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
Sinn Feins list of "Demands"
Options
Comments
-
cabinteelytom wrote: »Molloyjh (post 24) : 'It is theoretically possible (in Lisbon) that if we voted No in a referendum to an amendment which changes our constitution, that requires QMV but the amendment itself was passed by the EU as a whole, our constitution could be changed even if we rejected it'.
If this is true, it is an overwhelming argument for rejecting the treaty.
Molloyjh's solution is also very reasonable.
The reason I voted Yes in spite of this though is that I don't believe that it is a realistic possibility. For it to happen every member states Government would have to agree to moving from unanimity to QMV for the particular issue, including our own. I would imagine given the fuss over Lisbon that any attempt to do this in an area that will effect our constitution will be highlighted somewhere and an even bigger fuss be made over it. Even if it was moved to QMV it would then have to be passed by the majority of EU citizens and not by us. EU citizens in general aren't so much different to us so I don't believe that there would be many areas in our constitution that they would want changed but we would not.
Additional to all of that is the fact that in any amendment like this we could negotiate an opt-out as we have done for a number of areas in Lisbon that have moved to QMV.
Given all these hurdles to amending our constitution against our say so I don't believe it is a realistic possibility. However I do understand why some people would oppose it regardless. Even the guarantee of an opt-out for any changes to our Constitution would do I reckon (although I do know a few people who wouldn't be happy even with this).0 -
If someone says: "Ireland can be kicked out of the EU if they don't ratify a particular treaty" I think it is reasonable to ask by which power will this be done. Exactly what provision of law will be used to kick Ireland out of the union? So far the answer seems to be that nobody knows.I have stated all along that I know of no particular legal basis for such a move - on the other hand, there is equally no legal impediment to such a move, because the EU treaties contain nothing about the indissolubility of the EU.
The simplest method of removing Ireland from the picture is to achieve general agreement that Ireland negotiated the Treaty in 'bad faith', and therefore should be removed as a signatory. That is at least one option I can think of, without putting a team of lawyers on the question, which the other member states can do.
Part of the problem seems to be people thinking of the EU as having some kind of existence independent of the member states, and of being in some way superior to them. All the EU really consists of, legally, is an agreement between the member states. If you're not part of the agreement, you're not part of the EU.
One of the No campaign arguments was that the EU was legally re-founded in the Treaty - hence our constitutional reference to 'may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty'. One of the other arguments of the No campaign was that the EU was engaged in legal sleight-of-hand by renaming the Constitution.
Yet when one puts forward the possibility that the member states may choose to use legal sleight-of-hand to re-establish an EU that does not include Ireland, the reaction is an outraged cry that such a thing is impossible - indeed, unthinkable.
How can it be unthinkable when it fits exactly what the No campaign claimed all along?
Further, what we have to offer as "proof" is exactly what the No campaign largely offered as "proof" - people like Sarkozy, and Kouchner, have said that they may seek exactly such a 'legal accommodation'. Why is what Sarkozy said 'proof' that Lisbon would allow tax harmonisation and an EU army, but suddenly irrelevant now?
cordially,
Scofflaw
I am going to deal with this one suggestion:
"The simplest method of removing Ireland from the picture is to achieve general agreement that Ireland negotiated the Treaty in 'bad faith', and therefore should be removed as a signatory. That is at least one option I can think of, without putting a team of lawyers on the question, which the other member states can do."
OK, so let us say we're removed as a signatory? How can the other member states use this to legally remove Ireland from the EU?
I maintain that the burden is on the person making the claim to back up that claim or else retract it.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »If someone says: "Ireland can be kicked out of the EU if they don't ratify a particular treaty" I think it is reasonable to ask by which power will this be done. Exactly what provision of law will be used to kick Ireland out of the union? So far the answer seems to be that nobody knows.
I am going to deal with this one suggestion:
"The simplest method of removing Ireland from the picture is to achieve general agreement that Ireland negotiated the Treaty in 'bad faith', and therefore should be removed as a signatory. That is at least one option I can think of, without putting a team of lawyers on the question, which the other member states can do."
