Weighing in on Lisbon

Image via Wikipedia

I've been a bad blogger here of late.  The problem is not that I don't have anything to say, as much as it is that I have too much to say, but feel I have neither the expertise or eloquence to get across what I need to.  But after reading so many posts on the Lisbon Treaty, I just felt I had to weigh in.

I was always a big supporter of the EU back in my more political days.  I grew up on the continent and got involved in Brussels during the summer.  I was fascinated with the EU and UN and got involved any way I could, whether through volunteering, summer jobs or Model UN.  I was even the Irish Ambassador in The Hague one year! ;-)

I felt both these organisations were built on noble policy and could really work to the benefit of mankind.  Although, I still feel that way, I find myself having less and less confidence in both. 

Economically, there is no doubt the EU has been of great help to Ireland, ultimately helping us pull out of a recession, aiding farmers and allowing mutually beneficial movement of goods and services.  It has also been good for us socially.  EU intervention and memberships helped us move forward in womens liberation, disability and made some progress on the homosexual front.  Ultimately it has helped us give up our reliance on the church and become a government in our own right. 

I wrote a financial thesis on the introduction of the Euro back in 1998 when everyone thought it would bomb.  I just couldn't understand the logic.  How could anything that incorporated the German Mark, one of the world's strongest and stable currencies and the French Franc possibly flop?  I  predicted in my thesis it would out value the dollar and British pounds.  Although, this doesn't necessarily help us economically, it still puts us as part of a financially stable world group, something we never could have dreamed of thirty years ago. 

We really have a lot to be thankful to the EU for.  This is something the pro-Lisbon lobbyists are keen to remind us of.  As if we owe them something.  The signs all say "Vote Yes to Europe."  That is false advertising.  We are not voting for Europe, we are voting for a treaty.  Voting no will not kill our membership to the EU. 

When I was in Belgium a month ago it was interesting how many of my former classmates begged me to vote no.  One Dutch fellow told me we were their only hope.  He said they tried to vote no back in 2005, but they re-wrote it to preclude another referendum, despite them and France blatantly saying no.  It is commonly agreed that the Lisbon Treaty is a loosely disguised re-write of the EU constitution so rejected by France and The Netherlands. 

Initially I decided I was voting no for economic reasons.  I didn't like the idea of mandates from Brussels directing our tax affairs.  Then I read about our loss of voting power.  In this day and age, that is a biggie.  Imagine if they tried to implement that in the UN?  Sure there's the debatably useless Security Council, but in the General Assembly, everyone gets an equal vote.  How can anything otherwise be even remotely democratic?  How can we sign away our right to an equal vote?  I understand introducing new countries adds to the bureaucratic burden, but taking away voting power from a country, regardless of population or size, is certainly not the answer.

I kept finding lots and lots of reasons to vote no, but very few to vote yes.  In fact the only reason I can think of to vote yes is sheer spite.  Spite for the church bigots and Sinn Fein who are urging us to vote no.  In any other situation the fact that these two groups are on the same side would be laughable, but in this case it's a bit ironic.  I am actually in agreement with two groups that stand for everything I am against, albeit for different reasons. 

Having said all that, the most compelling reason I see to vote no is the incomprehensible nature of the document.  I was listening to a debate on Pat Kenny's show the other morning and was just amazed.  Two men, both reading the exact same section of the treaty were able to read two completely different things into it.  Upon hearing what it said, I read a third meaning.  How can we vote for something that both sides understand differently?

How could the EU even use such a document to govern if everyone who reads it understands it differently? It just doesn't make sense.

Having lived out of Ireland for most of my voting career, I was never allowed to vote, until this past election.  I take my responsibility as a voter very seriously as a result.  And I cannot, under any circumstance, understand how any responsible voter could vote for a document that is ambiguous and ultimately incomprehensible. 

Voting no does not say no to Europe.  It says "Oi, Brussels, this is a load of shite, now get back there and come up with something that makes sense." 

Europe is a wonderfully historic and diverse continent.  As much good as the EU does, I honestly feel that this treaty, incomprehensibility's aside, takes away some of our individual culture.  And that goes for ALL of the countries.  Wars were fought to draw the borders between our lands.  Great wars, Holy Wars, even the frighteningly recent wars in the Balkans.  Heroes died on all sides.  Governments were formed and sovereignty was achieved - history was made.  Are we going to throw that all away for some document our own Taoiseach has not even read?

