10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

More links for you...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60626618&postcount=13
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055625875

The consolidated versions of the Treaties have been around since well before the first referendum AFAIK, and are pretty much the only version of the text we deal with in this forum.

It was released April 15th last year...

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

On further consideration I've edited the list slightly. The original 8th reason wasn't really that great a reason, it was good just not something very many people would base their vote on. So I replaced it with the citizens initiative, which I overlooked when I originally compiled the List and which has far more relevance to us as citizens.

Original wrote:

8. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

The Lisbon treaty merges the three pillars (EC, PJCC and CFSP) of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff. The EC’s (European Community) legal personality will be transferred to the merged EU enabling it to sign international treaties such as from the UN, WTO and CoE. The EC already has this ability; Lisbon just transfers this to the EU.

Replacement wrote:

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

I also merged 5a & 5b into just 5 to keep it well organised and presented.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

On further consideration I've edited the list slightly. The original 8th reason wasn't really that great a reason, it was good just not something very many people would base their vote on. So I replaced it with the citizens initiative, which I overlooked when I originally compiled the List and which has far more relevance to us as citizens.

I also merged 5a & 5b into just 5 to keep it well organised and presented.

Aw - I rather liked "simplifies the EU".

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

sink wrote: »

1. Increase of power to the European ParliamentThe European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU

I have mixed feelings on this. If co-decision were just about more of a say for the European Parliament, I would welcome it. The problem is that it's only one side of the coin. The other side of co-decision is that the relevant national-vetoes are abolished on the Council of Ministers. I would prefer a mechanism where the EP gets vetoes but the unanimity requirement remains on the Council of Ministers. The expansion of QMV that comes with co-decision cancels out the appeal of this aspect of Lisbon in my eyes.

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states.The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

I oppose this mechanism because it replaces the equality of representation in this post caused by the existing rotational system. The fact that Qualified Majority Voting will be used to 'elect' the President means that small countries like Ireland won't get as much of a look in as before - if ever. The QMV blocking minority is 4 states including over 35% of the EU's population. This effectively allows 4 Big States to block any candidate they don't like. Imho, this is just another example of the powergrab by the Big States in this Treaty. As for pushing "national interests", where is your evidence that this doesn't happen already?Commissioners are also supposed to only represent EU interests yet the evidence suggests they also defend national interests on issues like tax-harmonisation (e.g. McCreevy publicly opposed to it and against Commissioner Kovacs CCCTB tax-base plan)

3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.

I actually agree that this is a good thing. But did you know that in Ancien Regime France, the common people were also allowed to enter the Palace of Versailles to watch the king? Did that make Ancien Regime France democratic? I think not. They should be doing this anyway.

4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.

Again this is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. The whip-system will ensure that the Dail's right to object to EU legislation isn't actually used. Our Opposition is just as slavishly pro-EU as FF so what makes you think they will hold the Government to account on this question? The additional information is welcome, but national-parliaments still won't have the power to force the EU to withdraw proposed EU legislation. They can object - and the Commission will have to either proceed with the legislation, amend it or withdraw it. But the national-parliament's 'powers' are purely advisory. As such, I don't regard them as a power, any more than someone from the Middle Ages petitioning a king was a power. :roll:

5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing)

Again, a review doesn't guarantee any change whatsoever in the legislative proposal. It's a non-binding petition. Furthermore, it will be for the ECJ to determine "if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own.". This is an EU Treaty and the ECJ has the job of interpreting EU Treaties. I'll address your other points later. I would also point to a similar measure in the US Constitution, which has not, in practice, impeded the growth of the power of the Federal government:

Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

The Citizens Petition is useless to me because it is non-binding. As with the 'powers' of national parliaments, it cannot force the EU to do anything legislatively, whether in terms of initiation or obstruction of legislation. The EU elites responded to the no votes in France and Holland by bringing back 95% of the EU Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty. They refused to amend the Lisbon Treaty in response to our no vote. So I ask this question: what makes you so sure that an EU that flouted the wishes of 20 million no voters between those 3 countries will not do the same to the wishes of 1 million petitioners? This is worse than useless in my opinion. There is already a European Parliament petitions-committee anyway.

