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
Referendum on Lisbon Treaty
Options
Comments
-
Any idea where you read it?0
-
AngryHippie wrote: »3 million signatures on a sheet of paper?
3 million voices in 490 million....and countries put more then 3 million signatures on paper to demand referendums which have been turned down....look the the voting structures and the supremacy of EU law over national law if this goes through. You need a 65% majority of the 490 million to change anything.0 -
Scofflaw, there are Irish MEPs, Dutch MEPs, French MEPs etc in that video voicing extreme concern. Just go through it and tell me what point they are mistaken on.
These people are informed at a very detailed level.
Im simply asking you where they are wrong...something you seem unwilling to do.
As for the New world order...I didnt use those words, but dozens of politicians all over the world as using that terminology in that video...that exact phrase. Dozens are all singing from the same hymn sheet...from the US to the UK, Russia to Germany to Italy...their words, not mine. If there was to be a new world order, this legislation, according to that video would be a terrific first step.
Just tell me the lies that elected representatives in Ireland are telling us in that video so that I can leave this thread alone?0 -
-
Scofflaw, there are Irish MEPs, Dutch MEPs, French MEPs etc in that video voicing extreme concern. Just go through it and tell me what point they are mistaken on.
These people are informed at a very detailed level.
Im simply asking you where they are wrong...something you seem unwilling to do.
As for the New world order...I didnt use those words, but dozens of politicians all over the world as using that terminology in that video...that exact phrase. Dozens are all singing from the same hymn sheet...from the US to the UK, Russia to Germany to Italy...their words, not mine. If there was to be a new world order, this legislation, according to that video would be a terrific first step.
Just tell me the lies that elected representatives in Ireland are telling us in that video so that I can leave this thread alone?
Let's start with the basics:
"We started out to make a video about the pros and cons of the Lisbon Treaty" - wacIreland set out to do no such thing, since they were against the treaty in advance. What they set out to make was an overblown piece of propaganda, full of images of darkness spreading over Europe, the lictor's fasces with the EU stars, martial music, repetition of words like 'deception'....
...and what amazes me is that someone like yourself, who I presume would not consider themselves naive, appears to take this at face value. If these guys really had "discovered the deception behind Lisbon", they could simply present it. They don't - instead they're desperately overselling.
Second point - all the material they have is publicly available. One, that means they are not offering any actual revelations. Two, nobody has suppressed any of this. You keep claiming that you know the history of tyranny - tyrannies do not allow alternative sources of information.
So, then we have Jens-Peter Bonde talking about the length of the treaty, the font, and the number of pages. Then he claims that the reason we're having a referendum is because our courts are too independent. No, we're having a referendum because that's the advice the AG gave the government. Other countries are not, because that's the advice their AG's gave them - not because their courts are somehow suborned, as Bonde implies.
He then claims that the prime ministers could not have read the treaty, because it is "unreadable". It's exactly the ruddy same as any other piece of amending legislation - full of "blah blah in para 28.2.i replaced by blah blah".
The text of the treaty is not impossible to read. Bonde is demagoguing, and lying. In particular, it should be obvious even to the very hard of thinking that if the treaty is 98% the same as the Constitution (as wacI claim), there's hardly very much hidden in it that wasn't in plain sight in the Constitution.
His claim that the EU will not produce a consolidated text is also not true - or so I am told by the EU Commission people in Dublin (you can walk in and ask - or call and ask). There is an EU consolidated text coming out in April.
Anthony Coughlan I have some respect for, but his argument is simply an intellectual nationalism - that "peoples" and "nations" are the only level at which democracy and action is meaningful. I'm appalled, but not surprised, that a clever man cannot see he's arguing for exactly the same stupidity that gave us the world wars.
Anyway, the video is too long, and there is a mistruth roughly every few seconds, so I haven't the leisure to go through it all. I'll just point out that the people cited are all eurosceptics, that no balancing voice is heard, and that pretty much every single one of them has opposed the previous treaties and the EU in general.
If you listen to the English, you will hear bad things about the French, would be my summary. The video is not objective, indeed makes no pretence of objectivity. If you find it makes sense to you, then by all means vote No on that basis - presumably, you will also be stocking up a hideout in the hills, in which I wish you the very best.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I feel that the last few pages of posts have really justified my position that this treaty is un-votable by a referendum. It is completely incomprehensible to the population at large. I've tried reading the whole treaty but it makes me sleepy and I usually dose off. I wish that Ireland had had a referendum on having a referendum. The question could have been:
"Do you agree that the Irish people should be allowed a referendum on Ireland's ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community"
I know I'm talking silly, but it's amazing what you end up daydreaming about when reading the treaty.
