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

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

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    truthisfree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭truthisfree


    waitinforatrain wrote: »
    I posted the wrong link, please check the one that is there now.

    WRT superstate, one of my original reasons is simply that I don't like making something that large more powerful and organised, and it's still one of the reasons I have left.

    Thanks for clarification on the rest of those.

    That is the one major reason I am voting No, we will be just like the US with different states who think they are independent but are not at all. :(


  • Options
    #93
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    truthisfree wrote: »
    That is the one major reason I am voting No, we will be just like the US with different states who think they are independent but are not at all. :(
    No, it won't.


  • Options
    #94
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    waitinforatrain wrote: »
    From what I understand, the French rejection was based on not being allowed to vote for the expansion of the EU that occured with Nice, and still not being allowed to.
    That may have been one of the issues
    waitinforatrain wrote: »
    (I didn't object to QMV btw)
    Then what do you object to exactly? Be specific please because I don't know of anything else in the treaty that increases power
    waitinforatrain wrote: »
    I refuse to base my vote on economics or out of fear of Europe.
    Just mentioning it as an issue. In fact you are basing your vote out of fear of Europe, you said yourself it's because you don't trust them
    waitinforatrain wrote: »
    My final concern being that I object to Tony Blair being the EU president.

    As Dinner says, it's not an EU president, it's president of the council. Tony Blair has already been president for at least 6 months. It's a powerless role. And Tony Blair as president is far from set in stone, contrary to what certain no campaigners pay


  • Options
    #95
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    truthisfree wrote: »
    That is the one major reason I am voting No, we will be just like the US with different states who think they are independent but are not at all. :(


    Which American states think they are independent?

    Oh and this:

    http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

    Ganley's vision is a U.S. of E. Now why would he be against Lisbon?


  • Options
    #96
    truthisfree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭truthisfree


    Dinner wrote: »
    No, it won't.

    I do not see a lot of difference between the EU and the US if the Lisbon treaty is passed, we will share most of the same laws, already have same currency, and a centralised EU government that will decide all of the important things for us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    truthisfree wrote: »
    and a centralised EU government that will decide all of the important things for us.

    Except that it doesn't, though.


  • Options
    #98
    truthisfree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭truthisfree


    prinz wrote: »
    Which American states think they are independent?

    Oh and this:

    http://www.fpri.org/ww/0405.200312.ganley.euconstitution.html

    Ganley's vision is a U.S. of E. Now why would he be against Lisbon?

    Texas for one! :)


  • Options
    #99
    waitinforatrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭waitinforatrain


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Then what do you object to exactly? Be specific please because I don't know of anything else in the treaty that increases power

    Sorry that I only have a wikipedia quote: "The legislative power and relevance of the directly elected European Parliament would, under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, be increased by extending codecision procedure with the Council to new areas of policy. This procedure would also be slightly modified and renamed to become the "ordinary legislative procedure"."

    I think I've confirmed by now that I'm quite the noob. Perhaps you would know what this is talking about?



    Just mentioning it as an issue. In fact you are basing your vote out of fear of Europe, you said yourself it's because you don't trust them

    Indeed, it's fast becoming my only objection and something I'll have to think about.

    As Dinner says, it's not an EU president, it's president of the council. Tony Blair has already been president for at least 6 months. It's a powerless role. And Tony Blair as president is far from set in stone, contrary to what certain no campaigners pay

    Fair point.


  • Options
    #100
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    truthisfree wrote: »
    Texas for one! :)

    they wish

    US constitution does not allow states to leave

    Lisbon goes as far as setting out exactly how such secession can be accomplished

    vote YES

    /


  • Options
    #101
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    waitinforatrain wrote: »
    Sorry that I only have a wikipedia quote: "The legislative power and relevance of the directly elected European Parliament would, under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, be increased by extending codecision procedure with the Council to new areas of policy. This procedure would also be slightly modified and renamed to become the "ordinary legislative procedure"."

    I think I've confirmed by now that I'm quite the noob. Perhaps you would know what this is talking about?
    What I think it's talking about is that some power is being transferred from the commission which is appointed by the member governments to the parliament which is directly elected by the people. The EU already has the power, they're just changing which group within the EU makes the decisions


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    waitinforatrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭waitinforatrain


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What I think it's talking about is that some power is being transferred from the commission which is appointed by the member governments to the parliament which is directly elected by the people. The EU already has the power, they're just changing which group within the EU makes the decisions

    Fair enough. I'm on the verge of converting to yes now, will have to think it over.

