NOW IS THE TIME, FOR ALL GOOD MEN AND WOMEN, TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY!

djpbarry

Hitman Actual wrote: »

What I find interesting about the value of Irish fisheries is that it is actually more valuable since we joined the EC in '73. Probably something to do with the fact that as the country was more prosperous due to EU membership, more aid (a lot of it EU money) was available to Irish fisheries and we have a hugely increased market.

Not to mention the fact that foreign waters were made available to Irish fishing vessels, something that is seldom acknowledged amidst claims that the EU stole our fish.

Fuhrer

Is this going to be a debate thread or simply a copy and paste job?

ei.sdraob

Fuhrer wrote: »

Is this going to be a debate thread or simply a copy and paste job?

you must be new here

marco_polo

bonkey wrote: »

Could someone humour me and explain the details behind this claim?

Would Mr. Corr (or anyone supporting him) like to supply the specifics of what was overruled and nullified, and when, that we can look at the details?

it is, after all, impossible to prove a negative. PopeBuckFaskXVI cannot show that there has never been a nullification or overruling. The claim that there has been such events, however, should be easily supportable by evidence.

Attempting to play devils advocate here, the only thing that I can possibly think of is the folllowing (Since Denmark is are still neutral, not a member of the eurozone and retained their opt out arrangements on Justice and Home Affairs.)


Section A of the Edinburgh Aggreement stated the following:

Section A: Citizenship
The provisions of Part Two of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to citizenship of the Union give nationals of the Member States additional rights and protection as specified in that Part. They do not in any way take the place of national citizenship. The question whether an individual possesses the nationality of a Member State will be settled solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned.

Subsequently in the Amsterdam Treaty a similar clause was inserted applying to all members states (ie clarifying that EU citizenship was supplimentary to national citizenship). Making Section A of the agreement in effect meanningless.

Only other possibility is that Denmark signed the Schengen Agreement susequent to the Edinburgh Agreement, but in doing so retained all their opt outs relating to Justice and home affairs.

Apart from that *shrug*.

Fuhrer

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you must be new here

No I mean, is Jim going to come and refute peoples counter points and the like.


Id hate to think it was just going to be posted here like a leaflet being shoved through the door and then off he went.

Hitman Actual

Fuhrer wrote: »

Im obviously not as clued on on this as you but...


Arent the EU elite elected by the people to represent them in matters such as making changes and such?

Jim is misrepresenting the truth there. Anything that wouldn't require a referendum in Lisbon wouldn't require a referendum as things currently stand. But, as you say, any changes brought about by the Simplified Revision Procedure or the Passarelle clause would need to be approved by our elected representatives.

My name is URL

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And my oath before the supreme court doesn't exist within the contract. Does that make it any less of an oath?

The oath stands, but for how long?

It means that future decisions can be made with via QMV and with little blessing from the Irish people. And there's nothing to say that those guarantees won't be overruled in any new agreement.

Stark

My name is URL wrote: »

It means that future decisions can be made with via QMV and with little blessing by the Irish people. And there's nothing to say that those guarantees won't be overruled in any new agreement.

It means that some future decisions can be made via QMV. All the issues mentioned in the guarantees still require unanimity.

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

Attempting to play devils advocate here, the only thing that I can possibly think of is the folllowing (Since Denmark is are still neutral, not a member of the eurozone and retained their opt out arrangements on Justice and Home Affairs.)


Section A of the Edinburgh Aggreement stated the following:



Subsequently in the Amsterdam Treaty a similar clause was inserted applying to all members states (ie clarifying that EU citizenship was supplimentary to national citizenship). Making Section A of the agreement in effect meanningless.

Only other possibility is that Denmark signed the Schengen Agreement susequent to the Edinburgh Agreement, but in doing so retained all their opt outs relating to Justice and home affairs.

Apart from that *shrug*.

Thanks, but there's nothing there about an ECJ ruling.

marco_polo

My name is URL wrote: »

The oath stands, but for how long?

It means that future decisions can be made with via QMV and with little blessing from the Irish people. And there's nothing to say that those guarantees won't be overruled in any new agreement.

