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

Bruton's Speech to Oireachtas Committee 30-10-08

Options
  • 01-11-2008 12:02am
    #1
    cabinteelytom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭


    www.oireachtas.ie/documents/press/document267.doc
    is John Bruton's speech of 30-10-08. It doesn't go on too long, and one has to appreciate that the ambassador to America seems well informed concerning the EU, has little reason to pull FF out of a hole, and certainly delivers a robust defence of the Treaty; and an analysis of the problem in the Republic's democracy (arbitrary rules re when to hold a constitutional referendum).
    But are the posters convinced? (My first thoughts, below, are 'not too impressed'.)
    JB: 'If you are Europe's problem, it's hard to be Europe's leader'.( Is that a bit trite? Our Government sat frozen , and made not the slightest attempt to lead anyone to share our electorate's erring views.)
    JB: Lisbon is 'good for the influence of small states'. (It could even be true. It's possible that they could work cooperatively to work the EU system.)
    JB: 'loss of provisions to fight cross-border terrorism and crime'. ( I'm gobsmacked. The plan is to abolish all intra-EU border controls.)
    JB: 'promoting prolife throughout Europe' (Through the over-arching nature of the CFR; the EU's real constitution. No Need)
    JB: 'better able to aggressively promote energy security'. (Is this a completely bogus danger? If you will pay money, people will sell you fuel. Or should we start footing that turf again.)
    JB: 'stability of the Euro'.
    JB: 'advance vetting of all future EU legislation...national parliaments will be consulted (sic) on whether a newly proposed EU law concerns a subject that should be dealt with at a European level or left to the member states.'

    Are these really the best arguments out there?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    cabinteelytom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭cabinteelytom


    Elsewhere,( www.irishtimes.com 30-10-08 'Bruton calls for a second Lisbon referendum'), John Bruton continued ,'Ireland has been left out of an EU-wide committee to look at the fall-out from Lisbon and a recently set up committee on cross-border banking.'
    Is Ireland already subject to informal sanctions within the EU? Is there really that little protection for member states?


  • Options
    #3
    PHB
    Registered Users Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    cabinteelytom wrote: »
    JB: 'loss of provisions to fight cross-border terrorism and crime'. ( I'm gobsmacked. The plan is to abolish all intra-EU border controls.)
    JB: 'better able to aggressively promote energy security'. (Is this a completely bogus danger? If you will pay money, people will sell you fuel. Or should we start footing that turf again.)

    Are these really the best arguments out there?

    Those two are the best arguments out there, and they weren't made at all in the referendum, largely because we opted out of the first one, and the second one isn't something Irish voters think about.

    In the first one he is referring to the plan to abolish the old JHA pillar, the 3rd pillar, and move the majority of the stuff in it to the community method. This is because the current system where its under vetos just doesn't work and isn't quick enough to deal with the challenges facing us in terms of cross-boarder human trafficking, drug smuggling, organised crime and terrorism. There is a situation where we have no real border controls between the EU, but no effective system in place to police this! Criminals have taken advantage of this gap, and the Lisbon treaty would be a direct response to this that absolutely needs to happen. Nobody from the No side brought this up or even suggested they disagreed with it, but that may be because we've opted out technically, but in reality, we're going to take part in an awful lot of these provisions. We opted out because we need to do it on a case-by-case basis because Europe operates under civil law while we operate under common, which could create difficulties for broad legislation.

    The second one, you don't really get the point. If you pay money people will sell you the fuel. Is that so? What about Russia who are using their fuel as a political tool to control many Eastern European countries despite the fact that they are willing, if not eager to pay. We need to be able to negotiate collectively on this if we don't want Russia to keep ****ing with us and the Lisbon treaty is a step forward on this.


Advertisement