the lisbon treaty- informed opinion

yekrab

as a law student and generally a person interested in the law, i just want to disclose some of my opinions on the lisbon treaty which is a legal document.

overview of treaty:
firstly, the truth is that the majority of people at least 75% dont have the slighest clue as to what the treaty is about. and i dare say that neither do a lot of the politicians, (including the MEPs), there was a study done on why the vote turned out the way it did, and it showed unequivocally that people just didnt know the rudimentary things about it.
im not trying to be condescending about the whole thing, but i have actually studied the treaty and european law in general and got an A2.
there was a lot of propaganda about the lisbon treaty, coming from Sinn Fein, inter alia, but especially the libertas racket. and when you know (and by that i mean me) that they have to resort to lies then its not very encouraging, or an incentive to believe any other words that come out of their uninformed mouths.
the general ignorance of people ive talked to is astoundingly unforgiveable, 'oh we'll have to join a european army, oh we wont have our say now that the commissioner will be gone, oh ireland's constitution will give up its sovereignty and jurisdiction etc etc)


the lisbon treaty:
in simple terms:

the commissioner belonged to a supranational body, the commission, which is and was concerned with the interest of europe as a whole not the individual domestic states, the role of the commissioner is like the government of the european union. it initiates the legislation.therefore the idea that ireland would by virtue of losing its commissioner be detrimental to itself contradicts with the purpose of the commission. (by the way, ireland under the criteria would not have lost the comissioner for ever, but rather a system of rotation would be in place which would mean that every signatory state of the EU would have to go without a commissioner every 5 out of `15 years. also it is noteworty that under the nice treaty this system was adopted but was to be implemented in the near future)
the number of commissioners has grown too large, 27, one for every state, it just isnt practical, work is too protracted and the difficulity is well encapsulated in the phrase 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. eventually something will have to change to rectify this, so even though the lisbon treaty 2 will keep the number of commissioners the way it is now, the issue has to be at sometime addressed in the future.

the army:
there is not one article in the entire lisbon treay will stipulates anything expressly or in some way implicit which would require ireland to join in a european army.

the irish constitution:
it would not demean the provisions of the irish constitution, im a fan of constitutional law, and quite frankly questions about conceding supremacy to the european union is a little late, because it was a precondition upon membership, if all the domestic states could enact provisions contrary to EC law, then it would undermine it and worse destroy the requisite element of uniformity within the EU. for anybody who wishes to be informed on the supremacy issue and its ramifications, look at the ENEL V COSTA case and the VAN GEN DEL lOOS case.

final remarks:
i dont have time to go through it all now, but any questions on it, on any aspect, or earnest and informed disagreements, then ill be glad to read and respond to it. no conjecture please.

King of Kings

fair play to you - your medal is in the post

I'll still be voting no - thanks.

Mena

I'd suggest posting here, where you'll get more informed debate, on both sides of the coin, and far less, if any, "your ma"'s.

twinytwo

King of Kings wrote: »

fair play to you - your medal is in the post

I'll still be voting no - thanks.

+1

PeakOutput

King of Kings wrote: »

I'll still be voting no - thanks.

surely there is a word for that..........cant think of what it is right now its stronger than stubborn though

engrish?

thanks dude, we could do with more of that. yes from me!

Quazzie

Its nice to see someone talking sense and getting to be bottom of it and not getting sucked away with their own agendas. Excellent post.



\sits back and waits for Biggins

ShooterSF

yekrab wrote: »

the commissioner belonged to a supranational body, the commission, which is and was concerned with the interest of europe as a whole not the individual domestic states, the role of the commissioner is like the government of the european union. it initiates the legislation.therefore the idea that ireland would by virtue of losing its commissioner be detrimental to itself contradicts with the purpose of the commission. (by the way, ireland under the criteria would not have lost the comissioner for ever, but rather a system of rotation would be in place which would mean that every signatory state of the EU would have to go without a commissioner every 5 out of `15 years. also it is noteworty that under the nice treaty this system was adopted but was to be implemented in the near future)
the number of commissioners has grown too large, 27, one for every state, it just isnt practical, work is too protracted and the difficulity is well encapsulated in the phrase 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. eventually something will have to change to rectify this, so even though the lisbon treaty 2 will keep the number of commissioners the way it is now, the issue has to be at sometime addressed in the future.

Whereas voting No would keep us under Nice which reduces the number of commissioners. Surely that's a positive for a no vote as far as you're concerned right?

Quazzie

If the Lisbon Treaty was implemented, how would that affect our input on things such as minimum wage specifically tailored to our economy? Would we have to adopt EU legislation on such a basic thing as that for example?

MIN2511

Not another Lisbon thread

Biggins

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Its nice to see someone talking sense and getting to be bottom of it and not getting sucked away with their own agendas. Excellent post.

\sits back and waits for Biggins

Heh? :eek:

Yis are all sheep - Bring back Dustin and vote for him!

weeder

tl;dr

ShooterSF

weeder wrote: »

tl;dr

I hope you dont see the lenght of the treaty so

el_tiddlero

yekrab wrote: »

firstly, the truth is that the majority of people at least 75% dont have the slighest clue as to what the treaty is about.

85% of statistics are made up Kent - 78% of people know that.

