Politics and Language in the Lisbon Debate. #1 Framing the debate.

25 Responses so far | Have Your Say!

1. Claire Boyles  |  September 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

   I would love to help you out but I haven’t heard anything that isn’t based on fear of being left out.

   Personally I decided where I stood on the issue by reading the information provided by the government- something they hadn’t even read themselves apparently.

   The point I stopped reading was where I read that the treaty condoned the death penalty (albeit only in times of war). I have strong beliefs about the death penalty- I don’t believe that any human being has the right to take the life of another, I’m a pacifist and as such I don’t believe violence of any kind is the right course of action.

   The fact that the Irish Politicians in Government didn’t take the time to read the treaty certainly didn’t inspire me to trust their opinion of it.

   This time they’re certainly doing a better PR campaign, but as you point out still with very little substance.

   I don’t think it’s good to be excluded from Europe, in fact I’m very PRO Europe- I spent 13 years of my childhood in Germany and have very fond memories of it.

   What I do expect, is that politicians provide basic information to the people of Ireland before asking them to vote. It seems that my expectations are too high.

   

2. Dermot Daly  |  September 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm #

   Anton,
   I agree that there needs to be clarity of reasoning, but I think it applies to both sides, yet you aim the criticism at the yes side of the vote.
   The ‘No’ side of the camp seems to me to be campaigning in similar vague terms, and also employing scare tactics, (worse in my opinion). Are you planning on calling out both sides? If you don’t there’s a certain irony in your post.

   Cheers,
   Dermot.

   

3. FiscalStudent  |  September 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

   “By framing the debate in these false terms they create a fear based on an implied threat.”

   emm have you seen the No vote posters??

   They are suggesting that if you vote yes we will have a Minimum Wage of €1.84

   

4. David Quaid  |  September 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pm #

   Hi Anton,

   Its a good question. Why is the ratification by Ireland of the treaty so important. In my humble opinion I see Ireland as the stumbling block to a treaty that has been in development and negotiation since the previous treaty. The treaty has been presented as moving the EU forward – this is the stance of the EU whether we agree or disagree on that point.

   Therefore, if Ireland doesn’t ratify it, we resort back to the last one, but only for a while. The reasons for developing the new treaty still exist. You might not agree with them but the new treaty wasn’t developed by Ireland, it was developed by the EU. So they will still have the same drivers that drove them to create this.

   So we’re not simply going to step back to the Satus Quo – the EU will press ahead, which may mean we have a different membership to the rest of the states. Important changes to the fundamentals of the EU (again, not arguing they are needed, just stating they are there) – like the 2-track voting system, the role of commissioners, representation, etc – mean that Ireland with a different treaty to the rest of the nations will probably not be involved in certain functions/roles as we dont have the same treaty as the other member states. This will push Ireland out over time.

   What would you do if you were the EU – find another new set of treaties? Because the EU will press on. While we agree that the EU has been fundamental to Ireland, I would hardly agree that Ireland is fundamental to the EU and if we reject this treaty, and other countries adopt it, I would predict that the EU would press on and we would slowly find our involvement falling.

   I know you will disagree with these point – but let me clarify it: I’m not saying the EU would push us away. But, with these treaties, new institutions will be developed on the new laws ratified by member states. By not ratifying the treaty, we dont have the legal support for the new institutions, only the old ones that aren’t modified. and on that basis, we will be leaving ourselves out.

   Summary: EU will press on with reforms and changes. That is the idea of the EU – it has reformed a hugely socialist/borderline communist, fragmented, protectionist, recently dictator led countries (before 1945, many European countries were dictator led through either Facism, Communist, Nazism or Monarchy style governments) at various times. The EU has reformed the whole continent and there is plenty more to do. It breaks down protectionism, trade barriers and has improved services, transparency, education and liberty. Look at Ireland – how many cases have been taken to Europe to solve. And we still have a long road to travel.

   So the EU will press ahead – the question is – without this treaty, how can Ireland have a role in institutions it doesn’t recognise legally?

   

5. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 1:06 pm #

   @Dermot
   I don’t think it’s the same thing. Whether you agree with the NO campaign or not they are at least saying specific things and giving specific reasons for why they think Lisbon is a bad idea. They give what they feel are specifics from the treaty which back this up.

   The issue isn’t whether they are right or not. At least you have something to disagree with. I’d like to see a list of benefits. Anyone.

   

6. Patrick  |  September 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm #

   Anton,

   On the issue of Double Majority voting amongst the Irish and other governments of the EU, Lisbon introduces a double turn key for European legislation – first do the countries of the EU want this (this gives Ireland equal footing as Germany = 1/27); AND second do the people of the EU as represented by their Government want this. Both these requirements need to be meet. Ireland’s power increases in EU decision making because of the first. Because of the second the people of EU are taken into account using a ‘one person, one vote’ principle.

