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
why are we voting again
Options
Comments
-
Did you not realise our constitution needs to change?
Voting yes on Lisbon means one accepts that it is okay for a group of officials sitting in Brussels, not directly elected by the people of Ireland, to effect legislation governing Ireland. The treaty suggests that our elected commisioner may not even be present when such laws are passed; not that his block vote would amount to much in any case. If a majority vote yes to Lisbon then the relevent sections of our Constitution which suggest this is a bad thing will be removed and we can be governed 'directly'by Brussels. We could find the exact reference within the constitution if you like?
"So what you're saying is, you think you should be able to travel and work, but others should not?"....
Not at all. I work closely with many highly skilled polish and other EU nationals and have great respect for them. What I believe is that they should be paid equally to their Irish counterparts. Its good for them and it means no Irish need lose their jobs unless its on merit.
"If nothing in Lisbon addresses the problem then how is it relevant?"
Precisely.... up to now EU pays little or no attention to Ireland... eg in raising and lowering Interest rates etc. BUt they are quite happy to ensure that an Irish company can get the benefit of cheaper labour, without balancing that by asubsidising the higher cost of doing business in Ireland. If its a single market then why not reconginse that Ireland + UK need some transport cost subsidy. Then perhaps labour cos
"That's because it's a legal document. It can't afford to contain simple....."
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with that statement!0 -
This is currently the case, Lisbon doesn't change it. But you're probably right, voting 'yes' probably does mean someone accepts that, though not necessarily. However, as we've been reminded at length, voting 'no' doesn't automatically mean you don't accept it.wailim_2002 wrote: »Voting yes on Lisbon means one accepts that it is okay for a group of officials sitting in Brussels, not directly elected by the people of Ireland, to effect legislation governing Ireland.
Voting either way really doesn't say much about it, as Lisbon doesn't affect that situation.wailim_2002 wrote: »The treaty suggests that our elected commisioner may not even be present when such laws are passed; not that his block vote would amount to much in any case.
Well actually the commissioner is appointed by each member state, and is bound, by law, to not take instruction from them, or give undue favour to them.
Also the commission doesn't actually pass law, it only has the power to propose laws. Laws are passed by a combination of the Council (which consists of our elected governments) and the parliament (which consists of our directly elected MEP's).
What part of Bunreacht suggests that EU law applying to Ireland is a 'bad thing'? Yes, please provide the exact reference, that would be helpful.wailim_2002 wrote: »If a majority vote yes to Lisbon then the relevent sections of our Constitution which suggest this is a bad thing will be removed and we can be governed 'directly'by Brussels. We could find the exact reference within the constitution if you like?wailim_2002 wrote: »I *believe* the irish attorney general has stated that contrary to what government ministers sentiments might suggest, it is far from clear, until challenged in the European Court whether ratifying Lisbon and changing our constition to accept foreign rule may leave us more vulnerable on matters such as neutrality, abortion, education etc... regardless of what our constitution states. Lets not dwell in here though on this point. I don't fully understand it and I doubt you do (no offense intended) and I am very sure the attorney general will comment this time around
Well without reference to the AG's statements on the matter you can see how people might think it's at least possible that you are making all that up.
It would also be pretty handy for somebody making it up if people didn't 'dwell' on it, I suppose.0 -
No offense but that is a horribly misinformed post! First of all, we have been incorporating and following legislation from Brussels since 1972. The current system is that any law necessitated by our membership of the EU is explicitly endorsed by the Irish Constitution. Some EU laws have to be incorporated by the Irish legislature or a government minister, whereas some have direct effect. The EU can only pass laws within its area of competence. And, of course, this system is the exact same after Lisbon!Voting yes on Lisbon means one accepts that it is okay for a group of officials sitting in Brussels, not directly elected by the people of Ireland, to effect legislation governing Ireland. The treaty suggests that our elected commisioner may not even be present when such laws are passed; not that his block vote would amount to much in any case. If a majority vote yes to Lisbon then the relevent sections of our Constitution which suggest this is a bad thing will be removed and we can be governed 'directly'by Brussels. We could find the exact reference within the constitution if you like?
