Why Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty the first time around

Lockstep

I'm doing a course on the history of EU integration and the professor asked us to do a short paper (one page max) on a topic of our choice relating to EU integration.
Rather than regurgitate something we've already done in class, I was thinking of writing about something a bit more contemporary and new to me and thought about writing why the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty the first time round, relying on speeches, pressure groups and political party statements rather than textbooks (seeing as it's a short enough assignment and focussing more on analysis than reams of information) Asked the lecturer about it and he likes the idea of someone covering it but I'm finding it a bit tough to find unbiased sources.

I'm wondering how would be the best way to start researching why the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty I, anyone here have any ideas on where to start without getting mired by propaghanda?

Jk_Eire

The government funded Millward Brown IMS post 2008 referendum analysis is what you want.
Breaks down the main reasons people voted both for and against. Also breaks down the voter population by demograph.

Link (pdf): http://www.imsl.ie/news/Millward_Brown_IMS_Lisbon_Research_Report.pdf

Martin 2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm doing a course on the history of EU integration and the professor asked us to do a short paper (one page max) on a topic of our choice relating to EU integration.
Rather than regurgitate something we've already done in class, I was thinking of writing about something a bit more contemporary and new to me and thought about writing why the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty the first time round, relying on speeches, pressure groups and political party statements rather than textbooks (seeing as it's a short enough assignment and focussing more on analysis than reams of information) Asked the lecturer about it and he likes the idea of someone covering it but I'm finding it a bit tough to find unbiased sources.

I'm wondering how would be the best way to start researching why the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty I, anyone here have any ideas on where to start without getting mired by propaghanda?

After Lisbon I there were 2 main surveys:
1)The European Commission Eurobarometer survey: link
2)Millward Brown IMS survey for the Dept of Foreign Affairs: link

After Lisbon II there were also 2 surveys - useful for comparison with 2008
1) The European Commission Eurobarometer survey: link
2) Sunday Business Post/Red C - Post Lisbon II Opinion Poll: link

If you need to reference any polls prior to the referenda, then they were nearly all done by 2 organisations, namely Irish Times/MRBI or Sunday Business Post/Red C

I thought Scofflaw did a very good summary of why people voted Yes in Lisbon II which of course also relates to why they voted No to Lisbon I, see here

Scofflaw

A minor point with respect to the sources, courtesy of a lecture I went to called "Referendums on the EU: Deja Vu (Again)" - the Millward Brown survey was conducted rather a while after the event, which may somewhat reduce its accuracy.

An important point to remember is that when people are asked after the event why they voted a particular way, what they state as their reasons are often only rationalisations. If you were to ask my the majority of people voted No in the first referendum, I would really say that it was "cool to do so" - that is, the No campaigns were more exciting, there was a feeling that we could show off our independence, and that once it was fairly clear everyone else was going to do it too, it was obviously safe to do so.

To characterise that anecdotally, I had a conversation with a man who said in the run-up to Lisbon I - "well, all the political parties are for it, right? So there's got to be something wrong with it.". In the run-up to Lisbon II, the same man said "well, all the political parties are for it, right? So voting Yes is obviously the right thing to do.". If you can work out some rational reason for that particular vote swing, I'll be impressed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kando

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm doing a course on the history of EU integration and the professor asked us to do a short paper (one page max) on a topic of our choice relating to EU integration.
Rather than regurgitate something we've already done in class, I was thinking of writing about something a bit more contemporary and new to me and thought about writing why the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty the first time round, relying on speeches, pressure groups and political party statements rather than textbooks (seeing as it's a short enough assignment and focussing more on analysis than reams of information) Asked the lecturer about it and he likes the idea of someone covering it but I'm finding it a bit tough to find unbiased sources.

I'm wondering how would be the best way to start researching why the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty I, anyone here have any ideas on where to start without getting mired by propaghanda?

The answer is simple, people on the street simply didn't have a clue what they were voting for.

