Lisbon treaty?

NoQuarter

Ok so i know theres a thread on this in AH but it would be nice to get a legal perspective on it (since one poster in AH insists its what lisbon citizens get when their good...a treaty! :eek:)

So what will you be voting?? Im still undecided.....

It seems there are a lot of yes and no sites but are their any neutral ones that just provide the bare facts and what the mean to us???

There are people saying we will have to go to war if needs be etc...but then the yes sites talk about the triple-lock mechanism...

Theres the suggestion that we lose our neutrality etc.....

So whats everyones views??


Question: is it that our politicians are trying to scare-monger us into a NO vote when perhaps a YES vote could be beneficial to the grand scheme of things in years to come ie. climate change, trafficking etc....??

Our man in Havana

I am 100% no.

It is the government that are trying to scare monger us into voting yes.

I am concerned that if the treaty is passed, that the EU could enact laws that are repugnant to the constitution of Ireland and there is nothing we can do about it. There would be no legal remedy available.

NoQuarter

Bond-007 wrote: »

I am 100% no.

It is the government that are trying to scare monger us into voting yes.

I am concerned that if the treaty is passed, that the EU could enact laws that are repugnant to the constitution of Ireland and there is nothing we can do about it. There would be no legal remedy available.

Would that be your only reason? What about if some things were to change such as fathers rights in relation to adoption etc, which most people know is clearly wrong however there is no remedy under the Irish Constitution?

Or do you think that the things that DO need to change are at too great a cost??

Gobán Saor

Bond-007 wrote: »

I am concerned that if the treaty is passed, that the EU could enact laws that are repugnant to the constitution of Ireland and there is nothing we can do about it. There would be no legal remedy available.

This has been the situation since 1973. Article 29.4.10 states:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or
measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations
of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or
prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European
Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies
competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from
having the force of law in the State.

This means that EU acts cannot be repugnant to the Constitution; they are in fact explicitly permitted by it.

johnnyskeleton

What I don't like about the debate is that it is too general, too speculative and too much based on bully tactics (from both sides).

What I don't like about the treaty is that it is difficult to understand, and I would imagine it would take a couple of very boring days to work out the full extent of what it does.

As a general proposition I'm in favour of the EU. As a practical proposition I know that other than the restructuring of EU institutions, most of what is contained in treaties is already passed as directives, or is informally agreed between the member state anyways.

The only really persuasive argument is that Ireland will have a reduced role in the major EU institutions, so in theory we can be sidelined on some major issues. However, I don't think we have any real say in Europe anyway, and I'm not sure I want us to have such a big say. I trust European politicians more than I do domestic ones, and I don't like the idea of Ireland holding the rest of Europe to ransom over the treaty (as we kinda did with Nice).

Gobán Saor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I trust European politicians more than I do domestic ones...

+1

:D:D

Dandelion6

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think we have any real say in Europe anyway, and I'm not sure I want us to have such a big say. I trust European politicians more than I do domestic ones

That's not exactly difficult to understand, but surely the solution to bad domestic politicians is to elect better domestic politicians and not to cede power to politicians over whom you have no control whatsoever? I mean suppose it turns out your trust in them was misplaced, what can you do then?

and I don't like the idea of Ireland holding the rest of Europe to ransom over the treaty (as we kinda did with Nice).

I think that's an amazing argument. We should vote yes because we're the only ones given the opportunity to vote at all? Maybe some of the other countries would have voted no, too, if the people had the chance (I think that's quite likely actually).

johnnyskeleton

Dandelion6 wrote: »

That's not exactly difficult to understand, but surely the solution to bad domestic politicians is to elect better domestic politicians and not to cede power to politicians over whom you have no control whatsoever? I mean suppose it turns out your trust in them was misplaced, what can you do then?

I take full responsibility for my part in electing the politicians we have (you get the politicians you deserve etc), but I still would have greater trust in the EU, if only on the basis that Irish people are more reluctant to accept EU legislation as binding than they are Irish legislation.

