13 Critical Lisbon Treaty Facts

BlitzKrieg · 10-07-2009 02:54AM

BUT - you can take a case to the ECJ and overrule the Irish law, can you not?

Not when its criminal law I believe?

edit: whats it with the sowcroft?

netron · 10-07-2009 03:04AM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Not when its criminal law I believe?

edit: whats it with the sowcroft?

ah.. interesting. so criminal law resides with national governments.

please bear in mind that i only gave out the death penalty argument as an example - even though i am against it myself, i still think that major changes in law should reside with the people rather than some binding document that commits future generations to a system that they cannot change.

if you ask me , the EU seems to be more concerned with "rights" rather than solving actual social and economic issues. i couldnt give a damn about "rights" - am more concerned about how the ECB pegged interest rates so low that it ****ed the Irish economy.

Scofflaw · 10-07-2009 03:08AM

netron wrote: »

"As above - you can vote for them, and they can introduce forced labour if they win. The Charter can't prevent that, because it only binds the EU. Ireland isn't bound by the provisions of the Charter."

BUT - you can take a case to the ECJ and overrule the Irish law, can you not?

Well, no, you can't. The ECJ can only rule on EU law, it can't rule on Irish law. Some of the ECJ's rulings have had an impact on Irish law, but only in areas where the EU shares competence with the member states.

So if Ireland introduced forced labour as part of its criminal system, or the death penalty for treason*, those being areas where the EU has no competence the Charter is inapplicable, and the ECJ has no jurisdiction.

netron wrote: »

What is the point of the charter if that is not the case?

Some of it is a gesture of goodwill, and some of it will actually be applicable because the EU has a competence in an area that the Charter would affect. Believe it or not, the EU takes itself quite seriously as a 'good' organisation - rather like Google (including the 'trading with China' bit).

An example of that is the EU's mission to stamp out the death penalty worldwide - they're the foremost advocate of its abolition everywhere, and they make it part of their trade and aid deals as much as possible. They're not shy about it either - the EU's Delegation to Singapore's website, and the Delegation to the US' website, both have prominent pages criticising those countries' use of the death penalty.

Why does it do it? Because it believes it's right. People are funny that way, even faceless eurocrats.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*The death penalty used to be the maximum possible penalty for destruction of government property - a Civil War hangover - which really gave an edge to those Fogras on OPW monuments advising you of possible severe penalties for damaging them!

Scofflaw · 10-07-2009 03:14AM

netron wrote: »

ah.. interesting. so criminal law resides with national governments.

please bear in mind that i only gave out the death penalty argument as an example - even though i am against it myself, i still think that major changes in law should reside with the people rather than some binding document that commits future generations to a system that they cannot change.

if you ask me , the EU seems to be more concerned with "rights" rather than solving actual social and economic issues. i couldnt give a damn about "rights" - am more concerned about how the ECB pegged interest rates so low that it ****ed the Irish economy.

The ECB's mandate is to control inflation, and the purpose of credit is to allow people access to money that otherwise wouldn't have it. They don't control what people do with the money they borrow - if we hadn't put all our borrowings into ever higher house prices, artificially inflating the construction sector until it was 30% of our economy, then we wouldn't be up the creek with only an ECB bailer to keep us afloat.

Imagine if we had decided that house prices were ludicrously high, and that, instead, we would use the cheap money to invest in Irish businesses. What do you think would have been the net result of that? Now, who stopped us doing that?

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach · 10-07-2009 09:54AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

... Imagine if we had decided that house prices were ludicrously high, and that, instead, we would use the cheap money to invest in Irish businesses. What do you think would have been the net result of that?

Ah. Hankering after the good old days! I remember the Central Bank steering the commercial banks in just such a way. And it was overt: you could read in the papers that x% of new lending would be for the manufacturing sector, y% for agriculture, z% for consumer finance, and so on.

Now, who stopped us doing that?

Don't look at me. They did. Them over there. Whoever we are having a pop at: the EU, developers, the neo-liberals, the bankers, whatever political party you dislike. In cahoots with whoever you want as a secondary target.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-07-2009 10:37AM

Mind if I jump in on this?

darcy.jonny wrote: »

thanks very much for your input sowcroft ....

the more i see someone explain thing to me i might change my vote so if i was to ask you these as a bloke to a bloke no noncence or ya know legal blab ..

a) does a yes vote mean we will never have the chance to vote on anything like this again

No, this is a claim put about by some sections of the 'No' side based on Article 48 TEU. However it is false, article 48 specifically states that any amendments to the treaties in future must be ratified by each affected member state in accordance with their constitutional requirements. In Ireland our constitutional requirement is that we have a referendum where EU powers are being increased, with relation to Ireland.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

b) i agree in the idea of the treaty ......... if it is to speed up the processes of the E.U. but considering how we cannot agree on this at what is a very basic and fundemental level ... if the sections of this treaty are open to so much different interpertations can the enforcements of this be legally challanged left right and centre therefore making the whole process slower than before ?

