Explain this random extract to me

eamo12

"The horizontal amendments laid down in Article 2(2) of the Treaty of Lisbon shall apply to the Protocols referred to in this Article, with the exception of points (d), (e) and (j). Where point 5(a) or point 12(a) below specifically provides otherwise, the horizontal amendment laid down in Article 2(3)(b) of that Treaty shall not apply to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank or to the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank, respectively."

I'd like some of the pro-lisbon treaty guys to explain this random piece of text from the treaty!

oscarBravo

Why? Is there a particular reason you wanted this specific section explained, or did you just copy something that looked confusing in order to try to make some sort of point?

patrickthomas

eamo12 wrote: »

"The horizontal amendments laid down in Article 2(2) of the Treaty of Lisbon shall apply to the Protocols referred to in this Article, with the exception of points (d), (e) and (j). Where point 5(a) or point 12(a) below specifically provides otherwise, the horizontal amendment laid down in Article 2(3)(b) of that Treaty shall not apply to the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank or to the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank, respectively."

I'd like some of the pro-lisbon treaty guys to explain this random piece of text from the treaty!

I got a headache trying to read that

meglome

Imagine legal documents written by lawyers being difficult to read, who would have thunk it.

Scofflaw

Also, is there a reason why you specifically want the process of textual amendment explained, as opposed to the resulting text? If that's really what you're after, this is what the bit of text you've cited does:

2) Throughout the Treaty:
(a) the words ‘Community’ and ‘European Community’ shall be replaced by ‘Union’ and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made, the words ‘European Communities’ shall be replaced by ‘European Union’, except in paragraph 6(c) of Article 299, renumbered paragraph 5(c) of Article 311a. In respect of Article 136, this amendment shall apply only to the mention of ‘The Community’ at the beginning of the first paragraph;
(b) the words ‘this Treaty’ and ‘the present Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘the Treaties’, the verb, where applicable, shall be put in the plural and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made; this point shall not apply to the third paragraph of Article 182 and to Articles 312 and 313;
(c) the words ‘the Council [shall], acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251’ shall be replaced by ‘the European Parliament and the Council [shall], acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure’, and the words ‘procedure referred to in Article 251’ shall be replaced by ‘ordinary legislative procedure’;
*(d) the words ‘acting by a qualified majority’ and ‘by a qualified majority’ shall be deleted;
*(e) the words ‘Council meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government’ shall be replaced by ‘European Council’;
(f) the words ‘institutions or bodies’ and ‘institutions and bodies’ shall be replaced by ‘institutions, bodies, offices or agencies’, except in the first paragraph of Article 193;
(g) the words ‘common market’ shall be replaced by ‘internal market’;
(h) the word ‘ecu’ shall be replaced by ‘euro’;
(i) the words ‘Member States without a derogation’ shall be replaced by ‘Member States whose currency is the euro’;
*(j) the abbreviation ‘ECB’ shall be replaced by ‘European Central Bank’;
(k) the words ‘Statute of the ESCB’ shall be replaced by ‘Statute of the ESCB and of the ECB’;
(l) The words ‘Committee provided for in Article 114’ and ‘Committee referred to in Article 114’ shall be replaced by ‘Economic and Financial Committee’;
(m) the words ‘Statute of the Court of Justice’ or ‘Statute of the Court’ shall be replaced by ‘Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union’;
(n) the words ‘Court of First Instance’ shall be replaced by ‘General Court’;
(o) the words ‘judicial panel’ and ‘judicial panels’ shall be replaced by ‘specialised court’ and ‘specialised courts’ respectively and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made.

It's simply a statement that the list of text changes given above (with the exception of those marked with an asterisk) apply to "the protocols in force on the date of entry into force of this Treaty and annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty establishing the European Community and/or to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community", with a couple of specific exceptions.

Was that really what you wanted to know? Those changes result in the Consolidated Version, which you can get here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

D.Harry

Don't feel bad if you can't make sense of it.

Belgian foreign minister : “The aim of the constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

Macha

D.Harry wrote: »

Don't feel bad if you can't make sense of it.

Belgian foreign minister : “The aim of the constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable … The constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

Can you provide a link to that quote? The only place I can find it online is on anti-Lisbon Treaty, right-wing blogs. And why don't you quote VGD's infamous, misquote while you're at it? It's just as relevant.

D.Harry

taconnol wrote: »

Can you provide a link to that quote? The only place I can find it online is on anti-Lisbon Treaty, right-wing blogs. And why don't you quote VGD's infamous, misquote while you're at it? It's just as relevant.

