The Solution to the Lisbon Problem

[Catalpa]

I think I've cracked it!

The other EU States want the Irish State to ratify the Lisbon Treaty OK?

Well how about we cut a very straightforward deal on this - no messy compromises - no re negotiation - and no more Referendums!

Interested?

On that basis we make them an offer they can't refuse - we ratify the Treaty based on one proviso - it's not legally binding on Ireland - ie we cannot be fined or held to be acting illegally if we don't implement its terms. We only agree to do our best to go along with the others if we can.

Sounds pretty fair to me!

Now is the perfect time while we are in control to wriggle out of as much of this as we can as the others are desperate to get it over and done with.

[Bobb]

I voted yes but if we have to vote again I'll vote no.
I'll vote no until they drop the damn thing and come up with an alternative. I don't care if it's a bull************************ alternative, the way they did last time but we have to call their bluff. I'd rather bring the whole EU down rather than have Ireland treated as a second class country. Fightin' talk there from Bobb

[pikey]

Why dont we just let FG run the no campaign , then a yes would be a dead cert .Though they would need the assistance of D1ck and Mickey .

[Bobb]

But, if our politicians agree to halve their wages I'll vote yes, OK?

[FutureTaoiseach]

For the first 20 yrs of EU membership, Ireland had double-digit unemployment and mass-emigration. That would seem to call into question the exaggerated claims of the yes side that the EU alone is the panacea that led to the Celtic Tiger. If the govt returns with the same thing again or with just a figleaf here and there I will vote no again. The changes I will require to reconsider my no are as follows:

A: Opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights which gives the ECJ too much power to meddle in our human rights laws especially asylum policy. The UK and Poland have such an opt-out so it is feasible.

B: Retention of our Commissioner. Contrary to the yes side's claims, the reduction in the size of the Commission under Nice in 2009 is subject to a veto. The govt must use it and not sell us out again.

C: Scrapping the new voting system which halves Ireland's vote while doubling Germany's.

D: Scrapping the self-amending provisions of Article 48 which allow the govt to deny us referenda on EU issues.

I believe it is unlikely Cowen will look for or acheive such amendments and that consequently I must vote no again.

[Shankill Browser]

B: Retention of our Commissioner. Contrary to the yes side's claims, the reduction in the size of the Commission under Nice in 2009 is subject to a veto. The govt must use it and not sell us out again.

FT, Eurosceptic mentions that on another thread and says he/she saw it in "Nice". I've tried to find it but can't. Can you direct me to it?

[Taibh]

Plan E from TIMOTHY GARTON ASH (Professor of European studies at St. Antony's College, Oxford)

Plan E has three parts. The first is to continue working under the existing treaties. The plain fact is that the enlarged EU of 27 is still functioning under the Treaty of Nice. It has not ground to a halt, as some predicted.

The second part is to see how many of the institutional changes we really do need to make an enlarged EU work better, and be more effective in the world, could be implemented without a new grand treaty. I've been asking this question of experts on the legal-institutional workings of the EU over the past few days, and the answer is: a surprisingly large number. I won't bore you with the details, which would make a Jesuit blush, but it turns out that, given ingenuity and political will, things such as a more consolidated foreign-policy apparatus with a single head could probably be made to happen anyway. Where there's a will, there's a way. So this would be what Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Bildt has called "Nice plus."

The third part of Plan E is the most important of all. While resolving this decade-long institutional tangle as best we can, we would go on actually doing things that matter to Europeans and to the world. When the new U.S. president is elected this fall, he should find in his in-tray a memo from Europe spelling out what we see as the biggest challenges in the world and what we propose to do about them.

link

[Universal_001]

FT you keep repeating the NICE veto point but I've never seen you address NDSs assertion that such a veto would mean no commission and a major crises, if there's no commission it would be the EU equivalent of a government shutdown in the US or a loss of supply here.

[hiding behind a poster]

For the first 20 yrs of EU membership, Ireland had double-digit unemployment and mass-emigration. That would seem to call into question the exaggerated claims of the yes side that the EU alone is the panacea that led to the Celtic Tiger.

No-one on the Yes side claimed that.

The changes I will require to reconsider my no are as follows:

A: Opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights which gives the ECJ too much power to meddle in our human rights laws especially asylum policy. The UK and Poland have such an opt-out so it is feasible.

B: Retention of our Commissioner. Contrary to the yes side's claims, the reduction in the size of the Commission under Nice in 2009 is subject to a veto. The govt must use it and not sell us out again.

C: Scrapping the new voting system which halves Ireland's vote while doubling Germany's.

D: Scrapping the self-amending provisions of Article 48 which allow the govt to deny us referenda on EU issues.

I believe it is unlikely Cowen will look for or acheive such amendments and that consequently I must vote no again.

Leaving aside the fact that you're lying in most of those points, the government doesn't need you to switch your vote anyway. You'd be at the more extreme end of the Europhobic spectrum, whereas a swing of about 5% is all that's required to carry a second referendum. As such, and given the exit poll data that shows how many No voters were misinformed about basic aspects of the Treaty, a few protocols or declarations clarifying the Treaty should be sufficient to secure ratification.

[hiding behind a poster]

B: Retention of our Commissioner. Contrary to the yes side's claims, the reduction in the size of the Commission under Nice in 2009 is subject to a veto. The govt must use it and not sell us out again.

The problem with that nonsense is that unanimous agreement WAS REACHED by the member states (including Ireland) to reduce the size of the Commission in 2009. In other words, we had the opportunity to veto, and didn't. If we start welching out of agreements entered into, we lose credibility in all future negotiations, as a country that doesn't keep its word.