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
-
I'll currently be voting No for the treaty because I don't fully understand it and the Govt. has not mandated the Referendum Commission to publish balanced For and Against arguments as they have done in the past.
True - this time we're only getting a leaflet, I believe. It's not anything to do with the actual Treaty, though, or even the EU.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Its a No from me too0
-
Why?0
-
Did you miss the link to the IIEA consolidated versions? Those show the texts of the treaties that Lisbon amends as they would read after Lisbon. That's this link, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and each of the treaty documents that Lisbon amends is shown as it will be amended. There's only 4, not dozens, and none of them run to thousands of pages.
Thats the 'consolidated' version - it has been stripped down and dumbed down as well. It's not the treaties in full - its what they want people to know about the treaty.I'm not claiming it's fun to read, and I'd certainly like an annotated version, but it's quite possible to read it if you've read legislation or legal contracts before.
Again, your not looking at the treaty in full in either of the links you have provided. Unless people print out the treaties in full, then read the new treaty and at the same time refer back to the treaties they amend, you are not getting the full picture.
I like the fact they made a 'consolidated guide' but the reality is that is like a cheat sheet for the treaty, and it has a spin on it.First, the list-of-amendments is the full document. For comparison, here's the Nice Treaty text itself - also just a list of amendments. Second, the IIEA produced their consolidated version with EU funding - and it's linked from the EU site I directed you to. Third, I actually went into the EU after that Vincent Browne article, and as far as they know the EU themselves are bringing out a version next month.
We know this. I have said that three times over now. The Lisbon Treaty is merely 300 amendments to other treaties. And again, there is no place where those treaties are printed along side the new amendments in full.
The pro-treaty crowd has plenty of links to 'consolidated' texts, links to the actual treaty - minus the original treaties they amend, and links to various reasons why you should vote yes in their opinion, but nowhere can you find an unmodified, untrimmed version of the treaty amendments alongside the original treaty documents.
What they are doing is telling people to vote on something that they don't readily have full access to. They are forcing people to figure out what treaties are being modified, hunt down copies of those other treaties, then take the new amendments and put it all together themselves and decipher what exactly is being changed. The alternative is to read those 'consolidated' text or their bullet point lists, which as I said, have a certain amount of pro-spin on them.
I think its an obvious attempt to try and overwhelm the public to the point they are forced to take the word of the pro-treaty politicians since the average Joe Soap will not have access to the document or the other treaties. I mean, how many in Ireland are without Internet or broadband? Of those with it, how many do you know who can tell you where to find that treaty? How many know which other treaties are being amended? How many people can find those other treaties?
The bottom line is they are actively trying to remove the average Joe Soap from the equation by making it so difficult to try and follow they will just give up and not vote, thereby allowing the people towing the current party line for FF to slide this referendum through without anyone interfering.0 -
i hope all these people saying no will vote on the day!:)
the government are doing nothing to educate ue PROPERLY on this treaty...they're just saying,vote 'yes' and giving little reason.there was a statement from bertie in my local rag on wednesday...vote yes...why you ask??i'm not saying lol somegeneralised bull about it being good for europe:o0 -
Advertisement
-
Thats the 'consolidated' version - it has been stripped down and dumbed down as well. It's not the treaties in full - its what they want people to know about the treaty.
Well, if it's the "stripped down and dumbed down" version please provide citations showing amendments in the Lisbon Treaty that aren't included in the consolidated versions or show where they have been modified in the process.
I don't believe you when you say it's "stripped down and dumbed down". TBH, I think that's just you trying to spread FUD about the treaty.but the reality is that is like a cheat sheet for the treaty, and it has a spin on it.
Please provide an example of "spin" in the consolidated versions.0 -
Thats the 'consolidated' version - it has been stripped down and dumbed down as well. It's not the treaties in full - its what they want people to know about the treaty.
Again, your not looking at the treaty in full in either of the links you have provided. Unless people print out the treaties in full, then read the new treaty and at the same time refer back to the treaties they amend, you are not getting the full picture.
I like the fact they made a 'consolidated guide' but the reality is that is like a cheat sheet for the treaty, and it has a spin on it.
You misunderstand, I think, almost completely. The Lisbon Treaty itself consists only of the amendments. There is no separate Treaty document other than the list of amendments, because the Lisbon Treaty amends the other EU treaties.
The consolidated versions are not "stripped down and dumbed down" - they are the treaties that Lisbon amends, as they would be if amended by Lisbon.
If you know software at all, you can think of Lisbon as a 'patch' (or series of patches) that needs to be applied to the original treaties - a service pack, if you like. You are asking to see the 'patched' versions of the treaties - that's what the consolidated versions are.We know this. I have said that three times over now. The Lisbon Treaty is merely 300 amendments to other treaties. And again, there is no place where those treaties are printed along side the new amendments in full.
The pro-treaty crowd has plenty of links to 'consolidated' texts, links to the actual treaty - minus the original treaties they amend, and links to various reasons why you should vote yes in their opinion, but nowhere can you find an unmodified, untrimmed version of the treaty amendments alongside the original treaty documents.
Possibly because they too are hidden in plain sight here. What you are looking for, I think, is an "annotated" version, which would be a version of the treaties as unamended and amended - with the struck out text visible on the page as well as the text that replaces it. The problem with such a document is that anyone who's prepared to put the time and effort into producing such a document is more likely to produce some kind of comparative analysis instead.
However, I have heard it said that such a version will be available next month - and in the meantime you may find this useful. It's a comparative analysis by the UK Foreign Office.What they are doing is telling people to vote on something that they don't readily have full access to. They are forcing people to figure out what treaties are being modified, hunt down copies of those other treaties, then take the new amendments and put it all together themselves and decipher what exactly is being changed. The alternative is to read those 'consolidated' text or their bullet point lists, which as I said, have a certain amount of pro-spin on them.