   The current QMV system mixed these two up gave a number. By creating the double majority system what are doing is ensuring both the states and the people of the EU put a check on the balance of power.

   There are a number of changes in Lisbon regarding the Dail and our MEPs that would take power away from the EU Commission. As it currently stands in Nice, a significant amount of the dialogue on legislation is between the Commission and Council. The changes in Lisbon will see an increase in the role of the Dail, as national parliaments must be brought in earlier to the legislation process, and it will increase the role of European Parliament.

   To me the Lisbon Treaty at its heart is about delivering on the key principle behind the EU from the begining – A Union of People and States. The changes I’ve outlined above help to get ride of processes that add a haze to political processes delivering on this goal.

   We perhaps also have come to take the EU as a given. The Nice treaty left many issues unclear and referenced that they would be addressed in the next treaty. Lisbon is this final treaty. It will put to end a number of issues raised by small and large countries. I believe it strikes the right balance for Ireland and other countries. It puts in a number of democratically accountable processes in the system to ensure a better link between Ireland and the EU.

   Thanks for the opportunity to share.

   Regards,
   Patrick

   

7. Dermot Daly  |  September 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm #

   Not sure if a blog is the best way to discuss this…but…Keep in mind that neither side can actually say “If the treaty is passed it will lead to X jobs being created” or “if the treaty is passed it will lead to us have our influence lessened by x%” as either of these are hard to quantify, much less link back to something specific like acceptance or rejection of the lisbon treaty.
   Having said this, the No campaign is being led by people who have nothing to lose by lying. Its not like they’ll get wholesale into power and then have to atone for their lies.
   The yes campaign, on the other hand is being led by people who are either in power, or very likely to be in power in the near future. If they were to lie (or give specific guarantees than no-one could actually stand over), they will be called over it (“You promised us x….”)

   I think neither campaign is being led in a clear way, but I do feel that the No vote is leading the scaremongering, and as for claiming that it will be detrimental to “the workers” is cynical at very best…..

   

8. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

   @David

   I’m sorry David but the “we’ll be left out in the cold” argument holds no water at all. It is a total strawman.

   I understand your train of thought but their is a massive hole in your logic.

   If all is as you say it and the EU can press ahead without us. Then why haven’t they done it? Why hold Lisbon again? Because they want to include us?

   This treaty was originally developed as an EU constitution. It was put to the people of France and the Netherlands as that and was rejected. It exists now in treaty form in order to bypass the electorates of those countries. This is a fact and can be easily verified by statements of various politicians involved in that debacle.

   That being said, that on it’s own is not a reason for rejection, it is merely to point out that the “whole of Europe” does not want this, it simply doesn’t have any choice.

   As for the ability of Europe to press ahead without us. This is clearly not the case. In order for that to happen all the previous treaties would have to be broken.

   I do agree that there will be reform and changes. But your argument that we’re just not important enough to have a say is absolutely ridiculous and would in and of itself defeat the purpose of being in the EU. It amounts to “here you can have all the power t decide everything but we don’t deserve a say in it”.

   The idea that the people of Ireland have no right to say “we don’t like the terms of this treaty we feel it is a bridge too far” is highly dangerous.

   This whole argument is a distraction how can there be a serious debate when the only argument for a YES vote is “well you better or we’re gonna do it anyway”.

   Like I said in the post. Please anything that is of benefit to Ireland in this treaty.

   

9. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 1:36 pm #

   @Dermot I agree that the NO side are pretty ropey on the workers thing. But “Yes to jobs” or Enda Kenny’s “Yes to recovery”, that is simply a direct lie. The ratification of the Lisbon treaty will have absolutely no bearing on economic recovery.

   This is just as much scaremongering, as the implication is that if you don’t vote yes things will get worse or there won’t be a recovery.
   It harks back to the first emergency budget when our Minister for Finance had the absolute gall to suggest that the collapse was somehow related to our rejection of Lisbon.

   Either way as the Lisbon Treaty is a proposed change I would like those proposing the change to explain why I should vote for it. I would like them to substantiate this with an argument that can stand up to reasoned debate. That’s all.

   

10. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    @patrick Thanks for joining the debate I appreciate that your answer goes beyond the usual “vote yes or else” nonsense. You have at least given me some things to investigate more deeply before making a decision. I’ll post my response when I have looked at those issues specifically for myself. Thanks a lot for posting man.

    

11. FiscalStudent  |  September 14th, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    @anton

    Did you vote on the Nice treaty? Can I ask if you voted yes or no?

    

12. Peter  |  September 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    The below is a quote but the author is happy for it to be used.

