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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

1…5758606263…127

Comments

  • #1772
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I can understand why questions would seem bizzare debating technique coming from a environment where there is a culture of silence in the No camp when facts are sought to backup wild assertions.

    Ah, how could i have forgetten to mention the boards.ie technqiue of highlighting minor points in bold text so as to divert attention from the main issue.


  • #1773
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    There is already somewhat precedent in Nice II ...

    The EU should never have been allowed to set the precedent that NO votes can be overturned by forcing the people to vote again. That started with Denmark and the Maastricht treaty and has become established practice in the EU since then.

    No where else in the world do politicians try to subvert the results of national referendum and on no other issue in European countries other than on the EU. It is a signal that there is something very, very wrong with Brussels which will not be fixed until the voters make it absolutely clear that when the primaries (the electorate) speak, the secondaries (their so-called representaives) must accept their veridct and not seek to subvert it.


  • #1774
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Ah, how could i have forgetten to mention the boards.ie technqiue of highlighting minor points in bold text so as to divert attention from the main issue.

    My attention was already well and truely diverted a least a week ago on roughly the 20th occasion you made the same point.

    The issue is that that in your opinion the EU even as it currently stands has no legitimacy whatsoever. And it is not a view I or most other people share.


  • #1775
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    I voted no the last time.

    I will vote no this time.

    I am voting no because the are not respecting my first vote.

    I am not voting against the government due to their ineptness, Though they are inept.If everyone voted yes would they put it to us again? I think not.

    We might only be a small nation but we should not be bullied into this.

    It is this point which has me wavering.


    However, I cannot argue with the content of the treaty, save for the fact that it doesnt go far enough.

    One can complain about our membership of the ECB regarding interest rates and the like (although, it is not as clearcut as some no voters would have you believe). However, without membership of the Union, Ireland would be in a far darker place today. We have reinforced internation credibility through our interaction with the ECB. It must not stop there, a common banking regulatory policy is a must, as it has been shown that we cannot entrust this responibility to our national regulator, or our national politicians. arying taxation models across Europe have highlighted the virtual irrelevance of tax take vis-a-vis the economic crisis. Hence I dont see any real need for an increased EU presence with regard taxation.

    Europena Defence Agency. That is a valid use of resources to my mind. Explicitly, this will deal with voluntary missions, of a benevolent kind. Conscription is not even an issue, and is mentioned nowhere in the treaty.. This is not "increased" militarisation. It is efficiency, and stream lining existing resources. Furthermore, the council will still require unanimity vis-a-vis foregin affairs. Thus, Ireland will not be dragged into any unnecessary wars ala Iraq, where the motivation is not peace, or benevolence, but ulterior motives such as legatee politics, or natural resources.

    The Charter of Fundamental Rights is another decent document which deserves enshrinement into the lawbooks of the EU. It will harmonise a variety of societal laws, and attitudes, however, it doesnt trespass onto areas of national sensitivity. Coir have picked up on the fact that it doesnt mention the right to life of the unborn, and they use this as a stick with which to beat the Yes Campaign. Not only do we enjoy TWO guarantees (one from 1992 (which Mary Lou McDonald and Declan Ganley agreed had varying degrees of strength, the former made no bones about her belief in the strength of the protocol) and another from 2009, we also enjoy the political reality of the ECJ's knowledge and respect of the Irish position. The court's members understands and subscribe to the sensitive nature of social matters such as abortion, and euthanasia. This equally applies to the convictions held in Malta, and Poland. It is well known in the corridors of the buildings of the EU that the ECJ see it as too trivial a matter to drive a wedge between Union members..

    The extension of QMV is another facet of the document which should be welcomed. Most understand the desirable nature of the Veto. However, it is never used. It guarantees the smoother running of the Council's activities, and this is advantageous vis-a-vis policy implementation in 64 new areas.

    Im also heartened by the ability of the National Parliment's to warrent consultation vis-a-vis member state accession. While im open to countries like Coratia and Iceland entering the union, the likes of Turkey, Morocco, and possibly Israel would not have me jumping out of my seat to welcome them with open arms. I would hope that national parliment's take into account the economic situation of each potential new member. Draft legislation need also be run by member states national parliments. This is also to e respected.