Anyhows, the treaty is going to a referendum and I do actually agree with many of the merits of having one. The Irish people will once again prove to be the most informed nation on the EU, thanks to the debates which this and previous referendums creates. Unfortunately, being informed does not necessarily mean reaching the same conclusions thanks to multiple interpretations and mis-interpretations! But that's democracy at work and it has to be respected at all costs.
Scofflaw has destroyed, in my opinion, all of the No voters arguments. The No campaigners are basing most of their arguments on "What ifs" and speculation that the EU leaders are out to get us and will do this by creating an EU dictatorship. Why they are out to get us has actually never been pointed out. Hitler had his reasons: extermination of Jews and expansion of the Germanic race were some of the princpal ones, amongst others. I'm at a loss to imagine what the likes of Ahern, Sarkozy, Merkel and Brown (Blair?) have in mind. Maybe I'm naive so I'm looking forward to a crash course in EU dictatorship policy from the No campaigners.
I am evidently pro-EU and pro-Treaty. I'm an Irish guy living in France and have experienced first hand the benifits of the EU. For example, I just received my European Health Card today (all EU citizens are entitled to one) which will allow me to avail of the social health services in any of the 27 EU countries should I be holidaying in one of those countries. I'm also a researcher, a domain which is heavily reliant on collaborations with other European and international institutions and industries. EU funding for cross-EU projects is vital to such research, particularly large scale projects. Many of these projects have a long term impact on the lives of everyday citizens, in areas such as bioligical research (eg, for cancer) and technological research (eg, for integrated circuit manufacturing for the likes of your PC, mobile phone, iPod, flat screen television and so on).
I have never, not once, experienced hardship due to the EU and so it pains me to see the fear people have of this EU treaty. I've even heard arguments that this treaty will force abortion and euthanasia on Ireland! People do really clutch at straws when faced with the unknown. Some people are even afraid of the Charter on Human Rights, a charter which Ireland ratified in the 50's and which supercedes Irish law since 2003. Why anybody would be against a common charter on human rights is beyond me.0 -
I am evidently pro-EU and pro-Treaty. I'm an Irish guy living in France and have experienced first hand the benifits of the EU. For example, I just received my European Health Card today (all EU citizens are entitled to one) which will allow me to avail of the social health services in any of the 27 EU countries should I be holidaying in one of those countries. I'm also a researcher, a domain which is heavily reliant on collaborations with other European and international institutions and industries. EU funding for cross-EU projects is vital to such research, particularly large scale projects. Many of these projects have a long term impact on the lives of everyday citizens, in areas such as bioligical research (eg, for cancer) and technological research (eg, for integrated circuit manufacturing for the likes of your PC, mobile phone, iPod, flat screen television and so on).
That all makes perfect sense. The only point I would make is that it has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. What we have now, we have because of the present arrangements. Lisbon changes them, so we need to see what the effect of those changes will be. We are in a way both lucky and cursed to have the opportunity of figuring this out. Life would be easier if we didn't have to - but as you say, that's democracy. In Ireland anyway.I have never, not once, experienced hardship due to the EU and so it pains me to see the fear people have of this EU treaty. I've even heard arguments that this treaty will force abortion and euthanasia on Ireland! People do really clutch at straws when faced with the unknown. Some people are even afraid of the Charter on Human Rights, a charter which Ireland ratified in the 50's and which supercedes Irish law since 2003. Why anybody would be against a common charter on human rights is beyond me.
I agree with you that overstatement (something both sides resort to) is annoying. One overstatement on the Yes side as much as on the No side is on what the Lisbon treaty has to do with human rights. The true answer is very little. Some No people hype it in the way you say. But the Yes people hype it just as mischievously - implying that we will get some new rights that we do not already have, and leading people to think that they can go to the European Court of Justice in a way that they cannot do now. Neither of those messages is true.
Btw there is a difference between the European Charter on Human Rights that Ireland signed up to in the 50's and what is called in Lisbon the Charter of Fundamental Rights - that is a document agreed within the EU and unlike the older Charter, ordinary citizens cannot do much with it. It is really more like a message to the EU institutions to be mindful of certain rights, which in fact people already have anyway.0 -
That all makes perfect sense. The only point I would make is that it has nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. What we have now, we have because of the present arrangements. Lisbon changes them, so we need to see what the effect of those changes will be. We are in a way both lucky and cursed to have the opportunity of figuring this out. Life would be easier if we didn't have to - but as you say, that's democracy. In Ireland anyway.