The sections aren't really open to many different interpretations. The reason they are written in a legal style is so that they can only be open to 1 interpretation in a court of law. The treaty also contains various protocols, which you can see at the end of it. These are clarifying protocols, which are to be used by any court when adjudicating on the meaning of the treaty. They are there to remove any doubt as to what was meant by a particular section of the treaty. It is actually watertight, legally.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

c) can the lisbon treaty lead to a european super power . could it have control of the major powers like britain etc. ... im not saying thats there aim but could it be interperated that way .

No it cannot. There is nothing to say that at some point in the future the member states of the EU might agree to form a federal state, but there is absolutely nothing in Lisbon in regard to this. Member states agree to give up certain powers to the EU, and share many others. These powers are always shared willingly by the member states. Also remember that the EU is only made up of the member states, so in effect we are just sharing power with each other. We are the EU.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

d) one greevence i have is this ....... when we voted no the last time should that under eu law have killed the treaty ?? why was that vote some what ignored and the treaty was continued to be ratified in other states like a vote never happened ......... i mean shold they have not at least held of ratification until our situation was sorted out one way or another . ive alway believed that under eu law that would be the process .

so if they ingored out no vote y should i for arguments sake trust these people who went against the process of eu democrocy

The treaty is not under EU law, it's actually an independent agreement between all the various member states, and would become EU law if ratified. There's no real reason why ratification should stop, every other country deserves their say, because even if Lisbon was to be scrapped altogether, it's good to know where each country actually stood on it, for if and when it might be time to renegotiate, or, as happened seek additional guarantees. Lisbon could still not enter into force until we agreed, but there's no reason why other countries shouldn't be allowed to ratify it.

They didn't ignore our no vote, because Lisbon didn't actually enter into force. The just continued to give their own opinions on Lisbon, by ratifying it themselves.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

e) as im not fan of this government , the brits hate theres and theres quite a few out there that are facing defeat in there next elections would it make more sence for me to vote no and wait for the governments to change and let people we want run this

I'm not a fan either, very much not a fan. If we vote 'No' again we are not sending any statements about our governments. We are saying 'we don't want the EU to function under the Lisbon rules'. It cannot be interpreted any other way. The whole thing will be scrapped and both our government (most likely Fine Gael in a year or two) and the other governments will be left wondering which way to go. In their opinion, as the politicians who actually make the EU work, Lisbon is the best way to get the EU to work. If we say 'no' then as far as they are concerned they have to spend another 5 or 6 years trying to hammer out a new deal, one that doesn't look like Lisbon, because we have rejected it, even though Lisbon was probably the best deal available as a compromise between 27 different countries.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

f) if we were not voting on this and didnt get a vote and lets say erm latvia for example had the only vote , would we all not be pisseddd of here and want the choice to vote on this treaty ?

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be. I vote for pro EU politicians and I would be happy for them to ratify EU treaties on my behalf. You can't assume that just because we in Ireland are legally required to have referenda, everyone else either should have, or wants the same. If the people of those countries want to change that, then it's up to them to lobby their Government to give them the option (though referenda in some countries are illegal). It's not the place of the EU or Ireland to tell them how to run their internal legal system. Neither the EU or Ireland has that right.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

i will say this though if i see once the yes side declaring that we must vote yes because of the recession, or vote yes because we will be isolated ,vote yes because the eu have done so much for us , i will imediately hammer down a no vote

and iin turn to that if i see the no side declare , comscription again, declare conspiries about giving up democracy the treaty is facist blah blah the treaty is just to give more power to the controling evil powers ..... its not fcuken star wars ......... ill change my current stance and hammer down me a yes vote

and just one more question ......... the promises arnt part of the treaty that my take the vote will be to the last dot the same treaty ...... why were the government claiming its not the same treaty if it really is ?? i mean if im being lied to or deceived shouldnt i vote no without question

I haven't seen the government claim it's not the same treaty. It's certainly a different package we'll be voting on, as we will be voting on both the Lisbon Treaty, plus the Treaties that make up the additional Guarantees, whereas in the first one we were only voting on Lisbon.

Lastly, in my opinion Lisbon represents the best deal available as a compromise between the 27 countries, remember there's more than just Ireland involved, and we should vote 'yes' so that this long process of institutional reform can finally be over, and the EU can get back to concentrating on making all our lives better, which is what it is there to do.

K-9 · 10-07-2009 11:04AM

netron wrote: »

if you ask me , the EU seems to be more concerned with "rights" rather than solving actual social and economic issues. i couldnt give a damn about "rights" - am more concerned about how the ECB pegged interest rates so low that it ****ed the Irish economy.

There is another thread here on that but I'd add to Scofflaws points and point out the ECB did raise Interest Rates in the Summer and Autumn of 06 and the housing market cooled.