Secondly, we don't have an elected commissioner, not before and not after Lisbon. The commissioner is chosen by the government, not popularly elected. Furthermore, the commissioner is bound to act impartially in fulfilling his duties and is not supposed to represent the country that appointed him. That is the job of our ministers and MEPs.
And what's all this nonsense about the Constitution suggesting that EU legislation is a bad thing?? That doesn't make sense either. Go on, post up this reference in the Constitution.
A lot of the time when Irish people lose their jobs to foreigners it is on merit.Not at all. I work closely with many highly skilled polish and other EU nationals and have great respect for them. What I believe is that they should be paid equally to their Irish counterparts. Its good for them and it means no Irish need lose their jobs unless its on merit.
Besides, if you don't want foreign people to be able to work for less than Irish people then your problem is with capitalism in general. So if you can present a utopian socialist alternative when everyone gets paid megabucks and can always find work I'm willing to listen. But for the time being, there's nothing in Lisbon which says that foreign people must get paid less than Irish people, and voting No to Lisbon will not change the situation either.
As I said, it's not relevant to Lisbon. I could just as easily complain that I'm gonna vote No because it's raining outside.Precisely.... up to now EU pays little or no attention to Ireland... eg in raising and lowering Interest rates etc. BUt they are quite happy to ensure that an Irish company can get the benefit of cheaper labour, without balancing that by asubsidising the higher cost of doing business in Ireland. If its a single market then why not reconginse that Ireland + UK need some transport cost subsidy. Then perhaps labour cos
It really wasn't an opinion so much as a fact.I'm sorry but I cannot agree with that statement!
No, let's dwell on the point. I think you're talking rubbish tbh and would like to see you back up your claim. It shouldn't be that hard.I *believe* the irish attorney general has stated that contrary to what government ministers sentiments might suggest, it is far from clear, until challenged in the European Court whether ratifying Lisbon and changing our constition to accept foreign rule may leave us more vulnerable on matters such as neutrality, abortion, education etc... regardless of what our constitution states. Lets not dwell in here though on this point. I don't fully understand it and I doubt you do (no offense intended) and I am very sure the attorney general will comment this time around0 -
"This is currently the case, Lisbon doesn't change it."
Really?
No organ of the European Union currently has the right to impose laws or otherwise govern the people of Ireland. EU can hold our government accountable for breach of agreements to which it has subscribed but this is completely different from applying EU law to an Irish citizen or attempting to govern Ireland from brussels.
Lisbon explicitly allows the organs of the EU to do this albeit for specific limited cases. However, once the clause is removed or watered down from the Irish Constitution there is no going back.
"What part of Bunreacht suggests that EU law applying to Ireland is a 'bad thing'?"
Thats not exactly what I said. I was referring to the proposed NEW powers of rule that can be applied by Brussels upon Ireland as a consequence of Lison. The clause to which I refer [in our constitution] is:
Our Constitution currently states:
ARTICLE 6.2
It is by the organs of State / State organs that are established by this Constitution, and by those alone or by/with their authority, that those powers of rule can be operated
Instead of deleting article 6.2 which would be pretty terrifying to most people, anyone who voted yes last time was agreeing to the following more subtle, but nonetheless frightening change:- Insertion of new Article 29.4.11:
Is this not clear to everyone? I mean I don't claim to understand all of Lisbon but I've done my best. But this change to our own constitution looks to me like it pretty much gives a great deal of control to Brussels.
What do you think?
I dunno can I give a link here but if you search the independent online for
Lisbon re-run is not 'brave', it is dishonest and doomed
that article is mainly aimed at the constitutional changes rather than lisbon itself.... in my view a very interesting read and conclusion!0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »"This is currently the case, Lisbon doesn't change it."
Really?
No organ of the European Union currently has the right to impose laws or otherwise govern the people of Ireland. EU can hold our government accountable for breach of agreements to which it has subscribed but this is completely different from applying EU law to an Irish citizen or attempting to govern Ireland from brussels.
Lisbon explicitly allows the organs of the EU to do this albeit for specific limited cases. However, once the clause is removed or watered down from the Irish Constitution there is no going back.