OK, so let us say we're removed as a signatory? How can the other member states use this to legally remove Ireland from the EU?
I maintain that the burden is on the person making the claim to back up that claim or else retract it.
Well, that's not unfair, and usually I would completely agree. Unfortunately, the absence of such a mechanism is not particularly conclusive here - there is no mechanism for leaving the EU, but Greenland did so. At the end of the day the EU is an agreement rather than anything else - an agreed framework for action - and leaving it is as simple as not agreeing.
So I regret that I can neither point to such a mechanism, nor retract the view that such a mechanism can be created if required. It is not possible for Ireland to continue in the EU if it is not welcome to do so.
However, in the case of the removal as a signatory - well, once Ireland is no longer one of the High Contracting Parties signing the EU into existence, it is no longer part of the agreed and current EU - it is part of the previous EU, which no-one else is using.
It's not quite the same as joining a club - it's more like signing up to a joint-stock venture. If you don't sign up, you're not part of the venture.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
We are talking about Ireland being removed as a signatory to the new EU as constituted by the Lisbon Treaty. However this "new EU" does not exist. The "old EU" is the current EU.However, in the case of the removal as a signatory - well, once Ireland is no longer one of the High Contracting Parties signing the EU into existence, it is no longer part of the agreed and current EU - it is part of the previous EU, which no-one else is using.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »We are talking about Ireland being removed as a signatory to the new EU as constituted by the Lisbon Treaty. However this "new EU" does not exist. The "old EU" is the current EU.
Indeed - however, if Ireland were removed as a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, then all the signatories can ratify Lisbon, creating the "new EU". Lisbon only states that all signatories need to ratify.
I certainly don't seem to be alone in this view, by the way - interview with Peter Ludlow, founding director of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the director of the European Strategy Forum:The likelier outcome is a quiet period of discussion with the Irish, they will be dealt with most sympathetically, but in the end I'm sure they will be offered whatever declarations and soothing words they would like, within reason, but without modifications to the Treaty. Then they will vote again and if they say 'no', there is determination to find solutions which we will enable the 26 or the 25, if the Czechs embark on the same boat, to go ahead on the basis of the Treaty of Lisbon, without pushing the Irish and the Czechs out of the Union.
Q: But then you will have a 'Europe á la carte…'
No, you will have a Europe of 25, 26, based on the Treaty of Lisbon, and you have Ireland, as you have Switzerland, as you have Norway…
Q: But these are outside the Union…
Yes, and Ireland will be more in than out. What needs to be said to the Irish is: we have to get on with this. We are not going to negotiate treaties forever, we need a treaty. And there are limits how long we can all wait. It's a pointless situation for the EU to be paralysed. There will be a strong desire, probably apparent at this Council meeting to play calmly, quietly. The key figure in this is always Ms.Merkel. She has already said – we need to take the Irish problem seriously, but we must have the Lisbon Treaty. How we reconcile these two assertions is the character of the story for the next six months or so.
...
Q: But you seem confident that the Irish do not want to leave the Union?
All the opinion polls confirm that an overwhelming majority of the Irish are in favour of their EU membership, which is not at all surprising given how well they've done in the EU.
Q: Perhaps the right question the Irish should answer is 'Do you want to stay in an EU governed by the Treaty of Lisbon'?
That would in effect be the question to be asked in the second referendum. In effect it could not be put in those terms, but it will be made quite clear that if there is a 'no' vote the 25 or the 26 will have to take steps to assure that at least they can go ahead based on the Treaty of Lisbon.
I'm sure many posters will find the above downright offensive. However, whether one likes it or not, the next referendum (and there will be a next referendum) will be a vote on whether we want to stay in the EU, as far as the rest of the EU is concerned.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Thats true Scofflaw thats why i started that huge thread underneath this one
I agree with what you said above 100% 0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Indeed - however, if Ireland were removed as a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, then all the signatories can ratify Lisbon, creating the "new EU". Lisbon only states that all signatories need to ratify.
