Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So what IS the truth about the "legal" guarantees?

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    The problem for many people is that the agreements are declarations and not protocols until the next accession treaty.

    Google the difference between "declaration" and "protocol" to see for yourself.

    The problem for some people is that they will not accept the facts. They are legally binding. A protocol is not the only thing in the world that is legally binding


  • Options
    #33
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    jonnyfingers wrote: »
    If only the so called "Yes" campaign could do the same instead of all this "Yes to Jobs" bull****.

    Agreed, although the "No" side have posted some dodgy posters it is really only Coir who no one should pay any attention to.

    My advice is to do your own research, look up multiple information sources, the 'official' sources will give you 'facts' but much of the debate is reading between the lines of the treaty..


  • Options
    #34
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    marco_polo wrote: »
    The problem for people who make this point is that it doesn't matter as they are legally binding under international law.

    Has it been a problem for the Danes thus far, and they still do not have a protocol.

    Has a declaration ever had to be tested in a court of law? Was it found to be 'binding'?

    Simple yes or no will do.


  • Options
    #35
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    Agreed, although the "No" side have posted some dodgy posters it is really only Coir who no one should pay any attention to.
    Oh is it now? A brief list of some misinformation that's been spread, not all by Coir:
    €200 billion in fisheries
    €1.84 minimum wage
    Forcing us to engage in military action in a terrorist attack
    European superstate
    Abortion, gay marriage and EUthanasia
    Death penalty
    Massive conspiracy to pretend the guarantees are binding
    Treaty is unreadable
    Treaty is designed to be unreadable
    Corrupt surveys to make up fake issues and pretend to address them
    Ratification through parliament in other countries is somehow undemocratic or unusual
    EU "didn't allow" other countres to have referendums
    Keep voting until you give the right answer
    Ryanair allowed buy Aer Lingus in exchange for the campaign
    Rigged polls to make it look like the yes side are ahead
    Lisbon allows Turkish accession (with fake video)
    Lisbon makes EU law superior to Irish law
    Losing the right to referendums
    We will no longer have a constitution in Ireland
    Self-amending and escalator clause
    Privatisation of healthcare and education
    More military spending
    Lavelle case could happen here
    Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
    Voting weight halved
    QMV is brand new
    Loss of veto in all areas
    Allows EU to raise our corporation tax
    Conscription into a non-existent EU army
    EU commission diverted €10 million to yes campaign
    Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums
    Fake polls made up by Coir
    2nd vote undemocratic. (The reasons that many people voted no have been addressed and the supreme court has ruled that it's not)
    free-man wrote: »
    My advice is to do your own research, look up multiple information sources, the 'official' sources will give you 'facts' but much of the debate is reading between the lines of the treaty..
    It's really not, honestly. The people who tell you that are the ones that are making sh!t up. By "reading between the lines", they're reading things that aren't there


  • Options
    #36
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    Has a declaration ever had to be tested in a court of law? Was it found to be 'binding'?

    Simple yes or no will do.

    It's like banging your head against a fcuking wall.
    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf
    (iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

    How could that possibly be interpreted any other way?

    If a declaration had been tested in a court, you'd say "Oh but it wasn't tested in this court. If it had been tested in that court you'd point to some irrelevant difference between the text of the two and say that this type of declaration hadn't been tested in court. You simply don't want to accept the facts


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's like banging your head against a fcuking wall.
    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

    How could that possibly be interpreted any other way?

    If a declaration had been tested in a court, you'd say "Oh but it wasn't tested in this court. If it had been tested in that court you'd point to some irrelevant difference between the text of the two and say that this type of declaration hadn't been tested in court. You simply don't want to accept the facts


    Sigh.. here we go again. If I quote a document in really large text it will convince people.

    I know who wrote it so you can stop quoting it. I asked for a simple yes or no to a simple question.

    If that's not possible for you - allow me:

    The declarations have never been tested in a court of law [Fact] and thus whilst people say they are legally binding this is misleading in my view (and others) as there has never been a test case.


  • Options
    #38
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's really not, honestly. The people who tell you that are the ones that are making sh!t up. By "reading between the lines", they're reading things that aren't there


    Sorry, but you can say the same for both sides.

    So the Yes side are correct in saying Yes to Lisbon will create jobs?
    Can you point out where in the treaty text it says this - or are they reading between the lines?

    I think people will use their own cop on when voting no matter how much is rammed down their throat about the sky falling if we vote no.


  • Options
    #39
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    free-man wrote: »
    Sigh.. here we go again. If I quote a document in really large text it will convince people.

    I know who wrote it so you can stop quoting it. I asked for a simple yes or no to a simple question.