    Cheers for such a rational debate.


  • Options
    #103
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    True. If not literally signed then agreed

    So.. false then..? Have they been signed or not - that was the question.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Don't know when they were announced tbh

    Found it, it was mid June

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    They have been
    Source?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I can't predict the future but someone would have to be retarded to interpret "the decision is legally binding" to mean anything but that. It's about as likely as Brian Cowen marrying Britney Spears. Technically possible but it's never going to happen

    Again not answering the question. I'll restate it.

    True or false: The ECJ will interpret the guarantees should there be a challenge.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The people are voting to amend the constitution. The government then ratify the treaty, the same way they have already ratified the guarantees, which come into force at the same moment as the treaty is ratified
    Are you familiar with the concept of True or False? A statement is made and usually people answer True or False followed by their reasons why.

    I'll restate the statement again:

    5. When the electorate vote on Friday they technically are voting for the Lisbon treaty only and not Lisbon + Guarantees - True or false?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No it's not undemocratic. The government, the EU and the UN have guaranteed these issues. All they can do is present the facts and it's not their fault if no one believes them. People need to realise they have been lied to in the face of the overwhelming evidence that they have

    This relates back to point 1. Did the governments sign the agreement?


  • Options
    #104
    truthisfree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭truthisfree


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    they wish

    US constitution does not allow states to leave

    Lisbon goes as far as setting out exactly how such secession can be accomplished

    vote YES

    /

    I will vote No, same as last time but am very saddened by many things about the EU, particularly their need to make decisions quickly and we don't even get to vote for an EU president.


  • Options
    #105
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,139 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    truthisfree wrote: »
    I will vote No, same as last time but am very saddened by many things about the EU, particularly their need to make decisions quickly and we don't even get to vote for an EU president.

    There is no EU President?? :confused: No such position is provided for in Lisbon so why should we vote for something that doesn't exist :confused:


  • Options
    #106
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,139 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    free-man wrote: »
    The ECJ will interpret the guarantees should there be a challenge.

    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;

    As far as I'm concerned that is fairly black and white....no interpretation needed.


  • Options
    #107
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    namloc1980 wrote: »

    As far as I'm concerned that is fairly black and white....no interpretation needed.

    Wow, it really is difficult to answer a simple bunch of questions isn't it?


  • Options
    #108
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,139 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    free-man wrote: »
    Wow, it really is difficult to answer a simple bunch of questions isn't it?

    What is your point? The ECJ won't have anything to do with it. It's legally binding and comes into effect when/if Lisbon is ratified. Please state what needs to be interpreted??


  • Options
    #109
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    So.. false then..? Have they been signed or not - that was the question.
    I don't know if they literally put a pen to a piece of paper. They have agreed it, I don't know exactly the method they used to signify this agreement, maybe the they cut their hands, shook hands and became blood brothers, it doesn't really matter. Regardless of the method used they are agreed as if they were signed

    free-man wrote: »
    Source?
    I'm posting on my phone so I'm not looking up a link. My source is Scofflaw for one. I'm sure someone else will be good enough to provide a link

    free-man wrote: »
    Again not answering the question. I'll restate it.

    True or false: The ECJ will interpret the guarantees should there be a challenge.
    Again, I cannot predict the future. The world could end tomorrow and that would make me wrong. The best I can say about anything in the future is that it's 99.9999999999999% probable, which I am saying about this
    free-man wrote: »
    Are you familiar with the concept of True or False? A statement is made and usually people answer True or False followed by their reasons why.

    I'll restate the statement again:

    5. When the electorate vote on Friday they technically are voting for the Lisbon treaty only and not Lisbon + Guarantees - True or false?
    I was explaining my reasoning but if you insist: false

    free-man wrote: »
    This relates back to point 1. Did the governments sign the agreement?

    Yes


  • Options
    #110
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    What is your point? The ECJ won't have anything to do with it. It's legally binding and comes into effect when/if Lisbon is ratified. Please state what needs to be interpreted??

    Ah so if its challenged the ECJ wont have anything to do with it as they will only deal with the treaty text.

    Until the guarantees become a protocol that is..


  • Options
    #111
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,139 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    free-man wrote: »
    Ah so if its challenged the ECJ wont have anything to do with it as they will only deal with the treaty text.

    Until the guarantees become a protocol that is..