    10 ‘REAL’ reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

    The Official Yes campaigns last referendum were pathetic, they relied on empty catch phrases from empty politicians who had lost public confidence long ago. The entire campaign was almost vacant of any mention of what was actually in the Treaty of Lisbon and why it is good; you know the real reasons for voting Yes! Due to this massive oversight and the utter contempt I have for the main political campaigns I decided to gather together the reasons I voted yes to Lisbon and will do so again next time. Here are my top 10.

    1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

    The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]

    2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

    The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

    3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]

    At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.

    4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]

    National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.

    5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]

    The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).

    The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing).

    6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]

    The treaty introduces a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of internal EU policy (i.e. concerning the functioning of the EU’s institutions). This method allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to hold an Intergovernmental Conference and draft an entire new international treaty, which is extremely time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which still will require a referendum in this country if it’s not compatible with our constitution. Hopefully this will cut down the complexity of future EU referenda as rather than having to vote on a huge number of changes at once, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU that will still require a entire new treaty.

    7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability

    The Treaty creates a new role known as the ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs’ [Article 18, TEU]. It merges many existing positions including the ‘High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy’ and the ‘European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy’ into one position. This is to provide a more coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, foreign governments are confused about who to contact in regards to specific areas and the unions’ voice is disjointed and less coherent. The Lisbon treaty also creates an EU diplomatic corps know as the External Action Service to better facilitate the EU’s foreign policy.[Article 27, TEU]

    8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

    The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

    9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]

    For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.

    10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]

    Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.

    Maybe the reason that the actual changes the Treaty of Lisbon makes garner so little attention is due to the fact that they are pretty mundane, but then Lisbon is a fairly tame treaty in comparison to previous ones such as Maastricht. So I guess my best advice is don’t listen to the media hype who are only interested in selling newspapers and don’t listen to the political campaigns who are only interested in promoting their own political ambitions, read the white paper on Lisbon and refer to the treaty to arbitrate on any contentious issues.

    All references refer to the consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon which can be found here.
    *TEU = Treaty on European Union
    *TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

    For further reading and more detailed information I recommend the ‘White paper on Lisbon’ prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs which can be found <a herf="http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/documents/WhitePaper_English.pdf"here.

    Regards,
    Sink

    Check out the European Union section on Boards.ie for more of the same and any more question you have. Some very good citizens there.

    

13. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    Thanks for Posting Peter.

    That’s more like it. Although I’m not entirely convinced that all of these things are good. Again like Patrick’s point it does at least give me something to research against and I appreciate that. Something that concerns me greatly is that these types of arguments are not part of the YES campaign. Why is that?

    I will be delving deeper into these issues for myself and will respond as soon as I can.

    

14. Peter  |  September 14th, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    Because they don’t fit into slogans or on posters. It’s just that simple. Ask yourself honestly, have you ever seen a referendum resolve an issue in an adult fashion or have they all descended into bitter name calling and sloganering? Combine that with a treaty that attempt to reforms just about every aspect of an organisation the size and complexity of the EU.

    Mind if I ask, what points do you take issue with?

    

15. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    @fiscalstudent I didn’t vote on Nice. But I’d love to know why you think that’s relevant to the debate here.

    

16. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    @Peter I don’t have issue with them being resolved in an adult fashion. I don’t care. My point is only that I want some information and there seems to be a studied avoidance of this. Also I’m deeply suspicious of anything favoured unanimously by the political parties here, but that’s just me.
    I don’t have a particular issue with any one point right now I’m just not entirely convinced that they are all good things as I said. I’ll do my own research on how all these things work and come back. I think this is the best way for me to form my opinion and I’d like to thank you for at least signposting me to a reasoned idea of why someone might vote yes instead of the usual “vote yes or you’ll be in big trouble” argument.

    

17. David Quaid  |  September 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm #

    Hi Anton,

    To Quote from your reply:

    This treaty was originally developed as an EU constitution. It was put to the people of France and the Netherlands as that and was rejected. It exists now in treaty form in order to bypass the electorates of those countries. This is a fact and can be easily verified by statements of various politicians involved in that debacle.

    Exactly. They are pressing on ahead without requiring the other countries to have to vote for it – therefore still legal. If they’d pressed ahead, and it required a vote and they didn’t do this, that would be illegal. But if they can do it without, they can press on.

    I never said Ireland would be left in the cold – with particular reference. I said this:

    1. France, Germany, et al -ratify treaty and then recognise new institutions, voting systems and have a new shared treaty allowing them to use new voting and project delivery solutions
    2. Ireland doesn’t ratify treaty, doesn’t participate in new institutions – just doesn’t get to play ball.

    

18. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    @David They can’t ratify the Treaty without us participating because that would be in breach of all the previous treaties. If they could we wouldn’t be here.