Mark200

I voted yes. I have no doubt that if people actually knew what the treaty was about then it would have passed. Not saying that everyone who voted no didn't have a clue. But most didn't

twinytwo

Mark200 wrote: »

I voted yes. I have no doubt that if people actually knew what the treaty was about then it would have passed. Not saying that everyone who voted no didn't have a clue. But most didn't

Its also fair to say that people who voted yes didnt have a clue either.. with responses like "the government wants us to"

King of Kings

King of Kings wrote: »

fair play to you - your medal is in the post

I'll still be voting no - thanks.

First reaction to a well written post. You pretty much showed the exact perosn who votes No.

Ignorant.

RaverRo808

Admitteldy most wouldnt have a clue about it but heres what I have summed up:it will copperfasten the EU more so,meaning that an EU-superstate is closer then ever meaning we will have to answer to the EU regulation rather then our own regulation,it threatens out nuetrality,Ireland will lose part of its representaion in the EU meaing we have less say in overall affairs and less time to bring up Irish issues,and with the way the government is f*cking us over at the moment,would you want to do them a favour and vote yes to this?,I think not,a few thousand euro for saying yes isnt worth selling out our principles

Sam Vimes

RaverRo808 wrote: »

it will copperfasten the EU more so,meaning that an EU-superstate is closer then ever meaning we will have to answer to the EU regulation rather then our own regulation

Conspiracy theory based on nothing

RaverRo808 wrote: »

,it threatens out nuetrality

No it doesn't

RaverRo808 wrote: »

,Ireland will lose part of its representaion in the EU

That was decided under nice and commissioners don't represent their countries, they just happen to be from certain countries. They look after eu interests

RaverRo808 wrote: »

meaing we have less say in overall affairs and less time to bring up Irish issues,and with the way the government is f*cking us over at the moment,would you want to do them a favour and vote yes to this?

The irish government has nothing to do with the treaty. Voting yes is not doing them a favour, it's doing yourself a favour

As you said, most people wouldn't have a clue and i'm afraid you're one of those people. It's not your fault though, you just believed the lies that you were fed through the campaign

Sam Vimes

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

If the Lisbon Treaty was implemented, how would that affect our input on things such as minimum wage specifically tailored to our economy? Would we have to adopt EU legislation on such a basic thing as that for example?

No

AckwelFoley

Great post op.

i voted yes and will vote yes again.

if for no other reason than those liars and murdering bastards sinn fein oppose it.

bikki

Still gonna vote no.

themadchef

Part of me thinks the government wanted it to fail first time round..then go to europe..promise us X Y and Z and we will get it through.

We vote like sheep, at least that's my opinion. I voted "no" the last time as i hadint a clue and the genral opinion was if youre not sure vote No.

Likely, this time i will know no more, i am already leaning towards yes though for no reason.

baaa baaa baaa

Biggins

Still voting "No".

Quazzie

Biggins wrote: »

Still voting "No".

Why?

Daftendirekt

RaverRo808 wrote: »

Ireland will lose part of its representaion in the EU meaing we have less say in overall affairs and less time to bring up Irish issues

:rolleyes:

Did you even read the OP? The Commissioners from each of the member states don't represent their own countries.

with the way the government is f*cking us over at the moment,would you want to do them a favour and vote yes to this?

Cutting off your nose to spite your face/Shitting on your own doorstep... however you want to look at it.

Biggins

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

Why?

Many, many reasons, too long winded (and boring) for AH but suffice to say one reason alone is that I've been on the inside of government political office and while the ideals of fair representation is a nice theory, in practise as far as it is at home and how well its working here(!), having another much further away body making decisions for us (that eventually will effect us all at a local level) is an even worse idea.

Sea Sharp

A lot of people voted no because they were afraid of Ireland losing its ability to rule itself.

Bearing in mind, the inept corrupt gobsh1tes that seem to be making their way to power in this country, Is giving more power to Europe really a bad thing?

thebigcheese22

Quazzie2002 wrote: »

If the Lisbon Treaty was implemented, how would that affect our input on things such as minimum wage specifically tailored to our economy? Would we have to adopt EU legislation on such a basic thing as that for example?

Ya I would have been voting No the first time but this was surely the biggest red herring in the campaign! I'm studyin the EU for Government, and its one of the first things they tell you - the Commission is responsible for the interests of the EU, not individual member states. Commissioners must promise they won't favour their own native country.

But as Biggins rightly says, these rules must be broken in real life, as all commisioners are mere humans. I still think its stupid to say we lose our representation tho

Anyways I'l prob not vote this time. There's too many fools on both sides! Mary Lou Witch Face vs. Brian Cowen The Pig-Face... and so on...

twinytwo

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

A lot of people voted no because they were afraid of Ireland losing its ability to rule itself.

Bearing in mind, the inept corrupt gobsh1tes that seem to be making their way to power in this country, Is giving more power to Europe really a bad thing?

Ya.. i would rather an irish gob****e than a french/german one

twinytwo

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Ya I would have been voting No the first time but this was surely the biggest red herring in the campaign! I'm studyin the EU for Government, and its one of the first things they tell you - the Commission is responsible for the interests of the EU, not individual member states. Commissioners must promise they won't favour their own native country.

But as Biggins rightly says, these rules must be broken in real life, as all commisioners are mere humans. I still think its stupid to say we lose our representation tho

Anyways I'l prob not vote this time. There's too many fools on both sides! Mary Lou Witch Face vs. Brian Cowen The Pig-Face... and so on...

This may be the case but as we know a promise is worth sweet f all in politices.... besides do you think anything that would affect say germany in a negitive way would actually happen??? not a hope mate. One would like to think that democracy rules but it dosent its whoever has the biggest pockets