    Still not sure what you are getting at here. The 27 member states agreed something that is legally binding (those are the words used). Are you trying to say that they are not really legally binding and that the term 'legally binding' actually means nothing at all?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't know if they literally put a pen to a piece of paper. They have agreed it, I don't know exactly the method they used to signify this agreement, maybe the they cut their hands, shook hands and became blood brothers, it doesn't really matter. Regardless of the method used they are agreed as if they were signed

    Interesting. So back to a fictitious example.

    I could 'agree' to buy a house, not sign a contract, hand over 400k and then find the original tenants refuse to move out, having not executed anything legally binding i'd be in a tough spot.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm posting on my phone so I'm not looking up a link. My source is Scofflaw for one. I'm sure someone else will be good enough to provide a link
    Can anyone help him out here?

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again, I cannot predict the future. The world could end tomorrow and that would make me wrong. The best I can say about anything in the future is that it's 99.9999999999999% probable, which I am saying about this
    Hope your right with that 99.9999999999999% figure.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I was explaining my reasoning but if you insist: false

    So you think the question posed on Friday will be
    "Taking account of the 'cast iron' guarantees do you wish to amend the constitution of Ireland (to allow a yes vote)"

    .. Interesting.. I think it will be the exact same question as last year. We'll find out on Friday i guess.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes

    But wait.. you said you don't know how they signified the agreement. They could've shaken hands? How can you be so sure all of a sudden?


  • Options
    #113
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Still not sure what you are getting at here. The 27 member states agreed something that is legally binding (those are the words used). Are you trying to say that they are not really legally binding and that the term 'legally binding' actually means nothing at all?

    Did the heads of state sign the agreement - true or false?


  • Options
    #114
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    ... As Dinner says, it's not an EU president, it's president of the council. Tony Blair has already been president for at least 6 months. It's a powerless role.

    I'd cavil a little at that. Yes, it is a role without a great deal of formal power, but it does allow the office-holder some influence. The presidents we have had up to now have tried to make a mark of some sort by moving matters in which they have a particular interest up the agenda. It might, however, be more, rather than less, difficult for somebody holding the position for 30 months to do much agenda-setting: Prime Ministers might be prepared to wait 6 or 12 months for issues that matter to them to come to the top of the agenda, but if they are asked to wait two years, they might become a bit more assertive about the priorities they want to set.
    And Tony Blair as president is far from set in stone, contrary to what certain no campaigners pay

    I think that we can conclude that Blair wants the job, and much of the media cover can probably be traced back to him or "his people". I suspect that when push comes to shove, there will be a lack of true enthusiasm for his candidature.


  • Options
    #115
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    It also begs the question. Why would Cowen say this:

    “We have an Agreement from our Colleagues that should we ratify the Lisbon Treaty there will be a subsequent Protocol at the next Accession Treaty when the European Union enlarges further which will give full Treaty Status to what has been achieved"

    If the guarantees were good enough in the first place?

    Why would we want to achieve Full Treaty Status?


  • Options
    #116
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,139 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    free-man wrote: »
    Did the heads of state sign the agreement - true or false?

    I don't know - do you??

    It doesn't change the fact that they are legally binding.


  • Options
    #117
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    Interesting. So back to a fictitious example.

    I could 'agree' to buy a house, not sign a contract, hand over 400k and then find the original tenants refuse to move out, having not executed anything legally binding i'd be in a tough spot.
    No you are misunderstanding me. I'm just going to say they did sign it because you're again latching onto a tiny irrelevancy like a creationist to the fossil records. Whether they put a pen to a piece of paper or not they have done exactly the same legal equivalent of signing it. "Agreeing" is legally exactly the same as signing. I could look up a link showing a picture of them putting a pen to a piece of paper because I'm sure they did but I don't want to waste my time because this whole line of conversation is irrelevant. They have agreed it, which when talking about the European Council is the same as signing it


    free-man wrote: »
    Hope your right with that 99.9999999999999% figure.
    I am. I am as confident of this as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow

    free-man wrote: »
    So you think the question posed on Friday will be
    "Taking account of the 'cast iron' guarantees do you wish to amend the constitution of Ireland (to allow a yes vote)"
    Again, pointless little irrelevancies. You are latching onto nothing. The guarantees are meant to settle people's fears and will come into force at the same moment as the treaty is ratified. Whether that exact text is written on the ballot or not is completely irrelevant


    free-man wrote: »
    But wait.. you said you don't know how they signified the agreement. They could've shaken hands? How can you be so sure all of a sudden?

