13 Critical Lisbon Treaty Facts

granite man

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=991

What I'd like to know is why the govt and opposition are so keen for this to be passed? Is there a higher power involved making them act like lapdogs or do they just fancy an even easier life posing as politicians while E.U. central runs Ireland. Or maybe they've been too busy listening to the poormouth bankers to actually RESEARCH what they're trying to get us to sign up to.
Something tells me they are very aware, like they were aware of the financial crash. But as in the report above, they don't want us to know.
WHY?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks for that, but you could at least make up some new lies.

granite man

You wouldn't be much of a reader then?

K-9

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.

PopeBuckfastXVI

granite man wrote: »

You wouldn't be much of a reader then?

I could bat that right back at ya... most of those facts myths have been thoroughly debunked in this very forum...

granite man

K9, I'd imagine most people don't know what indirect tax is. You're going away from the arguement that this is a very dangerous treaty, is very difficult to understand, is undemocratic and definately not in the European peoples best interests. Unless you fancy a go at the old totalitarian state thing. I just don't fancy it myself.

skearon

granite man wrote: »

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=991

What I'd like to know is why the govt and opposition are so keen for this to be passed? Is there a higher power involved making them act like lapdogs or do they just fancy an even easier life posing as politicians while E.U. central runs Ireland. Or maybe they've been too busy listening to the poormouth bankers to actually RESEARCH what they're trying to get us to sign up to.
Something tells me they are very aware, like they were aware of the financial crash. But as in the report above, they don't want us to know.
WHY?

The so called 'facts' are written by Anthony Coughlan, the man who has opposed every EU treaty and has been wrong every single time.

All political parties, by the Shinners who's Mary Lou was defeated, support Lisbon, as do all groups respresenting employees, businesses, farmers etc etc etc

Govt and opposition parties are doing that they are supposed to - acting in the best interests of the country.

Scofflaw

granite man wrote: »

K9, I'd imagine most people don't know what indirect tax is. You're going away from the arguement that this is a very dangerous treaty, is very difficult to understand, is undemocratic and definately not in the European peoples best interests. Unless you fancy a go at the old totalitarian state thing. I just don't fancy it myself.

He's making the point that those 13 Critical Lisbon "Facts" contain at least one immediately identifiable "fact" that is very simple to understand and entirely false - corporation tax is not an indirect tax. All you're doing by pointing out that "most people don't know what indirect tax is" is highlighting the way sites like wiseupjournal are trading on exactly that kind of lack of knowledge. They're lying because they know most people don't know any better, and not understanding the details immediately, will just take away the impression that Lisbon would allow the EU to interfere with our taxes.

Now, I don't know about you, but in my book things that are demonstrably false are not facts, and people who trade on public ignorance to promote lies aren't democrats.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

granite man wrote: »

K9, I'd imagine most people don't know what indirect tax is. You're going away from the arguement that this is a very dangerous treaty, is very difficult to understand, is undemocratic and definately not in the European peoples best interests. Unless you fancy a go at the old totalitarian state thing. I just don't fancy it myself.

You've linked a god-damn conspiracy theory website! Anyone who believes anything on wiseupjournal should be brought out and flogged.

K-9

granite man wrote: »

K9, I'd imagine most people don't know what indirect tax is. You're going away from the arguement that this is a very dangerous treaty, is very difficult to understand, is undemocratic and definately not in the European peoples best interests. Unless you fancy a go at the old totalitarian state thing. I just don't fancy it myself.

An indirect tax is usually on spending or consumption. VAT and VRT being good examples. Direct taxes are on income, such as Income tax and Corporation tax.

Seeing as I mentioned VRT, has it been changed here yet?

granite man

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I could bat that right back at ya... most of those facts myths have been thoroughly debunked in this very forum...

If I was as sure as you I'd vote yes. Unfortunately there appear to be more downsides than up's and for all the debunking in the world I just don't trust or agree with the treaty itself.

oscarBravo

granite man wrote: »

...for all the debunking in the world I just don't trust or agree with the treaty itself.

"To hell with logic and reason, I'm going with my gut on this one!"

Hitman Actual

granite man wrote: »

If I was as sure as you I'd vote yes. Unfortunately there appear to be more downsides than up's and for all the debunking in the world I just don't trust or agree with the treaty itself.