No it doesn't! Please show evidence!wailim_2002 wrote: »"What part of Bunreacht suggests that EU law applying to Ireland is a 'bad thing'?"
Thats not exactly what I said. I was referring to the proposed NEW powers of rule that can be applied by Brussels upon Ireland as a consequence of Lison. The clause to which I refer [in our constitution] is:
Our Constitution currently states:
ARTICLE 6.2
It is by the organs of State / State organs that are established by this Constitution, and by those alone or by/with their authority, that those powers of rule can be operated
Instead of deleting article 6.2 which would be pretty terrifying to most people, anyone who voted yes last time was agreeing to the following more subtle, but nonetheless frightening change:- Insertion of new Article 29.4.11:
Is this not clear to everyone? I mean I don't claim to understand all of Lisbon but I've done my best. But this change to our own constitution looks to me like it pretty much gives a great deal of control to Brussels.
What do you think?
How is that significantly different from the current article 29?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.
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm0 -
Advertisement
-
As I have said, there are some areas where EU law must be incorporated through national legislation, and the commission may take a case against a member state which fails to incorporate such legislation. But there is also a large body of EU law which has direct effect in Ireland. This was established in a case called van Gend en Loos in 1963. This does not amount to Ireland being governed by Brussels, as the Irish government and Irish MEPs have an input into the legislative process and EU law is drawn up with the interests of each member state, as well as the Union generally, in mind.Really?
No organ of the European Union currently has the right to impose laws or otherwise govern the people of Ireland. EU can hold our government accountable for breach of agreements to which it has subscribed but this is completely different from applying EU law to an Irish citizen or attempting to govern Ireland from brussels.
Lisbon explicitly allows the organs of the EU to do this albeit for specific limited cases. However, once the clause is removed or watered down from the Irish Constitution there is no going back.
Again, Lisbon does not change this. In fact, it increases the input of national parliaments into the EU legislative process.0 -
It's not a frightening change at all, it's pretty much the exact ame as our current Article 29.Instead of deleting article 6.2 which would be pretty terrifying to most people, anyone who voted yes last time was agreeing to the following more subtle, but nonetheless frightening change:
* Insertion of new Article 29.4.11:0 -
evercloserunion wrote: »It's not a frightening change at all, it's pretty much the exact ame as our current Article 29.
But people who see the "so called" changes don't really want to know it is already there. How often has something in Lisbon that is supposedly "new" been pointed out here that it isn't new?
It seems to be one of the areas people will not back down on.
"Lisbon brings in this"
"No, that has always been there"
"OK, I'm still voting No"
"Why?"
..................................Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Ahem... those two are not the same!
For a start one defers more powers to Europe as described in the Lisbon treaty and the other does not.
Technically speaking Article 29 unmodified, does defer to Brussels but the structures within brussels are restricted by the previous treaties. For example, pollution control, water quality, fishing quotas yada yada yada. Green issues... nice but who gives a flying fig? Are not the powers under Lisbon expanded both implicitly and explicitly. eg, implicitly by removal of veto?
If you are right and I am wrong then why is An Taoiseach in Brussels seeking guarantees on Irish neutrality, abortion etc that we didn't need before?
Please explain? Because according to what the last 3 posters wrote here, the EU could force Ireland in a direction it does not want to go..... RIGTH NOW; with or without ratification of Lisbon.
But I assert this is not the case. The EU has no such power under the previous treaties.0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »
If you are right and I am wrong then why is An Taoiseach in Brussels seeking guarantees on Irish neutrality, abortion etc that we didn't need before?
Please explain? Because according to what the last 3 posters wrote here, the EU could force Ireland in a direction it does not want to go..... RIGTH NOW; with or without ratification of Lisbon.
But I assert this is not the case. The EU has no such power under the previous treaties.
According to the Yes side the concessions are a figment of the imagination as Lisbon would never have affected those areas that are to be protected by the guarantees. The focus on the concessions is certainly to make Lisbon II look like more than just a straight re-run as the argument of low turn-out as used with Nice is not applicable. Arguments against democracy per se have been used by the Yes side - but thankfully it would be illegal for them to just by-pass the electorate [unlike in the rest of europe].0 -
Advertisement
-
wailim_2002 wrote: »Please explain? Because according to what the last 3 posters wrote here, the EU could force Ireland in a direction it does not want to go..... RIGTH NOW; with or without ratification of Lisbon.