I certainly don't seem to be alone in this view, by the way - interview with Peter Ludlow, founding director of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the director of the European Strategy Forum:
I'm sure many posters will find the above downright offensive. However, whether one likes it or not, the next referendum (and there will be a next referendum) will be a vote on whether we want to stay in the EU, as far as the rest of the EU is concerned.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Hmm. Essentially we are being offered life in a "Twilight Zone" in a dimension somewhere between the EEA and the EU.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »Hmm. Essentially we are being offered life in a "Twilight Zone" in a dimension somewhere between the EEA and the EU.
Yes - a sort of undead member of the EU, if you like. Like the guy in the club who nobody wants to be there. I suspect under those circumstances that managing to keep our existing "2%" voting weight will turn out to be rather cold comfort.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
But (and this assumes that it could be shown that Ireland was acting in bad faith) would still not give other countries the right to go ahead with Lisbon. The reason for this is that Lisbon concerns itself with the workings of existing institutions. These can only be changed unanimously. If it were the case that only those signing the treaty had to ratify it then there would be no need to negotiate with little peripheral countries like Ireland.Indeed - however, if Ireland were removed as a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, then all the signatories can ratify Lisbon, creating the "new EU". Lisbon only states that all signatories need to ratify.
The article is illuminating and he clearly has an agenda to push so I would be inclined to regard this as another veiled threat. The burden is on him to explain how in law Ireland can be forced to choose between agreeing to the treaty or staying in the union.
I certainly don't seem to be alone in this view, by the way - interview with Peter Ludlow, founding director of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the director of the European Strategy Forum:
I'm sure many posters will find the above downright offensive. However, whether one likes it or not, the next referendum (and there will be a next referendum) will be a vote on whether we want to stay in the EU, as far as the rest of the EU is concerned.0 -
Well so far we have not been offered this. I very much doubt it is down to them to present Ireland with such an ultimatum legally.marco_polo wrote: »Hmm. Essentially we are being offered life in a "Twilight Zone" in a dimension somewhere between the EEA and the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
SkepticOne wrote: »But (and this assumes that it could be shown that Ireland was acting in bad faith) would still not give other countries the right to go ahead with Lisbon. The reason for this is that Lisbon concerns itself with the workings of existing institutions. These can only be changed unanimously. If it were the case that only those signing the treaty had to ratify it then there would be no need to negotiate with little peripheral countries like Ireland.The article is illuminating and he clearly has an agenda to push so I would be inclined to regard this as another veiled threat. The burden is on him to explain how in law Ireland can be forced to choose between agreeing to the treaty or staying in the union.
Hmm. I think you are placing rather too much weight on the letter of the law. Ireland cannot operate in the EU if the other states decide to withdraw cooperation from Ireland, which is where we could find ourselves if we decided to enforce our 'legal rights'. Those who were concerned about the reduction in our voting weight would then find out how little our existing 2% voting weight actually determined our influence.
I would agree that it is a veiled threat. That is rather my point.Well so far we have not been offered this. I very much doubt it is down to them to present Ireland with such an ultimatum legally.
Who, exactly, will prevent them?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Would the smaller EU states not see the advantage in keeping close ties of cooperation with Ireland (rather than being in an "EU" where disagreements with smaller countries result in a new EU being formed with them excluded). I know there hasn't been any shows of support for the Irish vote from the officials of the smaller countries but most of the "theatening" statements seem to be coming from French and German figures0
-
I'm only concerned here about the legalities of forcing Ireland out of if it does not conform. Obviously there is going to be political pressure, no one is denying that. The question is whether the EU has a legal leg to stand on. It would appear not.Hmm. I think you are placing rather too much weight on the letter of the law. Ireland cannot operate in the EU if the other states decide to withdraw cooperation from Ireland, which is where we could find ourselves if we decided to enforce our 'legal rights'. Those who were concerned about the reduction in our voting weight would then find out how little our existing 2% voting weight actually determined our influence.