    If that's not possible for you - allow me:

    The declarations have never been tested in a court of law [Fact] and thus whilst people say they are legally binding this is misleading in my view (and others) as there has never been a test case.

    whats there to test in a court of law?

    the case be dismissed as soon as judge reads this line [fact]
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    (iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

    :D


    by your reasoning the Good Friday Agreement is not valid either

    :(


  • Options
    #40
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    free-man wrote: »
    Has a declaration ever had to be tested in a court of law? Was it found to be 'binding'?

    Simple yes or no will do.

    Not a simple yes or no: they are not simply declarations; they are international agreements, and therefore subject to law.


  • Options
    #41
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    free-man wrote: »
    Has a declaration ever had to be tested in a court of law? Was it found to be 'binding'?

    Simple yes or no will do.


    It is legally binding by virtue of it being an international agreement, this is not something that is conferred once a legal challenge is made.

    If you feel that the guarantess could be found to be in some way conflicting with the existing treaties or EU law, this is an entirely different question.

    For example our Masstrict Protocol on abortion has been a part of EU law since 1992, it would be interesting to get your view on how you feel the Lisbon guarantee on Abortion might conflict with this.

    Maastrict (EU Law)
    PROTOCOL
    ON ARTICLE 40.3.3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

    THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

    HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;

    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.

    Guarantee
    SECTION A: 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    free-man wrote: »
    The declarations have never been tested in a court of law [Fact] and thus whilst people say they are legally binding this is misleading in my view (and others) as there has never been a test case.

    Parts of Bunreacht na hÉireann have never been 'tested' in a court of law, does that mean I am free to disregard them as unbinding?


  • Options
    #43
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    free-man wrote: »
    If that's not possible for you - allow me:

    The declarations have never been tested in a court of law [Fact] and thus whilst people say they are legally binding this is misleading in my view (and others) as there has never been a test case.

    So can I translate for you: I do not want to believe these guarantees are legally binding no matter what. Even though I have no expertise in the area and people with the expertise say I'm wrong.


  • Options
    #44
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    free-man wrote: »
    The declarations have never been tested in a court of law [Fact] and thus whilst people say they are legally binding this is misleading in my view (and others) as there has never been a test case.

    By extension of this logic, however, one could also not conclude that because some declarations had held up in court, that all declarations must hold up in court.

    Thus, even if there were test cases, the same argument could be made...that until these specific declarations had been tested in court, they couldn't be said to be legally binding.

    At the end of the day, its all smoke and mirrors anyway. The declarations effectively say "stuff that isn't in the Treaty...isn't in the Treaty". And you know what? Its stuff that isn't in the Treaty.

    So lets imagine for a second that it goes like this...

    Ireland passes the referendum and ratifies the Treaty
    The Treaty comes into force
    Something happens, by which the declarations become legally invalid.

    Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a situation where we no longer have a guarantee that the Treaty doesn't deal with things it doesn't deal with. But you know what? The Treaty doesn't deal with them anyway...so it doesn't really matter.

    For all the discussion that's happened about these, I've yet to see one person actually sit down and show a reasonable path by which the Eu could bypass the guarantees and the Treaty in order to bring about some of these things that are supposed to be of concern.

    And you know what...if the EU and Irish government were jointly so corrupt that such a situation could actually occur...it wouldn't matter one whit whether or not the Treaty was ratified. If they can corrupt and ignore Treaties to the extent being suggested, then they can do it with the current Treaties that are in force.

    Its all smoke and mirrors.


  • Options
    #45
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    marco_polo wrote: »
    It is legally binding by virtue of it being an international agreement, this is not something that is conferred once a legal challenge is made.

    Are you saying that the situation cannot change if these 'legally binding' agreements are challenged?

    In the Crotty case a decision by the Oireachtas was overturned by legal challenge.

    Most decisions by the Oireachtas become 'legally binding' once made.


  • Options
    #46
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    meglome wrote: »
    So can I translate for you: I do not want to believe these guarantees are legally binding no matter what. Even though I have no expertise in the area and people with the expertise say I'm wrong.

    Depends who you ask really. Other experts would say that you are wrong.


  • Options
    #47
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    Sigh.. here we go again. If I quote a document in really large text it will convince people.

    I know who wrote it so you can stop quoting it. I asked for a simple yes or no to a simple question.

    Is the sky blue?

    If you answer yes the guarantees are binding

    See I can ask irrelevant questions too


  • Options
    #48
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    Depends who you ask really. Other experts would say that you are wrong.

    Which experts?


  • Options
    #49
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    free-man wrote: »
    Depends who you ask really. Other experts would say that you are wrong.

    Source plz?