What did our politicians do? McDowell suggested cutting Stamp Duty to boost it, as did FG and Cowen eventually decided to double Mortgage Interest Relief to €20,000 a year for FTB's.

So, even when the ECB did raise rates, our Political leaders actually tried to counteract it, not go along with it.

ixtlan · 10-07-2009 01:49PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

e) as im not fan of this government , the brits hate theres and theres quite a few out there that are facing defeat in there next elections would it make more sence for me to vote no and wait for the governments to change and let people we want run this

In Ireland the opposition think this is the best deal we can get, so if they get into power it's hard to see what they would change. If Lisbon failed maybe a new treaty would be different, but it would not necessarily be better for us.

As for Britain, as has been mentioned, if we vote yes it will just go through, but if we vote no, it's hard to see them bothering with a vote. What would be the point unless it came to us a third time which would not happen.

In any future negotiations Britain would have a strong hand. They would be unlikely to put a new treaty to a vote. Cameron would claim they got everything they needed and would ratify. Ireland would be in a dreadful situation. All the other countries would be wondering what the point of dealing with Ireland would be at all since there would be no assurance that any agreement would be approved by the electorate. True we could not be thrown out of the EU, but it could come to a situation where we would voluntarily leave rather than continue to block any EU changes.

Ix

darcy.jonny · 10-07-2009 05:28PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The treaty is not under EU law, it's actually an independent agreement between all the various member states, and would become EU law if ratified. There's no real reason why ratification should stop, every other country deserves their say, because even if Lisbon was to be scrapped altogether, it's good to know where each country actually stood on it, for if and when it might be time to renegotiate, or, as happened seek additional guarantees. Lisbon could still not enter into force until we agreed, but there's no reason why other countries shouldn't be allowed to ratify it.

then form this im taking it that this treaty is not governed by current e.u. law ?? if that is the case then what a yes would affectly do is create a new e.u ?? tbh there would seem to have been an aweful lot of legal issues involved and loophole exploited to intorduce this treaty outside e.u. law ...... would i be right ?? if so y bother making it so complicated surly there would be an easier way to have done this,

under no circumstances to i believe for on second that the treaty was continued to be ratified just to see if other countries would agree with it or not , they pushed this on the basis of implimenting this treaty one way or the other ...... dont lie about this im no expert but im not an idiot either .... there is no way on this earth that these countries that had problems with ratification that upset there people that didnt get a vote that had major legal hurdles to get over to ratify the treaty did it just to see if it would be accepted ......... its basic common sence no government would ever upset the electorate , waste time and money just to have a look if it would work .......... what ur saying there is a lie

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm not a fan either, very much not a fan. If we vote 'No' again we are not sending any statements about our governments. We are saying 'we don't want the EU to function under the Lisbon rules'. It cannot be interpreted any other way. The whole thing will be scrapped and both our government (most likely Fine Gael in a year or two) and the other governments will be left wondering which way to go. In their opinion, as the politicians who actually make the EU work, Lisbon is the best way to get the EU to work. If we say 'no' then as far as they are concerned they have to spend another 5 or 6 years trying to hammer out a new deal, one that doesn't look like Lisbon, because we have rejected it, even though Lisbon was probably the best deal available as a compromise between 27 different countries.

the thing is this treaty was lets say dreamed up by very same people that we dont want in power , i understand that this could be the best deal possible but is there not a chance that with the rite governments in place here and abroad that with fresh faces and a fresh approach that the treaty if re visited could be a whole lot better ...... one of the problems i have with the yes side campain is its made out that nobody loses out on this treaty ........ive yet to ever see anything like this that somewhere or another someone loses out

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be. I vote for pro EU politicians and I would be happy for them to ratify EU treaties on my behalf. You can't assume that just because we in Ireland are legally required to have referenda, everyone else either should have, or wants the same. If the people of those countries want to change that, then it's up to them to lobby their Government to give them the option (though referenda in some countries are illegal). It's not the place of the EU or Ireland to tell them how to run their internal legal system. Neither the EU or Ireland has that right.

but even if they wanted to lobby there governments ..... it would be to late once the treaty is ratafied wouldnt it ??

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I haven't seen the government claim it's not the same treaty. It's certainly a different package we'll be voting on, as we will be voting on both the Lisbon Treaty, plus the Treaties that make up the additional Guarantees, whereas in the first one we were only voting on Lisbon.

will we be voting on the exact same treaty word for word with no changes or will there me more to it because of the promises ??? if i was to vote yes ild want the promises set in concrete and not just some word of mouth half hearted effort ........... if the promises are to become legal would the also not require ratification by other governments ......... what ermmm id they decided to refuse after we vote yes ................. could we have a guarantee of a third vote based on the fact we didnt get out promises ??

darcy.jonny · 10-07-2009 05:37PM

ixtlan wrote: »

In Ireland the opposition think this is the best deal we can get, so if they get into power it's hard to see what they would change. If Lisbon failed maybe a new treaty would be different, but it would not necessarily be better for us.

