The Lisbon Treaty

[Shino]

I don't give a shit about my nationality or british culture being dissolved. I'm against it because I want governments to become less powerful not more. Bigger governments get, the less powerful the people are. We need it small so it's easy to tear it down when the time comes.

 

Small governments are proportionally powerful to large governments, who decides what happens during revolutions is the military. Like the pathetic idea the Americans have that by having the right to buy weapons can stand any chance to their military.

 

Or we could go back to cities states, than we would be ruled by multinational companies.

[Ramar]

I don't give a shit about my nationality or british culture being dissolved. I'm against it because I want governments to become less powerful not more. Bigger governments get, the less powerful the people are. We need it small so it's easy to tear it down when the time comes.

 

In a sense your right. If the EU government becomes too powerful, and starts enforcing rules and laws that people don't agree with. How are we going to rise up and take back whats ares, when they'll be other nations protecting the EU or what not. It gets quite messy if it was to go tits up.

[conzer16]

In my opinion, Ireland should vote no on this treaty as it is basically the same as the EU constitution. Why are Ireland the only ones allowed to vote anyway, might it be because Ireland never signed the treaty unlike the other leaders of the EU countries. Vote no is what i say and show the EU leaders that you don't want to be formed into one.

 

Complete bollocks! Ireland signed up to ratify the treaty just like every other EU country, but Ireland is the only country allowing a referendum because Ireland's constitution requires that the people decide, not the politicians.

But as i am already thinking, Ireland's vote probably won't count as the EU will go ahead with the treaty no matter what Ireland say be it yes or no

 

Also more complete bollocks!! Ireland's vote is HUGE in this whole process. Every country must ratify the treaty for it to come into effect and if one country votes against it then the treaty is not ratified. In a sense, it's make or break on June 12th in Ireland.

 

The EU cannot force a country to comply with a treaty - that's what a treaty is all about, it's a multilateral agreement.

 

Interestingly enough, the UK were to hold a referendum on the failed constitution which is broadly the same document as the treaty but now the UK will not be voting.

[mcj metroid]

I won't be voting as I'm in New Zealand and there is no provision for a postal vote for people who are overseas for a referendum, strangely enough.

 

But, to be perfectly honest, I would vote no. I don't think Europe should have a treaty that replaces a constitution as I don't think Europe should have a constitution. Ireland's constitution will do me just fine thank you very much.

 

I think that even though all the major political parties in Ireland are canvassing for a yes vote that Ireland will vote no. This will send a powerful message to Europe that just because the governments of the EU think something is good and right for the union that they cannot get away from the fact that this union is founded on democracy and letting the people decide what is right is paramount. A country of 4 million people can show this to the rest of them.

 

 

I don't think a unified European state is the way forward. There are too many dfferences across the continent politically, socially, economically for a super state to be founded.

 

 

IRELAND - VOTE NO

i dont know much about the treaty but Most of the no posters seem to resort to fear and intimidation.. Our ancestors fought for our freedom,we'll lose our commissioner(lol its not even "ours"),it'll cost you.

 

rubbish like that.. Im probably going to vote yes just for that.

[Hellfire]

I get a feeling people think the UE is being led by this fellow here:

[conzer16]

i dont know much about the treaty but Most of the no posters seem to resort to fear and intimidation.. Our ancestors fought for our freedom,we'll lose our commissioner(lol its not even "ours"),it'll cost you.

 

rubbish like that.. Im probably going to vote yes just for that.

 

I haven't seen or been subjected to any of the propaganda from either side but would you really vote yes for something that will have huge ramifications for our country without knowing what can, could or might happen if a yes or no vote is passed?

 

Voting as a protest is a stupid idea.

[Oxigen_Waste]

A massive and predictable yes from me. Plus, after reading through all of the thread and being informed about the discussion, I can say this, wich I already knew anyway, there isn't a single reason as to why it shouldn't happen that isn't motivated by pride. Wich is a fatal error, considering what's being proposed here. Some people need to learn how to tone down their egos.

[LazyBoy]

Small governments are proportionally powerful to large governments, who decides what happens during revolutions is the military. Like the pathetic idea the Americans have that by having the right to buy weapons can stand any chance to their military.

 

 

Your first comment. Nah I don't know about that. Could be argued. Next, i'll point you back to numerous points in history where revolutions, small and large, have been won by the people. Its not 100%, but it happens.

 

 

Or we could go back to cities states, than we would be ruled by multinational companies.

 

You ever been to the States? It's the richest country and the world and it's already run by multinational companies. Hell you can't run for the office of the President without the support of these companies.