    Equally, the co-decision procedure extension between the commission and the parliment is a valid reason to vote for the Treaty. It is clearly more democratic to involve the directly elected members of the parliment in policy formation, as opposed to rendering it a talking shop amongst failed, and fringe politicians. I would like to see my elected MEP's play a role, and I also believe it will have the effect of stimulating an attitude of relevance come election time.

    The general clean up jb of some of the more cumbersome facets of the EU are to be welcomed. The uniting of the three pillers into one legal entity, the steadying job of the council's Presidency, and effect, and the reduction of the members of the Parliment (as agreed on by Nice in 2002) is the final steps in an efficient Union.

    As I stated, I have no qualms voting for the document. It is very good (not going far enough is it's failing). The incremental approach adopted vis-a-vis reform has probably come to an end for some time. This is a comprehensive document,a nd it is in the interests of the no camp to proffer this. However, it is ey that Irish people educate themselves about this document. Nobody should vote no without knowing. However, nobody should just tick the "Yes" box because Biffo, or Inda told them to do so.

    I support the document, but understand the qualms of those who believe the second vote to undemocratic. This is particularly based on the fact that Biffo still calls the mandate FF recieved in 2007 as valid.


  • #1776
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    The issue is that that in your opinion the EU even as it currently stands has no legitimacy whatsoever. And it is not a view I or most other people share.

    You are making stuff up now.


  • Advertisement
  • #1777
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    There is clearly a widespread disconnect between support for the EU from politicians and popular discontent with its direction of travel as evidenced by the lost referendums in Ireland, France, the Netherlands (on Lisbon / EU Constitution), Switzerland and Norway (on EU membership) and Denmark and Sweden (on Euro membership). There has to be an explanation for so many defeated referendums on measures supported by the entire political and media establishment in many countries.

    There is no shortage of explanations, because the reasons why people voted no to any proposal were varied. You seem to allow of only one reason for voting no. It is also absurd to cite the choices in Swizerland and Norway to stay out of the EU as being evidence of a problem within the EU. It is pushing it a bit to say that voting to stay out of the euro is evidence of a fundamental problem within the EU.

    It is inevitable that a project as big as the EU is going to hit some bumps on the road. That is not a basis for declaring a legitimacy crisis.
    I have made that explanation earlier in this thread, based on the readings of the foremost academics working in the field,

    Huh?
    and the response of yesmen here is to resort to improbable maths and denial of the facts.

    See what I mean about your tone?
    Even barroso does not deny the EU legitimacy problem seeking to combat it in other ways.

    So the "crisis" is now a "problem"? Let's have a citation, anyway.
    boards.ie is unique in my experience in that the yes-men cannot even begin to argue the pro-EU case but instead immediately scurry behind a denial of facts.

    What facts are being denied?


  • #1778
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The EU should never have been allowed to set the precedent that NO votes can be overturned by forcing the people to vote again. That started with Denmark and the Maastricht treaty and has become established practice in the EU since then.

    As the EU has no authority to arrange for referendums to be held in member states no such preceedent was set. On both occasions the member states in question who still wished to ratify the treaty sought guarantees / opt out that addressed the concerns of the electorate and the state themselves held the referenda again. (Voting is optional in both states by the way)
    No where else in the world do politicians try to subvert the results of national referendum and on no other issue in European countries other than on the EU. It is a signal that there is something very, very wrong with Brussels which will not be fixed until the voters make it absolutely clear that when the primaries (the electorate) speak, the secondaries (their so-called representaives) must accept their veridct and not seek to subvert it.

    I have yet to hear a good explaination for why some referendums are democratic and others are not.

    If you look around the world you will see the tools of choice around the world for subverting a democratic vote is rarely holding another one.


  • #1779
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The EU should never have been allowed to set the precedent that NO votes can be overturned by forcing the people to vote again. That started with Denmark and the Maastricht treaty and has become established practice in the EU since then.

    No where else in the world do politicians try to subvert the results of national referendum and on no other issue in European countries other than on the EU. It is a signal that there is something very, very wrong with Brussels which will not be fixed until the voters make it absolutely clear that when the primaries (the electorate) speak, the secondaries (their so-called representaives) must accept their veridct and not seek to subvert it.

