Head over to our T
Libertas on Lisbon II – Euroscepticism in a cheap tuxedo
Read more about: Europe, Foreign Affairs, Lisbon Treaty, Lisbon Treaty 
At the time of the first Lisbon referendum, Declan Ganley marched out on front of the cameras with three tickets for the leaders of the pro-Lisbon parties. We were, Ganley told us, to send these politicians back to Brussels to renegotiate the treaty. Many journalists mistook Ganley’s pro-social behaviour for a political stunt. After all, cheap stunts are to politicians what concrete blocks are to builders, but these commentators failed to remember that Ganley is not a politician.
Or at least, he wasn’t at the time.
Well, the government lost the referendum, so after a few months of soul searching and sulking in the Dail bar, Cowen and company headed for Brussels to see what the governments of other EU states would agree to in order to soothe the fears of the Irish voter. I don’t know if they used Ganley’s tickets, but here’s hoping they did. At a time when the government refuses to give cancer vaccines to children, you’d hope they’d take up any chance to save the tax payer a few quid.
Last week, Minister Michael Martin offered the following summary of the consequences of the Brussels talks.
Last week’s agreement means that, if Lisbon is ratified, we will retain the right to nominate an Irish person to future European Commissions. This is a major concession on the part of the other member states. Our people’s clear desire to retain a permanent Irish presence at the commission table in Brussels will be respected, but only if we ratify Lisbon.
Our second aim last week was to get a satisfactory response to concerns that surfaced about the possible implications of the treaty for a range of issues such as taxation, defence, social and ethical issues and workers’ rights.
On Friday, EU leaders gave us a commitment that Ireland will have its concerns satisfactorily addressed. Specifically, they have undertaken to provide full legal guarantees with regard to taxation, Ireland’s traditional policy of neutrality and the provisions of our Constitution concerning the right to life, education and the family. This represents a very significant achievement.
The bottom line is that the Irish people have spoken and EU leaders have listened. Those who were expecting mere declarations in response to Irish concerns have been proven wrong. What is being offered are firm legal guarantees with treaty status. In addition, the summit confirmed the high importance attached by the union to workers’ rights, one of the issues included in the Government’s statement of the Irish people’s concerns.
Personally, I’m not impressed by the new arrangement regarding commissioners. It’s not as though you can see many benefits from having Charlie McCreevy over in Brussels, but given that Libertas made the commissioner issue the linchpin of their campaign, you’d have thought that Ganley and his minions would have been happy about this. After all, Ganley ended the press conference where he produced the tickets that he bought the pro-Lisbon party leaders by offering to pay their taxi fare to the airport and declaring
Our message to voters is very clear. On Thursday, send Brian back to Brussels, and tell him not to come back without a commissioner. On Friday, he will have both the mandate, and the means, to get a better deal.
Ganley reacted in the following way:
The Irish government and the powerful elite in Brussels are showing utter contempt for the democratic decision of the Irish people in rejecting the Lisbon Treaty. Not one sentence will change in a “new version”. Some non-legally binding texts will be added in an attempt to fool the people. They tried this with the French, they tried with the Dutch, they are trying with the Irish. It’s time to put a stop to this bullying.
Now what needs to be understood at this point in time is that Ganley knows no more than any of us. The government will announce the details of the legally binding guarantees only after the technical details have been finalised, most likely in June of next year. It is probable that these guarantees will take the form of an international treaty, which is about as legally binding as they come. Ganley seems to be claiming that he knows the details of a treaty that doesn’t exist yet. It seems that not only is Ganley a wonderful businessman but he’s part-time psychic as well.
Let’s face it, Ganley and Libertas lack any resembling credibility. Their history is short but complicated and their message is ever-changing.
Ganley claims to be pro-European. He claims to have supported the government on all of the other referendums held relating to Europe over the years. This would include treaties like the Mastricht and Nice. Previously, I offered the following summary of the contradictions in Ganley’s position.
- He never read the Nice Treaty, but supported it, apparently thinking it wasn’t really necessary to do so, yet when it came to the Lisbon Treaty, he condemned others for not having read the document.
