The "Irish Guarantees" on Lisbon - are They Enough?

tonys wrote:

ibis wrote:

heresy of heresies - that the EU needs to be led by governments, because by and large governments are actually less reactionary, conservative, nationalist, xenophobic, and downright suspicious of deals than their electorates?

And so the “electorates” are not to be trusted with a decision, but rather led by “progressive” politicians and others, who know what’s in the best interest of the great unwashed, despite whatever the unwashed themselves, in their own little way, might think. Thank you for that.

Like I said - heresy of heresies. No, I think electorates know what they're doing, by and large. Politicians find it more comfortable not to ask the voters too much, because it involves (a) hard work explaining things, and (b) all the hazards of campaign, without the rewards. And here, at least, the majority seem to be in favour of the EU - I appreciate the Brits are only in to not be out.

tonys wrote:

Democracy my arse.
Jesus, I’m on the verge of changing my mind again and we’re not a day into it.

Plenty more of that to come, then.

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

The Lisbon Treaty amends Article 12 of the TEU enhancing the role of national parliaments in the adoption of Community legislation... it will mean that national parliaments will have the right to be informed by the Union institutions of legislatively proposals before them, they will also have the right to have draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them as well as various other advances. Furthermore Article 11 of the TEU as amended will give provide a mechanism whereby one million union citizens of a significant number of member states can petition the Commission to submit a proposal relating to the implementation of the Treaties.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

The Lisbon Treaty amends Article 12 of the TEU enhancing the role of national parliaments in the adoption of Community legislation... it will mean that national parliaments will have the right to be informed by the Union institutions of legislatively proposals before them, they will also have the right to have draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them as well as various other advances. Furthermore Article 11 of the TEU as amended will give provide a mechanism whereby one million union citizens of a significant number of member states can petition the Commission to submit a proposal relating to the implementation of the Treaties.

The first two items are clearly important. The petitions business I would regard as an insulting waste of time, as there doesn't seem to be any guaranteed action flowing from all that effort.

Easier to nobble a couple of MEPs or lobbyists.

I agree with you, it is a pander, but it does (might? will? does in the Treaty anyway...) exist nonetheless and thus it is a power which can be exercised by those motivated enough to use it.

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

It's in Lisbon, ffs, as per johnfás' post. Why are people asking now for things that are in Lisbon? Didn't anybody read the blasted thing?

There's a good review paper on the proposed system here.

As to the petitions system - of course we don't think much of it, because we don't have a petitions mechanism as part of our system. Those European countries that do take it more seriously.

ibis wrote:

Didn't anybody read the blasted thing?

I did . Well fair chunks of it anyway... and the Constitutional Treaty before that... The Combined Treaties and Legislation of the EU has pride of place on my bookshelf. It is a good read and only about 15 euro for anyone bothered buying it... that is about 150 euro cheaper than the Irish State charges you for a copy of the Companies Acts 1963-2006.

johnfás wrote:

ibis wrote:

Didn't anybody read the blasted thing?

I did . Well fair chunks of it anyway... and the Constitutional Treaty before that... The Combined Treaties and Legislation of the EU has pride of place on my bookshelf. It is a good read and only about 15 euro for anyone bothered buying it... that is about 150 euro cheaper than the Irish State charges you for a copy of the Companies Acts 1963-2006.

The more I look at what is being said now, and what was said during the campaign about the Treaty, the more it seems to me that Lisbon I was actually Nice III:

Commissioner - Nice.
"EU Army" (battlegroups) - Nice
CCCTB through enhanced cooperation - Nice
Immigration - Nice
Abortion through Services Directive - Nice
Government completely clueless - Nice

And the things people wanted, and claimed they weren't getting:

Increased subsidiarity checks - in Lisbon, wasn't in Nice
More democracy - in Lisbon, wasn't in Nice
Stopping competence creep - in Lisbon, wasn't in Nice
Ability to retain Commissioner - in Lisbon, wasn't in Nice

Maybe this time we can actually have Lisbon I!