    See above. I'm saying yes because you're latching a pointless irrelevancy. You are seeing a distinction between "sign" and "agree" that does not exist. Must I really waste my time getting photographic evidence before you will accept reality?


  • Options
    #118
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No you are misunderstanding me. I'm just going to say they did sign it because you're again latching onto a tiny irrelevancy like a creationist to the fossil records. Whether they put a pen to a piece of paper or not they have done exactly the same legal equivalent of signing it. "Agreeing" is legally exactly the same as signing. I could look up a link showing a picture of them putting a pen to a piece of paper because I'm sure they did but I don't want to waste my time because this whole line of conversation is irrelevant. They have agreed it, which when talking about the European Council is the same as signing it

    I must remember that next time I 'agree' to buy a house.

    Here's a nice photo of Gordon Brown signing with an old fashioned pen and paper, this is pretty crucial in getting the thing passed otherwise all the governments could say they've 'agreed'.

    No such picture for the declarations.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again, pointless little irrelevancies. You are latching onto nothing. The guarantees are meant to settle people's fears and will come into force at the same moment as the treaty is ratified. Whether that exact text is written on the ballot or not is completely irrelevant

    To you pointless, to thousands of voters crucial. The whole reason the referendum has been re-run (people changing their mind based on the guarantees) has been described by you as pointless.

    If we're not voting on the text + guarantees we're only voting on the text - which hasn't changed - which does not justify a re-run.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    See above. I'm saying yes because you're latching a pointless irrelevancy. You are seeing a distinction between "sign" and "agree" that does not exist. Must I really waste my time getting photographic evidence before you will accept reality?

    I'm not sure how you've been able to live your life to this point when you 'agree' something and then find out someone has changed their minds without a signed contract.

    You don't happen to own a business by any chance? Would you be happy with your clients just 'agreeing' to pay you rather than the ink on the dotted line?

    Really I dont know how you can call this 'pointless' or 'irrelevent'


  • Options
    #119
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    I don't know - do you??

    It doesn't change the fact that they are legally binding.

    See my post above ^^^


  • Options
    #120
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    free-man wrote: »
    I must remember that next time I 'agree' to buy a house.

    Here's a nice photo of Gordon Brown signing with an old fashioned pen and paper, this is pretty crucial in getting the thing passed otherwise all the governments could say they've 'agreed'.

    No such picture for the declarations.

    To you pointless, to thousands of voters crucial. The whole reason the referendum has been re-run (people changing their mind based on the guarantees) has been described by you as pointless.

    If we're not voting on the text + guarantees we're only voting on the text - which hasn't changed - which does not justify a re-run.

    I'm not sure how you've been able to live your life to this point when you 'agree' something and then find out someone has changed their minds without a signed contract.

    You don't happen to own a business by any chance? Would you be happy with your clients just 'agreeing' to pay you rather than the ink on the dotted line?

    Really I dont know how you can call this 'pointless' or 'irrelevent'

    I actually am not discussing this with you any further. You have been provided with irrefutable proof that the guarantees are binding and that they will come into force at the same moment as the treaty of Lisbon. You refuse to accept it because you don't want to accept it, because you will have to admit to yourself that you fell for lies if you accept it. Pride is keeping you from seeing the facts just like it stops creationists from seeing the irrefutable proof of evolution. You are picking on tiny irrelevant details like the lack of a fcuking photo to suggest that a there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of members of 27 governments and the UN. If I had provided the photo, you would have asked for something else and if I had provided that you would have asked for something else. There are none so blind as those that will not see and I am wasting my time here when there are people who can be convinced by mere irrefutable proof

    Vote no because you think the guarantees aren't binding if you want but rest assured you will be making a fool of yourself and the Irish people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    free-man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭free-man


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I actually am not discussing this with you any further. You have been provided with irrefutable proof that the guarantees are binding and that they will come into force at the same moment as the treaty of Lisbon. You refuse to accept it because you don't want to accept it, because you will have to admit to yourself that you fell for lies if you accept it. Pride is keeping you from seeing the facts just like it stops creationists from seeing the irrefutable proof of evolution. You are picking on tiny irrelevant details like the lack of a fcuking photo to suggest that a there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of members of 27 governments and the UN. If I had provided the photo, you would have asked for something else and if I had provided that you would have asked for something else. There are none so blind as those that will not see and I am wasting my time here when there are people who can be convinced by mere irrefutable proof

    Vote no because you think the guarantees aren't binding if you want but rest assured you will be making a fool of yourself and the Irish people.

    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.


Advertisement