I've never really found the argument against referendums convincing myself. Voters are entitled to vote whichever way for whatever reason they like - that's the whole point. It means that democracies are vulnerable to certain kinds of demagoguery, but there's a limit to what demagoguery can do in a democracy, because people have an awareness of being entitled already to express grievances through irrelevant votes.I agree with you that overstatement (something both sides resort to) is annoying. One overstatement on the Yes side as much as on the No side is on what the Lisbon treaty has to do with human rights. The true answer is very little. Some No people hype it in the way you say. But the Yes people hype it just as mischievously - implying that we will get some new rights that we do not already have, and leading people to think that they can go to the European Court of Justice in a way that they cannot do now. Neither of those messages is true.
Btw there is a difference between the European Charter on Human Rights that Ireland signed up to in the 50's and what is called in Lisbon the Charter of Fundamental Rights - that is a document agreed within the EU and unlike the older Charter, ordinary citizens cannot do much with it. It is really more like a message to the EU institutions to be mindful of certain rights, which in fact people already have anyway.
Well, slightly stronger than that. As you say, people get this one wrong (I actually think that it's often honest mistake - on both sides).
The Charter binds the EU, in its institutions, and in its legislation, to respect the rights in the Charter. I think one could take a case in the European Courts against an EU directive on the basis that it failed to respect those rights, but certainly you can't enforce the Charter rights against the Irish government or, say, the Gardai, or your fellow citizens.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I think one could take a case in the European Courts against an EU directive on the basis that it failed to respect those rights, but certainly you can't enforce the Charter rights against the Irish government or, say, the Gardai, or your fellow citizens.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Why do you think so?0 -
Essential viewing:
End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en0 -
Advertisement
-
Why do you think so?I think one could take a case in the European Courts against an EU directive on the basis that it failed to respect those rights, but certainly you can't enforce the Charter rights against the Irish government or, say, the Gardai, or your fellow citizens.
Explanatory notes on the Charter from eucharter.org!
See particularly the FAQs:
Q6: The main purpose of the Charter is to make these fundamental rights more visible and accessible to EU citizens. When implemented, it will allow someone to challenge how a Member State has implemented a European law such as a Community Directive in that state’s own courts*. This will be simpler, cheaper and easier than taking the case before the ECJ in Luxembourg.
* You don't have to go through the ECJ as I suggested, which is better.
Q7: You could use the Charter at the moment to complain to the European Ombudsman about how an EU institution has treated you. You can also refer to it in court litigation though it has, as explained above, only persuasive effect*. Once the Constitution is implemented, a court must take account of its provisions in an appropriate case.
*The site refers to the Charter as only of 'persuasive effect' because it is not currently ratified.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Essential viewing:
End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en
Rated 15 for strong rhetoric.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
No, it looks clear enough from that link that an ordinary person cannot go to the European Court of Justice.
We already have the right to complain in our own courts if we think our rights are not respected, for example in the way our country implements a Directive.
And under the existing Treaty, the Union already has to respect fundamental rights. So nothing new in Lisbon there.
This Charter looks like to me more like good public relations rather than anything people can ever use.0 -
Nothing by that group is "essential viewing". I'm voting No to Lisbon, but it won't be on an account of them. Mini versions of Alex Jones, with less wit and originality.0
-
No, it looks clear enough from that link that an ordinary person cannot go to the European Court of Justice.
We already have the right to complain in our own courts if we think our rights are not respected, for example in the way our country implements a Directive.
And under the existing Treaty, the Union already has to respect fundamental rights. So nothing new in Lisbon there.
This Charter looks like to me more like good public relations rather than anything people can ever use.
Er, no. It's specifically stated as being something the citizen will be able to use to challenge EU directives or the implementation of EU directives into national law. Currently it has 'persuasive effect', but if ratified, it will have more than that.
I'm not sure why you consider that as PR?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I already said why - that duty on the EU to respect fundamental rights is already in the Treaty. See article 6.4 TEU. The Charter does not extend what is already referred to there - or do you think it does? If so I would like you to give an example.0
-
That End of Nations video? - I have no idea who put it together, and it is a bit too long, but the bulk of it is very straight interviews or reportage of MEPs and others who have a lot of useful information about the treaty.
Sure they have a perspective, but they are well able to put their case.
