| Lisbon Treaty |
[May. 17th, 2008|09:49 am] |
I have started my homework in preparation for the vote on the Lisbon Treaty next month and the more I find out the more I am disgusted with the way the treaty, and the treaties it amends, are documented.
It appears the Lisbon Treaty makes changes to The Treaty on Eruopean Union (which was also amended by the Nice Treaty) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community.
Now, as some of you will confirm, I am a simple soul. I would like one document that consolidates all the various bits and pieces from all the various treaties, so that I can read a single document that represents the current state of affairs, albeit highlighting the new bits. But does such a thing exist? I cannot find it.
This will be a critical vote on a treaty that we are told has ramifications for the whole EU, and yet Ireland is the only member state requiring a vote to change the constitution to permit acceptance of the treaty. No other member state is going to have the opportunity to vote on this treaty, so it is up to us to get the vote right. What "right" is, is very hard to determine.
The majority of politicians are saying, "Vote YES!" A few are saying, "Vote NO!". But nobody is explaining the detail of why their position is correct. They have not provided clear explanations of the changes involved and the potential ramifications. Both sides are using scare tactics and pronouncing dire consequences if we don't vote the way they are requesting.
Well, this is a long preamble to providing on-line links to the treaties involved, for those of you who wish to get the words from the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.
I must say, this is a total exercise in jargonism, and the absence of a clear, simple, single document, leaves me despairing for the competency of Eurocrats, or suspicious of their intentions.
I hope you will all enjoy the read, especialy when you get to the bit about Section 4, sub paragraph ii, as amended by the Nice Treaty, and etc...
On balance, the bits I've read, or should I say, had presented to me, do not appear to have any dreadful implications, or else they do have safeguards, so I think I will be voting "YES!", but I believe myself obliged to read the relevant documents to get around the apparently incomplete, and possibly misleading, information being provided by the two camps.
TREATY OF LISBON
AMENDING THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND THE TREATY
ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/Lisbon_Treaty_English.pdf
CONSOLIDATED VERSION
OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
http://www.interreg3c.net/sixcms/media.php/5/EC+Treaty.6806.pdf
CONSOLIDATED VERSION
OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
CONTENTS
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002M/htm/C_2002325EN.000501.html#C_2002325EN.000501_2_ref#C_2002325EN.000501_2_ref |
|
|
| Comments: |
I agree its completely obtuse - and one of the arguments the NO camp uses is that why did they publish the document with the changes and not the entire document? So that it would be difficult to read. It also begs the question if you or I cannot understand it, did the politicians who signed it understand it? If I am being asked for an affirmative vote to, in effect, change the status quo I want fully information. Now the Referendum Commission document is pretty good (the one that popped in the letter box) and the website http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ and it clearly states what is going to change. But the one thing missing for me is ... why? Why change it now? What are the problems? Why do we need to change the decision making and voting process? There are also some bits I don't like which say "we're changing the way do things but we'll figure it the details later". Hmmm.
It was reading the Commission's booklet that prompted me to go in search of the original documents. If one was into conspriacy theories one could make a heap of allegations around this treaty. At the end of the day I think the most sinister thing about it is the complete and utter incompetence of the bureaucrats, and their total inability to explain things in plain language.
I don't know if you saw my post on this a few months back? The reasons for making the decision now are a) it can't be left any later, because the current institutional arrangements are only valid up to 2009; and b) most EU leaders would have much preferred it to be earlier, but the French and Dutch voted against the original treaty so the whole thing had to be rethought.
In fairness, the original idea was to have the whole thing in a single document - and that was what the French and Dutch voted against! One of the concessions the British then demanded was to go for the more complex document we now have, so that they could claim it wasn't a particularly big deal constitutionally, rather than the overall simplification which was originally proposed. | |
|
|
frustrated![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}