The Official Lisbon Treaty Thread

[Zapatista]

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

Fair enough but I'm not argueing that. Article 48.5 refers the treaty to the council in the case of a no vote yet article 48.5 cannot be activated without a yes vote.

Also the treaty refers to the president as a man even before a president has be chosen

[Hound]

Hound - I disagree with some of what you're saying. I'm perfectly satisfied over neutrality, abortion and taxation (though some day the pressure will come on again for us to ditch our low CT rates - you can go to the bank with that). I don't think a lot of people believe the looneys and their scaremongering to be honest. I just feel that a lot of people are of the same opinion as myself - Europe is fine the way it is.

On the point about all the mainstream parties supporting it - Politicians are not neutral in this debate. There's something in it for them - jobs, junkets or whatever. Realisitically, only 5 or 6 at most people decide policy for each of those parties and all the others toe the line. Like the goons who were out marching in support of retaining cancer services in Sligo one week but voted against it in the Dáil the next.

Of course there will be pressure to increase our corporate tax rates, there was significant pressure put on McCreevy a few years back, but we will never do it. Never. The CCCTB was a clever idea by the EU to cirumvent our low tax rates, and even if we opted out, if other countries got together and implemented it, there could be serious adverse ramifications for Ireland. However the Lisbon treaty specifies that a select group cannot implement it by themselves, without unanimous permission. So not only can we keep out of CCCTB, we can prevent others from going into it.

I agree that its half a dozen or so from each party who decide what the party-line is, and then everyone else has to toe it. And certainly if the "jobs, junkets" remark was made glibly I could understand it given the scandals. But there is not even a smidgeon of me that believes for one second that the top people in FF, FG and Labour are encouraging a Yes vote for "jobs and junkets". And I think anyone who does has gone way too far over the top in their judgement of our leading politicians.

[Zapatista]

I agree with Hound on the 'Jobs Junkets' thing. However I do think that Gilmore believes it will promote him domestically and increase his chances of getting into Government with FG in the near future as leader of Labour should the treaty be passed. I think FG are genuine in their favour for it. The jurys still out on FF.

[Billys Boots]

But there is not even a smidgeon of me that believes for one second that the top people in FF, FG and Labour are encouraging a Yes vote for "jobs and junkets".

If we're going down that road - what is the single (probably only) most important focus of politicians everywhere?  Getting re-elected.  Taken at the basest level, if all these guys reckons getting re-elected will be easier for them with this treaty than without it, then (even at our most cynical/realistic) can we for a moment imagine that this will disimprove Ireland's standing as a nation or as a member state?  Will voting 'YES' make these gombeens less electable - I don't think so.

[stevo-08]

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 might be wrong but I think this refers to ammendments to the Treaty after it's been ratified. The first point in Article 48 says:
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

This sets the tone for the remainder of Article 48, which goes on to describe how the ammendments can be ratified or agreed. As I said, I could be wrong in this.

[magpie seanie]

Whatever about the job/junkets (I was taking a bit of licence there, I am getting a bit cynical) politicians do receive more power out of this Treaty.

[Billys Boots]

There's f*ck all point in them having more power if we don't consider them electable, or if we think they've sold us down the Swanee.

[Seamus]

Less than 4 million Irish people have the fate of Europe and the world in their hands. The powers that be know full well that if all 27 EU member countries voted on their draconian Constitution it would fail. Not only should Ireland vote NO we should also succeed from the EU. It was ushered in quietly by the signing of the Treaty of Rome 51 years ago, much like The North America Union which was signed into law on March 23rd 2005 without the knowledge and consent of the people, a treasonous act. 

Ireland has lost its Sovereignty through the lure of subsidies and the stroke of a pen, a yes vote would be the final nail in the coffin. The main political parties have sold their souls to the devil and do not have the best interest of the Irish people at heart. Just like Paul Gallagher returning from Chantilly, Virginia their feet should be held to the fire for their actions. How could both FF and FG be completely in unison unless they were told how to vote and use propaganda in order to sway the Irish electorate?

A yes vote if implemented will go down in infamy

[Hardy]

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?

I think we're at cross purposes Billy. I said I'd vote to stay with the current system until we got a clear and understandable proposal for change in how the EU is governed. You questioned whether we know any more about how it's governed at present than we do about the new proposals.

I agree, but my point is at least we have experience of the current system and on the whole it's been positive. Hence my rationale for staying with it until we're offered something better (or at least understandable).

As regards whether the obfuscation has been concerted, I'd cite the refusal (or at best failure) to provide the electorate with a single tangible benefit that will accrue from voting 'Yes',  the continuing lie of presenting this as if it were a referendum on our membership of the EU ('let's stay at the heart of Europe', etc.) and the news management to make sure uncomfortable revelations are kept under wraps until after the referendum - for a start.

You can be sure if there was ANY substantive benefit to the Irish people resulting from approval of the treaty, that is what would be sold in this campaign. The fact that the best they can do is threaten us with unpopularity if we don't do the right thing convinces me that they don't have a positive argument FOR the thing. On the other hand, what we're losing is quite clear. It's not all that much and not all that important and most people would probably support it in the cause of – well whatever the reason is that we're being asked to give up these things, if only we knew. I know – something vague about greater efficiency for the bureaucrats. That's sure to stir the passions of the electorate.

It might not be very noble, but electorates are ultimately mercenary and vote for whatever benefits themselves. Irish politicians, of all politicians and FF of all Irish politicians should know that and I can't believe their stupidity in offering a proposal to the Irish electorate that contains clearly defined negatives (reduced voting power, essentially) and no compensating positives.

[Bogball XV]

the latest straw poll carried out by Bogball has confirmed his worst fears, namely that last weeks shock lead for the NO campaign seems to have galvinised the YES campaign, from last week when amongst co-workers the voting was 7-1 in favour of NO, there has been a huge swing to YES, whilst NO still leads by 12-6, the previously undecideds have stuck with the establishment, a common reason given is "look at who's voting NO, Libertas and Shinners", you should bear in mnd that the people I work with are an extremely cynical bunch, and I think this swing might be replicated countrywide.
It's good that the middle management of Biffo and Enda can go back to Brussels with a job well done, they might even be rewarded....

[magpie seanie]

Bogball - I would have the same fear as you but am clinging to the hope that many would keep schtum about voting no (so as not to be seen to be agreeing with the "loo-laas") yet do the deed in the privacy of the voting booth. Think its possible, moreso than the other way round.

[Zapatista]

BogBall, I firmly believe that the people will vote Yes. I may be cynical to say this but I am of the opinion that those voting Yes will vote yes most of those intending to vote No up to yesterday will vote No. However, I can see a huge change of mind today. Many people will vote Yes (the I don't knows and some Nos) after deciding today. The fear of a No vote will scare them. They won't know why but when they enter that booth they will go "f**k it, I can't take the chance". I believe they will vote yes. A last minute change of plan will see the Yes camp through due to the false fear of voting No.


BTW did anyone get canvassed at their door and if si by who?

[magpie seanie]

No-one called to my door.

[Billys Boots]

As regards whether the obfuscation has been concerted, I'd cite the refusal (or at best failure) to provide the electorate with a single tangible benefit that will accrue from voting 'Yes'

Sorry to keep harping on, but how can there be ANY tangible benefits in rejigging an adminstrative system to account for an effective doubling of the number of countries within the EU (shit, nearly called it Union) - in terms of influence/votes etc., nobody wins (except the newbies).  How can that be 'sold' to the interminably greedy/selfish?

[Billys Boots]

For interests sake, it's reported today that the Greek, Estonian and Finnish parliaments all voted through the Treaty yesterday with massive majorities.