10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

The way Article 51 of the Charter puts it is "Union law", not "EU legislation". In that context, it raises questions in my mind as to how broad the application of the Charter will be judged as being by the ECJ. For example, Article 6 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter shall have "the same legal-value as the Treaties". As such, while not constituting EU legislation as such, the Charter will constitute a body of EU law, in the same capacity as the Treaties do. And the Treaties with respect to the EU have an analogous relationship with EU legislation as national constitutions have with national law. And we all know that where national law is judged as being in contravention with national constitutions, the Supreme Court of the respective country can usually strike it down.

If the Charter has, as Article 6 TEU will state, "the same legal value as the Treaties", then that suggests an overriding aspect with respect to national law, at least with respect to Ireland. That is because both of Article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution at present, and the proposed 29.4.6 contained in the referendum legislation (28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009):

Article 29.4.10, Irish Constitution (now) wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

And the new wording under the Lisbon referendum:

28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009 wrote:

6° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, actsdone or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by—i the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy
Community, or institutions thereof,
ii the European Communities or European Union existing
immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon, or institutions thereof, or
iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
section, from having the force of law in the State.

Now, whenever the wording of the amendment in this respect is brought up, the yes side respond that such wording has been in the Constitution from Day 1 of EU/EEC membership. With some amendments, yes it has. But the context is completely different. When the scope of EU law was more limited, the practical effect of Article 29.4.10 was less invasive in terms of the potential for the protections in the Irish Constitution to be overridden by EU law and ECJ rulings interpretating EU law. Each time we transfer more sovereignty to the EU institutions, the effective meaning of this sort of wording in our Constitution changes, because the potential for it to result in a conflict with EU law that supersedes the Constitution grows. So this kind of wording in the Irish Constitution is relevant to this debate, despite what the yes side claim to the contrary.

Scofflaw

Union law, EU legislation. If anything, the former is more specific than the latter, but I certainly don't see that one can argue one's way from the bald statement that the Charter only applies to the EU institutions, Union law, and national law that implements Union law to what appears to be a theory of general applicability.

Nor can I see why the member states would write the Treaties so as to give the Charter the general applicability you claim for it, and I really don't see that your legal argument holds water at all. If the Charter cannot create new competences, and is not binding on the member states, then it cannot necessitate any actions on the part of Ireland except where Ireland is implementing Union law.

Like all 'easy to read' documents with legal force, the Charter will undoubtedly have interesting and unexpected side-effects, but applicability to domestic legislation would not seem to be one of them. There was a discussion, I recall, in the House of Lords, where their Lordships described the UK opt-out from the Charter as meaningless because entirely unnecessary. It was cited, as so often, by some No proponent or other who hadn't read further than the word "meaningless". Some snippets from the report:

5.57. The Charter's concluding horizontal articles set out the field of application, scope and interpretation of the Charter. Article 51(1) provides that the Charter is addressed to EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and to Member States when implementing EU law, a qualification which is absent from the terms of Article 6(1) itself. It also provides that the principle of subsidiarity is to be respected. Article 51(2) states that the Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union, nor does it establish or modify any Union powers or tasks.

5.58. Professor Steve Peers, speaking for Statewatch, and Jane Golding stressed the need for a link with Union law before the rights in the Charter would apply (QQ E106, E474). Dr Eve Sariyiannidou spelled out the position: the Charter may be used to challenge and ultimately strike down EU legislation which does not comply with its provisions, but it cannot be used to challenge non-compliant national legislation unless the legislation in question is implementing EU law (p G36).

5.59. Martin Howe QC referred to a "fear that the EU Charter would … spread out from the field of Union law across the board into unrelated fields of national law". This was not a concern that he shared (Q E284). Professor Peers was of the view that most criminal proceedings, for example, would not have a link with Union law, and therefore the Charter would not apply to them (Q E106).

