Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

turgon

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Just wondering if the guarantees merely repeat what is already said, could they not be treated like amendments and be applied into the treaty via the *self amending* process, rather then the complaints and fears expressed by some that we would have to wait for some *future* treaty?

Interesting observation. However I think the point of the guarantees is to have one single "readable" list be which the Yes side can point to when debating the No-side. The guarantees seem more political than governmental.

netron

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh, if these are over ruled if we vote yes, I think it's time to seriously consider leaving the EU.

Do you have any grounds for suggesting they'll just ignore them?

The guarantees could be over ruled by a judgement by the ECJ , with regards to the supremacy of EU law over national law. That certainly is a possibility at some stage in the future ( a good example might be a future court case over a non-Irish EU national wanting to seek an abortion in Ireland)


However, I am still curious as to how the Council of the European Union has made these guarantees "legally binding" , when it has no such powers - they have to be ratified by the European Parliament .

(unless the European Parliament has already voted on them? )

BlitzKrieg

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ye - its the council of misinsters no\?

at the moment they are officially called the council of the european union, but under lisbon they will be renamed the council of ministers

Interesting observation. However I think the point of the guarantees is to have one single "readable" list be which the Yes side can point to when debating the No-side. The guarantees seem more political than governmental.

But they are simply reassurances, because they change no laws and are enforced by issues already in the treaty, then simply amending the treaty to include 5 paragraphs that simple confirm a specific interpetation falls under the powers of a self amending treaty. It is practically what that element was designed to do, to update the treaty's wording as needed.

netron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

council of european union is the council of ministers correct? They get their power from being the actual ministers for that specific area from each government.

yes that is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union

"The Council of the European Union is the principal decision-making institution of the European Union (EU).[1] It is often informally called the Council of Ministers or just the Council, the name used in the treaties"

The council of European heads of state is the European Council , which has no legal powers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council

conchubhar1

i dont know why it wasnt called the council of misisters all along - there would be no confusing what that is

K-9

netron wrote: »

The guarantees could be over ruled by a judgement by the ECJ , with regards to the supremacy of EU law over national law. That certainly is a possibility at some stage in the future ( a good example might be a future court case over a non-Irish EU national wanting to seek an abortion in Ireland)

Ok, on that specific case Abortion is illegal in Ireland (limited exceptions). The ECJ cannot over rule our Constitution as not alone do we have this new assurance, there is an protocol there in the Nice Treaty. It's similar to somebody taking a case on the legalisation of Cannibas based on laws in Holland.

The EU has no powers over direct taxation and until a Referendum gives them that power, it is not an ECJ Competence.

turgon

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

But they are simply reassurances, because they change no laws and are enforced by issues already in the treaty, then simply amending the treaty to include 5 paragraphs that simple confirm a specific interpetation falls under the powers of a self amending treaty. It is practically what that element was designed to do, to update the treaty's wording as needed.

Ok Im just looking at the White Paper here, and under the "simplified revision procedure" is says that changes "must be approved by all Member States in accordance with their constitutional requirements." The word "approved as opposed to "ratified" which is used to describe the "ordinary revision procedure." But apparently this can only be used for amendments dealing with "internal policies of the Union." Would the guarantees fit this?

Also, thinking politically, if the government promised these changes would be introduced without a further referendum the No-side will then run headings like "what else can they change?"

BlitzKrieg

Also, thinking politically, if the government promised these changes would be introduced without a further referendum the No-side will then run headings like "what else can they change?"

well my understanding is that the referendum we are about to do is for lisbon + amendments

while all the other states are just approving the amendments on their own.

Therefore a yes in the referendum brings in Lisbon and under the power of lisbon the amendments are approved.

Without Lisbon the amendments cannot be approved because lisbon has the only mechanism to approve the amendments.

this can only be used for amendments dealing with "internal policies of the Union." Would the guarantees fit this?

Well the guarantees do not change anything they are just confirming how the internal policies should be interpeted. If there is a problem then that would be with the interpetation they propose (and since all guarantees specify the state of Ireland there shouldnt be an issue with interpetation being wrong.) If the issue is the interpetation is the problem then there is a serious issue because that would mean the interpetation we (the pro-lisbon members of this forum) have been working off for the last year and a half, that the interpetation given by neutral committee's, the government, the EU itself and the entire YES side is wrong.