Noreen1

Scofflaw wrote: »

A minor point with respect to the sources, courtesy of a lecture I went to called "Referendums on the EU: Deja Vu (Again)" - the Millward Brown survey was conducted rather a while after the event, which may somewhat reduce its accuracy.

An important point to remember is that when people are asked after the event why they voted a particular way, what they state as their reasons are often only rationalisations. If you were to ask my the majority of people voted No in the first referendum, I would really say that it was "cool to do so" - that is, the No campaigns were more exciting, there was a feeling that we could show off our independence, and that once it was fairly clear everyone else was going to do it too, it was obviously safe to do so.

To characterise that anecdotally, I had a conversation with a man who said in the run-up to Lisbon I - "well, all the political parties are for it, right? So there's got to be something wrong with it.". In the run-up to Lisbon II, the same man said "well, all the political parties are for it, right? So voting Yes is obviously the right thing to do.". If you can work out some rational reason for that particular vote swing, I'll be impressed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The rational reason is that he wasn't thinking rationally LOL

Noreen

Lockstep

Right, finished. Thanks for all the help everyone.

Tis short enough, and will happily PM it to anyone knowledgable on such matters who wouldn't mind giving it a look:p

aurelius79

To understand why the first vote was no, imagine you've been hired by a large multi-national corperation. On your first day, the boss comes up to you with a 100 page contract and asks you to sign it without reading it, and to accept his word that it's all in your best interest. Would you sign it?

triple-M

we werent that poor first time round and we didnt really need europe back then

passive

aurelius79 wrote: »

To understand why the first vote was no, imagine you've been hired by a large multi-national corperation. On your first day, the boss comes up to you with a 100 page contract and asks you to sign it without reading it, and to accept his word that it's all in your best interest. Would you sign it?

Of course, what actually happened is that he left a copy on your desk/computer, gave you an explanatory note about the contents written by some other fella from the "neutral contract explanation" department of the company, and then said "you don't need to worry too much about it, just sign it please, it's a grand contract, decent enough job. See ya on Monday."

You then decided not to read it, and talked to the bearded man with THE END IS NIGH placard marching back and forth outside the building, who told you that the multi-national corporation was actually a front organisation for Hitler, Satan and Evil Lord Xenu. You decided this sounded plausible, and the contract was too long to read, so you refused to sign it, and told the boss to go **** himself and that you didn't need his damn contract anyway.

Then, after being unemployed for the next few months, and getting rather worried about this fact, you were offered the same contract, with a couple of post-its on the front (Does not contain Hitler/Satan/Xenu) and this time the lunatic outside the building was telling you that signing the contract would make your feet turn into geese, and make your first born child explode. You... wondered about this, for a moment, then shrugged it off, signed the contract, and commenced a dull office job.

Ta-da!

marco_polo

aurelius79 wrote: »

To understand why the first vote was no, imagine you've been hired by a large multi-national corperation. On your first day, the boss comes up to you with a 100 page contract and asks you to sign it without reading it, and to accept his word that it's all in your best interest. Would you sign it?

What are the implications for your analogy if the reading period is say three years for example?

Scofflaw

"...make your feet turn into geese..."

I love it.

lovin' it,
Scofflaw

aurelius79

That's ridiculous. We were given very little time to actually debate the issues and very little information to debate. The language in much of the treaty was so ambiguous it could have said anything. The treaty included many contentious issues such as military control and constitutional issues should have been dealt but those objections were ignored by the government.

Then suddenly we're hit by a massive recession and suddenly the EU is our only hope of survival. The exact same treaty we voted no for is again put in front of us. This time we say yes and now it appears the recession is at an end as quickly as it appeared. Talk about coincidence.

aurelius79

marco_polo wrote: »

What are the implications for your analogy if the reading period is say three years for example?

Then you take the time to read everything in the contract only to discover that your prospective employer really is going to sell your soul to the devil.

Let's not forget that our own politicians didn't even read the whole treaty. I don't even think McCreevy read any of it.

passive

aurelius79 wrote: »

Then you take the time to read everything in the contract only to discover that your prospective employer really is going to sell your soul to the devil.