5.60. It is clear from Article 51(1) of the Charter that it does not apply to situations involving purely domestic law. For the Charter to be directly relevant, there must be a link to Union law. It remains of course quite conceivable that national courts applying domestic law might, in some cases, find an analogy or some inspiration in EU law, but that would not be an unusual process.

Your concerns, it appears, are not shared by experts in the field, something you may or may not find comforting. Personally, I have read the Charter, can see that it is explicitly intended as a document that has legal force only within the limits of Union law, and find that such a view is very much the consensus view of relevant experts. It is undoubtedly the intention of the signatory member states of the treaties that it be so restricted, and the ECJ is legally bound to respect the intentions of the member states when interpreting the treaties. I don't, as a result, share your concerns about the Charter. In addition, I don't find any of the rights in the Charter obnoxious, and am aware that they have been considered guiding principles of Union law for the last decade, and will undoubtedly continue to be so whether Lisbon passes or not. Further, I'm aware that the European Trade Union Congress consider them a needed shield against future cases like Laval, or even a way of overturning such judgements. Again, depending on your political orientation, that may or may not be something you favour.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

5.59. Martin Howe QC referred to a "fear that the EU Charter would … spread out from the field of Union law across the board into unrelated fields of national law". This was not a concern that he shared (Q E284). Professor Peers was of the view that most criminal proceedings, for example, would not have a link with Union law, and therefore the Charter would not apply to them (Q E106).

That is not apparently the view of Gerard Hogan SC, possibly the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, who warns the Charter may "eclipse" the Supreme Court.:

Irish Times, 24/04/2008 wrote:

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: »

That is not apparently the view of Gerard Hogan SC, possibly the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert, who warns the Charter may "eclipse" the Supreme Court.:

Yes, you've cited that particular news-clipping before. I'll repeat what I said last time, which is that remarks by a single lawyer at an after-dinner speech is hardly persuasive. I prefer an in-depth analysis calling multiple expert witnesses to give their opinion to the House of Lords, myself.

Also, why only "possibly the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert"? Who has described him as this, other than you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

onq

Scofflaw wrote: »

... news-clipping... remarks by a single lawyer at an after-dinner speech is hardly persuasive...

You're scraping the barrel Scofflaw, when you have to line your arguments with comments like this.

ONQ

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, you've cited that particular news-clipping before. I'll repeat what I said last time, which is that remarks by a single lawyer at an after-dinner speech is hardly persuasive. I prefer an in-depth analysis calling multiple expert witnesses to give their opinion to the House of Lords, myself.

Also, why only "possibly the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert"? Who has described him as this, other than you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well Vincent Browne thinks he's eminent. And he clearly is:

Biography

Gerard Hogan BCL LLM (NUI) LLM (Penn), MA, Ph.D. (Dubl.), LLD (NUI) FTCD (1992), Senior Counsel. A practising barrister and a member of the Governing Council of UNIDROIT, he is currently Chairman of the Law Reporting Council of Ireland. He is a former member of the Constitution Review Group, Competition and Mergers Review Group and the Offences Against the State Acts Review Group. He is currently a member of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure and is a former member of the Competition Authority’s Advisory Panel. He is also a Judge of the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Tribunal. Gerard Hogan is the author of several books and numerous articles on topics including Irish constitutional law, administrative law, conflict of laws and European Community law. Dr. Hogan has also appeared in and argued many important cases in the High Court, Supreme Court, European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. He is the co-author (with Professor Gerry Whyte) of the 4th edition of Kellys’, The Irish Constitution (Dublin, 2004).

Professional Qualifications
Barrister-at-Law, the Honorable Society of the King’s Inns. Senior Counsel.

