I just finished this, and it’s quite long, so apologies for that. It is a run through some of the major problems I have heard people having with Lisbon, and my opinions of them.
—-
The Lisbon Treaty is a hot topic at the minute, so I have spent a while reading various Anti Lisbon stuff, just to see what the arguments are, and if they make sense to me. The best run down I have found on the web are the Libertas 6 Points, which are below, but with some of my thoughts on them too. To be honest, I think they are a pile of twaddle, but have a read and see if you agree.
1. Ireland’s vote in the Council will be cut by 60% while Germany’s increases by 100% and France’s by 50%
- Well to be fair guys, Ireland’s vote will be brought in line with its population. One person one vote, I would think thats a bold democratic standpoint to take to be honest, particularly from an organisation that is constantly being branded as Anti-Democratic by opponents. Or should it be democracy which favours you and your people?
2. Foreign Direct Investment would come under the control of the Common Commercial Policy for the first time so that the Irish Government could no longer legislate in this area except with the permission of Brussels.
- Foreign Direct Investment provisions can only be legislated by the EU if there is UNANIMOUS support from member states. The CCP again only acts unanimously. Maybe I’m not getting this, but I don’t see how a unanimous decision is an overriding of the rights of the Irish Government. And given that we are subject to Enforcement Notice control of our Corporation tax regime at the minute, and it hasn’t been utilised to damage our economy, I don’t see a problem. To be honest, we need to move away from attracting business simply because of a low tax base to a more robust model.
3. Ireland would lose its commissioner for five out of every 15 years – an Irish voice in the body that has the exclusive right to propose EU legislation.
- As does every other member state? And this presupposes that no one else will listen to Irish concerns for the time we don’t have a commissioner? Is that what Europe is about, having one guy over there to shout loudly for us…. It should also be kept in mind that now all legislation has to be sent to National Parliaments for consideration, thus giving more power than currently available.
4. Ireland would lose its veto in 68 areas including over “competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market”, immigration policy, employment policy and many other areas.
- Given that a number of issues which we are supposed to be able to veto are actually ideas we have signed up to in agreements and through ratification already, the big ones here seem to be taxation policy and immigration/rights based stuff. Firstly, like already mentioned, all members need to unanimously support any taxation changes, so I don’t see a clearer indication of our veto power. In relation to human rights based vetos, we have signed up to more restrictive covenants on rights than the EU would seek to enforce, and I think it’s xenophobic to say, “Oh, the EU can make us take in a load more Poles/Romanians.’ I really wish Libertas had put more substantive stuff behind this point. Oh and note also that the UK have already secured a clear opt out structure, simular to the ones Ireland uses to opt out of issues we don’t agree with.
5. The EU’s traditional commitment to “free and undistorted competition”, a key component of every EU treaty since the 1957 founding Treaty of Rome, has been relegated in the Lisbon Treaty by Nicholas Sarkozy, who upon removing the clause asked “what has competition ever done for us?” His idea is to have European business dominated by what he calls “National Champions”. This is code for protection of inefficient state supported industries to the detriment of European entrepreneurship and innovation, the growth companies that produce 80% of all new jobs in Europe.
- So, firstly here, the entire reason for objecting on this ground is a statement, taken in isolation, and made by a single politician, who has incredibly low support in his own country. Even leaving all that aside, the changing of the language does not alter the fact that the EU has at its heart strong principles on making competition fair. Also, doesn’t point 2 on this list argue that we shouldn’t be ‘forced’ into the same practices as all the other states, thus equalising competition? And I love it when in order to argue against something people rely on statement like “This is code…”
6. So understanding that we would have our voting weight reduced, the competition clause relegated, surrendering 68 key vetoes, and conceding to having an unelected President and Foreign Minister. Any person familiar with business negotiation might ask, what do we get in return that we don’t already have? Nothing.
- My god. What do we get in return. A more democratically representative EU. Which has always been a huge problem for skeptics in the past. We get more protection through the new voting rules in relation to qualified majority and double majority, which require not only state majority, but also population majorities to pass legislation. We get consultation with National Parliments on European legislation. We get confirmed opt outs for policy we do not agree with. But no, Liberts, you’re right, we should vote no. Someone on the Libertas Facebook page said that this list of problems should be on the front page of the profile. I think it should too.
—-
One last thing, however bad this is, at least Libertas has come up with problems with the treaty itself. I have seen some amazing claims from other organisations, everything from Ireland will lose it’s neutrality, to passing Lisbon will result in the outlawing of Republican organisations. That’s just sad.
And there are several campaigns I kind of can see the point to, like a number of hospital campaigns who have made statements like, No Health Reform, No Lisbon Treaty. Honestly though, the way to address health reform is through Local and National government. 2009 local elections, make your voice heard there. There is little or nothing to be achieved, other than a waste of money, in voting No to this treaty without something that can be changed in it to make it improve your situation. Like, if by voting no to Lisbon there could be a clause inserted requiring a full time Accident and Emergency department in every major town, then there would be a reason to vote no. But there isn’t. We have to come up with more appropriate ways to lobby for that kind of change, using Lisbon isn’t the right way.