[Mokong]

i dont know much about the treaty but Most of the no posters seem to resort to fear and intimidation.. Our ancestors fought for our freedom,we'll lose our commissioner(lol its not even "ours"),it'll cost you.

 

rubbish like that.. Im probably going to vote yes just for that.

 

At least the no posters are trying to provide some information as to why someone should vote no. The yes posters are basically all the same, "vote yes for a better europe" but with no reason as to how it makes europe better or is benificial to ireland. coupled with the complete lack of effort by the government to provide real unbaised information. Even the handbook the referendum commision sent out to "every home"* provides no info, as it, like the treaty cannot be understood unless you had copies of the previous treaties which Lisbon intends to amend, so i'm told.

 

*= well supposidly sent to every home, still waiting on one here, as are others i know

[Hellfire]

It's not very hard to understand the reasoning of a unified Europe being good fo Europeans, I don't think we even need to spell it out.

That idea that countries will lose their identity seems ridiculous to me.

[mcj metroid]

I haven't seen or been subjected to any of the propaganda from either side but would you really vote yes for something that will have huge ramifications for our country without knowing what can, could or might happen if a yes or no vote is passed?

 

Voting as a protest is a stupid idea.

 

how have you not seen it? it's everywhere, especially on the "no". I just don't like the no arguements at all.. Not one valid one.

 

on the other hand. You get the feeling it isn't been advertised properly.

 

At least the no posters are trying to provide some information as to why someone should vote no. The yes posters are basically all the same, "vote yes for a better europe" but with no reason as to how it makes europe better or is benificial to ireland. coupled with the complete lack of effort by the government to provide real unbaised information. Even the handbook the referendum commision sent out to "every home"* provides no info, as it, like the treaty cannot be understood unless you had copies of the previous treaties which Lisbon intends to amend, so i'm told.

 

*= well supposidly sent to every home, still waiting on one here, as are others i know

 

from the ones i've seen the only "kinda" reason i've seen is "we will lose our commissioner"

 

everything is pride and ego driven. Something that people should have gotten over when we joined it in the first place.

[Twozzok]

So would this make Europe like, it's own country with each country a state?

[stev2604]

So would this make Europe like, it's own country with each country a state?

 

That would actually make her right:

 

[Shino]

At least the no posters are trying to provide some information as to why someone should vote no. The yes posters are basically all the same, "vote yes for a better europe" but with no reason as to how it makes europe better or is benificial to ireland. coupled with the complete lack of effort by the government to provide real unbaised information. Even the handbook the referendum commision sent out to "every home"* provides no info, as it, like the treaty cannot be understood unless you had copies of the previous treaties which Lisbon intends to amend, so i'm told.

 

*= well supposidly sent to every home, still waiting on one here, as are others i know

 

The reason the treaty is unreadable its because the ignorant voters before decided to veto the original constitution!

 

Basically the treaty/constitution is the unification of all previous treaties that make up the EU making it more efficient and less bureaucratic. The original constitution could be read like a normal text and was in itself a document, the treaty we have today does the same but instead of being something readable, just cross-references the articles in previous treaties making them unified and related. It was made like this so the drama queens in Europe would stop bitching about semantics.

 

As for losing a commissioner, having one for each country that's currently or even a future member of the EU was highly inefficient and bureaucratic, something the EU gets accused of being a lot. And lets not forget that the commissioners are not there to satisfy his country of origin wishes, they must act on EU's interests, so having one or not doesn't really mean a lot.

 

The treaty instead gives more power to European Parliament, in which the representatives are elected DIRECTLY in each country.

 

So would this make Europe like, it's own country with each country a state?

 

No.

[Oxigen_Waste]

everything is pride and ego driven. Something that people should have gotten over when we joined it in the first place.

 

There you go!

[Mokong]

The reason the treaty is unreadable its because the ignorant voters before decided to veto the original constitution!

 

Basically the treaty/constitution is the unification of all previous treaties that make up the EU making it more efficient and less bureaucratic. The original constitution could be read like a normal text and was in itself a document, the treaty we have today does the same but instead of being something readable, just cross-references the articles in previous treaties making them unified and related. It was made like this so the drama queens in Europe would stop bitching about semantics.

 

The treaty makes the EU even more bureaucratic and less democratic. It's taking power away from national governments (the people you elect) and giving it to people in Brussels (people nobody elected), national governments can make "proposals" for laws and such but the EU gets the final say. And the power that the governments do retain at things like the council of ministers will become determined by population size, i'm not sure whats it determined on now, but under Lisbon smaller countries will lose out and bigger countries gain power (eg. Irelands voting strength at the council of minsters drops from 2% to 0.8% while Germanys increases from 7% to 15%), how is this making Europe fair and equal?

