Lisbon Treaty from a LGBT perspestive?

ceret

How does the Lisbon Treaty stack up from a LGBT rights perspective?

Most LGBT rights in Ireland are due to the great influence of the European Union, however I'm worried about these goverment legal guarantees. One of them covers family and social laws, right?

Does this mean the EU is unable to force Ireland to have (say) full marraige equality if we vote yes for lisbon?

L1011

The govt. guarantees aren't worth the paper they're not written on.

A No or Yes to Lisbon does not alter the EUs ability to force full marriage rights (as far as I can see, they can't as it stands. Yes or No, they still won't).

Also, the main tenet (decriminalisation) of LGBT rights here are down to the European Court of Human Rights which is entirely unconnected to the EU! Not everything "European" is EU related. Employment, incitement to hatred and other equality laws were also introduced before the EU had much influence over policy here. People need to stop thinking the EU is responsible for everything good around when, generally, they weren't.

The_Minister

Yep - but the EU wouldn't force that anyway.

Stark

The EU is staying fairly clear of the "touchy" issues unfortunately.

ceret wrote:

however I'm worried about these goverment legal guarantees. One of them covers family and social laws, right?

There's a guarantee that they can't force abortion on us.

jamijary

If we say no, I'd question whether or not we could stay in the EU, or at the very least we'd have a 2 tier Europe.

So we'd find ourselves, in tier 2 with the Uk especially with the tories likely to win. Also I'm more than a little scared of that coir gang, Can you imagion them in a gay marriage referendum?

Stark

We can't be kicked out of the EU, though it is quite likely that we'd lose quite a bit of goodwill in Europe and that doesn't bode well for a small country trying to negotiate.

jamijary

I never said we'd be kicked out but surely we'd have to question our own position if the rest of Europe is going down the lisbon route and we don't want to? I think there would be a two tier solution! The rest of Europe will not just stop in its tracks just because we say no!

Boston

I think thats tenuous at best. Whatever about anything else, LGBT rights arn't an issue for lisbon.

Stark

Well Lisbon does allow the EU to accede to the European convention on human rights (the same convention that Norris used to overturn the gay sex ban in Ireland), which covers discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and allows transsexuals to marry people whose gender is the opposite of their assumed gender. Unfortunately the convention doesn't cover same-sex marriage. That's not to say that the European court of human rights won't extend the right to marriage to same-sex couples in the future though. This is more likely to happen if a majority of Council of Europe member countries adopt gay marriage.

jamijary

From a LGBT point of view I think that if we cut ourselves from the EU we have less of a chance of gaining equal rights! It is correct to say that each nation still will retain the right to legislate for abortion same sex unions etc. but if we cut ourselves adrift we are more likely to have a more conservative outlook! I wouldn't like to see the campaign that coir etc. wood put up to any social issues especially LGBT. And any government wood be slow to put any social issue up for referendum.

L1011

jamijary wrote: »

From a LGBT point of view I think that if we cut ourselves from the EU we have less of a chance of gaining equal rights! It is correct to say that each nation still will retain the right to legislate for abortion same sex unions etc. but if we cut ourselves adrift we are more likely to have a more conservative outlook! I wouldn't like to see the campaign that coir etc. wood put up to any social issues especially LGBT. And any government wood be slow to put any social issue up for referendum.

Voting No != cutting ourselves adrift from the EU. Lisbon is not a referendum on staying in the EU.

jamijary

It might not be about leaving the EU. but if we vote no we will have to ask do we want to remain in the EU? It's logical if the rest of EU go down the lisbon route and we don't want to surely it's time for us to say farewell and let them on their merry way!

L1011

The rest of the EU can't go down the "Lisbon route" without 27 assents.

Remember that this document in a previous form was rejected by two countries so they rewrote it. If its rejected again, that is what they have to do.

jamijary

And remember this document in a previous form was also accepted by 2 nations Lux & Spain. Something never mentioned by all the No camp?

I am just asking the question if we vote no is it time to ask do we want to be part of the EU at all? I think we need to sit back and ask is it time for us to get out? Lisbon and the const. of Europe are not to our liking so why sould we stay in this union?

It would also be an interesting debate, for us as a nation. Is it time for us to take our destiny in our own hands and be like Switzerland have trade agreements etc.?

L1011

jamijary wrote: »

And remember this document in a previous form was also accepted by 2 nations Lux & Spain. Something never mentioned by all the No camp?

I am just asking the question if we vote no is it time to ask do we want to be part of the EU at all? I think we need to sit back and ask is it time for us to get out? Lisbon and the const. of Europe are not to our liking so why sould we stay in this union?

It would also be an interesting debate, for us as a nation. Is it time for us to take our destiny in our own hands and be like Switzerland have trade agreements etc.?