Representations
Member, Court Practice and Procedure Committee
Member, Governing Council of UNIDROIT
Judge of OECD Nuclear Energy Tribunal
Chairman of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting in Ireland Selected Publications

Incorporation of the ECHR: Some Issues of Methodology and Process in, editor(s) Kilkelly, U., ECHR, and Irish Law (edited by Ursula Kilkelly 2005

Published, Jordans
The Use of Compelled Evidence in European Competition Law Cases in editor(s) Hawk, International Antitrust Law and Policy, New York, pp 659 - 673 2005
Regulatory Bodies as Associations of Undertakings, Dublin University Law Journal, 27 p 329-343 2005
Hogan, G. et al (edited by Kilkelly, Ursula) ECHR, and Irish Law, lciiim 368 pp 2004 Jordans

The Irish Constitution (Kelly J.M., co-edited by Gerard Hogan and Gerry Whyte 2003 Butterworths

Administrative Law in Ireland (co-authored by David Gwynn Morgan) 1998 Sweet & Maxwell

Ireland and the European Union: constitutional and statutory texts and commentary (co-authored by Anthony Whelan) 1995
Sweet & Maxwell

The Irish Constitution (Kelly J.M., co-edited by Gerard Hogan and Gerry Whyte 1994 Butterworths

Administrative Law in Ireland (co-authored by David Gwynn Morgan) 1991 Sweet & Maxwell

Maastrict and Ireland: What the Treaty Means/ edited by Patrick Keatinge – co-author 1992 Dublin : Institute of European Affairs

The law reports of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Ireland, 1984-1988, Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Northern Ireland, 1984-1985, and, the Irish Law Reports Monthly, 1976-1979, 1984-1988 : digest of cases decided by the superior and other courts in Ireland and Northern Ireland and reported from 1984 to 1988 / edited by Julitta M. Clancy and Edward F. Ryan ; consultant editor Gerard Hogan ; compiled and indexed by Julitta M. Clancy. 1991 Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Ireland

Rules of the superior courts (no.1), 1989 : guide to changes in the rules of the superior courts 1986 as a consequence of the coming into operation of the jurisdiction of courts and enforcement of judgments (European Communities) act, 1988 / prepared by Gerard Hogan and James O'Reilly. 1989 Stationery Office

Political Violence and the Law in Ireland, co authored with Clive Walker 1989
Manchester University Press, 1989

The Irish Constitution, [1st] Supplement to 2nd ed., J.M. Kelly, with G. Whyte 1987 Jurist Publishing

Administrative Law in Ireland (co-authored by David Gwynn Morgan) 1986 Sweet & Maxwell

Prisoner’s Rights: A Study in Irish Prison Law, co authored by Raymond Byrne and Paul McDermott 1981 Co-Op Books

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

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

I have in my hand a piece of paper which guarantees peace in our time.

Martin 2

RandomName2 wrote: »

I have in my hand a piece of paper which guarantees peace in our time.

Well the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, and Nice have pretty much guaranteed peace [in the EU] in our time:)

Spiritoftheseventies

Martin 2 wrote: »

Well the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, and Nice have pretty much guaranteed peace [in the EU] in our time:)

For example?

Hitman Actual

Regarding Dr. Hogan, he also make some some interesting comments in a Parliamentary Debate on 30th October 2008, the most relevant to the 'average guy on the street' being:

Dr. Gerald Hogan wrote:

I am at a slight disadvantage in that I missed the first hour of this debate. However, I would like to take up some of the points raised by Deputy Costello. Some of them might have been addressed to Mr. Collins, but I will endeavour to pick them up. In terms of the Court of Justice, routinely the type of cases it has dealt with in the past have been those relating to the Internal Market — taxation, VAT, institutional issues, competition cases, references from national courts, etc. If one did a span over the past 50 years or so, perhaps 95% of the cases would have been in the economic, taxation, competition and institutional area.

As increased competencies have been conferred on the Community and Union, one finds that more areas verging on fundamental rights are beginning to emerge. One saw this recently in terms of the judgment concerning the free movement of spouses. That judgment of the Court of Justice in July was a reference from the Irish High Court, and there have been judgments in areas dealing with the Brussels regulation of recognition of foreign divorces and matters pertaining to family law. However, up to now at least, jurisdiction has been largely confined to the economic institutional arena.


