Ireland will be the only country to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which replaces the failed European Constitution and will, if signed, change the functioning of the EU.
Here's a quick summation of what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
- Central Bank and euro given official recognition.
- Court of Justice slightly strengthened.
- Reorganisation and television display of Council.
- 18 month Presidency.
- Council of heads of states separated, voting procedure changed to reduce excessive power of small nations.
- President of Council elected.
- Power of Parliament increased.
- Minor changes to roles of national Parliaments.
- Council made smaller, re-arranged.
- Somewhat coordinated foreign policy.
- Consolidation of various bits and pieces.
- Enlargement barriers removed.
- Method for nations to leave.
- Solidarity on disasters, energy supply.
- Laying the grounds for a potential defence agreement, but with no obligations.
Of course the funny thing about this referendum is that nobody knows what it's actually about. People have this vague, nasty idea that it is about tax or war or something. The poster campaigns going on at the moment are rather interesting. There are basically two sides; on the Yes side are the major political parties, and various other groups. On the No side are Sinn Fein, bits of the Green Party, and various other other groups.
The 'Yes' posters are generally some politician (including Enda Kenny; I'd almost vote No just because of that) telling you to vote yes. The 'No' posters generally tell you that voting Yes will cause tax hikes, job losses, and lead to war. Really, the Yes people would be far better off just telling people what it was about; the No people should probably continue in their scare-mongering.
I'll be voting Yes, of course; I think that it's the right thing to do. However, I do worry that the Nos will prevail, simply because no-body knows what it is about, and thus people are quite cautious of it. Sinn Fein's faux-patriotic bullshit on the subject won't help, either; they have quite a bit of support these days.
What way will you be voting? And how have you come to this conclusion? First person to say they're voting No because of the (I think) Sinn Fein poster telling us that people died for our freedom gets a slap.
Posts
5 comments:
"Council made smaller, re-arranged"
I don't think the Council is changing in size, it's still 1 per member state AFAIK.
The /Commission/ is changing in size to 2/3s the number of member states. Change was already guaranteed by Nice, since it was agreed that once the number of states hit 27 that the number of commissioners would be reduced. It didn't say by how much, it was to be unanimously decided by the Council. Lisbon clarifies this to have 2 commissioners for every 3 member states with every member state getting an equal number of turns having a commissioner. Lisbon also delays the reduction in the number of commissioners until 2014. Nice (if Lisbon is not ratified) would have the reduction happen for the next Commission which is in 2009.
The 'more democratic' Europe we are told will come about if we ratify Lisbon has some curiously undemocratic elements. Firstly, it amounts to a trampling on the democratic rights of the peoples of France and the Netherlands, who have already said in 2005 a firm "No" to 95% of the provisions in this Treaty that former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern already admitted are contained therein (the EU constitution). Across Europe, governments elected on mandates including holding referenda on the old EU Constitution suddenly had a change of heart after the rejections in France and Holland.
Some in the "yes" campaign have tried to pretend this is a different Treaty. But that carries no credibility considering the candour with which their counterparts across the European Union have said otherwise. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former President of the Convention on the Future of Europe that drew up the EU Constitution, has said: "The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content. The draft constitution resulted from a political desire to simplify European institutions, rendered inefficient by recent expansions. It was about creating more democracy and transparency within the European Union. It was about opening the way for a "Constitution for the people of Europe". And with a candour that is absent from our own political-leaders, he even admits why this is the case: "Otherwise, the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary. The Brussels institutions have also cleverly reclaimed the process from the – to them – unwelcome intrusion of parliamentarians and politicians in the work of the original drafting Convention. The institutions have re-imposed their language and their procedures – taking us even further away from ordinary citizens." Czech President Vaclav Kalus has said ""Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.". Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister has said "The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.". Nicolas Sarkozy has said "A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
I am voting no, in spite of being pro-EU and the euro. We have lost enough of our independence. I am offended by the idea of being asked to force something on the French and Dutch peoples against their will. There is something almost Vichy-like about such a treaty.
Do not be fooled by yes side scaremongering. They tried that in France and Holland too but the peoples voted no and since then Dutch unemployment has fallen to 2%. We will continue to be EU members just as they are. The EU has been beneficial but not as much as is claimed. 20 yrs after joining the EU, Ireland had 16% unemployment and mass-emigration. The real cause of the Celtic Tiger was economic reforms in the late 1980s and 1990's. Otherwise why are Portugal and Greece so poor, and why has the Czech republica passed Portugal by in GNP per capita? I voted yes to the other treaties btw.
I would hardly call the changes between this one and the last cosmetic; the defence and human rights aspects have been reduced to vague advisory things. The symbolism in the Constitution - 'laws' and so forth, would also have bothered quite a few people, I think.
I'm grateful to Europe for more than what they've done for our economy (and you're right in saying that it's probably not all European influence for use); they've done wonders for our human rights.
Gratitude is not a good enough eccuse for surrendering Irish sovereignty. The men and women of 1916 gave their lives for our independence, and we should not betray their legacy by becoming a colony once again.
I have absolutely no idea why the 'Yes' campaigners can't come straight out and tell us why we should vote yes. 'No' may be composed entirely of dirty hippies and lefties but they appear to at least be able to tell people why they should vote 'No'. One debate I went to, 'No' were going on as they have been, while the 'Yes' side of the debate was the same 'Ehh, it's good for Europe so it'll be good for Ireland. So vote yes.'
While I think it's a good thing and I'll be voting yes, I fear that the combination of the Yes hand-waving, Sinn Fein's masturbatory patriotic wank and Enda Kenny's head on posters (not to mention the scare-mongering and the terrifying "If you don't know, VOTE NO" posters. Jesus people, *think*) may kill the Yes vote.
Post a Comment