But I assert this is not the case. The EU has no such power under the previous treaties.
Stop being so melodramatic.
Ireland is free to leave the EU if someday there comes an EU law which is fundamentally incompatible with Ireland as a nation, and for some bizarre reason we are completely unable to negotiate around it, unlikely as that day is.
If you're in the club, you play by the rules of the club. If the club tries to force you to do things you don't want to, where the benefits of the club are outweighed by the burdens, you are free to walk out the door any time you like.0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »Ahem... those two are not the same!
For a start one defers more powers to Europe as described in the Lisbon treaty and the other does not.
Technically speaking Article 29 unmodified, does defer to Brussels but the structures within brussels are restricted by the previous treaties. For example, pollution control, water quality, fishing quotas yada yada yada. Green issues... nice but who gives a flying fig? Are not the powers under Lisbon expanded both implicitly and explicitly. eg, implicitly by removal of veto?
Please explain? Because according to what the last 3 posters wrote here, the EU could force Ireland in a direction it does not want to go..... RIGTH NOW; with or without ratification of Lisbon.
But I assert this is not the case. The EU has no such power under the previous treaties.
Both Articles do exactly the same thing- they mean that EU-originated legislation cannot be challenged on the basis of our Constitution.
But the main point in your post, I think, is you believe Lisbon radically changes our relationship with the EU, so much so that 'they' now have us under 'their' dominion. Is this correct? If so, you're going to have to point out all the changes in Lisbon, compared to the current scenario, that will lead to this control of the Irish people. Otherwise your argument carries no weight.wailim_2002 wrote: »If you are right and I am wrong then why is An Taoiseach in Brussels seeking guarantees on Irish neutrality, abortion etc that we didn't need before?
*Yawn* Seeking assurances to 'assure' the non-believers that we are actually protected in all relevant areas, doesn't mean we needed those assurances in the first place. You can blame a completely dishonest, but incredibly effective, No campaign for that (and, of course, a completely inept Yes campaign).0 -
You mean like when we were told it was not possible to renegotiate Lisbon?
Yes we can opt out but the funny thing is we don't currently need to. We rejected Lisbon and no one can force us out of EU as far as I know and nor would we want to come out. Its a very drastic fall-back position in any case. Why not build in total trust from the outset so such a fall-back is as irrelevant as it may be impossible. Can you imagine when there are 3 or 4 large trading blocks to which all countries are aligned and we think to ourselves... "Actually, this new law on conscription is a bit much... maybe we should go it alone?"
But i am curious as to why you think opting out would ever be necessary given the flexibility to renegotiate / reject EU laws & regulations. Or for that matter why is that safeguard even written in? Is it a case of "Of course I trust you but please include this 'get-out' just in case"
Besides, did you just dodge the question?
I repeat: Can the EU as it currently stands, apply an arbitrary law upon all member states even if one member state objects? Yes or No.
Secondly, under Lisbon is your answer still the same?
I assume your answer is 'Yes & Yes' whereas mine is 'No & Yes'.0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »
I repeat: Can the EU as it currently stands, apply an arbitrary law upon all member states even if one member state objects? Yes or No.
Secondly, under Lisbon is your answer still the same?
I assume your answer is 'Yes & Yes' whereas mine is 'No & Yes'.
Firstly when you talk about the EU you are infact talking about the 27 governments of the member states. Can the 26 other members gang up and pass legislation against the will of our own government? Yes they can! but only in certain areas (QMV areas). Areas which they can't, include justice & policing and foreign policy and taxation. Areas where they can include agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection and the environment. Lisbon will add to the range of areas where QMV applies including energy and sport.
Can you point to where in either the treaty or the constitutional amendment this new power you speak of is conferred to the EU?0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »You mean like when we were told it was not possible to renegotiate Lisbon?
