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

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

That's perfectly fine.

What we've established is that you believe the guarantees are binding as you've linked to a 'decision'.

What we haven't established is

a. Whether the heads of state actually signed the agreement
b. How an agreement can be legally binding without a signature
c. Why the government is still pushing for protocols in the next accession treaty
d. Why the government would need to push for protocols if the declarations were enough

Also as this is a key excuse to the re-run of the referendum will the Irish electorate be voting on something new or the exact same treaty as last year.

As you are bowing out, I'll remain open to discussing these and other points with the other posters.

And we also haven't established:

e. if Dana was asked to sign them
f. if Dustin was asked to sign them
g. if George Bush ate a twinkie today
h. if there is anyone that can't believe it's not butter
i. Insert whatever you want here.

And we haven't established any of those things because.they.are.irrelevant

This is the only thing that matters

Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon

1. The European Council recalls that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon requires ratification by each of the 27 Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It reaffirms its wish to see the Treaty enter into force by the end of 2009.

2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.

3. The European Council also agreed that other concerns of the Irish people, as presented by the Taoiseach, relating to taxation policy, the right to life, education and the family, and Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality, would be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States, by way of the necessary legal guarantees. It was also agreed that the high importance attached to a number of social issues, including workers' rights, would be confirmed.

4. Against this background, the European Council has agreed on the following set of arrangements, which are fully compatible with the Treaty, in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people:
(a) Decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (Annex 1);
(b) Solemn Declaration on Workers' Rights, Social Policy and other issues (Annex 2). The European Council has also taken cognisance of the unilateral declaration of Ireland (Annex 3), which will be associated with the Irish instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon.

5. Regarding the Decision in Annex 1, the Heads of State or Government have declared that:
(i) this Decision gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(ii) its content is fully compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon and will not necessitate any reratification of that Treaty;
(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;
(iv) they will, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, set out the provisions of the annexed Decision in a Protocol to be attached, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
(v) the Protocol will in no way alter the relationship between the EU and its Member States. The sole purpose of the Protocol will be to give full Treaty status to the clarifications set out in the Decision to meet the concerns of the Irish people. Its status will be no different from similar clarifications in Protocols obtained by other Member States. The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

If that's not good enough for you, then God himself coming down and decreeing it to you would not be good enough for you. Take it here mate:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

marco_polo

free-man wrote: »

That's perfectly fine.

What we've established is that you believe the guarantees are binding as you've linked to a 'decision'.

What we haven't established is

a. Whether the heads of state actually signed the agreement
b. How an agreement can be legally binding without a signature
c. Why the government is still pushing for protocols in the next accession treaty
d. Why the government would need to push for protocols if the declarations were enough

Also as this is a key excuse to the re-run of the referendum will the Irish electorate be voting on something new or the exact same treaty as last year.

As you are bowing out, I'll remain open to discussing these and other points with the other posters.

Oh Dear. A big picture of Jean Luc Piccard with his palm on his face would be appropriate about now.

Article 249

In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the European Parliament acting jointly with the Council, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.

namloc1980

free-man wrote: »

That's perfectly fine.

What we've established is that you believe the guarantees are binding as you've linked to a 'decision'.

What we haven't established is

a. Whether the heads of state actually signed the agreement
b. How an agreement can be legally binding without a signature
c. Why the government is still pushing for protocols in the next accession treaty
d. Why the government would need to push for protocols if the declarations were enough

Also as this is a key excuse to the re-run of the referendum will the Irish electorate be voting on something new or the exact same treaty as last year.

As you are bowing out, I'll remain open to discussing these and other points with the other posters.

a. A moot point as they are legally binding in any case.
b. It has been pointed out they are legally binding. The guarantees have been lodged with the UN. Precedent has already been set with the Danish guarantees in 1992 which were of the same form as these ones.
c & d. To copper fasten them, belt and braces, whatever you want. If they can be made into protocols, why not??

moogester

The Protocol will clarify but not change either the content or the application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Ok i'm probably being stupid here but what is the point of the protocol if it isnt going to change anything?

namloc1980

moogester wrote: »

Ok i'm probably being stupid here but what is the point of the protocol if it isnt going to change anything?

It clarifies all the rubbish that was spouted the last time by the No camp about conscription, Euthanasia, abortion, tax etc.

Sam Vimes

moogester wrote: »

Ok i'm probably being stupid here but what is the point of the protocol if it isnt going to change anything?

It says "that guy is lying to you and here's the proof".

I don't think they even thought of the possibility that people would then lie about the proof really being proof

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And we haven't established any of those things because.they.are.irrelevant

Annnd again.

Back to the argument that they're legally binding because they're legally binding.. they just are.. look it says it here.. what they didn't sign? Sure what does that matter..

And of course, they're legally binding, but just in case we're going to make sure they are added as protocols...

If they're so water tight / iron cast / copper fastened, then why bother adding them as protocols.

And the best one so far.. if i copy and paste them in size 16 font and the tone of my post is really condescending then more people are likely to agree with me.

Sam are you going to continue to argue this till the death or accept that people can have a different opinion?

namloc1980

free-man wrote: »

Annnd again.