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

that is in the Lisbon Treaty - Didn't you read it? - the No vote actually puts that off happening

God Almighty - did anybody who voted against Lisbon actually read the fucking treaty as opposed to freaking about things that they imagined to be in the document?

Edo wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

that is in the Lisbon Treaty - Didn't you read it? - the No vote actually puts that off happening

God Almighty - did anybody who voted against Lisbon actually read the fucking treaty as opposed to freaking about things that they imagined to be in the document?

Hence my call to have a referendum on Lisbon.

ibis wrote:

Edo wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

that is in the Lisbon Treaty - Didn't you read it? - the No vote actually puts that off happening

God Almighty - did anybody who voted against Lisbon actually read the fucking treaty as opposed to freaking about things that they imagined to be in the document?

Hence my call to have a referendum on Lisbon.

By all accounts, even fewer people who voted Yes had read the Treaty than those who voted No. I plodded through the damn thing once, with difficulty - as you aware it was not available in a decent consolidated form until late in the day - and also, like most people trying to grapple with it, had to do a lot of catch up reading to try fathom out EU structures and processes as they are now. I certainly can't after six months quote chapter and verse of it and I would imagine the numbers of people who could comes down to a few people with particular involvement with it.

If you are saying that I am freaking about about imaginary aspects of the Treaty, it would be good to say what they are.

I understand you canvassed on Lisbon Edo, and it was Ibis's full time concern for many months. You both clearly know it inside out, but your campaign was not successful. Perhaps an impatient and patronising attitude might have been one of the many contributory factors accounting for that.

I've asked the question a few times why the Yes side seem to have such difficulty in "selling" the positive sides of the Treaty. I think someone asked the same question in a P.ie thread recently. I haven't seen a convincing answer yet.

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Has that exercise been done ibis. Documenting the reasoning behing it I mean ?

In respect of Lisbon? It's mostly in the DFA White Paper on Lisbon ("a cracking read...kept me on the edge of the toilet seat for hours...").

Had I the leisure, I'd like to go through the White Paper and a couple of other sources and boil them down into some kind of précis of the Treaty - what's in there and why.

Quote :

So that's where to start, not telling people they are wrong about everything all the time, or saying that everything is just fine and dandy, because it never all was or will be all fine in any form of government, so it just makes them suspicious.

There's an interesting problem in that, though. The EU can't be seen to criticise the actions of the member state governments, so it's pretty much impossible to point out just how much of the apparent 'democratic deficit' is cause by the national governments sidelining the EU or using it as a scapegoat - and there's no particular will to do it on the government side either, because they like the EU just where it is, thanks. Then, when it comes to the EU criticising the EU...well, they're a bureaucracy, so any criticism necessarily involves one bureaucrat criticising another department, and then all hell breaks loose - raised eyebrows, meaningful silences, extra form filling, maybe even snubbing in the canteen. Brutal stuff. So it's hard work getting the EU to criticise itself.

Ah, there is the answer to my question in the previous post.

This is a good, straightforward read - I remember saying last spring that they should have posted it out to everyone.
White Paper Can we put this on the Portal?

Johnfás' 5 minute (and far less than exhaustive) guide to some aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty seeks (ostensibly, depending on who you talk to) to consolidate the institutions and procedures of the European Union, which is an organisation Governed by a number of Treaties within which there are 3 core pillars - the Community, the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters pillar. As part of the consolidation procedure of the Treaty it is proposed that the European Community is abolished, with legal personality instead being transferred to the European Union, the three pillars of the Union will be merged into the European Union. There will also be slight alterations to the names of the Treaties as well as the numbering (for the third time *groan*).

Some areas that the Lisbon Treaty will effect:

1) Fundamental Rights:

Fundamentel Rights will be governed by Articles 6 and 7 TEU. It provides that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union will have the same legal value as the Treaties and thus be binding before the European Courts (which were in fact already drawing on them). The Charter will not in itself extend the competences of the Union. The Union will also accede to the ECHR, which all member states are already members of. Article 7 also provides that Member States will have their voting rights suspended if found by the European Council to have persistently and in a serious manner breached the Charter.

