O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

Sam Vimes

Dinner wrote: »

You forgot to mention the small factor of addressing the concerns and then putting it to vote again.

Sorry to split hairs.

Nah ya don't let a little thing like reality get in the way. Don't be ridiculous

oscarBravo

drkpower wrote: »

Isnt Klaus entitled, under his country's rules, to delay the signing of Lisbon?

It would seem so. If, however, he refuses to complete the ratification process and thereby single-handedly prevents the entry into force of a treaty that was ratified by every other member state and by his own country's parliament, I would hope to see such action condemned as undemocratic by both pro- and anti-Lisbon campaigners.

Note I said hope, not expect.

drkpower

oscarBravo wrote: »

It would seem so. If, however, he refuses to complete the ratification process and thereby single-handedly prevents the entry into force of a treaty that was ratified by every other member state and by his own country's parliament, I would hope to see such action condemned as undemocratic by both pro- and anti-Lisbon campaigners.

Note I said hope, not expect.

I dont understand.

If the democratic rules of his country allow him to delay/refuse to ratify (single handedly or otherwise), then how can we justifiably object or say he is acting undemocratically? After all, many people (incorrectly) claim our rules that allow us to hold a 2nd referendum are undemocratic.

If they dont allow him to do so, then he should either be prevented from so acting and/or be impeached.

We cant have it both ways.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

I dont understand.

If the democratic rules of his country allow him to delay/refuse to ratify (single handedly or otherwise), then how can we justifiably object or say he is acting undemocratically? After all, many people (incorrectly) claim our rules that allow us to hold a 2nd referendum are undemocratic.

If they dont allow him to do so, then he should either be prevented from so acting and/or be impeached.

We cant have it both ways.

We can say that we don't approve of the procedures in other countries, for example I don't think Saddam Hussein ran his country particularly well but that shouldn't effect how we vote on a treaty

oscarBravo

drkpower wrote: »

If the democratic rules of his country allow him to delay/refuse to ratify (single handedly or otherwise), then how can we justifiably object or say he is acting undemocratically?

It's a fair point, and it comes down to a question of whether the Czech constitution intentionally gives the President an unchecked power of veto over the decisions of the national parliament.

If their constitution is designed to confer such dictatorial power on a single man, then fair enough: my quibble would be with the undemocratic nature of the Czech constitution. If, on the other hand, the President was abusing his power in order to single-handedly prevent the ratification of a treaty that his country's parliament has improved, simply because he personally disagrees with it, wouldn't you consider that undemocratic?

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We can say that we don't approve of the procedures in other countries, for example I don't think Saddam Hussein ran his country particularly well but that shouldn't effect how we vote on a treaty

Oh, ok.
The same way that people in other countries (and our own) can disapprove of our system whereby we can have two referendums and tell us it is undemocratic. And we rightly tell them to pfo.

We either accept the systems that other countries have in place or we dont. Comparing Saddam with a fellow EU partner who we admitted to our club is a little silly.

evercloserunion

drkpower wrote: »

Oh, ok.
The same way that people in other countries (and our own) can disapprove of our system whereby we can have two referendums and tell us it is undemocratic. And we rightly tell them to pfo.

We either accept the systems that other countries have in place or we dont. Comparing Saddam with a fellow EU partner who we admitted to our club is a little silly.

He wasn't comparing the two, don't be silly.

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Link

wow,what a come back...

Dinner

Dinner wrote: »

You forgot to mention the small factor of addressing the concerns and then putting it to vote again.

Sorry to split hairs.

Speak for your own concerns
In the rest of Ireland their concerns werent met

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Speak for your own concerns
In the rest of Ireland their concerns werent met

Speak for your own concerns.

The electorate will decide that. Some concerns cannot reasonably be met, eg, back to the old EEC.

Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

Speak for your own concerns
In the rest of Ireland their concerns werent met

They weren't my concerns. I didn't have any. But evidently many people did as shown in the Millward Brown study.

And those issues that were discovered have been solved.