If you're going to wiseupjournal for your information, you have no hope of ever coming to an informed decision.

Why not start with the DFA white-paper in the Sticky?

K-9

granite man wrote: »

If I was as sure as you I'd vote yes. Unfortunately there appear to be more downsides than up's and for all the debunking in the world I just don't trust or agree with the treaty itself.

OK, most of those points, if not all, have been debunked. So basically you're saying your thread and link means nothing, because even if it's complete bull, you'll vote No anyway.

OK..................................

At least you're honest.

PopeBuckfastXVI

granite man wrote: »

If I was as sure as you I'd vote yes. Unfortunately there appear to be more downsides than up's and for all the debunking in the world I just don't trust or agree with the treaty itself.

Well get yourself sure granite man! As has been mentioned start with the DFA white paper stickied at the top of the EU forum, plain english and supposedly explains the treaty quite well (I haven't read it myself, being pretty familiar with the Treaty). After that you could delve into the consolidated versions of the TEU and TFEU for yourself (it's actually quite readable), if you've any questions the people on this forum will be more than happy to answer them for you.

I firmly believe that the more someone finds out about what actually is and actually isn't in the treaty, the more likely they will be to vote yes, if they don't have ideological reasons for voting no.

BlitzKrieg

.Would copperfasten the Laval and related judgements of the EU Court of Justice, which put the competition rules of the EU market above the rights of Trade Unions to enforce pay standards higher than the minimum wage for migrant workers. At the same time Lisbon would give the EU full control of immigration policy (Art.79 TFEU).

on number 2 the laval issue. Lisbon has no effect on that as the directive that affects it has already been established and put in effect, regardless of Lisbon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolkestein_directive

and as far as article 79 goes

5. This Article shall not affect the right of Member States to determine volumes of admission of
third-country nationals coming from third countries to their territory in order to seek work, whether
employed or self-employed.

so that brings it from 13 to 12.

who wants the next one?

Scofflaw

This is a fine old chestnut:

5. Would abolish our present right to “propose” and decide who Ireland’s Commissioner is , by replacing it with a right to make “suggestions” only, leaving it up to the incoming Commission President to decide (Art.17.7 TEU). Our No vote last year secured us a commitment to a permanent Commissioner, but what is the point of every EU State continuing to have its own Commissioner post-Lisbon when it can no longer decide who that Commissioner will be?

What the Article says is:

The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it proposes for appointment as members of the Commission. They shall be selected, on the basis of the suggestions made by Member States, in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 3, second subparagraph, and paragraph 5, second subparagraph.

The current article says:

The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.

So we move from "proposals" to "suggestions", and this is apparently the loss of the right to "decide who our Commissioner will be". However, we don't decide who the Commissioner is, and never have, except by virtue of only proposing one name and having that name accepted by the Parliament. As far as I know, we've never proposed two names.

Let's look for a practical difference:

1. Nice. We 'propose' a single person for Commissioner - say Pat Cox. The Parliament has no difficulties with that, and our 'proposed' Commissioner is accepted.

2. Lisbon. We 'suggest' a single person for Commissioner - say Pat Cox. The Parliament has no difficulties with that, and our 'suggested' Commissioner is accepted.

and

1. Nice. We 'propose' a single person for Commissioner - say Declan Ganley. The Parliament refuses, and our 'proposed' Commissioner is rejected.

2. Lisbon. We 'suggest' a single person for Commissioner- say Declan Ganley. The Parliament refuses, and our 'suggested' Commissioner is rejected.

Excitingly different!

So what has changed, for the wording to change? The answer looks to me like what's being clarified and strengthened is this:

paragraph 3, second subparagraph wrote:

The members of the Commission shall be chosen on the ground of their general competence and European commitment from persons whose independence is beyond doubt.

which is clarified and strengthened - and more importantly, this:

paragraph 5, second subparagraph wrote:

The members of the Commission shall be chosen from among the nationals of the Member States on the basis of a system of strictly equal rotation between the Member States, reflecting the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States. This system shall be established unanimously by the European Council in accordance with Article 244 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The change appears to have been made because of the system of rotating Commissioners. The message that is being strengthened there is that Commissioners are not national representatives - a reassurance and reiteration that countries who were (under the original Lisbon rotating Commission) 'away from the table' are not missing out.