I would agree that it is a veiled threat. That is rather my point.0 -
I think the reason there has been no overt show of support is that we ourselves have not yet come to terms with the decision. We as a country, despite the referendum result, don't seem to know what to do. How can other support us if we ourselves don't know our position.Would the smaller EU states not see the advantage in keeping close ties of cooperation with Ireland (rather than being in an "EU" where disagreements with smaller countries result in a new EU being formed with them excluded). I know there hasn't been any shows of support for the Irish vote from the officials of the smaller countries but most of the "theatening" statements seem to be coming from French and German figures0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »The question is whether the EU has a legal leg to stand on. It would appear not.
At international level laws only seem to apply if you can enforce them.
If all the other member states turned around tomorrow and said "Right, Ireland, get out. You're no longer welcome here!" what could/would we do? Take them to court? What court?0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »I'm only concerned here about the legalities of forcing Ireland out of if it does not conform. Obviously there is going to be political pressure, no one is denying that. The question is whether the EU has a legal leg to stand on. It would appear not.
Why are you only concerned about the legalities, though? I have no issue conceding the point that there is no obvious legal mechanism by which Ireland can be forced out of the EU. I just doubt that's important.
Assume for a moment that the other 25/26 request that Ireland voluntarily steps out of the way - legal details to be arranged through negotiation. Ireland refuses. The other 25/26 withdraw all cooperation from Ireland at the EU level - Ireland is not included in consensuses, and can be outvoted at Council on every non-veto issue. Use of the veto is still possible, but incurs further hostility.
Essentially, we might be able to hang in there by standing on your point of there being no legal mechanism - refusing, if you like, to recognise the validity of any action against us.
What do we gain? We are far too small to achieve anything in a hostile EU. Politically, if it comes down to a choice between gracefully accepting a spell on the naughty step, or 'standing on our rights', the former is the only realistic option - the only reason for refusing it is nationalistic pride, which, frankly, puts no bread on the table.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
The reason I'm interested is this: if it were the case that there was a legal means to eject a country that did not ratify a particular treaty, then Ireland could simply find itself ejected without further negotiation once the court case appeals had run their course. That would be the end of it. It would have profound implications for small countries as they would know that they either had to except treaties drafted by larger countries or be kicked out. This is what most people imagine when those who claim to know about such things say that Ireland can be kicked out (or something to that effect) if Ireland does not ratify this or that treaty.
If, on the other hand, as seems more likely, political pressure is used then, in the case of Ireland where treaties such as Lisbon require a public referendum, this political pressure must be made public. It can't be the usual behind closed doors stuff. We, the public, are going to hear what certain countries are going to do to us if we do not comply with their wishes and stay in despite not ratifying the treaty.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »The reason I'm interested is this: if it were the case that there was a legal means to eject a country that did not ratify a particular treaty, then Ireland could simply find itself ejected without further negotiation once the court case appeals had run their course. That would be the end of it. It would have profound implications for small countries as they would know that they either had to except treaties drafted by larger countries or be kicked out. This is what most people imagine when those who claim to know about such things say that Ireland can be kicked out (or something to that effect) if Ireland does not ratify this or that treaty.
If, on the other hand, as seems more likely, political pressure is used then, in the case of Ireland where treaties such as Lisbon require a public referendum, this political pressure must be made public. It can't be the usual behind closed doors stuff. We, the public, are going to hear what certain countries are going to do to us if we do not comply with their wishes and stay in despite not ratifying the treaty.
Hmm. The Treaty was not "drafted by larger countries" - it was drafted by all the member states, and the Irish actually had a rather larger hand in it than most.
Further, and unfortunately, there is no particular reason why any political pressure applied would be made public, and all kinds of reasons why it wouldn't. It's extraordinarily unlikely that Brian Cowen will stand up and say "well, look, the French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, etc etc, have stated that they will withdraw all cooperation from us on the Council of Ministers if we stay in".
It's theoretically possible that a politician might go against the habits of a lifetime and tell the blunt unvarnished truth...but, of course, it's hardly probable. Instead, bland and deniable phrases like "Ireland's position will be weakened" will be probably used, allowing the No campaign to claim, as before, that it's "just scaremongering" - and, indeed, leaving you holding the field, since I can't prove my concerns beyond doubt.