And as I've pointed out, you've completely misunderstood what a consolidated version is. It contains no "spin", but is simply the text of the treaties Lisbon amends, as amended by Lisbon. There is no form of "spin" that can be put into a document - it's simply treaty text.I think its an obvious attempt to try and overwhelm the public to the point they are forced to take the word of the pro-treaty politicians since the average Joe Soap will not have access to the document or the other treaties. I mean, how many in Ireland are without Internet or broadband? Of those with it, how many do you know who can tell you where to find that treaty? How many know which other treaties are being amended? How many people can find those other treaties?
The bottom line is they are actively trying to remove the average Joe Soap from the equation by making it so difficult to try and follow they will just give up and not vote, thereby allowing the people towing the current party line for FF to slide this referendum through without anyone interfering.
On the contrary, I would say that there's probably never been so much information available. Consolidated versions were not produced in advance of Nice, or Maastricht, or Amsterdam, all of which were amending treaties exactly like this one.
It suits the No side to claim that there's no information, but anyone who simply believes that line and doesn't go looking is doing both themselves and everyone else in Europe a grave disservice, because the necessary information certainly is out there, and 20 seconds with Google will take you straight to it.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
These are not my views, and wouldn't be my choice of battleground for votes for or against the treaty. But the council of Europe doesn't seem to be doing either itself or the yes side any favours. You would have thought they would have been smart enough to leave abortion off the radar in the run up to the referendum. Or faith based education. :rolleyes:Needless to say, this is hardly a good ad for the Lisbon Treaty. If the EU is already abusing the powers it has, who in their right mind would want to give it even more powers? It turns out that every major international organisation of which we are a part, whether it be the EU, the UN or the Council of Europe, has a social agenda that is completely out of line with the wishes of probably a majority of Irish people.
In ways that are radically and deeply undemocratic, these organisations and their various off-shoots are using every means at their disposal to force us into line with their social agenda, an agenda that includes gay adoption, abortion, the limiting of religious freedom, and the overall imposition through State power of political correctness.
IIt's time we pushed back. It's time our politicians pushed back. From now on, whenever the UN, the EU, or the Council of Europe attacks our rightful sovereignty, whenever they attempt to abuse their power, whenever they try to force their politically correct agenda down our proverbial throats we need to tell them, in the politest way possible, to get stuffed.
We should start with the Council of Europe and its obnoxious bid to foist abortion on us.
Now I'm sure there are people on here who are going to say that the horse has well and truly bolted wrt the Council of Europe and ECJ superceding Irish law so why are people complaining now since they voted treaties in the past that ceded this power? Well it looks like some are only waking up to the fact now.
I'd use the analogy of buying a used car from a salesman (could be Bertie, Haughey or Jacques Delors) who says of course the car is grand. it's a lovely little runner and will get you where ever you want to go in comfort. Then the customer pays over the money and sign on the dotted line only to find out that the engine splutters after a couple of miles down the road and that the guarantee they were given was nullified by Section 2.3.5 of the terms and conditions on the back of the contract they signed. Oh and someone else nominated by the salesman gets to use it on Wednesdays. Going back and telling them that it's their fault for being misled and signing up isn't a good way to get repeat custom.
Anyway to get back to my original point, whatever your views, the religious vote hasn't gone away you know; and anything to do with abortion or downgrading "the Catholic ethos" could be a hot button issue for them. Not a good move by the Council of Europe if they want the Lisbon Treaty to be passed.0 -
I'll be voting NO too,no doubt the government will use their discretion and have another referendum,because "the people were misinformed and got it wrong the first time" !!:rolleyes:0
-
Invincible wrote: »I'll be voting NO too,no doubt the government will use their discretion and have another referendum,because "the people were misinformed and got it wrong the first time" !!:rolleyes:
Why will you be voting no?0 -
Advertisement
-
LostinBlanch wrote: »These are not my views, and wouldn't be my choice of battleground for votes for or against the treaty. But the council of Europe doesn't seem to be doing either itself or the yes side any favours. You would have thought they would have been smart enough to leave abortion off the radar in the run up to the referendum. Or faith based education. :rolleyes:
Yes, it's an interesting choice of timing.LostinBlanch wrote: »Now I'm sure there are people on here who are going to say that the horse has well and truly bolted wrt the Council of Europe and ECJ superceding Irish law so why are people complaining now since they voted treaties in the past that ceded this power? Well it looks like some are only waking up to the fact now.
I'd use the analogy of buying a used car from a salesman (could be Bertie, Haughey or Jacques Delors) who says of course the car is grand. it's a lovely little runner and will get you where ever you want to go in comfort. Then the customer pays over the money and sign on the dotted line only to find out that the engine splutters after a couple of miles down the road and that the guarantee they were given was nullified by Section 2.3.5 of the terms and conditions on the back of the contract they signed. Oh and someone else nominated by the salesman gets to use it on Wednesdays. Going back and telling them that it's their fault for being misled and signing up isn't a good way to get repeat custom.
Well, it might be just a tad more accurate to point out that at this stage we've had the car for 35 years, and are taking it for the latest service. It appears that some of those who grew up in the car (to stretch the analogy) were unaware of most of its features - and instead of having the car serviced, would actually prefer a Porsche, thanks.
Actually, it's kind of amazing, given the many claims at various referendums that the EU would take over and dominate our lives, that so many people have virtually no experience of it and even less knowledge.LostinBlanch wrote: »Anyway to get back to my original point, whatever your views, the religious vote hasn't gone away you know; and anything to do with abortion or downgrading "the Catholic ethos" could be a hot button issue for them. Not a good move by the Council of Europe if they want the Lisbon Treaty to be passed.
Sure - that's why Jens-Peter Bonde brings it up any chance he can. That the Council of Europe is not part of the EU, has nothing to do with the Treaty, and that the Treaty makes no changes whatsoever to the position in respect of abortion that we've been in for the past generation doesn't appear to even register with many. C'est la guerre - much of the No vote will be based on exactly that kind of ignorance.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Well, if it's the "stripped down and dumbed down" version please provide citations showing amendments in the Lisbon Treaty that aren't included in the consolidated versions or show where they have been modified in the process.
