Ireland loses more power by Lisbon than previously thought

[corkman2007]

You will of course be aware brio, that none of the following apply to Ireland, since Ireland has opted-out of Title IV of Part Three of TFEU:

(4) Administrative cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice (article 61G FEU treaty)
(5) Border checks (article 62 FEU treaty)
(6) Asylum (article 63 FEU treaty)
(7) Immigration (article 69a FEU treaty)
(8) Incentive measures in the field of crime prevention (article 69C traité FUE)
(9) Eurojust – structure, operation, field of action and tasks (article 69D FEU treaty)
(10) Non-operational police cooperation (article 69F FEU treaty)
(11) Europol – structure, operation, field of action and tasks (article 69G FEU treaty)
(22) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (article 69A FEU treaty)
(23) Approximation of criminal legislation, offences and sanctions, possibly
enhanced cooperation (article 69B FEU treaty)
(34) Arrangements for a mutual evaluation mechanism of the implementation of the Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice (article 61C FEU treaty)

For the sake of completeness - if and when we were to opt in of course they would become directly relevant.

And when is that likely to happen?

[brio910]

List of vetos that Ireland is being asked to hand over is given by an EU information website.

Not by me. Confirm with your friend ibis. Check on referenced website.

By those paid by the EU to give out information /propoganda.

Does you know many people who are paid to pump out EU propoganda. Yes men rarely do it for love.

Anyway, loss of vetos is bad for Irish democracy. Time to say NO thanks.

[corkman2007]

List of vetos that Ireland is being asked to hand over is given by an EU information website.

Not by me. Confirm with your friend ibis. Check on referenced website.

By those paid by the EU to give out information /propoganda.

Does you know many people who are paid to pump out EU propoganda. Yes men rarely do it for love.

Anyway, loss of vetos is bad for Irish democracy. Time to say NO thanks.

I'm not denying they're on the list, but the ones I've separated out either don't apply to Ireland or are in areas that are uncontroversial (such as 32 - Measures to secure diplomatic and consular protection - allowing EU nationals to get help from another EU country's embassy/consulate if they're in a foreign country and their own country hasn't got an embassy/consulate there), of little or no significance (such as 13 - amendments to certain provision in the Statute of the European System of Central Banks) , of no great importance to Ireland's own policies (such as 38 - space policy) or are already largely covered by QMV anyway (energy, humanitarian aid, civil protection).

And enough of the tired claims that 'Yes' posters are in the pay of the EU.

[ibis]

List of vetos that Ireland is being asked to hand over is given by an EU information website.

Not by me. Confirm with your friend ibis. Check on referenced website.

By those paid by the EU to give out information /propoganda.

Does you know many people who are paid to pump out EU propoganda. Yes men rarely do it for love.

Anyway, loss of vetos is bad for Irish democracy. Time to say NO thanks.

I'm not denying they're on the list, but the ones I've separated out either don't apply to Ireland or are in areas that are uncontroversial (such as 32 - Measures to secure diplomatic and consular protection - allowing EU nationals to get help from another EU country's embassy/consulate if they're in a foreign country and their own country hasn't got an embassy/consulate there), of little or no significance (such as 13 - amendments to certain provision in the Statute of the European System of Central Banks) , of no great importance to Ireland's own policies (such as 38 - space policy) or are already largely covered by QMV anyway (energy, humanitarian aid, civil protection).

And enough of the tired claims that 'Yes' posters are in the pay of the EU.

Like to be, though. Offers can be PM'd to me here - or you can ask Kerrynorth for my mobile number, apparently.

[mmclo]

The list can be seen as even shorter again as the no side in their bluster say Ireland is giving up X to Brussles. Of course many of the more technocratic issues cannot be exercised by a member state anyway, they effectively only exist as EU powers, so they are not being "given up"

[corkman2007]

I have to admit that I'm slightly miffed that Ireland's thriving space programme is now to become a shared competency with the EU.

Hands off our rockets Mister Barosso!

[FutureTaoiseach]

The list can be seen as even shorter again as the no side in their bluster say Ireland is giving up X to Brussles. Of course many of the more technocratic issues cannot be exercised by a member state anyway, they effectively only exist as EU powers, so they are not being "given up"

That's what they say at every referendum. Seems to be an awful lot of "technocratic issues" given that 90% of the original vetoes have already been given up before Lisbon. We know at this stage where this is leading.