Let's not forget that our own politicians didn't even read the whole treaty. I don't even think McCreevy read any of it.

Stepping outside the analogy for a second. Right, you've had 3 years. Link us to any "soul selling" in the Lisbon treaty? No lies, or bull****, or makey-upy stuff, link us to the stuff we all missed and ignored when debating the treaty here, watching hundreds of posters like you get ripped to shreds for posting misinformation and lies. What bad things are going to happen, and what parts of the Lisbon treaties will cause this?

Scofflaw

aurelius79 wrote: »

To understand why the first vote was no, imagine you've been hired by a large multi-national corperation. On your first day, the boss comes up to you with a 100 page contract and asks you to sign it without reading it, and to accept his word that it's all in your best interest. Would you sign it?

Slightly more, as passive says, that the large multinational flags up the issue of the new contract for your department a couple of years in advance, provides copies about six weeks before the date, gives you pointers to further information and assistance if you need it - and still, come the day, you haven't bothered to read it, because you believed the guys in the canteen who said "man, don't bother, it's totally unreadable" and "hey, whoa you don't want to sign that, you'll lose all your perks and have to work, like a million hours unpaid overtime", plus your manager said he didn't really read it, and loads of other people weren't happy about it either...

...so even though the company said it was needed for the better functioning of the company, people got a bit jumpy, and when the time came, said "ah, screw it, I won't sign", even though they had no real idea what was in it, even though they didn't quite believe it could be as bad as the guys in the canteen said...


cordially,
Scofflaw

aurelius79

Dismissing the no vote like that is absolutely ridiculous. There was international critisizm of the treaty from all over Europe. Politicians were begging us to vote no. Why? Because we were the only country in all of Europe that actually had a vote. What does that say about the treaty? Was it democratic? Was it f**k.

Scofflaw

aurelius79 wrote: »

Dismissing the no vote like that is absolutely ridiculous. There was international critisizm of the treaty from all over Europe. Politicians were begging us to vote no. Why? Because we were the only country in all of Europe that actually had a vote. What does that say about the treaty? Was it democratic? Was it f**k.

It says that the way the Treaty is ratified in any member state is up to the member state. We've nearly always been the only state to have a referendum - the thinking behind which is, in most countries, that international treaties are too complex to be put to a popular vote.

Believe it or not, not everyone thinks that referendums are the best way of deciding a complex issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aurelius79

Scofflaw wrote: »

It says that the way the Treaty is ratified in any member state is up to the member state. We've nearly always been the only state to have a referendum - the thinking behind which is, in most countries, that international treaties are too complex to be put to a popular vote.

Believe it or not, not everyone thinks that referendums are the best way of deciding a complex issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

International treaties too complex to be put to a popular vote? No, really? Well, surely in that case we should trust our government to read the treaty and make an educated decision. We should trust the government to read the treaty? We should trust our government?

Scofflaw

aurelius79 wrote: »

International treaties too complex to be put to a popular vote? No, really? Well, surely in that case we should trust our government to read the treaty and make an educated decision. We should trust the government to read the treaty? We should trust our government?

As I said - not everyone believes referendums are the best way to settle complex questions. You presumably do, and I do myself - but not everyone agrees, which is why most countries don't use them. Possibly they trust their governments.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aurelius79

Or their governments don't really give a damn about what the people want. We know probably better than anyone how well politicians lie to get elected then happily forget the mandate that got them elected.

Scofflaw

aurelius79 wrote: »

Or their governments don't really give a damn about what the people want. We know probably better than anyone how well politicians lie to get elected then happily forget the mandate that got them elected.

Not really relevant, because elsewhere, as here, it's usually a constitutional issue, which means that not using referendums for international treaties isn't down to whoever the current government might be.

Have you checked how the ratification of other EU treaties took place across the EU?

cordially,
Scofflaw

aurelius79

You're right, it's pretty irrelevant what other countries did. Our country had a referendum and voted no. The EU decided that this was unacceptable and made us vote again. What does this say about the EU? What does it say about us? That we'll just roll over and do anything the EU wants if they just press us a bit?