I don't believe you when you say it's "stripped down and dumbed down". TBH, I think that's just you trying to spread FUD about the treaty.
Please provide an example of "spin" in the consolidated versions.oscarBravo wrote: »Why?
It's interesting that both IRLConor and oscarBravo don't address any of the points in my posts subsequent to their previous arguments. We can only speculate as to why, and that is because they find the substantive point raised is unanswerable.0 -
It's interesting that both IRLConor and oscarBravo don't address any of the points in my posts subsequent to their previous arguments. We can only speculate as to why, and that is because they find the substantive point raised is unanswerable.
Perhaps you should repeat it then, for those who may have missed it?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I didn't respond to it because it was an exercise in sophistry. Let's have a look:It's interesting that both IRLConor and oscarBravo don't address any of the points in my posts subsequent to their previous arguments. We can only speculate as to why, and that is because they find the substantive point raised is unanswerable.
I'm not aware that I've taken a polarised viewpoint here. In fact, I don't believe I've done much in the way of advocating a position in either direction.It's a shame that we have to take up such polarised viewpoints and are not able to discuss and learn from each other.
What I have done is to attempt to highlight the fact that, as I see it, the "no" position is based almost entirely on FUD and inaccuracy. To be fair, you're not the worst culprit in this regard.
How convenient. You pointed out that there are people in power whom we haven't directly elected. I made the point that this is not at all unusual, and asked whether you always have an issue with the fact that lots of positions of power are not directly elected. Now you don't want to discuss it.It's a separate discussion to go off on a tangent and discuss whether Judges or the Garda commissioner should be elected, and I'd be delighted to discuss that in another thread.
Sophistry doesn't add a great deal to it either. You could have simply made the point that there's a difference between dismissing the entire Commission versus a single Commissioner, and the discussion could have proceeded on that basis.I am not aware that it has ever happened that the parliament has ever dismissed a president, and I am not aware of a case where the parliament has ever dismissed a commissioner.
I am aware that the EP has the power of censure under Art 201 by which the EP can, by two thirds majority, force the resignation of the commission as a whole. I am not aware of the statute by which it can dismiss a single commissioner.
The claim has been made that the parliament has the power to dismiss a president or a commissioner, and I have asked those who make that claim to back it up as I am genuinely interested to read the statute that gives them that power. Hectoring each other or being abusive really doesn't add to the discussion.
More sophistry. I didn't claim they have no power, and to suggest that I implied such is a classic straw man.To imply, as you seem to, that the commissioners and president have no power, and consequently that it is of no consequence whether or not they are elected, is disingenious. They control the budget of the EU and we can all decide for ourselves whether or not this gives them power.
Which of us used the word "answerable" first in this context? I'll give you a hint: you did. It's more than a little disingenuous to use a word, and then to bandy it about in an incredulous fashion when I subsequently use the same word.It may be that you are satisfied that they are "answerable" (whatever that means) to the EP. I simply don't know what "answerable" means, as the term "answerable" is more commonly associated with a politician to his electorate.
And yet, astonishingly, it's so ridiculous that it's the very system used in the US for the entire Executive branch with the sole exception of the President.I have never before heard anyone argue that our Taosieach and his cabinet should not have to stand for election and be elected by universal sufferage, but instead should be appointed by a panel of about 20 citizens. Furthermore, I have never heard it argued that they should not be answerable to the electorate which they are there to serve.
It is so ridiculous that no one would stand for it in Ireland.
I haven't "actively opposed" anything. I've questioned the rather flimsy reasons I've seen put forward for a "no" vote on the Lisbon question. As is so often the case, the objection seems to be to an existing facet of the EU which Lisbon doesn't fix to the satisfaction of the "no" voter.It seems extraordinary that not only do you seem to think it an acceptable way to appoint our EU commissioners and president, but you also actively oppose calls to have them democratically elected by the people.
What's particularly ironic about this is that a "no" vote is a de facto vote for the status quo, which so many "no" voters have a problem with.
As an aside, what am I to read into your refusal to respond to Scofflaw's reply to your last post?0 -
You misunderstand, I think, almost completely. The Lisbon Treaty itself consists only of the amendments. There is no separate Treaty document other than the list of amendments, because the Lisbon Treaty amends the other EU treaties.
Why do you continually take my statements, and then repeat them, and then try to argue that your the one how somehow said this?
This is the third post, you say I am somehow 'dont understand' and that the treaty is merely amendments to other treaties, which is exactly the point I made for the past few pages. Thats not what you have been saying. Now your taking my statements, and trying to argue my point and make it look like it was what you have been saying all along.
Lets take a second to review my posts and your responses thus far...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55413447#post55413447
The 'Treaty' isn't really a treaty at all. It's a collection of over 300 amendments to other existing treaties.
I said this then, I was the first to bring this up in the thread, and have said it in no less than three other posts. You counter by arguing that I'm somehow confused, then restate my exact argument like you somehow knew this before I posted it here. Whether you knew or not - I'm the one who posted it here and you made no reference to it until I made that post - so why do you take my information posted here, and try and use it to argue my point against me? You take half of the truth, which I posted, then take something that is not true your trying to sell us and link them together. Lets look at your second assertion which you have made twice now.
Then you respond that the treaty was available in full at a link, which it is not.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55414884&postcount=396
The link you provided is again, the 'consolidated' version, which contrary to your assertions because it does contain spin. It is not the full text - merely excerpts. When you take a few lines out of context, you can make them mean anything you want. It doesn't matter if the text is unchanged - out of context it creates spin.
For example, it's like those movie critic quotes:
'...the best action movie ever' - Joe Soap, Local Movie Critic.
What is the rest of that statement? What did he really say?