    Bear in mind, it was sheer idiocracy on the part of CJ Haughey which has led to this situation of referenda for EU treaties. All that needed to be dealt with was "constitution anomalys", such as the fetterance of the constitutional position visa-vis foreign affairs.

    There was no prerequsite to put every single aspect of each treaty to the Irish people. If you read the Lisbon Treaty in it's entirety one will see the amount of stuff which constitutionally would not have needed the mandate of the Irish people.


  • #1780
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    ... No where else in the world do politicians try to subvert the results of national referendum and on no other issue in European countries other than on the EU. It is a signal that there is something very, very wrong with Brussels which will not be fixed until the voters make it absolutely clear that when the primaries (the electorate) speak, the secondaries (their so-called representaives) must accept their veridct and not seek to subvert it.

    Ah, Jaysus, not again!

    There is no subversion.


  • #1781
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Het-Field wrote: »
    The extension of QMV is another facet of the document which should be welcomed. Most understand the desirable nature of the Veto. However, it is never used. It guarantees the smoother running of the Council's activities, and this is advantageous vis-a-vis policy implementation in 64 new areas

    Vetoes in international organisations are necessary to prevent the opinions that people vote for in national elections being overruled. All other international organisations except the EU that take serious decisions binding on their membership retain decision-making by unanimity (even the WTO with 153 members) and none of them has suffered the breakdown in legitimacy experienced by the EU.

    The goal of international organisations cannot be simply 'smoother running' achieved by outvoting entire nations and forcing them to live under EU law that they cannot change through their votes at any time in the future.


  • Advertisement
  • #1782
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    The EU should never have been allowed to set the precedent that NO votes can be overturned by forcing the people to vote again.
    This term “forcing the people to vote” seems to be getting a lot of air-time. If the Irish people were forced to vote for a second time on the Nice Treaty, for example, how is it that more than half of the electorate didn’t vote? What’s more, how were they forced to vote ‘Yes’? I don’t recall anyone calling to my door on 19th October 2002, hauling me down to the polling station at gun-point and forcing me to tick ‘Yes’. I seem to recall exercising my own free will, as did the rest of the electorate – some even had the cheek to vote ‘No’ a second time. Imagine that? It’s almost as though they were free to vote as they saw fit.


  • #1783
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It is also absurd to cite the choices in Swizerland and Norway to stay out of the EU as being evidence of a problem within the EU.

    Total rubbish. EU membership would mean the end of direct democracy in Switzerland because they would not be able to hold national referendums on any issue where there was EU law. Their government would not be able to act on the referendum result because to do so would put them into conflict with EU law. The will of the Swiss people could only be realized following a change in EU law to accommodate them and that could only happen following a Commission proposal and a vote in the EU Council of Ministers backed by other governments none of whom has any duty to listen to the Swiss people. The Swiss stayed out of the EU because they wanted to keep their highly democratic system and subsequent events have confirmed they were right to be concerned by the undemocratic nature of the EU.


  • #1784
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Vetoes in international organisations are necessary to prevent the opinions that people vote for in national elections being overruled. All other international organisations except the EU that take serious decisions binding on their membership retain decision-making by unanimity (even the WTO with 153 members) and none of them has suffered the breakdown in legitimacy experienced by the EU.

    The goal of international organisations cannot be simply 'smoother running' achieved by outvoting entire nations and forcing them to live under EU law that they cannot change through their votes at any time in the future.

    Then I encourage you to seek a disaffiliation referendum to remove Ireland from the EU. The most famous decision of the European Courts (Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen) mentions that soverignty must be fetttered in the give and take nature of the EU.

    Furthermore, unamnity remains necessary vis-a-vis taxation,a nd foreign policy.


  • #1785
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Vetoes in international organisations are necessary to prevent the opinions that people vote for in national elections being overruled. All other international organisations except the EU that take serious decisions binding on their membership retain decision-making by unanimity...
    Indeed; the UN Security Council is probably a good example, where the US and Russia in particular (and to a lesser extent, the UK and France) veto any proposal that doesn’t suit them. Why exactly is that a better system than QMV?