[corkman2007]

Don't tell me, the sky will fall in. There's a good piece from the Sindo on the Lisbon campaign. This extract sums it up nicely:

The 'Yes' vote establishment political parties may be far from inspiring, but the forces on the 'No' side have cried, "Europe is Evil" too many times to be taken seriously again.

I've been around for the debates on the Single European Act in 1987, Maastricht in 1992, Amsterdam in 1998 and the two Nice ones in 2001 and 2002 -- and it's anything but nice. The 'No' people have been scaring the ************************e out of me for years about conscription and being forced to join a European army. I've never believed a European army would be effective because it sounds like it would be a cross between the Swiss Guards and the FCA. The only efficient aspects to the EU are the way MEPs fill out their expenses forms and an ability to come up with dodgy directives, so an army would really be beyond them.

For more than 30 years, the 'No' side has been the Chicken Licken of Irish defence policy -- and, fortunately, we're still waiting for the sky to fall in.

Back in 1972, here's what a leaflet from the Common Market Defence Campaign said: "We would have to surrender our traditional neutrality and might well face conscription and nuclear bases in Ireland if the EEC forms a defence alliance, which is very probable."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analy ... 72484.html

Guess what FT? The sky hasn't fallen in yet, all the nasty horrible things that 'No' campaigners have been predicting for years haven't happened. Every time there's a new treaty, a new referendum, they say 'but this time it's different!'

Sorry FT, but ye've cried wolf too many times now for people to believe ye anymore.

[Bobert]

Don't tell me, the sky will fall in. There's a good piece from the Sindo on the Lisbon campaign. This extract sums it up nicely:

The 'Yes' vote establishment political parties may be far from inspiring, but the forces on the 'No' side have cried, "Europe is Evil" too many times to be taken seriously again.

I've been around for the debates on the Single European Act in 1987, Maastricht in 1992, Amsterdam in 1998 and the two Nice ones in 2001 and 2002 -- and it's anything but nice. The 'No' people have been scaring the ************************e out of me for years about conscription and being forced to join a European army. I've never believed a European army would be effective because it sounds like it would be a cross between the Swiss Guards and the FCA. The only efficient aspects to the EU are the way MEPs fill out their expenses forms and an ability to come up with dodgy directives, so an army would really be beyond them.

For more than 30 years, the 'No' side has been the Chicken Licken of Irish defence policy -- and, fortunately, we're still waiting for the sky to fall in.

Back in 1972, here's what a leaflet from the Common Market Defence Campaign said: "We would have to surrender our traditional neutrality and might well face conscription and nuclear bases in Ireland if the EEC forms a defence alliance, which is very probable."

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analy ... 72484.html

Guess what FT? The sky hasn't fallen in yet, all the nasty horrible things that 'No' campaigners have been predicting for years haven't happened. Every time there's a new treaty, a new referendum, they say 'but this time it's different!'

Sorry FT, but ye've cried wolf too many times now for people to believe ye anymore.

Can you supply a quote where a "no" campaign says Europe is bad?

[FutureTaoiseach]

Guess what FT? The sky hasn't fallen in yet, all the nasty horrible things that 'No' campaigners have been predicting for years haven't happened. Every time there's a new treaty, a new referendum, they say 'but this time it's different!'

Sorry FT, but ye've cried wolf too many times now for people to believe ye anymore.

As I said before, I was a yes voter in the other referenda. But I'd be curious as to whether you seriously believe that the Irish fishing industry has benefited from the Common Fisheries Policy? They certainly feel otherwise. And the warnings from the no side in 2002 on mass-migration of cheap labour to Ireland turned out to be true and the reassurances of the likes of Dick Roche and Pronsius de Rossa turned out to be untrue as to the levels there would be. In that context we are entitled to question the credibility of those people in respect of their assurances on the Lisbon treaty.

Each Treaty is different as are many of the persons negotiating it. And on this occasion some of the people on the no campaign were previously yes voters, including Declan Ganley. Also if you read the Sunday Business Post analysis of the yes and no votes it is clear that some of the no vote on this occasion are not the usual no voters. This Treaty differs from the others primarily because:

A: For the first time human rights will come under the ECJ's jurisdiction.

B: It's contents have already been rejected by 2 member states in referenda - something that has never happened before and calls into question whether ratification of this treaty would be healthy for democracy.

C: We are neither being offered money on this occasion nor is enlargement or the single currency dependent on it.