9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]

For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.

Not only will EU legislation have to be in compliance with the Charter, but in my opinion so too will national-legislation, effectively turning the ECJ into a Federal Supreme Court in all but name. Article 51 of the Charter states that the Charter applies to member states when they 'implementing European law'. But Article 6 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon gives the Charter the "same legal value as the Treaties" And who interprets the Treaties? The ECJ. So the question then is this: what does Article 51 of the Charter mean when it talks about "implementing European law". Is it merely referring to legislative instruments enamating from Brussels or the EU institutions, or does it include the text of the Charter itself? If it includes the latter, then that opens a Pandora's Box in terms of legal-challenges and judicial-activism in the ECJ, encompassing challenges on a vast area of codification of human rights contained in the Charter. It has to be asked: if the EU has no competence in asylum policy, why do Articles 18 and 19 sign the EU up to the UN Refugee Convention and state that "collective expulsions are forbidden", respectively? What are the implications of Article 15 ('everyone has the right to work in a freely chosen occupation') for the Irish ban on asylum-seekers working? I can forsee ad hoc challenges to Irish asylum and immigration law in the ECJ on the basis of such Articles. Now the Government has stated we have an optout from Justice and Home Affairs. However, what they are not keen to remind us of is that the referendum legislation explicitly allows them to surrender the optout Protocol on Justice and Home Affairs, which would have the effect of forcing Ireland into the EU common immigration-policy, at a stroke increasing the jurisdiction of the ECJ in this area, as cases would arise arguing Ireland is in violation of it:

"28th wrote:

"7° The State may exercise the options or discretions—i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Unionrelating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated
25 into the framework of the European Union annexed to that
treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (formerly known as the Treaty
establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom,
security and justice, so annexed, including the option that
the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in whole or in part, cease to
apply to the State,

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation

This poses questions surrounding nuclear-power being forced on unwilling member states like Ireland. Another reason to vote no.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Not only will EU legislation have to be in compliance with the Charter, but in my opinion so too will national-legislation, effectively turning the ECJ into a Federal Supreme Court in all but name.

Set against your opinion is the explicit terminology of the treaties stating that that is not the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Set against your opinion is the explicit terminology of the treaties stating that that is not the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It depends on how the ECJ interprets the reference to 'EU law' in Article 51 of the Charter. The ECJ has, in the past, struck down national legislation on the basis of supposed contravention of EU legislation e.g. Mangold ruling. I am concerned that the same could happen to Irish law judged by the ECJ to be in contravention of the Charter.

If such concerns are without foundation, then tell me why Gerard Hogan SC, one ofthe most eminent constitutional-lawyers in the country, warned the Forum on Europe that the Charter could "eclipse" the Supreme Court?

Gerard Hogan said the Charter of Fundamental Rights could "eclipse" the Irish Supreme Court?

Irish Times wrote:

THE ROLE of national supreme courts and constitutional courts in the EU could, over time, be eclipsed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to a leading constitutional lawyer. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become enforceable under the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Gerard Hogan SC was speaking at a private conference of the Irish European Law Forum in UCD last January last.
At it he reiterated many of the issues he raised on previous occasions, including in The Irish Times, concerning the charter and its predecessor, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights.
He went on to say at the conference that much would depend on the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to key phrases in the new charter that related to the implementation of EU law.
The charter states the rights it enshrines are only enforceable by the courts when EU law is being implemented.
Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said.
He questioned the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall under the competence of EU legislation.
One example is the right to marry and found a family. He pointed out there is no EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation, so it is unclear why such a right should be stated, as it is only enforceable if EU law is being implemented.
The same could be said of many of the other rights in the charter, he said, including the rights of the child, the right to criminal due process and the right to healthcare, he said.
Mr Hogan stated the charter had many positive aspects, including that it created a proper legal basis for a challenge to the validity of EU legislation on human rights grounds, but still contained problematic aspects.
In particular, it was unclear as to when a state would be "implementing Union law" and when it would be implementing purely domestic law, given the transposition of EU directives into domestic law.
The "implementation of EU law" condition could also be triggered by accidental factors like nationality or travel, he said."..

