Lisbon Treaty (1 Viewer)

[Gambra]

Never mind, it ain't illegal at all..

Opponents and supporters of the Lisbon Treaty have been making their final push for votes today in advance of Thursday's referendum.
With broadcasting organisations observing the traditional eve-of-vote moratorium on referendum news tomorrow, today was the last chance for the various parties and campaign groups to set out their stall for voters.

 

[Umfufu]

Because, as was mentioned earlier in the thread (not too far back), we have to have a referendum when it's to do with Europe (or anything that would inherently change our constitution). This is for your protection. The Government have the power to create laws only if they agree with the constitution. The constitution supercedes the law. I suppose you could say it's the Ultimate Law. That's what we vote them in for. Not to change the constitution. That's OUR prerogative.

I never said anything to the contrary.

I said (not too far back!) that I understood that the reason that we were voting was due to the fact that the Irish constitution needed to be changed.

Fair enough.

Then I asked:
If citizens live in a country where this treaty doesn't require a change in their constitution, then why do they need a referendum?

 

[nofunchee]

has anybody figured out what the actual constitutional change is and why that change is necessary for lisbon?

 

[Umfufu]

The new constitution will actually make reference to the Lisbon Treaty.
It'll say something like "the government is allowed to pass the Treaty Of Lisbon & that this will not interfere with article......"

I'm still not sure why the constitution needs to say this though.

Anyone?

Have you ever actually read the constitution?
There's some mad stuff in there altogether.
Jesus even gets a mention.

 

[Goff]

I never said anything to the contrary.

I said (not too far back!) that I understood that the reason that we were voting was due to the fact that the Irish constitution needed to be changed.

Fair enough.

Then I asked:
If citizens live in a country where this treaty doesn't require a change in their constitution, then why do they need a referendum?

Ah, I see.

Not all countries have a constitution. I'm not sure what you mean re them needing a referendum, because they haven't had a chance. Ireland is fairly unique (though not completely) in the fact that we need a referendum to change the constitution. Most countries enable change to be made by the Government.

And, with regards Europe, it doesn't even have to be a change, per se, to the constitution.

The present system we have ensures that no law can be passed, even if it's stated in a Treaty, if it's in direct violation of our Constitution. Well, it can be passed, but someone could go to the High Court to have it repealed.

That will all go if Lisbon is passed, as the Government won't have to go to the Electorate every time. Don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if they didn't most of the time but they will have referenda when it suits them and only then. Lisbon, for example, would never be put to the public if there was a chance it would fail.

In answer to your question, the reason why I'd suggest that everyone needs a referendum is to be open, fair and transparent in the true sense of democracy. Everyone should have a say in the matter. Not just their elected representatives. If they believe in democracy, they should practice it in its most basic form. Let the people decide if they want Lisbon or not. To me, either let countries all have a referendum and therefore a say, or have one big Europe-Wide Referendum. (Of course, we'd still have to have a referendum to see if we could ratify the result if it was positive!).

See, Countries have different terms of office. We have five years, others only have four. Italy seems to have one every six months. But we only elect them to "make our decisions" for us for that length of time. And kick them out if they fuck up.

This is a bit more permanent.

 

[Goff]

Have you ever actually read the constitution?
There's some mad stuff in there altogether.
Jesus even gets a mention.

For anyone who hasn't, have a gander here. It's deadly.
Boredom Warning; 3.5 out of 5.

 

[Umfufu]

Ah, I see.

Not all countries have a constitution. I'm not sure what you mean re them needing a referendum, because they haven't had a chance. Ireland is fairly unique (though not completely) in the fact that we need a referendum to change the constitution. Most countries enable change to be made by the Government.

And, with regards Europe, it doesn't even have to be a change, per se, to the constitution.

The present system we have ensures that no law can be passed, even if it's stated in a Treaty, if it's in direct violation of our Constitution. Well, it can be passed, but someone could go to the High Court to have it repealed.

That will all go if Lisbon is passed, as the Government won't have to go to the Electorate every time. Don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if they didn't most of the time but they will have referenda when it suits them and only then. Lisbon, for example, would never be put to the public if there was a chance it would fail.

In answer to your question, the reason why I'd suggest that everyone needs a referendum is to be open, fair and transparent in the true sense of democracy. Everyone should have a say in the matter. Not just their elected representatives. If they believe in democracy, they should practice it in its most basic form. Let the people decide if they want Lisbon or not. To me, either let countries all have a referendum and therefore a say, or have one big Europe-Wide Referendum. (Of course, we'd still have to have a referendum to see if we could ratify the result if it was positive!).

See, Countries have different terms of office. We have five years, others only have four. Italy seems to have one every six months. But we only elect them to "make our decisions" for us for that length of time. And kick them out if they fuck up.

This is a bit more permanent.

