The Official Lisbon Treaty Thread

[stevo-08]

Did anybody hear the NO guy on the Right Hook this evening? he was very good and gave a decent view point on it. I'll have to wait and hear what BIFFO has to say tomorrow and then make up my mind for sure.

dont you start changing tankie, get out, shut up and vote yes

I must say that the guy was very good today, there was no bullshite just facts so i wanna listen to BIFFO and see what he says but i think i will still vote yes as I do not think that there is a better deal to be got and it is a compromise so we gotta give something up

Cowen was on The Last Word yesterday. Unfortunately I only heard a couple of minutes of the interview but he was making that same arguement & that there was no Plan B. Did anyone hear the full interview? Would like to hear some comments/feedback.

[Zapatista]

I was a fairly solid "Yes" at the start of the campaign but after giving it a lot of consideration I've changed my mind and will be voting no. The campaign has been poor with both sides telling loads of lies. I'm of the opinion that sooner or later we need to call a halt to the slide towards a United States of Europe and in the apparent absence of any real tangible benefits from this treaty, I think now is the time. How the EU works is ok for me now. I'm not convinced we should change our constitution so I'll vote no. It says a lot about the political establishment in this country when they couldn't convince me, who'd be fairly willing to listen, that this is a good thing.

Caveat - I still think a large proportion of the "No" campaigners are loons who have no clue about the treaty either and disassociate myself from them.

The bold above is a very important point. Saying no does not change anything. It does not mean you are against or ungrateful for the EU. It can mean you are happy with things as they are. We (nor has any other country) have given no mandate to our politicians to present us with Treaty after T(h)reaty bringing European Unity closer and closer. That is not to say I oppose it, I just demand that I (and every other European) have a say in it. It must be done democratically.

A no vote does not mean you are a member of Libertas or any other group.

This is the greatest failure by the pro-Treaty parties. They assume because most of us voted for one of them in the last General Election that we will hang on their every word in a referendum if they all agree to vote yes.

I heard Harney on the radio saying 'it is the same old people voting no as were against us joining the EEC in the first place'. I was 4 at the time. Anyone currently under the age of 52 didn't have a vote in that referendum.

Good point Muppet. I also think that anyone who compares SFs No position to the EU in the early 70s is in tune with their No position now is quite mad really.

On plan B - Did the Irish Government sign off on this treaty and say to themselves (and the rest of the EU) 'grand so, we will just take this back to Ireland and get them to vote yes and Bobs your uncle'? Did none of the negotiators even concider Ireland might vote No? If not then it is either complete stupidity or else complete arrogance on the Governments half.

Mary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

Enda giving out about the IRA was the worst pro-treaty arguement I have heard yet. Talk about avoiding the topic

[Tankie]

Mary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

I thought she sounded ridiculous when she was pulled up on the fact that SF want to raise corporation tax so that we have the same rate on the Island of Ireland.

[blast05]

Mary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

Not in my view - i thought she was the poorest performer of the 4 and was exposed badly on neutrality and corporation tax.

[Tankie]

I was just reading http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html and it seem very clear on the status of our VETO in regard to Tax:

Areas to which Qualified Majority Voting applies
At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in civil matters. It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport.

Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously – they include decisions on defence and taxation. This means that any Member State may veto a proposed change in these areas.

[magpie seanie]

I'm also very worried about the provisions allowing for changes in the Treaty without recourse to a referendum. It's a bit like signing a blank cheque. I suppose if you trust our political leaders then you'd give them that blank cheque....

[Zapatista]

Mary Lou McDonald made absolute shite of the Yes Camp tonight on Questions and Answers.

Not in my view - i thought she was the poorest performer of the 4 and was exposed badly on neutrality and corporation tax.

I didn't think she was bad on neutrality? What makes you think she was?

[stevo-08]

I'm also very worried about the provisions allowing for changes in the Treaty without recourse to a referendum. It's a bit like signing a blank cheque. I suppose if you trust our political leaders then you'd give them that blank cheque....

as am I seanie. Thats article 48 of the Treaty. However, to be fair it has not been made clear whether it would require a referendum or not. The actual wording 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.

I was just reading http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html and it seem very clear on the status of our VETO in regard to Tax:

Areas to which Qualified Majority Voting applies
At present, QMV applies to decisions on a wide range of issues including agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection, environment and judicial co-operation in civil matters. It is proposed to apply QMV to a number of new areas – these include energy, asylum, immigration, judicial co-operation in criminal matters and sport.

Certain decisions will continue to be made unanimously – they include decisions on defence and taxation. This means that any Member State may veto a proposed change in these areas.

That does seem clear Tankie. However, Article 48 seems to contradict that, with a provision that gives power to the council to change from unanimous voting to QMV for any area other than military or defence (see below).

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.

Dont get me wrong, unlike some of the scaremongering from some of the NO campaigners, Im not saying we are losing our veto or that the EU are after our corporation tax. My arguement all along is that, it's just not as clear as either the YES/NO side seem to think. There is some uncertainty and until I am given some real tangible benefits for Ireland I will be voting NO.

apologies for the long post...

[Hound]

By the way Tankie, have you actually read the treaty. I presume you have since you seem such an expert. So please tell me specifically what article says we have a veto on taxation? As I said earlier in this thread, Jens-Peter Bonde (an MEP since 1979) says the claims about a Veto & Unanimous Voting are far from clearcut. And unlike most of the Yes camp, Jens-Peter has actually read the treaty in full and scrutinised it. Im not saying he's 100% right, but it certainly raises some doubt over the claims from the Yes side.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) have examined the treaty, and this was their statement in relation to the treaty and tax:

ICAI has made a public statement to clarify the distinction between the CCCTB and the Lisbon Treaty, insofar as it affects Ireland's tax position.

