The Lisbon Treaty: Yes or No?

Okay, well for anyone who doesn't live in the EU (and even perhaps a few who do), the Lisbon Treaty is an international agreement signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 that would change the workings of the European Union (EU). It has been deemed necessary for the EU to function as its membership grows. A few nations have yet to fully ratify the treaty and Ireland has already received a No vote in a referendum on it. There will be a second referendum, however, and the question in Ireland is:

Is there anything wrong with the Treaty, or do we trust it?

It's quite late here and I have no intention of putting in all the issues right now, though I may edit this post later to help keep the thread coherent. In the meantime, some points about the Treaty, the upcoming referendum and the implications of the previous No vote can be found here.

So what does everyone think? And feel free to weigh in even if you're not an EU citizen; it's always nice to hear unbiased points of view.

As I stated in the other thread, among the main reasons the Irish populace voted "No" was because of general ignorance as to the Treaty's provisions. It was believed, among other things, that the Treaty would change the current constitutional law in Ireland relating to abortion (specifically its current prohibition), and that it would provide for citizens of member states of the European Union being conscripted into a "European Army" of sorts, neither of which are contained in any way, shape or form within the Lisbon Treaty. The general ignorance surrounding the treaty itself is good enough reason for a second vote in Ireland, if you ask me.

The Constitutional Treaty that came before it, and contained many of the same provisions, should never have been scrapped either in my view. Most opposition came from the word "Constitutional", and the necessary link between that word and constitutions of countries like the United States of America. This raised fears that it would create a "United States of Europe", where if I remember correctly (it's been a good few months since I studied it) it would have done nothing of the sort. It would have replaced the two treaties which currently regulate EU conduct, and instead codified their provisions plus many others into one treaty instead. The Lisbon Treaty, also known as the Reform Treaty, would simply reform the existing treaties to add and change certain things (such as Qualified Majority Voting in the European Parliament).

^So that's a Yes. Makes sense to me, though I think one of the best things to come out of the No vote is that everyone gets to keep their commissioners in Lisbon 2.0, which I think is only logical despite the variation in populations of countries.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

^So that's a Yes. Makes sense to me, though I think one of the best things to come out of the No vote is that everyone gets to keep their commissioners in Lisbon 2.0, which I think is only logical despite the variation in populations of countries.

The point is that the European Commission is supposed to be a supranational body, that is, it does not represent a country in the Commission, but acts as the Guardian of the Treaties in the interests of the Union as a whole. As such, their loyalty is to the Union, not to their member state. Therefore it doesn't make sense to make sure that it has a member from each member state for the sake of fairness, because they're not supposed to be representing member states to begin with.

How many nations in Europe actually allowed their people to vote on this?

In the meantime, some points about the Treaty, the upcoming referendum and the implications of the previous No vote can be found here.

I may not know anything about Irish politics, but I know my genre fiction and let me tell you: every puppet bureaucrat in the history of Dark Lords employing puppet bureaucrats crafted his toxic speeches from *this* very document.
50 to 1 this John O'Brennan has a Palantir in his bedroom. ;P

Seriously though, a cursory glance at the material provided suggests this is a rather inspiring case of Democracy in action.
Ireland refused to support a position it did not fully understand, despite strong pressure from the "establishment". Populace concerns were identified, publisized and addressed, despite eruditial claims that further negotiation was impossible. And now the matter is being returned to a people who are dramatically more satisfied (with support for a "no" vote currently at less than half of what it was the fist time round). Whatever the issues themselves... Ra-Ra-Rule of the people types have got to be happy with that.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

How many nations in Europe actually allowed their people to vote on this?

Only those that required a constitutional amendment to allow them to ratify the Treaty, which wasn't many. I can't remember specifically but there were a couple of others outside of Ireland who said "yes".

Originally Posted by Pie

Ireland refused to support a position it did not fully understand, despite strong pressure from the "establishment". Populace concerns were identified, publisized and addressed, despite eruditial claims that further negotiation was impossible. And now the matter is being returned to a people who are dramatically more satisfied (with support for a "no" vote currently at less than half of what it was the fist time round). Whatever the issues themselves... Ra-Ra-Rule of the people types have got to be happy with that.

Really, more should have been done to reduce ignorance to begin with. It's almost as if the Irish government wanted it to fail.

I looked it over and well, I don't get it. Could someone explain what it does in layman's terms?

Since I can't be bothered dredging up my notes on the subject from the pile, I'll give you what Wikipedia says, which to my memory isn't wrong.