- He supported the Nice Treaty even though other countries did not get to vote on it, yet when it comes to Lisbon, it’s wrong that other countries don’t get to vote.
- The Nice Treaty that he supported created the situation whereby membership of the Commission would be reduced, yet he urged voters to reject the Lisbon Treaty because it would mean we would not have a commissioner.
- Ganley supported Nice in spite of the fact that it removed our veto on matters relating to ‘enhanced cooperation’ but asked the public to oppose Lisbon because ‘enhanced cooperation’ threatened our tax system when the only real change the Lisbon treaty made to matters regarding ‘enhanced cooperation’ was to make it slightly more difficult to achieve.
- He supported the government’s approach to the defeat of the Nice Treaty referendum, but opposes the government when they use the same approach to the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty.
It’d take a professional conspiracy theorist or an excellent psychoanalyst to figure out just what happened to Declan to make him change his mind between Nice and Lisbon, but since I’m neither, I”ll leave it to readers to come up with their own theories. What I will say though is that Ganley’s apparent change of opinion in regard to the matters discussed above was glacial in its speed when compared to the rapidly changing arguments presented by Libertas during the Lisbon referendum campaign.
Libertas posters were reported as claiming that Lisbon affected Ireland’s ability to set its own corporation tax rates. Ganley now accepts this, but during the campaign he generally moved on to vague chatter about enhanced co-operation. After the treaty, he admitted that the absence of the Lisbon treaty really didn’t eliminate the supposed threat to Ireland from enhanced co-operation.
Other Libertas bill boards focused on personalities like Lucinda Creighton and Peter Mandelson, who had nothing to do with the campaign. Lisbon had nothing to do with Mandelson’s dealings with the WTO and Lucinda Creighton’s views on European military policy shouldn’t have been an issue. The Libertas campaign also suggested that by voting No we would save our commissioner. This was also false. There were reports that Libertas were also making unfounded claims about the impact of Lisbon on Ireland’s abortion laws. Every time that Libertas was caught out spreading a falsehood they modified their position.
Now with a new referendum in sight, Libertas’s priorities and arguments have changed yet again. Gone (for now) is the talk of corporate tax rates, European armies, Peter Mandelson, commissioners and all the other nonsense of the past. This time, we must vote ‘No’ because of democratic deficits and for other reasons not considered important enough to paste across billboards last time out. The only constant in the Libertas campaign is their commitment to oppose the treaty using any argument available to them. It’s not the government that seeks to “fool the people”, but Libertas. They’re no more pro-Europe than UKIP. Libertas was never about Lisbon. It’s all just been a stepping stone for Ganley on his quest to re-model the EU after his own design.
Interesting post. There has been quite a lot of talk about a non-political yes campaign being essential to galvanise support for a yes vote – a sort of anti-Libertas, if you will. Do you see this happening? If something like that got off the ground, I could see a lot of people supporting it financially and with man hours. People like me. I’d certainly throw in a fiver and knock on a couple of doors for a non-political organisation advocating a yes vote for Lisbon II.
Hear, hear!
Why don’t we do it then? What’s to stop us? ‘Independent Citizens for a 21st Century Europe’ – that’s us. Politically unalligned, or previously alligned or still party card holders, it doesn’t matter. There are enough people of diverse talent and expertise and from all walks of life blogging on this site to form the nucleus of a new group to take on Libertas and the rest of the goalpost shifters. We’d need a website, and money of course – of which I don’t have any, not a bean; but suspect most of the rest of us would be in the same boat and that come 2009 there aren’t all that many who will be able to even afford to donate a fiver. Strategy is more important anyway.
So who’s on for it?
Count me in.
Why do hear nothing from the “Yes” side but Ganley and Libertas, Libertas and Ganley.
Now we know that the Lisbon treaty is not about less commissioners, abortion, the exploitation of labour, losing neutrality through an American style military industrial complex.
So what is in the Lisbon treaty (besides “democracy” and putting “Ireland at the heart of Europe”) that is so important that the EU and the Irish political elite are so anxious to get it through.