As for Britain, as has been mentioned, if we vote yes it will just go through, but if we vote no, it's hard to see them bothering with a vote. What would be the point unless it came to us a third time which would not happen.

In any future negotiations Britain would have a strong hand. They would be unlikely to put a new treaty to a vote. Cameron would claim they got everything they needed and would ratify. Ireland would be in a dreadful situation. All the other countries would be wondering what the point of dealing with Ireland would be at all since there would be no assurance that any agreement would be approved by the electorate. True we could not be thrown out of the EU, but it could come to a situation where we would voluntarily leave rather than continue to block any EU changes.

Ix

"Ireland would be in a dreadful situation. All the other countries would be wondering what the point of dealing with Ireland would be at all since there would be no assurance that any agreement would be approved by the electorate. True we could not be thrown out of the EU, but it could come to a situation where we would voluntarily leave rather than continue to block any EU changes."

that is a load of crap and scare mongering for a yes vote .... i want the facts on y i should vote yes and this boils my blood more than anything .

the eu has worked fine up until now nobody has ever had to voluntarily leave it . how would ireland be in a dreadful situation ???????????? id there is a no vote here cameron would probably for his own self would run a vote on this and get a no and kill it off completely . and why the fuvk should there ever be in any democratic state assurances on any agreement being aproved ..... think in all this ur forgeting who the hell runs this government who the hell runs the governments of the other 27 states and who the hell runs the E.U. ............ WE THE PEOPLE ...... and if that was ever to change then its not democoratic one bit , and why the hell would i want to be part of a new EU that wont deal with us because we could possibly reject the treaty .........

darcy.jonny · 10-07-2009 05:45PM

i have genuine concerns and questions here about the treaty , im am entitled to my opinion wether it be right or wrong ......... sowcroft in all respect to him has been very good in explaining thing and i appreicate it very much , but the rest of u dont insult my intelligence by lieing to me if thats the approach for a yes vote then ull convince nobody .... perhaps u all should shuttt up and let some one like mentioned above actually give the real facts for a yes vote insteed of ruining ur own sides chances of convincing others to say yes

Scofflaw · 10-07-2009 05:55PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The treaty is not under EU law, it's actually an independent agreement between all the various member states, and would become EU law if ratified. There's no real reason why ratification should stop, every other country deserves their say, because even if Lisbon was to be scrapped altogether, it's good to know where each country actually stood on it, for if and when it might be time to renegotiate, or, as happened seek additional guarantees. Lisbon could still not enter into force until we agreed, but there's no reason why other countries shouldn't be allowed to ratify it.

<<<<< then form this im taking it that this treaty is not governed by current e.u. law ?? if that is the case then what a yes would affectly do is create a new e.u ?? tbh there would seem to have been an aweful lot of legal issues involved and loophole exploited to intorduce this treaty outside e.u. law ...... would i be right ?? if so y bother making it so complicated surly there would be an easier way to have done this,

PopeBuckfastXVI is right, the Treaty of Lisbon is not under EU law. It's an international treaty. It doesn't create a new EU because it's an amending treaty - it amends the EU's existing treaties. Those, in turn, form the basis of EU law.

The best way to think of it is like the amendment to an Act of the Oireachtas. If you're amending, say, the Drinks Act 1978, the amendment isn't part of the Act until and unless it's passed, and until that happens it's a separate piece of legislation.

The EU is governed by two international treaties - the TEC and the TEU - which have been amended over the years. Those treaties aren't governed by EU law, any more than the Irish Constitution is governed by Irish law, and for the same reasons - the treaties are the "constitution" of the EU. The EU itself doesn't (and can't) change the treaties itself - they can only be agreed by the member states. Again, that's similar to the way our government can't change the Constitution itself.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

under no circumstances to i believe for on second that the treaty was continued to be ratified just to see if other countries would agree with it or not , they pushed this on the basis of implimenting this treaty one way or the other ...... dont lie about this im no expert but im not an idiot either .... there is no way on this earth that these countries that had problems with ratification that upset there people that didnt get a vote that had major legal hurdles to get over to ratify the treaty did it just to see if it would be accepted ......... its basic common sence no government would ever upset the electorate , waste time and money just to have a look if it would work .......... what ur saying there is a lie

The governments of all the 27 member states negotiated the Treaty, agreed the final form of the Treaty, and they all want the Treaty. It's up to each of them to persuade their electorate that the Treaty is a good thing.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

ME <<<<<<<<<< will we be voting on the exact same treaty word for word with no changes or will there me more to it because of the promises ??? if i was to vote yes ild want the promises set in concrete and not just some word of mouth half hearted effort ........... if the promises are to become legal would the also not require ratification by other governments ......... what ermmm id they decided to refuse after we vote yes ................. could we have a guarantee of a third vote based on the fact we didnt get out promises ??