 

A Union of Free States is only possible if no central authority is empowered to govern. Yet the Lisbon Treaty creates a new EU with a central authority that is not only empowered to govern the Union, but is also empowered to self-empower without the consent of the peoples of Europe. The Lisbon treaty is a self-amending treaty. When the EU Council desires, it is amended without EU summits, referendums or ratifications.

 

How is this fair? How is this a democracy when decisions and changes can be made with no requirement of public opinion?

 

If the EU believed this treaty to be the best way forward for European Democracy why is only one of the 27 member countries holding a referendum and the other 26 the people might as well be told by the EU, "we don't care about your opinion"

[Shino]

The treaty makes the EU even more bureaucratic and less democratic. It's taking power away from national governments (the people you elect) and giving it to people in Brussels (people nobody elected), national governments can make "proposals" for laws and such but the EU gets the final say. And the power that the governments do retain at things like the council of ministers will become determined by population size, i'm not sure whats it determined on now, but under Lisbon smaller countries will lose out and bigger countries gain power (eg. Irelands voting strength at the council of minsters drops from 2% to 0.8% while Germanys increases from 7% to 15%), how is this making Europe fair and equal?

 

Taken from Wikipedia (its factual they can't be accused of impartiality on this one):

 

The Treaty of Lisbon would expand the use of qualified majority voting (QMV), by making it the standard voting procedure. Though some areas of policy still require unanimous decisions (notably in foreign policy, defence and taxation). QMV is reached when a majority of all member countries (55%) who represent a majority of all citizens (65%) vote in favour of a proposal. When the European Council is not acting on a proposal of the Commission, the necessary majority of all member countries is increased to 72% while the population requirement stays the same. To block legislation at least 4 countries have to be against the proposal.

 

It really doesn't seem unfair at all, in important matters it still needs unanimous voting and on all others 4 countries can block it, no matter their population size. If Ireland or Portugal stand alone, its called "taking one for the team", although today's world problems apply to a large number of countries, thus we need to stay united and make decisions together.

 

 

A Union of Free States is only possible if no central authority is empowered to govern. Yet the Lisbon Treaty creates a new EU with a central authority that is not only empowered to govern the Union, but is also empowered to self-empower without the consent of the peoples of Europe. The Lisbon treaty is a self-amending treaty. When the EU Council desires, it is amended without EU summits, referendums or ratifications.

 

How is this fair? How is this a democracy when decisions and changes can be made with no requirement of public opinion?

 

Its not true, as I said in the rest of my post, the parliament is stronger and decides together with the council, and people elect directly who they want in the parliament. And even then the qualified majority vote of the council is made up of head of states and that includes Ireland, they're there to defend each states interests. Does anyone really think the local political leaders would give up any of their powers to give it to third parties?

 

If the EU believed this treaty to be the best way forward for European Democracy why is only one of the 27 member countries holding a referendum and the other 26 the people might as well be told by the EU, "we don't care about your opinion"

 

Again, the decision is taken by each country's parliament, a parliament that was voted democratically by the people. If the majority of the parliament's vote is in favour of this treaty, then its to be assumed that's the peoples choice.

 

Personally, I think most people are ignorant and easily controlled by their political colours and the media. Since this thread started I've decided to inform myself on it, but I doubt the majority of the population would bother or have the time to do it.

[BlueStar]

This "OMG why don't we get a referendum on it, attack on democracy!!11" argument is stupid, we set up government and parliament expressly to do these things. If we had to run round the country for a show of hands every time the government made a decision then

 

a) There'd be no point in having political parties or government

b) Decisions would be taken by people with little or no understanding of the issue rather than professionals and we'd very quickly have sums not adding up as tax is decreased massively and public spending goes through the roof

and

c) We'd never get anything done.

 

If you don't like what the government does, you vote them out at the next election, you don't demand to be able to micromanage them and have people vote on policy like it were Britain's Got Talent.

[conzer16]

how have you not seen it? it's everywhere, especially on the "no". I just don't like the no arguements at all.. Not one valid Something that people should have gotten over when we joined it in the first place.

 

 

...eh...I'm in New Zealand?? :p

 

Also, pride for one's country is not something that should be gotten over.

 

What a bout Ireland's neutrality? Will this be affected if we vote yes? As I understand it this treay will set up a European Defence Force that each country will be a part of and protected by. Surely this contravenes our constitutional neutrality by alining with other militaries without going through the Triple Lock process. Could be very dangerous to align ourselves with some of the eastern countries especially considering Russia's looming spectre...

[Mokong]

 

 

Again, the decision is taken by each country's parliament, a parliament that was voted democratically by the people. If the majority of the parliament's vote is in favour of this treaty, then its to be assumed that's the peoples choice.

