Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Reasons Why I’m Voting No…
Read more about: Uncategorized
Which are…
1
We’re told the main reasons for the Lisbon Treaty are to:
A) Create clearer structures to allow for the increased number of member states. This is proposed to be addressed by changing the way in which Commissionerships are awarded. Right now, ‘established’ member states are each given a Commissioner. Were this practise to continue to include all new member states, the number of EU Commissioners would become so large as to be meaningless. What Lisbon is proposing to do is have a fixed number of Commissioners and rotate their nationalities so that each country would have a Commissioner for five years and would then go without a Commissioner for the following five years.
A far better way to address this particular problem would be to establish an Upper House of the European Parliament which would comprise (say) three directly elected senators per member country regardless of size. The new Upper and existing Lower houses would have the traditional, time-honoured relationship to each other.
The process of awarding Commissionerships simply on the basis of nationality could then be dropped. The executive role of the Commissioner would be developed with each selected on the basis of their experience and ability. In addition, some of the powers of the Commissioners to generate legislation would be passed on to the newly designed legislature.
B) Improve the sense of engagement between European citizens and the organs of the Union – i.e. reduce what’s commonly referred to as the democratic deficit. This is mainly to be addressed by having the Council of Ministers meet in public (right now they meet in Private).
The proposed measures don’t go nearly far enough to make the Union more accessible to the citizen. The roles of the Council of Ministers, The Commissariat, the European Parliament, etc. (not to mention the Pillars of the Union, which no one ever discusses), and their relationships one to the other remain hard to grasp and must be addressed. Obviously a certain amount of complexity is necessary to allow the countries of Europe to cooperate on different levels on a wide range of issues. But any structure designed to facilitate this should be grounded on the principle that only those given a clear democratic mandate to generate legislation are allowed to do so. In Europe this is currently not the case. The EU Parliament has the least power of any of the European institutions to influence decisions.
2
Any Treaty document is necessarily going to be complex but the Lisbon Treaty is unnecessarily complex. Bad enough that it’s not one single document which can be read from beginning to end (it’s the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht plus some Amendments which you, the reader, have to insert), the language is impossibly obtuse. This isn’t because the authors are talking legalese but because, ironically, they aren’t – throughout the various Amendments, loose and ambiguous phraseology is used which could be interpreted in any number of ways. I suspect (not trying to sound smart here) that elements of the text have been translated from other languages with emphasis placed on the meaning of individual words and with less concern for what they collectively communicate. So that, after having read a particularly difficult sentence a number of times, it’s hard to get a sense of what its trying to say.
3
The Lisbon Treaty is being put before us as a means of revising and consolidating EU structures. However, the very same document, with some minor differences, was presented to the French in 2005 as the new ‘European Constitution’. This, I think, explains why the Treaty lacks any sense of resonance. Viewed one way it can be read as a constitution, viewed another way it’s an idea about restructuring. I don’t mean to appear nasty to those who put in a lot of time and effort into producing it, but The Lisbon Treaty comes across as the work of a large committee of people, none of whom are particularly sharp on the nature of political/social structures, yet each harbouring idiosyncratic ideas of what the Treaty is about. Personally, I feel let down that work of this quality should be presented to me for consideration. If it were the work of a first year political science student, not only would I give it a fail, I’d suggest to the author that they consider their suitabilitly for the subject.
Â
So. There you have it. Nothing to do with tax harmonisation, neutrality, euthanasia, Libertas or the WTO. Just what’s in the document.
Except I have to admit that I arrive at any Euro debate from a particular perspective. I happen to believe that the Irish Republic is a very much still a work in progress. Quite apart from the obvious problems we have with infrastructure, public service, social exclusion, etc., I think we’ve yet to get to the core of what our society is about. In my general day to day business, I’m often struck by how the Irish social machine is part ‘Post Colonialism’, part ‘American Individualism’ and part ‘European Social Liberalism’. There’s a big chunk of Irishness in there too, but it’s more under the surface, part of the psyche. The task we face is to examine this element of our make-up and use our findings to forge a society which is in our own image. Until we do, we’ll continue make decisions about our future which aren’t rooted in a firm sense of identity.
have to agree with most points there. i am on the fence on this one but mainly veering towards no. Not because of any of the crazy reason not even from the treats of doom that are coming from Europe. But I want to see a better EU one more democratic.
And the Lisbon treaty does not seem to cut it. Alot of people on the yes side say it is not prefect but it is better then nothing. I haven’t seen anyone say “this is the greatest document the world has ever known.”
People say that about the US constitution. And this is what lisbon is the base document of the EU for the future. Will people look back fondly in 200 years to the Founding founders who signed the Lisbon Treaty? If we want to do the EU right should we not have a document that is not better then nothing but better then everything else.