And I like the story by the French speaker (around 1.15 into the piece) about the Commission lawyer confirming that what he was planning to say in Ireland was accurate and fair, but warning him that he might frighten the Irish into voting No, and telling him solemnly 'sometimes it is better not to say the truth'.
Ignore the naive world government stuff that the producers insert near the end though.
The final scene in the European Parliament is chilling actually.0 -
I already said why - that duty on the EU to respect fundamental rights is already in the Treaty. See article 6.4 TEU. The Charter does not extend what is already referred to there - or do you think it does? If so I would like you to give an example.
It's more that currently, the Charter is not part of EU law, whereas if Lisbon is ratified, it will be. From the unmentionable source:
As it stands, the Charter is not a treaty, constitutional, or legal document, and has the ambiguous value of a 'solemn proclamation' by three of the Union's most important institutions. Its text is mainly in harmony with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore can be taken as a confirmation (by the Council, Commission, and Parliament) of the pre-existing rights contained therein, while adding widely-accepted principles such as the 'right' to good administration, workers' social rights, and bioethics. The Charter's 'power' or 'effect', if it has any, may be only these:
* The proclaiming institutions (and other institutions such as the European Court of Justice) are not going to contradict the Charter, since they have 'solemnly proclaimed' it.
* Common law, Community law, and case law are generally in harmony with it, so there is little probability of conflict.
It does not have the status of Community law. Therefore, cases cannot be brought solely on the ground of a contradiction against the Charter.
If Lisbon is ratified, the Charter will have the force of law, which means that a case can be brought solely on the grounds of a contradiction of the Charter. Rather a fine distinction as long as EU law does not contradict the rights in the Charter, rather a large distinction if one of them does.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I see.
This is what Article 6.2 (it's not 6.4 posted last time - my mistaken numbering) of the Treaty of the EU says already:
The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
You say that if Lisbon is passed we could attack an EU law that breaches our fundamental rights in an Irish Court. I wonder about that. Has anyone ever managed to overturn any EU law in any national court anywhere under the existing human rights Article?
If not, it maybe because the EU never breaches anyone's rights of course.0 -
I see.
This is what Article 6.2 (it's not 6.4 posted last time - my mistaken numbering) of the Treaty of the EU says already:
The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
You say that if Lisbon is passed we could attack an EU law that breaches our fundamental rights in an Irish Court. I wonder about that. Has anyone ever managed to overturn any EU law in any national court anywhere under the existing human rights Article?
No idea - it is, as pointed out, already of 'persuasive effect'.If not, it maybe because the EU never breaches anyone's rights of course.
That may be the case, of course, but still it is always useful to invest in insurance.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
"End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty." thread merged back into the main Lisbon treaty thread.0
-
No idea - it is, as pointed out, already of 'persuasive effect'.
A simply stunning statement...understand this and you are on your way to understanding Scofflaw.
Irish law offers no protection to Irish citizens under this treaty. That means that if the EU in 20 years time said that all its nuclear waste had to be dumped somewhere in Europe, and the people of Europe chose Ireland out of 10 places since we are on the periphery with a big ocean beside us... you could do nothing about it.
Is that an hysterical example...yes. Is that politically possible under this legislation...yes.
Bu they wouldnt dump nuclear waste on Ireland!!??...why not...the British have been doing it for years.0 -
Let's start with the basics:
"We started out to make a video about the pros and cons of the Lisbon Treaty" - wacIreland set out to do no such thing, since they were against the treaty in advance.
How do you know this?
...and what amazes me is that someone like yourself, who I presume would not consider themselves naive, appears to take this at face value. If these guys really had "discovered the deception behind Lisbon", they could simply present it. They don't - instead they're desperately overselling.
Maybe they just feel strongly? Nothing you have said denegrates ONE of their arguments.
Second point - all the material they have is publicly available. One, that means they are not offering any actual revelations. Two, nobody has suppressed any of this. You keep claiming that you know the history of tyranny - tyrannies do not allow alternative sources of information.
Tyrannies are only in a ppostion to suppress once they have the legal mechanism in place with control of media outlets...that is historical fact...first comes law, second comes media control, third comes tyranny. FACT.
So, then we have Jens-Peter Bonde talking about the length of the treaty, the font, and the number of pages. Then he claims that the reason we're having a referendum is because our courts are too independent. No, we're having a referendum because that's the advice the AG gave the government. Other countries are not, because that's the advice their AG's gave them - not because their courts are somehow suborned, as Bonde implies.