Prominent changes include more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, increased involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended codecision with the EU Council, eliminating the pillar system, preventing the provision in the Treaty of Nice reducing the number of commissioners, and the creation of a President of the European Union and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies. If ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Union's human rights charter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding.

It's more concerned with reforming certain institutions in the Union than anything else, hence its other name as the "Reform Treaty".

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

I may not know anything about Irish politics, but I know my genre fiction and let me tell you: every puppet bureaucrat in the history of Dark Lords employing puppet bureaucrats crafted his toxic speeches from *this* very document.
50 to 1 this John O'Brennan has a Palantir in his bedroom. ;P

I know! I was especially disturbed by his suggestion that the government should ratify it anyway because it might not even violate the constitution. Come on! If the people say No, the LAST thing you should do is ignore them! I like the EU and all, but I dislike that most politicians think that way: 'what do they know; they're only voters'. If the No vote is wrong then you should be able to convince me.

Seriously though, a cursory glance at the material provided suggests this is a rather inspiring case of Democracy in action.
Ireland refused to support a position it did not fully understand, despite strong pressure from the "establishment". Populace concerns were identified, publisized and addressed, despite eruditial claims that further negotiation was impossible. And now the matter is being returned to a people who are dramatically more satisfied (with support for a "no" vote currently at less than half of what it was the fist time round). Whatever the issues themselves... Ra-Ra-Rule of the people types have got to be happy with that.

To be honest, I just wish it were practical to have referenda on everything - you can vote for politicians who promise this and that, and then once they're in office they instantly change their tune and only worry about what the people want when their term is nearly up. In between, it's like they're a totally different person and you may as well not have voted. Surely there's a better system.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Since I can't be bothered dredging up my notes on the subject from the pile, I'll give you what Wikipedia says, which to my memory isn't wrong.



It's more concerned with reforming certain institutions in the Union than anything else, hence its other name as the "Reform Treaty".

Well I can't see any glaring issues, however a some of this seems somewhat similar to what we have here in the United States. It, at least to me, seems to put the European Union on the track to becoming a nation. Though I don't object to that idea.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

Well I can't see any glaring issues, however a some of this seems somewhat similar to what we have here in the United States. It, at least to me, seems to put the European Union on the track to becoming a nation. Though I don't object to that idea.

It does seem that way at times, but it's not likely to pursue nationhood while there are still other countries who have yet to join. As you can see:


Blue: The EU
Dark Green: countries that are candidates to join
Light Green: countries which undergoing the stabilisation and association process
Pink: countries that have expressed an interest in joining
Yellow: countries which are debating whether to join

There are plenty of countries who might join, and some of the more hesitant countries might be put off if they felt they would be 'absorbed' into a superstate. Besides that, most existing members have no intention of losing their national identity.

This is just the EU's way of saying "What America has, we want as well".

If this is ratified as it were, it will mean that the whole of the EU will be run by one man, a president who can be chosen from anywhere in the EU. Us British cannot vote on this as Gordon Brown signed our rights away on this matter by signing it anyway, which has caused uproar over here.

If this comes into effect, then it won't be "Welcome to the country of Spain". It will be "Welcome to the EU State of Spain. Each country will have a Prime Minister running it still, but overall control goes to the President and Brussels.

So i hope Ireland continue to vote "No" because i for one don't want this constitution/treaty coming in at all and neither do a lot of people i speak to.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

It does seem that way at times, but it's not likely to pursue nationhood while there are still other countries who have yet to join. As you can see:



There are plenty of countries who might join, and some of the more hesitant countries might be put off if they felt they would be 'absorbed' into a superstate. Besides that, most existing members have no intention of losing their national identity.

I didn't say it would make the EU a nation instantly, but it would bring it closer than it has been in it's entire history.

Originally Posted by Jimes

If this is ratified as it were, it will mean that the whole of the EU will be run by one man, a president who can be chosen from anywhere in the EU. Us British cannot vote on this as Gordon Brown signed our rights away on this matter by signing it anyway, which has caused uproar over here.

If this comes into effect, then it won't be "Welcome to the country of Spain". It will be "Welcome to the EU State of Spain. Each country will have a Prime Minister running it still, but overall control goes to the President and Brussels.

So i hope Ireland continue to vote "No" because i for one don't want this constitution/treaty coming in at all and neither do a lot of people i speak to.

This is part of the reason why I'm so hesitant to vote Yes. If the EU were so democratic, it wouldn't ask so many nations to ratify this important step forward without the approval of the various electorates. That it knows that the people are against and yet goes ahead with it anyway speaks ill of the future. We Irish are aware of the fact that no other country has afforded its people the opportunity to decide and are considering this decision mostly on our own behalf but partly on behalf of our neighbours, as well, conscious that we are in effect deciding for them, too.