ICAI is concerned about the confusion being spread by advocates of the Lisbon "No" campaign in relation to Irish Tax policy.

The Lisbon Treaty does not affect Ireland's tax sovereignty. It is not related to the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is a framework of proposals being worked upon by European Union civil servants, which even if they come to fruition cannot be imposed on Ireland.

ICAI has been campaigning against the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base since its inception. There are those who seem to believe that there is an EU wide conspiracy to compel Ireland to take part in the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. But, if that is the case, why are they campaigning against a Treaty that confirms our tax veto?

Far from furthering the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, a Yes vote for Lisbon will help us campaign against it.

[Zapatista]

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) have examined the treaty, and this was their statement in relation to the treaty and tax:

ICAI has made a public statement to clarify the distinction between the CCCTB and the Lisbon Treaty, insofar as it affects Ireland's tax position.

ICAI is concerned about the confusion being spread by advocates of the Lisbon "No" campaign in relation to Irish Tax policy.

The Lisbon Treaty does not affect Ireland's tax sovereignty. It is not related to the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is a framework of proposals being worked upon by European Union civil servants, which even if they come to fruition cannot be imposed on Ireland.

ICAI has been campaigning against the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base since its inception. There are those who seem to believe that there is an EU wide conspiracy to compel Ireland to take part in the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. But, if that is the case, why are they campaigning against a Treaty that confirms our tax veto?

Far from furthering the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, a Yes vote for Lisbon will help us campaign against it.

Fair enough and I accept this.

I say this with caution -

It does seem like the ICAI are talking like a political party.
- Is it true that FG and Labour are in favour of CCCTB?
- Do we already have a veto on tax and if so there is noting to gain in a yes vote and the use of the word "confirm" is spin. I do realise that countering the No arguement is the main purpose of the press release.
- How will a Yes vote help us campagin against CCCTB?

[blast05]

A good article from An Spailpin on the whole affair.

http://spailpin.blogspot.com/

And another good bloody article beneath it on the football championship.

[magickingdom]

I intend to vote no until the EU present me with an accountable democratic process for electing policy makers in the EU. I cant vote to retain or get rid of the EU president or any of its commissioners. They are not accountable to me and therefore it is not a Democracy in any sense of the word.

The behavior of the pro-Treaty parties, especially their not even bothering to read it, highlights the lack of democratic process even further. Finally as has been mentioned the fact that other EU members, due to limitations in their Constitutions, are not even getting a chance to vote on these Treaties tells me all I need to know.

Imagine if some one asked you to sign a contract that they said they had never read, they admitted they didn't understand but said there would be hell to pay if you didn't sign it. What would you do? 
 

did you elect brian cowen as taoiseach? or was it bertie but you ended up with brian. the point is you elected the people who elected brian cowen and that system works quite well in most parts of the world. the president of the eu commission will be elected by people we elect whom we should be able to trust

as for signing a contract without reading it thats why people pay solicitors to take care of that angle for them, alot of these contracts require expertise in certain fields. here were trusting our elected representitives to have protected us in this treaty. i think they have done a good job considering the fact that there are 27 different nations involved..

[muppet]

I intend to vote no until the EU present me with an accountable democratic process for electing policy makers in the EU. I cant vote to retain or get rid of the EU president or any of its commissioners. They are not accountable to me and therefore it is not a Democracy in any sense of the word.

The behavior of the pro-Treaty parties, especially their not even bothering to read it, highlights the lack of democratic process even further. Finally as has been mentioned the fact that other EU members, due to limitations in their Constitutions, are not even getting a chance to vote on these Treaties tells me all I need to know.

Imagine if some one asked you to sign a contract that they said they had never read, they admitted they didn't understand but said there would be hell to pay if you didn't sign it. What would you do? 
 

did you elect brian cowen as taoiseach? or was it bertie but you ended up with brian. the point is you elected the people who elected brian cowen and that system works quite well in most parts of the world. the president of the eu commission will be elected by people we elect whom we should be able to trust

You completely miss the point. We elected the entire Dáil including Cowan. The Dáil then elected Cowan as its and our leader. None of us had a vote for the EU president. None of us had a vote for the EU comissioners. Under the EU system we would vote for County Councils who would then elect the Dáil with no input from us. 

as for signing a contract without reading it thats why people pay solicitors to take care of that angle for them, alot of these contracts require expertise in certain fields. here were trusting our elected representitives to have protected us in this treaty. i think they have done a good job considering the fact that there are 27 different nations involved..

Not only did our 3 most senior politians not understand it, they admitted that they hadn't even read it.

You say they have done a great job. Who mandated them to produce this Treaty? Did they ask the people of Europe if they wanted a new Treaty to bring us closer, further apart or the same difference?

BTW people pay solicitors because they dont leave it to chance that the person producing the contract hasn't sold them a pup.

[magickingdom]

You completely miss the point. We elected the entire Dáil including Cowan. The Dáil then elected Cowan as its and our leader. None of us had a vote for the EU president. None of us had a vote for the EU comissioners. Under the EU system we would vote for County Councils who would then elect the Dáil with no input from us. 

i dont miss the point, we elect the dail and the dail elect the taoiseah on the nomination of the largest party in government. we elect the european parliment and the european parliment elect a president of the commission on the basis of a nomination of the heads of government. no democratic deficit here imo

[Farrandeelin]

I see the French are threatening us now to vote yes . Well I definitely will not be told what to do by the French, Germans or anyone else. If Ireland votes no, will the EU accept our democratic result? Probably not as they are not real democrats. If they were there would be referenda in all EU member states.