2) Legitimacy:

Increased legitimacy is sought by Title II of TEU. Article 10 provides fundamental principals of democracy and the workings of the Union, ie that Citizens are represented through the Parliament and States through the European Council who are themselves elected by their citizens. Parties organisating at European level are mandated to contribute towards forming a political awareness within the Union and to expressing the will of the citizens of the Union. Article 11 provides that the institutions of the Union must give citizens and organisations the opportunity to exchange their views in all areas of Union action. The institutions must create open and regular dialogue with civil society. One million citizens may petition the Commission to submit a proposal on matters relating to the implementation of the Treaty. Article 12 enshrines the power to ensure the principle of subsidiarity is complied with. It creates the right of national parliaments to requiest and receive documentation relating to proposed legislative acts of the Union. It also gives national parliaments the right to participate in the revision of the Treaties as well as other powers.

3) Institutional Change:

The Parliament
Proposals are contained in Article 14 TEU. The Parliament will elect the President of the Commission, the number of MEPs will not exceed 750 members directly elected from the Member States. The codecision legislative procedure (in which the Parliament is strongest) is extended to 50 further areas including border control, asylum and immigration. The Parliament will also have equal powers over the budget with the Council - this is a departure from the previous situation where the Parliament only had real power over ancillary spending.

European Council (The one with the Heads of Government)
Governed by Article 15 TEU. European Council will provide the general political direction of the Union but does not exercise legislative functions. There will be a permanent president elected by qualified majority voting of the European Council for a 2.5 year time renewable once. The President can be removed by the EC for defined misconduct. The President will have to provide a report to the European Parliament on European Council meetings after each such meeting. They will also represent externally in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy as agreed between the Member States.

The Council (The one with the Ministers of Government)
Governed by Article 16 TEU. They exercise legislative and budgetary functions in conjunction with the European Parliament as well as carrying out policy-making and coordinating functions under the Treaties. The voting rules on the Council will be significantly altered after Lisbon: Will act by Qualified Majority voting except where the Treaties mandate otherwise, from 1 November 2014 this will consist of at least 55% of the members of the council comprosing at least 15 members which represent member states comprising at least 65% of the population of the union. A further significant alteration is that the Council will meet in public when it deliberates and votes on draft legislative acts.

The Commission
Amended by Article 17 TEU. The Commission will continue to be responsible for promoting the general interests of the union and maintain its role as watchdog of the treaties ensuring their application in all Member States. With the exception of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Commission will represent the Union internationally on areas of the Treaty. Commissioners will continue to be mandated to be independent without doubt and neither seek nor take directions from any Member State or other Institution. From the 1st November 2014 there will be alterations to the makeup of the Commission but there are broad principles as to how this is achieved so nothing is particularly mandated. The Commission is collectively responsible to the Parliament which can vote on a motion to censure the Commission which requires the Commission to resign. Article 18 TEU also creates a position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to be appointed by the European Council with the consent of the President of the Commission who will conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy as well as contributing to the development of those policies and carry out the policies mandated by the European Council.

The Legal Order
Many important amendments to the Community Legal Order. Article 19 TEU replaces the CFI with a General Court, allows for the creation of Specialised Tribunals. Furthermore, there will be a Treaty based requirement for Member States to provide remedies to its citizens dufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law - this is an endorsement of the ECJ's position and a significant protection for Union citizens. The General Court will have the power to determine at first instance actions under 232 EC, this will make it akin to the Irish High Court in terms of its competence - that is a first instance superior court. It will lighten the workload of the ECJ. The ECJ will be the appellate court to the General Court on points of law, the General Court will be able to refer a case to the ECJ if it considers that it requires a decision likely to effect the consistence of Union Law. Even more significantly Article 263 TEU will expand locus standi of citizens to bring an action for the annulment of a Community Act (similar to taking a judicial review action in Ireland). Persons will have standing provided it can can be shown that the matter is of direct and individual concern to them and the act in question does not require implementing measures. In order to take an action against an act which does not require implementing measures an applicant need only demonstrate direct concern.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Edo wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

that is in the Lisbon Treaty - Didn't you read it? - the No vote actually puts that off happening

God Almighty - did anybody who voted against Lisbon actually read the fucking treaty as opposed to freaking about things that they imagined to be in the document?