Final canard - the suggestion has been made by some more excitable commentators that the change means that people other than those put forward by the member states could be chosen. Were that the case, the treaty would have to stipulate who else could put forward suggested Commissioners. There is no statement allowing anyone other than the member states to put forward Commissioner candidates, nor are any of the member states that negotiated the treaty likely to suggest such a thing - they'd have negotiated the right to put forward Commissioner candidates out of their own hands!

cordially,
Scofflaw

darcy.jonny

im absolutely sure that there is cases for a yes vote and cases for a no vote ................ and im sure there is no real conspirsy as there are good point for and against .................

i voted no got my reasons .......... i have to say i may have voted yes this time around but these new promises that we have , and if they arnt legal and mean nothing ?? if it is the case why rerun lisbon on false pretenceses and get the promises made legal first

or just a wild though how about we dely the vote or vote no again and let the bits deal with this problem , i think we can all agree weather yes or no voters this is a burden that had been put upon a very small population ....... let the brits deal with this one .

for me if smeone else was aloud vote and they voted yes i would be satasfied with that and would accept the treaty ........ u can say how stupid that is blah blah ..... i dont think there is anything wrong with wanting others to have a vote .

Scofflaw

darcy.jonny wrote: »

im absolutely sure that there is cases for a yes vote and cases for a no vote ................ and im sure there is no real conspirsy as there are good point for and against .................

i voted no got my reasons .......... i have to say i may have voted yes this time around but these new promises that we have , and if they arnt legal and mean nothing ?? if it is the case why rerun lisbon on false pretenceses and get the promises made legal first

or just a wild though how about we dely the vote or vote no again and let the bits deal with this problem , i think we can all agree weather yes or no voters this is a burden that had been put upon a very small population ....... let the brits deal with this one .

for me if smeone else was aloud vote and they voted yes i would be satasfied with that and would accept the treaty ........ u can say how stupid that is blah blah ..... i dont think there is anything wrong with wanting others to have a vote .

Then I'd respectfully suggest that you campaign for the use of referendums in other member states. Voting No to Lisbon will not change how the other member states ratify treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

darcy.jonny

sowcroft if this treaty is rejected here then it kills the treaty dosnt it ???

what if the reason for a no vote was "we want the other states to have a say " how would the eu respond to that .

i respect your view sowcroft and ur knowledge of the treaty , which is far more than what mine is , if we vote yes and for arguement sake the uk do vote on the treaty and reject it which i have a feeling the will (just on the basis of the british mentality towards europe , i mean bnp getting seats in the last election !)

if they vote no ild have to imagine the treaty would be killed there and then wouldnt it ?? and ild have serious doubts a british government would have a rerun ... so if i was to be right is all this topicing and debating some what pointless

i still dont like how the irish government came out and gave us the promises on the new vote , but they do seem a bit iffy now

maybe the government would be better offf waiting on a general election first and when some else gets in they might just might be able to have an proper referendum ....... id nothing else would anyone disagee with me that fina fail has already made a balls of this treaty the first time around , and will more than likely balls this up the second time around ..............

netron

agree with the previous poster. the timing is awful for the Yes camp.

would be FAR better politically if there was a general election first, and THEN a new referendum.

if Cowen hangs on till October 2nd, and the unemployment rate keeps rising, then the Yes camp have to recognise that a substantial proportion of the No vote will be because of pissed off voters, rather than the substance of the Lisbon Treaty.

darcy.jonny

netron wrote: »

agree with the previous poster. the timing is awful for the Yes camp.

would be FAR better politically if there was a general election first, and THEN a new referendum.

if Cowen hangs on till October 2nd, and the unemployment rate keeps rising, then the Yes camp have to recognise that a substantial proportion of the No vote will be because of pissed off voters, rather than the substance of the Lisbon Treaty.

and unfortunatly u are right , and it shouldnt be .... as i said im gonna cast a no for two reasons , no one else gets a vote , and the bloody thing is wraped up in so much legal jargon its crazy . i hope people vote no for the right reasons not to go against cowen and co. if that is the case lets wait for lisbon no.3

on the point of the legal jargon , im seen some very good points from the on side here and some very good points from the yes side ........ and a lot of arguements that make sence and some that are silly ........... y is this treaty not more copperfastened so it cannot be open to different interperations


jesus christ in some sections its like trying to make sence of something writen in brail with a wollen glove ......... and not knowing how to speek brail

netron

i must admit i did laugh at the eumatters.ie site

http://eumatters.ie/

they've got a jobs section
http://eumatters.ie/Ireland-and-the-EU/The-Economy.aspx

pumping up how important the EU is for jobs.

but with nearly 500,000 out of work, isnt it the case that the EU has been responsible for unemployment? you cant have it both ways. The ECB set interest rates that were applicable to Germany - and thus set them low- which created the sea of easy credit in Ireland - which led to the boom - and now the bust.

