How much of Lisbon that people dislike is actually Nice?

BlitzKrieg

Genuine question


I am looking through this leaflet on lisbon 2: http://www.people.ie/leaflet/lisbon2.pdf

as representatives from the organisation will be at a debate I am attending tomorrow.

And looking through their complaints on bank regulations, taxation and public services

They are for the most part identical articles to those from nice


for example

Nice: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002E/htm/C_2002325EN.003301.html

lisbon:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:EN:HTML


People's movment leaflet:

LISBON ATTACKs PUBLIC SERVICES!

article 106!


here is article 106 (lisbon)

1. In the case of public under takings and under takings to which Member States grant special or
exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the
rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 18 and Articles 101
to 109.

2. Under takings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having
the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties,
in par ticular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the
performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must
not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.

3. The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions of this Ar ticle and shall, where
necessary, address appropriate directives or decisions to Member States

and 86 in nice

1.* *In the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 12 and Articles 81 to 89.

2.* *Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Community.

3.* *The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions of this Article and shall, where necessary, address appropriate directives or decisions to Member States.

the only changes is the term community is swapped with union and the article numbers.


Another example

People's movement leaflet:

LESS REGULATION OF BANKS! (article 63!)

lisbon:

1. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the
movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be
prohibited.
2. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on payments
between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.

nice (article 56)

1.* *Within the framework of the provisions set out in this chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.
2.* *Within the framework of the provisions set out in this chapter, all restrictions on payments between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.

I havnt done them all but I am noticing a trend.

The only difference I have found so far is the words

and to avoid distortion of competition

in article 113 where they are saying lisbon will outlaw irish tax rules

lisbon:

The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after
consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the
harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect
taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the
functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

Nice:

The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 14.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Those people dislike the EU, that's it.

K-9

There definitely is a hard core No support that isn't that particularly opposed to Lisbon on its own, but Nice and Lisbon. Some as we've seen on this forum, even go further back than that.

They do seem to shout the loudest and probably contributed to the drop in Yes support in the latest poll which transferred to don't knows.

patrickthomas

K-9 wrote: »

There definitely is a hard core No support that isn't that particularly opposed to Lisbon on its own, but Nice and Lisbon. Some as we've seen on this forum, even go further back than that.

They do seem to shout the loudest and probably contributed to the drop in Yes support in the latest poll which transferred to don't knows.

I and everybody I know have supported every treaty until the Lisbon treaty. What changed my mind about the first one as I was very prepared to vote for it was I smelt a rat, read it and sure enough there was a whole lot I did not like, this time I did not read it, just talked to the yes supporters that had and realised they were just carrying out orders, not thinking for themselves.

We need people in politics that can think for themselves, not yesmen, that is what we have had and that is what has got us into this god awful mess we find ourselves in.

I shout loud now because I now know that the people who govern this country are completely without honour, dignity or integrity

I want to be able to hold my head up as an Irishman again.

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

I and everybody I know have supported every treaty until the Lisbon treaty. What changed my mind about the first one as I was very prepared to vote for it was I smelt a rat, read it and sure enough there was a whole lot I did not like, this time I did not read it, just talked to the yes supporters that had and realised they were just carrying out orders, not thinking for themselves.

We need people in politics that can think for themselves, not yesmen, that is what we have had and that is what has got us into this god awful mess we find ourselves in.

Where do you get off with this ****e? Carrying out orders my arse.

You're yet another of the No campaigners that professes to have always been a Yes voter but at the same time is suspiciously anti-EU. And equally suspiciously keeps finding reasons to vote No if the old reasons were shown to not be valid. Maybe it's just me.

patrickthomas wrote: »

We need people in politics that can think for themselves, not yesmen, that is what we have had and that is what has got us into this god awful mess we find ourselves in.

I think you'll find we got ourselves into this mess by voting for Fianna Fail, continually. Which you'll also find has nothing to do with Lisbon or 'Yesmen'.

patrickthomas wrote: »

I shout loud now because I now know that the people who govern this country are completely without honour, dignity or integrity

Good for you. I agree but then again we did vote for them. Representative democracy eh? people can be fooled into voting a particular way by all sorts of lies and exaggerations. Don't remember you complaining about how the No campaign was conducted the last time though, you know all those lies.

patrickthomas wrote: »

I want to be able to hold my head up as an Irishman again.

Personally I'm embarrassed by the country voting No to a treaty for reasons that mostly weren't in the treaty. It almost seems like they were tricked or something.

meglome

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Those people dislike the EU, that's it.

You know I was quite surprised when I saw the chart which shows the No campaign has opposed every EU treaty. You really have to question their bona fides when they've never found reason to support an EU treaty. I'd have to assume given how this campaign is being run that there was a lot of scaremongering in the past too. Now considering the general popularity of the EU in Ireland I'm going to also assume that most of the things used to scaremonger didn't come to pass. And yet here we are 36 years after we joined the EU and they're still objecting. Whatever little credibility the No campaign had with me after all their lies disappeared when I realised their pedigree.

FutureTaoiseach

Well the transfer of these 50 areas to QMV was not in Nice. To tell the truth, my underlying problem is Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, which, unlike Nice, for the first time enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law "with the same legal value as the Treaties". I can't accept the Charter because I don't trust the ECJ to interpret it. While the guidelines for interpretation of the Charter say that those parts of it which have an equivalent right in the ECHR are to be interpreted in the same way, there are other rights there too, and I feel this is a leap in the dark that I am not prepared to risk. I strongly oppose the language on asylum because, while I accept genuine refugees are entitled to safety, I have been disturbed by rulings like Chen and Metock in recent years with respect to immigration law. True - these issues didn't relate to asylum. But to me, it suggested a kind of PC left-liberalism that I disagree with.

Another problem with the Charter is the fact that it exists at all in the context where it is enshrined into EU law. Compared to the Irish Constitution, which can be changed by a mere referendum and then legislation passing the amendments into law, the Charter cannot be changed without all EU member states agreeing and then ratifying changes through whatever constitutional means is required. So from a convenience point of view, I object to it aswell. I don't want us to have to go running to a foreign government for permission to change our human rights law on the areas covered in the Charter which are not at present part of EU law. I've distrusted the ECJ since the Chen judgement which led the government to call the Citizenship referendum. I have nothing against immigrants, but I feel immigration policy is a sensitive area of national sovereignty and not one that should be diluted any further.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Well the transfer of these 50 areas to QMV was not in Nice. To tell the truth, my underlying problem is Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, which, unlike Nice, for the first time enshrines the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law "with the same legal value as the Treaties". I can't accept the Charter because I don't trust the ECJ to interpret it.

As PopeBuckfast said, you just dislike the EU. If you don't trust them to interpret fundamental rights, the contents of any treaty are completely irrelevant. You will always find a reason to vote it down

ixtlan

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Compared to the Irish Constitution, which can be changed by a mere referendum and then legislation passing the amendments into law, the Charter cannot be changed without all EU member states agreeing and then ratifying changes through whatever constitutional means is required. So from a convenience point of view, I object to it aswell.

Note: bold emphasis added by me...

It's surely worth pointing out that it isn't that easy to change the Irish constitution, and in fact every government does everything it can to avoid such changes, because inevitably it leads to massive controversy.

Look at the blasphemy issue... constitution says you have to have a law... there isn't one... groups recommend changing the constitution... the government decides to bring in a law... Why? Because no government wants to run any referendum if it can be avoided. Even the promised children's rights referendum has been delayed endlessly.

In actual fact it's probably far easier to make changes to the EU treaties in the future if you have issues.

Ix.