Hence my call to have a referendum on Lisbon.

By all accounts, even fewer people who voted Yes had read the Treaty than those who voted No.

I didn't say only No people hadn't read it. Many Yes voters weren't voting on Lisbon either.

cactus flower wrote:

I plodded through the damn thing once, with difficulty - as you aware it was not available in a decent consolidated form until late in the day - and also, like most people trying to grapple with it, had to do a lot of catch up reading to try fathom out EU structures and processes as they are now. I certainly can't after six months quote chapter and verse of it and I would imagine the numbers of people who could comes down to a few people with particular involvement with it.

A consolidated version was available from January 15th. The EU consolidated version was available at least a month before the referendum, and was virtually identical to the IIEA version that had been available for four months at that stage.

Yet, right up to the referendum date, there were still No campaigners telling people that no such version was available, because the EU had suppressed it.

cactus flower wrote:

If you are saying that I am freaking about about imaginary aspects of the Treaty, it would be good to say what they are.

Nobody has said you are. Coir undoubtedly are, as are many others. The tax issue, the Commissioner issue, conscription, abortion, destruction of public services, no more referendums, Irish fish - all of those were red herrings.

cactus flower wrote:

I understand you canvassed on Lisbon Edo, and it was Ibis's full time concern for many months. You both clearly know it inside out, but your campaign was not successful. Perhaps an impatient and patronising attitude might have been one of the many contributory factors accounting for that.

Quite probably, but it remains irritating to have people calling for things to be negotiated now that were already on offer.

cactus flower wrote:

I've asked the question a few times why the Yes side seem to have such difficulty in "selling" the positive sides of the Treaty. I think someone asked the same question in a P.ie thread recently. I haven't seen a convincing answer yet.

And quite possibly you personally never will - it's absolutely impossible for everyone to be happy with a Treaty.

I scribbled some things down today (while tidying the house):

Do you want to keep our Commissioner? Vote Yes.
Do you want more Oireachtas scrutiny of EU legislation? Vote Yes.
Do you want the Dáil to be able to show EU legislation the red card? Vote Yes.
Do you want more power for your elected representatives in the EU? Vote Yes.
Do you want greater transparency in the EU? Vote Yes.
Do you want greater scrutiny of the EU budget? Vote Yes.
Do you want to keep Irish goodwill in Europe? Vote Yes.
Do you want Europe to work better for you? Vote Yes.
Do you want to make it easier to change Europe for the better? Vote Yes.
Do you want to be able to suggest EU legislation yourself? Vote Yes.
Do you want to be able to challenge EU legislation? Vote Yes.
Do you want to keep the balance between small and large states in the EU? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on Irish neutrality? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on Irish taxes? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on Irish public services? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on abortion? Vote Yes.

For a more accountable EU - Vote Yes
For a more effective EU - Vote Yes
For a more transparent EU - Vote Yes
For a more democratic EU - Vote Yes

The EU continues to grow - help keep it working, help keep it delivering for Ireland - Vote Yes. Don't listen to the nay-sayers and the snake oil merchants - Vote on Lisbon, and Vote for Lisbon.

All of those points can be backed up by what is on offer if we vote Yes.

And so, back to tidying!

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Edo wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

There is discussion on RTE today between Michael Martin and Billy ?
with the latter saying that far more Oireachtas scrutiny and involvement is needed of EU legislation - it should be discussed by an Oireachtas Committee and the Irish input to debate decided by the Oireachtas.

Tbh it is appalling that that hasn't been happening, and it obviously took a No vote to get that message home.

It will mean less work for the Grand Panjandrum: he/she will be pleased.

that is in the Lisbon Treaty - Didn't you read it? - the No vote actually puts that off happening

God Almighty - did anybody who voted against Lisbon actually read the fucking treaty as opposed to freaking about things that they imagined to be in the document?

Hence my call to have a referendum on Lisbon.

By all accounts, even fewer people who voted Yes had read the Treaty than those who voted No.