Yes we can opt out but the funny thing is we don't currently need to. We rejected Lisbon and no one can force us out of EU as far as I know and nor would we want to come out. Its a very drastic fall-back position in any case. Why not build in total trust from the outset so such a fall-back is as irrelevant as it may be impossible. Can you imagine when there are 3 or 4 large trading blocks to which all countries are aligned and we think to ourselves... "Actually, this new law on conscription is a bit much... maybe we should go it alone?"
But i am curious as to why you think opting out would ever be necessary given the flexibility to renegotiate / reject EU laws & regulations. Or for that matter why is that safeguard even written in? Is it a case of "Of course I trust you but please include this 'get-out' just in case"
Besides, did you just dodge the question?
I repeat: Can the EU as it currently stands, apply an arbitrary law upon all member states even if one member state objects? Yes or No.
Secondly, under Lisbon is your answer still the same?
I assume your answer is 'Yes & Yes' whereas mine is 'No & Yes'.
Are you serious? Did you really just use the word 'conscription' in an argument against Lisbon?
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/LisbonTreaty_QMV_new_English.pdfChanges from Unanimity to QMV if the Treaty of Lisbon is Ratified
At present, certain decisions in a number of areas must be made by the Member States
agreeing unanimously while they may be made by QMV in other areas. The Treaty of
Lisbon proposes that decisions may be made by QMV in more areas.
It is difficult to be precise about the number of areas to which this proposed change
applies because it is possible to have “unanimity” apply to certain decisions within a
particular area and QMV apply to other decisions in that area. However, among the
new areas to which QMV (instead of unanimity) will apply if the Treaty of Lisbon is
ratified are:
Election of the President of the European Council by the European Council
Configurations of the Council of Ministers (other than the Foreign Affairs Council)
Appointment of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy by the European Council
Conclusion of a withdrawal agreement with a Member State wishing to leave the EU
Determination of the procedures and conditions required for a citizens’ initiative for
legislation
Arrangements for how Member States evaluate the implementation of EU policies in
the areas of freedom, security and justice*
Administrative cooperation within the area of freedom, security and justice after
consulting the European Parliament*
Measures concerning border checks*
Measures concerning an asylum system*
Measures concerning an immigration policy*
Measures concerning judicial cooperation in criminal matters and aspects of police
co-operation*
Regulations concerning Europol’s structure, operation, field of action and tasks*
Establishment of certain measures concerning transport
Measures concerning the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide
uniform intellectual property rights protection throughout the EU
Amendment of some articles of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks
Measures necessary for use of the euro
Promotion of certain sporting issues
Incentive measures in the cultural field
Measures necessary to draw up a European Space Policy
Measures relating to energy policy
Some aspects of the common commercial policy
Measures for drawing up a framework for humanitarian aid
Decision defining the European Defence Agency’s statute, seat and operational rules
Implementation of the solidarity clause in the event of a Member State suffering a
terrorist attack or a disaster
Amendment of some of the provisions of the Court of Justice’s Statute and
establishment of specialist courts
Arrangements for the control of implementing powers
* Areas marked with an asterisk * are those to which Ireland may opt-in or opt-out.0 -
Hitman Actual wrote: »Both Articles do exactly the same thing- they mean that EU-originated legislation cannot be challenged on the basis of our Constitution.
But the main point in your post, I think, is you believe Lisbon radically changes our relationship with the EU, so much so 'that' they now have us under 'their' dominion. Is this correct? If so, you're going to have to point out all the changes in Lisbon, compared to the current scenario, that will lead to this control of the Irish people. Otherwise your argument carries no weight.
*Yawn* Seeking assurances to 'assure' the non-believers that we are actually protected in all relevant areas, doesn't mean we needed those assurances in the first place. You can blame a completely dishonest, but incredibly effective, No campaign for that (and, of course, a completely inept Yes campaign).
Okay well at least you are more open to suggestion that the other posters.
I am disappointed no-one can think of any examples themselves. Maybe it is like I said in my very first post.... something needs to be relevant to be meaningful...
