September 18, 2009
Four Reasons to Vote No and Four Reasons not to vote Yes to Lisbon – Article
The article below appears in todays (Friday’s) edition of the Irish Times by Tony Allwright who is an engineering and industrial safety consultant, and blogger – www.tallrite.com/blog.htm Tony’s article is in red and my comments are in black.
Dubious ‘guarantees and assurances’ given regarding the Lisbon Treaty studiously avoid its rotten core
I wonder what is so dubious about all of our EU partners agreeing to these guarantees. There are few certainties in life: death, taxes and change. The Lisbon Treaty is not perfect and I doubt it will be the last treaty that we will face. It is however a better treaty than the ones already there. The concept of consensus is enshrined in the treaty and consensus is the way we resolve conflict and make progress. What is at the core is good. Its about better Governance of the EU.
LIKE FRANKENSTEIN’s monster, here comes the Lisbon Treaty once more, rising from the undead. Though 66 million French and Dutch voters were simply bypassed to avoid more pesky referendums, Ireland’s Constitution precludes such an elegant solution, forcing a second vote on the same treaty.
How many attempts were made to gain consensus in Northern Ireland ? Has our second vote on Nice proved to be another monster ? How many attempts did it take to bring about the Euro currency? Did we even vote on it ? If we had how might we have voted ? Would you call all these monsters too ?
True, some dubious “guarantees and assurances” have been obtained to address five concerns of the hyper-sensitive Irish that are convenient to discuss.
Ireland will keep its commissioner and control its own taxes. No innocent Irish lads will be conscripted as EU cannon fodder, abortion will not be imposed and workers’ rights and public services will be protected. But since they’re not copper-fastened into the treaty itself, they cannot be unchallengeable: they are less guarantees than target-rich “assurances” for future treaty lawyers.
If we don’t like what emerges in due course, the Lisbon Treaty gives us citizens the power to raise issues directly through the EU Commission for the first time , subject to sufficient momentum from the public. This is a much better position than what exists today. This is the power that we throw away if a no vote succeeds.
Anyway, they only nibble at the treaty’s edges, and studiously avoid the rotten core to which so many people fundamentally object. For me, this leads to four powerful reasons to vote No, and four more not to vote Yes.
Firstly, there is the dishonesty of having converted the readable, understandable, if internally contradictory Treaty Establishing A Constitution For Europe into the Lisbon Reform Treaty – an interminable series of unreadable, incomprehensible amendments to two prior EU treaties (Maastricht and Rome) – while otherwise retaining nearly all the content of the rejected constitution.
We never voted on the constitution so we never rejected it. I agree that the treaty is very difficult to read. It is much easier to read if you read a consolidated version where all amendments have been processed into one document. It helps if you have read the previous much shorter Treaties which were designed for a time with less EU members. I am not saying its perfect, but I am saying its better because it holds the EU institutions more accountable to local parliaments and to elected representatives. Governance is a complex and evolving matter. The rule book of any sport, or club has become more complex as we have understood the failings of one size fits all solutions.
A No vote is the only response to such shamelessness.
The second powerful reason is similar but different. Just as no rational person would dare sign a contract that he/she couldn’t understand, so no one should vote for a treaty without understanding it.
That is not true. People sign contracts to purchase property, purchase insurance products and many other complex arrangements. They depend on experts to interpret the major provisions of any contract. They depend on regulators to protect them against sharp practice. Contracts are full of legal jaron and sentences which have a lifetime of meaning and often are the subject of court interpretations.
It still takes me 13 hours to read once, so unless you have a spare week to absorb it in conjunction with Rome and Maastricht, and you don’t like signing blank cheques, No is the only rational vote.
Yes it takes about 13 hours to read. Having read it I would recommend that people read the Referendum Commission’s summary. We must place some trust somewhere and they did an excellent job.
Across the EU, 60 to 85 per cent (depending on sources) of legislation already originates in Brussels. Yet Lisbon would transfer more than 100 new competencies from national to EU level. Another 60-plus EU mandated areas would move from unanimity to majority voting, reducing further the influence of individual nations. This would represent the single largest transfer of powers from nations to Brussels in EU history.
If as you claim that 85% of legislation already originates from Brussels. That only leaves 15% remaining. Are you suggesting that we will really have no need for a local legislature ? Again the principle of subsidiarity is enshrined in the Treaty. That means that legislation should be dealt with a at the lowest level where it makes sense.
Just one example. At present, individual states fund the EU. But Lisbon empowers the EU to impose its own taxes.
I do not see the word taxes in article 259. The EU obviously must be funded. We currently do that through our taxes. There is nothing in the article that says they are empowered to create and impose new taxes. No doubt it will have to levy counties on a fair and agreed basis. The suggestion is scaremongering.
See Article 259, which amends Article 269 in the Rome or Maastricht treaties, neither of which runs to 269 articles, to create Article 311 of a so-called “consolidated” treaty which supposedly consolidates all three treaties but is not itself a treaty – and has no legal force. What fun this is! And how lucrative for treaty lawyers.
I guess then that the lawyers will determine if it has legal force or not. That is within their competency, not mine.
But honestly, do citizens really want to surrender ever more sovereignty, resulting in even more EU laws?