Are you under the impression that QMV and the guarantees are related in some way?

PopeBuckfastXVI

My name is URL wrote: »

The oath stands, but for how long?
.

Until. The. Irish. People. Vote. To. Remove. It.

Can it be any plainer? Are you trying not to understand at this stage?

ei.sdraob

Fuhrer wrote: »

No I mean, is Jim going to come and refute peoples counter points and the like.


Id hate to think it was just going to be posted here like a leaflet being shoved through the door and then off he went.

oh yeh

i asked the same question earlier

still waiting

Sam Vimes

My name is URL wrote: »

The oath stands, but for how long?

It means that future decisions can be made with via QMV and with little blessing by the Irish people. And there's nothing to say that those guarantees won't be overruled in any new agreement.

The guarantees relate to abortion (and other social issues like gay marriage), taxation, neutrality, conscription and the whole area of an EU army. Each of those areas is either not a competence of the EU or we still have a veto. See here for the new areas of QMV. There's nothing in any form of legislation anywhere that says it can never be changed but that doesn't mean we won't have a choice on the matter

Those guarantees stand because they are like my oath that the contract doesn't entitle me to your first born. With or without the oath I still can't take him, the oath just reiterates it more strongly to settle your fears. If the EU ever wants to make legislation in those areas it will require a referendum because the competences of the EU cannot be increased without one and neither can there be any transfer of power.

If you look at the guarantees you'll see most of them start with "Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon....". The treaty has no effect on them. They are red herrings thrown up to scare people. Their legal situation now is identical to their legal situation after ratification so if the EU did have power to take them over, which they don't, they'd have that power regardless of which way you vote.

If you vote no because you think that there is some possibility that the guarantees are in some way not watertight you are giving the government all the justification they need to run a third referendum because you will be rejecting the treaty based on a misconception and not because of a legitimate problem you have with it

bonkey

Mr Man wrote: »

Why so? Jim Corr is posting as Jim Corr. He is a national figure who has been on the airwaves many times. Therefore everything he has said outside is also relevant. If someone had started a thread about something JC had said, then people would have had a lot to say about him and I doubt mods would have anything to say about it. Does the fact that JC started the thread exclude that?

The concept of 'attack the post, and not the poster' has been a central tenet of the Politics charter since the very start.

It holds for every poster, regardless of who they are in "real life".

If you wish to discuss the point, there is a thread in Politics for discussing the charter. Alternately, you could take it to Feedback, as it is a principle applied to many different forums and not just the Politics area.

Pending a change of the charter, however, it will be applied and enforced here.

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Thanks, but there's nothing there about an ECJ ruling.

Oh missed that bit, a google of the pertinant keywords seems to leave me with the claim made on jims own site, jim repeating this claim here, jim repeating the claim on the forums of DavidIckle.com and also p.ie.

moogester

This might be helpful.

The Irish opt-outs from the Lisbon Treaty? Lessons of the Danish experience.

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Briefs2008/B08_The_Irish_Opt_Outs_from_the_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

Sam Vimes

moogester wrote: »

This might be helpful.

The Irish opt-outs from the Lisbon Treaty? Lessons of the Danish experience.

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Briefs2008/B08_The_Irish_Opt_Outs_from_the_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

The Danes got opt outs but then the rest of the EU later changed their rules to match Denmark, making the opt-outs obsolete. They effectively became opt-ins. They weren't overruled

Bet you a euro you won't just accept that and will continue to insist that they were overruled, ignoring the fact that the entire EU would have collapsed if such a thing had been done

Darragh

Folks

I just wanted to interrupt here and let you know how this thread came about.

Jim Corr originally posted this on Boards a while ago and had at the end that "he was not going to answer questions". Therefore we deleted the thread and Jim's account, having had no verification that it was him.

I spoke with him and explained what Boards.ie was and invited him to come back. I set him up with his account and he posted.

I note, like all of you, that he hasn't returned to answer your replies yet. I have contacted him to ask him to, but he hasn't gotten back - yet.