That follows on in respect of some of the questions directed towards the charter. At a legal level, there are issues in the drafting of the charter. In some respects, the drafting might have been better and there are issues of interpretation. Depending on how these issues are ultimately interpreted by the European Court of Justice, the charter may not mean anything. That is one possibility. Another possibility is that the charter may ultimately produce significant results. The problem is that I find it difficult to state on an a priori basis how the charter will be interpreted. I find myself wavering between different positions as to how it is likely to be interpreted.
Without discussing the detail of the charter at great length, one issue is that it only applies to member states when they are implementing European Union law. It is hard to say on an a priori basis what this means. Is the charter triggered by purely accidental or geographical factors such as nationality? Many of the rights are expressed to be subject to national law in practice. What happens if one does not have national law practice in the area in question? Can national law in practice be challenged?


Many of the propositions advanced about the charter in the course of the referendum campaign were far-fetched and verged on the legal equivalent of “flat earthery”. Examples related to issues such as abortion, the compulsory detention of young people, the death penalty and euthanasia. While it is very difficult to respond to some of them, I do not believe there is a lawyer of standing in this jurisdiction who would be prepared to stand over some of the more absurd claims made about the charter.


While questions of interpretation arise about the charter, they are unlikely to keep the average citizen awake at night. They are issues of considerable importance to legal specialists in much the same way as the interpretation of the VAT directive is undoubtedly of interest to tax specialists, VAT lawyers and so on. I find aspects of the drafting of the charter unsatisfactory but in saying that I am wearing my lawyer’s hat. I have concerns about the style, set-up and structure of the charter. These are legal criticisms but the political criticisms of the charter levelled during the course of the referendum campaign have no basis in reality. I do not recognise the version of the charter advocated by some of the people making claims about it.

So while he does acknowledge that he can't be certain of the exact implications of the Charter, he also laughs off the absurd claims made about it. That's good enough for me. He is, after all, possibly the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert.


He also says the following further on, which I also find interesting.: "I agree with Mr. Collins that the referendum result has resulted in a disastrous loss of influence and standing for Ireland at European level".

Martin 2

bayviewclose wrote: »

For example?

It was a joke for god's sake, = not to be taken seriously, but since you ask, look at the history of western Europe in the 50 years prior to the treaty of Rome and the 50 years since, one of the founding principles of the EEC was to escape from extreme forms of nationalism which had devastated this part of the world.

Edit: Apologies Bayviewclose, I assumed you understood RandomName2's reference to Neville Chamberlin's words after the Munich Agreement in 1938 which was followed by WWII, hence my mention of the Treaty of Rome.

RandomName2

Martin 2 wrote: »

It was a joke for god's sake, = not to be taken seriously, but since you ask, look at the history of western Europe in the 50 years prior to the treaty of Rome and the 50 years since, one of the founding principles of the EEC was to escape from extreme forms of nationalism which had devastated this part of the world.

Maybe it's a bit like the Concert of Europe in the 19th Century... which worked quite well until WWI . Ah no, seriously, it started to fall apart due to nationalism and the unification of Germany in the 1870s... but then again I think nationalism may indeed still be an important factor in the 21st century...

ei.sdraob

RandomName2 wrote: »

Maybe it's a bit like the Concert of Europe in the 19th Century... which worked quite well until WWI . Ah no, seriously, it started to fall apart due to nationalism and the unification of Germany in the 1870s... but then again I think nationalism may indeed still be an important factor in the 21st century...

well nationalism is the main driver behind most of the current NO arguments

not only has the European union gave peace it also brought prosperity, one just has to look at European history since records began, it can pretty much be summarized with

"constant war and misery"

Hell we don't even have to look far, EU membership of Ireland and UK made northern Ireland issues mostly moot, we are now on the same level as the country which oppressed us not too long ago

anyways just wanted to note that we are living in an unprecedented time, thanks to a political and economic union (which most people dont understand and are asked to vote on)

Martin 2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Maybe it's a bit like the Concert of Europe in the 19th Century... which worked quite well until WWI . Ah no, seriously, it started to fall apart due to nationalism and the unification of Germany in the 1870s... but then again I think nationalism may indeed still be an important factor in the 21st century...