As an analogy - I accept that if I get stotiously drunk it is my fault, but I would still place my entire trust in my friends to keep me standing upright and to eventually make sure I get home.

Dandelion6 wrote: »

I think that's an amazing argument. We should vote yes because we're the only ones given the opportunity to vote at all? Maybe some of the other countries would have voted no, too, if the people had the chance (I think that's quite likely actually).

That is my argument for not rejecting the treaty out of hand on some spurious reason like "the government are trying to bully us into it" or "I don't understand the treaty, and I'm not going to do any research into it, therefore I'll vote no". If we had some idea what the populations of other countries thought about the treaty that might better inform us of it, and I'd be more than happy to vote no on the basis that the majority of the people of europe didn't want it passed.

However, from what I've heard a lot of people say (granted, not the most informed people, but people with strong views none the less) they seem to be voting no almost for the devilment of it i.e. to frustrate the government, to criticise government lethargy and failure to inform us adequately on what we are voting on, to express their general suspicion of the EU, because they believe the propaganda and some, I suspect, liked the way when we rejected the first nice treaty the EU stood up and paid a lot of attention to Ireland and want to see a repeat of this.

Put another way, this is my counterargument to those who advocate a no vote for such reasons, and while that does not constitute a reason to vote yes, it makes me wary of voting no. The arguments of the yes side generally is as bad, but what might (and again I haven't made up my mind yet) persuade me to vote yes is the charter of fundamental rights which is encluded in the lisbon treaty.

mountainyman

I am in favour of the treaty.
Philosophically I believe in a Europe of Nations and this treaty is clearly a federalist document. However I believe that the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into justiciable law is a positive step and one which gives every citizen of an EU country a second bite of the apple as it were when it comes to vindication of fundamental rights. After all if the law is primarily the servant of elites then it is best to have multiple courts and courts where those elites are in conflict.

The notion that the Lisbon Treaty must be made intelligible to people who won't read there own constitution is specious.



MM

Gu3rr1lla

Hi, I posted this in the European Union forum but probably get a better and informed response here.

Under the Lisbon Treaty EU Charter of Rights will be made legally binding. Most of us think that the EU Charter of Rights is a wonderful bit of stuff, I did too, until you actually read it you realise it does the opposite of what it's suppose to do. Well, I could be wrong. I'm just really concerned about what I've read and I'm hoping people could clarify what I say or correct me. Though it reminds me an awful lot like the US Patriot Act and the Nazi Enabling Act. Making tyranny legal.

We can be killed during protests, riots, or while being arrested by police officers. Bold text has been added by me.

“Article 2. Right to Life
a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

• in defence of any person from lawful violence;
• in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
• in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ “

http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

Police officers can deprive you of your life, in other words they can murder you, while attempting to arrest you, and legally your death will not be regarded as breaking the law/article of the Right to Life.

The EU endorses the Death Penalty! Individuals can be given the death penalty for "acts committed" in a time of war or even in the imminent threat of war (war on terror)

“b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”

Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights also states the level/scope of them and that a “limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms” can be made “provided for by law”. It also goes a step further by saying “limitations may be made” if it is in the EU’s ‘interest’ (define interest?).

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62

“Article 52

1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

You would think the EU would be all for personal freedom, after all it promotes itself as caring for the citizens and being an example for the rest of the world, but again we find more lies.

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=13

“Art 6. Right to liberty and security

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;


(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;”

Restricting freedom of speech

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=18

“Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

That's all I got at the moment, anyone who can help clarify this or correct me please go right ahead

Dandelion6

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I take full responsibility for my part in electing the politicians we have (you get the politicians you deserve etc), but I still would have greater trust in the EU, if only on the basis that Irish people are more reluctant to accept EU legislation as binding than they are Irish legislation.

As an analogy - I accept that if I get stotiously drunk it is my fault, but I would still place my entire trust in my friends to keep me standing upright and to eventually make sure I get home.

I don't really understand your argument here, but anyway, how many Irish people even know what legislation is "Irish" and what is EU? Given that something like 75% of legislation nowadays originated in the EU.