I know you may not like this and you'll say something about the survey being biased or statistics not being accurate but at the end of the day the survey was not biased, the maths is accurate and those issues discovered have been solved. Even you cannot deny that those issues have been solved.

Oh wait, of course you will.

Dinner

Dinner wrote: »

They weren't my concerns. I didn't have any. But evidently many people did as shown in the Millward Brown study.

And those issues that were discovered have been solved.

I know you may not like this and you'll say something about the survey being biased or statistics not being accurate but at the end of the day the survey was not biased, the maths is accurate and those issues discovered have been solved. Even you cannot deny that those issues have been solved.

Oh wait, of course you will.

Sure you know exactly what I'm going to say. More arrogance from the yes side. Top two reasons people voted No according to that survey were
1. lack of understanding for the treaty - which I'm sure since more time has passed that has been slightly fixed
2. worries over loss of sovereignty - not changed! We are still handing the EU more power

Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure you know exactly what I'm going to say. More arrogance from the yes side.

I guessed because that is the usual response from people forget to mention that issues have been solved.

Arrogance was not my intention, rather to preempt the usual response. Apologies if you weren't going to use either of those excuses.

Deleted User wrote: »

Top two reasons people voted No according to that survey were
1. lack of understanding for the treaty - which I'm sure since more time has passed that has been slightly fixed
2. worries over loss of sovereignty - not changed! We are still handing the EU more power

1) To me, 42% of people (plus the no doubt large amount of people who voted yes and didn't understand it) is nearly a good enough reason alone to have another referendum.

A second referendum is a great chance for both sides to better understand the issues.

2) The next largest 'group' (~26%) of issues according to the study were the ones 'attributed to Lisbon' these included all the issues that have been solved by the guarantees.

The second largest individual reason was "Loss of power, domination by large countries, dictated to by other countries" (13%) something which I guess covers everything from sovereignty to the voting rights issue. The voting weights isn't half as scary once you a) realise the double majority aspect of it and b) the manner in which the EU goes about passing legislation (ie. by consensus and negotiation rather than an outright vote).


I think the guarantees that sort out the concerns of 26% of no voters plus the chance to explain things better to sort out in excess of 42% of voters is more than enough reason to have a second referendum. And the amount of people that were concerned about the issues that got guarantees is more than enough reason to include it when talking about the reasons we are having a second referendum.

FunnyStuff

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yay for democracy, when one man can single-handedly overrule his country's parliament.

You spend alot of time lecturing the no side on here, saying that other european nations democratically elected their leaders to operate their specific nations in specific ways, but when the democratically elected czech nation democratically allows for their president to overrule parliament, you seem to insinuate it is undemocratic.?????? hmmm.... i wonder....

puffdragon

Could somebody democratically tell me what time the tit-seoicht gets into donegal tomorrow?

PeakOutput

anywher ei can get this debate online besides rte player? im in the states and rte player is region restricted

badinfleunce

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said it would damage Ireland because it shows us to be isolationist, it makes us look like we're not committed to the EU and, frankly, it shows us to be a bunch of ignoramuses who won't accept the facts because we'd rather believe terrorists and fundamentalist christians.

And it will be damaging for the EU because they didn't spend 5 years and millions writing it for the craic. The EU will probably continue under Nice rules but will be crippled by the bureaucracy and inefficiencies that Lisbon is meant to address.

No you dont get it. This is a huge transfer of power and I for one dont bend over and get f*cked in the ass for anyone because of what people think about me.

You follow your sheep and Ill follow my head. I am not quoting gaurantees I have quoted the Lisbon treaty as it stands and that is the Law and the only Law. The gaurantees are simply annexes - not law. The European court rules on Law and the gaurantees have to be tested in a court - they are not EU Law.

Just look at the Lithuanian case last week which prohibits promotion of "homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations" among children under 18.

Europe felt they were contravining European anti-discrimination standards and voted in the European Parliament 349 to 218 last week to condemn Lithuania for its "law on the protection of minors".

David Quinn, Director of Ireland's Iona Institute and a family rights advocate, called the resolution "a completely unwarranted intrusion in the domestic affairs of a member state."

