the lisbon treaty-informed opinion

yekrab

as a law student and generally a person interested in the law, i just want to disclose some of my opinions on the lisbon treaty which is a legal document.

overview of treaty:
firstly, the truth is that the majority of people at least 75% dont have the slighest clue as to what the treaty is about. and i dare say that neither do a lot of the politicians, (including the MEPs), there was a study done on why the vote turned out the way it did, and it showed unequivocally that people just didnt know the rudimentary things about it.
im not trying to be condescending about the whole thing, but i have actually studied the treaty and european law in general and got an A2.
there was a lot of propaganda about the lisbon treaty, coming from Sinn Fein, inter alia, but especially the libertas racket. and when you know (and by that i mean me) that they have to resort to lies then its not very encouraging, or an incentive to believe any other words that come out of their uninformed mouths.
the general ignorance of people ive talked to is astoundingly unforgiveable, 'oh we'll have to join a european army, oh we wont have our say now that the commissioner will be gone, oh ireland's constitution will give up its sovereignty and jurisdiction etc etc)


the lisbon treaty:
in simple terms:

the commissioner belonged to a supranational body, the commission, which is and was concerned with the interest of europe as a whole not the individual domestic states, the role of the commissioner is like the government of the european union. it initiates the legislation.therefore the idea that ireland would by virtue of losing its commissioner be detrimental to itself contradicts with the purpose of the commission. (by the way, ireland under the criteria would not have lost the comissioner for ever, but rather a system of rotation would be in place which would mean that every signatory state of the EU would have to go without a commissioner every 5 out of `15 years. also it is noteworty that under the nice treaty this system was adopted but was to be implemented in the near future)
the number of commissioners has grown too large, 27, one for every state, it just isnt practical, work is too protracted and the difficulity is well encapsulated in the phrase 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. eventually something will have to change to rectify this, so even though the lisbon treaty 2 will keep the number of commissioners the way it is now, the issue has to be at sometime addressed in the future.

the army:
there is not one article in the entire lisbon treay will stipulates anything expressly or in some way implicit which would require ireland to join in a european army.

the irish constitution:
it would not demean the provisions of the irish constitution, im a fan of constitutional law, and quite frankly questions about conceding supremacy to the european union is a little late, because it was a precondition upon membership, if all the domestic states could enact provisions contrary to EC law, then it would undermine it and worse destroy the requisite element of uniformity within the EU. for anybody who wishes to be informed on the supremacy issue and its ramifications, look at the ENEL V COSTA case and the VAN GEN DEL lOOS case.

final remarks:
i dont have time to go through it all now, but any questions on it, on any aspect, or earnest and informed disagreements, then ill be glad to read and respond to it. no conjecture please.

yekrab

The lisbon treaty-structure.
no argumentum ad hominen. its true that a lot of people blame brian cowen for the way ireland is now, but the truth is that the recession that ireland is under is not his fault. if u look to france, the opposition party is launching a vitriolic attack on sarkozy, in england its the same with Cameron towards Brown, all of europe is going through it, not just ireland. the truth is at least in my opinion that if bertie were still around i doubt he could do any better. (got out at the right time if u ask me).

it should be noted that all the parts of the european union are not enforceable. rather only the EC, the struture of the way europe is now is as follows,

there are 'three pillars', the first is made up of the EC, the second is 'the common security and foreign policy' and the third is judicial and policing matters', the first is by far the most important,

NB- the European union is only a few years old, and was actually created in 1992, with the masstricht treaty. before 1992 we had what was called the european communities, Euratom, the EC etc( amended from the EEC, which was the european economic community), which was really borne in the 1950s with the treaty of rome and then the treaty of paris. this is something a lot of people get mixed up. the really remote origins extend perhaps as far back as the ECSC.

today the EC is the first pillar of the EU which forms the economic community, which is concerned with creating a single market, (which was designed to distribute resouces in a fair and proper fashion, instead of by aggressive means) today the EC is the only legally enforceable pilar within the EU, and it is really concerned with the free movement of goods, people, services etc. also it is noteworthy that the (european convention on human rights) ECHR is not legally enforceable per se, rather the member states have signed it but are under no authority and risk of liability for encroaching any of its stipulations.

i would like to point out that under the lisbon treaty, the european convention on human rights would have been made legally enforceable for the first time. every body thinks that the introduction of european law is a bad thing, but consider the following, ireland has no enumerated right or unenumerated right in the constitution of ireland to the right against slavery, (im not saying that slavery is legal in ireland) but such a right could be held to be a latent right by virtue of the influence of EU law some time in the future.isnt that surely benefically? also people keep seeming to bring up the fear of being ruled by france or germany, but politicians in the signatory states cant actually introduce legislation, thats the role of the commission, (the independent from the national government part of the EU) the European parliament is not the instigator of european statues in other words nor is the european council, rather they can only vote on which legislation to pass, that was initiated by the commission.

Time Magazine

yekrab wrote: »

final remarks:
i dont have time to go through it all now, but any questions on it, on any aspect, or earnest and informed disagreements, then ill be glad to read and respond to it. no conjecture please.