You're absolutely right with regard to the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, and the 1870's being a particularily bleak period. I just chose a period of 50 years prior to the treaty since the treaty of Rome has only been in existence for 50 years (we'll have to wait till the 2030's to do a 80 year comparison).
Unfortunately you're also right about Nationalism being an important factor in the 21st century.

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

well nationalism is the main driver behind most of the current NO arguments

not only has the European union gave peace it also brought prosperity, one just has to look at European history since records began, it can pretty much be summarized with

"constant war and misery"

Hell we don't even have to look far, EU membership of Ireland and UK made northern Ireland issues mostly moot, we are now on the same level as the country which oppressed us not too long ago

anyways just wanted to note that we are living in an unprecedented time, thanks to a political and economic union (which most people dont understand and are asked to vote on)

Take a trip up north some time. Particularly during marching season. Dont know what its like for nationalists up there but go through any of the "loyalists towns" and clearly you wonder are people on same footing. Still two communities there. Maybe not as bad as it was but still a lot to be resolved.

turgon

bayviewclose wrote: »

Take a trip up north some time.

Take a trip to Europe some time. Note how you can pass many international borders, such as between France and Germany, without even showing a Passport. A lot different from the early 40's, I'd be inclined to think.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Take a trip up north some time. Particularly during marching season. Dont know what its like for nationalists up there but go through any of the "loyalists towns" and clearly you wonder are people on same footing. Still two communities there. Maybe not as bad as it was but still a lot to be resolved.

actually i've been there quite a bit over the years (been to portadown alot) and very recently too

things have changed

yes there are still "issues" but most of the people just want to get on with their lifes

and as turgon said before me, things were never as bad up north as they got on the continent 50 years before the treaty (think gas chambers, chemical warfare, whole cities flattened, rape and pillage)

RandomName2

ei.sdraob wrote: »

well nationalism is the main driver behind most of the current NO arguments

not only has the European union gave peace it also brought prosperity, one just has to look at European history since records began, it can pretty much be summarized with

"constant war and misery"

Hell we don't even have to look far, EU membership of Ireland and UK made northern Ireland issues mostly moot, we are now on the same level as the country which oppressed us not too long ago

anyways just wanted to note that we are living in an unprecedented time, thanks to a political and economic union (which most people dont understand and are asked to vote on)

Nationalism is not really inherently good or bad - but to pretend it doesn't exist as a general condition is short-sighted. To say that the EU formed an epoch whereby there was no wars before that is a fallacy. All the attempts at European hegemony before now have attempted to end European wars: Roman Empire, Charlamange, Catholic Church, Hapsburg Empire, Revolutionary France, Council of Europe, etc.

And to a certain extent these attempts genuinely worked. It also happens that when they stopped working the results were pretty terrible. Also, these hegemonies were treated (correctly) as serious threats by the soverigns of near-by nations who generally went to war to prevnt being over powered or being in a position where they would in the future not be able to win a war against a further empowered hegemony.

Russia today is probably the greatest source of opposition to EU expanion, but some exteme Islamist states will also continue to rail against it. Whether there is ever war between the EU and foreign state will depend on whether or not the political status quo is maintained. The recent war between Russia and Gerogia was interesting due to the fact that Georgia has been approached for membership by the EU and, in particular, NATO.

Anyway... enough of the hsitory lessons...

FutureTaoiseach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Regarding Dr. Hogan, he also make some some interesting comments in a Parliamentary Debate on 30th October 2008, the most relevant to the 'average guy on the street' being:




So while he does acknowledge that he can't be certain of the exact implications of the Charter, he also laughs off the absurd claims made about it. That's good enough for me. He is, after all, possibly the country's most eminent constitutional-law expert.