Tomaltach,
Thanks. First off, we’d need to talk about what we could do, and how and when. So I’ve set up a new g-mail account for contact purposes: veronica.malone10@gmail.com.
Anyone who is interested in establishing a group, please e-mail that address and we’ll take it from there.
Eddie, if you want to learn more about the treaty, try here:
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_terms.html
Veronica/Anne’s idea seems quite interesting, though has any one any thoughts on whether this project would be pro-Lisbon or just anti-Libertas.
veronica. good luck with your venture it is certainly possible to do. but it would be very very hard organising on the internet is difficult especially when people have jobs and life to organise. Motivating people is hard as well.
Don’t attack Libertas it is a lose situation. That is what the government did suggesting that he got money from America. No one cared most people probably don’t mind. Anti-American feeling is not strong. Don’t go negative. DON’T (caps intended) use scare tactics saying we will be kicked out of Europe if we vote no is silly and very dangerous. Much the reason why people voted no. was they didn’t not like being told what to do. Focus on the positive. one of which is not the length of explanations need. shorten it up. make it snappy.
Create a website. Hosting is cheap. Organise through the net. Obama used facebook and twitter not as advertising platforms but as organising and disseminating the distilled message. I.e. making sure everyone was on the same hymn sheet. This is need. If you get people “working” have stuff like todays talking point. Libertas controlled the debate. They said something government responded. They controlled the debate. You need to do this. Also you need to start now. Get known by March. This is very very hard to do. People are only interested in politics for short spaces of time. (Check out this sites comments. for over a year and a half of posting before the election. (amount of time me and Cian and others put into this site for few readers was immense. Two months before the election readers shot up. On Election day over 70,000 hits I believe after that dropped off again) So you will have to put in tons of work for little at the start. But keep faith.
Be all and end all is get Money.
Simon, you say not to go negative but isn’t that exactly what Libertas did? Why do you think that worked? Perhaps the fact that what they were seeking was negative vote probably helped.
Libertas are a political party now. Ganley has ambitions and they go beyond Ireland and Lisbon. We’d need to keep an eye on them, even if Lisbon wasn’t a live issue.
Attacking Libertas is obviously not the way to win the referendum, but they need to be tackled as part of any campaign since they are the probably viewed with more credibility than the other parties that make up the anti-treaty front. The problem for the YES side is that the referendum will come down to trust. Last time, Libertas appeared about as trustworthy as the pro-treaty parties. The fact is that they failed to reach even that low bar but people didn’t realise it at the time, so I can’t really see any pro-treaty campaign being run successfully without highlighting Libertas’ contradictory arguments and the opportunistic, scaremongering tactics.
Selling the positives of Lisbon is difficult. There’s a high level of ignorance around the EU and its workings and that is to the advantage of the ‘no’ side who get to make idiotic claims about the impact of the treaty on our voting strength, unelected presidents etc. In order to understand the positives of Lisbon, you’d generally need to have some knowledge about the EU to begin with.
Niall: Having read the webpage you refer to I can see how Veronice is going to have great difficulty in selling the Lisbon treaty. For instance the Goverment is now saying we will not lose a Commisioner yet in the website you refer to the Lisbon treaty spells out in detail how individual countries commisioners will be lost as follows:
“If the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified, then a new Commission will be appointed in 2009 for a five year term with one member from each of the 27 Member States. Two-thirds of the Member States will nominate a Commissioner in 2014. Thus if the current number of Member States (27) remains the same, there will be 18 Commissioners (i.e., two-thirds of 27) in the period 2014 – 2019. The right to nominate a Commissioner will rotate among all the Member States on an equal basis. This means that each Member State will nominate a member of the Commission for two out of every three Commissions (that is, 10 of every 15 year cycle). The precise details of how this will operate in practice have yet to be decided but the principles are set out in the Treaty of Lisbon.”
Someone must be telling lies. So again I ask what is so important about the Lisbon treaty that the EU political elite are going to such lengths to have it passed?
I suspect that if Lisbon is passed the voting procedures in the EU wil resemble those of the Eurovision song Contest.