While the EU has "guaranteed" that Ireland's constitutional protection of unborn life would be unaffected by a "yes" vote on Lisbon, the European Parliament's action on Lithuania has fueled concerns that European institutions would seek to override Irelands domestic laws.

Make up your own mind - Im Voting No.

moondogspot

PeakOutput wrote: »

anywher ei can get this debate online besides rte player? im in the states and rte player is region restricted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbuyGJKxp9I&feature=channel

Stark

badinfleunce wrote: »

No you dont get it. This is a huge transfer of power and I for one dont bend over and get f*cked in the ass for anyone because of what people think about me.

You follow your sheep and Ill follow my head. I am not quoting gaurantees I have quoted the Lisbon treaty as it stands and that is the Law and the only Law. The gaurantees are simply annexes - not law. The European court rules on Law and the gaurantees have to be tested in a court - they are not EU Law.

Just look at the Lithuanian case last week which prohibits promotion of "homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations" among children under 18.

Europe felt they were contravining European anti-discrimination standards and voted in the European Parliament 349 to 218 last week to condemn Lithuania for its "law on the protection of minors".

David Quinn, Director of Ireland's Iona Institute and a family rights advocate, called the resolution "a completely unwarranted intrusion in the domestic affairs of a member state."

While the EU has "guaranteed" that Ireland's constitutional protection of unborn life would be unaffected by a "yes" vote on Lisbon, the European Parliament's action on Lithuania has fueled concerns that European institutions would seek to override Irelands domestic laws.

Make up your own mind - Im Voting No.

Gay rights are something that are provided for by EU laws and treaties. Abortion isn't.

K-9

badinfleunce wrote: »

David Quinn, Director of Ireland's Iona Institute and a family rights advocate, called the resolution "a completely unwarranted intrusion in the domestic affairs of a member state."

Quinn AFAIK, Came out (:eek:) for Lisbon.

I suppose on balance he sees it as a good thing.

Not a fan of him but it does point out how wide ranging the support is.

Scofflaw

badinfleunce wrote: »

No you dont get it. This is a huge transfer of power and I for one dont bend over and get f*cked in the ass for anyone because of what people think about me.

You follow your sheep and Ill follow my head. I am not quoting gaurantees I have quoted the Lisbon treaty as it stands and that is the Law and the only Law. The gaurantees are simply annexes - not law. The European court rules on Law and the gaurantees have to be tested in a court - they are not EU Law.

1. The guarantees are legally binding international agreements, with exactly the same legal standing as the Good Friday Agreement. The commitment to turn them into Protocols, and thus the equal of anything else in the Treaties, is equally binding.

badinfleunce wrote: »

Just look at the Lithuanian case last week which prohibits promotion of "homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations" among children under 18.

Europe felt they were contravining European anti-discrimination standards and voted in the European Parliament 349 to 218 last week to condemn Lithuania for its "law on the protection of minors".

David Quinn, Director of Ireland's Iona Institute and a family rights advocate, called the resolution "a completely unwarranted intrusion in the domestic affairs of a member state."

2. Non-discrimination is in the Treaties.

badinfleunce wrote: »

While the EU has "guaranteed" that Ireland's constitutional protection of unborn life would be unaffected by a "yes" vote on Lisbon, the European Parliament's action on Lithuania has fueled concerns that European institutions would seek to override Irelands domestic laws.

3. The protective Protocol in the Treaties for Article 40.3.3 of Bunreacht is legally unassailable:

Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

That's it, full stop, nothing in the Treaties can override 40.3.3 on the right to life of the unborn.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

3. The protective Protocol in the Treaties for Article 40.3.3 of Bunreacht is legally unassailable:
That's it, full stop, nothing in the Treaties can override 40.3.3 on the right to life of the unborn.
cordially,
Scofflaw

Now now RH, given that the referendum itself next week is to amend our Constitution to include the following:
6° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done 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 by institutions thereof,
ii the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or by institutions thereof, or
iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

That does look to me that the constitution very much takes a back seat to the Lisbon Treaty and ANY laws brought into being after as well. Talk about a Trojan horse for all sorts of shenanigans!

Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

That does look to me that the constitution very much takes a back seat to the Lisbon Treaty and ANY laws brought into being after as well. Talk about a Trojan horse for all sorts of shenanigans!

Have you read our Constitution recently? Because that's been in it since 1973.

Dinner

Dinner wrote: »

Have you read our Constitution recently? Because that's been in it since 1973.

Wow,they must have had really good fortune tellers back then naming the Lisbon Treaty and being so kind to insert it into the constitution!!

If you are referring to the EEC/EU taking precedence legally then you are correct to a certain extent but the Lisbon Treaty is about NEW competencies handed over to the EU so therefore you are wrong.

Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow,they must have had really good fortune tellers back then naming the Lisbon Treaty and being so kind to insert it into the constitution!!

If you are referring to the EEC/EU taking precedence legally then you are correct to a certain extent but the Lisbon Treaty is about NEW competencies handed over to the EU so therefore you are wrong.

My most humble apologies, I assumed you would be able to work out that the Lisbon bit was new.

Perhaps next time don't make out as if the whole article is new.


EDIT: Also, it's not a 'Trojan Horse'. If it requires a referendum pre Lisbon, it will require one post Lisbon.

Dinner

Dinner wrote: »

My most humble apologies, I assumed you would be able to work out that the Lisbon bit was new.

Perhaps next time don't make out as if the whole article is new.

So we are agreed then that the Lisbon treaty overrides the Irish consitution, good.
And that the EU can enact ANY law it wishes irrespective of our constitution? In many new areas like health and education?

Dinner wrote: »

EDIT: Also, it's not a 'Trojan Horse'. If it requires a referendum pre Lisbon, it will require one post Lisbon.

Not necessarily since the Crotty judgement only allows for a referendum when we hand over more power. After Lisbon the EU already have that power therefore can use Lisbon as a Trojan horse.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

In many new areas like health and education?

We have a veto. That's the part Joe Higgins leaves out, surprisingly, seeing as Vetoes are so important to Joe.

As for the rest, what is your opinion on the EU, as it now exists?

Daftendirekt

Deleted User wrote: »

So we are agreed then that the Lisbon treaty overrides the Irish consitution, good.

And so does Nice. And every other EU treaty we've ever voted on.

And that the EU can enact ANY law it wishes irrespective of our constitution? In many new areas like health and education?

This is a lie. Where in the treaty does it say this?

Not necessarily since the Crotty judgement only allows for a referendum when we hand over more power. After Lisbon the EU already have that power therefore can use Lisbon as a Trojan horse.

No, the Crotty judgement says we have to amend our Constitution to allow any significant changes to the EU treaties. This requires a referendum.

nacho libre

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I said it would damage Ireland because it shows us to be isolationist, it makes us look like we're not committed to the EU and, frankly, it shows us to be a bunch of ignoramuses who won't accept the facts because we'd rather believe terrorists and fundamentalist christians.

is this fact or opinion?
did it damage the French and Dutch when they voted no to the EU constitution? were they considered as Euro sceptics?

as regards the debate, Harkin came off best. Harkin was confident in herself, kept to the details of the treaty - she refuted every false claim that was brought up and didn't feel the need to engage in mudslinging.


as for the two businessmen in the debate, both i suspect have their own agenda for taking part, while it's clear Michael O'Leary lost the debate- he won in the court of public opinion with his soundbytes. yes, Ganley spoke with flair, and had a greater grasp of the contents of the treaty, but that is irrevelant, because politics in ireland has proven it's the guy with charisma and the mastery of the soundbye that sways people and is remebered. if it was the guy who was humble, full of integrity and erudite, someone like Liam Cosgrave, would be revered and remembered by the public rather than the politician you'd like to have a pint with:rolleyes:

Daftendirekt

nacho libre wrote: »

is this fact or opinion?
did it damage the French and Dutch when they voted no to the EU constitution? were they considered as Euro sceptics?

The French and Dutch were both able to state what their problems were with the Constitution.