The election last year severely deflated my opinion of the general public, but this is much more important and I don't think people understand that at all.    

I'll shut up now. :)

Related articles

• Free enterprise in Europe hangs on Ireland's EU vote [via Zemanta]
• Irish voices [via Zemanta]
• European Parliament to ban Eurosceptic groups [via Zemanta]
• June date for Irish EU referendum [via Zemanta]

Comments

[Darragh]

Great post Debs. I'm voting no simply because it's not necessary to vote yes - it won't improve the country any. I'm yet to find out how it will benefit us.

http://darraghdoyle.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-will-it-benefit-us.html

[le craic]

I'm in the no camp as well as I can't vote yes to something I don't have full comprehension of. I don't like the fact that we are being told of repercussions if we don't vote yes. That's not democratic.

[Winnie Lucette]

To the point! Thx.
Compare Free Europe Constitution with the Treaty. Much better:
1. You can read it
2. All Europeans can vote about it.
Vote YES or NO at www.FreeEurope.info

[John]

Two men, both reading the exact same section of the treaty were able to read two completely different things into it. Upon hearing what it said, I read a third meaning. How can we vote for something that both sides understand differently?

What section was that?

It is important to note that many, if not nearly all, of the No campaigns arguments are simply untrue.

There is nothing in this treaty which can bring in Corporation Tax Harmonisation without Ireland's consent. That has not stopped the No side claiming, repeatedly that it will.

There is nothing in this Treaty which will bring in Abortion. That has not stopped the No side claiming, repeatedly that it will.

We have already agreed to remove the national requirement for each country to have a commissioner with the Nice referendum. Yet there are posters around the country urging rejection of this treaty on those grounds.

Yet the no side have invented claims repeatedly on these and many other subjects. Unfortunately, as they are entitled to hald of all air-time, they get away with it.

There are plenty of good reasons to vote Yes. This treaty will make Europe more efficent by moving voting to QMV. This is in Ireland's interest, as in those areas Ireland is looking for further EU co-operation, not opposed to it.

It increases the role of National Parliaments in the EU legislative process, and also that of the European Parliament. It increase the potential for citizens to have a direct impact through the Citizen's Initiative.

It makes Europe more transparent by having any legislative decisions made in public rather than in private. There are plenty of other good reasons.

[Joe O'Brien]

The reason they appear to be reading two different treaties is amply illustrated by looking back over previous EU referendums. The No side (SF, PANA, SWP etc) made exactly the same arguments last time - and the time before, and the time before that...and so on. They bear no actual relation to the Treaty, except where a couple of words can be taken out of context as "support" - a tactic demonstrated beautifully by Declan Ganley's claim that the Charter leads to the detention of 3-year olds.

One side is reading from the Treaty - the other side is reading from The Protocols of the Elders of the EU.

[FutureTaoiseach]

I agree. Furthermore, the Treaty is bad for Ireland for a number of specific reasons:

A: The loss of the Commissioner.

B: Ireland's Council of Ministers vote halved - Germany, France, the UK and Italy's is doubled.

C: Loss of 68 vetoes including public-health, energy, culture e.g. Irish language, and even tourism and sport.

D: Solidarity with the French and Dutch whose no votes were ignored because their constitutions aren't as strict as ours on this sort of thing.

This is not a no to Europe, it is a no to the elites ignoring public opinion because it doesn't suit them.

[John]

The post is a good example of deliberate mis-information on the Treaty.

1. The reduction in the number of commissioners was agreed with Nice.

2. Voting in the Council of Ministers is two-fold, on population and states. So while on population our vote is reduced to 0.9%, it is increased to 3.7% on the number of states. The current situation is 7 votes out of 300 odd (2%).

3. Could you list out all those 68 vetoes, Future Taoiseach?

It is worth remebering that in most cases where there are moves from unanimity to qmv, it is actually in Ireland's interests, as we are not in those countries opposing the changes.

4. The Dutch and French have their own political systems. We have ours. Only a federalist would argue that we should impose our system of ratification on another state.

