the pride of Ireland and doing an altogether great job ntill this treaty came along and now the job he held doesn't seem important at all.

I believe you are clued up in most things politic, so I can only take it that you are being deliberately misleading.

Comparing a TD to a commissioner is absolute nonsense. Its MEPs who are supposed to be like TDs, i.e. who represent the interests of their constituents. Commissioners are unelected appointees and they represent the interest of the EU as whole and a specific part of their job spec is not only to be not biased towards their home country, but to be seen to be not biased. But you already know that, maybe you just forgot.

[Gnevin]

The arrogance and self entitlement here is obvious and reflects that of our Government, in that regard I suppose it can be forgiven.

A commissioner is important especially as we move closer to QMV were small countries have less voting power. It's like your constituency having no TDs for 5 years and relying on councillors to represent you. For some reason Charlie McCreevy was the pride of Ireland and doing an altogether great job ntill this treaty came along and now the job he held doesn't seem important at all.

I believe you are clued up in most things politic, so I can only take it that you are being deliberately misleading.

Comparing a TD to a commissioner is absolute nonsense. Its MEPs who are supposed to be like TDs, i.e. who represent the interests of their constituents. Commissioners are unelected appointees and they represent the interest of the EU as whole and a specific part of their job spec is not only to be not biased towards their home country, but to be seen to be not biased. But you already know that, maybe you just forgot.

We will have 1 state 1 vote in the first round of voting so I don't know how QVM is an issue.


Another blatant misrepresentation is Cóir's poster suggesting that our voting strength in the Council of Ministers will be reduced to 0.8% in comparison to Germany's 17%. This looks solely at the second of two stages in Qualified Majority Voting decision-making, that which requires a law to have the support of countries with 65% of the population of the EU. It deliberately ignores the first stage which is designed to counteract the kinds of concerns Cóir is raising.

    * In the first stage, all states have one vote and 55% of countries are needed to approve a draft law (Article 16.4 TEU). Here, Ireland and Germany each have one vote and at least 15 countries need to support a proposal before it can even move on to the next stage.

    * The second stage is based on population size – but no proposal can be forced through by a small number of large states if they don't have wider support, because of the requirement for agreement from 55% of countries.

    * Ireland still retains a veto over sensitive areas, including taxation (Article 113 TFEU) and defence (Article 42.4 TEU).