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It depends on how the ECJ interprets the reference to 'EU law' in Article 51 of the Charter. The ECJ has, in the past, struck down national legislation on the basis of supposed contravention of EU legislation e.g. Mangold ruling. I am concerned that the same could happen to Irish law judged by the ECJ to be in contravention of the Charter.

The Charter specifically only applies to EU institutions, EU legislation, and national legislation implementing EU legislation. That doesn't leave scope for striking down national law on the basis of the Charter, which is the only piece of EU law so restricted.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If such concerns are without foundation, then tell me why Gerard Hogan SC, one ofthe most eminent constitutional-lawyers in the country, warned the Forum on Europe that the Charter could "eclipse" the Supreme Court?

Because his concerns are also without foundation, perhaps? You've a very bad habit of picking up the one opinion that agrees with you and taking it as gospel. How many other lawyers have expressed similar concerns? Did the German court, which was engaged in a root and branch analysis of the Treaty, express such a concern, or are we limited to off-the-cuff speculation by a lawyer giving a speech?

By the way, I might as well warn you that I have no time whatsoever for "arguments from authority". I had my fill of those arguing with Creationists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

This poses questions surrounding nuclear-power being forced on unwilling member states like Ireland.

You mean like Euratom has done?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean like Euratom has done?

The question is why would anyone "force" nuclear power on Ireland? Just for fun? Because they hate us?

amused,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

The Official Yes campaigns last referendum were pathetic, they relied on empty catch phrases from empty politicians who had lost public confidence long ago. The entire campaign was almost vacant of any mention of what was actually in the Treaty of Lisbon and why it is good; you know the real reasons for voting Yes! Due to this massive oversight and the utter contempt I have for the main political campaigns I decided to gather together the reasons I voted yes to Lisbon and will do so again next time. Here are my top 10.


1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]

4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]

5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]

6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]

7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]

I personally find 1. 3. 4. beneficial, 2. 6. 7. 9. 10. negative, 8. essentially a nonentity and am unsure about 5. Having said that, still the most convincing reasons to vote yes [although that's not saying much :rolleyes:]

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

I personally find 1. 3. 4. beneficial, 2. 6. 7. 9. 10. negative, 8. essentially a nonentity and am unsure about 5. Having said that, still the most convincing reasons to vote yes [although that's not saying much :rolleyes:]

It's all a question of taste really, I always maintained that one persons reason for 'yes' is anothers for 'no'.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

I personally find 1. 3. 4. beneficial, 2. 6. 7. 9. 10. negative, 8. essentially a nonentity and am unsure about 5. Having said that, still the most convincing reasons to vote yes [although that's not saying much :rolleyes:]

Well that's because we fundamentally disagree on the shape society should take. You seem to believe that there is a inherent danger in sharing sovereignty and I see it as the only way society can progress beyond it's tribal nature. You see pooling sovereignty as loosing power, I see it as gaining power. We can never reconcile those differences so we might as well agree to disagree.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

The question is why would anyone "force" nuclear power on Ireland? Just for fun? Because they hate us?

amused,
Scofflaw

his statement is very amusing @ Scofflaw and its also shortsighted (no surprises there eh)

Our contribution to euroatom means scientist and engineers get to learn skills

it also means access to new technologies and participation in building a fusion reactor (read! limitless very cheap and clean/green energy from water) and associated research

The purposes of Euratom are to create a specialist market for nuclear power and distribute it through the Community and to develop nuclear energy and sell surplus to non-Community States. Its major project is currently its participation in the international fusion reactor ITER

yet more reasons to vote YES

Macha

RandomName2 wrote: »

I personally find 1. 3. 4. beneficial, 2. 6. 7. 9. 10. negative, 8. essentially a nonentity and am unsure about 5. Having said that, still the most convincing reasons to vote yes [although that's not saying much :rolleyes:]

Can you explain why the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally binding is a negative for you?

funnyname

sink wrote: »

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

Regards,
Sink

The 1st one will more than likely be a war criminal so vote NO!

PopeBuckfastXVI

funnyname wrote: »

The 1st one will more than likely be a war criminal so vote NO!

