why are we voting again

sink

wailim_2002 wrote: »

Do you agree or not?

No I don't. Title VII of the CFR states.

1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers and respecting the limits of the powers of the Union as conferred on it in the Treaties.

2. The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0001:0016:EN:PDF

I think that is pretty clear and unequivocal. The charter does not apply to domestic laws and only applies to EU legislation and does not extend the areas of competence held by the EU.

RandomName2

gizmo555 wrote: »

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).

oh so true. Remember that the argument is in relation to the popularity of the Irish government in Brussels - not the Irish themselves: the idea being that the Irish government can fashion out deals specific to Ireland [a bit bogus a suggestion as it is... where is the Irish governmental clout supposed to come to bear? The comissioners are supposed to disregard national interest and the Parliament is based upon pan-European alignments]. Besides which 'popularity' is not supposed to be a significant issue when dealing with constitutional law! If the word 'popularity' is substitued with 'reliance' or 'dependabilty', the concept is even more unpleasant - are we supposed to be mindless yes-men?

The interesting thing about conscription or abortion is that that aspect of the argument simultaneously misses the point entirely, yet also forms the crux of the matter in quite a fundamental manner - but I wont get into that here.

In an extension of other arguments, this whitewash about these individual motions, such as the charter of human rights, being subject to the member nations' governments approval, is again a typical muddying of waters. Either they are, 'legally binding' [Dick Roche's favourite term:p] or they are not. There is no point, as the absolutist proponents of the EU observe, in mandates being issued from Brussels which member governments can arbritarily ignore. And saying that there are individual areas that are -sort of- up to the exclusive legislative authority of the member nations, and that there are some areas are not brings a whole new set of problems about the boundaries between these fields. I will produce a theoretical example if needed - but it hardly should be.

Hitman Actual

RandomName2 wrote: »

oh so true. Remember that the argument is in relation to the popularity of the Irish government in Brussels - not the Irish themselves: the idea being that the Irish government can fashion out deals specific to Ireland [a bit bogus a suggestion as it is... where is the Irish governmental clout supposed to come to bear?

As usual, the point you're making is lost in your vague posts (why don't you just get to the point!!!), but where do you think funding comes from? Have a read of this book on Ireland's negotiating history with the EU. You also must remember that whether Lisbon is ratified or not, we'll be back at the table negotiating future reforms.

wailim_2002

Or more to the point:

If the charter is directed as mentioned above (at internal EU structures and staff) and some of the areas such as Article 14 as I have been discussing, are not within the remit of the EU bodies [YET] then why are they in the document in the first place?

I won't really be convinced by anonymous people in this forum that a potentially legally binding document with clauses that seem irrelevant given the current remit of the EU can simply be ignored as unimportant. The seem important to me.

So my specific question now is.... if the charter becomes legally binding then whom exactly is legally bound by what is written in Article 14 concerning education?

Can anyone give an answer besides internal EU staff? I find that suggestion difficult to accept.

If that answer is the only answer and if it is in fact accurate then I'd go as far as to say its a ridiculous document. Either it is targeted at the individual nations [IN FULL] and we are debating here its implications to establish which way to vote; Or alternatively it is rubbish and we are wasting our time having a referendum on it and so should vote 'NO' to convey that message.

sink

wailim_2002 wrote: »

So my specific question now is.... if the charter becomes legally binding then whom exactly is legally bound by what is written in Article 14 concerning education?

It's quiet simple and obvious. The EU is legally bound. All EU legislation has to comply with the CFR including article 14. So the EU can't introduce legislation that would diminish access to education. Why is that difficult to understand? It does not mean that member states through their own independent actions can not establish their own rules regarding education.

conchubhar1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvcdsj3ZWkg

conchubhar1

1 - making europe more democratic

2 - charter on human rights

3 - delaing with climate change

4 - modernise the treaties - because of the enlargement

---

1 - what was it before?