I didn't say only No people hadn't read it. Many Yes voters weren't voting on Lisbon either.

cactus flower wrote:

I plodded through the damn thing once, with difficulty - as you aware it was not available in a decent consolidated form until late in the day - and also, like most people trying to grapple with it, had to do a lot of catch up reading to try fathom out EU structures and processes as they are now. I certainly can't after six months quote chapter and verse of it and I would imagine the numbers of people who could comes down to a few people with particular involvement with it.

A consolidated version was available from January 15th. The EU consolidated version was available at least a month before the referendum, and was virtually identical to the IIEA version that had been available for four months at that stage.

Yet, right up to the referendum date, there were still No campaigners telling people that no such version was available, because the EU had suppressed it.

cactus flower wrote:

If you are saying that I am freaking about about imaginary aspects of the Treaty, it would be good to say what they are.

Nobody has said you are. Coir undoubtedly are, as are many others. The tax issue, the Commissioner issue, conscription, abortion, destruction of public services, no more referendums, Irish fish - all of those were red herrings.

cactus flower wrote:

I understand you canvassed on Lisbon Edo, and it was Ibis's full time concern for many months. You both clearly know it inside out, but your campaign was not successful. Perhaps an impatient and patronising attitude might have been one of the many contributory factors accounting for that.

Quite probably, but it remains irritating to have people calling for things to be negotiated now that were already on offer.

cactus flower wrote:

I've asked the question a few times why the Yes side seem to have such difficulty in "selling" the positive sides of the Treaty. I think someone asked the same question in a P.ie thread recently. I haven't seen a convincing answer yet.

And quite possibly you personally never will - it's absolutely impossible for everyone to be happy with a Treaty.

I scribbled some things down today (while tidying the house):

Do you want to keep our Commissioner? Vote Yes.
Do you want more Oireachtas scrutiny of EU legislation? Vote Yes.
Do you want the Dáil to be able to show EU legislation the red card? Vote Yes.
Do you want more power for your elected representatives in the EU? Vote Yes.
Do you want greater transparency in the EU? Vote Yes.
Do you want greater scrutiny of the EU budget? Vote Yes.
Do you want to keep Irish goodwill in Europe? Vote Yes.
Do you want Europe to work better for you? Vote Yes.
Do you want to make it easier to change Europe for the better? Vote Yes.
Do you want to be able to suggest EU legislation yourself? Vote Yes.
Do you want to be able to challenge EU legislation? Vote Yes.
Do you want to keep the balance between small and large states in the EU? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on Irish neutrality? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on Irish taxes? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on Irish public services? Vote Yes.
Do you want guarantees on abortion? Vote Yes.

For a more accountable EU - Vote Yes
For a more effective EU - Vote Yes
For a more transparent EU - Vote Yes
For a more democratic EU - Vote Yes

The EU continues to grow - help keep it working, help keep it delivering for Ireland - Vote Yes.

If you like not being told what to do by foreign people we don't elect, or in the continuing transfers of power from us to them, or regard political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly, or think it's time to say 'enough, no futher!' - Vote Non Merci...

toxic avenger wrote:

If you like not being told what to do by foreign people we don't elect, or in the continuing transfers of power from us to them, or regard political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly, or think it's time to say 'enough, no futher!' - Vote Non Merci...

On what basis do you make this statement though? It would be helpful if all claims made are backed up with reference to specific treaty articles rather than constituting mere hyperbole. There is much evidence above that your position, as an individual citizen of the Union, will be significantly strengthened as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. Can you identify specific aspects of the Treaty which you disagree with and then we can tease them out. This is the only way that we can stop a thread like this descending into utter madness.

Hope the tidying is going well, Ibis. Its good to come across a man who can multi-task.

Quote :

The EU consolidated version was available at least a month before the referendum

Oh dear.

Quote :

it remains irritating to have people calling for things to be negotiated now that were already on offer.

You should be delighted to be able to tell someone that their wishes may be fulfilled.

Quote :

it's absolutely impossible for everyone to be happy with a Treaty

You only need to convince 51%.

I think you gave a better answer in an earlier post on why Government failed to convey any that positive change was proposed - because they prefer the EU the way it is.

