Ireland loses more power by Lisbon than previously thought

[corkman2007]

I can supply plenty of quotes from 'No' campaigns and 'No' supporters that claim the Treaty of Lisbon will:

• result in Ireland getting involved in a military alliance
  
  lead to a loss of our veto on taxation
  
  lead to the legalisation of abortion on demand
  
  turn the EU into a federal superstate
  
  cause the sky to fall in

All nonsense of course but sure keep crying wolf. This time it'll be different.

[Bobert]

I can supply plenty of quotes from 'No' campaigns and 'No' supporters that claim the Treaty of Lisbon will:

• result in Ireland getting involved in a military alliance
  
  lead to a loss of our veto on taxation
  
  lead to the legalisation of abortion on demand
  
  turn the EU into a federal superstate
  
  cause the sky to fall in

All nonsense of course but sure keep crying wolf. This time it'll be different.

That's not what I asked.

[ibis]

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?

You might get one off the WACI lads, but otherwise everyone on the No side is claiming they just love the EU. Which is curious, you know, because most of them (SF, PANA, McKenna, Coughlan, COIR, etc) have opposed every single EU Treaty ever.

[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?

You might get one off the WACI lads, but otherwise everyone on the No side is claiming they just love the EU. Which is curious, you know, because most of them (SF, PANA, McKenna, Coughlan, COIR, etc) have opposed every single EU Treaty ever.

Well, that's WACI... they're not all there really...

[ibis]

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

You might get one off the WACI lads, but otherwise everyone on the No side is claiming they just love the EU. Which is curious, you know, because most of them (SF, PANA, McKenna, Coughlan, COIR, etc) have opposed every single EU Treaty ever.

Well, that's WACI... they're not all there really...

Yeah - terribly off-message. Out of interest, do you really think that the No groups who have opposed every previous EU treaty really love the EU?

[Bobert]

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

You might get one off the WACI lads, but otherwise everyone on the No side is claiming they just love the EU. Which is curious, you know, because most of them (SF, PANA, McKenna, Coughlan, COIR, etc) have opposed every single EU Treaty ever.

Well, that's WACI... they're not all there really...

Yeah - terribly off-message. Out of interest, do you really think that the No groups who have opposed every previous EU treaty really love the EU?

I can't honestly answer that as I like to keep away from those people. Although, I do have an uncle in the Shinners (I don't talk to him.) and he says "Ireland's joining of the EU was possibly the greatest thing to happen since Michael Collins.

[ibis]

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

You might get one off the WACI lads, but otherwise everyone on the No side is claiming they just love the EU. Which is curious, you know, because most of them (SF, PANA, McKenna, Coughlan, COIR, etc) have opposed every single EU Treaty ever.

Well, that's WACI... they're not all there really...

Yeah - terribly off-message. Out of interest, do you really think that the No groups who have opposed every previous EU treaty really love the EU?

I can't honestly answer that as I like to keep away from those people. Although, I do have an uncle in the Shinners (I don't talk to him.) and he says "Ireland's joining of the EU was possibly the greatest thing to happen since Michael Collins.

Hmm. Nuanced.

[Bobert]

As I said, I don't talk to him.

[brio910]

Among the vetos that Ireland gives up are:

(5) Border checks (article 62 FEU treaty)
(6) Asylum (article 63 FEU treaty)
(7) Immigration (article 69a FEU treaty)
( 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)

These are moved to QMV.
Ireland retains opt ins/ opt outs in this areas/ If Lisbon is passed, the Irish government can itself decide wheither it wishes to opt in or out, not the people directly.

As immigration policy is agreed by QMV at EU level, and the Irish govt can decide without reference to the Irish people to opt into the policy area.
A yes vote for Lisbon means that Irish people give over the right to legislate on Irish immigration policy. The Irish government can go ahead with an policy decided at EU level by QMV.

Lisbon Treaty 2.63A

Article 63a
1. The Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at ensuring, at all stages,
the efficient management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing
legally in Member States, and the prevention of, and enhanced measures to combat, illegal
immigration and trafficking in human beings.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in
accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt measures in the following areas:
(a) the conditions of entry and residence, and standards on the issue by Member States of
long-term visas and residence permits, including those for the purpose of family
reunification;
(b) the definition of the rights of third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State,
including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of residence in other
Member States;
(c) illegal immigration and unauthorised residence, including removal and repatriation of
persons residing without authorisation;
(d) combating trafficking in persons, in particular women and children.
3. The Union may conclude agreements with third countries for the readmission to their
countries of origin or provenance of third-country nationals who do not or who no longer
fulfil the conditions for entry, presence or residence in the territory of one of the Member
States.
4. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure, may establish measures to provide incentives and support for the action
of Member States with a view to promoting the integration of third-country nationals residing
legally in their territories, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the
Member States.
5. This Article shall not affect the right of Member States to determine volumes of
admission of third-country nationals coming from third countries to their territory in order to
seek work, whether employed or self-employed.
Article 63b
The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by
the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications,
between the Member States. Whenever necessary, the Union acts adopted pursuant to this
Chapter shall contain appropriate measures to give effect to this principle.’.

C 306/62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007

[ibis]

Among the vetos that Ireland gives up are:

(5) Border checks (article 62 FEU treaty)
(6) Asylum (article 63 FEU treaty)
(7) Immigration (article 69a FEU treaty)
( 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)

These are moved to QMV.
Ireland retains opt ins/ opt outs in this areas/ If Lisbon is passed, the Irish government can itself decide wheither it wishes to opt in or out, not the people directly.

As immigration policy is agreed by QMV at EU level, and the Irish govt can decide without reference to the Irish people to opt into the policy area.
A yes vote for Lisbon means that Irish people give over the right to legislate on Irish immigration policy. The Irish government can go ahead with an policy decided at EU level by QMV.

So you're saying that we're giving over our right legislate on Irish immigration policy to the Irish government? Well, that really is pretty outrageous...who had it before?