Millions of people in many countries asked for referendums and where denied them by politicians who promised them...that sounds kinda tyrannical to me..this thing has already been voted down in the 2 countries that allowed referendums....big clue there. ...and it has only changed 2% according to you.
He then claims that the prime ministers could not have read the treaty, because it is "unreadable". It's exactly the ruddy same as any other piece of amending legislation - full of "blah blah in para 28.2.i replaced by blah blah".
Yeah, and to understand it correctly, you would need to read about 3000 other peices of legislation to WHICH IT REFERS.
The text of the treaty is not impossible to read. Bonde is demagoguing, and lying. In particular, it should be obvious even to the very hard of thinking that if the treaty is 98% the same as the Constitution (as wacI claim), there's hardly very much hidden in it that wasn't in plain sight in the Constitution.
So an MEP is on tape lying? There goes his political career. Forward your allegations to the EU bureaucracy.
But if it is the same as 98% of the previous treaty, why are they re-running it? It's been REJECTED by citizens. Why are they lying to us? Even you seem to admit it.
His claim that the EU will not produce a consolidated text is also not true - or so I am told by the EU Commission people in Dublin (you can walk in and ask - or call and ask). There is an EU consolidated text coming out in April.
Post it when it comes out. I’ll read it. It seems not to give the Irish people much time to digest/question it. On such a huge issue... for now we have to depend on videos which you don’t like, for some reason, though I cant figure out why since you wont watch and respond to it in any meaningful way.
Anthony Coughlan I have some respect for, but his argument is simply an intellectual nationalism - that "peoples" and "nations" are the only level at which democracy and action is meaningful. I'm appalled, but not surprised, that a clever man cannot see he's arguing for exactly the same stupidity that gave us the world wars.
If you are really anti war and for Ireland, then you should reject this treaty. Ireland has only ever been at war with institutions and countries that tried to impose their laws against the will of the Irish people. Dont let it happen again.
Anyway, the video is too long, and there is a mistruth roughly every few seconds, so I haven't the leisure to go through it all.
Don’t run away from the arguments that genuine people have. If they are wrong, say where. Take you time. We will wait till next week. Ill be posting ehre next week with your comment if you don’t respond.
I didn’t elect you, but many people elected people who feature in that video...why should we listen to you over them? What makes you so clever?
If you listen to the English, you will hear bad things about the French, would be my summary. The video is not objective, indeed makes no pretence of objectivity. If you find it makes sense to you, then by all means vote No on that basis - presumably, you will also be stocking up a hideout in the hills, in which I wish you the very best.
If you listen to the English MEP near the end, he said that this treaty is a travesty of decency and politics. I wont be stocking up on anything, because the Irish people represent the voices of 125 each of their European cousins. I live in Spain, and the entire Spanish community here is cheering the Irish people onto a NO vote (except the uber rich). All of Europe is behind the Irish people with fingers crossed.
I will trust my Irish brothers and sisters to do the morally, ethically, legally and spiritually correct thing on polling day. They always have and they always will. Irish people are decent to the core. We have a republic, not a democracy. Plato called democracy the worst form of governance....and I agree. It's a shame that America is spreading a democratic doctrine throughout the middle east, when infact it isn’t even a democracy itself...its a republic. Look at their declaration of independence...the word democracy isn’t mentioned once. It's a British invention. Does that make me a Sinn Fein follower...absolutely not! Never! It makes me a historian.
A republic beats 20 democracies every day of the week...fight for it...it’s been good to you...it belongs to you... No one can take away your rights unless you give them up NOW. You have a constitution that your grandparents, parents and uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters died for...its worth something...The Republic of Ireland hasn’t had a day at war since it was signed and at peace it will continue to prosper.0 -
Er, no. It's specifically stated as being something the citizen will be able to use to challenge EU directives or the implementation of EU directives into national law. Currently it has 'persuasive effect', but if ratified, it will have more than that.
I'm not sure why you consider that as PR?
cordially,
Scofflaw
If I could persuade you to put your hand in a fire with logic...would you do it?
Persuasion is nothing if the other party has made up their mind. Could my persuasive effect make you vote no? MEPs are dogs with no teeth and big muzzles...persuasive, yes...with bite...no. Wheres the persuasion in that? Its an exercise in linguistics.0 -
If I could persuade you to put your hand in a fire with logic...would you do it?
Persuasion is nothing if the other party has made up their mind. Could my persuasive effect make you vote no? MEPs are dogs with no teeth and big muzzles...persuasive, yes...with bite...no. Wheres the persuasion in that? Its an exercise in linguistics.