Copy and pasted so much you even included the graphics to boot. Thanks.

nesf

Threads merged and moved.

limklad

yekrab wrote: »

i would like to point out that under the lisbon treaty, the european convention on human rights would have been made legally enforceable for the first time. every body thinks that the introduction of european law is a bad thing, but consider the following, ireland has no enumerated right or unenumerated right in the constitution of ireland to the right against slavery, (im not saying that slavery is legal in ireland) but such a right could be held to be a latent right by virtue of the influence of EU law some time in the future.isnt that surely benefically? also people keep seeming to bring up the fear of being ruled by france or germany, but politicians in the signatory states cant actually introduce legislation, thats the role of the commission, (the independent from the national government part of the EU) the European parliament is not the instigator of european statues in other words nor is the european council, rather they can only vote on which legislation to pass, that was initiated by the commission.

British parliament passed a law banning the trade (The Slave Trade Act of March 1807) never stopped slavery but prohibited British ships from transporting slaves. Though slavery itself was not abolished in the British Isles until 1838, Full emancipation would not be achieved until 1838 – the Emancipation Act was passed by the British parliament on 1 August 1833, with British slaves achieving a limited freedom under a draconian 'apprenticeship' system the following year. A new campaign brought this to an end, and full freedom in 1838. These acts was applied to Ireland and most British Territory and after Irish Free state was form we carried over British Law as Irish Law.

In Irish Free State/Irish Republic Under the Council of Europe (Not EU), The prohibition on slavery and servitude is codified under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights was passed in 2003 in the Dail into Law which inturn applied extra Human rights to Ireland that were not already applied. Since it is passed into Law ECHR does have legal Standing in Ireland.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is basically have the same Rights as the ECHR.

The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties..

So Passing of the Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with banning slavery in Ireland. It only ban slavery on EU insitutions and prevent them from violating or undermining the ECHR by passing Laws (heaven forbid) that will allow slavery again within the EU. Which in turn undermine each Country (who ratify ECHR) into their Law.

Also Lisbon Treaty does not apply Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to UK and Poland as they have opt-outs (It is not because of Slavery, It due to prevention of another court apply Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on them)

yekrab

i have an earnest appreciation for the input my good man limklad. on slavery i would say that i was trying to point out that it wasnt enumerated or unenumerated in the constitution which it isnt. never said that lisbon treaty had anything to do with banning slavery, just was pointing out as you did in your post that there is european legislation banning it, and that as ireland hadnt specifically prohibited slavery in the constitution it was evidence to add weight to the laudable aspects of european law. (and also dont get confused with when i said 'such a right could be held to be a latent right by virtue of the influence of EU law some time in the future' i meant only that it could only be inferred as a constitutional latent right on the grounds of existing European law in the future.

limklad

yekrab wrote: »

i have an earnest appreciation for the input my good man limklad. on slavery i would say that i was trying to point out that it wasnt enumerated or unenumerated in the constitution which it isnt. never said that lisbon treaty had anything to do with banning slavery, just was pointing out as you did in your post that there is european legislation banning it, and that as ireland hadnt specifically prohibited slavery in the constitution it was evidence to add weight to the laudable aspects of european law. (and also dont get confused with when i said 'such a right could be held to be a latent right by virtue of the influence of EU law some time in the future' i meant only that it could only be inferred as a constitutional latent right on the grounds of existing European law in the future.

There no need to mention of the word Slavery as it is in the constitution directly as Personal Rights, which applies to Citizens only.

The Only other form of Slavery is for non-Citizens which is already provided in Law as stated before under ECHR under and also obligations for Membership in the EU in which Torture, execution and slavery is illegal under EU law. EU Law is supreme over Irish Constitution as we cannot insert any acts into the Constitution that will violate EU Law unless we leave the EU.

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Personal Rights
Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
4. 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Article 3. Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

Article 29.4.10°
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.
Article 29.9
The State may ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court done at Rome on the 17th day of July, 1998.

Under the EU Law for the Common market you have what is known as Four Freedoms which provide freedom to act under one's own will within the Law only.

EU Law wrote:

The Free Movement of Goods.
The Free Movement of Persons (and Citizenships), including free movement of workers , and freedom of establishment.
The Free Movement of Services
The Free movement of Capital.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1. Civil and Political rights - provisions include prohibition of slavery, torture, discrimination on grounds of race, gender, religion, language, political opinion, nationality, ethnicity, birth or other status, and prohibition of arbitrary arrests or interferences with privacy. Protected rights are the right to a fair trial, the right to marry, the right to own property, the right the political asylum, the freedoms of religion and expression, freedom of movement, freedoms to peaceful assembly and associate, free elections and equal access to public positions. These are the foundations of democratic political systems
2. Economic and Social Cultural Rights - provisions include the right to social security, full employment, fair work, education, health care, and adequate standard of living, and participation in the community’s cultural life. The argument for this section is that without health care, education and adequate living, you do not care about voting or running for office

D. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adds to the aforementioned rights; right of self determination [the right of people in a territory to decide the political and legal status of that territory] and the right of all people to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources
E. Fundamental Human Rights - the aforementioned rights are fundamental to all persons

We are triple bound on the Slavery issue because Our Constitution have us not only bound by the National Courts, but we are bound by EU Court (ECJ) and International Court though treaty agreements.
All EU Members have ratified Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and new EU members must ratify it also in order to Join. Therefore all EU citizens are bound by it - even our EU Politicians.