The guarantees aren't "promises", even less are they "word of mouth". They're legally binding international agreements, whose text is here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-07-2009 05:56PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

<<<<< then form this im taking it that this treaty is not governed by current e.u. law ?? if that is the case then what a yes would affectly do is create a new e.u ?? tbh there would seem to have been an aweful lot of legal issues involved and loophole exploited to intorduce this treaty outside e.u. law ...... would i be right ?? if so y bother making it so complicated surly there would be an easier way to have done this,

No, EU Laws only exist because of Treaties like Lisbon, that is where they draw their authority. When putting together a Treaty, that Treaty is no subject to EU law, so the Governments can put anything they like into it. Then they agree that whatever they have put into it becomes EU law when it is ratified. So no EU Laws can determine how a treaty is made or ratified. So you can't block or force ratification of a treaty 'under EU law' because the Treaty and it's ratification are outside of EU Law, the ratification part is covered by National Laws (Like in Ireland we have a referendum), and the Treaty itself is a binding legal Treaty between the 27 governments. There's no loopholes, the EU only exists because the 27 governments let it, the Treaty defines the form of the EU, and what laws the EU can and cannot make. The Treaty itself is above EU law, and the stuff that's in the treaty defines what the rules of the EU are, and what laws the EU can make.

EU law has no more power to tell a member state how to, or when to ratify a Treaty than it does to tell a member state to change it's government.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

under no circumstances to i believe for on second that the treaty was continued to be ratified just to see if other countries would agree with it or not , they pushed this on the basis of implimenting this treaty one way or the other ...... dont lie about this im no expert but im not an idiot either .... there is no way on this earth that these countries that had problems with ratification that upset there people that didnt get a vote that had major legal hurdles to get over to ratify the treaty did it just to see if it would be accepted ......... its basic common sence no government would ever upset the electorate , waste time and money just to have a look if it would work .......... what ur saying there is a lie

It's not a baseless exercise, they continued with ratification in the hope that the thing would go through, assuming some deal could be worked out with Ireland. Otherwise it still gives a very good indicator on where every country lies. If we vote no again, I guess that's all they'll be able to take out of it, but they still have hope we'll change our minds. It's not unprecedented to keep going either, the ratification process continued after France said 'No' to the EU Constitution, but was eventually scuppered when a second country said 'No'. Who knows what would have happened if a second country had also said 'No' to Lisbon, maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation at all?

Anyway it's certainly not insulting to us to continue with ratification, there's no particular order to ratification, we were in the middle, and now we'll be towards the end (if we say 'yes'). The Polish and Germans will likely ratify after us, and possibly the Czechs (I could be wrong on that one?).

darcy.jonny wrote: »

ME <<<< the thing is this treaty was lets say dreamed up by very same people that we dont want in power , i understand that this could be the best deal possible but is there not a chance that with the rite governments in place here and abroad that with fresh faces and a fresh approach that the treaty if re visited could be a whole lot better ...... one of the problems i have with the yes side campain is its made out that nobody loses out on this treaty ........ive yet to ever see anything like this that somewhere or another someone loses out

A Fine Gael and Labour Government are the only realistic alternative, and both of those are fully for a 'yes' vote. This treaty has been nearly a decade in the making, and the Opposition seems to think it's the best deal available right now. This doesn't mean there won't ever be changes to how the EU works, in fact, one of the best things about Lisbon is that it makes it easier to make smaller incremental changes, while retaining our right to a Referendum, so in future we won't have to hammer out a massive new deal, but instead concentrate on smaller, easier gains. That's only if we say 'yes' to Lisbon, of course.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

ME <<<< but even if they wanted to lobby there governments ..... it would be to late once the treaty is ratafied wouldnt it ??

As above, this treaty has been nearly a decade in the making and several governments have come and gone in the mean time in (almost?) every EU country. None of the other countries voted for Nice, it's not the normal way things are done across Europe, even though we do it here thanks to our Constitution. Either way, it is for those people, not you or I, or the EU, to decide how they want to run their countries, and they seem happy enough with it.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

ME <<<<<<<<<< will we be voting on the exact same treaty word for word with no changes or will there me more to it because of the promises ??? if i was to vote yes ild want the promises set in concrete and not just some word of mouth half hearted effort ........... if the promises are to become legal would the also not require ratification by other governments ......... what ermmm id they decided to refuse after we vote yes ................. could we have a guarantee of a third vote based on the fact we didnt get out
promises ??