  • #1786
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    It is unfortunate that they didnt do that the first time or else we might not be facing this current situation.

    That, of course, is true. As far as I can tell, a large part of the blame attaches to Fianna Fáil (where else?). They appear to have thought that they could sit back and let Fine Gael and Labour do the work, and the spending, thus depleting their warchests for the locals.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1787
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Im also heartened by the ability of the National Parliment's to warrent consultation vis-a-vis member state accession.

    There is nothing in Lisbon on that score. Whatever trivial powers it gives to national parliaments to be informed about Eu decisions are not real powers. National parliaments are one of the main losers in Lisbon (together with the people who vote for them) because they must withdraw all national legislation that conflicts with EU law created under Lisbon. Lisbon grants the EU carte blance to create such law in the open-ended list of policy areas where the EU has shared-competence meaning the EU can legislate at any time in the future in those areas and you won't be able to do anything it, no matter how you vote in future. Lisbon is deeply undemocratic, and is being ratified by undemocratic means.


  • #1788
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Then I encourage you to seek a disaffiliation referendum to remove Ireland from the EU.

    I'm afraid that won't do John any good, because he's English (of Irish extraction, as far as I recall).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1789
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    There is nothing in Lisbon on that score. Whatever trivial powers it gives to national parliaments to be informed about Eu decisions are not real powers. National parliaments are one of the main losers in Lisbon (together with the people who vote for them) because they must withdraw all national legislation that conflicts with EU law created under Lisbon. Lisbon grants the EU carte blance to create such law in the open-ended list of policy areas where the EU has shared-competence meaning the EU can legislate at any time in the future in those areas and you won't be able to do anything it, no matter how you vote in future. Lisbon is deeply undemocratic, and is being ratified by undemocratic means.

    Im a federalist, and I know this is not a federal document. The way you are proffering it, one would believe it to be.

    Apologies, but National Parliments have been given an incremental role in the running of the EU. Its in the Treaty in black and white. So you misrperesentation on a welcome development is completely spurious.

    Furthermore, you appear to suggest that Ireland is isolated from the EU i.e the EU will take the decisions, and Ireland will have to suck it up. Remember, Ireland is there too. It will have its own voice on the Council, parliment, and "by hook or by crook" the commission.


  • #1790
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Equally, the co-decision procedure extension between the commission and the parliment is a valid reason to vote for the Treaty. It is clearly more democratic to involve the directly elected members of the parliment in policy formation, as opposed to rendering it a talking shop amongst failed, and fringe politicians

    Giving more powers to the EU parliament does not make the EU more democratic. The proof is that this has been the policy since 1979 and there has been an INCREASE in the EU democratic legitimacy problem since then. The reason for this apparent paradox is that the EU Parliament has a weaker democratic legitimacy than the national governments and parliaments who give up the power that is transferred to the EU Parliament, meaning a net loss in the democratic legitimacy of decision-making overall.

    Lisbon perpetuates the policy of giving more power to the EU Parliament at the expense of national governments (i.e. EU Council of Ministers) and national parliaments, which is known to have failed over 30 years to solve the democratic deficit. Pursuing this policy when is known not to work is one of the bad features of Lisbon.


  • #1791
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Vetoes in international organisations are necessary to prevent the opinions that people vote for in national elections being overruled. All other international organisations except the EU that take serious decisions binding on their membership retain decision-making by unanimity (even the WTO with 153 members) and none of them has suffered the breakdown in legitimacy experienced by the EU.

    The goal of international organisations cannot be simply 'smoother running' achieved by outvoting entire nations and forcing them to live under EU law that they cannot change through their votes at any time in the future.

    You have admitted in the past that you are perfect happy to relinquish some soverignty of economic policy in terms of common market membership. You have yet to furnish an explaination of why the approach is legitimate in this policy area while in all other areas even partialy shared soverignty it is an absolute no no.


  • Advertisement
  • #1792
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Im a federalist, and I know this is not a federal document. The way you are proffering it, one would believe it to be.