 

Irelands parliament was also in favor of the treaty, but it is not assumed because we voted them in that their choice is also the peoples. That's why we are getting a vote, because as part of our constitution it says that no changes can take place unless agreed to by the people by way of a referendum. And I find it weird we seem to be the only country that has such a provision in our constitution. And make no mistake Lisbon will change our constitutions and those of all EU Countries, as it is clear that in any case of conflict between the EU and National laws and/or Constitution, the EU over-rules national each time. And I think I can guess which part of our constitution will be over-ruled and defunct by Lisbon if it comes to pass.

 

 

Personally, I think most people are ignorant and easily controlled by their political colours and the media.

 

I hold no aligence to any political party, but unfortunately there's probably many who do and who will vote yes just because their party told them too even though they don't know what their voting yes too. And the media here is so one sided (towards yes) it's a bloody joke.

 

What a bout Ireland's neutrality? Will this be affected if we vote yes? As I understand it this treay will set up a European Defence Force that each country will be a part of and protected by. Surely this contravenes our constitutional neutrality by alining with other militaries without going through the Triple Lock process. Could be very dangerous to align ourselves with some of the eastern countries especially considering Russia's looming spectre...

 

With Lisbon calling for greater spending on militarisation and for if other countries to fight if a member goes to war, our neutrality is on thin ice i suspect.

 

Was reading something else today about the privatisasion of the public services. Such as the public health services could end up replaced by private hospitals that could charge high rates for services that are currently free to the people.

 

 

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly .......All the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

 

Why do they feel the need to hide and disguise what the treaty does?

[The fish]

With Lisbon calling for greater spending on militarisation and for if other countries to fight if a member goes to war, our neutrality is on thin ice i suspect.

 

Was reading something else today about the privatisasion of the public services. Such as the public health services could end up replaced by private hospitals that could charge high rates for services that are currently free to the people.

 

Firstly, I should point out it's called the European Defence Force, so what you are suggesting is that if an EU member is attacked, you would rather nothing was done by Ireland against the aggressor? The point of a union is to be, y'know, united...

 

I too have read about public services being privatised, and what they're considering doing is putting them under private control (like the Bank of England was), but still funding them publicly. It's a good idea, as it removes policies regarding public services as political pieces.

 

And I find it weird we seem to be the only country that has such a provision in our constitution.

 

Maybe because it comes from history of not having a say in things after Britain decided it would be fun to fuck Ireland big time...

 

It seems a little pointless as an idea, to be honest. The point of an MP/senator/representative is to represent the views and opinions of the people who voted him/her into power, and to cast their vote in the house in the way that their constituents would want.

 

Your main beef with the whole thing seems to be the loss of this one right - the right to let people who probably jack-all about the details decide whether a policy is endorsed or not. The only other one I've seen is the loss of "national identity", which reeks of nationalist propaganda, is entirely personal, and won't change unless your opinion about where you're from does.

[stev2604]

My problems with the treaty:

 

1. We lose a load of our say/power, while some countries double theirs.
   
2. For 5 years out of every 10, we have no say.
   
3. We'll lose the referendum part of our constitution.
   
4. Our neutrality could be compromised.
   

[Shino]

For the neutrality part, I think you should have thought of that before joining a Union that's mostly made of Nato members. Heck, just being in the west makes any country perceived differently other than neutral, the only country that achieved total neutrality was Switzerland.

[stev2604]

For the neutrality part, I think you should have thought of that before joining a Union that's mostly made of Nato members. Heck, just being in the west makes any country perceived differently other than neutral, the only country that achieved total neutrality was Switzerland.

 

Well I really didn't have much of a say seeing as I wasn't born when we joined the EU.

[The fish]

My problems with the treaty:

 

1. We lose a load of our say/power, while some countries double theirs.
   
2. We'll lose the referendum part of our constitution.
   
3. Our neutrality could be compromised.
   

 

The first point is only fair, as you're a small country it's more democratic. For example, in the UN, where the one nation, one vote system is in place, a 5th of the world's population can have a two-thirds majority.

 

The third point is probably a good thing - letting people who know very little about what they are deciding one vote on every little change is going to see some awful decisions get made. It also defeats the idea of electing an MP/senator to represent you.

 

The 4th point is irrelevant. I bet you that a good number of the victims of the July 5th bombings in London were neutral towards the war in Iraq. Did the terrorists give a shit about that fact? No. Neutrality is, in reality, a personal thing, and unfortunately, if someone wants to attack you, they'll attack you, regardless of your views. Oh, and I'd hope you'd want your country to help defend another EU member if they were attacked. If not, you're a bit of a git, and you fail to understand the concept of a union.