Back to the argument that they're legally binding because they're legally binding.. they just are.. look it says it here.. what they didn't sign? Sure what does that matter..

And of course, they're legally binding, but just in case we're going to make sure they are added as protocols...

If they're so water tight / iron cast / copper fastened, then why bother adding them as protocols.

And the best one so far.. if i copy and paste them in size 16 font and the tone of my post is really condescending then more people are likely to agree with me.

Sam are you going to continue to argue this till the death or accept that people can have a different opinion?

The Treaty on European Union states that decisions are legally binding. That is exactly what the guarantees are...they are a decision taken by the Heads of Government of the 27 states. Do you want all 27 of them to send you a personally signed copy just for you.....to free-man, with love, EU 27

free-man

namloc1980 wrote: »

a. A moot point as they are legally binding in any case.

Is a contract legally binding if it hasn't been signed?

namloc1980 wrote: »

b. It has been pointed out they are legally binding.

It's legally binding because it's been "pointed out". Interesting.

namloc1980 wrote: »

The guarantees have been lodged with the UN.

Where's your source for this? I've been looking and can't find any confirmation this.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Precedent has already been set with the Danish guarantees in 1992 which were of the same form as these ones.

Precedent in what regard? The Danish declarations were never challenged. How do you know these will not be before the next accession treaty?

namloc1980 wrote: »

c & d. To copper fasten them, belt and braces, whatever you want. If they can be made into protocols, why not??

By the same logic, if they're legally binding why go to the trouble?

free-man

namloc1980 wrote: »

The Treaty on European Union states that decisions are legally binding. That is exactly what the guarantees are...they are a decision taken by the Heads of Government of the 27 states. Do you want all 27 of them to send you a personally signed copy just for you.....to free-man, with love, EU 27

Again!

They're binding because of a political 'decision'. Have they been signed? No.

I don't personally want a copy delivered to me thanks but just confirmation that the heads of state have signed them would be something.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Sam are you going to continue to argue this till the death or accept that people can have a different opinion?

No I'm not going to argue this to death. People can have different opinions but this is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You can say that Brian Cowen is a 3-foot tall chinese if you want but you'd be wrong, as you are wrong here. Every law that we have is only a law because the people who make the law say it's a law. In this case the people who make the law say it's a law, therefore it's a law. I had a bet on with myself that you would not accept this as proof:

Article 249 wrote:

In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the European Parliament acting jointly with the Council, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.

And wouldn't ya know it, you didn't. You still choose to cling to those gaps in the fossil records as if they make your position in any way less ludicrous

namloc1980

free-man wrote: »

Again!

They're binding because of a political 'decision'. Have they been signed? No.

I don't personally want a copy delivered to me thanks but just confirmation that the heads of state have signed them would be something.

*FACEPALM*

They don't have to sign them!!! Please read the following carefully. It is straight from the TEU:
Article 249

In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the European Parliament acting jointly with the Council, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions.

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed.

Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force.

No mystery really, it doesn't say anywhere in TEU that decisions have to be signed or not. Once a decision is taken it's binding....simple as!

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Again!

They're binding because of a political 'decision'. Have they been signed? No.

Please don't misrepresent me. I said I didn't know if they'd been signed, not that they haven't

Unless someone else confirmed that they haven't?

marco_polo

Final word and I am done.

A Council Decision is a piece of secondary EU legislation and is legally binding on all parties under EU law.

This council decision is seperately being registered as an international agreement under the terms vienna convention making it legally binding under international law also.

Primary EU law is laid down in treaties and the protocols, declarations etc annexed to the treaties.

Obviously primary law takes precedence over secondary law when put before the ECJ, so if there is a conflict between the treaties and the guarantees, then the treaties win.

99.9% of people agree that there is nothing contained within the treaties that could possibly conflict with the guarantees, as the guarantees are a statement of what is not contained within primary EU law.

When the guarantees become Protocols that 0.01% disappears as they assume the status of primary law.

You are clinging on to that .01% group for some reason.

Strangely you also claim to have voted yes to Nice even though the legal status of the Seville declaration on Neutrality was much weaker.

free-man

namloc1980 wrote: »

*FACEPALM*

They don't have to sign them!!!

Ok so the mere fact that they are addressed to the member states makes them binding.

You know, if this was the case, why bother having any heads of State sign the treaty? Why bother pressuring the Czech president to sign the treaty?

Sure, all they'd have to do is make another 'decision' like the declarations announced at the June summit and et voila its legally binding and enforceable.

In fact why bother having a referendum in Ireland when a 'decision' could be made and lodged with the UN that we'd like the treaty to go ahead.

That would save a lot of expense and hassle... right?

Oh wait, you mean the governments actually have to sign the treaty for it to be ratified and binding?

In keeping with your style of debating, I predict you will respond with a one liner about how i'm not "getting" it yet and then paste more text from the declarations.

marco_polo

free-man wrote: »

Again!

They're binding because of a political 'decision'. Have they been signed? No.

I don't personally want a copy delivered to me thanks but just confirmation that the heads of state have signed them would be something.