I agree with you in that I'd prefer to see everyone getting a chance to have their say in all EU countries but it's down to each individual country to make up their own rules on voting procedures.

If the Germans (or whoever) want to vote on every EU treaty then they should change their laws.

This is a separate issue, IMO, to the Lisbon Treaty.
This would be the case no matter what the treaty contained.

 

[Goff]

I agree. I'd not be the biggest fan of a Europe-Wide referendum. But I would like them all to have a say of their own.

On a separate point: Still no sign of the Yes Campaigners around our way. Lazy shites. Anyone else from the Fingla' direction get anyone but the No campaigners around? I've been hearing some gas stories from me ma about what the owl wans believe will happen if we vote yes. All to do with conscription for teenagers and other such shit.

I'm not trying to convince them otherwise (although I did tell me ma they're talking shite - I'm good like that).

 

[maims bond]

after initially deciding to vote no i am undecided now. I think the 'No' campaign has been a fairly insidious (but effective) one. It muddied the waters and offered some serious untruths e.g. defence, tax, sovereignty. The major problem I am left with is that French and Dutch people voted no on virtually the same document a few years back. I think it's unfair that they are not being asked again. It's a shame this wasn't more prominent in the debate. On the other hand, their parliament, who are democratically elected, are the ones who will vote it through. Can't make my mind up, does that mean I should spoil my vote?

 

[pete]

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/news/lisbonhealth09-06-08.html

 

[ratmonkey]

Can't make my mind up, does that mean I should spoil my vote?

If you can't make up your mind, would it not be easier to stay at home? Or go to the public house or wherever?

 

[therealjohnny]

I'm in the same boat

I reckon I'll vote NO here in Leixlip, then head up to Donegal and vote YES

 

[maims bond]

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/news/lisbonhealth09-06-08.html

hmm... I like Joe.

 

[pete]

hmm... I like Joe.

i trust him more than any other politician

and you can tell that (unlike some people pushing a side) he's actually read the document and seems to understand it.

edit:

more from joe:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe Higgins Column[/FONT]
Why you should Vote No to Lisbon[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Joe Higgins[/FONT]​

Workers Rights: Vote No to the “Race to the Bottom”. Lisbon will promote a “Race to the Bottom” aimed at driving down wages and boosting the superprofits of big business. It strengthens the so-called European Court of Justice to determine issues of conflict.

The ECJ has clearly demonstrated it is biased in favour of big business. Last December it ruled that unions had been in breach of European law when they picketed sites controlled by the Latvian company Laval at Vaxholm in Sweden in 2004 in protest at the company paying €9 an hour when the agreed industry rate was €16 an hour.

The court ruled that the only legally enforcable rate was the Swedish minimum wage and no more - that the normal employment agreements could not be imposed.Lisbon does nothing to hinder the ability of this court to hand down more such judgments which uphold the right of the big business at the expense of decent pay and conditions for workers throughout Europe.

Abolition of Veto on Trade in Services: Big business interests in the European Union want to be able to muscle in as of right on more public services to extend their profit making possibilities. Lisbon is a vehicle to help them in this.

Up until now if proposals came out of the EU commission that Health, Eductaion and Social Services would have to be opened up for multinational companies to move in, any Member State could block such proposals being forced on them. That is what is meant by exercising a Veto. The Lisbon Treaty removes that Veto.

Lisbon dictates that proposals for trade in public services coming out of negotiations between the EU Commission and the World Trade organisation can be agreed by Qualified Majority Voting. There is an exception: “in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of member States to deliver them.”

Considering that the present government has given lucrative contracts in our health service to private companies convicted of fraud in the United States, no Irish government could credibly argue in Brussels that opening up our health service to more privatisation would “disturb” or “prejudice” their responsibility in this regard. In the event of a dispute arising in this area the European court of Justice would be called on to adjudicate. As we know from judgements handed down by this body in disputes between workers and exploitative employers, it can be expected to take the side of the rights of private business to trade and make profits.

The Yes Campaign is desperate to try and cover up the implications of the removal of the Veto. When they could no longer deny the fact of the removal , they sought refuge in what is called the “Protocol on Services of General Interest”. (“Services of general” interest is EU lingo for public services where a fee can be charged and Health is clearly categorised as such.)

A cursory look at this Protocol shows how flimsy their argument is. It merely states that “shared values of the Union” include –“the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users.” This hardly amounts to a veto in disguise.

The Armaments Industry: For the first time in an EU Treaty, the EU armaments industry is given official status through the role of the European Defence Agency(EDA). A look at the EDA website is very instructive. It gives a function of the agency as: “creating a competitive European Defence Equipment Market and strengthening the European Defence, Technological and Industrial Base.” What this means is that Lisbon is promoting major producers of weapons of awful destruction going onto the world stage flogging their merchandise to the elites of countries like Pakistan and India where the masses exist in abject poverty. This is shameful in the extreme.