  • Options
    #50
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    bonkey wrote: »
    By extension of this logic, however, one could also not conclude that because some declarations had held up in court, that all declarations must hold up in court.

    You could but the result would be unknown until challenged.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Thus, even if there were test cases, the same argument could be made...that until these specific declarations had been tested in court, they couldn't be said to be legally binding.

    Exactly
    bonkey wrote: »
    At the end of the day, its all smoke and mirrors anyway. The declarations effectively say "stuff that isn't in the Treaty...isn't in the Treaty". And you know what? Its stuff that isn't in the Treaty.
    So why bother coming up with them in the first place? If nothing in the guarantees is in the treaty why not let the treaty speak for itself?
    bonkey wrote: »
    And you know what...if the EU and Irish government were jointly so corrupt that such a situation could actually occur...it wouldn't matter one whit whether or not the Treaty was ratified.

    I would hope that not to be the case, I'm not impressed so far with the re-run of the treaty one year after the electorate voted it down.


  • Options
    #51
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    So why bother coming up with them in the first place? If nothing in the guarantees is in the treaty why not let the treaty speak for itself?

    Because several groups told lies about the treaty which had to be guaranteed against. The same people who are telling you that the fact that it hasn't been tested in court is in some way relevant and in some way makes them not binding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Which experts?

    From today's Independent.
    In a 106-page opinion on the legal status of the Lisbon guarantees, senior counsel and TCD law lecturer Diarmuid Phelan has queried the guarantees secured by the Irish Government.

    In his opinion, Mr Phelan highlighted a number of areas of concern, including the "veiled threat to Ireland" if the treaty was not ratified. "The campaign is set up, not as a choice between deeper integration and the status quo, which in law it is, but as a choice between in or out of Europe," said Mr Phelan.

    "Fundamentally, the State is refusing to be bound by the constitutional result, and the EU is refusing to be bound by the State's right not to ratify.
    "On this basis, in any ordinary legal environment, one must advise against, or at the very least caution, in changing one's position on the basis of the proffered guarantees."


  • Options
    #53
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    free-man wrote: »
    From today's Independent.

    Oh, you mean 'lawyers' already involved with a no to Lisbon campaign :confused: and connected to UKIP? I suppose they wouldn't have any bias whatsoever.


  • Options
    #54
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Because several groups told lies about the treaty which had to be guaranteed against.
    Again if they were lies there was surely no need to muddy the waters and mislead everyone to combat a lie.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The same people who are telling you that the fact that it hasn't been tested in court is in some way relevant and in some way makes them not binding.

    I think you missed my post on Crotty.


  • Options
    #55
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    He was commissioned by the Independence and Democracy Group, which is chaired by Nigel Farage who is the head of the United Kingdom Independence Party who put those leaflets full of lies through our doors a few weeks ago.

    Anyone else?


  • Options
    #56
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    prinz wrote: »
    Oh, you mean 'lawyers' already involved with a no to Lisbon campaign :confused: and connected to UKIP?

    Are you questioning their qualifications?

    The point is moot, you can point out lawyers on the yes side, I can point out lawyers on the no side.

    It depends on who you believe really.


  • Options
    #57
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    Again if they were lies there was surely no need to muddy the waters and mislead everyone to combat a lie.

    No one's muddying the waters and no one's misleading anyone except the people who made the guarantees necessary by lying and then lies about the guarantees being binding


  • Options
    #58
    Red Sleeping Beauty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If you vote no because you think the guarantees aren't binding you are leaving the door wide open for a third referendum because you're voting on one of many misconceptions

    A third referendum ? Oh my oh my, would they dare do such a thing ?

    Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. When it emerges that people voted yes based on many misconceptions such as economic ruin, flight of capital investment and Ireland's future participation in the EU (which are all unfounded threats), perhaps we could have the rubber match to determine once and for all the winner of the lies.


  • Options
    #59
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    A third referendum ? Oh my oh my, would they dare do such a thing ?

    If people vote either way based on proven misconceptions why shouldn't they, assuming they address the misconceptions?


  • Options
    #60
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No one's muddying the waters and no one's misleading anyone except the people who made the guarantees necessary by lying and then lies about the guarantees being binding

    So let me get this straight.

    Your blaming the No side for the government in 'securing' guarantees that should make us vote Yes instead but only because they guarantee against something that was never in the treaty in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    free-man wrote: »
    Your blaming the No side for the government in 'securing' guarantees that should make us vote Yes instead but only because they guarantee against something that was never in the treaty in the first place.

    Bingo! Stupid isn't it.

    No side lied about what was in the treaty.
    Government got guarantees that the no side were lying.


Advertisement