    Lisbon is a federalist document. It 'collpases the pillar structure' so that the federalist 'community method' that was previously restricted to the first pillar of common market regulations becomes the norm. And it reduces blocking thresholds which increases the power of a federal bodies (e.g. the Commission) relative to national institutions. And it puts another federal institution (the EU Parliament) on an equal footing with all the governments of Europe as represented by the EU Council of Ministers.

    Lisbon is definitely a federalist document and no-one on here will be able to sustain any argument that it is not. Federalists have been lying about the goal of 'integration by stealth' since the 1950s. If they say Lisbon is not a federal document they are lying today.


  • #1793
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    You have admitted in the past that you are perfect happy to relinquish some soverignty of economic policy in terms of common market membership. You have yet to furnish an explaination of why the approach is legitimate in this policy area while in all other areas even partialy shared soverignty it is an absolute no no.

    I have explained that before on several occasions.

    Common market regulations have a low political saliency such that they do not lead to political tensions. No-one is going to get excited about the maximum curvature of cucumbers so it did not matter greatly if issues like that were decided by the undemocratic 'community method'. However Lisbon 'collapses the pillar structure' such that the community method becomes the ordinary legislative procedure in the EU, including for politically contested policy areas for which it is totally unsuited because to decide politically contested issues that way results in the preferences of entire national electorates (as decided traditionally in general elections) being (permanently!) over-ruled at EU level.


  • #1794
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Lisbon is a federalist document. It 'collpases the pillar structure' so that the federalist 'community method' that was previously restricted to the first pillar of common market regulations becomes the norm. And it reduces blocking thresholds which increases the power of a federal bodies (e.g. the Commission) relative to national institutions. And it puts another federal institution (the EU Parliament) on an equal footing with all the governments of Europe as represented by the EU Council.

    Lisbon is deinately a federal document and no-one on here will be able to sustain any argument that it is not. Federalists have been lying about the goal of 'integration by stealth' since the 1950s. If they say Lisbon is not a federal document they are lying today.

    In name, there is no federal EU. In practice, it is not federal.

    As I have mentioned, where is the European Army, the European Taxation regeime, the outright abolition of national parliment power. They are not there. Small increases in co-operation , doesnt equate to a "federal europe". I suggest you take a look at the American model. Remember, Ron Paul views large parts of the EU as what he would like for America.

    As I have mentioned, the EU is a concensus organisation. Fetterance of power has been around since accession. It is likely that this will be the final fetterance for many years to come.


  • #1795
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    I have explained that before on several occasions.

    Common market regulations have a low political saliency such that they do not lead to political tensions. No-one is going to get excited about the maximum curvature of cucumbers so it did not matter greatly if issues like that were decided by the undemocratic 'community method'. However Lisbon 'collapses the pillar structure' such that the community method becomes the ordinary legislative procedure in the EU, including for politically contested policy areas for which it is totally unsuited because to decide politically contested issues that way results in the preferences of entire national electorates (as decided traditionally in general elections) being (permanently!) over-ruled at EU level.

    So legitimacy has nothing to do with the people having a stronger voice via a veto on policy through their government, but is judged soley on perception whether or not the area is deemed to be politically contested. Are there any metrics that can be applied? Where does Space exploration or certain limited areas of Tourism or sport fit in for example?


  • #1796
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Het-Field wrote: »
    In name, there is no federal EU. In practice, it is not federal.

    As I have mentioned, where is the European Army, the European Taxation regeime, the outright abolition of national parliment power. They are not there. Small increases in co-operation , doesnt equate to a "federal europe". I suggest you take a look at the American model. Remember, Ron Paul views large parts of the EU as what he would like for America.

    As I have mentioned, the EU is a concensus organisation. Fetterance of power has been around since accession. It is likely that this will be the final fetterance for many years to come.

    Whererver the 'community method' is used the EU is federal. And under Lisbon this is the 'ordinary legislative procedure' to be used unless otherwise stated (as in a few areas that you list).