Generally Lisbon seeks to intensify hugely the militarisation of the EU to allow it to compete for international influence with a major power such as the United States.

The Socialist Party will continue to campaign vigorously on these issues and will continue the campaign, since, whether Lisbon is passed or not EU big business will continue to push the neo-liberal agenda of privatisation and erosion of workers’ rights in the pursuit of super profits.

http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/socialist035june08/2.html

 

[socmot]

I thought the main reason we were being asked to vote was because we have to amend our constitution to allow the treaty.

Yes. We have to do this because of the Crotty case, where the Supreme court found that the people had to be consulted on changes to EU law.

If other countries don't need to amend their constitutions then I don't see why the citizens need to vote on every EU referendum.
The fact that their parliaments (which were elected democratically by the people) are making the decision makes perfect sense.
That's what their job is.
To make decisions in the best interest of those who elected them.

In a case like the Lisbon treaty it is a change to a fundamental system of governance. Other countries do have referenda when their national system of governance is changed - some countries had them on the EU Constitution, for example, the implementation of this was a far more democratic exercise. Why are they not having them now? Referenda in these cases is democracy in its purest form. It is not that Ireland is the exception.

I'm still not sure which way I'll vote but there seems to be a lot of people voting no for reasons which have nothing to do with the actual content of the treaty.

My reason has everything to do with the Treaty, specifically, and how it is being implemented across the EU. It is being implemented badly. I'd like to vote yes and I despise the vast majority of the groupings who are on the no side with me, but I feel I must vote no tomorrow.

I'll say it again because it is worth saying -

Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.

– Thucydides II, 37.

 

[Umfufu]

It is not that Ireland is the exception.

At the start of your post you pointed out exactly why Ireland is the exception.

We wouldn't be having this referendum at all if it wasn't for the Crotty case.
The government here are forced to call a referendum.
Other governments in Europe are not, obviously.

 

[socmot]

I thought the main reason we were being asked to vote was because we have to amend our constitution to allow the treaty.

Yes. We have to do this because of the Crotty case, where the Supreme court found that the people had to be consulted on changes to EU law.

If other countries don't need to amend their constitutions then I don't see why the citizens need to vote on every EU referendum.
The fact that their parliaments (which were elected democratically by the people) are making the decision makes perfect sense.
That's what their job is.
To make decisions in the best interest of those who elected them.

In a case like the Lisbon treaty it is a change to a fundamental system of governance. Other countries do have referenda when their national system of governance is changed - some countries had them on the EU Constitution, for example, the implementation of this was a far more democratic exercise. Why are they not having them now? Referenda in these cases is democracy in its purest form. It is not that Ireland is the exception.

I'm still not sure which way I'll vote but there seems to be a lot of people voting no for reasons which have nothing to do with the actual content of the treaty.

My reason has everything to do with the Treaty, specifically, and how it is being implemented across the EU. It is being implemented badly. I'd like to vote yes and I despise the vast majority of the groupings who are on the no side with me, but I feel I must vote no tomorrow.

I'll say it again because it is worth saying -

Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.

– Thucydides II, 37.

 

[socmot]

At the start of your post you pointed out exactly why Ireland is the exception.

We wouldn't be having this referendum at all if it wasn't for the Crotty case.
The government here are forced to call a referendum.
Other governments in Europe are not, obviously.

Ireland is the exception in cases of EU referenda; we have to hold a referendum, whether the government likes it or not. This is what the Crotty case laid down.

However, Ireland is not the exception when it comes to countries in the EU holding referenda in general - most countries have had them. An example would be Portugal holding a referendum on abortion. Italy have had several, from divorce, to hunting to nuclear power.

 

[maims bond]

i trust him more than any other politician

and you can tell that (unlike some people pushing a side) he's actually read the document and seems to understand it.

edit:

more from joe:


http://www.socialistparty.net/pub/pages/socialist035june08/2.html

I'm sold, Joe for Prez! No surrender!

 

[Umfufu]

Ireland is the exception in cases of EU referenda; we have to hold a referendum, whether the government likes it or not. This is what the Crotty case laid down.

However, Ireland is not the exception when it comes to countries in the EU holding referenda in general - most countries have had them. An example would be Portugal holding a referendum on abortion. Italy have had several, from divorce, to hunting to nuclear power.

My point is, that Ireland is the exception as it's the only country that is obliged to have a referendum.

Of course other countries have the option to hold referenda if they want to but they are not legally required to.

That is why I think the whole issue about "Why other countries aren't allowed to vote" is kind of irrelevant.

Again, it has nothing to do with content of the Lisbon Treaty. It is a separate debate which the people in the other EU countries need to have for themselves (& arguably should have had long before now).

On another separate issue, I think the main reason Referenda usually happen is so governments can avoid making decisions on highly emotive issues like abortion & divorce.