I'll take a look at this:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmeuleg/563/563.pdf

So, back to cooking"

johnfás wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

If you like not being told what to do by foreign people we don't elect, or in the continuing transfers of power from us to them, or regard political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly, or think it's time to say 'enough, no futher!' - Vote Non Merci...

On what basis do you make this statement though? It would be helpful if all claims made are backed up with reference to specific treaty articles rather than constituting mere hyperbole. There is much evidence above that your position, as an individual citizen of the Union, will be significantly strengthened as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. Can you identify specific aspects of the Treaty which you disagree with and then we can tease them out. This is the only way that we can stop a thread like this descending into utter madness.

In fairness, sauce for the goose, Ibis would need to do the same.

cactus flower wrote:

johnfás wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

If you like not being told what to do by foreign people we don't elect, or in the continuing transfers of power from us to them, or regard political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly, or think it's time to say 'enough, no futher!' - Vote Non Merci...

On what basis do you make this statement though? It would be helpful if all claims made are backed up with reference to specific treaty articles rather than constituting mere hyperbole. There is much evidence above that your position, as an individual citizen of the Union, will be significantly strengthened as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. Can you identify specific aspects of the Treaty which you disagree with and then we can tease them out. This is the only way that we can stop a thread like this descending into utter madness.

In fairness, sauce for the goose, Ibis would need to do the same.

That's not a problem, but it's not quite the same for me as for toxic avenger. His points are essentially in relation to the EU. The EU is the "foreign people we don't elect", EU competences of any kind are the "continuing transfers of power from us to them", and the "political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly" is the deepening of the EU - the "ever closer union" of the treaties.

Not everyone is "against Lisbon but not against the EU".

cactus flower wrote:

Hope the tidying is going well, Ibis. Its good to come across a man who can multi-task.

Quote :

The EU consolidated version was available at least a month before the referendum

Oh dear.

Quote :

it remains irritating to have people calling for things to be negotiated now that were already on offer.

You should be delighted to be able to tell someone that their wishes may be fulfilled.

Quote :

it's absolutely impossible for everyone to be happy with a Treaty

You only need to convince 51%.

I think you gave a better answer in an earlier post on why Government failed to convey any that positive change was proposed - because they prefer the EU the way it is.

Hmm. That wasn't an answer to that question. It was in answer to why the government don't explain their part in the democratic deficit, or make any real effort to bring the EU closer to the citizens.

johnfás wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

If you like not being told what to do by foreign people we don't elect, or in the continuing transfers of power from us to them, or regard political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly, or think it's time to say 'enough, no futher!' - Vote Non Merci...

On what basis do you make this statement though? It would be helpful if all claims made are backed up with reference to specific treaty articles rather than constituting mere hyperbole. There is much evidence above that your position, as an individual citizen of the Union, will be significantly strengthened as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. Can you identify specific aspects of the Treaty which you disagree with and then we can tease them out. This is the only way that we can stop a thread like this descending into utter madness.

I have a different view to you, so my view is hyperbole? I see.

This Treaty is a consolidation of the integration process, is it not? You might call it a 'tidying up exercise', though I would go further and call it an advancement of the process, e.g. the appointment of an EU Foreign Affairs Representative with expanded powers. And I believe, like it or not, that political integration, the 'one size fits all' super-state, is an absurd ideology being pushed by ideological zealots and by careerist national political elites. And so I say 'no' to Lisbon because Lisbon represents both an entrenching and a further expansion of the agenda. My opposition is from a far broader point of view than that represented by Coir and Libertas, being more cognisant of the historical train of European integration over the long term. My view is that the ultimate agenda, above the short-term nitpicking, is motivated by a misplaced belief in the necessity for political integration to combat supposedly 'new' transnational forces that have somehow slipped through the net of the sovereign states system. These forces are neither historically new, nor, I believe, outside the scope of effective sovereign state action. I believe in international co-operation, not transnational centralisation, though I am willing to accept the very limited and targeted pooling of sovereign power in certain exceptional cases (e.g. the International Criminal Court, or a well-defined environmental action oversight organisation).