Which will give the No campaign carte blanche to win the 2nd referendum.

turgon

True. I still think that the primary focus of the Yes-side should be to avoid possibilities for sound bites, as these are what most people seem to pick up on.

conchubhar1

no the primary focus of the yes side should be informing the people and making sure they get a ys vote

P. Breathnach

netron wrote: »

... a good example might be a future court case over a non-Irish EU national wanting to seek an abortion in Ireland ...

No, it wouldn't be a good example. A non-Irish EU national in Ireland would have the same rights as an Irish EU national in Ireland (other than some temporary limits placed on people from the most recent accession states). You need to get your head around this EU thing a bit better: it's not really them-and-us; it's us, all of us.

Hitman Actual

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

council of european union is the council of ministers correct? They get their power from being the actual ministers for that specific area from each government.

I'm not sure, my fookin' brain is melted at this stage. The Presidency Conclusions reference only the European Council as regards the Irish Decision, which is the heads of state.

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no the primary focus of the yes side should be informing the people and making sure they get a ys vote

Obviously. But this includes making sure the NO-side have nor opportunity to misinform them.

conchubhar1

well libertas is gone

where is cóir

thats all the intentional misinforming gone - unless the yes vote to be bigger crap comes up again
or the no for lisbon in no to europe

netron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well my understanding is that the referendum we are about to do is for lisbon + amendments

while all the other states are just approving the amendments on their own.

Therefore a yes in the referendum brings in Lisbon and under the power of lisbon the amendments are approved.

Without Lisbon the amendments cannot be approved because lisbon has the only mechanism to approve the amendments.



Well the guarantees do not change anything they are just confirming how the internal policies should be interpeted. If there is a problem then that would be with the interpetation they propose (and since all guarantees specify the state of Ireland there shouldnt be an issue with interpetation being wrong.) If the issue is the interpetation is the problem then there is a serious issue because that would mean the interpetation we (the pro-lisbon members of this forum) have been working off for the last year and a half, that the interpetation given by neutral committee's, the government, the EU itself and the entire YES side is wrong.

Which will give the No campaign carte blanche to win the 2nd referendum.

but they are having to issue interpretations of what is actually IN the Lisbon Treaty, then surely that prooves that the Treaty itself is unreadable.


And why would anyone want to sign up to a Treaty they dont understand?

(which says a lot about European parliaments who have ratified it - do they all understand it? of course not.)

This obsfuscation by legalese is deeply troubling - its almost as if there is an EU elite political class that doesnt want us mere plebs to understand the EU as they make for an enormous power grab.

The Yanks seem to manage fine with the U.S. Constitution - why cant we?

why not put it up to a European vote - do you want a United States of Europe or not? Period.

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well libertas is gone

where is cóir

thats all the intentional misinforming gone - unless the yes vote to be bigger crap comes up again
or the no for lisbon in no to europe

You missed Sinn Fein.
Workers solidarity movement.
Youth defense.
Kathy Sinnot might even turn up, but thats unlikely.

conchubhar1

intentional ^ - they are not intentional

---

if only the internet had an echo

does evrything need to be said twice in one place?

netron

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I'm not sure, my fookin' brain is melted at this stage. The Presidency Conclusions reference only the European Council as regards the Irish Decision, which is the heads of state.

hang on a minute - but the PDF says "Council of the European Union" at the top of it. The European Council is entirely different - thats the one made up of Prime Ministers and has NO legal powers.

Are they trying to pull a fast one on us?

turgon

netron wrote: »

but they are having to issue interpretations of what is actually IN the Lisbon Treaty, then surely that prooves that the Treaty itself is unreadable.

It is not an interpretation, its just a declaration. To soothe the worries you express below:

netron wrote: »

This obsfuscation by legalese is deeply troubling - its almost as if there is an EU elite political class that doesnt want us mere plebs to understand the EU as they make for an enormous power grab.