EddieL, in case you didn’t notice, the government secured a commitment from their other 26 members to undertake the necessary legal changes to the EU framework that will allow each state to retain a commissioner.
Your statement about the song Contest would be funny in a humour thread, but in the present context, it is simply stupid and meaningless.
Niall, Simon
Thanks for the advice. In the wake of it those two glinting lights peering from underneath the desk, where I’m now cowering with a brown paper bag over my head, are my eyes desperately looking for a safe exit from my own folly!
Anne’s post (above) reflected my own feeling of having been let down by the ‘Yes’ campaign, in all its parts, in the first referendum and mounting frustration that the second campaign is shaping up to a groundhog day rerun of the same tired nonsense by both sides.
They’ll argue about Lisbon, democracy, imperialism, conscription, sovereignty, climate change, neutrality, workers’ rights, Boston or Berlin, Reykjavik or Rome. We ain’t heard nothing yet, and we’ve heard it all before.
Thing is, the decision we are faced with is not about Lisbon any more; about what’s in it or not in it or should be in it or implied by it. It’s about what’s in our own best interests as a country. It’s complicated by our need to redefine our relationship with Europe. We’ve never done that since the good old European funding gravy train ground to a halt.
So if the concept of ‘Citizens for a 21st Century Europe’ is going to mean anything in practice, it will have to cut across the misrepresentations of Libertas and Coir and their fellow travellers and oblige them to clarify for all our benefit just what ‘pro-European’ means in their terms? And it will have to be very clear itself about its own definition of Ireland’s place in Europe in the 21st century. That’s not negative campaigning, it’s about ensuring political accountability.
I don’t know at this stage if what I am suggesting will develop into anything. I know I can’t do it alone, nor would I want to even try. I hope enough people will respond to veronica.malone10 @gmail.com to get something going and from the core group that is thereby established we may be able to achieve something useful. But I do believe it’s important to try, because it’s not enough anymore to do nothing.
Tomaltach: So we are going to vote on a treaty that is going to be legally binding to reduce the number of Commisioners but we are also being told if we accept this that some time in the future this will be reversed purely to get a “Yes” in this referendum. A decision to reverse a law before the law is passed!! This is sheer folly. That to me is a bigger joke than the procedures for deciding the winner in the Eurovision Song Contest. At least there is some logic to the voting in the song contest even though it leaves Western Europe out in the cold.
EddieL,
The mechanism that will renege on the provisions in Nice and Lisbon to reduce the size of the commission is not going to be pretty.
But this is where it is important to try to understand the political nature of what is going on here. Please, leave aside the merits or otherwise in the treaty for a moment. The thing has been ratified in the vast bulk of member states. It is a necessarily complex international agreement. And there would be great difficulty in rewriting some of it because it would have to be ratified all over again. And I think you can understand that there is considerable political momentum against doing that. So as a compromise Ireland’s concessions will come in a separate – yet to be determined – legal format. But why should that matter. Lisbon overwrites Nice and Nice overwrites part of what went before. Now a new protocol or agreement between the members will reshape a part of Lisbon. It’s ugly, but that is a small price to pay if it can get agreement and secure the approval of the Irish people. That is the political logic behind it. Nothing bizarre or silly.
EddieL,
Under the Nice Treaty, EU law is that once the EU increases in size to 27 states or more, the number of commissioners will be reduced from one per member state.
The Nice Treaty does not specify the mechanism whereby the reduction will be achieved. The Lisbon Treaty set out how it should be done, but it also left it open to the European Council to increase the number of Commissioners at a later stage if they saw fit.
As pointed out by Tomaltach, this is the provision which the Irish government has capitalised on in its recent negotiations with its EU colleagues. So if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, then the Council will be in a position to make the decison that each member state will retain the right to a commissioner. If it doesn’t come into force, then the Nice Treaty provision applies and the number of Commissioners must be reduced.