There were no changes made to the treaty to address concerns reguarding our military and employment rights among other things. Concerns that were echoed by many European politicians.

Even MEPs know what's going on:

View

aurelius79 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. We were given very little time to actually debate the issues and very little information to debate.

The entire treaty revision process from start to finish took almost 9 years. Over that time frame, it was reported in the media here. It was discussed by the Oireachtas committee on European Affairs. There was even the Forum on Europe that discussed it. Not to mention the Green(?) paper from the DFA on the changes. So there was no shortage of information.

There was also more than enough time to debate the issues, more than enough time to read the discussion papers - both Irish and EU, more than enough time to contact our Government to express any concerns you had or ask them to clarify issues you weren't clear on or just plain to seek to influence what they agreed to.

If you didn't bother doing so during that time frame until right after they had agreed the final version of the Treaty, it beggars belief that you'd have paid any more attention if they'd spent 99 years on it.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Then suddenly we're hit by a massive recession and suddenly the EU is our only hope of survival. The exact same treaty we voted no for is again put in front of us. This time we say yes and now it appears the recession is at an end as quickly as it appeared. Talk about coincidence.

Look, even by the standards of the No campaign, suggesting that economies of most of the globe were deliberately crashed is just off the wall. You really think we are that important that the Republicans would f*&k up the US economy and let the Democrats win the Presidency in order to get Ireland to vote Yes to Lisbon II?

Is it any wonder that referenda are not used in most countries?

View

aurelius79 wrote: »

You're right, it's pretty irrelevant what other countries did. Our country had a referendum and voted no. The EU decided that this was unacceptable and made us vote again.

The Irish Government decided to hold another referendum. This they did using the provisions of Bunreacht na hEireann - provisions that the people voted for, provisions that allow the Government to hold more than one referenda on the same issue.

Guess what?

Our country had a (second) referendum and voted YES.

The only problem is - You have decided that it is unacceptable for a (second) referenda to be held according to the provisions of our constitution which means you are showing contempt for the democatic decision of the people to approve it, never mind their democratic decision to allow the approval of Lisbon.

But let's guess? You regard others at acting "undemocratically"... :rolleyes:

aurelius79

View wrote: »

Look, even by the standards of the No campaign, suggesting that economies of most of the globe were deliberately crashed is just off the wall. You really think we are that important that the Republicans would f*&k up the US economy and let the Democrats win the Presidency in order to get Ireland to vote Yes to Lisbon II?

Is it any wonder that referenda are not used in most countries?

Would the World Bank plunge the global economy into a recession to get one step closer to a single global government? You're god damn right it would.

Republican and Democrat doesn't mean a thing anymore. Obama is a pawn of the Fed just like the last eight presidents. Carter may be an exception. Obama was installed to keep the Democrats quiet. Look at all the speeches he made during the election, all the promises. He hasn't delivered on a single one. Troops still in Iraq and he's sending more into Afghanistan. Same regime, different face.

Scofflaw

aurelius79 wrote: »

Would the World Bank plunge the global economy into a recession to get one step closer to a single global government? You're god damn right it would.

Republican and Democrat doesn't mean a thing anymore. Obama is a pawn of the Fed just like the last eight presidents. Carter may be an exception. Obama was installed to keep the Democrats quiet. Look at all the speeches he made during the election, all the promises. He hasn't delivered on a single one. Troops still in Iraq and he's sending more into Afghanistan. Same regime, different face.

Okay, let me stop you there for a moment. If you're really going to be going on about NWO etc, then the place for it is the Conspiracy Theories forum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

View

aurelius79 wrote: »

Would the World Bank plunge the global economy into a recession to get one step closer to a single global government? You're god damn right it would.

Republican and Democrat doesn't mean a thing anymore. Obama is a pawn of the Fed just like the last eight presidents. Carter may be an exception. Obama was installed to keep the Democrats quiet. Look at all the speeches he made during the election, all the promises. He hasn't delivered on a single one. Troops still in Iraq and he's sending more into Afghanistan. Same regime, different face.

