I’ve just had a quick run through the Lisbon Treaty. The full text of the proposed treaty can be downloaded here but, to be honest, unless you are a constitutional lawyer or an expert in contract law I wouldn’t bother. It only takes a brief perusal of the document to realise that it is utterly impenetrable to the ordinary layman.Try this for size…
292) Article 310 shall become Article 188 M.
293) Article 311 shall be repealed. A new Article 311a shall be inserted, with the wording of
Article 299(2), first subparagraph, and Article 299(3) to (6); the text shall be amended as follows:
(a) the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 and paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be renumbered 1 to 5
and the following new introductory wording shall be inserted at the beginning of the
Article:
“In addition to the provisions of Article 49 C of the Treaty on European Union relating to the territorial scope of the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply:”
Or this…
8. Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 9.2, 10.1, 10.3, 11.2, 12.1, 14, 16, 18 to 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30 to 34, 50 and 52 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (’the Statute’) shall not apply to the United Kingdom. In those Articles, references to the Community or the Member States shall not include the United Kingdom and references to national central banks or shareholders shall not include the Bank of England. References in Articles 10.3 and 30.2 of the Statute to ’subscribed capital of the ECB’ shall not include capital subscribed by the Bank of England.
That doesn’t trip easily off the tongue either.
The second passage, however, is not from the Lisbon Treaty. It is taken from the treaty of Rome, originally enacted in 1957 and subsequently amended by Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice among others. On the 10th May 1972 the Irish electorate voted to join the EEC and I would doubt very much if many of the one million plus who voted yes read any part of the Treaty of Rome.
The argument that we should reject the Lisbon treaty because it cannot be easily read is a bit of a red herring. How many of those who say ‘I wouldn’t sign a legal document if I couldn’t understand it,’ ever read the terms and conditions when they take out a bank loan or buy a concert ticket on Ticketmaster or sign up for a Gmail account?
Joining the EEC in 1973 was undoubtedly the greatest thing that ever happened to this country. From that one act (eventually) flowed the economic success we have seen in recent years and the modernising of our nation. The establishment of many basic human rights, which we now take for granted, such as equal pay for women, have stemmed from our membership of the EU. In 1972 we did not need to know the intricate details of the Treaty of Rome to know that joining would be good for Ireland. Instead we listened to an informed debate on the pros and cons and made our choices accordingly.
Similarly, we do not need to read every word of the Lisbon treaty to make a decision on how we should vote this time. There is an overload of information in the public sphere about this treaty and what it will mean to Ireland and to Europe. Here’s just a small, random selection.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86857 http://www.joanburton.ie/?postid=823 http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/ http://www.voteno.ie/
I do believe that Europe has been extremely good for Ireland and if this treaty does, as we are told, make the EU more effective and more efficient then I will be voting yes.
So my challenge to both sides is simply this…
…convince me.
May 16, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Wow!, that debate on sarah’s blog was a cracker. I didn’t bother to add to it though i do think blogs are a great way to express oneself, give vent, etc. It’s great to see heated debate.
As for Lisbon I’ll back the EU on their form so far.
May 19, 2008 at 12:54 pm
When we don’t know what the hell it’s all about why bother voting. I will vote no for the simple reason it says on the handbook sent to me by the people that are supposed to understand it all, page 3, that the Constitution of Ireland will be changed if I vote yes. I do not want the Constitution changed, so I vote NO. We are told there will be changes, what changes? thats what we want to know.
May 19, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I don’t quite understand your point, Reg. Do you would have a default objection to changing the constitution or do you simply object to this particular change. There is a plethora of information in the public domain about this treaty. It is up to every voter to use this before making an informed decision. The booklet from the referendum commission is only one piece of the information jigsaw. Every time you turn on your radio or TV or open a newspaper you are presented with a range of people telling you why you should vote yes or no, as the case may be. Claiming not to know what it is all anout is simply lazy. Democracy is not kindergarten, one needs to put in a small bit of effort every once in a while.
June 2, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Flibbertigibbet says : I absolutely agree with this !