The EU seems to operate on the basis of - if things are going well, its all because of the EU - but things are going bad, just blame the national governments or "worldwide" factors.

Nice get-out clause for the EU Commission and the ECB who seem to operate in a world where they are never responsible for anything.

Scofflaw

darcy.jonny wrote: »

sowcroft if this treaty is rejected here then it kills the treaty dosnt it ???

It's pretty hard to conceive of it going forward, certainly. There's no precedent whatsoever for a third referendum on an EU treaty, either here or elsewhere.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

what if the reason for a no vote was "we want the other states to have a say " how would the eu respond to that .

Hmm...well, the main difficulty is making that the issue in question. Voting on Lisbon can't be made into a vote on that, because you'll never be able to tell who voted on that basis. You'd need an actual vote on the lines of "do you want other member states to hold referendums on EU treaties".

Which brings us to the second difficulty - neither the EU nor Ireland has the right to ask any such question, because the other member states are sovereign countries. It's not up to the EU (over which we do exert some control and have some rights) how the member states ratify the treaties, it's up to the member states, over whom we have no control and no rights whatsoever. How would we feel about a vote in, say, Italy (whose constitution expressly forbids using referendums to ratify international treaties), asking us to stop using referendums? We would tell them, more or less politely, to mind their own beeswax.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

i respect your view sowcroft and ur knowledge of the treaty , which is far more than what mine is , if we vote yes and for arguement sake the uk do vote on the treaty and reject it which i have a feeling the will (just on the basis of the british mentality towards europe , i mean bnp getting seats in the last election !)

if they vote no ild have to imagine the treaty would be killed there and then wouldnt it ?? and ild have serious doubts a british government would have a rerun ... so if i was to be right is all this topicing and debating some what pointless

As far as I can see, Cameron has been very careful to ensure that he will only hold such a referendum if the treaty is effectively dead already. There's a very slim outside chance at this stage that the UK government might fall before we've had our vote, but given we're heading into the summer recess there as well, it's not likely. Cameron has promised that if the Tories are elected before everybody else has ratified, then the UK will hold a referendum. Given the possible timescale of a UK election, the only probable case where not everybody has ratified is if we say No in October - in which case the Treaty is dead anyway. Cameron would merely be nailing shut the coffin.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

i still dont like how the irish government came out and gave us the promises on the new vote , but they do seem a bit iffy now

I don't think they're "iffy" in a legal sense at all. They're binding international agreements, deposited, as such agreements are, with the UN. That's a very similar level of legal force as the EU treaties themselves, and the agreements are to turn the 'guarantees' into protocols at the next accession treaty, which will give them exactly the same force as the treaties.

As to whether they're necessary - fundamentally, no. They don't change the Treaty, because they're legal statements that things that aren't in the Treaty aren't in the Treaty.

darcy.jonny wrote: »

maybe the government would be better offf waiting on a general election first and when some else gets in they might just might be able to have an proper referendum ....... id nothing else would anyone disagee with me that fina fail has already made a balls of this treaty the first time around , and will more than likely balls this up the second time around ..............

That's probably the case, but it's also true that if Fine Gael were elected, they'd hold a referendum. From a 'legitimacy' point of view, there's no real difference. FG would probably make a better fist of it in government, but FF really aren't going to go unless they lose a vote of confidence, which will only happen if either the Greens walk, or there's a couple more by-elections. Since the Greens probably won't come out either way on the referendum, there's no reason why either a No or a Yes would make them more likely to walk.

cordially,
Scofflaw

netron

darcy.jonny wrote: »

jesus christ in some sections its like trying to make sence of something writen in brail with a wollen glove ......... and not knowing how to speek brail

the charter of fundemental rights, which is part of Lisbon , is a lawyers goldmine.


have a read of it - it actually puts into "rights" what should be part of the normal political process.

for example , article 2
"No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."

what if you wanted to vote for a party that wanted to reintroduce the death penalty? well, that option is utterly removed from the political space if you vote for Lisbon.