Why would the No camp mention that it was accepted by any countries? It was rejected by some and it was rewritten as a result. In fact, mentioning that it was accepted by some and STILL rewritten only strengthens the point.

And in answer to your question - no.

jamijary

MYOB wrote: »

Why would the No camp mention that it was accepted by any countries? It was rejected by some and it was rewritten as a result. In fact, mentioning that it was accepted by some and STILL rewritten only strengthens the point.

And in answer to your question - no.

Well it's the No camp that want a more democratic EU doesn't say much if 2 No's out weighs 2 yes's!

Swit. and Norway seem 2 be getting on OK why souldn't we? have power over our own currency devalue etc, our own immigration policy etc! we gain true democracy!

Stark

MYOB wrote: »

Why would the No camp mention that it was accepted by any countries? It was rejected by some and it was rewritten as a result. In fact, mentioning that it was accepted by some and STILL rewritten only strengthens the point.

And in answer to your question - no.

The previous rejectees were able to give reasons for its rejection. The people of Ireland gave their reasons: they were reasons that were never in the Treaty. So now we have guarantees that they're not in the Treaty.

who is this

jamijary wrote: »

have power over our own currency devalue etc, our own immigration policy etc!

And you trust OUR governemnt with that kind of power? OUR government?!

The economy would be in absolute ruins if this government had control over the currency

Stark

There's a lot to suggest that our economy was protected by being in the Eurozone, we would have ended up like Iceland otherwise. Not to mention could you imagine Rip Off Ireland if we didn't have free trade with our EU neighbours?

Anyway, I believe the thread was about Lisbon+LGBT. Plenty of other forums to discuss the Treaty itself.

Fancy That

jamijary wrote: »

Swit. and Norway seem 2 be getting on OK why souldn't we? have power over our own currency devalue etc, our own immigration policy etc! we gain true democracy!

Jez dude get a grip...give them power over our currency...my god are u mad...for starters we would be paying enormous interest rates like 15% +++....i'm stopping there....

L1011

Stark wrote: »

The previous rejectees were able to give reasons for its rejection. The people of Ireland gave their reasons: they were reasons that were never in the Treaty. So now we have guarantees that they're not in the Treaty.

We have guarantees that aren't worth the paper they're not written on. They're not legally binding until the next accession treaty, which is likely to be many years off.

jamijary wrote: »

Well it's the No camp that want a more democratic EU doesn't say much if 2 No's out weighs 2 yes's!

Treaties of this kind exist solely on an all or nothing basis, something which anyone who is pro-EU should realise. 27 Yes's or it doesn't pass, end of.

dny123456

Europe is good for LGBT rights. If it weren't for europe, a certain senator and a former president we'd still be fumbling around in the local toilet for deep and meaningful relationships. You can only judge politicians and political institutions by what they've done for us in past. I trust the commision more than I do our local church gate politicans.

YES for Lisbon.

Boston

jamijary wrote: »

Well it's the No camp that want a more democratic EU doesn't say much if 2 No's out weighs 2 yes's!

Swit. and Norway seem 2 be getting on OK why souldn't we? have power over our own currency devalue etc, our own immigration policy etc! we gain true democracy!

Whose we? Any power the LGBT has in Ireland is as a result of hard fought battles and kind graces of the Europeans, left to the irish majority we'd have nothing.

L1011

dny123456 wrote: »

Europe is good for LGBT rights. If it weren't for europe, a certain senator and a former president we'd still be fumbling around in the local toilet for deep and meaningful relationships. You can only judge politicians and political institutions by what they've done for us in past. I trust the commision more than I do our local church gate politicans.

YES for Lisbon.

European Court of Human Rights has absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

Stark

MYOB wrote: »

We have guarantees that aren't worth the paper they're not written on. They're not legally binding until the next accession treaty, which is likely to be many years off.

If I give you a guarantee that I'm not a horse, it doesn't have to be legally binding to be true. You really think Lisbon is about abortion, conscription and taxation? Lisbon doesn't affect our veto on taxation. Article 29.4.9 of the proposed amendments to the Irish constitution necessary to ratify Lisbon forbids us from partaking in common defence (this one you could read on the ballot paper). Article 40.3.3 of the Irish constitution which bans abortion is still there and not only does the Irish constitution overrule all EU treaties but there is a protocol in the annexes to the Treaty that specifically forbids the EU from interfering with article 40.3.3. So we have a double lock there, all the guarantees will do when ratified is upgrade this to a triple lock.

Stark

jamijary wrote: »

Swit. and Norway seem 2 be getting on OK why souldn't we? have power over our own currency devalue etc, our own immigration policy etc! we gain true democracy!

Switzerland and Norway question answered here btw: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61967876&postcount=2066 , http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61967876&postcount=2067

L1011

while i neither believe the treaty affects/affected abortion etc, nor do i care if it did, the point that the "guarantees" are worthless still stands. It is a 100% identical treaty as last time out

Stark

We get to retain a full-time commissioner. We didn't have this under Lisbon I. And the concerns of the majority who voted No have been adequately addressed imo. If we weren't allowed re-run referendums, we'd still have a ban on divorce for one thing.