However, we are not in a campaign now, a second referendum has not been called, and while I can fairly be accused of speculating, I am not sure what you think the advantage to me of doing so is.
I admire your faith in the infinite tolerance of the other EU member states, but I'm afraid I don't share it (which is, paradoxically, one of the reasons I am pro-EU). The EU has done plenty of things without legal precedent - after all, the EU itself is without legal precedent - but I believe a possible precedent here is the "plan B" of the Danish Maastricht No vote outlined on other threads.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Faith in tolerance of EU member states? Far from it. Some of them don't tolerate the decisions of their own electorates. How can they be expected to tolerate ours?I admire your faith in the infinite tolerance of the other EU member states, but I'm afraid I don't share it (which is, paradoxically, one of the reasons I am pro-EU).0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »Faith in tolerance of EU member states? Far from it. Some of them don't tolerate the decisions of their own electorates. How can they be expected to tolerate ours?
OK - well, now I'm confused. Are you telling me that you genuinely believe that if there is no existing legal mechanism for removing Ireland from the EU, then all that is necessary is for Ireland to stand its ground on its legal rights and everything will be OK?
That makes sense to me if one believes in the essential benevolence of the other EU member states, but none at all if one doesn't.
perplexed,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Like it or not, that is where we find ourselves. If we have no legal rights then we may as well give up now and vote in the damn treaty. With at least some legal rights, then Cowen can work on some other countries that might also feel bullied.OK - well, now I'm confused. Are you telling me that you genuinely believe that if there is no existing legal mechanism for removing Ireland from the EU, then all that is necessary is for Ireland to stand its ground on its legal rights and everything will be OK?
That makes sense to me if one believes in the essential benevolence of the other EU member states, but none at all if one doesn't.0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »Like it or not, that is where we find ourselves. If we have no legal rights then we may as well give up now and vote in the damn treaty. With at least some legal rights, then Cowen can work on some other countries that might also feel bullied.
Mm...as opposed to annoyed with us. Who, in all of this is doing the bullying?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »Some of them don't tolerate the decisions of their own electorates.
Like who? The French? The Dutch? Both Governments were involved in the renegotiation of the Constitution that became the Lisbon Treaty. Unless you can point to exactly what elements of the Constitution the people of those countries disliked and prove that these weren't addressed then you should review that statement. But you have to bear in mind that Sarkozy ran a campaign that advertised the fact that he would be ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, so the French people obviously were happy to have him do that. They endorsed the ratification of the Treaty by electing him so where is the issue?0 -
SkepticOne wrote: »With at least some legal rights, then Cowen can work on some other countries that might also feel bullied.
This sounds like a suggestion that we cultivate a clique of euroskeptic countries that don't want further integration. However if this happens surely you increase the likelihood that there will be a 2-speed Europe.
It's all very well to say Ireland rejected the treaty but we see the need for reform and hope to satisfy the concerns of the Irish voters. If you go down the road of saying we will never ever ratify this treaty and the Czechs and the British (if it stretched to a conservative gov. timeframe) agree with us. Then the other 24 states would really have no option but to try to work around us.
Certainly I don't underestimate the challenges associated with this, and I'm sure Ireland and other allies could block any progress for years, but in the end do we want to be the Ian Paisley of Europe? We can block and stop and delay for a long long time, but that Europe will not be a pleasant place to be an Irish politician, or British or Czech. And ultimately why should we block the other states? The people who have supported the no side have generally supported no in every referendum. Therefore it's a reasonable conclusion that they think the existing treaties are seriously flawed. So logically if they represent the majority of public opinion then we should accept a separation of the EU in as amicable a way as possible.
The reality is that any new referendum will have to have a plan B/C/D. The government will have to have a general outline of what will happen if we say no again. Unfortunately that is going to sound like a threat, but it's just reality. Negotiations are never yes/no. They are making the best choice between a set of alternatives.
Ix.0
Advertisement