Is there a serious suggestion that voting no will mean less laws will be passed. The doctrine of subsidiarity if anything passes more power to national governments. The problem in Ireland is that too many decision, powers etc are far to centralised in Central Government, when they should be devolved to local authorities. People will always resist central taxes when they are not connected to the services that their taxes provide.
It’s the third powerful reason to vote No. In Ireland, all the main political parties are united in urging us to vote Yes. Yet nobody today can trust the wisdom of the ruling Coalition and supine Opposition, which have brought the country to the brink of financial ruin with reckless policies and neglect. The current political elite is one group whose judgment on what’s good for Ireland is supremely suspect. If they say Yes, that’s the fourth powerful reason to vote No.
We elect them – That is democracy. There may be elements of truth in what you say because of the fear of politicians from taking the hard but right decisions. In that situation I for one would be glad that there are constraints on their behaviour in the context of European laws. Would we have as much competition? would our social justice laws be as strong? would equality and many of the other social benefits that Europe has shown leadership on have happened if we were as sovereign as you might like to suggest we should aspire?
The Yes-sirs who would have us approve the referendum are putting out postcards, pamphlets, websites and print, radio and TV blitzes to explain the unintelligible treaty. But these explanations are not the treaty being voted on. Moreover, how can we know they’re not simply biased attempts to highlight the good stuff while obfuscating the bad? Such media campaigns are no reason to vote Yes.
Few of the no campaigners are elected or are accountable to the public in any manner. Most of those who campaign yes are in this for the long haul and are always conscious of their next election when they are held accountable. They believe in it and run their campaigns as they see fit. I see few no campaigners espousing the weakness of their campaigns.
Many prominent personages in Ireland, Brussels and elsewhere are urging us to vote Yes, but they are heavily invested, personally, in continued enlargement of EU activity, because that’s where their careers lie.
That is where all of our futures lie. A smaller EU is a smaller market for Ireland, is less jobs etc. Trade is what underpins our economy. We are a small exporting island. We need better off Eastern European countries to buy our organic foods and technology products. Its all about jobs!
With the EU so influential in national law-making, domestic legislators won’t advance their careers by opposing the EUrocracy. And if you’re part of that EUrocracy – or dependants such as lobbies, lawyers, think tanks or service providers – Lisbon’s expanded powers can only mean more work, bigger budgets, massive recruitment and thus juicy promotional opportunities for you.
None of the benefits you mention will impact on me. The work of democracy and politics is a noble one because the alternative is far too horrible to consider. The issue is a question of Governance and balance. That is something that the Lisbon Treaty tries to improve. From my perspective I am thinking of my own self interest, which is my kids. Will they ever get to experience the vibrant expanding economy where opportunity lay around every corner or will they struggle to get jobs and have to emigrate like so many of us in the 1980′s.
Passionate exhortations by self-interested individuals are no reason to vote Yes. Neither is the Yes-sirs’ frequent if illogical equivalence of a Lisbon No with departure from the EU.
No one to my recollection has said that this is a vote to leave the EU. The vote is about Governance. The no vote will undoubtedly weaken the soft power that we possessed in the deliberations that yield to consensus developing. There is no doubt that international business decision makers will be scrutinising their foreign investments and will decide to channel them to locations where they believe will give their business competitive advantage. Yielding soft power is madness.
The Irish naysayers don’t want to leave the EU; we love the EU and the euro just as they are; they’ve been wonderful for Ireland, so why mess with the formula?
The formula was one developed for a different time with different numbers of members. Its a bit like a local rugby team 20 years ago to be compared with a Munster or Leinster team today. They are completely unrecognisable in terms of their professionalism today. The EU must become more professional. Thus you have a more complex governance structure and yes, a longer more difficult to read and comprehend treaty.
But we don’t want to expand the EU’s powers with untold consequences, nor create through a badly written document a treaty lawyer’s paradise.
Not good enough reason to throw it out. We have to pass it first before we can amend it ! The insiders who promote this treaty know that reform is required. Saying no merely delays that reform for another few years. I have already heard of some talking about Lisbon 3!
The final red herring is the credit crunch. The Yes-sirs perpetrate the calumny that the EU would meet another Irish No with economic revenge. Of course some angry EUrocrats may try to block goodies from Ireland’s maw. But the EU is not those Brusselarians – it’s the 500 million citizens, and of these we know the French, Dutch, British and Germans would reject Lisbon if given the chance, so a mass plot against Ireland is inconceivable. This empty threat is the fourth non-reason to vote Yes.
The point which has been made is that the EU has been good for Ireland. With out the ECB Ireland would be Iceland. But as you say there is a lot of political will invested in this project by powerful people in Europe and I can imagine that for those individuals, it would be easier to turn a blind eye, be less sympathetic to our needs or lobbies. We must remember that these people are human too. They have families, fears and from what I have seen are passionately driven and work extremely hard.
We should reject Lisbon in our own enlightened self-interest, but also on behalf of the unenfranchised EU half-billion.
Democracy is exercised in many ways. We have our way and they have their way. They have spoken in their way and we must now do it in our way, not on behalf of the others. Rejection of Lisbon is certainly not in our interest. A lawyer friend of mine always extolled the virtues of reading the source legislation. I am no EU legal expert but what really grabbed my attention was the positive pro citizen, pro social justice and instigation of appropriate checks and balances within the Governance structures. This is only evident when you read the consolidated version of the Treaties and can appreciate that Lisbon is only a stepping stone in the development of Constitutional EU law.