He also says the following further on, which I also find interesting.: "I agree with Mr. Collins that the referendum result has resulted in a disastrous loss of influence and standing for Ireland at European level".

Note he doesn't dismiss the existence of implications for Irish immigration-policy. And his remarks that it is impossible to tell what the reference to member states implementing EU law will mean in practice underline that consenting to this Charter through a yes vote for Lisbon is a leap in the dark and an enormous risk in terms of what the ECJ will do. The fact remains that Hogan did say to the Forum on Europe on another occasion that the Charter may "eclipse" the Supreme Court. If that was true then, it's true now.

ei.sdraob

ok where to start

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nationalism is not really inherently good or bad - but to pretend it doesn't exist as a general condition is short-sighted.

nationalism does exists, but if it is allowed to flourish and is encouraged you end up with Nazi'ism and all evil that follows

at its core nationalism is the "them vs. us" attitude that existed since the stone age, it breeds hate, mistrust, war and all sorts of nasties

in fact i can not find a single incident in history where nationalism hasn't resulted in death and destruction

hence nationalism is "bad"

RandomName2 wrote: »

All the attempts at European hegemony before now have attempted to end European wars: Roman Empire, Charlamange, Catholic Church, Hapsburg Empire, Revolutionary France, Council of Europe, etc.

woa! :eek: you are comparing the above to the EU? these were empires (political and/or religious) with no democracy, French Revolution went a full circle with Napoleon fueling nationalism and ending up as an emperor

RandomName2 wrote: »

And to a certain extent these attempts genuinely worked. It also happens that when they stopped working the results were pretty terrible. Also, these hegemonies were treated (correctly) as serious threats by the soverigns of near-by nations who generally went to war to prevnt being over powered or being in a position where they would in the future not be able to win a war against a further empowered hegemony.
.

hegemonies? you mean empires, EU is not an empire, its not even a federation, but a very loose alliance of sovereign states with common economical policies and laws

RandomName2 wrote: »

Russia today is probably the greatest source of opposition to EU expanion, but some exteme Islamist states will also continue to rail against it. Whether there is ever war between the EU and foreign state will depend on whether or not the political status quo is maintained. The recent war between Russia and Gerogia was interesting due to the fact that Georgia has been approached for membership by the EU and, in particular, NATO.

Anyway... enough of the hsitory lessons...

funny that you speak of Russia, as someone who spend a lot of time there and has recently seen the transformation of the country in a bad direction due to Putin encouraging nationalism and xenophobia in order to keep control of his "empire", russia is no longer a democracy

also please note that russia would never start a major war, and thruout history its been attacked (napoleon/stalin) most of the little wars it starts is to create a "buffer" a sphere of influence as they fear another military attack, this is not helped by the current rise of nationalism and xenophobia

seeing that Georgia would leave its sphere of influence and being handed an excuse by their retard of a president (thats my personal opinion) they entered last years conflict and all that followed

while on the topic of russia, lets remember that they are currently playing each country against another in EU when it comes to bidding for energy driving up energy costs and funneling more money to the corrupt "maffia" regime of putin

Yes to lisbon would mean a united policy on energy and lower prices for us

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Note he doesn't dismiss the existence of implications for Irish immigration-policy. And his remarks that it is impossible to tell what the reference to member states implementing EU law will mean in practice underline that consenting to this Charter through a yes vote for Lisbon is a leap in the dark and an enormous risk in terms of what the ECJ will do. The fact remains that Hogan did say to the Forum on Europe on another occasion that the Charter may "eclipse" the Supreme Court. If that was true then, it's true now.