    

19. Padraig McKeon  |  September 14th, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    I see the point that you are making but if I understand it correctly, I don’t agree with the conclusion.

    I work in and with the business community. I’ve spoken over the past six months with a number of unconnected people that have cause to do business in Europe or running international companies here. Those with exposure to continental Europe and particularly a small number that have had to interact with the institutions of the EU speak very convincingly of being treated as lesser citizens since June 2008. Those spearheading efforts to bring investment into Ireland from parent companies in the US speak of finding Ireland more difficult to sell as a place from which to base an operation into Europe.

    I trust all of those people and while being anti-Lisbon may not be strictly and precisely interchangeable with the state of being anti – Europe, thiose that I know who genuinely know of these things are most convincing in their conviction based on experience that a definitive vote against Lisbon will not be read by Europe as anything other than a vote against Europe and that Europe will not be minded to afford any favours or benefits to us in return.

    You may parse the language all you want but that bottom line doesn’t change – sometimes being too precise just misses the point.

    

20. Anton  |  September 14th, 2009 at 9:07 pm #

    @padraig I also work in and with the business community and your vague references to business people being treated as lesser citizens by other business people in Europe is in the realm of pure fantasy. Business people care about making money as that is there primary function, if your product is better and/or cheaper they’ll buy it. If that wasn’t the case then so much would not be outsourced to India and other countries with a lower cost base. The only thing that matters in business is value.

    I would suggest the precarious state of the Irish economy and our banks is a far greater worry to anyone doing business with an Irish company or investing from abroad be it US or Europe as all Irish companies finances are tied to our banks. This is my personal experience while talking to people in the investment community abroad both in the US and Europe. I’ve been asked to move my company to the UK and US for this reason no one mentions Lisbon.

    These people saying Ireland is a difficult place to sell as an investment, did they all reference Lisbon specifically as the factor that has caused this? I would doubt very much that this is the case.

    That Irish companies might be treated differently by EU institutions not very surprising as there is a motivation to influence and create fear in any way possible. It is though reprehensible and likely illegal and there are systems in place to redress those types of actions.

    There is no parsing of language here I’m being quite plain. No to Lisbon is not a no to Europe no matter what way you wish to paint it with vague references. To say it is is a deliberate fudging of the debate to distract from real issues and to draw the battle lines somewhere that they really are not.

    Some of the previous commenters have given me their points in support of why they are voting YES this I appreciate. The whole “we’ll be left out in the cold” argument is starting to be boring as it is plainly untrue.

    

21. FiscalStudent  |  September 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    @Anton

    I asked because during the Nice treaty the NO side made many of the same ridiculous claims that they are making about Lisbon in relation to abortion and neutrality. None of which actually came to pass.

    if you had voted No to Nice I would think it unlikely you would vote yes to Lisbon, although it appears your mind is made up anyway.

    

22. KMcG  |  September 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    Mr Manwaring
    Proinsias de Rossa, definitely a member of the official yes side, has given his reasons for voting yes together with references to the Treaty
    here

    Whether you agree with whether these are benefits to Ireland AND Europe , I’ll leave you to decide (I’m going to exercise my democractic right not to vote) .

    Later dude

    K

    

23. Anton  |  September 16th, 2009 at 1:28 am #

    @fiscalstudent

    Every reasoned argument here for the Yes side has been welcomed. I simply will not tolerate a vague threat as a legitimate argument. It is absolute codswollop and everyone knows it.

    If you spent more time making your argument, as those previous commenters here have, and less time attempting to insult people who actually haven’t joined the discussion here for what they feel is a legitimate fear, perhaps you’d have a chance of changing those peoples minds. And perhaps I’d have some respect for your position.

    Your reference to Nice is clearly an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, namely the Lisbon Treaty. If that is the kind of tactics you think are reasonable to win support for your argument then frankly I feel a bit sorry for you.

    

24. FiscalStudent  |  September 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    @Anton

    I am surprised by your response. Insult was what not my intent. In addition I was not trying to change anyones mind, I believe anyone posting about Lisbon on the internet has already made up their mind one way or the other. In my above posts I was attempting to highlight that both the YES and NO campaigns have not been run as genuinely as they should be.

    You covered the YES side by stating that you think “The whole we’ll be left out in the cold argument is starting to be boring as it is plainly untrue.” and I covered the NO side by stating that I felt it unlikely that if Ireland votes YES we will have a minimum wage of €1.84.

    I have no intention of getting in to an argument, so this will be my final post on the issue.

    

25. Anton  |  October 12th, 2009 at 12:01 am #

    Don’t really know why you deliberately misspelled my name. It wasn’t appreciated.

    Thanks for the pointer to the other material though.