So lets start simple with the most obvious one I can think of:
Suppose you are a parent and Home Educator. There is a delicate legal balance between your constitutional rights as a parent to choose this road vs the constitutional right of your children to receive an education. Because of various supreme court rulings in Ireland to date, the choice of the parent here takes precedence over the rights of the child so long as the child is judged to be receiving 'a certain minimum education'... Enter the National Education Welfare Board to enforce this at a more practical level rather than having to go to the supreme court in every case!!
But in Germany the situation is completely reversed with the rights of the child taking absolute precedence over the parental rights. All children must attend school. If not, the parents are fined or sent to jail and the child is taken into boarding school until they are 18.
In France the system is a little of a hybrid of both.
Lisbon proposes that the EU charter for human rights be legally binding on all member states and as you seem to accept, the amendments to our constitution mean that that charter would effectively replace our own human rights written in our own constitution.
This means that the position of home educators in Ireland could be upset by, for example, a new challenge in an EU court by the Irish Govt. (or perhaps a lobby group in Germany) to those aforementioned supreme court rulings.... a challenge to enforce a different european wide standard based on the EU charter of human rights.
This challenge is not possible pre Lisbon.
What say you?0 -
Firstly when you talk about the EU you are infact talking about the 27 governments of the member states. Can the 26 other members gang up and pass legislation against the will of our own government? Yes they can! but only in certain areas (QMV areas). Areas which they can't, include justice & policing and foreign policy and taxation. Areas where they can include agriculture, competition rules, consumer protection and the environment. Lisbon will add to the range of areas where QMV applies including energy and sport.
Can you point to where in either the treaty or the constitutional amendment this new power you speak of is conferred to the EU?
I totally agree with what you said there but isnt the answer obvious?
The treaty widens the #areas as you say and as I have said in a prior post.
And the new amendment, effectively replaces Article 29 to allow our constitution to defer to Lisbon...
Doesn't this go a long way to justify my position. Please also read my post with a solid example of how deferring to Lisbon has a direct effect on the status of some in our community.0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »Okay well at least you are more open to suggestion that the other posters.
I am disappointed no-one can think of any examples themselves. Maybe it is like I said in my very first post.... something needs to be relevant to be meaningful...
So lets start simple with the most obvious one I can think of:
Suppose you are a parent and Home Educator. There is a delicate legal balance between your constitutional rights as a parent to choose this road vs the constitutional right of your children to receive an education. Because of various supreme court rulings in Ireland to date, the choice of the parent here takes precedence over the rights of the child so long as the child is judged to be receiving 'a certain minimum education'... Enter the National Education Welfare Board to enforce this at a more practical level rather than having to go to the supreme court in every case!!
But in Germany the situation is completely reversed with the rights of the child taking absolute precedence over the parental rights. All children must attend school. If not, the parents are fined or sent to jail and the child is taken into boarding school until they are 18.
In France the system is a little of a hybrid of both.
Lisbon proposes that the EU charter for human rights be legally binding on all member states and as you seem to accept, the amendments to our constitution mean that that charter would effectively replace our own human rights written in our own constitution.
This means that the position of home educators in Ireland could be upset by, for example, a new challenge in an EU court by the Irish Govt. (or perhaps a lobby group in Germany) to those aforementioned supreme court rulings.... a challenge to enforce a different european wide standard based on the EU charter of human rights.
This challenge is not possible pre Lisbon.
What say you?
Article 14
Right to education
1. Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training.
2. This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education.
3. The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and
the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their
religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national
laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right.
Someone could take a challenge, but it would be likely rejected, based on the actual text of the right.
So tell us then wailim, what other of the fundamental human rights do you disagree with?
Perhaps Britain should be allowed to torture people? Maybe Spain would like to enslave people?
What opt outs do you want?0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »Lisbon proposes that the EU charter for human rights be legally binding on all member states and as you seem to accept, the amendments to our constitution mean that that charter would effectively replace our own human rights written in our own constitution.
This means that the position of home educators in Ireland could be upset by, for example, a new challenge in an EU court by the Irish Govt. (or perhaps a lobby group in Germany) to those aforementioned supreme court rulings.... a challenge to enforce a different european wide standard based on the EU charter of human rights.
This challenge is not possible pre Lisbon.
What say you?