If that were true then, it would be true now. What is at issue is whether it is in fact true, something you are rather too inclined to take for granted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually i've been there quite a bit over the years (been to portadown alot) and very recently too

things have changed

yes there are still "issues" but most of the people just want to get on with their lifes

and as turgon said before me, things were never as bad up north as they got on the continent 50 years before the treaty (think gas chambers, chemical warfare, whole cities flattened, rape and pillage)

Are we leaving Srebrenica out of this (its on the continent). Things may not be bad for most of us but still bad for some. As for the North its a whole lot better but its still a seperate state. Would you be able to walk through a town with flags from another country being draped everywhere for three months. Yes they want to get on with their lives but while certain conditions persist there is still going to be tension.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Are we leaving Srebrenica out of this (its on the continent). Things may not be bad for most of us but still bad for some. As for the North its a whole lot better but its still a seperate state. Would you be able to walk through a town with flags from another country being draped everywhere for three months. Yes they want to get on with their lives but while certain conditions persist there is still going to be tension.

its on same continent but its not in the EU

looks like you missed my point

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually i've been there quite a bit over the years (been to portadown alot) and very recently too

things have changed

yes there are still "issues" but most of the people just want to get on with their lifes

and as turgon said before me, things were never as bad up north as they got on the continent 50 years before the treaty (think gas chambers, chemical warfare, whole cities flattened, rape and pillage)

check last line in that post. You mention the continent. And remember UN called Srebenica one of its darkest days. It still goes on in some places. Some Relatives of those massacred wont bury their victims until they get the full remains back as they scattered all over place.

ButcherBoiz

The comparison between Northern Ireland politics and Europe is interesting. However, you can point to a 'rhetoric of sameness' in a debate over The Troubles up North. It is argued that most of the people involved in the conflict are from the same economic, working class background, and therefore have the basics in common. Nonetheless, ideological oppositions (Nationalism versus Unionism) are still prevalent. In relation to unification at the European level, the same contradictions might be expressed. It is a (dare I say it, naive) position that would not acknowledge the possibility of protracted and even violent conflicts within Europe, as stronger moves are made towards unification, despite the political rhetoric that kind of puts an aura over the very concept of a united Europe? Words like "sameness", "sustainability", "fairness", "transnationalism" are all good in theory, but do not reflect the political or historical realities.

Personally, I would like the whole of Europe to join hands in peaceful cooperation, but lets tread very carefully at this historic time. Our ancestors did not endure centuries of pain for us to take chances. I am disappointed that the content of the treaty is still not understandable (although some people claim to fully comprehend it?).

RandomName2

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ok where to start

nationalism does exists, but if it is allowed to flourish and is encouraged you end up with Nazi'ism and all evil that follows

at its core nationalism is the "them vs. us" attitude that existed since the stone age, it breeds hate, mistrust, war and all sorts of nasties

in fact i can not find a single incident in history where nationalism hasn't resulted in death and destruction

hence nationalism is "bad"


woa! :eek: you are comparing the above to the EU? these were empires (political and/or religious) with no democracy, French Revolution went a full circle with Napoleon fueling nationalism and ending up as an emperor


hegemonies? you mean empires, EU is not an empire, its not even a federation, but a very loose alliance of sovereign states with common economical policies and laws


funny that you speak of Russia, as someone who spend a lot of time there and has recently seen the transformation of the country in a bad direction due to Putin encouraging nationalism and xenophobia in order to keep control of his "empire", russia is no longer a democracy

also please note that russia would never start a major war, and thruout history its been attacked (napoleon/stalin) most of the little wars it starts is to create a "buffer" a sphere of influence as they fear another military attack, this is not helped by the current rise of nationalism and xenophobia

seeing that Georgia would leave its sphere of influence and being handed an excuse by their retard of a president (thats my personal opinion) they entered last years conflict and all that followed

Hmmm... Nazism and nationalism...? Well, yes the two are inextricably linked, but nazism uses nationalism as an expediency... it attempts to define nationalism to whatever agenda suits at the time. It creates fictions that are founded on historical truth, and shapes them towards it own ends...