Presuming you're referring to Tony Blair, what makes you think he will be Council President? Why is it 'more than likely' as opposed to possibly?

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

Well that's because we fundamentally disagree on the shape society should take. You seem to believe that there is a inherent danger in sharing sovereignty and I see it as the only way society can progress beyond it's tribal nature. You see pooling sovereignty as loosing power, I see it as gaining power. We can never reconcile those differences so we might as well agree to disagree.

Naturally I agree with citizens pooling soverignty within a national context. I do not believe in governments pooling their citizens' autonomy into the body of a suprastate on their citizens' behalf. There is a good reason for national borders - and although there are good rationals for imperialism, I do not feel that they outweigh the security granted by individual sovereignty.

A compromise is international alliances - a very poor option when a binary opposition of two separate alliances forms, where the individual autonomy of members of the alliance can be a liability by pulling members of their alliance into total warfare [e.g. Austria-Hungary and Serbia].

Another compromise is the pooling of resources as well as the alliance system; designed to deprive its members of key materials in the event of conflict. This arrangement, by itself, is quite rare [e.g. ECSC] and is generally incorporated instead into:

An ultimate solution wherein the individual members of the alliance have their capacity for autonomous decisions removed. Primarily this is done in terms of foreign relations, but it tends very quickly to spread into domestic policy [e.g. USA, USSR, EU]. In this arrangement sovereignty is subverted into a single body, both geographically and politically, whilst the former bodies which formed the autonomous governments are made into local administrative centres.

I personally do not believe that this last form of 'international' relations is appropriate in the EU due to the disparate nature of culture, religion, ethnicity, language, geography, history, governance, and power throughout European nations. Purely on a pragmatic basis.

RandomName2

taconnol wrote: »

Can you explain why the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally binding is a negative for you?

To the extent that it conforms with individual states' views of citizenship it is useless, to the extent that it doesn't conform, it subverts national law.

Moreover, what's the point in it? IF a member state has a messed up view of statehood, or deliberately victimises national minorities or engages in genocide, etc. it shouldn't be a member of the EU in the first place! Perhaps it is to curb Turkey upon its entering the EU - but if this is the case [and it well might not be] it would be further evidence of why it is not a great idea to allow Turkey to join.

But this is just my opinion.

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

To the extent that it conforms with individual states' views of citizenship it is useless, to the extent that it doesn't conform, it subverts national law.

Moreover, what's the point in it? IF a member state has a messed up view of statehood, or deliberately victimises national minorities or engages in genocide, etc. it shouldn't be a member of the EU in the first place! Perhaps it is to curb Turkey upon its entering the EU - but if this is the case [and it well might not be] it would be further evidence of why it is not a great idea to allow Turkey to join.

But this is just my opinion.

The CFR is NOT RELEVANT to individual states legislation, it's purpose is not to place controls on individual states nor is it capable of doing so. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before but you seem to keep forgetting.

The purpose of the CFR is to place restriction on EU legislation i.e. legislation passed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. It protects our fundamental rights from abuse by these institutions should they ever attempt to commit such. It in no way expands the areas of competence of these institutions nor does it affect the national legislation of individual member states.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

The CFR is NOT RELEVANT to individual states legislation, it's purpose is not to place controls on individual states nor is it capable of doing so. I'm pretty sure you've been told this before but you seem to keep forgetting.

The purpose of the CFR is to place restriction on EU legislation i.e. legislation passed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. It protects our fundamental rights from abuse by these institutions should they ever attempt to commit such. It in no way expands the areas of competence of these institutions nor does it affect the national legislation of individual member states.

So far, so good - but it is a highly eccentric manner to curb legislative authority [what, by defining how the EU views what a citizen is?].

It smells... bad. It smells like a defining of European Citizenship vis-a-vis the generation of autonomous European Statehood.

Maybe you are correct [hopefully you are]... but intuition says otherwise

sink

RandomName2 wrote: »

So far, so good - but it is a highly eccentric manner to curb legislative authority [what, by defining how the EU views what a citizen is?].

It smells... bad. It smells like a defining of European Citizenship vis-a-vis the generation of autonomous European Statehood.