Firstly the CFR only applies to legislation coming out of the EU, not domestic legislation. Secondly we have been signatories of the ECHR (European Charter of Human Rights) for decades now and it applies to all domestic legislation. There is nothing in the ECHR which would affect the right of parents to home school their child.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »Are you serious? Did you really just use the word 'conscription' in an argument against Lisbon?
http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/LisbonTreaty_QMV_new_English.pdf
Geez, please. I gave a bad example. But it was just an example. Make one up if you don't like my example... pick an area where we don't have a little asterisk and
then please answer the question0 -
Advertisement
-
wailim_2002 wrote: »Geez, please. I gave a bad example. But it was just an example. Make one up if you don't like my example... pick an area where we don't have a little asterisk and
then please answer the question
The example you chose is one of the most controversial of the entire Lisbon debate, the 'no' side claim they never said it and the 'yes' side claim the incorrect belief that conscription was possible was one of the more fundamental reasons for a rejection of Lisbon.
From your earlier posts I can't believe you are unaware of this.
Which question?0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »Article 14
Right to education
1. Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training.
2. This right includes the possibility to receive free compulsory education.
3. The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and
the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their
religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national
laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right.
Someone could take a challenge, but it would be likely rejected, based on the actual text of the right.
So tell us then wailim, what other of the fundamental human rights do you disagree with?
Perhaps Britain should be allowed to torture people? Maybe Spain would like to enslave people?
What opt outs do you want?
Hold on here a second... thats not an answer. Where do any of those 3 points mention 'Home Education'?
There is no law in Ireland or the EU or Germany that gives explicit rights of the parent to chose not to send their child to a) a state school or b) any other school.
There is a non-specific constitution, subject to interpretation, and a wooly piece of legislation which for years shcool principles and the gardai interpreted incorrectly, forcing some unfortunate families to spend years in the court system.
The freedom currently enjoyed to chose this route is based on an interpretation or legal precedent based on our constitution as ruled upon by the supreme court. It is very unlikely to ever be challenged again unless for example the constitution upon which it is based is superceeded by the EU charter of human rights. This would be the case were there to be a yes vote on Lisbon.
People asked for an example of where the Lisbon changes anything and I have offered one up.
It is real and it deserves consideration beyond pasting 3 bullet points which took a decade to be interpreted correctly by the supreme court. That decade can be erased with a YES vote.0 -
wailim_2002 wrote: »Hold on here a second... thats not an answer. Where do any of those 3 points mention 'Home Education'?
There is no law in Ireland or the EU or Germany that gives explicit rights of the parent to chose not to send their child to a) a state school or b) any other school.
There is a non-specific constitution, subject to interpretation, and a wooly piece of legislation which for years shcool principles and the gardai interpreted incorrectly, forcing some unfortunate families to spend years in the court system.
The freedom currently enjoyed to chose this route is based on an interpretation or legal precedent based on our constitution as ruled upon by the supreme court. It is very unlikely to ever be challenged again unless for example the constitution upon which it is based is superceeded by the EU charter of human rights. This would be the case were there to be a yes vote on Lisbon.
People asked for an example of where the Lisbon changes anything and I have offered one up.
It is real and it deserves consideration beyond pasting 3 bullet points which took a decade to be interpreted correctly by the supreme court. That decade can be erased with a YES vote.
You completely ignored the point I made. The CFR (Charter of Fundamental Rights) which will become legally binding under the Treaty of Lisbon, only applies to EU legislation i.e. legislation passed by the Council and the Parliament of the EU. Domestic legislation i.e legislation coming from the Oireachtas is not subject to the CFR, it is however subject to the ECHR and has been since the 50's.0 -
Firstly the CFR only applies to legislation coming out of the EU, not domestic legislation. Secondly we have been signatories of the ECHR (European Charter of Human Rights) for decades now and it applies to all domestic legislation. There is nothing in the ECHR which would affect the right of parents to home school their child.
With all due respect if you are a signatory, someone might highlight non compliance to you and you may or may not act upon the information.
This is completely different from becoming a legally binding document, which opens the doors to numerous problems like the one i have mentioned.
And you say there is nothing in it affecting the rights I mentioned. There is in fact. Like our own constitution it is open to interpretation.