You don't expect to find it on any EU or pro-Lisbon site do you? Since you know so much about VGD, I'll leave his quote to you to supply but I think you'll find it equally difficult to locate, for the same reasons.

ei.sdraob

D.Harry wrote: »

You don't expect to find it on any EU or pro-Lisbon site do you? Since you know so much about VGD, I'll leave his quote to you to supply but I think you'll find it equally difficult to locate, for the same reasons.

how about a neutral site like

BBC?

or maybe published paper (see google books or google scholar etc)

have you ever written a thesis? if you did you would learn a bit about referencing stuff and why its important

Scofflaw

D.Harry wrote: »

You don't expect to find it on any EU or pro-Lisbon site do you? Since you know so much about VGD, I'll leave his quote to you to supply but I think you'll find it equally difficult to locate, for the same reasons.

How about this - you quoted it, you supply the reference. Argument by unattributed quote isn't really accepted here. You could try AH, which has rather different rules.

moderately,
Scofflaw

eamo12

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Is there a particular reason you wanted this specific section explained, or did you just copy something that looked confusing in order to try to make some sort of point?

I pulled that text at random from the treaty - feel free to post some text from the treaty that is actually readable. (apart from the line that says that all European law will have prominence over Irish law)

Scofflaw

eamo12 wrote: »

I pulled that text at random from the treaty - feel free to post some text from the treaty that is actually readable. (apart from the line that says that all European law will have prominence over Irish law)

Which isn't in the Treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

eamo12 wrote: »

I pulled that text at random from the treaty - feel free to post some text from the treaty that is actually readable. (apart from the line that says that all European law will have prominence over Irish law)

start here

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/

and read this

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_guide.pdf

if you want to know more then read this too

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_extended_guide.pdf


Referendum commission are impartial, its their job to provide access to information and make condensed versions that are readable by anyone with a focus on issues relevant to Ireland


and no you dont need to be a lawyer to read an understand the above leaflets

eamo12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which isn't in the Treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

"that the treaties and the law adopted by the EU on the basis of the treaties have primacy over the law of member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law"

I understand how you may have missed declaration 17 in a document so large and complex. QED

Kind regards

marco_polo

eamo12 wrote: »

Perhaps you should crawl back into whatever hole you squirmed out of. Ganley has exposed the un-democratic nature of the EU and the deficit that exists between the commission and the people. No wonder the euro-elite are running scared. Voted No. 1 for Ganley and proud to do so.

No agenda here at all folks.

Any word on how Declan is doing since he got embarrased in the Euros? Been pretty quite of late.

Scofflaw

eamo12 wrote: »

"that the treaties and the law adopted by the EU on the basis of the treaties have primacy over the law of member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law"

I understand how you may have missed declaration 17 in a document so large and complex. QED

Kind regards

Apologies - I thought you were referring to our Amendment. On the other hand, the Declarations aren't part of the Treaty.

By the way, you asked someone to explain the 'random extract' to you. I explained it. What was your next move?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

Those changes result in the Consolidated Version, which you can get here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw.

It is somewhat unfortunate that people take the "Lisbon" treaty as what they need to read, when in actual fact the consolidated version is what they should read.

The Lisbon treaty is interesting to understand the change, but if you are not familiar with the existing applicable treaty it can be pretty meaningless. I see this as something we need to emphasis to people. It would have been better from the point of view of making the EU more understandable to the public, if the "Lisbon treaty" were the name given to the new version of the Consolidated Treaty. That's a question of semantics but it's important. I see that the lisbontreaty2009 web site still does not provide the consolidated treaty, but only Lisbon. I complained to refcom, got a reply, but no change.

To give an analogy, if you joined a club and went to a meeting to approve a rule change, would you be happy to get a document saying something like "paragraph 4 shall be ammended to replace the club with we"... would you not like to see the actual paragraph?

Ix

eamo12

marco_polo wrote: »

No agenda here at all folks.

Any word on how Declan is doing since he got embarrased in the Euros? Been pretty quite of late.

Perhaps we should vote again till he gets elected??

I thought not - but in EU democracy, you will vote till you give the right answer according to the euro-elites. That, you cannot ever hide away from my friend

BTW, your agenda wouldn't be for a 'yes' by any chance?

ei.sdraob

eamo12 wrote: »

Perhaps we should vote again till he gets elected??

I thought not - but in EU democracy, you will vote till you give the right answer according to the euro-elites. That, you cannot ever hide away from my friend

BTW, your agenda wouldn't be for a 'yes' by any chance?

who exactly are these "elites" we keep hearing about?

you do realize that people working in the EU are elected by the people to represent them?

meglome

eamo12 wrote: »

Perhaps we should vote again till he gets elected??

He can run again at the next election if he likes, you know the ones that happen every few years.

eamo12 wrote: »

... but in EU democracy, you will vote till you give the right answer according to the euro-elites. That, you cannot ever hide away from my friend

It's our constitution that allows us to have these referenda and it also allows us to vote more than once. So your okay with our constitution when it suits you?