You may have missed the point entirely, I'm afraid. "Persuasive effect" is a legal term.Amberman wrote:
A simply stunning statement...understand this and you are on your way to understanding Scofflaw.Scofflaw wrote:No idea - it is, as pointed out, already of 'persuasive effect'.
But not, apparently, what he's saying.Amberman wrote:Irish law offers no protection to Irish citizens under this treaty. That means that if the EU in 20 years time said that all its nuclear waste had to be dumped somewhere in Europe, and the people of Europe chose Ireland out of 10 places since we are on the periphery with a big ocean beside us... you could do nothing about it.
Is that an hysterical example...yes. Is that politically possible under this legislation...yes.
Bu they wouldnt dump nuclear waste on Ireland!!??...why not...the British have been doing it for years.
Leaving aside your, yes, hysterical example, you appear to be under the delusion that this treaty gives EU law precedence over Irish law. EU law has had precedence over Irish law since we joined, 35 years ago. In all that time the EU has never dumped anything other than an awful lot of money on us - but perhaps they were just softening us up.
Is this the first EU treaty you've read or are voting on? Are you perhaps unaware that everything you're saying has been said before every single vote, and hasn't proven to bear even a vague resemblance to the reality after the vote?
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
You may have missed the point entirely, I'm afraid. "Persuasive effect" is a legal term.
But not, apparently, what he's saying.
Leaving aside your, yes, hysterical example, you appear to be under the delusion that this treaty gives EU law precedence over Irish law. EU law has had precedence over Irish law since we joined, 35 years ago. In all that time the EU has never dumped anything other than an awful lot of money on us - but perhaps they were just softening us up.
Is this the first EU treaty you've read or are voting on? Are you perhaps unaware that everything you're saying has been said before every single vote, and hasn't proven to bear even a vague resemblance to the reality after the vote?
amused,
Scofflaw
The Irish MEPs in that video say that this treaty effectively nullifies the Irish constitution. Is that correct?0 -
-
Show me how both these statements can be true at once.
"EU law has had precedence over Irish law since we joined, 35 years ago."
The Irish MEPs in that video say that this treaty effectively nullifies the Irish constitution. Is that correct?
No, it is complete rubbish.
If EU law comes into conflict with Irish law, you seem to say that EU law wins...therefore the constitution is already effectively dead in areas of Irish law where it conflicts with EU law?0 -
Show me how both these statements can be true at once.
"EU law has had precedence over Irish law since we joined, 35 years ago."
The Irish MEPs in that video say that this treaty effectively nullifies the Irish constitution. Is that correct?
"No, it is complete rubbish."
If EU law comes into conflict with Irish law, you seem to say that EU law wins...therefore the constitution is already effectively dead in areas of Irish law where it conflicts with EU law?
Now you appear to be confused between the Irish Constitution and Irish law. Irish law dictates details, while the Constitution dictates principles. If the Constitution were redundant, there would be no need for a referendum to ratify Lisbon by amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution remains the foundational document of Irish sovereignty.
You seem to be having a huge amount of difficulty with the idea that two Irish MEPs and a handful of other MEPs might be not telling the truth about this Treaty, while having none whatsoever with the idea that the all the others are.
Of course, you have a similar difficulty with me pointing out what I believe are the negative consequences of voting no (bullying...dictatorship 101), even though the only thing you've done is point out what you believe are the negative consequences of voting yes!
amused again,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Part of the Lisbon referendum wording continues the current arrangement under which EU laws, decisions, measures, are immune from attack under our Constitution:
11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts
done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the
obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in
subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or
measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions 25
thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
section, from having the force of law in the State.
As more and more areas of law making fall under the scope of the EU, because of this clause they fall outside the protection afforded to people under the Constitution.
Referendum wording
Scofflaw scoffs a lot doesn't he?
If you question him about whether there is any basis in reality to his hint that he has inside knowledge about the Attorney General's thinking on whether we needed a referendum he backs off fast. If you ask him to back up his claim that we can go to the European Court for new fundamental rights, he climbs down fast too.
He does dismissal quite well, in a way that sometimes sounds convincing. Until you ask him for specifics. You will not be getting many specifics from him on what 'lies' the MEPs and the others in that video are supposed to be telling either, I would guess. He is happy with his sweeping assertion that there is a lie every few seconds. That would make well over 100 in the course of the programme - you'd imagine he'd have no shortage of really good lies to pick from there. Maybe he will grace us now with a list of even say ten sample whoppers from the main speakers?
0
Advertisement