Nationalism has always existed. It will always exist. It is the defining of culture, language, ethnicity, religion, history, political outlook, etc. Now, empires do not like nationism; indeed conflicting nationalisms are antithetical to imperial designs. This is the reason why the Roman Church attempted to impose the use of latin long after it was no longer realistic, it is the reason why the USSR attempted to root out communities which were distictly seperate, it is the reason why the French Revolutionaries loudly proclaimed their belief in the equality of mankind, the reason why the Hapsburgs so deeply resented rebellion in the Netherlands...

But lack of democracy is characteristic of empires, not intrinsic to them. The EU quite clearly wishes to root out nationalistic feelings; albeit with soft policies. Equally, the EU values democracy, yet does not dare give any real strength to democracy within its organisation. By providing hollow sops to nationalistic sentiment (having all EU documents being translated as Gaeilge is a case in point), the EU hopes to remove the real sting of nationalist pathos whilst shoring up its own identity.

All of which has clear benefits but equally may pave the way towards greviances further down the line.

Oh, and Russia has invaded plenty of countries....

Finland, Austria-Hungary, Eastern Rumelia, Afghanistan, Poland, Manchuria, Estonia, China (by proxy), Latvia, Persia...

Putin is a mixed bag. On one hand a nutter KGB hardline pseudo-ex-communist hardline military dictator... and on the other hand the level headed, powerful, defenisve, statesman capable of holding Russia together through difficult transitions. Only time will untimately tell

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Note he doesn't dismiss the existence of implications for Irish immigration-policy.

Nor was it discussed at all! And unless you can point me to some credible sources on the Charter-Immigration issues, as far as I can see the only people peddling this line are some No voters who realise that the Charter is the last FUD weapon they have.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And his remarks that it is impossible to tell what the reference to member states implementing EU law will mean in practice underline that consenting to this Charter through a yes vote for Lisbon is a leap in the dark and an enormous risk in terms of what the ECJ will do.

In your opinion, it's an enormous risk. There's nothing in that debate I linked to to indicate Hogan shares your fears. He even goes so far as to say the Charter may mean nothing.

In fairness, and as I've said before, I am wary about the Charter, but from everything I've researched on it, there definitely isn't enough of concern to make me vote No because of it. And if I'm going to listen to other posters on the subject, I prefer the logical, rational analysis of Scofflaw and sink et al, rather than your paranoid speculation of the implications, especially seeing as the No side sources of FUD are drying up.

Spiritoftheseventies

Originally Posted by ei.sdraob
ok where to start

nationalism does exists, but if it is allowed to flourish and is encouraged you end up with Nazi'ism and all evil that follows

at its core nationalism is the "them vs. us" attitude that existed since the stone age, it breeds hate, mistrust, war and all sorts of nasties

in fact i can not find a single incident in history where nationalism hasn't resulted in death and destruction

hence nationalism is "bad"

Well lets start with Irish Nationalism. what was it about. Everyone knows our history so wont bore you with details. But what was the alternative to Irish nationalism. Maintaining a status quo that was unbearable to the Irish people who had sufferered immeasurable suffering.

Running Bing

Meh, I only know two things about Lisbon:

1. Nobody fully understands it or the implications it might have. A lot of the text is open to interpretation.

2. It will pass this time. Just as last time the no side got people by planting fear and doubt in their minds this time the yes side will do the same......"we need to stick together in tough times" etc. etc. The difference is if No loses they dont get another shot.

I dont think the treaty is good or bad because I simply cannot say, very very few people can for definite and that is why I will vote no again.

Spiritoftheseventies

Running Bing wrote: »

Meh, I only know two things about Lisbon:

1. Nobody fully understands it or the implications it might have. A lot of the text is open to interpretation.

2. It will pass this time. Just as last time the no side got people by planting fear and doubt in their minds this time the yes side will do the same......"we need to stick together in tough times" etc. etc. The difference is if No loses they dont get another shot.

I dont think the treaty is good or bad because I simply cannot say, very very few people can for definite and that is why I will vote no again.

People who vote should do so having made an informed decision. Dont go into the booth with the blinkers on. Still plenty of time to do your research. Plenty of info out there.