    The EU does progressively abolish the power of national parliaments, because EU law is superior to national law, so clearly pre-empts that of national legislatures. Lisbon gives the EU carte blanche power to legsilate in any area of so-called 'shared competence', usually using the federalist community method, after which national parliaments must withdraw any legislation they have in the field. The long-term consequence, perhaps decades hence, is clearly to shrink the arena within which national parliaments can legislate towards vanishing point. That is as per Monnet's design from his "Action Commitee for a United States of Europe".


  • #1797
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    So legitimacy has nothing to do with the people having a stronger voice via a veto on policy through their government, but is judged soley on perception whether or not the area is deemed to be politically contested. Are there any metrics that can be applied? Where does Space exploration or certain limited areas of Tourism or sport fit in for example?

    What are you talking about? A veto though their government??

    All other international organizations taking serious decisions do have such vetoes and have not shed their democratic legitimacy the way the EU has. But here we are talking about the Lisbon treaty which exacerbates the EU policy of getting rid of those vetoes which means the polciies you vote for in national elections can be overruled (in perpetuity!) by the EU.


  • #1798
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    Whererver the 'community method' is used the EU is federal. And under Lisbon this is the 'ordinary legislative procedure' to be used unless otherwise stated (as in a few areas that you list).

    The EU does progressively abolish the power of national parliaments, because EU law is superior to national law, so clearly pre-empts that of national legislatures. Lisbon gives the EU carte blanche power to legsilate in any area of so-called 'shared competence', usually using the federalist community method, after which national parliaments must withdraw any legislation they have in the field. The long-term consequence, perhaps decades hence, is clearly to shrink the arena within which national parliaments can legislate towards vanishing point. That is as per Monnet's design from his "Action Commitee for a United States of Europe".

    Thats a blatent conspiracy theory along the lnes of the "illuamiti", and the "new world order". Closer, "progressively" are words used to proffer this false agenda, and its clear that your basing your views on conspiracy as opposed to hard facts.

    There is no carte blanche. Political realities come into play, and having worked within the EU and its structures, I understand these realities vis-a-vis particularly sensitive areas of poilcy.


  • #1799
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    What are you talking about? A veto though their government??

    All other international organizations taking serious decisions do have such vetoes and have not shed their democratic legitimacy the way the EU has. But here we are talking about the Lisbon treaty which exacerbates the EU policy of getting rid of those vetoes which means the polciies you vote for in national elections can be overruled (in perpetuity!) by the EU.

    We have no veto on common market policy and that is fine by you. I was just trying to assertain why. Apparently because it is not controversial or something. Reasonable summation?


  • #1800
    Freeborn John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    Het-Field wrote: »
    Thats a blatent conspiracy theory along the lnes of the "illuamiti", and the "new world order". Closer, "progressively" are words used to proffer this false agenda, and its clear that your basing your views on conspiracy as opposed to hard facts.

    There is no carte blanche. Political realities come into play, and having worked within the EU and its structures, I understand these realities vis-a-vis particularly sensitive areas of poilcy.

    You do not understand Lisbon.

    The EU has carte blance power to legislate in any area of shared competence under the following article:

    Article 2.2 (TFEU): When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence.

    The 'community method' becomes the ordinary legislative procedure thanks to replacing all references to Article 251 (renumbered Article 294 in Lisbon) with references to the "ordinary legislative procedure".

    Article 294 begins...

    Article 294 (ex Article 251 TEC)
    1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply.
    2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council....

    This gives a federal organ (the EU Commission) the monopoly on all proposals for new or changed EU law; a law that is superior to any other for 500 million people, and which they cannot change thereafter by electing a new government.


  • Advertisement
  • #1801
    Het-Field
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,350 ✭✭✭Het-Field


    Freeborn John wrote: »
    You do not understand Lisbon.

    The EU has carte blance power to legislate in any area of shared competence under the following article:

    Article 2.2 (TFEU): When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence.

    The 'community method' becomes the ordinary legislative procedure thanks to replacing all references to Article 251 (renumbered Article 294 in Lisbon) with references to the "ordinary legislative procedure".

    Article 294 begins...

    Article 294 (ex Article 251 TEC)
    1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply.
    2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council....

    Of course I understand it.

    Your just pissed that I agree with shifting levels of sovreignty. The isolationist wet dream will never work on me.


Advertisement