'A fat bloody waste of time, but my deaf handicap cousin thought it was the best action movie ever'
See, when you take a few lines out of context, it can change the meaning the writer was conveying and it does create spin. Arguing that taking these amendments out of context and putting them into a 'consolidated' version of the treaty making it easier to read is nothing short of changing their original intent as well as masking what they actually say and what effects they will have.So again I repeat, there is no proper version of this anywhere, only 'consolidated' versions. The actual Treaty is available online, however, it is missing what other treaties it amends in full context.
Also, you say the EU is planning to release it in full, put into context. You are correct there, however, the EU has stated they refuse to do so until AFTER the referendum is voted on. You will not see the treaty in full, in context, alonside the texts they amend until after Ireland votes. They have already said that is their plan. They are actively keeping this from the Irish public in efforts to sway public opinion by forcing people to look at consolidated versions and bullet point lists made by pro-treaty politicians.0 -
P ONeil, rather than go round in circles, you could clearly illustrate your point by taking an article of the Lisbon treaty and showing how it has been omitted from the consolidated version.0
-
Why do you continually take my statements, and then repeat them, and then try to argue that your the one how somehow said this?You misunderstand, I think, almost completely. The Lisbon Treaty itself consists only of the amendments. There is no separate Treaty document other than the list of amendments, because the Lisbon Treaty amends the other EU treaties.
This is the third post, you say I am somehow 'dont understand' and that the treaty is merely amendments to other treaties, which is exactly the point I made for the past few pages. Thats not what you have been saying. Now your taking my statements, and trying to argue my point and make it look like it was what you have been saying all along.
Lets take a second to review my posts and your responses thus far...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55413447#post55413447The 'Treaty' isn't really a treaty at all. It's a collection of over 300 amendments to other existing treaties.
I said this then, I was the first to bring this up in the thread, and have said it in no less than three other posts. You counter by arguing that I'm somehow confused, then restate my exact argument like you somehow knew this before I posted it here. Whether you knew or not - I'm the one who posted it here and you made no reference to it until I made that post - so why do you take my information posted here, and try and use it to argue my point against me? You take half of the truth, which I posted, then take something that is not true your trying to sell us and link them together. Lets look at your second assertion which you have made twice now.
Then you respond that the treaty was available in full at a link, which it is not.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55414884&postcount=396
The link you provided is again, the 'consolidated' version, which contrary to your assertions because it does contain spin. It is not the full text - merely excerpts. When you take a few lines out of context, you can make them mean anything you want. It doesn't matter if the text is unchanged - out of context it creates spin.
For example, it's like those movie critic quotes:
'...the best action movie ever' - Joe Soap, Local Movie Critic.
What is the rest of that statement? What did he really say?
'A fat bloody waste of time, but my deaf handicap cousin thought it was the best action movie ever'
See, when you take a few lines out of context, it can change the meaning the writer was conveying and it does create spin. Arguing that taking these amendments out of context and putting them into a 'consolidated' version of the treaty making it easier to read is nothing short of changing their original intent as well as masking what they actually say and what effects they will have.So again I repeat, there is no proper version of this anywhere, only 'consolidated' versions. The actual Treaty is available online, however, it is missing what other treaties it amends in full context.
Also, you say the EU is planning to release it in full, put into context. You are correct there, however, the EU has stated they refuse to do so until AFTER the referendum is voted on. You will not see the treaty in full, in context, alonside the texts they amend until after Ireland votes. They have already said that is their plan. They are actively keeping this from the Irish public in efforts to sway public opinion by forcing people to look at consolidated versions and bullet point lists made by pro-treaty politicians.
The problem we're having here is your claim that the actual Treaty (which I've linked to) isn't the actual Treaty, but a series of amendments. I keep repeating back that to you, and saying you don't understand it, because clearly you don't.
The Treaty of Lisbon, the full thing, the full and only version that exists, the version signed by the heads of state, consists only of a series of amendments.
That's it. That's the Treaty, those amendments. There is no magical other version or "full version". The Treaty of Lisbon only amends the existing EU treaties. It brings no "new" treaty into being except itself.
I seem to have to keep repeating this, but perhaps eventually the information will get through. You say you're looking for the "full version" - that is the full version. Really, that's it. The series of amendments is the Treaty.
Now, if the Treaty is ratified, those amendments will be applied to the existing treaties (TEU and TFEU), so those treaties will change.
The consolidated versions on offer from people like the IIEA and the EU show the existing treaties (TEU and TFEU) as they would look with the changes that Lisbon makes.
So, you can either read the Lisbon Treaty (the series of amendments) or you can read the consolidated version which show the treaties it amends as they would be amended.
I repeat this, because you seem to be looking for some other document, one that simply doesn't exist. The "series of amendments" is the Treaty, in full. That's it - that's all there is to it. There's nothing you're not being shown.
I can repeat this if you like, but it would be helpful if you indicated exactly what bit of this is difficult (or unbelievable, if you prefer).
patiently,
Scofflaw0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »You pointed out that there are people in power whom we haven't directly elected. I made the point that this is not at all unusual... I haven't "actively opposed" anything. I've questioned the rather flimsy reasons I've seen put forward for a "no" vote on the Lisbon question. As is so often the case, the objection seems to be to an existing facet of the EU which Lisbon doesn't fix to the satisfaction of the "no" voter.
/QUOTE]
Thanks for your reply.
My view is simple and that is it is wrong to give people the mechanism to exercise power over all our lives, without having a simple and direct mechanism to remove those people should we choose to do that.
That's the way politics works in every country in the EU and it is called democracy.
The Lisbon treaty proposes the new office of "president of Europe" who will have considerable powers over all our lives. We have no mechanism to remove him as he is not elected by universal sufferage. We also have no mechanism to remove any commissioners, who have considerable powers over all our lives, as they are also not elected by universal sufferage.
The analogy which I chose to illustrate this is our own taoiseach and cabinet, and have yet to meet anyone who thinks our toaiseach and cabinet should not be elected by universal sufferage.