—-
One last, last thing. This idea that Lisbon removes the right to have a treaty passed by referendum. That decision, to put the treaty before the people, lies solely with the government and the people, through the constitution. Article 48 clearly states: “The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.” In Ireland, our constitutional requirement dictates that such matters be passed by referendum. There is some scare mongering on this issue, so here, have a piece of information, readily available from the citizensinformation.ie website:
In order to call a constitutional referendum, a proposal to amend the Constitution must be introduced in the Dáil as a Bill. The Bill sets out the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Bill must be passed by both the Dáil and the Seanad.
The Bill is then submitted to the people so that they can vote for or against it. If the majority of the votes cast at the referendum are in favour of the change, the Bill is signed by the Irish President and the Constitution is then amended.
In fact, to abandon this method, there would have to be a referendum to pass the power to agree to EU treaties back to the government, a referendum to abolish referendums. If that does happen at some stage, well it take a majority of voters, like all elections.
—-
Finally, finally I promise. The Lisbon Treaty also sets out clearly the procedure for leaving the Union. So if it all does go horribly wrong, and there really are no more benefits for us, or if the majority of peoplethink we should, we can just leave.
—-
Thats my view on the subject, thanks for reading. Now, regardless of whether you agree or not, please just get out and vote on the 12th.
“the UK have already secured a clear opt out structure, simular to the ones Ireland uses to opt out of issues we don’t agree with”
I have heard a lot about the opt out structre but don’t know anything about it. is there any possibility you know more about it and how it relates to Ireland? Is there any truth to the allegation that ECJ decisions can render opt outs useless?
Hey Lee,
The opt out is a written protocol document that guarantees the European Courts will not override national law, alter it, or pass judgement contrary to it. These protocol have been in existance since well forever, and Ireland has benefited from several.
There are some doubts about them, but I don’t think these are founded. Like they could be overruled, but they have not been in the past, and it is doubtful they would in the future. It’s been years since I did EC law, but i really don’t think these protocols would be overridden.
Cool thanks.
Hey dude, well done, lot’s of research and legwork. I’ve been totally befuddled and confused by random bits of information and misinformation so thanks for laying it all out; not decided on the issue yet, but you’ve definitely made things clearer in my head and have made it infinitely easier to digest this weekend’s Sunday papers and all their chat. Thanks!
PS
Have a good weekend, give us a shout if you and Pam around. I’m going to a photoblogger meet-up on Saturday afternoon if you fancy joining me! I’ve sent you a Facebook invite.
X
[...] will be voting Yes. Bodhran Banger isn’t so sure. Steve Nolan ponders in detail the question; Is the Lisbon Treaty evil? The latest opinion poll attracts coverage from Worldbystorm who looks at the Cowen effect and the [...]
The ‘more democratic’ Europe we are told will come about if we ratify Lisbon has some curiously undemocratic elements. Firstly, it amounts to a trampling on the democratic rights of the peoples of France and the Netherlands, who have already said a firm “No” to 95% of the provisions in this Treaty that former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern already admitted are contained therein. Across Europe, governments elected on mandates that including holding referenda on the old EU Constitution suddenly had a change of heart after the rejections in France and Holland.
We have Irish and EU politicians trampling on the wishes of the peoples of France and the Netherlands, and asking us to assist them and the other 26 governments in doing so. Even if you leave aside the merits or demerits you believe are contained in the contents of the Treaty, it cannot be credibly denied that if this treaty is ratified in Ireland, it will mark a serious erosion of wider European democracy. It will have set a precedent whereby nations can have sovereignty ceded to supranational EU institutions not merely without the expressed-consent – but against their expressed refusal of this consent. When taken against that background, the largely symbolic ‘powers’ of 9 national parliaments to give non-binding advice that proposed EU legislation be withdrawn, and the much-vaunted ‘Citizens Initiative’ of 1 million signatures to ask the same – again non-binding – are exposed for the pig-in-a-poke that they are. The only answer can be a firm “No”.
Ok, firstly, the treaty is significantly different from the constitution in terms of several of its major provisions, the very provisions which provided most of the objections to the Constitution in the Netherlands and France, namely the references to the state-like existence of the European Union, and the binding effect of bit and pieces that went along with that, such as the legitimation of the flag, the anthem etc. Also, given that the major opinion polls in both France and the Netherlands pointed to many no voters being motivated by a dissatisfaction with the domestic government, and not the material contained in the Constitutional treaty itself.
One could also say, as I have done in another forum, that our duty as Irish citizens is to primarily weigh up whether or not our actions serve our own ends. I think we should first look at the merits or demerits of the treaty before we concern ourselves with the will of other countries, particularly when opinion would suggest their rejections, as I have said above, we’re not motiviated as clearly by a dislike of the Constitution as some of the no campaigners would lead the electorate to believe.
