Would an international agreement not enshrined in a UN Security Council be treated with as much respect as the ECJ showed to the UN Resolution? Given that the ECJ was equivocal about the former, that should concern us. I'm not comfortable with the ECJ presuming to review UN resolutions or international agreements. It impinges on the sovereignty of member atates, and constitutes another example of "competence-creep" on the ECJ's part for which the court has become notorious.
First, the Court confirms that the Council was competent to adopt the regulation on the basis of the articles of the EC Treaty that it chose3. The Court finds that, even if the Court of First Instance made certain errors in its reasoning, its final conclusion that the Council was competent to adopt that regulation was not incorrect.
The Court considers, however, that the regulation in question was adopted without furnishing any guarantee enabling Mr Kadi to put his case to the competent authorities. Such a gurantee was, however, necessary in order to ensure respect for his right to property, having regard to the general application and continuation of the freezing measures affecting him.
FutureTaoiseach wrote: » Meaning you didn't like the answer the first time. Like the Government. You are made for each other in that respect. I always answer questions asked of me on this forum pertinant to this Treaty and my reasons for voting no to it. It is not an "either or" scenario. The yes camp like to pigeon-hole no voters as being concerned with wedge issues, and therefore you try to make out what I'm opposed to is the guarantees. .
BlitzKrieg wrote: » <Snipped an excellent and thorough investigation of the ECJ & UN Resolution>
oscarBravo wrote: » The proposed amendment has been published. You can read it here.
rumour wrote: » That link is causing my explorer to crash, seriously. Can you try it again?
marco_polo wrote: » Is there any particular reason why you think it is unreasonable to ask somebody to backup a claim that the minority Federalist faction came to completely dominate the writing of the treaty? Apart from the fact that he couldn't answer.
The following is the wording of a printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before: "We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said: "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
rumour wrote: » To proceed in this manner on a project of this scale without a democratic mandate is generally not a good idea unless your intention is to quell subversion by any means possible.
rumour wrote: » I think he has provided enough back up to support an opinion for that is all we can go on about here. ...
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » I'd say it serves to expose and remove tosh
P. Breathnach wrote: » No he hasn't. He has asserted something. The sky is green. If you challenge what I say, then I can repeat it, and it becomes true.
sink wrote: » You imply that there is subversion that needs to be quelled. Where is it?
rumour wrote: » Not again. Go to the library and read a little on the geography of the planet. Does that help.
P. Breathnach wrote: » I am actually sitting in a room lined with books, including a couple of shelves dealing with geography and related matters. The sky is still green.
rumour wrote: » It is pretty hard to deny that the European Union is proceeding in an ideological direction towards more unity.
JoeJC wrote: » The European Union and our government are not respecting us as a people by rehashing the Lisbon Treaty and making us vote on it for a second time.
The EU and our government are not respecting the fundamental principal of democracy by taking our decision, as a nation, and utterly disregarding it when we were told that our vote would be respected.
...in my opinion, the content, no matter how favourable it is for Ireland, is irrelevent.
rumour wrote: » Thats a big leap. I'd say proceeding without a democratic mandate (i.e. you do not have the majority supporting you) leaves you a problem of forcing your views on others. There are of course many ways to do this. However ultimately it will invlove forcing your will on people even though you are a minority. Therefore if this is the route we seem to be embarking on what is the plan to deal with people who disagree?
rumour wrote: » I would say that this form of analysis with malign intent deliberately excludes free thinking. It is more akin to legalistic training where the sole purpose is to examine and interpret the words. Not to give opinion on them. I believe a remember another maxim of legalistic training, the truth is irrelevant. However much to the chagrin of a world dominated by lawyers free thinking has not been totally outlawed as there is I believe still a consensus that to do so would be morally wrong. Curiously the European Constitution and therefore the Lisbon Treaty drafted by Lawyers has removed any mention of religon thus enabling it to if thus inclined dictate rights and wrongs with no superior moral guidance other than the European Constitution. To ignore the moral influence of religon in a world based on competition is a flawed approach.
1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. 2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations. 3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.
rumour wrote: » To ignore the moral influence of religon in a world based on competition is a flawed approach.
Scofflaw wrote: » Curiously, you are entirely incorrect! The current Treaties contain no reference to God or even to churches - their only mention is in respect of the prohibition on religious discrimination. In fact, it's Lisbon that introduces "respect for churches": cordially, Scofflaw
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » To ignore the moral influence of religion is indeed a flawed approach, we should set out to resist, as much as possible, the moral influence of religion.
rumour wrote: » This is the first treaty applied to the whole of Europe that has relegated the common moral set of values from the Christan faith to a mere contribution since before Constantine.