You don't say if you think it a good idea to change our domestic political system to one where the taoiseach and cabinet are appointed by someone, rather than elected by the citizens, and I assume this is not your position.
However, it does seem to be your position that its a fine and proper way to appoint the proposed president of the EU, and all the commissioners, and you seem to be opposed to the idea of electing them by universal sufferage.
Have I misunderstood your position or do you in fact think that they president and the commission should be elected by universal sufferage?oscarBravo wrote: »What's particularly ironic about this is that a "no" vote is a de facto vote for the status quo, which so many "no" voters have a problem with.
While it might be ironic, perhaps it is also a sign of frustration at an institution which is seen as undemocratic, remote and unresponsive to us, as electors, who perhaps want a chance to exercise some power?
It's interesting that many opinion polls across the EU show that large numbers of people feel disenchanted with the EU. It is also interesting that in many of these countries it is likely there would be an overwhelming "no" vote were the Lisbon treaty be put to a vote. The real irony is it's likely that the lisbon treaty will be passed and accepted and put into law against the wishes of the electorate.
I well remember in 1997, when the people in the UK kicked out the tories, that there was an almost tangible sigh of relief right across the country. The election there acted like the release of a valve on a pressure cooker. We are creating an EU without such a release valve, and that concerns me.0 -
The problem we're having here is your claim that the actual Treaty (which I've linked to) isn't the actual Treaty, but a series of amendments. I keep repeating back that to you, and saying you don't understand it, because clearly you don't.
Again, I told you this, and for some reason you keep repeating it and neglecting the issue at hand.
I am fully aware of what the treaty consists of. As I stated in 5 posts now, its amendments to other treaties. You keep repeating like a parrot this fact, which I posted here first - you never said anything about it until after I told you - now you continue for some reason to repeat it and not look at the rest of the post which I maintain the link you gave provided, and the links the government have provided are incomplete.
So to help you out, since you don't seem to be getting this...
Here is a link to a page from the actual treaty...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0010:0041:EN:PDF
(a) the following text shall be inserted as the second recital:
‘DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of
Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable
rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,’;
(b) In the seventh, which shall become the eighth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’;
(c) In the eleventh, which shall become the twelfth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’.
As you see in that amendment it makes reference to line and word numbers in another treaty. Yes, this is an amendment to another treaty, but unless you go back and search through the new treaty you have no idea what they are amending, nor do you have any idea of what context that statement is in. Can you by looking at that tell me what treaty they are amending? Can you tell me the context of what statment those words amended will have?
Simple answer is, you can't. The Lisbon Treaty makes no sense to read unless you have the other EU treaties beside you when you read it. Saying they are changing such and such line numbers and such and such words to something else means nothing if you do not have the original paragraph in front of you to see what the text is in its entirety.
I could sit here and tell you we need to change line 3 word 7 to something, but unless you have the full text of all the treaties that are being amended in front of you, you don't know what I'm talking about.
So again, you claim to have read the treaty and understood it completely, which to me means you had the text of all the other EU treaties being amending in front of you - else your just reading a list of line and word numbers that are being modified and have no real idea of what the treaty entails.
The governments 'consolidated' version, as I have now said three time to you which you neglect to talk about for some reason, is just what it says - consolidated, summarised, NOT the original EU treaty with the new amendments listed in this treaty laid out in the natural order they will be once amended.
Therefore, the people are being asked to vote on something that no one has seen the final copy of. We have a few EU treaties, which are not readily available, and this new lisbon treaty, which amends them listing line and word numbers, but no where do we have the full text of the EU treaties with the changes in place so we can read in full what those changes will entail in the proper context.0 -
Again, I told you this, and for some reason you keep repeating it and neglecting the issue at hand.
I am fully aware of what the treaty consists of. As I stated in 5 posts now, its amendments to other treaties. You keep repeating like a parrot this fact, which I posted here first - you never said anything about it until after I told you - now you continue for some reason to repeat it and not look at the rest of the post which I maintain the link you gave provided, and the links the government have provided are incomplete.
So to help you out, since you don't seem to be getting this...
Here is a link to a page from the actual treaty...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0010:0041:EN:PDF
(a) the following text shall be inserted as the second recital:
‘DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of
Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable
rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,’;
(b) In the seventh, which shall become the eighth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’;
(c) In the eleventh, which shall become the twelfth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’.
As you see in that amendment it makes reference to line and word numbers in another treaty. Yes, this is an amendment to another treaty, but unless you go back and search through the new treaty you have no idea what they are amending, nor do you have any idea of what context that statement is in. Can you by looking at that tell me what treaty they are amending? Can you tell me the context of what statment those words amended will have?
Simple answer is, you can't. The Lisbon Treaty makes no sense to read unless you have the other EU treaties beside you when you read it. Saying they are changing such and such line numbers and such and such words to something else means nothing if you do not have the original paragraph in front of you to see what the text is in its entirety.
I could sit here and tell you we need to change line 3 word 7 to something, but unless you have the full text of all the treaties that are being amended in front of you, you don't know what I'm talking about.
So again, you claim to have read the treaty and understood it completely, which to me means you had the text of all the other EU treaties being amending in front of you - else your just reading a list of line and word numbers that are being modified and have no real idea of what the treaty entails.
The governments 'consolidated' version, as I have now said three time to you which you neglect to talk about for some reason, is just what it says - consolidated, summarised, NOT the original EU treaty with the new amendments listed in this treaty laid out in the natural order they will be once amended.
Therefore, the people are being asked to vote on something that no one has seen the final copy of. We have a few EU treaties, which are not readily available, and this new lisbon treaty, which amends them listing line and word numbers, but no where do we have the full text of the EU treaties with the changes in place so we can read in full what those changes will entail in the proper context.