The promises are legally binding as separate international treaties, with the same force under international law as Lisbon, see here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

K-9 · 10-07-2009 06:03PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

i have genuine concerns and questions here about the treaty , im am entitled to my opinion wether it be right or wrong ......... sowcroft in all respect to him has been very good in explaining thing and i appreicate it very much , but the rest of u dont insult my intelligence by lieing to me if thats the approach for a yes vote then ull convince nobody .... perhaps u all should shuttt up and let some one like mentioned above actually give the real facts for a yes vote insteed of ruining ur own sides chances of convincing others to say yes

Well I explained to you the difference between an indirect and direct tax. There really are no doubts over that one. Everybody agrees on it, barring a few No campaigners.

darcy.jonny · 10-07-2009 06:08PM

thanks pope and sawcroft ...... i will defo be considering a yes vote as long as the promiese are ya know real guarantees etc. im 50 -50 on the issue , its almost to me like ........ we could do the right thing and vote yes but for the wrong reasons and we could do the wrong thing and vote no but for the right reasons ...........

mmmmmmmmmm i tell you one things for sure if we say no it better kill it off .......... but if we say yes and some1 like the brits etc reject it after all the headacke this is causing i think ild have to go to brussels on a killing rampage

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-07-2009 06:09PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

thanks pope and sawcroft ...... i will defo be considering a yes vote as long as the promiese are ya know real guarantees etc. im 50 -50 on the issue , its almost to me like ........ we could do the right thing and vote yes but for the wrong reasons and we could do the wrong thing and vote no but for the right reasons ...........

mmmmmmmmmm i tell you one things for sure if we say no it better kill it off .......... but if we say yes and some1 like the brits etc reject it after all the headacke this is causing i think ild have to go to brussels on a killing rampage

Yeah they're certainly real. On your last point... I know what you mean

darcy.jonny · 10-07-2009 06:15PM

on a lighter note ive never seen so many people vioce an opinion on politics as much as this issue had raised ................ its kind of refreshing to see people almost passionate about there sides of this , weather your a yes man or a no man u have to admit that its good to see our generation getting back intrested in politics ..................... just has me wondering maybe its been our lack of intresst over the past few years taht has helped the problems we have today ........... hopefully this intrest will keep up to the general ellection ................. then we can all join sides and do the country a favour and reelect brian cowan hes to funny to actually be real

darcy.jonny · 10-07-2009 06:22PM

the funniest thing off all to me id although im being informed well here ...

if enda kenny knocked on my door and gave me assurances or pat gilroy ild more than likely vote yes .

but id cowan banged on my door dgiving the same assurances ild first hit him over the head with some heavy object and vote no

maybe kenny and co should go to the E.U. and tell then to try and stop a rerun until that shamballs of a government is out of power .... or at very least tell fina fail not to campaign a yes vote in fact tell them to campaign a no vote and we will all say yes

Joe C · 10-07-2009 06:23PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The sections aren't really open to many different interpretations. The reason they are written in a legal style is so that they can only be open to 1 interpretation in a court of law. The treaty also contains various protocols, which you can see at the end of it. These are clarifying protocols, which are to be used by any court when adjudicating on the meaning of the treaty. They are there to remove any doubt as to what was meant by a particular section of the treaty. It is actually watertight, legally.

And what part of the initial treaty did the ECJ base their decision in Van Gend en Loos on ?

Was there a section on the supremacy of European Law in the 60's or did the ECJ just pull that one out of thin air ?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-07-2009 06:26PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

the funniest thing off all to me id although im being informed well here ...

if enda kenny knocked on my door and gave me assurances or pat gilroy ild more than likely vote yes .

but id cowan banged on my door dgiving the same assurances ild first hit him over the head with some heavy object and vote no

maybe kenny and co should go to the E.U. and tell then to try and stop a rerun until that shamballs of a government is out of power .... or at very least tell fina fail not to campaign a yes vote in fact tell them to campaign a no vote and we will all say yes

Yeah the treaty would have a much better chance of passing if FF were out of government.

Look at it this way though, FF will be gone within 3 years no matter what, and that's when FG and Labour take over. FG and Labour do want Lisbon to pass, and they are the ones who will be doing the deals very soon, so they are very much calling for a 'yes'.

I only wish Cowen had the integrity to resign after the Euro & Local Elections, so we could have a strong mandated FG and Labour government for the Referendum, but unfortunately we don't. I'm still voting 'yes' based on the merits of the treaty though, and not because Brian Cowen, or anyone else, wants me to.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-07-2009 06:31PM

Joe C wrote: »

And what part of the initial treaty did the ECJ base their decision in Van Gend en Loos on ?

Was there a section on the supremacy of European Law in the 60's or did the ECJ just pull that one out of thin air ?

Was that judgement based on bad interpretation of a treaty article, one which was never intended? Can you please provide the English article and the judgement, as I'm not familiar with the case, thanks?

Are you disagreeing that Treaties are worded using legal language to avoid misinterpretation, or are you asserting that Treaties are worded using legal language to encourage multiple interpretations?