A decision is an instrument of EU legislation, not to be confused either mistakenly or on purpose with the normal English usage of the term.

namloc1980

free-man wrote: »

Ok so the mere fact that they are addressed to the member states makes them binding.

You know, if this was the case, why bother having any heads of State sign the treaty? Why bother pressuring the Czech president to sign the treaty?

Sure, all they'd have to do is make another 'decision' like the declarations announced at the June summit and et voila its legally binding and enforceable.

In fact why bother having a referendum in Ireland when a 'decision' could be made and lodged with the UN that we'd like the treaty to go ahead.

That would save a lot of expense and hassle... right?

Oh wait, you mean the governments actually have to sign the treaty for it to be ratified and binding?

In keeping with your style of debating, I predict you will respond with a one liner about how i'm not "getting" it yet and then paste more text from the declarations.

Why do you continue to peddle mis-information? You have been proven wrong but just can't accept it. No matter how much you try to argue you are incorrect in your assertions. There is no point in debating with someone who will not see when they are blatantly wrong!

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

You are clinging on to that .01% group for some reason.

Evidence for a Young World
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.

Read more here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

That is the "evidence" for the earth being 10000 years old and I think they have a much stronger case than you tbh. It's all a load of nonsense but there is a 0.0000001% chance that it could be true and that's all these people need. free-man, you may find all the answers you want on that website. They won't be right, but they'll be answers

free-man

marco_polo wrote: »

Final word and I am done.

Stranglely you also claim to have voted yes to Nice even though the legal status of the Seville declaration on Neutrality was much weaker.

Back then I voted whichever way I was told to. There was a level of trust there. That trust disappeared in the past year, I wont explain all over again why but I think it's part of the general zeitgeist in Irish culture not to take things at face value, including but not limited to main stream media, blogs, internet discussions, politicians etc. I actually think this is healthy, unlike some who feel they should fall in line with the establishment line or face the 'consequences'.

free-man

namloc1980 wrote: »

You have been proven wrong but just can't accept it. No matter how much you try to argue you are incorrect in your assertions. There is no point in debating with someone who will not see when they are blatantly wrong!

I agree, except apply the same logic to your own posts.

Let's agree to disagree for now? See, simple.

Sam Vimes

You'll also love this thread free-man

The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy

The tags sum the 17931 posts nicely:

abiogenesis =/= evolution, analogy time!, bananamen, creationism, dodge the question!, evolution, flogging a dead horse, georgia guidestones, lalala im not listening, please kill me already, pointless discussion, prophesy, rhinosaurs & dinoceri, shut up already, triceratops=/=rhino, unicorns

If you intend to post be very polite. The christians don't like if you say mean things about their book. Honestly, you will be infracted, it's one of the rules that you have to show their beliefs respect.

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.

You're willing to take the thread that far off topic?

Look its quite clear we're not going to agree. I don't think I'm alone in my viewpoint and I'm the sole person in Ireland who thinks these guarantees are a bluff and an excuse to re-run the referendum.

Let's leave it for now shall we? If not I've got all night.

namloc1980

free-man wrote: »

I agree, except apply the same logic to your own posts.

Let's agree to disagree for now? See, simple.

You believe what you want. I have not peddled mis-information and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You'll also love this thread free-man

The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy

The tags sum the 17931 posts nicely:

If you intend to post be very polite. The christians don't like if you say mean things about their book. Honestly, you will be infracted, it's one of the rules that you have to show their beliefs respect.

I'm not interested in any of this?

Read my post above.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

You're willing to take the thread that far off topic?

Look its quite clear we're not going to agree. I don't think I'm alone in my viewpoint and I'm the sole person in Ireland who thinks these guarantees are a bluff and an excuse to re-run the referendum.

Let's leave it for now shall we? If not I've got all night.

And J C is by far not the only creationist in the world. "Lots of people agree =/= your argument has some form of validity", that's called an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The situation is very comparable to this one because it's the only time I have ever seen someone as unwilling as you to face reality.

At least he has his religious beliefs as a basis for denying irrefutable evidence, you have no such excuse

namloc1980

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And J C is by far not the only creationist in the world. "Lots of people agree =/= your argument has some form of validity", that's called an argumentum ad populum fallacy. The situation is very comparable to this one because it's the only time I have ever seen someone as unwilling as you to face reality.

Reality is not dealt with very well by the No camp I'm afraid as reality tends to bust just about every myth created by them. It's easier just to ignore reality

Sam Vimes

Btw, I used to post on that thread trying to convince him of evolution. I gave up when I realised he has no interest in the facts. It took me quite a while but I realised it eventually. Should I give up on you too or is there a glimmer of hope?

free-man

namloc1980 wrote: »

Reality is not dealt with very well by the No camp I'm afraid as reality tends to bust just about every myth created by them. It's easier just to ignore reality

You see, I'd have an easier time agreeing with you on the argumentum ad populum argument

"given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A"

If the referendum result last time wasn't so close.

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Should I give up on you too or is there a glimmer of hope?

I don't really mind what you do!

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

You see, I'd have an easier time agreeing with you on the argumentum ad populum argument

"given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A"

If the referendum result last time wasn't so close.

I'm not following