The reason I keep repeating myself is because, as I have pointed out several times now, you don't seem to understand what "consolidated version" means. It's not a summary. It's not stripped down. It is the result of taking the treaties that Lisbon amends and making the changes that Lisbon makes. What that produces is the treaties that we will have if Lisbon passes - that is to say, the 'consolidated version' is "the full text of the EU treaties with the changes in place so we can read in full what those changes will entail in the proper context".
That's why the 'consolidated versions' are versions of the TEU and TFEU - they are those treaties as Lisbon amends them.
I'll say it again. The text you are asking to see is the consolidated version. The 'consolidated version' is the full text of the EU treaties with the changes in place so we can read in full what those changes will entail in the proper context. It's not a summary.
Once more for luck:
The 'consolidated version' is the full text of the EU treaties with the changes in place. Not, let me be quite clear about this, in any way shape or form a summary. The actual texts of the actual treaties Lisbon will amend, as Lisbon will amend them.
Please don't make me keep copying and pasting. You're not demonstrating that the "Lisbon text" isn't available, only that you wouldn't recognise it if you saw it. Read the consolidated versions, and you'll have "read" the Treaty - and then we can argue about something worth arguing about.
somewhat exasperated,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
The result of the amendments you've quoted above is this:Here is a link to a page from the actual treaty...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0010:0041:EN:PDF
(a) the following text shall be inserted as the second recital:
‘DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of
Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable
rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,’;
(b) In the seventh, which shall become the eighth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’;
(c) In the eleventh, which shall become the twelfth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be
replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’.
As you see in that amendment it makes reference to line and word numbers in another treaty. Yes, this is an amendment to another treaty, but unless you go back and search through the new treaty you have no idea what they are amending, nor do you have any idea of what context that statement is in. Can you by looking at that tell me what treaty they are amending? Can you tell me the context of what statment those words amended will have?
Simple answer is, you can't. The Lisbon Treaty makes no sense to read unless you have the other EU treaties beside you when you read it. Saying they are changing such and such line numbers and such and such words to something else means nothing if you do not have the original paragraph in front of you to see what the text is in its entirety.
I've included a fair bit there to give context.HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,
RESOLVED to mark a new stage in the process of European integration undertaken with the establishment of the European Communities,
DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,
RECALLING the historic importance of the ending of the division of the European continent and the need to create firm bases for the construction of the future Europe,
CONFIRMING their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respectfor human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law,
CONFIRMING their attachment to fundamental social rights as defined in the European Social Charter signed at Turin on 18 October 1961 and in the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers,
DESIRING to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions,
DESIRING to enhance further the democratic and efficient functioning of the institutions so as to enable them better to carry out, within a single institutional framework, the tasks entrusted to them,
RESOLVED to achieve the strengthening and the convergence of their economies and to establish an economic and monetary union including, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a single and stable currency,
DETERMINED to promote economic and social progress for their peoples, taking into account the principle of sustainable development and within the context of the accomplishment of the internal market and of reinforced cohesion and environmental protection, and to implement policies ensuring that advances in economic integration
are accompanied by parallel progress in other fields,
RESOLVED to establish a citizenship common to nationals of their countries,
RESOLVED to implement a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence in accordance with the provisions of Article 42, thereby reinforcing the European identity and its independence in order to promote peace, security and progress in Europe and in the world,
RESOLVED to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,
IN VIEW of further steps to be taken in order to advance European integration,
HAVE DECIDED to establish a European Union and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries:
Where did I get this from? Did I sit down with the Lisbon text and that of the original treaty and figure out the changes?
No, I copied and pasted it from the consolidated version, as linked to by Scofflaw, and which you've repeatedly claimed doesn't exist.
And I've asked you to support this allegation by quoting one - just one! - article of the Lisbon Treaty that's been omitted from the consolidated text. So far, you've failed to do so.The governments 'consolidated' version, as I have now said three time to you which you neglect to talk about for some reason, is just what it says - consolidated, summarised, NOT the original EU treaty with the new amendments listed in this treaty laid out in the natural order they will be once amended.
And yet, you don't want to get into a discussion about the fact that we accept just that situation where other positions of power are concerned.My view is simple and that is it is wrong to give people the mechanism to exercise power over all our lives, without having a simple and direct mechanism to remove those people should we choose to do that.
I note that you still haven't responded to Scofflaw's post.0 -
Thanks for your reply.
My view is simple and that is it is wrong to give people the mechanism to exercise power over all our lives, without having a simple and direct mechanism to remove those people should we choose to do that.
That's the way politics works in every country in the EU and it is called democracy.
The Lisbon treaty proposes the new office of "president of Europe" who will have considerable powers over all our lives. We have no mechanisation to remove him as he is not elected by universal sufferage. We also have no mechanisation to remove any commissioners, who have considerable powers over all our lives, as they are also not elected by universal sufferage.
The analogy which I chose to illustrate this is our own taoiseach and cabinet, and have yet to meet anyone who thinks our toaiseach and cabinet should not be elected by universal sufferage.
You don't say if you think it a good idea to change our domestic political system to one where the taoiseach and cabinet are appointed by someone, rather than elected by the citizens, and I assume this is not your position.
However, it does seem to be your position that its a fine and proper way to appoint the proposed president of the EU, and all the commissioners, and you seem to be opposed to the idea of electing them by universal sufferage.
Have I misunderstood your position or do you in fact think that they president and the commission should be elected by universal sufferage?
While it might be ironic, perhaps it is also a sign of frustration at an institution which is seen as undemocratic, remote and unresponsive to us, as electors, who perhaps want a chance to exercise some power?
It's interesting that many opinion polls across the EU show that large numbers of people feel disenchanted with the EU. It is also interesting that in many of these countries it is likely there would be an overwhelming "no" vote were the Lisbon treaty be put to a vote. The real irony is it's likely that the lisbon treaty will be passed and accepted and put into law against the wishes of the electorate.