Joe C · 11-07-2009 01:50AM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Was that judgement based on bad interpretation of a treaty article, one which was never intended? Can you please provide the English article and the judgement, as I'm not familiar with the case, thanks?

Are you disagreeing that Treaties are worded using legal language to avoid misinterpretation, or are you asserting that Treaties are worded using legal language to encourage multiple interpretations?

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Van+Gend+en+Loos+

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm just saying you're not worth listening to. All legal language is open to interpretation.

If you've never even heard of Van Gend en Loos then your knowledge of the Treaties is a lot less than you're letting on.

If you haven't already guessed, the ECJ plucked the notion of the supremacy of European law out of the air. It wasn't contained in any Treaty at the time. However, it was contained in our vote to join the EU almost ten years later.

So what I'm saying is, what is to stop them ignoring the Treaty in future ?

There isn't a single reason why anyone should vote yes on this Treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 11-07-2009 01:59AM

Joe C wrote: »

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Van+Gend+en+Loos+

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm just saying you're not worth listening to. All legal language is open to interpretation.

If you've never even heard of Van Gend en Loos then your knowledge of the Treaties is a lot less than you're letting on.

If you haven't already guessed, the ECJ plucked the notion of the supremacy of European law out of the air. It wasn't contained in any Treaty at the time. However, it was contained in our vote to join the EU almost ten years later.

So what I'm saying is, what is to stop them ignoring the Treaty in future ?

There isn't a single reason why anyone should vote yes on this Treaty.

So it wasn't an interpretation, it was 'plucked out of the air' as you say. Therefore not relevant to the point about interpretation of the language.

All language is subject to interpretation, but treaties are worded to avoid many interpretations as much as possible. I was merely responding to the original question which was asking about the treaty language being open to many interpretations, which I don't believe it is.

I've never claimed to be an expert on anything, I'm just an interested citizen, giving my opinions, and am always open to correction.

You many not have a reason to vote 'yes' to the treaty, but I do, thanks.

Scofflaw · 11-07-2009 02:16AM

Joe C wrote: »

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Van+Gend+en+Loos+

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm just saying you're not worth listening to. All legal language is open to interpretation.

If you've never even heard of Van Gend en Loos then your knowledge of the Treaties is a lot less than you're letting on.

If you haven't already guessed, the ECJ plucked the notion of the supremacy of European law out of the air. It wasn't contained in any Treaty at the time. However, it was contained in our vote to join the EU almost ten years later.

So what I'm saying is, what is to stop them ignoring the Treaty in future ?

There isn't a single reason why anyone should vote yes on this Treaty.

In fact, what the case established was the principle of direct effect - that individuals were entitled to take cases based on the Treaties, where the Dutch government claimed that only the member states could take such cases:

The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the community.

Costa vs ENEL is the case that first established the principle of the primacy of European law.

Neither direct effect nor the primacy of EU law are explicitly in the treaties, but neither are they "plucked out of the air". Both principles are rational ramifications of the very existence of the European project, and of the principles established in the treaties. That is why both cases occurred very early in the history of the project.

That the treaties are open to interpretation in courts that might not originally be expected is not a unique or novel feature of the treaties - it is a perfectly standard feature of all legal instruments, since, at the end of the day, they are written not by omniscient legal deities but by human beings. It cannot of itself constitute an argument against EU treaties any more than it constitutes an argument against the creation of law in general. Nor is it any more worthwhile to argue that the establishment of the exact legal ramifications of a piece of law on a case by case basis is itself a bad thing, since that is the foundation of our legal system.

In the case of national law, an Act with unexpected and unintended legal ramifications can be amended afterwards - and the same is true for the EU treaties. If it were not generally acceptable to the EU member states that the European law has direct effect and legal primacy, then those features could have been curtailed by the member states at any subsequent treaty.

A moment's thought is all that's required to understand the necessity of the primacy of European law - where joint decisions have been made through Europe by the member states, the member states must be practically bound by those decisions, which they would not be if it were possible to override the joint decision with a national law. The principle has never been challenged by any member state, although the exact detail of applicability is still being established by cases.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan · 11-07-2009 04:27PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

"Ireland would be in a dreadful situation. All the other countries would be wondering what the point of dealing with Ireland would be at all since there would be no assurance that any agreement would be approved by the electorate. True we could not be thrown out of the EU, but it could come to a situation where we would voluntarily leave rather than continue to block any EU changes."

that is a load of crap and scare mongering for a yes vote .... i want the facts on y i should vote yes and this boils my blood more than anything .

I stand by this. I'm not scaremongering. You need to put yourself in the shoes of future Irish politicans, trying to negotiate something different to a failed Lisbon, while believing as they seem to that Lisbon was a good deal.

Then you need to put yourself in the shoes of a French/German/UK/Latvian/Greek politican dealing directly with an Irish politican knowing that this person cannot be relied on to sign up to any agreement. It makes the Irish guy very very weak.