Jim Corr is not getting any special treatment on Boards.ie and is subject to the same rules as everyone else. It was my mistake to mark him as a different type of user to regular posters (I did this to show we had verified his account) and I have now rectified that. He will keep his "Campaigner" title and avatar as that's what he is - he has come specifically to talk about the Lisbon Treaty.

In absolute fairness, considering he is a complete newbie to Boards.ie and the way it works, I'm asking your indulgence in allowing me to keep this thread open until 12noon tomorrow, either to tell me that he's not going to respond or for him to respond himself.

The politics mods have been brilliant in their moderation of the thread and how it's being handled and due to the short time frame of this happening, I'm asking for their continued help in this.

As I say, we have told Jim about the thread, he knows where to go and who to contact so I'm waiting to see if he comes back. If not, forum rules apply and the thread gets locked.

Thanks

Darragh

moogester

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The Danes got opt outs but then the rest of the EU later changed their rules to match Denmark, making the opt-outs obsolete. They effectively became opt-ins. They weren't overruled

Bet you a euro you won't just accept that and will continue to insist that they were overruled, ignoring the fact that the entire EU would have collapsed if such a thing had been done

Erm.........i'm only trying to get to the bottom of all of this. I'm not insisisting anyone was overruled :mad:

Perhaps if you'd read the link you may have noticed that.

Sam Vimes

moogester wrote: »

Erm.........i'm only trying to get to the bottom of all of this. I'm not insisisting anyone was overruled :mad:

Perhaps if you'd read the link you may have noticed that.

What was meant by "lessons from the Danish experience"? Is the lesson that the EU sticks by its agreements?

moogester

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What was meant by "lessons from the Danish experience"? Is the lesson that the EU sticks by its agreements?

That is the title of the article - take it up with the author, not me.

tonyhiggins

I think this thread has been great for clarification of issues. Thanks to everyone who's taken apart the claims made in the original post, I really wish that as many people could have access to this as possible.

MarkK

Jim Corr wrote: »

800 years of Tyranny...

I hope you'll be bringing this up at your next concert in England,
maybe just before "Forgiven not Forgotten".

Sam Vimes

moogester wrote: »

That is the title of the article - take it up with the author, not me.

I think I owe you an apology. I assumed you were agreeing with Mr Corr that the EU went back on the Edinburgh agreement but the article you linked to does not appear to be saying that.

Moving on... :P

Euro_Kraut

MarkK wrote: »

I hope you'll be bringing this up at your next concert in England,
maybe just before "Forgiven not Forgotten".

He can do the next time he plays the Royal Albert Hall.

Or that next time the Quenn makes him a Member of the Order of the British Empire

coopersgreen

**** off Jim you lizard loving cretin.


<edit>
banned for one week - bonkey
</edit>

P. Breathnach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What was meant by "lessons from the Danish experience"? Is the lesson that the EU sticks by its agreements?

I think the lessons were those learned by our negotiators from what the Danes did -- lessons in how to deal constructively with the situation, not lessons in the sense of a warning of what might go wrong.

On a first reading, it looks to me to be a fair and measured piece.

moogester

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think I owe you an apology. I assumed you were agreeing with Mr Corr that the EU went back on the Edinburgh agreement but the article you linked to does not appear to be saying that.

Moving on... :P

Thank you Sam

Truth is often the first casualty in war or something like that

bonkey

I've deleted three posts which were discussing/questioning the moderation in this thread.

As per the charter : do not discuss moderation in-thread.

You should know the appropriate options for complaints/feedback. Please use them.

Darragh has explained the background. The thread remains provisionally open at the request of the Administrators. Other than that, it is going to be moderated in a manner consistent with our charter.

If you're unsure in any way what that means, then go and read the charter again before posting.

Lab_Mouse

Jim,
i'd like to thank you for making me vote yes,didnt vote last time but will now.

Me pesonally,i have never had so much much freedom.I can travel to all most every country in the world on a holiday.Over the last 15 years I have made a lot of money.I live in relative comfort and can support my family.A lot of this I believe is by irelands full membership of the EU.

bring on THE NEW WORLD ORDER.