So, no, non, niet, nein to Lisbon.

No, I didn't say your views are hyperbole - that is you putting words in my mouth. However, stating that one should vote no because of an increased transfer of powers to 'foreign people we don't elect' is hyperbole in my opinion when you don't show us the evidence of how it is happening or how the Lisbon Treaty contributes to this. I am quite happy to accept your views now that you elaborate on them a bit. I was merely asking for the facts, that was quite clear from my post. I actually find everyone agreeing with each other quite boring surprisingly enough. However, you will forgive me for not being able to discuss elements of the Lisbon Treaty when I don't know what you are referring to.

johnfás wrote:

No, I didn't say your views are hyperbole - that is you putting words in my mouth. However, stating that one should vote no because of an increased transfer of powers to 'foreign people we don't elect' is hyperbole in my opinion when you don't show us the evidence of how it is happening or how the Lisbon Treaty contributes to this. I am quite happy to accept your views now that you elaborate on them a bit. I was merely asking for the facts, that was quite clear from my post. I actually find everyone agreeing with each other quite boring surprisingly enough. However, you will forgive me for not being able to discuss elements of the Lisbon Treaty when I don't know what you are referring to.

OK, fair enough if I misinterpreted what you said, my apologies. I did refer, though, to one example, the appointment of an EU foreign affairs representative with expanded powers, which to me represents an expansion, not a mere consolidation, of the idealist attempt at creating a transnational and centralised European entity.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Hope the tidying is going well, Ibis. Its good to come across a man who can multi-task.

Quote :

The EU consolidated version was available at least a month before the referendum

Oh dear.

Quote :

it remains irritating to have people calling for things to be negotiated now that were already on offer.

You should be delighted to be able to tell someone that their wishes may be fulfilled.

Quote :

it's absolutely impossible for everyone to be happy with a Treaty

You only need to convince 51%.

I think you gave a better answer in an earlier post on why Government failed to convey any that positive change was proposed - because they prefer the EU the way it is.

Hmm. That wasn't an answer to that question. It was in answer to why the government don't explain their part in the democratic deficit, or make any real effort to bring the EU closer to the citizens.

I don't disagree with that Ibis - I just think it also explains the performance (or lack of it) of FF/ Government in the Yes campaign.

toxic avenger wrote:

johnfás wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

If you like not being told what to do by foreign people we don't elect, or in the continuing transfers of power from us to them, or regard political integration as a ridiculous and unworkable folly, or think it's time to say 'enough, no futher!' - Vote Non Merci...

On what basis do you make this statement though? It would be helpful if all claims made are backed up with reference to specific treaty articles rather than constituting mere hyperbole. There is much evidence above that your position, as an individual citizen of the Union, will be significantly strengthened as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. Can you identify specific aspects of the Treaty which you disagree with and then we can tease them out. This is the only way that we can stop a thread like this descending into utter madness.

I have a different view to you, so my view is hyperbole? I see.

This Treaty is a consolidation of the integration process, is it not? You might call it a 'tidying up exercise', though I would go further and call it an advancement of the process, e.g. the appointment of an EU Foreign Affairs Representative with expanded powers. And I believe, like it or not, that political integration, the 'one size fits all' super-state, is an absurd ideology being pushed by ideological zealots and by careerist national political elites. And so I say 'no' to Lisbon because Lisbon represents both an entrenching and a further expansion of the agenda. My opposition is from a far broader point of view than that represented by Coir and Libertas, being more cognisant of the historical train of European integration over the long term. My view is that the ultimate agenda, above the short-term nitpicking, is motivated by a misplaced belief in the necessity for political integration to combat supposedly 'new' transnational forces that have somehow slipped through the net of the sovereign states system. These forces are neither historically new, nor, I believe, outside the scope of effective sovereign state action. I believe in international co-operation, not transnational centralisation, though I am willing to accept the very limited and targeted pooling of sovereign power in certain exceptional cases (e.g. the International Criminal Court, or a well-defined environmental action oversight organisation).

So, no, non, niet, nein to Lisbon.

toxic, would you be able to clarify what you mean by that ? I am not understanding.