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

Armed Rebellion in YOUR Lifetime ?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »
    We like the EU as it stands now. Not as it stands under Lisbon, which is very close to a Federal State.
    How exactly? How would Lisbon move the EU toward a federal state?


  • Options
    #33
    Eurosceptic2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭Eurosceptic2008


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How exactly? How would Lisbon move the EU toward a federal state?

    Primarily because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being enshrined in EU law. Under the terms of our entry to the EU/EEC in 1972, EU law supersedes national law - but until recently the broad spectrum of fundamental rights were relatively untouched by EU law in a way that would have conflicted with the Irish Supreme Court. The Charter covers areas ranging from the right to strike, freedom of speech, capital punishment, right to asylum, medical ethics etc. - greatly expanding the ECJ's jurisdiction. In effect, it makes the ECJ a kind of Supreme Court on human rights. A key difference between the Charter and the ECHR is that the ECHR (Convention and the Court) are not presently an EU institution/EU law, whereas the Charter will be. You also need to remember that only the 7 Big States have a permanent right to a judge on the ECJ, whereas the 20 smaller states have to wait their turn via rotation. As such, the voice of small countries is again being marginalised, as if we were a mere constituency of a federal Europe. The Charter is the big deal for me. Poland and the UK have protocols opting them out of it. The Irish govt should seek one too. If they do, and only if they do, I will reconsider my no vote. If they don't (as seems likely) then it's another no vote. I have communicated my concerns via email to Dick Roche.


  • Options
    #34
    Furious-Dave
    Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭Furious-Dave


    Is it not the case though that these judges you mentioned would not in fact be a voice as such for their respective countries but those countries contribution to the combined voice of the ECJ? Much as the existing commissioners for each country don't represent their countries but rather the commission itself.
    Surely the voice of each country would remain with their ministers for foreign affairs?


  • Options
    #35
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »
    Primarily because of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being enshrined in EU law. Under the terms of our entry to the EU/EEC in 1972, EU law supersedes national law - but until recently the broad spectrum of fundamental rights were relatively untouched by EU law in a way that would have conflicted with the Irish Supreme Court. The Charter covers areas ranging from the right to strike, freedom of speech, capital punishment, right to asylum, medical ethics etc. - greatly expanding the ECJ's jurisdiction. In effect, it makes the ECJ a kind of Supreme Court on human rights. A key difference between the Charter and the ECHR is that the ECHR (Convention and the Court) are not presently an EU institution/EU law, whereas the Charter will be. You also need to remember that only the 7 Big States have a permanent right to a judge on the ECJ, whereas the 20 smaller states have to wait their turn via rotation. As such, the voice of small countries is again being marginalised, as if we were a mere constituency of a federal Europe. The Charter is the big deal for me. Poland and the UK have protocols opting them out of it. The Irish govt should seek one too. If they do, and only if they do, I will reconsider my no vote. If they don't (as seems likely) then it's another no vote. I have communicated my concerns via email to Dick Roche.

    The Charter comes with a legal notice, though, that it cannot be used to extend the competences of the EU, create new powers for its institutions, or expand the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I think you'll find that when the ECJ came to consider whether one of the rights in the Charter should expand the ECJ's jurisdiction, the fact that it would be illegal to use the Charter to do so would rather prevent the ECJ ruling that it did. The rights in the Charter apply only in respect of EU legislation and national law transcribed from that legislation. They are inapplicable in any other case, and cannot be extended.

    Something of an open and shut case.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement