The Official Lisbon Treaty Thread

[Billys Boots]

Therefore, I vote to maintain the current system until we are given an honest  and open proposal for improving the workings of the EU that is clear and concise on what we are gaining and what we are giving up.

If we're honest, do we really know, understand and approve of the way it's currently governed?  For me, it's about outcomes, not footpaths.

As for Referenda in Ireland, can we honestly say that all of them have been worthwhile?  From a 'everyone gets their say' viewpoint, well certainly.  From an information and truth viewpoint, most definitely not.  Is democracy really always about having your personal say - I think this constant insistence on having (yet another) viewpoint lessens the value of our vote in General Elections, and lessens the pressure on our politicians to make meaningful and accountable decisions.  Why indanamajaysus do we have to have a say about absolutely f*cking everything - especially things we don't (and don't want to, and don't need to) understand.

[magpie seanie]

Death Valley - you seem to be an authority on ignorance. Well done for that incisive contribution.

Thanks for the reply BB's.

Hardy - very similar feelings to myself.

[Hardy]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, BB about referenda. In fact I have a problem with democracy itself as currently practiced, to the extent that the uninformed have an equal vote with those who have taken the trouble to understand the issue at hand.

But I would always think long and hard about any attempt by a govermnent to arrogate more power to itself at the expense of the citizen's franchise. I think much longer and harder when it's a coalition of government and opposition - i..e. effectively the entire political class as a unit, seeking to do it. Longest and hardest when they seem to be attempting it by stealth.

[Hardy]

If we're honest, do we really know, understand and approve of the way it's currently governed?  For me, it's about outcomes, not footpaths.

We know and have experienced the effects and can make some sort of judgment on whether they've been positive or negative. We have reason to be worried when there seems to be a concerted effort to obfuscate the likely effects of the new proposals.

[stevo-08]

Great debate lads and more illuminating than much of what has polluted the public discourse on this referendum. Sterling stuff from Zapatista in particular.

I would have started out inclined to vote 'Yes', subject to informing myself on the details. My attempt to inform myself has been frustrated by the deliberate policy of the government, the coalition supporting the proposal and the vested interests in the EU itself to cloud the issue, simplify the argument to stultifying "do the right thing because Europe has been good to us" exhortations and lie about the potential consequences of a rejection of the treaty.

This is NOT a referendum about whether we stay in the EU, maintain the benefits of membership, etc. We are being asked to approve a proposal for changing how the EU is governed. We are entitled to say we don't think it's a good proposal without being threatened with expulsion, accused of ingratitude or presumed to be anti-Europe.

With my attempts to inform myself frustrated, I haven't been able to find a good reason to vote 'Yes'. That should leave me in a theoretically neutral position. However, if there's no reason to vote 'Yes' the only reasonable option is to vote 'No', despite my discomfort at the coalition of crusties, malcontents and erstwhile enemies of the state that puts me in communion with.

Zapatista put it best – contrary to the government's proclamations that there is no plan B if we vote no, in fact there is no plan B, no going back, if we vote 'Yes', while the likely aftermath of a 'No' seems straightforward enough – carry on as we are until we get a reasonable proposal for change that we can support. Therefore, I vote to maintain the current system until we are given an honest  and open proposal for improving the workings of the EU that is clear and concise on what we are gaining and what we are giving up.

However, the clinching argument for me was something I found in the Referendum Commission's booklet and that in the whole public debate I have seen mentioned only once, by Magpie Seanie here. It is this (in reference to the proposal to give the European Council the power to amend the treaties by unanimous vote):

"Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland".
To me, that is the most important change to our constitution proposed in this referendum and I find it amazing that it has hardly even surfaced in the debate.

Hardy, excellent post and I agree with you entirely. However, in reference to the section in bold above, you are not entirely correct. The referendum commission handbook says this: allow Ireland to agree at the European Council to certain changes in the EU treaties; these changes may require a referendum or require the approval of the Dáil and Seanad

Thats certainly different to saying it would not require a referendum. But I think it's important that the referendum commission havent actually clarified this issue.

The actual wording in the treaty is:
The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements

[ziggysego]

I don't know an awful lot about the Lisbon Treaty, but from I can gather.

1) It doesn't affect Irish Neutrality
2) It would seriously affect Ireland's standing with the European Community with there was a No vote.

So even though we know wouldn't have a full-time EU Commissioner anymore, if I had a vote, I'd vote Yes.

[Hardy]

Stevo-08 – I haven't read the treaty (so I suppose I shouldn't be voting at all),  but you and I are quoting separate paragraphs (from the same section, though) of the Referendum Commission's booklet.

The paragraph you quote is referring to the proposal to give the European Council the power to propose changes to "certain parts" (it doesn't say which parts)  of the governing treaties. And, as you quote, it says this "may require a referendum in Ireland".

The following paragraph says the treaty "also" (implying that this is a different provision, but it's not clear about the difference) proposes to give the European Council the power to amend the treaties to allow QMV in some areas where unanimity is now required and to apply the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in areas where the Special Legislative Procedure is applied at present. This is the item in relation to which it says "Under the proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland the approval of the Dáil and Seanad will be required for Ireland to agree to such proposed changes. Such changes would not require a referendum in Ireland".

[Billys Boots]

We know and have experienced the effects and can make some sort of judgment on whether they've been positive or negative.

I agree, and I think we'd be very, very wrong to consider that the negative has outweighed (or even approached in 'weight') the positive - don't you agree?

We have reason to be worried when there seems to be a concerted effort to obfuscate the likely effects of the new proposals.

Well, it hasn't been clear, to be sure, but I'm not assured that the effort at obfuscation has been concerted.  If you bought a car that you were happy enough with - would you require (or expect to be consulted on) a new manual on the engine workings of an improved or changed model, should the manufacturer decide to change it, regardless of whether it 'worked' better or not?  Can we really expect the administrators of the EU to explain, word-by-word, how they manage this monolith, when we don't expect it of our government departments or our county councils?

With the 'new' EU, and additional member states (and a larger market for us to exploit), can we really expect to have the same proportional influence in its administration?  Are we entitled to more Commissioners than Germany or France? - we already have a greater proportional 'say' per head of population.  Let's be fair about this folks.

[stevo-08]

Hardy, ok Im with you now. Thats another section in Article 48 (exact wording below), which seems to supersede the veto argument for all areas other than military & defence. I think the difference between this section & the section I referred to above, is that this section makes a provision for the European Council to make decisions on all areas (other than military & defence) by QMV rather than unanimity. Not good in my opinion. However, the first section I referred to above, makes a provision to actually change the treaty after it has been ratified and this may not need a referendum. Is it too much to ask the referendum commission to clarify this before we cast out vote!!!

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

[Zapatista]

Here is the artile in question I only took it from this site as it was the first one on google.

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/203/113/

This part concerns me.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

I think we have one year left? It could also be considered as a Plan B.

[Zapatista]

It's good to have your opinion Ziggy.

It would be interesting to see the opinion of more posters without a vote (topic for another thread on the right to vote). Did many of you vote in this poll and how did you vote in the poll?

[Zapatista]

Just looking at article 48.5 again ---

I read it as, if 1/5 of member states have not passed the treaty in two years after the signing (14 months from now I think) it will be referred to the Council (the heads of all member states). It does not say why. It might be to implement a plan B of some sort, renegotiation, sidelining, or leave the status-quo. Rather than drop the idea of the treaty this will give the council the chance to do something. I don't understand how this can be the case as this text is in a treaty which won't be ratified which leaves article 48.5 (and the treaty as a whole) illegal. Therefore it cannot be referred to the council as they have no athority to refer it without the ratification of the treaty.

[Tankie]

Just looking at article 48.5 again ---

I read it as, if 1/5 of member states have not passed the treaty in two years after the signing (14 months from now I think) it will be referred to the Council (the heads of all member states). It does not say why. It might be to implement a plan B of some sort, renegotiation, sidelining, or leave the status-quo. Rather than drop the idea of the treaty this will give the council the chance to do something. I don't understand how this can be the case as this text is in a treaty which won't be ratified which leaves article 48.5 (and the treaty as a whole) illegal. Therefore it cannot be referred to the council as they have no athority to refer it without the ratification of the treaty.

I still think this is the best deal we can get, voting NO will only hold up the EU for another 3 - 5 years and nothing that is being discussed will change

[magpie seanie]

Congrats on your ability to tell the future Tankie.

[ziggysego]

Ref: Zap

I voted on this poll and voted Yes.

However, since I'm a dirty northerner, I won't be voting in the other poll