L1011

we didn't get a full time commissioner under Nice either, once a certain level of expansion was reached. And as its a promise, not anything legal, i've no trust it will happen. Divorce referendum was rerun after many, many years - not 14 months

Annasopra

ceret wrote: »

How does the Lisbon Treaty stack up from a LGBT rights perspective?

Most LGBT rights in Ireland are due to the great influence of the European Union, however I'm worried about these goverment legal guarantees. One of them covers family and social laws, right?

Does this mean the EU is unable to force Ireland to have (say) full marraige equality if we vote yes for lisbon?

It's certainly arguable that yes that could be the case

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/whitepaper/chapter1.asp

RIGHT TO LIFE, FAMILY AND EDUCATION

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.

Stark

MYOB wrote: »

we didn't get a full time commissioner under Nice either, once a certain level of expansion was reached.

Many people rejected Lisbon on the assumption that by doing so we would retain a full time commissioner under the terms of Nice. Now under Lisbon II, they have the option of retaining the commissioner.

MYOB wrote: »

Divorce referendum was rerun after many, many years - not 14 months

The absolute length of time isn't the issue, it's what happens in the meantime. In the case of divorce, the justification was that a new generation of people would be voting who would hold differing opinions to the people who voted previously. With Lisbon, the justification is that attempts have been made to assuage people's fears and people have indicated that they have changed their minds as a result.

Marshy

The whole issue of us not retaining the commisioner was ridiculous last time out. Not only was that arranged under Nice but ultimately the commisioner doesn't serve Irish interests (or isn't supposed to anyway) but is just an Irish representative. Most people didn't seem to grasp that.

Stark

Indeed I think Lisbon II is a step backwards in this regard. Having 27 commissioners means you pretty much have to make up roles for people and it means Ireland has a higher chance of ending up with some crappy "junior commissioner" role. Not to mention adding bloat to an institution that needs to be more efficient. With Lisbon I, you had 18 commission positions being rotated on a fair basis (every country gets 2 out of 3 years regardless of it size) between the member states. But I guess a full time commissioner for every country is what the people want.

FutureTaoiseach

Vote no. Since Spain voted yes unemployment doubled to 18%. In the year up to April, Irish exports rose 5%, compared to falls of 29% in Germany and 9% in the UK. Also, Eurostat (EU statistics office) says that Irish industrial output in April-June 2009 rose 9.3%, compared to a drop of 0.6% in the Eurozone. Lisbon is actually a threat to Irish jobs because of the race to the bottom and mass-immigration. Article 6 (TEU) as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have "the same legal value as the Treaties", meaning that the ECJ will interpret it. Article 15(1) of the COFR states that everyone has the right to work. This will force us to legalise employment for asylum-seekers. Because the UK has an optout from it, that would leave Ireland and Malta the only English-speaking countries to allow asylum-seekers to work. That would lead to tens of thousands of asylum-seekers currently resident in Britain coming to Ireland, competing for work against the 600,000 Irish unemployed. This would lead to higher Irish unemployment. Furthermore, Article 19(1) of the Charter bans "collective expulsions". This will be used in the ECJ to challenge deportations for example of asylum-seekers who have children here or who brought them to Ireland. In effect then, we would be recreating the baby-tourism whereby having children here would mean immunity from deportations. With a deficit of €21 billion, we can no longer afford spending €350 million per annum on asylum. Lawyers want Lisbon because the Charter will allow them to profit even more from asylum appeals with yet another layer of appeals - this time in the ECJ. Vote NO.

UK Europe Minister Baroness Kinnock (wife of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock) has told the House of Lords that they will not have the force of EU law until added as a Protocol to a future Accession Treaty. She said: "Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October." She added: "Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it....My Lords, what we have in the guarantees will become binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, which presumably will be when Croatia or Iceland comes in. Before that protocol can be ratified by the UK, Parliament must pass a Bill. As I said, Parliament will rightly have the final say." But UK Foreign Secretary David Milliband appeared to contradict her during questions at the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee stating: "Every head of state agrees that these guarantees do not change the Treaty...the guarantees are legally-binding in international law... It does not require ratification in order to have legal affect." This lead the Chairman of the Committee to ask, "If this is a legally-binding decision and doesn't need ratification, why does it need to be put in a protocol?" He asked, "Is it a stitch-up to get around Irish peoples' concerns? I can see why people would be suspicious." To confuse things further, Liberal Democrat MEP and self-described "militant federalist" Andrew Duff has claimed that an Irish Protocol appended to an Accession Treaty would be challenged in the courts as it would violate EU law, saying: "Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts...".According to the Irish Times, "he added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state's accession to be dealt with." Clearly, the credibility of the Government's 'guarantee's is not something they can take for granted. I, for one, am far from convinced of their veracity.

