I’m standing up right now and surveying a strange scene. The democratic process has worked admirably and provided us with a response to the 28th amendment to the Irish Constitution. We have made our choice and sent our message out. A strong and resounding NO! Our politicians are coming back to negotiate a better deal!
Oh, there’s just one more thing to mention – I voted yes.
Originally I regarded the Lisbon Treaty with a degree of skepticism, after all I felt that we were been asked to make a complicated decision with a definite deficit of information being provided.
This prompted me to do a few things.
I researched the treaty, then I looked for objective interpretations which could make sense of that which I did not understand.
So what was the Lisbon Treaty all about, really? Was it a sneaky attempt to pull the wool over our eyes and slip a piece of legislation that would see Europe become a federalised super-power, armed to the teeth and raping every country with a population of less than 10 million??
Nope, it was nothing as shocking as that, to put the treaty in context, I want to revert back to the Treaty of Rome, which is document at the beating heart of the European Union.
The problem with the Treaty of Rome is that it was designed to facilitate a decision making process on Economic matters between 6 countries. The policies in this treaty are still being invoked today, but the problem is that the political framework is burgeoning under the weight of 27 states, nearly 5 times the amount of countries that this treaty was originally designed for.
Since 1958 the Union of countries has grown, culminating in the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, which saw the formation of the European Union. I don’t need to tell anyone how well we’ve done from that.
The Treaty of Lisbon was really an attempt to reform the political structure of the European Union so that decisions could be made efficiently. It created protocols to carry out the laws that were defined under the Nice Treaty, and restructured the Council and Commission so that they could handle the diverse interests of 27 countries.
I went and looked at the for and against camps and compared them with the objective information that was already out there in the public domain, and then I made a decision based on the information that was available to me. That decision was to vote yes. I voted yes because:
- being part of a stronger Europe is beneficial for Ireland, particularly because international politics are hairy, and even moreso at the moment, there’s a lot going on the international stage that concerns me, and I think it’s better and important to stand strong together.
- Ireland did quite well in the treaty (provisions on contentious issues were installed to cater specifically for the concerns of Irish people).
- What Ireland stood to gain from this treaty far outweighed what it was giving up, Ireland got a very good deal, for a country as small as us we would still have been a disproportionately strong voice under Lisbon.
- and finally because I was scared into voting yes, by the “Vote No” campaign. Specifically Libertas, whose founder is a US Department of Defence contractor, what business do a private group have in the matters of Irish public politics, this is what frightened me. In the end Libertas blanketed the country in posters, and spent €1.5 Million on their campaign against the Treaty, but why, Lobby groups don’t lobby for the good of the people, lobby groups work for the good of themselves.
So when I got to comparing the interpretations that were presented by the “Vote Yes” camp., and the “Vote No” camp I found that the yes camp were fairly compatible with the objective interpretations of the treaty out there, while the “Vote No” camp. provided a very narrow view of the treaty, and definitely were very selective in their presentation of the Lisbon treaty.
I have taken the 8 points that Libertas have provided on why we should vote no to the Lisbon Treaty, and I wish to point out to you what was appearant to me on reading these points and would urge you to have a look at what they have to say to explain their headings in deference to what I have to say here.
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
- The conflict here is the term “unelected President”, this contradicts the fact that under the treaty the President would be elected by Qualified Majority Vote: If you believe that the president is unelected then the respective mayors of all the local government in Ireland are too.
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
- The old system of voting and the new system are very different, but in reality the “Halving” of Ireland’s voting weight against the “Doubling” of Germany’s is an attempt to distort the truth. In reality you can’t compare the voting systems as they’re not interoperable.
But the simple truth is that Ireland’s voting strength was reduced by more than half, but in practical application, Ireland’s voting weight in favour of passing legislation decreased by only 6%, and our position to block legislation became much stronger and favoured the smaller countries of the EU.
So in reality if Germany wanted to railroad legislation through the EU Council (which would be impossible anyway, as legislation is decided by commissioners and not individual states) Ireland would have been in a better position to stop them had the treaty been ratified.
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
The commission decides on EU Legislation only (the nationality of the commissioners should not colour their agenda), and in the exact same manner that the Dáil Éireann functions with the Seanad: The legislation must pass through a separate house to be scrutinized. With reference to my previous point, I realised that it would be easier for Ireland to block legislation that it doesn’t agree with than ever before.
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
The special provision of a veto in areas of taxation mentioned in Article 113, negates any danger that any attempt to harmonise tax would present, the Council has to vote unanimously on matters of taxation, so there was never ever any danger to our low rate of corporation tax.
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
Yes, unanimity is gone in these 60 areas, but it’s not like decisions are being made without our input, and Brussels isn’t a bad word folks, it’s just the seat of European Government, where we are represented too. Anyway, bearing in mind the fact that would have been ina stronger position to block legislation we wouldn’t have lost much ground here, and at the end of the day qualified majority voting is the only system that’s going to work when it gets to dealing with 27 different countries otherwise nothing would get done.
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
But the thing here is that this isn’t one of those aforementioned 60 areas. FDI doesn’t come under qualified majority voting. Changes in FDI require unanimity in Article 188C.4, therefore Ireland has a veto in this area, and does not hand over any exclusive control in these areas.
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
This point relies on a quotation of the proposed changes to the Constitution of Ireland. Libertas quote subsection 11 of the changes.
“11 No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”
The funny thing is look at the current Irish Constitution, Article 29-4 10°. THIS IS ALREADY THERE almost ad verbatim, bar the reference to Article 29-4 10° in the updated text.
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
Yes it theoretically could, but this has always been the case, nothing changes in this treaty. They cite Article 48 of the treaty to make this statement, but elect to leave out the fact that to amend a treaty requires unanimity from all member states, and Member states need to ratify the amendments via their own internal procedures. Which in Ireland means referendum, if the Attorney General deems it necessary to hold a referendum, this has always been the case in Ireland, so there’s nothing new there.
The No campaign lied, and that’s what cemented me to vote yes. It’s as simple as that, and there’s a ream of demonstrable objective evidence that supports my claim.
So where does this leave us now, Sarkozy is calling for ratification, Barosso is calling for ratification, everyone else is calling for ratification. The white nationalsits, the British Nationalist Party in england are singing our praises, Coir is dancing in the streets because we’re not going to be having abortion forced on us and Libertas is sitting smugly back smiling at us, no doubt our no vote will be very good for business. And all this time, I’m sitting here with the same feeling when I’ve bought something that I know I don’t need and can’t afford, and I’m just waiting for the nation to catch up with me.