Surely even if that takes 20 years to write it would be worth it for the generations to come. Or do we only care about ourselves in the foresable future?
A few comments on your points:
A.Your move to make an upper house instead of the Council as the second legislative body effectively removes the intergovernmental nature of the Union. That is a complete non-runner with the UK and France. Your new theoretical configuration for the Union is intellectually pleasing. But it radically transforms the Union in a way that is simply not going to fly with some big players. Therefore it is not now and will not be in the forseeable future, a possilibility.
B.You briefly say that the Pillars don’t get much of a mention. In effect Lisbon abolishes the Pillar structure and unifies the entire fragmentary nature of the constitutional framework. It is a commendable cleanup and clarification. You lament also that the EU parliament has the least power of the institutions. Lisbon adds significantly to its power. It pulls it in much closer to the centre of Eu decision making - on budget, on electing officials, on legislation.
2. Yes the doc is complex. But the consolidated Treaties after ammended by Lisbon, are actially reasonably sensible.
3. You are arguing here about semantics. Let’s call a spade a spade. Constitutions say how organisations should operate and take decisions. The entire collective body of the existing treaties are effectively the EU constitution. Getting bogged down on its title in different languages is frivilous when you consider the important changes at stake in the substance of the treaty.
Tomaltach - I should have made myself chearer: I’d be proposing to maintain the intergovernmental element of the Union. It’s the relationship between each of the Governments and some form of newly revised European Parliament that would require teasing out. Not easy, I’ll grant you, but that’s what negotiations are for.
The fact is, tomorrow’s vote is to accept or reject a structure upon which the Union can advance. Regardless of how unlikely the French or the British may feel about alternative approaches, I can only vote on what I see before me: a model for European governance which I can’t, in conscience, agree to.
Simon,
I see your point about the imperfections in the document. But it’s important not to be too sucked into a comparison between the birth of the United States and the evolution of the Union between modern nation states. And recall that the US federation went to war to keep members in the Union and over fundamental provisions in relation to power and slavery.
The other point is this. Regardless of the high esteem in which the US constitution is rightly held, it is hard to argue that the average child born in the European Union faces a worse quality of life than his or her counterpart in the US. Of course quality of life is subjective to an extent. But there are many tangible measures on which life in the EU is superior to that in the US. Take a few: crime leves, mortality rates, health care. Furthermore, I argue that in many ways the European Union is far advanced of the US: environmental, human rights, and the balance between society and economy in an age of unrelenting global forces. Irrespective of the nobility and elegance of the US constition, if I were a random child being born now, I’d take my chances with the EU.
I know where you are coming from but a few things i could not let go.
crime leves
Per Capita Finland, Denmark and the UK have higher crime rates the the US
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
mortality rates
I am guessing you mean life expectancy. United States have a higher life expectency then Denmark, Ireland, portugal and many of the eastern european countries.
The EU should be aspiring to be something great not medioric. Tell me truth fully tomaltach do you think Lisbon is everything it should be or just passably average?
Simon,
Regarding the Eastern countries: look how Spain, Portugal and Ireland compare now with when they joined. Already the Eastern european countries are advancing rapidly. The overall Eu crime rate is still higher than the US. But we digress.
Is Lisbon everything it should be: No and it can never be in a voluntary union of 27 nation states. I have read well reasoned remarks by many who argue against it on how they would do it differently: but note, they are not in agreement. Consider this thought experiment. Allow four or five of the main players in the No camp to go into a room and design a new Lisbon. Do you think you would like it better? First, they would probably never agree. Declan Ganley loathes Irish neutrality and has said so. SF want to protect it at all costs. SF argue for more tax on corporations. That would hardly run with Ganley. Then pull in youth Defence and the other more minor players.
Look instead at Lisbon. It makes a reasonable effort to meet the aims agreed by the governments. Imperfect yes. But given the huge differences involved, a remarkable compromise. Remember: some Eu states have vastly different views about where the Union should go. For example, Germany strongly favours more supranationality, or towards federalism. They didn’t get it. Big states wanted a two tier commission. They didn’t get it. Some states wanted a veto on tax. They didn’t get it.
If it were possible to open up the core institutional talks again, and I believe it is not possible, there is every likelihood that in the current global climate and with far more right wing governments in europe then when Lisbon was agreed, there is every chance smaller states could lose out and certainly no guarantee Ireland would gain.
Lisbon is a worthy compromise. Let’s take it.
Of course, freudian, opening should have read “The overall Eu crime rate is still lower than the US”.