You are starting to make people like COIR seem positively sane which is saying something.

If the World Bank is that all powerful, it would have made more sense for them to just get someone to invade us and approve the Treaty under a brand new non-referendum based Constitution.

It is not as if invading Ireland would be a difficult task - it'd be a hell of a lot simpler to do than engineering a global crash which might cause the (World Bank's) super-clever plans to come totally unstuck.

anonymous_joe

aurelius79 wrote: »

Dismissing the no vote like that is absolutely ridiculous. There was international critisizm of the treaty from all over Europe. Politicians were begging us to vote no. Why? Because we were the only country in all of Europe that actually had a vote. What does that say about the treaty? Was it democratic? Was it f**k.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It says that the way the Treaty is ratified in any member state is up to the member state. We've nearly always been the only state to have a referendum - the thinking behind which is, in most countries, that international treaties are too complex to be put to a popular vote.

Believe it or not, not everyone thinks that referendums are the best way of deciding a complex issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Crotty v An Taoiseach in (I think) 1987 (I should really know that as a law student. ><) isn't something other countries have.

Our consitution was written without the concept of the EU being something that existed. Basically, nothing that limits the power of the sovereign nation (which derives from the people under our consitution) can be accepted by the executive. They have to let the source of power, ie, the general public, decide to limit the nation's power by joining the EU or an equivalent organisation.

Referenda are an idea that's sound in principle, but appalling in practice. Think of it this way - if I need an expert, I rely on their opinion, not that of someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Thus if my car is fcuked, I go to a mechanic. If I'm fcuked I go to a doctor. Referdan result in people who don't necessarily have the same expertise as a politican is supposed to possess.

Very few countries have it enshrined in their legal system that the people have direct referenda. Usually things are decided by the government that they themselves voted for, which is rather democratic actually.

BlitzKrieg

The language in much of the treaty was so ambiguous it could have said anything.

These sort of comments always annoy me cause there is nothing different in the way the treaty of lisbon was written in comparison to most of the prior treaties in the history of the EU/EEC. Actually compared to some of them its actually easier to read. I think it was the amsterdam treaty which is really hard to follow.

here you go read the treaty of amsterdam: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/11997D/htm/11997D.html

aurelius79

Ok, let's forget about the European Constitution for just one second. Let's have a look at our own constitution. Which provision in our constitution ensures our right to refuse compliance with a European law? Let's look at the 28th Amendment, Article 29.4.6 which was voted on at the same time as the Lisbon Treaty.

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.

So here we see that there are actually no provisions in our constitution that guarantee our right as a sovereign nation to make our own laws. This is quite contrary to the "Yes" side that claim we will retain sovereignty in matters of law. The EU now has the constitutional right to implement any law they wish.

passive

aurelius79 wrote: »

So here we see that there are actually no provisions in our constitution that guarantee our right as a sovereign nation to make our own laws. This is quite contrary to the "Yes" side that claim we will retain sovereignty in matters of law. The EU now has the constitutional right to implement any law they wish.

I was trying to google the text of the constitution, to post the next couple of lines or whatever tiny clarification would be necessary to expose this as BS, but you know what? It's doesn't matter anymore, I'm not going to waste my time (anyway there are others *Scoughlaw* much more qualified to do so).

Your misinformation is no use, the referendum already happened and, thankfully the Irish people had more sense than to listen to you and those like you who twisted, rewrote and blatantly lied at every possible turn to try make them afraid of nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009_map.svg

oscarBravo

What was the text of the corresponding article prior to the amendment?

BlitzKrieg

*cough*

from the constitution before the treaty of lisbon

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

source: http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf


someone should update the constitutions website...

View

aurelius79 wrote: »

Ok, let's forget about the European Constitution for just one second. Let's have a look at our own constitution. Which provision in our constitution ensures our right to refuse compliance with a European law?

There is no such provision. There is not much point in being a member of an organization if you are going to refuse to accept its rules and procedures. And, lest you forget, the people voted in favour of this back in 1972 in the referendum on membership of the then European Communities.

aurelius79 wrote: »

This is quite contrary to the "Yes" side that claim we will retain sovereignty in matters of law.