I agree that people should vote on the basis of what actually is (and isn't) in the Treaty rather than on the basis of their feelings about the Government or whatever but in fairness the only ones who seem to be arguing on the basis of the Treaty's contents are the No side. The Yes arguments seem to boil down to: Europe has been good for us; it's all the loo-lahs voting no; the sky will fall in if we don't accept it.

johnnyskeleton

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Under the Lisbon Treaty EU Charter of Rights will be made legally binding. Most of us think that the EU Charter of Rights is a wonderful bit of stuff, I did too, until you actually read it you realise it does the opposite of what it's suppose to do. Well, I could be wrong. I'm just really concerned about what I've read and I'm hoping people could clarify what I say or correct me. Though it reminds me an awful lot like the US Patriot Act and the Nazi Enabling Act. Making tyranny legal.

The EU charter of rights cannot be used to supercede domestic constitutions nor is it an alternative to the European Convention of Human Rights. It is simply an addition of these rights to the EU framework, whereas previously the EU did not formally recognise these rights.

We can be killed during protests, riots, or while being arrested by police officers. Bold text has been added by me.

Police officers can deprive you of your life, in other words they can murder you, while attempting to arrest you, and legally your death will not be regarded as breaking the law/article of the Right to Life.

Only where absolutely necessary i.e. a kill or be killed situation.

The EU endorses the Death Penalty! Individuals can be given the death penalty for "acts committed" in a time of war or even in the imminent threat of war (war on terror)

It's not an endorsement of the death penalty, rather it allows countries which have the death penalty to continue to use it in such circumstances. It does not give the Irish state or the EU any right to have the death penalty, and in any event does not supereced the prohibition contained in our constitution.

Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights also states the level/scope of them and that a “limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms” can be made “provided for by law”. It also goes a step further by saying “limitations may be made” if it is in the EU’s ‘interest’ (define interest?).

The doctorine of proportionality. Almost every single right guaranteed to us in the Constitution is subject to such qualifications, as one of the most famous Irish judges once remarked "Even the right to life is not absolute."

You would think the EU would be all for personal freedom, after all it promotes itself as caring for the citizens and being an example for the rest of the world, but again we find more lies.

Re: detention of minors - I imagine that is a provision for being put into care e.g. the childcare acts.

Re: detention of those of unsound mind - see the Criminal Justice (Insanity) Act, 2006.

Re: detention where there is an infectuous disease, this would seem to be more quarantine in the case of an outbreak and I would imagine that it would only be for the purposes of public health (I doubt it is a charter to lock up people with aids if that's what you're thinking).

Re: alcoholics, drug addicts and vagrants, I believe that we don't detain someone for being a vagrant, alcoholic or drug addict, so maybe this is put in for the benefit of some other member states who do. Without seeing what kind of measures are implemented, it is hard to say whether it is proportionate or not.

Restricting freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is already restricted by, for example, defamation laws, the sub judice and contempt of court rules, the Rape Act, 1981 the Official Secrets legislation and I think there may be something in the Offences Against the State Acts. Furthermore, in other countries they have incitement to hatred laws which prohibit your freedom of speech if you are inciting racial hatred or violence. All of the above are justified and necessary inroads into the right to freedom of speech.

I think if the charter falls down anywhere it is that it is too specific and has to cater for too many countries. Hence the provisions which may seem unusual.

johnnyskeleton

Dandelion6 wrote: »

I don't really understand your argument here, but anyway, how many Irish people even know what legislation is "Irish" and what is EU? Given that something like 75% of legislation nowadays originated in the EU.

People will view EU law with higher scepticism as it seems like a foreign law, whereas they often follow our government with blind faith.

freefromgov

Hello, I offer peace to you all.
With regards to the comments i have read on this thread.
Not one of you seems to have any understanding of what this treaty is about.
It is simply the presentation of a bill of exchange seeking Citizen's to honour it by accecping it, thereby satisfaction and accord is recieved as consideration by your politicians on behalf of the central bank.
contract fulfilled.
It is designed to allow the system of commerce to continue into the future, it allows them to facillatate YOU to create paper "money / currency / Credit / Debt " that they will use to deepen your dependancy on this mathamathically impossible system that they have created for you.
Ask yourself some question for a moment.