I understand sort of why it makes you angry. You want to option to say no, and sort out the issues that you may have. However if the vote is no, it's going to be very difficult to make any changes.

I'm not telling you that we will be treated badly. I'm asking the simple question, how will we and the EU move forward?

darcy.jonny wrote: »

the eu has worked fine up until now nobody has ever had to voluntarily leave it . how would ireland be in a dreadful situation ????????????

No one has left, true, but we have never been in a situation where all forward progress was halted, as would be the case after a Lisbon failure. We can as I said block everything, but can that really continue indefinitely?

darcy.jonny wrote: »

id there is a no vote here cameron would probably for his own self would run a vote on this and get a no and kill it off completely .

As I've mentioned before if we vote no it's unlikely the UK would bother with a vote. What would be the point? Ireland would take the blame for the problem, even if as you rightly say the UK might have voted no.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

and why the fuvk should there ever be in any democratic state assurances on any agreement being aproved ..... think in all this ur forgeting who the hell runs this government who the hell runs the governments of the other 27 states and who the hell runs the E.U. ............ WE THE PEOPLE ...... and if that was ever to change then its not democoratic one bit , and why the hell would i want to be part of a new EU that wont deal with us because we could possibly reject the treaty .........

Please don't curse. I am trying to respond reasonably to your postings.

It's true there is never a complete assurance that an agreement signed by a government will be ratified. That's why there is a ratification process across all the states. For the others this is through parliament, and for us through referendum. If this fails in a state it shows the goverment to be weak and possibly not worth negotiating with. We the people elected that government. Logically therefore we would elect an alternative government with a different viewpoint to negotiate a different treaty, but we won't. We will elect a FG/Labour government who want Lisbon also. If we had elected anti-Lisbon candidates in the recent MEP elections then a no vote would be easier to deal with. The other states could try to come to terms with what they wanted. However we didn't do that. We elected the same pro-Lisbon group.

We the people have democratic rights but also responsibilities. If we can't be consistent in how we vote then we will never make any progress on any EU issues. We will appear like Gary in the wheelchair on Little Britain asking for something difficult, our MEPs asked for Lisbon, then saying no, don't want it, then re-electing the same people and saying no again. We could say no to an EU treaty but we must then elect a government that represents what we find wrong with it. It we can't then how can any treaty be agreed?

And finally, I understand perhaps you would like the government to be closer to you while negotiating such treaties, but that's difficult to do. It's impossible to get hundreds of thousands of people directly involved in such negotiations. Quite apart from getting people interested enough, such deals always involve give and take. We would find it hard to negotiate if the others states knew exactly what we would accept before we arrived at a meeting, which would be the case if for example we were having constant votes on positions on certain aspects.

Ix

Scofflaw · 11-07-2009 04:43PM

In fact, Greenland left.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan · 11-07-2009 04:52PM

darcy.jonny wrote: »

mmmmmmmmmm i tell you one things for sure if we say no it better kill it off .......... but if we say yes and some1 like the brits etc reject it after all the headacke this is causing i think ild have to go to brussels on a killing rampage

If somehow they do vote and say no after we say yes, we'll just have to live with it and you will have to smile about it since that's what we will hope the other states will do if we say no. Lisbon will be dead and something else will emerge in a few years. However it will be easier to pick up the pieces because it's a good bet that any new treaty would not go to a vote in Britain again.

The main point is that if Lisbon passes progress will continue and you can talk to your MEPs about whatever you have an issue with and then that can possibly make it into the next treaty. If Lisbon dies there will be no progress and the EU is certainly not perfect in it's current state.

jabbertalky · 11-07-2009 06:43PM

Reason number 14 is that we voted already and we shouldn't have to vote again! We have to protect Irish democracy, to hell with the Germans thinking they can tell us what to do.

P. Breathnach · 11-07-2009 08:12PM

jabbertalky wrote: »

Reason number 14 is that we voted already and we shouldn't have to vote again! We have to protect Irish democracy, to hell with the Germans thinking they can tell us what to do.

And what is undemocratic about having a vote? "Vote no because this referendum isn't democratic" doesn't make a good slogan.

Can you back up your point about the Germans thinking they can tell us what to do?

RandomName2 · 11-07-2009 09:57PM

K-9 wrote: »

4. Would amend the existing treaties to give the EU exclusive power as regards rules on foreign direct investment (Arts.206-7 TFEU) and give the Court of Justice the power to order the harmonisation of national indirect taxes if it decides that this causes a “distortion of competition” in the market (Art.113 TFEU). These changes could undermine our 12.5% corporation profits tax, which is the principal attraction of Ireland for foreign business.

LOL. Somebody doesn't know what an indirect tax is.

Even harmonisation of indirect tax is a pretty damn big step :eek:

Suppose it would stop cross border smuggling though...

13 Critical Lisbon Treaty Facts

Comments