The Yes side didn't claim this - try to get a grip on basic law.

aurelius79 wrote: »

The EU now has the constitutional right to implement any law they wish.

Again, false. The EU is governed by Treaties. These set out the specific areas it can operate in. All other areas belong to the member states. If the EU acts in these areas, it is acting ultra vires.

Indeed, if you did some research, you'd see that the EU's laws are passed by the MEPs (almost always) and/or the member states. Your claim makes about as much sense as saying that the Oireachtas can pass laws without having TDs and Senators involved in the process.

aurelius79

View wrote: »

There is no such provision. There is not much point in being a member of an organization if you are going to refuse to accept its rules and procedures. And, lest you forget, the people voted in favour of this back in 1972 in the referendum on membership of the then European Communities.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees our right to sovereignty as a member of the EU. In fact, article Article 29.10 expressly states that our constitution is essentially worthless when it come to EU law.

The ban on capital punishment will not stand if the EU passes a law to allow it. Conscription is now possible. The implications of Article 29.10 are mind-boggling. Our constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.

I really don't care what people voted on in 1972. They were probably as well informed as we were about the Amsterdam Treaty back in 1998.

View wrote: »

The Yes side didn't claim this - try to get a grip on basic law.

Sorry? The Yes campaign ensured us that our military would not be forced into service by the EU as provided by our constitution. Well, we've established that the constitution is now worthless.

View wrote: »

Again, false. The EU is governed by Treaties. These set out the specific areas it can operate in. All other areas belong to the member states. If the EU acts in these areas, it is acting ultra vires.

I have no idea what safeguards other European nations have to protect sovereignty rights but our own safeguards have been rendered null and void. How do we know our troops won't be conscripted into the EU army? How do we know we won't be burdened by EU taxes? Oh, they gave us their word.

View wrote: »

Indeed, if you did some research, you'd see that the EU's laws are passed by the MEPs (almost always) and/or the member states. Your claim makes about as much sense as saying that the Oireachtas can pass laws without having TDs and Senators involved in the process.

Yes, yes. Our government can't pass laws without involving corrupt TDs and Senators. Haven't you been following the tribunals at all? Even our former Taoiseach Bertie was involved in illegal activity. Tell me I'm wrong.
So what makes MEPs any different? Are they so incorruptible? Let's not forget our own Charlie McCreevy is an MEP.

passive

Seriously... we did this before, like a thousand times. Can we just put this guy outside and talk about actual things?

BlitzKrieg

will we talk about the climate pledge?

passive

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

will we talk about the climate pledge?

I dunno... It'd be off topic in this thread, and I'd have to google it. I'm not actually well informed, just irritable.

BlitzKrieg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8407112.stm

ITS OVER 7 BILLION! (internet meme meet EU, EU meet the internet...)

View

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8407112.stm

ITS OVER 7 BILLION! (internet meme meet EU, EU meet the internet...)

Small change in comparasion to NAMA :rolleyes:

View

aurelius79 wrote: »

Now we get to the heart of the matter.

Seriously, go off and read some basic stuff on our constitution and on the EU. Make sure you include some stuff on the division of competences between the two.

Just remember one point - the clause you cite as "EU law trumps our constitution" has been around (in one form or another) since 1972. If it trumped our constitution as you claim, then we wouldn't have had any referenda on EU matters after that, as it would have totally undermined the entire basis for the judgment in the Crotty case (where a provision in the constitution was interpreted to mean that a referendum was needed prior to the Oireachtas ratifying the SEA in 1987).

PS Charlie McCreevy isn't an MEP.

Scofflaw

aurelius79 wrote: »

Now we get to the heart of the matter. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees our right to sovereignty as a member of the EU. In fact, article Article 29.10 expressly states that our constitution is essentially worthless when it come to EU law.

The ban on capital punishment will not stand if the EU passes a law to allow it. Conscription is now possible. The implications of Article 29.10 are mind-boggling. Our constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.