Well if you go to any library you can get the consolidate treaty, which is "readable." Yes, its legalese but what else do you expect from an international treaty? Kidie talk? "The big boy of the European big boys makes a new thing that tells people to do something."

netron wrote: »

The Yanks seem to manage fine with the U.S. Constitution - why cant we?

Explain the relevance of that statement.

KINGVictor

netron wrote: »

but they are having to issue interpretations of what is actually IN the Lisbon Treaty, then surely that prooves that the Treaty itself is unreadable.


And why would anyone want to sign up to a Treaty they dont understand?

(which says a lot about European parliaments who have ratified it - do they all understand it? of course not.)

This obsfuscation by legalese is deeply troubling - its almost as if there is an EU elite political class that doesnt want us mere plebs to understand the EU as they make for an enormous power grab.

The Yanks seem to manage fine with the U.S. Constitution - why cant we?

why not put it up to a European vote - do you want a United States of Europe or not? Period.

+1

Sums it all up

K-9

netron wrote: »

The Yanks seem to manage fine with the U.S. Constitution - why cant we?

No they don't. A little side tracking but that isn't true.

netron

turgon wrote: »

You missed Sinn Fein.
Workers solidarity movement.
Youth defense.
Kathy Sinnot might even turn up, but thats unlikely.

and the Workers Party

and judging by Joe Higgins reaction, the Socialist Party too.


The SP aint to be disregarded - they got the 2nd highest 1st prefs in the country with the election of Mick Barry to Cork city council - 26% of the 1st prefs in the recent locals.

Hitman Actual

netron wrote: »

but they are having to issue interpretations of what is actually IN the Lisbon Treaty, then surely that prooves that the Treaty itself is unreadable.

All it proves is that people were easily led by the lies of the No campaign, and the Yes campaign was a joke.

netron wrote: »

And why would anyone want to sign up to a Treaty they dont understand?

(which says a lot about European parliaments who have ratified it - do they all understand it? of course not.)

This obsfuscation by legalese is deeply troubling - its almost as if there is an EU elite political class that doesnt want us mere plebs to understand the EU as they make for an enormous power grab.

It's not that hard at all. Take away all the misinformation and scaremongering by both sides and the issues will be very clear.

netron wrote: »

The Yanks seem to manage fine with the U.S. Constitution - why cant we?

why not put it up to a European vote - do you want a United States of Europe or not? Period.

Some Yes supporters here do seem to want a "USE". Most, however, are quite happy with the supranational organisation as it is, with the required reforms offered in Lisbon.

It's interesting though, that after all your talk about the legality of the Irish Decision, you're back to talking about the same old tired issues. Why don't you inform yourself on the Treaty, and base your decision on that.

netron

K-9 wrote: »

No they don't. A little side tracking but that isn't true.

come to think of it , they did have that matter of a rather bloody civil war . so maybe not. i take your point.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Well if you go to any library you can get the consolidate treaty, which is "readable." Yes, its legalese but what else do you expect from an international treaty? Kidie talk? "The big boy of the European big boys makes a new thing that tells people to do something."

Unfortunately most people aren't that bothered. Even the "Lisbon for dummies" booklet issued by Ref Com was too complicated for many.

Hitman Actual

KINGVictor wrote: »

+1

Sums it all up

All it sums up is that some people are too lazy to inform themselves on the issues, and are happy with the same old excuses.

turgon

netron wrote: »

The SP aint to be disregarded - they got the 2nd highest 1st prefs in the country with the election of Mick Barry to Cork city council - 26% of the 1st prefs in the recent locals.

Sorry?

conchubhar1

how are we even comapring the us to the eu in this regards?

you cant, two different pasts and people

conchubhar1

yes - keep talking down to the no side

do as the yes side did last time and greatly led to it being rejected

K-9

netron wrote: »

and the Workers Party

and judging by Joe Higgins reaction, the Socialist Party too.


The SP aint to be disregarded - they got the 2nd highest 1st prefs in the country with the election of Mick Barry to Cork city council - 26% of the 1st prefs in the recent locals.

Definitely and there is an increasing amount of Euro sceptics that vote FF, FG and Labour in GE's but ignore party lines come EU Elections and Referenda, something the likes of Joe, SF, Libertas, Patricia McKenna et all seize on. It isn't a criticism either.