Or what if you wanted to vote for party that wanted prisoners to work for their keep rather than lying around all day in cells?

Again, prevented by the charter:
"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."


Or what if you had a party , in the future, that wanted to prevent North Koreans or Iranians from gettings visas, because of security concerns?

Again, prevented:

"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

The above article also prevents security services from targetting Muslims, in order to prevent Islamic terrorism. Rather than focussing resources on specific groups due to profiling, that article prevents it. So, if you have a party that wants to stop that madness and tell the cops to stop wasteing time searching 80 year old grannies - well , the vote matters not. That article invalidates that party policy.

I could go on and on.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/unit/charte/index_en.html

netron

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's pretty hard to conceive of it going forward

You are actually Brian Cowen, and i claim my 5 euro. or pint. or whatever it is.

sorry. couldnt resist.

netron

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's probably the case, but it's also true that if Fine Gael were elected, they'd hold a referendum. From a 'legitimacy' point of view, there's no real difference. FG would probably make a better fist of it in government, but FF really aren't going to go unless they lose a vote of confidence, which will only happen if either the Greens walk, or there's a couple more by-elections. Since the Greens probably won't come out either way on the referendum, there's no reason why either a No or a Yes would make them more likely to walk.

cordially,
Scofflaw

actually i disagree with you there - a popularly elected FG taoiseach who ends up with a Yes vote, is far more "legitimate" than a yes vote under unelected Brian Cowen and his deeply unpopular party. thats just the way politics works and it is a pity that the EU hasnt given reservations about the referendum under Cowen.

I know technically they cannot seem to appear to interfere in national government, but it seems to be a big mistake on their part - but then again, maybe they dont really care.

My guess is that they dont really care about the political situation of Cowen. Which actually says a lot about what they think of Ireland.

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

the charter of fundemental rights, which is part of Lisbon , is a lawyers goldmine.

have a read of it - it actually puts into "rights" what should be part of the normal political process.

for example , article 2
"No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed."

what if you wanted to vote for a party that wanted to reintroduce the death penalty? well, that option is utterly removed from the political space if you vote for Lisbon.

That option was removed by the removal of the death penalty from our Constitution. We're also a signatory to an international treaty that precludes the use of the death penalty under any circumstances.

That doesn't stop you voting for a party that wants to reintroduce it - it's just that they have something of an uphill battle ahead of them.

However, the Charter binds neither national political parties nor national governments. It applies only to EU law, and could be used to prevent the Irish government reinstating the death penalty, because the EU has no competence over criminal law.

netron wrote: »

Or what if you wanted to vote for party that wanted prisoners to work for their keep rather than lying around all day in cells?

Again, prevented by the charter:
"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour."

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.

netron wrote: »

Or what if you had a party , in the future, that wanted to prevent North Koreans or Iranians from gettings visas, because of security concerns?

Again, prevented:

"Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited."

The above article also prevents security services from targetting Muslims, in order to prevent Islamic terrorism. Rather than focussing resources on specific groups due to profiling, that article prevents it. So, if you have a party that wants to stop that madness and tell the cops to stop wasteing time searching 80 year old grannies - well , the vote matters not. That article invalidates that party policy.

Again, the Charter doesn't prevent the Gardai from carrying out racial profiling, more's the pity, because the Charter only binds the EU.

Now the EU does have competence over immigration into the EU, but it can still discriminate quite happily against Koreans or Iranians, because, if you look, you'll see there's nothing about nationality in that bit. There is in the following paragraph:

2. Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

But that applies only to discrimination within the EU.

netron wrote: »

I could go on and on.

Evidently so - it might be worth understanding the scope of application of the Charter before you do, though. It applies only to the EU, only to EU legislation, and cannot be used to give the EU any wider competence. Your points above are almost entirely inaccurate, because they miss that basic point.

remonstratively,
Scofflaw

darcy.jonny

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

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 ?

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 .

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

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

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 ?

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

netron

"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?

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

netron

scofflaw - thanks for the replies.
very interesting to hear the other side of the debate - i appreciate it.

BlitzKrieg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.