I really don't care what people voted on in 1972. They were probably as well informed as we were about the Amsterdam Treaty back in 1998.



Sorry? The Yes campaign ensured us that our military would not be forced into service by the EU as provided by our constitution. Well, we've established that the constitution is now worthless.



I have no idea what safeguards other European nations have to protect sovereignty rights but our own safeguards have been rendered null and void. How do we know our troops won't be conscripted into the EU army? How do we know we won't be burdened by EU taxes? Oh, they gave us their word.

Expanding slightly on View's exhortation to go and read up on 'division of competences' - the basic reason that none of this can happen is because the EU doesn't have either any legal right to make it happen, or the necessary force to make it happen without the legal right.

The EU is, in essence, just a multilateral legal framework for the member states to do things jointly. It has a permanent but very small civil service, a total budget only very slightly larger than Irish GDP which is completely controlled by the member states, and absolutely every decision made "by the EU" is subject to the member states. The EU can do only what the member states allow it to do - talk of it imposing anything on the member states is meaningless.

I appreciate that the EU as an overwhelming and irresponsible outside force is a good deal more exciting than the EU as a kind of permanent internateionl joint working group managed by committee, but I'm afraid the latter is the reality, not the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aurelius79

Scofflaw wrote: »

Expanding slightly on View's exhortation to go and read up on 'division of competences' - the basic reason that none of this can happen is because the EU doesn't have either any legal right to make it happen, or the necessary force to make it happen without the legal right.

The EU is, in essence, just a multilateral legal framework for the member states to do things jointly. It has a permanent but very small civil service, a total budget only very slightly larger than Irish GDP which is completely controlled by the member states, and absolutely every decision made "by the EU" is subject to the member states. The EU can do only what the member states allow it to do - talk of it imposing anything on the member states is meaningless.

I appreciate that the EU as an overwhelming and irresponsible outside force is a good deal more exciting than the EU as a kind of permanent internateionl joint working group managed by committee, but I'm afraid the latter is the reality, not the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If you had made this argument two years ago I would have accepted it but the truth is that the EU now has an unelected central federal government, the first president of which is Herman Van Rompuy. What is the role of this new federal government? One can only assume that it will function just like the U.S. presidency.

Dinner

aurelius79 wrote: »

One can only assume that it will function just like the U.S. presidency.

You can assume that if you like but you'd be wrong.

oscarBravo

Dinner wrote: »

You can assume that if you like but you'd be wrong.

Well, that seems to be the pattern to date - why stop now?

aurelius79

Care to provide any hard facts to back up your position? Any facts at all? Then maybe you can explain to me what the function of this new wing of government might be?

BlitzKrieg

to chair european council meetings because firstly its not the president of the eu, its the president of the european council. He has no executive powers (so nothing like the US president) he has no voting power (so he has no power of council decisions) no budgetary powers (he has no taxation control then) no legaslative powers (he cant have any input on lawmaking) and his chief job is to take what the european council has decided and go and tell the other institutions of the EU their decisions.

As the position previously entailed when it was rotated among member states leaders. The problem though it was inconsistent, sometimes they were very active in EU affairs othertimes because of issues on the national level they were very inactive, so it was decided to make it a position with no national issues interfering with the role by making it independent of the member state rotation.

aurelius79

The European Council has absolutely nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy. Herman Van Rompuy will be the first president of the European Union. Please make sure you have the facts before making a comment, it just adds to the confusion about what the hell is actually going on.

BlitzKrieg

you sir are incapable of understanding facts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Van_Rompuy

Herman Van Rompuy (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɦɛɾmɑn vɑn ˈɾɔmpœy̆] Pronunciation-Herman Van Rompuy.ogg (help·info), born 31 October 1947 in Etterbeek, Brussels), is a Belgian Flemish politician, currently serving as the President of the European Council.

aurelius79

"Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian prime minister, has emerged as the favourite to become the first president of the European Union, despite being almost unknown on the international stage ."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/6494387/Haiku-loving-Belgian-PM-Herman-Van-Rompuy-in-line-for-EU-presidency.html