Stark

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Vote no. Since Spain voted yes unemployment doubled to 18%.

But the treaty was never ratified and is therefore irrelevant to Spain's predicament. We managed to **** things up for ourselves without voting yes.

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

In the year up to April, Irish exports rose 5%, compared to falls of 29% in Germany and 9% in the UK. Also, Eurostat (EU statistics office) says that Irish industrial output in April-June 2009 rose 9.3%, compared to a drop of 0.6% in the Eurozone.

Hmm, I wonder who we exported to?

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Article 6 (TEU) as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have "the same legal value as the Treaties", meaning that the ECJ will interpret it. Article 15(1) of the COFR states that everyone has the right to work. This will force us to legalise employment for asylum-seekers. Because the UK has an optout from it, that would leave Ireland and Malta the only English-speaking countries to allow asylum-seekers to work. That would lead to tens of thousands of asylum-seekers currently resident in Britain coming to Ireland, competing for work against the 600,000 Irish unemployed. This would lead to higher Irish unemployment. Furthermore, Article 19(1) of the Charter bans "collective expulsions". This will be used in the ECJ to challenge deportations for example of asylum-seekers who have children here or who brought them to Ireland. In effect then, we would be recreating the baby-tourism whereby having children here would mean immunity from deportations. With a deficit of €21 billion, we can no longer afford spending €350 million per annum on asylum. Lawyers want Lisbon because the Charter will allow them to profit even more from asylum appeals with yet another layer of appeals - this time in the ECJ. Vote NO.

We have the same opt outs that the UK has. We didn't use them at the height of the boom in the cases of Poland and Latvia as we needed the plentiful supply of labour. We are using them in the cases of Romania and Bulgaria.

Boston

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Vote no. Since Spain voted yes unemployment doubled to 18%. In the year up to April, Irish exports rose 5%, compared to falls of 29% in Germany and 9% in the UK. Also, Eurostat (EU statistics office) says that Irish industrial output in April-June 2009 rose 9.3%, compared to a drop of 0.6% in the Eurozone. Lisbon is actually a threat to Irish jobs because of the race to the bottom and mass-immigration. Article 6 (TEU) as amended by Lisbon states that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have "the same legal value as the Treaties", meaning that the ECJ will interpret it. Article 15(1) of the COFR states that everyone has the right to work. This will force us to legalise employment for asylum-seekers. Because the UK has an optout from it, that would leave Ireland and Malta the only English-speaking countries to allow asylum-seekers to work. That would lead to tens of thousands of asylum-seekers currently resident in Britain coming to Ireland, competing for work against the 600,000 Irish unemployed. This would lead to higher Irish unemployment. Furthermore, Article 19(1) of the Charter bans "collective expulsions". This will be used in the ECJ to challenge deportations for example of asylum-seekers who have children here or who brought them to Ireland. In effect then, we would be recreating the baby-tourism whereby having children here would mean immunity from deportations. With a deficit of €21 billion, we can no longer afford spending €350 million per annum on asylum. Lawyers want Lisbon because the Charter will allow them to profit even more from asylum appeals with yet another layer of appeals - this time in the ECJ. Vote NO.

UK Europe Minister Baroness Kinnock (wife of former Labour leader Neil Kinnock) has told the House of Lords that they will not have the force of EU law until added as a Protocol to a future Accession Treaty. She said: "Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October." She added: "Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it....My Lords, what we have in the guarantees will become binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, which presumably will be when Croatia or Iceland comes in. Before that protocol can be ratified by the UK, Parliament must pass a Bill. As I said, Parliament will rightly have the final say." But UK Foreign Secretary David Milliband appeared to contradict her during questions at the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee stating: "Every head of state agrees that these guarantees do not change the Treaty...the guarantees are legally-binding in international law... It does not require ratification in order to have legal affect." This lead the Chairman of the Committee to ask, "If this is a legally-binding decision and doesn't need ratification, why does it need to be put in a protocol?" He asked, "Is it a stitch-up to get around Irish peoples' concerns? I can see why people would be suspicious." To confuse things further, Liberal Democrat MEP and self-described "militant federalist" Andrew Duff has claimed that an Irish Protocol appended to an Accession Treaty would be challenged in the courts as it would violate EU law, saying: "Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts...".According to the Irish Times, "he added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state's accession to be dealt with." Clearly, the credibility of the Government's 'guarantee's is not something they can take for granted. I, for one, am far from convinced of their veracity.

And what has this to do with LGBT issues? Why should be vote no from an LGBT perspective.

Stark

Locking the thread as it's long gone off the topic.

The European union forum is this way: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1069 for anyone who wants to discuss general aspects to the treaty.