This fear mongering that is dominating the this debate. The No say fear “Increase in Ninja Attacks” (or what ever crap they come out).
While here the point seems to be this is the best deal we are going to get so we should take it even if its not actually a good deal because what will come after with the right wing governments will be worse. This is a terrible way to look at the future of Europe. That we accept something second rate due to fear.
The question being put to the people is this.
Is Lisbon Treaty the document you would like to see the Future Governence of Europe based on. yes or no?
I don’t
Simon,
Your position boils down to the belief that something better can be negotiated sometime soon.
It’s not about fear, but a sense of what is politically possible. A lot of people in the No camp talk about the kind of deal “we would like”. We can dream forever, but at some stage we have to face political reality.
Your position boils down to the belief that something better can be negotiated sometime soon.
No it doesn’t in my first comment here I said ” even if that takes 20 years to write it would be worth it for the generations to come” so I am not expecting to get a better solution soon. I am under no illusions that this is an easy path to walk down.
JFK said. (man I’m cliched)
If we accept this treaty not because we think it is the best thing we can get but the easy option if have copped out. We will have taken the easy way out to save our own skins. But leave our children with a legacy of something we ourselves are not willing to stand up and say this is everything I want it to be.
Political reality is we are being asked to sacrifice what is good for what is easy.
In fairness nothing I say here will change your mind and unlikely to change anyone elses either at this stage. So I’m off to do some work.
Make sure you vote now. Every citizens responsibility etc etc
simon, there is nothing wrong with seeking to get a proper constitutional document that is closer in scope and length to our own or that or the US. Lisbon doesn’t preclude that happening into the future.
Dan, Simon, Tomaltach,
Is this the first rational, essential discussion we’ve had about the substance - the actual substance - of the Lisbon Treaty? I’ve checked the other websites, read all the papers, watched Questions and Answers and I think, perhaps, it is.
In fairness to you, Tomaltach, you’ve argued the yes position in the reasoned, credible way that the official Yes Campaigners have chronically failed to do.
Pity the wider community didn’t have the benefit of your collective imputs months ago. The national debate would have been so much better and we would have been the richer for it.
Garry, I’ve tried to have similar conversations and I was pretty much set to vote No up until this week.
One of the problems is that the public/electorate pay relatively little attention to most matters political. And understandably too, people have jobs, lives and so on. And rather sadly with that minimal window some people on both sides tend to run to extremes of what is great or awful about the Treaty. It’s either cooking your breakfast or murdering your children.
“Lisbon doesn’t preclude that happening into the future.”
Well put.
To be honest, I can’t see rejecting the treaty bringing us any closer to the day that we get the ‘proper’ constitution most of us would like.
“Lisbon doesn’t preclude that happening into the future.
True but it delays it.
If Europe is to go back to the drawing board it will do it faster having to rather then wanting to. IF you get me. a yes for Lisbon means they can put structural reform and getting the right treaty on the back burner. Maybe for decades.
Simon, that’s an awful big gamble to take. After all, the rejection of the EU Constitution didn’t really bring the desired situation any closer. What’s certain is that a ‘no’ vote will hurt the EU’s credibility on the world stage and it will benefit the lunatic euroskeptics throughout the continent.
it will benefit the lunatic euroskeptics throughout the continent.
So for fear of giving Libertas a boost we are going to have a second rate union?
We have a ’second rate’ union. A ‘no’ vote maintains that second rate union. What we’ll get if we vote ‘yes’ - on balance - is a slightly better second rate union. It’s a tiny step towards the kind of Europe we’d prefer to have.
I’m not really bothered about Libertas. They’re an irritant. Groups like UKIP are another matter entirely. UKIP and other euroskeptic groups on the continent want us to reject the treaty because they believe it will help their agenda. I think that belief isn’t entirely illogical. The rejection of the EU constitution was a great victory for these groups. The rejection of Lisbon would give these groups another scalp. It would increase the momentum of their anti-Europe campaigns and at the same time it would take the momentum out of the pro-Europe agenda.
Niall basing Europes future on that principle is a shame. present concerns dictating the future.
Yup, but it beats the alternative. You’ll never get everything you want, so if you wait to be presented with the ideal document, you’ll be waiting a very long time. Voting yes brings the day we get that ideal document closer than voting no.
Gary,
Thank you
Ahem, better spell your name right at least: Garry. Thank you.
i voted no because europe already has too much power, and why also has the e.u not been audited in 12 years.. does this not tell us that corruption is at the heart of the e.u…
we never seen to hear about these facts do we?
did you all know that europe has not been audited in twelve years??
what does this tell us about the corruption within it?
did you all know that europe has not been audited in twelve years??
what does this tell us about the corruption within it?