1. Do you own your own body ?

( i'll bet you probably think you do, but you don't. Why do I say this? you haven't made a claim of right in good faith and served notice to the "powers" that be. So they presume they own it which is why if you dont pay fines for example they get to put their property in jail untill such time they think it will behave itself and cough up to them. If your body was yours you could decide not to accept their offer of a jail term for your body as they were acting on your person and not on you as a human being They even have written doccumentation of ownership to your body that you havent rebutted. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT I hear you say. You have a government issued birth certificate or BOND. That is a warehouse reciept for your biological property its what they use as guarentee for the funds they borrow from the world bank which is why you pay tax on your labour )

2 Are you a slave?
( unless you tell them your not they seem to think they are free to assume you are.)
3 Society........?????
( What society ??? what is it called. any member of any society if you ask them its name they can tell you and they will all say the same thing. What do you say?)
4 Do you need a licence of any description to do something ?
( If you were free why would you ask for a licence to do something )
5 Do you work for IRELAND The Person/legal fiction Corporation ?
(if you have and use a prsi no. congratulations you are a government employee.)
6 Who owns that VEHICLE not Automobile in the driveway. Do you ?
( Oh you mean the one that i'm paying for......yes that one.... well if you own it why did you REGISTER it as in give away title to the government and only retain equitable title. Its theirs now thats how come they get to say what you can and cant do with it they own it. If they didnt own it how come they are in first lien position in court against it if it gets into any sticky situations.)
7 Is the paper in your pocket money?
(Paper "money" is just a piece of paper its a promise to pay in the future as soon as someone comes up with a way to do it . It is borrowed into existence with debt attatched to it at interest so where ae we going to get the interest from WE CANT WHY NOT because we didnt borrow the interest into existance just the debt so it is impossible to pay congratulations you now know how national debt is created DONT BELIEVE me check out the NTMA their the ones doing this on your behalf .this is very basic stuff people and so far none of you seem to get it IS there a solution of course if the government made their own money and put it into use no interest would be needed to be owed to a third party Bank)
8 Did you borrow Money to buy a house?
( NO you didnt you think you did but you didnt. What you did was create finance by signing a piece of paper that the bank used to enter on one side of its ledger then you ask for the cash right? WRONG then they get you to sign another piece of paper to withdraw funds from the other side of the ledger they gave you nothing!!!!!!! because it was your signature that made the funds. that piece of paper was worth nothing till YOU signed it the bank guy or gal only signs as a witness to your VALUABLE signature.....Dont believe me ask them ? get educated first Ask before you get an answer you understand youll be a hundred. Try this one all you financial wizzes that are thinking about contradicting this at the end of business that day did the banks books ballance ? ask them ! they'll say yes but if they gave you €1000,000 for example then how could they have given you anything if their books ballanced they should be minus €100,000 but they weren't )

9 If it was announced that tomorrow you will be taxed on the breath you exhale not inhale would you pay it ?
(No REALLY?!!! your are already doing it the Human body exhales Co2 along with other gases but none the less co2. So that would mean your air is getting taxed.)
10 Co2 is an evil gas that will cause the planet to get to warm and melt the ice caps and then we will be in big trouble sure everybody knows that right?
( did you do any science in school co2 is what plants PLANTS absorb they need it to live they give us o2 back which we then need to burn in order to live. The main greenhouse gas on this planet by a huge margin is H2o thats right water vapour, the stuff in the sky thats mixed with the air by comparrison to co2 as a greenhouse gas co2 is almost ALMOST neglegible.)

PLEASE PLEASE CHECK THIS INFORMATION FROM AS MANY SOURCES AS YOU CAN FIND. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THIS INFO FEEL FREE TO RESPOND.

peace and love to you all....................