Value of the Lisbon Guarantees

Scofflaw

worldrepublic wrote: »

"the guarantees as 'worthless' as they are merely guaranteeing things that aren't in the Lisbon treaty"

The above statement, or comments to the same effect, appears repeatedly in the various threads. It might be worth isolating it into a single thread for future discussion. Needless to say, it (the quoted point) is misleading insofar as, when it is injected into a discussion without some expansion on the issue, the suggestion is that it is a "cut and dry" matter. The argument also exists that the guarantees have no legal value, which complicates the issue. It the various parties claim that a)the guarantees are irrelevant to the Treaty or b)that they are worthless anyway then why not just leave them out of the wider debate? It seems to be a separate and distinct debate, used by both sides to muddy the waters.

1. The argument that the guarantees have no legal value is entirely false. International agreements are solid and bona fide legal documents.

2. The argument that they don't change the treaty is entirely true. They are guarantees that things people said were in the treaty aren't.

So far, no room for argument.

3. Whether the guarantees change one's interpretation of the treaty depends entirely on whether one believed the claims that are refuted by the guarantees.

4. The Council decision to retain one Commissioner per country is a substantive change - whether one thinks it's good or bad is a matter of personal judgement.

The short answer, really, is that anyone who now makes any of the claims that are refuted by the guarantees should be brought up short by reference to the guarantees. Those claims are:

a. that Lisbon allows abortion in Ireland

b. that Lisbon allows the EU new powers over Irish taxation

c. that Lisbon means we're no longer neutral

d. that Lisbon requires us to give military assistance to other member states

e. that Lisbon requires us to sign up to the European Defence Agency

f. that Lisbon creates an EU army of any kind

g. that Lisbon requires us to increase military spending

All of the above arguments are specifically addressed and refuted by the guarantees.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote:

International agreements are solid and bona fide legal documents.

Like the passenger-data transfer agreement with the US which the ECJ struck down?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Like the passenger-data transfer agreement with the US which the ECJ struck down?

That was an agreement between the EU and the US - the striking down of that agreement by the ECJ is the legal equivalent of the striking down by a national supreme court of an international agreement to which the state in question is a party. There is no possibility of the ECJ striking down the guarantees, because they are not being made by the EU itself, but by the member state nations. In theory, one of the national supreme courts could strike down the guarantee given by that member state, but only by that state. The ECJ, on the other hand, has no jurisdiction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce

Scofflaw wrote: »

a. that Lisbon allows abortion in Ireland

b. that Lisbon allows the EU new powers over Irish taxation

c. that Lisbon means we're no longer neutral

d. that Lisbon requires us to give military assistance to other member states

e. that Lisbon requires us to sign up to the European Defence Agency

f. that Lisbon creates an EU army of any kind

g. that Lisbon requires us to increase military spending

All of the above arguments are specifically addressed and refuted by the guarantees.

I've always felt the guarantees were useless because they didn't actually stop anything, not because they couldn't, but because nothing was coming. I'll be well and truly shocked if we ever have to invoke them.

Great post btw.