Even by simply restating word for word (in article 14) what is in our own constitution, it leaves the Irish supreme court ruling (interpretation) in doubt and open to further scrutiny. The same interpretation would have to result in a european court.
More worryingly still is that Germany is a signatory of the same document and Home Education is not an option there. Parents have been fined and sent to jail and children separated from their families purely on the basis that they refused to send the children to a state school.0 -
Looks like the FUD has started already.0
-
wailim_2002 wrote: »With all due respect if you are a signatory, someone might highlight non compliance to you and you may or may not act upon the information.
This is completely different from becoming a legally binding document, which opens the doors to numerous problems like the one i have mentioned.
And you say there is nothing in it affecting the rights I mentioned. There is in fact. Like our own constitution it is open to interpretation.
Even by simply restating word for word (in article 14) what is in our own constitution, it leaves the Irish supreme court ruling (interpretation) in doubt and open to further scrutiny. The same interpretation would have to result in a european court.
More worryingly still is that Germany is a signatory of the same document and Home Education is not an option there. Parents have been fined and sent to jail and children separated from their families purely on the basis that they refused to send the children to a state school.
What i'm saying is the CFR does not impact upon domestic legislation, end of! Post Lisbon if the EU were to pass directives on home schooling (unlikely as it would not fit with the principle of subsidiary) they would be subject to the CFR. Currently they are not subject to anything other than the treaties.0 -
Along with everything that sink is saying, which is absolutely correct, there is also an Article in CoFR itself which protects the potential influence of the Charter on our own Constitution:CoFR Article 53 wrote:Level of protection
Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law and by international agreements to which the Union, the Community or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States' constitutions.
This is contained in Title VII of the Charter, which is referenced in Article 6 of ToL:Article 6 Lisbon (TEU) wrote:1. 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.
The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.
The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.
Admittedly, the Charter is one area of Lisbon which I'm wary about myself, but if you read the Treaty and the CoFR, its limitations are clear.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Looks like the FUD has started already.
There has been plenty of FUD from the yes side too, e.g. the EU will grind to a halt without the Lisbon reforms (funnily enough, it hasn't) and our friends in the EU won't like us any more (which, whether one accepts the premise or not, has nothing to do with the treaty).0 -
There has been plenty of FUD from the yes side too, e.g. the EU will grind to a halt without the Lisbon reforms (funnily enough, it hasn't) and our friends in the EU won't like us any more (which, whether one accepts the premise or not, has nothing to do with the treaty).
Whataboutery always makes everything ok :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Okay.
So I hear what a few of ye seem to be agreeing on in that the charter may have limited affect.
You all seem to be saying that the charter does not extend the powers of the EU.
I don't object to that view. In all my posts I think I have been careful to say the powers of the EU are bounded by the treaties.
But my point on the charter was more subtle. The charter has legal implications beyond this if it is made legally binding. Maybe the power does not go to the MEPs but more to the courts.
Did any one of you ever actually consider the implication of such a charter to supreme court rulings?
Why does the charter specifically need to become legally binding? Should it be a separate referendum?
All rights contained in it become the basis for legal challenges regardless of whether they are speaking to areas inside or outside of the powers of legislation of the EU. If a rulling is made for an area where the EU can legislate then it will probably ammend legislation on the basis of that rulling. However if a rulling is made for an area where the EU cannot legislate then no legislation will change. However the rulling would be binding and enforceable on the member state in question.
This can work in your favour. It can also work against you. It totally depends on your circumstance. But it is a huge implication and it is real.
In the home education issue for example two things could happen:
An Irish citizen or a German Citizen who is aware of the more advanced position in Ireland might move to bring the German government to the highest EU court to determine if the german government is wrong in asserting that the childs rights are better managed by the state than the parent and that all children should be sent to school.
Alternatively, a German citizen more comfortable with their view of this issue could bring the irish government to the same highest court to determine if the Irish government has it wrong in the other direction.
What I am saying is that this conundrum arises for every line in the charter.
Do you agree or not?
I concede this maybe worthy of another thread and is different from the perceived widening of the areas of control of the EU with each new treaty.0
Advertisement