Moreover, the mechanism painstakingly negotiated between all member states for reducing the number of members of the COmmission under the Lisbon Treaty will not exist in law. Since the larger member states only reluctantly accepted a compromise of parity for membership of the Commission between all states, large or small, during the negotiations on hte Lisbon package, it therefore is entirely unlikely that these terms, that are favbourable to small states like Ireland, would be available again, especially since the counterbalancing increase in voting strengthe for the larger member states at Council level won’t exist either.
In short, vote yes for Lisbon and you get to keep your commissioner; vote no and you most definitely won’t. Is that clear?
Veronica: The Lisbon treaty sets out the details of how the number of commisioners is to be legally reduced. I hope you will forgive me if I find it impossible to believe that by voting “YES” to a legally binding reduction in the number of commisioners I am according to the imaginings of the politacal establishment voting “NO” to a reduction in the number of Commisioners.
I find the whole thing extremely saddening.
hello all i just read the comments above and it saddens me aswell, veronica you talk about our useless gov negotiating a better deal for us?any gains that would be won in another referendum will be down to the irish people who voted no,
anybody who trusts anybody in ff to do anything right, is simply stupid, they are liars and dont know what that they are doing, did you understand the dead treaty?? because i dont i wonder why, because it is written in a way that no one can evev read it, why is that i wonder if you could explain that veronica rember this we the irish people have said no to this farce what part of no do you people not understand? its a sad time for democracy.
demi darling,
‘It saddens you.’ Crikey!
With all due respect, get up off your posterior.
Our government is not useless; it’s just the gpvernment that we have and a lot less worse than any other government that we might have. But the opposition isn’t great, which makes the government ‘useless’ as you define it.
Citizens for a 21st century Europe is about who we are and what we want; not ‘whingers national’.
What I mean is: think positive, my friend. If you want to get on board let me know at veronica.malone10@gmail.com.
Eddie L,
Oh my God! Obviously I didn’t make it perfectly clear. Please forgive me!
EU law as it stands under the Nice Treaty requires that the number of commissioners will be reduced from one per member state once the EU reaches 27 member states – which it now has. That’s the rule of law, the foundation of any democracy. Voting yes to Lisbon makes a differnece because Lisbon sets out the mechanism by which this reduction will be achieved. And after a lot of wheeling and dealing, it was agreed that the mechanism would be balanced in favour of the smaller member states – a mechanism proposed by Ireland, Dick Roche of all people, as I understand it.
So Lisbon sets out the mechanism for the reduction in the size of the Commission. Without Lisbon, the Nice Treaty applies; with no politically agreed process beyond a cross the table argument at the European Council.
The beauty of Lisbon, as it stands, is that it further provides a possibility for the Council to decide that each member state might retain the right to nominate their own commissioner. Nice, obviously, does not. In fact Nice does the opposite. And Nice, without Lisbon, is the law of the European Union.
Our government has persuaded the other member countries to use the provision in the Lisbon Treaty to retain a commissioner for each emmber state. This is a major concession, whether anyone likes it or not, or wants to deride the government or whatever. Personally, I don’t think it’s great idea to have one Commissioner for each member state, but if that’s what it takes in real politics then that’s what it takes and it’s fair enough. In the long run anyway, it may even become clear that this is a very good innovation and that theo riginal proposal for a reduction in the numer of Commissioners as per the Nice Treaty was wrong: there’s a very sound school of thought that would suggest that the organisational structure that appears likely to be the most efficient may not neccessarily ‘fit the bill’ over the longer term.
Therefore: vote ‘no’ to Lisbon, lose your commissioner; vote ‘yes’ keep your commissioner.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think I can explain this any more clearly than I, and others, have already tried to do. If you don’t wish to accept the explanation thus offered, that’s OK and entirely your right. But with all due respect could I ask you to please stop taking up space and wasting people’s time demanding us to keep stating the bleedin’ obvious, which you then decide to immediately discount? Because that is not a very reasonable argumentative position to adopt. in its constant repetition, may I suggest, it just becomes tedious.
Veronica: If you speak to anyone who is familiar with legal principles they will tell you the fololowing:
If the Nice treaty proposed that the number Commissioners should be reduced but did not specify in what way and by how many in exact detail then obviously there is no legal arrangement to be put into effect. It remains purely an an aspiration.