Also, we should vote on our national interest. Not that of Holland or France, where in both countries they subsequently elected governments who advised previous to the election that they would ratify Lisbon. In both countries there were changes to the Constitution to take account of the concerns of the French and Dutch governments.

[FutureTaoiseach]

"4. The Dutch and French have their own political systems. We have ours. Only a federalist would argue that we should impose our system of ratification on another state."

That is the kind of legalistic perspective preferred by the yes politicians. I'm looking at it from a moral perspective: is it morally correct to force something on 2 nations that have voted no, just because their govts ask us to? And as for the question of whether it is our business, I reply these 2 govts have made it our business by asking us to collude in this attack on democracy.

On the question of the vetoes, I would cite 2 reports, by the London School of Economics professor Helen Wallace, and by the Science-Po University in Paris, which have shown the EU institutions are already more efficient in decisionmaking under the Nice Treaty arrangements, and as such we don't need to give up more vetoes. The latter source found that the speed of EU decisionmaking has increased by 25% since Nice. So that argument is debunked.

[John]

"That is the kind of legalistic perspective preferred by the yes politicians. I'm looking at it from a moral perspective: is it morally correct to force something on 2 nations that have voted no, just because their govts ask us to? And as for the question of whether it is our business, I reply these 2 govts have made it our business by asking us to collude in this attack on democracy."

Nice hyperbole. The Constitutional Treaty was changed to accommodate the views of the Dutch and the French electorates. Their democratically elected political leadership negotiated those changes, and were elected on platforms of the ratification by parliament.

So, you propose to vote no in order to second guess the French and Dutch people. That is utterly daft, we should vote on what is in Ireland's best interests, not the likes of you looking DeV like into their hearts and seeing what the people of France and the Netherlands would want.

"On the question of the vetoes, I would cite 2 reports, by the London School of Economics professor Helen Wallace, and by the Science-Po University in Paris, which have shown the EU institutions are already more efficient in decisionmaking under the Nice Treaty arrangements, and as such we don't need to give up more vetoes. The latter source found that the speed of EU decisionmaking has increased by 25% since Nice. So that argument is debunked."

Care to actually cite those reports instead of mentioning them?

Even if we accept that premise of your interpretation of those reports, why not make those institutions even more efficient, democratic, transparent and responsive? Or do those studies suggest that Lisbon will actually slow the existing system down?

Now, a simple question. You mention us losing our veto over the Irish language. Explain that. Explain how Europe is involved in this area, what lose of our veto will mean?

Please do that. Please.

[FutureTaoiseach]

"Nice hyperbole. The Constitutional Treaty was changed to accommodate the views of the Dutch and the French electorates. Their democratically elected political leadership negotiated those changes, and were elected on platforms of the ratification by parliament."

The changes are purely cosmetic and do not materially change the original EU Constitution. All they did was remove the references to the anthem and the flag, as well as renaming the EU Foreign Minister the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security policy. If the French and Dutch peoples are in favour of these changes, then let their government give them a referendum so it can be demonstrated that their peoples want this.

I refuse to collude in this attack on democracy. The French and Dutch peoples said no. We will not vote to foist this treaty on the peoples of France and Holland who said no. Giscard d'Estaing, the prime-mover of the negotiations of the original EU Constitution, has said that the changes in this Treaty are cosmetic rather than real. Former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato says the best thing about not calling it a constitution is that they don't have to call a referendum on it. The UK Labour party was elected on a mandate of promising a referendum as was the Dutch govt, yet they are denying their people a say.

As for 'greater efficiency' I say that democracy matters more than efficiency. It should not be sacrificed for the sake of faster decisionmaking. Rushed legislation is often loophole-ridden legislation, as we discovered with the Mr.A Case in 2006.

The claims that the Treaty makes the EU more 'democratic/efficient' are dubious at best. They are based on the right of 9 national parliaments to give non-binding advice to the EU Commission on reconsidering a proposed EU law, as well as on a non-binding Citizens Petition/Initative of 1 million EU citizens to ask the European Parliament to debate an issue.

Non-binding advice does nothing to make the EU more democratic. Democracy is government by the people, of the people, for the people, not merely advice by the people, of the people for the people that can then be ignored, which is what Lisbon offers.

We have given up enough of our independence.

[Mairead]

Thank You Deborah...You have been able to say all I was unable to Great Piece..