2 - these were all observed by all member states - if not why were they admitted to the union

3 - again - all countries were already working on tackling this
what does lisbon add to helping fight this?

4 - reducing the commission and less meps (i dunno if this happened in all eu states?) helps with the increase in states?

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

1 - what was it before?

Logically, one would have to presume that it was less democratic?

3 - again - all countries were already working on tackling this
what does lisbon add to helping fight this?

It makes it an EU core competence, and as such all EU legislation must be compatible with it.

4 - reducing the commission and less meps (i dunno if this happened in all eu states?) helps with the increase in states?

Yes.

conchubhar1

skipped 2

yes for 4 - care to expand?

---

again - i am in no way criticising the treaty, just looking for answers from anyone willing to give them, with proof if possible or refrence to proof at least

wailim_2002

hahahahaha very good!

It is a very BIG question though isn't it.... its almost infuriating!

I mean you have these guys trying to convince me that the charter is simple and obvious and that the Lisbon treaty is simple and obvious and that the relationship between the charter, the treaty, the irish constitution is obvious and that the way laws are drafted and passed is obvious but the most obvious question of all goes unanswered...

Since when does NO not mean 'NOOOO!'. It seems NO will always mean 'maybe in 6 months' in the EU.

I must be an idiot lacking basic comprehension but I am not alone... far from it.

conchubhar1

‘Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They
may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
Ordinary revision procedure

Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission
may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may,
inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the
Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and
the national Parliaments shall be notified.

anyone care to take a stab at explaing that?

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

oh so true. Remember that the argument is in relation to the popularity of the Irish government in Brussels - not the Irish themselves: the idea being that the Irish government can fashion out deals specific to Ireland [a bit bogus a suggestion as it is... where is the Irish governmental clout supposed to come to bear? The comissioners are supposed to disregard national interest and the Parliament is based upon pan-European alignments]. Besides which 'popularity' is not supposed to be a significant issue when dealing with constitutional law! If the word 'popularity' is substitued with 'reliance' or 'dependabilty', the concept is even more unpleasant - are we supposed to be mindless yes-men?

Think they'd be ped off with both, the Govt. who negotiated the Treaty and assurances and the No voters who, after all, voted No. Don't think it's a major issue either way.

conchubhar1 wrote:

1 - making europe more democratic

2 - charter on human rights

3 - delaing with climate change

4 - modernise the treaties - because of the enlargement

---

1 - what was it before?

2 - these were all observed by all member states - if not why were they admitted to the union

3 - again - all countries were already working on tackling this
what does lisbon add to helping fight this?

4 - reducing the commission and less meps (i dunno if this happened in all eu states?) helps with the increase in states?

1 - obviously a good thing.

2 - So there should be no major problems with it.

3 - more power

4 - Yes thus also reducing bureaucracy. (except with our assurance on the Commissioner which will see more bureaucracy!)

wailim_2002 wrote: »

hahahahaha very good!

It is a very BIG question though isn't it.... its almost infuriating!

I mean you have these guys trying to convince me that the charter is simple and obvious and that the Lisbon treaty is simple and obvious and that the relationship between the charter, the treaty, the irish constitution is obvious and that the way laws are drafted and passed is obvious but the most obvious question of all goes unanswered...

Since when does NO not mean 'NOOOO!'. It seems NO will always mean 'maybe in 6 months' in the EU.

I must be an idiot lacking basic comprehension but I am not alone... far from it.

It has been answered, nobody seems to listen. Annoying isn't it?

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

skipped 2

The charter is not currently part of EU law. Lisbon would make it so.

yes for 4 - care to expand?

If you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

‘Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They
may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
Ordinary revision procedure

Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission
may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may,
inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the
Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and
the national Parliaments shall be notified.

anyone care to take a stab at explaing that?

Is that the whole part?

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

‘Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They
may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.
Ordinary revision procedure

Ordinary revision procedure
2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission
may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may,
inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the
Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and
the national Parliaments shall be notified.

anyone care to take a stab at explaing that?