Maybe in this we have hit the nail on the head because this could be the reason why the EU elite are so anxious to put the Lisbon treaty into effect.
I would also like to point out that the Lisbon treaty as it is proposed to be put to us again specifies the legally binding arrangements for the reduction in the number of Commissioners and if the treaty comes into effect then the EU will be legally bound to reduce the number of Commisioners as set out in the treaty. No amount of waffle from Brian Cowan or Zarchosy who will probably both be gone soon or the EU can change this simple fact.
Again I must say that I am saddened by the sordid and underhand nature of the way we are being treated.
EddieL,
The provision in Nice concerning the number of commissioners is not an aspiration, it is a commitment. When the union reaches 27 it states that “The number of members of the commission shall be less than the number of member states”. True, it does not set a figure. It just says that the member states have legally committed to making the number less than the number of member states. It does though say how: through the council acting unanimously. So yes, they could sit down and agree to set the commission at 26 for example. But politically of course, that cannot happen: which member state would surrender its commissioner while the others retain theirs? Besides, it hardly makes sense to reduce by one or two. This is where Lisbon clarifies it saying that it should be reduced to two thirds — unless the Council unanimously agrees otherwise.
In fact, it’s pretty clear. Have a look at the text yourself. Article 4.2 of Nice and go to the new article 9d.5 in Lisbon.
You mentioned speaking to someone familiar with legal principles. I’m not really sure what the means. But no one I have spoken to – senior officers in the Commission, or among the governments permanent representatives in Brussels, or MEPs, or the senior members of the Commission and Parliament offices here in Dublin, no one has interpreted this any other way that as laid out by Veronica and I.
In any case, whatever the Treaties say, the other 26 members have given a political commitment to make a legal change so that Ireland – and all states – can retain a commissioner. To a large extent, the entire workings of the Union depends as much on trust and the notion of mutual interest as it does on the texts. True, the texts must be honoured, but not every single decision or policy is laid out – nor could they be – in the treaties. That would be absurd and unworkable. So like any other political system it depends on how well the participants work together. And that requires a certain level of trust and respect.
The important question that Veronica raised tends to get lost in this discussion: how important is it to Ireland to retain a commissioner?
In fact, that is a hugely complex issue. On the one hand, the commission is obviously a powerful body – it initiates legislation and drives EU policy into force. It would seem important then that each member has a representative there. It is true also that while the current commission doesn’t vote as a block to take decisions (it works by concensus), previous commissions have used voting. And in the commission it is a simple majority. So it would seem important to have a member there.
On the other hand, the commission when it goes about framing a proposal will try hard to consult with parliament and member states to suss out what is possible. There is no point in proposing measures which are blocked later in Parliament or Council (under Lisbon nearly all has to get the blessing of both). And in any case, measures get significantly amended by especially the parliament before they would be passed. So these are safeguards anyway for national interests.
Furthermore, there is the crucial question for small states. It is that many scholars of the Union say that because the commission is the body which is legally charged with operating on behalf of the union and not member states, it is the most supranational. In other words, it takes the broad view of the best interests of the Union, while institutions like the council tend to be more dominated by the big members. In that sense, smaller states have often seen the commission as one of the places where their general interest is best protected – note, not through their representation there, but by the very nature of the commission. And a lot of what I have read suggests that a smaller commission is more capable of acting as a supranational body, better isolated from big state power, than a large dilute commission.
And there have been suggestions that as the commission has grown with the number of member states, it has become weaker and the balance has shifted back more towards intergovernmentalism where the big states dominate.
The tricky question is finding the balance between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism which best suits Ireland (most people would agree we would want a bit of both!) But every other state is tying to set this balance in their own interest too.