Maybe you are correct [hopefully you are]... but intuition says otherwise

Well I'll take what's explicitly stated in the treaty over your sense of smell any day.

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

Naturally I agree with citizens pooling soverignty within a national context. I do not believe in governments pooling their citizens' autonomy into the body of a suprastate on their citizens' behalf.

I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Irish people agree. But of course, it’s somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, because the creation of an EU ‘superstate’ is not provided for in Lisbon.

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

I think you’ll find that the vast majority of Irish people agree. But of course, it’s somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, because the creation of an EU ‘superstate’ is not provided for in Lisbon.

not many of the arguments from the NO side have much to do with Lisbon

unfortunately it didn't stop the Joe Average believing them last year

Spiritoftheseventies

taconnol wrote: »

Can you explain why the Charter of Fundamental Rights becoming legally binding is a negative for you?

Is charter of human rights legally binding. If you are talking about the Abortion issue, was told this charter did not effect Lisbon as it operated outside its parameters.

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

Is charter of human rights legally binding. If you are talking about the Abortion issue, was told this charter did not effect Lisbon as it operated outside its parameters.

Can you clarify what you're saying there? The Charter is (or would/will be) legally binding, but has no relevance to abortion or any other nationally determined matters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

Can you clarify what you're saying there? The Charter is (or would/will be) legally binding, but has no relevance to abortion or any other nationally determined matters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

if i'm, the right to abortion may be included as a human right in the future. this might explain it better.
http://openeurope.org.uk/research/charteranalysis.pdf
from what i have been told this charter does not effect us as it operates outside the treaty. So as such our current abortion ban can not be changed by lisbon treaty. Is that correct?

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

if i'm, the right to abortion may be included as a human right in the future. this might explain it better.
http://openeurope.org.uk/research/charteranalysis.pdf
from what i have been told this charter does not effect us as it operates outside the treaty. So as such our current abortion ban can not be changed by lisbon treaty. Is that correct?

The right to abortion is highly unlikely to be included in the Charter ever, since a change to the Charter would require ratification, and there's a whole heap of EU countries that would never ratify such a right, either by referendum or through their parliaments.

Let's assume, though, the unlikely event of abortion being included in the Charter, and successfully ratified: still, the Charter only applies to EU competences - the legality of abortion is not within the competence of the EU to determine, and will not become so unless every member state agrees to make it one.

Let's further assume that the member states have, to the general amazement of all, decided to allow the determination of the legality of abortion to be an EU competence, and to erect it to the status of a human right under the Charter - still it's not relevant to Ireland, because of the protective protocol inserted at Maastricht, which states that nothing in the treaties or accompanying documents can overrule our Article 40.3.3. If Lisbon is passed, that protective protocol would be upgraded to include several other articles:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon attributing legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or in the provisions of that Treaty in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Article 40.3.1, 40.3.2 and 40.3.3, the protection of the family in Article 41 and the protection of the rights in respect of education in Articles 42 and 44.2.4 and 44.2.5 provided by the Constitution of Ireland.

In essence, as long as Ireland chooses to keep abortion illegal, there is nothing that any EU decision, document, treaty, or action can do to change that situation. For abortion to become a human right under the Charter, and for that to affect Ireland, we would need to repeal our Article 40.3.3 (or 40.3.1, 2, and 3 post-Lisbon), remove the protective protocol(s), ratify the relevant changes to the Charter, and ratify a treaty making abortion an EU competence.

A long, and extremely unlikely road. By the way, the Open Europe document you refer to is actually claiming that the Charter could be used to restrict abortion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

No worries. So which part of the charter is legally binding.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

No worries. So which part of the charter is legally binding.

All of it is legally binding on EU Law, and National Legislation which implements EU Law.

So, the EU couldn't bring in a law that carried a death sentence as punishment for breaking it, your government couldn't tack a death sentence onto an EU law when it's implementing it, but your government still could introduce it's own laws which would allow them to kill you, basically.

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

No worries. So which part of the charter is legally binding.

As PopeBuckfast says, all of it - but only on EU legislation.

cordially,
Scofflaw