Anyway, here's the part of the proposed amendment to our constitution that I take issue with:

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.10:

The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.

* Insertion of new Article 29.4.11:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

Which basically means, as I understand it, that once we vote this in, EU decisions will completely invalidate any part of the Irish Constitution which conflicts with them, which I believe will allow future treaties to be ratified without referenda.

Originally Posted by CVN-76

I didn't say it would make the EU a nation instantly, but it would bring it closer than it has been in it's entire history.

I knew what you meant; I was just pointing out that although the EU seems to be moving in that direction, I can't see it completing the journey any time soon.

Originally Posted by Jimes

This is just the EU's way of saying "What America has, we want as well".

If this is ratified as it were, it will mean that the whole of the EU will be run by one man, a president who can be chosen from anywhere in the EU. Us British cannot vote on this as Gordon Brown signed our rights away on this matter by signing it anyway, which has caused uproar over here.

If this comes into effect, then it won't be "Welcome to the country of Spain". It will be "Welcome to the EU State of Spain. Each country will have a Prime Minister running it still, but overall control goes to the President and Brussels.

So i hope Ireland continue to vote "No" because i for one don't want this constitution/treaty coming in at all and neither do a lot of people i speak to.

I don't see the point in having a Union at all if we won't come together and move forward at the same pace. I'm in favour of a federal Europe, or no Europe at all, because as it stands the Union as a concept is nothing more than a facilitator of trade.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

I don't see the point in having a Union at all if we won't come together and move forward at the same pace. I'm in favour of a federal Europe, or no Europe at all, because as it stands the Union as a concept is nothing more than a facilitator of trade.

Your tone, which implies that that isn't good enough, is selling it short. The Union is a definite stabilising influence throughout the entire continent, and has been a driving force behind human rights improvements in nations who want to join. It has accomplished all this by simply facilitating trade and making everyone prosperous.

Ok, so let me get this strait.

As far as I can tell, this treaty puts the members of the EU under a more unified government, thus making them less independant. If thats the case, I think its a ripoff too. It basically short changes all the more powerful European nations that really don't need help, while the weaker ones benifit.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

Ok, so let me get this strait.

As far as I can tell, this treaty puts the members of the EU under a more unified government, thus making them less independant. If thats the case, I think its a ripoff too. It basically short changes all the more powerful European nations that really don't need help, while the weaker ones benifit.

To be fair, it could equally be argued that the smaller nations get swallowed up and the bigger ones call the shots. I've never really seen anything bad come from a nation's membership, so it's not like people think that the EU is bad. And it's only fair that a country with a huge population should have more voting power in parliament, and that less well-off nations benefit from the wealth of us wealthier nations until it balances out. I just wanna make sure that the framework for further development and future expansion is JUST right, and I think that individual countries should still be relatively in control of their own destiny and that the upper echelons of governance should still be within earshot of the people. I like the provision for the million-signature petition but it doesn't seem like enough.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Your tone, which implies that that isn't good enough, is selling it short. The Union is a definite stabilising influence throughout the entire continent, and has been a driving force behind human rights improvements in nations who want to join. It has accomplished all this by simply facilitating trade and making everyone prosperous.

It's done nothing of the sort, because the Union is not an enforcer of human rights, it's simply a requirement that nations that have bad human rights records are prohibited from joining. The Council of Europe is the human rights organisation. The Union as it stands is an intergovernmental organisation even though some of its institutions may be supranational - nations will only support any motions as long as it is in their interest, and in many cases you need the support of every state (like with this Lisbon Treaty). If the United States operated like that, as a government that could only do things as long as every state agreed on it, and couldn't move forward if even one didn't like it, they would have gotten practically nowhere.

I wrote an essay on this last year, they call it "Multi-Speed Europe" - you let some member states opt out of certain provisions until they're ready to join, and you let others move forward as soon as they want to as well. This is one possible "solution" some believed, and as the essay title posited, but as I vehemently disagreed. It creates a divide or gap between those groups of nations that want to go forward, and those nations that don't. If we continue to tolerate that, we will end up with the opposite of a Union - we will have a division. Continuing to allow the European Union to operate as an intergovernmental body will only hold it back, and if it's only going to be held back, it is pointless as an organisation to begin with. There are more important things than simply facilitating trade that the Union should concern itself with, and if each country continues acting in its own interest anyway it's detrimental to the Union as a whole even disregarding the higher concerns.