To conclude, we should hope that if we retain a commissioner that in the long run it doesn’t do more harm than good.
eveing all, veronica dear you did not answer my question, nice to see you are positive in the present climate, but cant see where you are coming from on our gov? all this talk of commissioner seems very important to all, that being the case they must have good insight into europe what did our present commissioner say about a second refhe said we would we mad to vote again? let me ask you all did you read and can you unsterstand the lisbon treaty besides all that babble about our comm,, what has gappy mc creevy done for us in europe i dont know or what would have happened if he was not there not much i supect, maby i am a bit negative veronica but you put it in a nice way its nice to talk in a civil way but veronica i wont be jumping on your declan ganley witch hunt, but thanks anyway hope ye all have a great xmas cheers
This thread is a micro version of the larger debate. A group of people get together to try to discuss the issues and embarrassing nutters like Demi and Eddie arrive to troll and spoil the arguments. You can count me in.
I am prepared to give Libertas a shot in the Euro-elections if they stand here in East. I disagree with those who argue we don’t yet know exactly how these changes will pan out. Micheal Martin has conceded that the plan is for the concessions to be added as Protocols to the Croatian Accession treaty. The fly in the ointment there is that Slovenia is now threatening to block Croatian EU membership. And there are other reasons to doubt the credibility of the ‘assurances’ of the yes parties. For a start, we are not being offered any changes to the text of the Lisbon treaty itself – we will be voting on the same proposition we rejected last June – that is not respecting the Irish people and their right – guaranteed in Article 5 of the Irish Constitution – to self-determination – a right generations of Irish people gave their lives for over the centuries, but which is now threatened by this Eurofederalist treaty which, through expansion of Qualified Majority Voting, will mean ever more legislation will be forced on Ireland by Big States – especially given that Ireland’s voting-strength on the Council of Ministers is more than halved, while Germany, France, the UK and Italy will collectively have over 53% of the voting-strength on that body. Only 29% of Croats say they have a favourable view of the EU anyway. So what happens to the assurances if Croatia doesn’t vote to join the EU? In any case, they fail to address my primary objections to the Lisbon Treaty, which are, in order of importance, as follows: the Charter of Fundamental Rights which turns the ECJ into a Supreme Court on virtually every issue including asylum and immigration and industrial relations (remember the Laval judgement where they allowed exploitation of migrant labour?), the new voting system that enshrines domination by Big States, and the loss of the vetoes in areas such as energy and in the future Justice and Home Affairs (as the text of the Referendum Act 2008 allows the govt to give up its Protocol opting us out of QMV in JHA). The relevant part of the failed constitutional amendment from last June in the Act said the following on the latter: “13° The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on
the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the 35
area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the
European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European
Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State,
but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both 40
Houses of the Oireachtas.” At the time of writing my intention is to vote no again.
Commitments, declarations, promises,etc,like verbal agreements are not worth the paper they are writtren. As someone familiar with the app;ication of the law I can assure you the it is only what is specified in the law which can be applied (the simple principle is if it is not written in the law then it cannot be appled)and from what I gather the Lisbon treaty spells out in exact detail how the law will be appied if Lisbon is passed. There can be no ifs or buts about it. To say that if this law is passed vague promises that its effects will be negated at a later stage is something I have never come across before and seems to me to be clearly impossible.
To talk about small states receiving specially favourable treatment is inconsistent with the specified provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. As well as that we are a small state at the wrong side of Europe as the Eurovision song Contest shows. So I assume therefore that is is imperative that we retain our commisioner and even more importantly the right to veto.
FT, your every word stinks of Irish self-defeating bullshit, but then again you have a special interest in it and think this site is a soapbox for your canvassing for the Libertwats.
so v our opions dont matter? did you read the lisbon treaty before you voted for it, and your calling us nutters because we dont do what our aresholes gov tell us what is best for us,
this thread is a micro version of what what sort of bull is that ill ask again do you fully unsterstand this treaty ?? i will answer for you no you dont so ddont refer to us irish that won the ref as nutters we want to discuss the treaty and want all to understant it, so v dont takl bull saying that we want to spoil the debate we want to takk about in a mature way but going on your comments i say its beond you your input is to slag off others that is great help and you say were are trying to spoil the debate?
“so v our opions dont matter?”
Yes, and we know that the next charge from this Libertas supporter is that you want to “trounce the freedom of speech.” It is quite common for the “Libertas defenders of freedom” to claim that we that support the EU “hate freedom.” Rubbish!