I well remember in 1997, when the people in the UK kicked out the tories, that there was an almost tangible sigh of relief right across the country. The election there acted like the release of a valve on a pressure cooker. We are creating an EU without such a release valve, and that concerns me.oscarBravo wrote: »And yet, you don't want to get into a discussion about the fact that we accept just that situation where other positions of power are concerned.
I note that you still haven't responded to Scofflaw's post.
The above is your reply to my post above. The cursory nature of the reply suggests that you are less interested in examining and developing the arguments, and more interested in scoring points. I hope I am wrong and that you are a bigger person than just wanting to score point or nit pick, and look forward to engaging on the issues. I am not interested in "other positions" of power, but in the EU about which this thread is concerned.0 -
I checked the aforementioned link, and found another here:
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/lisbon-treaty-consolidated-language.html
And yes, there are now unadulterated, unmodified versions of the text now available. So I was off a bit on that.
However, my other points are still valid.
There is the fact that the Irish government has not produced it's own consolidated version. In fact, the version that is there only became available a few weeks ago - many people (myself included) were still under the impression that there was no unmodified consolidated version available. In fact, this point was brought up at the governments own public debates on the Treaty, which means the people who participated over the past few months didn't know this either leaves me to wonder why the governments own representatives were ill informed on this matter when they are trying to sell it to the public.
Also, as pointed out in this press release:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/24438
Quoting Mary Lou McDonald....
"Ironically government will today launch their own 'Guide' to the Lisbon Treaty but are shamefully refusing to distribute a consolidated version of the Treaty to households across the state. Currently if you are lucky enough to get your hands on a copy of the Treaty it will cost you €42. For this hefty sum you simply get a copy of the Treaty which is in fact amendments to two existing Treaties, which in reality makes the purchase redundant. No consolidated version is to be produced, let alone distributed to households."
Yes, in the past 6-8 weeks proper consolidated versions have emerged on the Internet, but this wasn't because the Irish government had any hand in that. The average Joe Soap out there still does not have access to this document. Nevermind being able to hunt down the document online, outside of Dublin even having Internet access itself is an accomplishment for the rest of the country. Again, the average person who will be voting on this doesn't have access to it, unless they make a real effort to find this information.
It's amazing to me the government is holding a vote on something they appear to be going out of their way to keep from the people.
I am glad to see it is now (finally) available, almost a year after it was written and months after they announced we were going to be voting on it. But that being said, it's still not readily available nor is the government making sure everyone has access to it. Our government didn't even bother to provide this for us - it has been done by other third parties.
One would think something as important as this would readily be available and the government would want to make sure everyone knew what the text of this document is, well, if they thought people would support it that is.
I mean, every other nation in the EU had this forced down their throats, with no democratic input from the people. Here, we have the opportunity to actually vote for or against it, but the government seems to be making sure the average person doesn't read it first.
Seems a bit suspect to me.0 -
"The Lisbon treaty proposes the new office of "president of Europe" who will have considerable powers over all our lives. We have no mechanisation to remove him as he is not elected by universal sufferage. We also have no mechanisation to remove any commissioners, who have considerable powers over all our lives, as they are also not elected by universal sufferage.
The analogy which I chose to illustrate this is our own taoiseach and cabinet, and have yet to meet anyone who thinks our toaiseach and cabinet should not be elected by universal sufferage.
You don't say if you think it a good idea to change our domestic political system to one where the taoiseach and cabinet are appointed by someone, rather than elected by the citizens, and I assume this is not your position.
However, it does seem to be your position that its a fine and proper way to appoint the proposed president of the EU, and all the commissioners, and you seem to be opposed to the idea of electing them by universal sufferage.
Have I misunderstood your position or do you in fact think that they president and the commission should be elected by universal sufferage?"
...and that is why i'll be voting no.0 -
I checked the aforementioned link, and found another here:
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/02/lisbon-treaty-consolidated-language.html
And yes, there are now unadulterated, unmodified versions of the text now available. So I was off a bit on that.
However, my other points are still valid.
There is the fact that the Irish government has not produced it's own consolidated version. In fact, the version that is there only became available a few weeks ago - many people (myself included) were still under the impression that there was no unmodified consolidated version available. In fact, this point was brought up at the governments own public debates on the Treaty, which means the people who participated over the past few months didn't know this either leaves me to wonder why the governments own representatives were ill informed on this matter when they are trying to sell it to the public.
Also, as pointed out in this press release:
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/24438
Quoting Mary Lou McDonald....
"Ironically government will today launch their own 'Guide' to the Lisbon Treaty but are shamefully refusing to distribute a consolidated version of the Treaty to households across the state. Currently if you are lucky enough to get your hands on a copy of the Treaty it will cost you €42. For this hefty sum you simply get a copy of the Treaty which is in fact amendments to two existing Treaties, which in reality makes the purchase redundant. No consolidated version is to be produced, let alone distributed to households."
Yes, in the past 6-8 weeks proper consolidated versions have emerged on the Internet, but this wasn't because the Irish government had any hand in that. The average Joe Soap out there still does not have access to this document. Nevermind being able to hunt down the document online, outside of Dublin even having Internet access itself is an accomplishment for the rest of the country. Again, the average person who will be voting on this doesn't have access to it, unless they make a real effort to find this information.
It's amazing to me the government is holding a vote on something they appear to be going out of their way to keep from the people.
I am glad to see it is now (finally) available, almost a year after it was written and months after they announced we were going to be voting on it. But that being said, it's still not readily available nor is the government making sure everyone has access to it. Our government didn't even bother to provide this for us - it has been done by other third parties.
One would think something as important as this would readily be available and the government would want to make sure everyone knew what the text of this document is, well, if they thought people would support it that is.
I mean, every other nation in the EU had this forced down their throats, with no democratic input from the people. Here, we have the opportunity to actually vote for or against it, but the government seems to be making sure the average person doesn't read it first.
Seems a bit suspect to me.