And I am not going to go through again how countries and their people do not lose sovereignty above what we have already ceded to Europe through other treaties. But while national powers have non-binding advice giving powers, they have the power to refuse to vote for an issue in the European Parliament, through MEP’s, if it is not in our national interest.
Finally though, in terms of the Citizens Initative, again this has been vilified as the only way to introduce legislation. Its a damn sight better than the situation we have now.
Where has this notion that the European Union is an evil entity, out to grab our land and kill our children come from?
“Where has this notion that the European Union is an evil entity, out to grab our land and kill our children come from?”
I’m not saying that. I think the EU as it stands now is fine, but that this Treaty will centralise too much decisionmaking outside of Ireland. I don’t want a Federal Europe either in name or practice. It’s not for us to take away from the legitimacy of the French and Dutch electorates’ decision or to question their motives. Their peoples decided they didn’t want the contents that are now 95% contained in the Lisbon Treaty. Their govts have refused to accept that decision, and as such they have made it our business by asking us to help them pull a fast one and force it on their peoples. If you are okay with that then that’s your right. But I am opposed to it. Suppose we voted no to an EU treaty. Then suppose our govt says ‘of they weren’t voting on the issue in front of them it was a protest etc’ and come back with the other govts with a Treaty that was 99% the same, and asked other countries to help them force it on us by ratifying it. Would you approve of that? Because I sure wouldn’t.
The loss of the Commissioner is unnecessary, as are the further erosion of the national veto and the halving of the Irish vote. The govts argument is that the Treaty is needed to avoid gridlock in decisionmaking in an EU of 27 member states. The problem is that there is no gridlock. A recent study by the London School of Economics found that if anything much more legislation is coming out of Brussels now than before Enlargement.
So the question then is why are the politicians supporting this? To which I reply, why did the politicians in the pre-Union Irish Parliament vote for the Act of Union? This is not a no to Europe, it is a no to the Lisbon Treaty. France and Holland are still influential EU members 3 yrs after their no votes, and Holland has the lowest unemployment in Europe which undermines the credibility of the supposed economic-arguments the govt is coming out with. We should vote no.
Then suppose our govt says ‘of they weren’t voting on the issue in front of them it was a protest etc’ and come back with the other govts with a Treaty that was 99% the same, and asked other countries to help them force it on us by ratifying it. Would you approve of that? Because I sure wouldn’t.
- They did with Nice. Voters rejected a treaty based on scaremongering and domestic clouding of the issue, and when presented with the information again, didn’t let irreleant considerations enter into the mix.
I am not trying to force an agenda which scaremongers on either side, but with a reading of the treaty of Lisbon, I can see the benefits. 27 commissioners is unnecessary, and given an Irish commissioner cannot legitimtely voice Irish concerns, due to the rules and structures of the commission, alongside the fact that it is not just Ireland losing a commissioner for 5 years in every 15, I fail to see the logic behind that line of argument.
I’d ask you to read my post again please, Ireland cannot expect in a much larger union to hold vote disproportionate to our size. That is the anti-thesis of democracy, us saying that our votes per head, are more valuable. And given the double majority voting rules, we still retain that power beyond our means.
This is more than a treaty regarding the voting rulles and tax coefficients however, it is about our position with regard to the future of Europe. You say federalisation, I say fairer more representative systems, which live up to the Monet principles, of an equal union. It does come down to opinion on these matters, and that is the discussion worth having, not this shroud that we should do the right thing for our French or Dutch brothers and sisters.
[...] the ‘No’ campaign that isn’t scaremongering, exaggeration or simply untrue. A very good blog post was made by Steve Nolan recently on the issue and some of the flaws in the ‘No’ [...]
Are you a New World Order Enabler? the proof of the pudding is the eating and at present most indigenous white people in England are eating C##p. We are being invaded by a group from the Middle East who have said they are going to take over the UK and Europe. All you have written are just words, we in England are tasting the pudding and we don’t like it very much at all and we want out, ask any man in the street and that’s the answer you will get. If all the member Countries of the EU were given a free referendum I can guarantee that the Federal EU State would be given two fingers. But of course the New World Order Enablers have almost got it in the bag so we have no chance to really voice our opinions on this matter. The EU is EVIL period.
I would suggest sir that rather than a multinational grouping of sovereign states being evil, anyone who refers to himself as one of the indigenous white people of England is evil. You appear to have a confusing message between racist xenophobia and political naiveity, I would disagree with what you have said, and would suggest that if a vote was to be held on the issues of the European Union, and not blinded racism or biggiotry, or by preying on the base fears of a population, then there would be no “two fingers given.
And I would suggest you stop reading books which talk about New World Order Enablers. It makes you sound paranoid.