What's to explain? It's in English. What part of it don't you understand?

conchubhar1

i understand the words

what does it mean, what is it significance

when would it be used - one any one have a possible scenario to give as a explanation

otherwise - i would suggest and like if you would not comment if it is of no use or benefit to the discussion. sound

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

what does it mean, what is it significance

when would it be used - one any one have a possible scenario to give as a explanation

It means our government or MEP's (or any other countries) or the commission may submit a proposal to amend the treaties to the European Council (the 27 heads of state). The national parliaments shall be informed of the proposals. That's it.

Proposals are just proposals they still need to be ratified by each member state in accordance with their ratification procedures (including possible referendum in Ireland).

It could be used to change any part of the treaties governing the EU e.g. changing the number of MEP's or the role of the commission.

conchubhar1

right

where in the above article does it state that the governments have to approve these proposals?

we are getting to the root of it now

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i understand the words

what does it mean, what is it significance

when would it be used - one any one have a possible scenario to give as a explanation

otherwise - i would suggest and like if you would not comment if it is of no use or benefit to the discussion. sound

Article 48 (1-6) is about how the Treaties can be amended in the future. As an example, Article 115 TEC (post Lisbon) is the legal basis on which direct taxation is subject to unanimity:

Article 115 TEC wrote:

Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.

Now, say in the future the Commission wanted to move direct taxation to QMV. This would be done through the Ordinary Revision Procedure. The Commission would have to submit a proposal to the Council. The Council would then submit the proposal to the European Council and the national Parliaments.

That's covered in parts 1 and 2 of Article 48. I can explain the rest as well if you want.

Dinner

conchubhar1 wrote: »

right

where in the above article does it state that the governments have to approve these proposals?

we are getting to the root of it now

Paragraph 4 of Article 48? I'm fairly sure this has been done over and over again.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

right

where in the above article does it state that the governments have to approve these proposals?

we are getting to the root of it now

Article 48 states further down.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0013:0045:EN:PDF

edit: Dinner beat me to it!

Simplicius

The last time I voted NO ......... I am glad of the chance to change my mind and vote yes this time, because I simply believe we as a nation are too (Nationally) immature to govern ourselves. Until we get rid of parochial politics and the mechanism that props it up ... proportional representation... I believe the more EU control there is the better.

conchubhar1

right blame her - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LDSLie022M

she states article 48 paragraph two - i didnt read on to the next page as i was just checking up various claims

conchubhar1

arent meps voted in by proportional representation?

is that not the system of carrying on votes....

smithcity

My problem is that not a word of the Lisbon Treaty has been changed, the so called legally binding gaurantees we have been offered will be attached to a treaty of accession with Croatia, and as such, will be open to interpretation by the European Courts.
We have already voted on this issue and our vote was ignored.
Reintroducing the referendum on these terms is totally undemocratic and shamelessly reveals the condescending attitude of the Irish Government that we just weren't smart enough to vote correctly the first time around.
I for one will be returning a No vote, for the second time.

KatieMalone

why? you got it wrong first time wrong. The EU does not take NO for an answer.

smithcity

I can't blame the EU. Our own government are the ones who wouldn't accept our vote.
I believe that the gaurantees that will supposedly become a "protocol" are a total red herring.
The greatest danger of the Lisbon treaty, in my opinion, is the fact that it will make it far more difficult in future for the Irish people to have referendum's on EU directives.

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

The greatest danger of the Lisbon treaty, in my opinion, is the fact that it will make it far more difficult in future for the Irish people to have referendum's on EU directives.

Hi Smithcity, when was the last Irish referendum on an EU Directive, I'm not aware of any ever happening?

smithcity

The Nice Treaty ratification.

PopeBuckfastXVI

That was a Treaty, not a Directive. A Directive is an EU Law, and a Treaty is a multi-lateral international agreement.

In what way will Lisbon make it more difficult to have referenda for EU Treaties?