Hmm. Well, that's probably as close as we will come to an admission of error, but that's not really important. I've certainly had a copy of the consolidated version since the 3rd January (judging by the file date), and it wasn't new then. The Gaeilge version only went up in February, though.
As to "no democratic input" - do you simply fail to recognise other people's elected governments as legitimate?
There's plenty of information available on this Treaty. Looking back at the other treaties, there was less information available for them than for this one - and the government hasn't even set the referendum date yet. If it's the best argument you've got, it's terribly weak, I'm afraid. Read on, Macduff...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
nacho libre wrote: »"The Lisbon treaty proposes the new office of "president of Europe" who will have considerable powers over all our lives. We have no mechanisation to remove him as he is not elected by universal sufferage. We also have no mechanisation to remove any commissioners, who have considerable powers over all our lives, as they are also not elected by universal sufferage.
The analogy which I chose to illustrate this is our own taoiseach and cabinet, and have yet to meet anyone who thinks our toaiseach and cabinet should not be elected by universal sufferage.
You don't say if you think it a good idea to change our domestic political system to one where the taoiseach and cabinet are appointed by someone, rather than elected by the citizens, and I assume this is not your position.
However, it does seem to be your position that its a fine and proper way to appoint the proposed president of the EU, and all the commissioners, and you seem to be opposed to the idea of electing them by universal sufferage.
Have I misunderstood your position or do you in fact think that they president and the commission should be elected by universal sufferage?"
...and that is why i'll be voting no.
Perhaps you can outline the "considerable powers over all our lives" that the "president of Europe" will have?
This is what's in the Treaty about him/her (a bit long):If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission.
A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties. The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The President of the Council and the Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the results of multilateral surveillance. The President of the Council may be invited to appear before the competent committee of the European Parliament if the Council has made its recommendations public.
Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.
As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures.....The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.
The Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank and the Committee referred to in this Article, lay down detailed provisions concerning the composition of the Economic and Financial Committee. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of such a decision.
The Council may, acting by a qualified majority either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission, and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange-rate system. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates.
Where the European Council decides by vote, its President and the President of the Commission shall not take part in the vote.
The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.
A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the member’s term of office by a new member of the same nationality appointed by the Council, by common accord with the President of the Commission, after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the criteria set out in the second subparagraph of Article 9d(3) of the Treaty on European Union
The Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the President of the Commission, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled, in particular when the remainder of the member’s term of office is short.
The President of the Council and a member of the Commission may participate, without having the right to vote, in meetings of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank. The President of the Council may submit a motion for deliberation to the Governing Council of the European Central Bank.
If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament’s amendments, the Council, acting by a qualified majority: (a) approves all those amendments, the act in question shall be deemed to have been adopted; (b) does not approve all the amendments, the President of the Council, in agreement with the President of the European Parliament, shall within six weeks convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee.
Legislative acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure shall be signed by the President of the European Parliament and by the President of the Council.
If, within forty-two days of such communication, the European Parliament: (a) approves the position of the Council, the budget shall be adopted; (b) has not taken a decision, the budget shall be deemed to have been adopted; (c) adopts amendments by a majority of its component members, the amended draft shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission. The President of the European Parliament, in agreement with the President of the Council, shall immediately convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. However, if within ten days of the draft being forwarded the Council informs the European Parliament that it has approved all its amendments, the Conciliation Committee shall not meet.
Regular meetings between the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall be convened, on the initiative of the Commission, under the budgetary procedures referred to in this Chapter. The Presidents shall take all the necessary steps to promote consultation and the reconciliation of the positions of the institutions over which they preside in order to facilitate the implementation of this Title.
These are "considerable powers over all our lives"? Convening meetings and relaying decisions? What are people smoking around here?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Apparently the treaty will make way for homosexual marriages (providing gay people with their rights long overdue) in all the EU countries or so the Polish president said according to the metro. Anyone know anything about this?0
-
Chunky Monkey wrote: »Apparently the treaty will make way for homosexual marriages (providing gay people with their rights long overdue) in all the EU countries or so the Polish president said according to the metro. Anyone know anything about this?
It's being claimed that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a backdoor to gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia...a claim not a million miles away from the one Jens-Peter Bonde pushes, and Youth Defence believe.
I'm sorry to disappoint you if you feel this would be a reason for voting for the Treaty, but the Charter is something the EU is bound to apply only in respect of its own decisions - that is, the EU cannot issue a directive that contravenes one of the rights in the Charter. It does not give the individual citizen rights that he/she can pursue in court (although it does give citizens the ability to seek to have a directive overturned on the basis that it contravenes those rights), and it does not give the EU a mandate to actively seek to apply the rights in the Charter.
If a country chooses to enact homophobic legislation, outlaw abortion, etc, those are part of their sovereign rights. The EU does not have power over them.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Chunky Monkey wrote: »Apparently the treaty will make way for homosexual marriages (providing gay people with their rights long overdue) in all the EU countries or so the Polish president said according to the metro. Anyone know anything about this?
I suspect that it's a misunderstanding about the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty gives that Charter legally binding force and article 9 of the Charter reads as follows:Article 9The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.
Right to marry and right to found a family
I read this as "You have the right to marry provided you abide by your national laws governing marriage" which essentially preserves the status quo.
Now, I would have thought that the Polish president would have been smart enough to know that for Poland (and the UK) there is a special "out" for the Charter anyway:Article 1- The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
- In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.
Article 2To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.
so even if there was an explicit right for homosexual marriage given in the Charter they still wouldn't have to allow it.0 -
Advertisement
-
"In accordance with the national laws" says it pretty obviously I guess. Pity
I agree with legislating all three though with the euthanasia that could open a whole other can of worms if not implemented and monitored appropriately. But... on the other hand if it was legislated on an EU level it could reduce discrepancies (ie caused by religious interference). I suppose there is no perfect solution to satisfy everyone.
Anyway thanks for answering Scofflaw and Conor
0
Advertisement