Its not very hard to create that position when a persons right to believe in a God can be subverted by law.
Codially I thank you for the specific references that serve to illustrate that wording can be ambigious and of little value without knowledge of intent.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » Rumour, You are asking that we accept claims about things that may or may not have happened, on face value, without seeking supporting evidence. Or at the very least to go and research ourselves to find out if they are true or not. This is shifting the burden of proof from the claimant to the audience, it makes it impossible to conduct any sort of meaningful conversation. Accept that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, as it always has done, and always will do. If someone tells me something and I am pretty sure they are lying, then I can ask that they prove what they are telling me, especially when that thing they are saying should be readily backed up by proof. If the proof is provided, I will accept that the person is telling the truth, and they will have done us all a favour. If someone either refuses to provide proof, or shifts the burden of proof onto me I will just assume they are lying.
rumour wrote: » I would advise that you give some consideration to your method of determining the truth, it will not always be handed on a plate to you as per your demands.
oscarBravo wrote: » Can you point out the specific provisions in the EU treaties to date that place the Christian faith at a higher level than Lisbon does? Unless, of course, the "no" campaign dictionary has a different meaning of "relegate" to that in common use. By what law can that right be subverted? The specific references provided by Scofflaw are clear and unambiguous. I'm getting really tired of the making-stuff-up approach that the "no" campaign seems to be falling back on - particularly the sort of tiresome, wordy stuff that we're seeing a lot of here lately.
oscarBravo wrote: » That whole post is a pretty long-winded way of saying "no, I won't back up my claims." On this forum, credibility isn't a function of verbosity. If you want your arguments to have weight, back them up.
rumour wrote: » You believe I am making stuff up? Why am I voting on a treaty for the second time when Europe is supposed to under current law accept our decision. Clearly the provisions of whatever treaty that was are being ignored. When you cite parts of the treaty with your interpretation (thank you) and state them as facts you will forgive me but I do not know if what you say will actually transpire. The evidence is right before me, we had a referendum and the result has been ignored. Therefore I will examine as many concievable outcomes as I can. As yet I do not get answers only the text of the treaty but as I have siad based on evidence this cannot really be trusted. To understand the concept I am talking about you will have to study the philosophy of law particuarly in relation to the capitalist society and then gain some understanding of the mechanisms of state (executive,legislature & judicary). These functions are compatible with one cavaet common moral values. If any of the three disgaree the state struggles. I do not have references at hand and you may as others have done choose to determine this as lying, your loss. This treaty being largely the constitution that was rejected in France and the Netherlands sought deliberately to classsify and limit the moral authority of the christian church. That in itself may not be a bad thing, but when you create a vacuum something must fill it. What will that be?
rumour wrote: » You have probably hit the nail on the head. I am not seeking to argue but looking for answers or to learn. If I transgress I apologise, the sum total of what I have learned from this thread is that the majority of the 'yes' campaigners are as smugly incompetent as the last time. There are many good ideological reasons to vote yes but they are mine. I have often been told 'in dicipline comes freedom', by that I mean I have the freedom to choose yes or no, but once I choose yes I have totally lost that freedom. This is an amazing example of that principle in action. The proponents of the treaty are scared to engage in the fundamental reasons why we need to vote yes. Just read 'the prince' I think it identifies every pragmatic reason why Ireland needs to vote yes. They refuse to engage in the ideological purpose of the whole project Europe, fundamentally no one has the ability to communicate the positives of this constitution and measure them against the negative aspects. And as you have said it is all arguments not debate. Sadly I am obviously communicating with the wrong people and wasting my time.
OscarBravo wrote: Well, yeah, that's what "ever closer union" implies. I'm not sure what the problem is with unity. When did concepts like co-operation, consensus, dialogue, synergy and so on develop negative connotations? We've seen what happens when the nation-states of Europe decide to work against each other's interests. Give me ever closer union any day.
oscarBravo wrote: » Not one answer to my direct questions. This isn't a Dáil-style "debating" chamber where the opposing sides compete in trying to put each other to sleep with long-winded speeches. It's a discussion group, which means that, when you're challenged with direct questions, you're expected to answer them. Here's a direct question for you: you said above, "Why am I voting on a treaty for the second time when Europe is supposed to under current law accept our decision. Clearly the provisions of whatever treaty that was are being ignored." What provision, contained in which treaty, requires anything of the sort? Straight answer, please, and less of the obfuscatory waffle.