From here on the Western side of the Atlantic, the claim that the Irish are “the most pro-Europe of EU Member states” appears to be muted, or even inaccurate. The reality is that the majority of those that voted “no” did so because they did not understand the Lisbon Treaty. So, any claim that the rejection of the Treaty was “a rejection of Brussels elites” is rubbish!
What is the definition of “democracy” to Ganley and Libertas? Referendums? Where else in the Western democratic world does a democratic nation hold referendums on international treaties? Here in the US we do not have referendums on international treaties and only the Senate votes on them. So, is this “undemocratic” by the standards of Libertas? From some of Ganley’s statements representative democracy is not “democracy!”
Please question what Libertas means by “democracy” (and other means of words). The reality is that the European Union is vastly more democratic than other international-regional organizations, like NATO. Why can’t we in NATO member nations vote on NATO policy and have some kind of “democratic transparency” in the Atlantic Alliance? How much democracy is there in the United Nations?
Yes, the European Union is not only vastly more democratic than any other organization of its kind – it has identified the “democratic deficit” as a problem that it is working on everyday. Just because it does not serve you personally, where you sit, RIGHT NOW, does not mean that it is “undemocratic!”
Erin LaPorte – Milwaukee, WI-USA
ESLaPorte: “The reality is that the majority of those that voted “no” did so because they did not understand the Lisbon Treaty.” Who told you that? Was it those who insist that this treaty is passed? Perhaps you are being brainwashed!!
You say that NATO is undemocratic. Is NATO not deminated by America?
Erin,
Good point. Well-made.
So far as I can fathom the EU is determined to undermine family life and wants children, dependent relatives and the elderly out of the home and in external care where money is passing hands for caring duties, and mothers and carer’s out in the workforce. The social and emotional value and needs of people seem to be totally ignored.
I say this because as a Wife, Mother and Carer I am finding it increasingly difficult to remain caring for our family in the home because of EU Policies that are being implemented by our Government. Since 2000 the EU, its think tank the OECD and UN Committee have told the Irish Government that there is not enough mothers in the workforce, married couples need to lose their tax benefits, and that policies such as Tax Individualisation have to be implemented to rectify this. Also that the Home Carer’s Tax free allowance should be abolished, and the early childcare supplement should only be given to children of working mothers because it is ‘unconditional’ and doesn’t pressurize mothers into the labour market. This negative attitude to families will cause untold damage to generations of Irish families.
A carer in this country is denied the carer’s allowance for caring for a dependent or elderly relative if their spouse is in employment, even at a very low wage, (treated jointly), but this married couple will now also have the married Tax Free allowance taken away from them because of Tax Individualisation and be liable for higher tax in excess of €6,000p.a. (treated as separate individuals) because the carer is not in ‘paid employment’. This is a double hit and they are picking and choosing as when suits them, in order to deny benefits and allowances to married couples and Carers. Also being ignored is the tremendous community and voluntary efforts carried out by stay-at-home Mothers (or Fathers)and Carer’s helping elderly neighbours and assisting local voluntary organisations.
The EU and Irish Government are telling us that we are totally separate individuals with no inter-dependence (Tax Individualisation, introduced in 2000) Because of this our household, along with many others, only receives a single Tax Free allowance (called Married allowance, one income) even though we have children and a household to support. This secular, individualistic and anti-family approach goes against our religious, family and social beliefs and we would therefore be very reluctant to support Lisbon II without guarantees that these policies will be reversed.
The “gaurentees” are a red herring. The commissioner agreeement defers the downsizing of the commission sine dei. In other words in a few years time new politicians will come in and deny any knowledge of it. Will reversing the commissioner agreement require a referendum in Ireland? Plus lisbon concedes our veto over the commission.
The right to set our own tax rates is not worth much as the bersani report can still be implemented which woudl force us to share corporation tax revenue with the country of sale.
Abortion is a red herring, it will merely duplicate the current protocol.
Neutrality is so vaguely defined its another red herring.
We know that there will be nothing on workers rights.
In short a con-job.