Lisbon treaty: Cowens letter

KINGVictor

I disagree with folks that imply that the EU project is asymmetric to that of USA.While I acknowledge the fact that there are two distinct and contrasting perceptions as to what the EU should conceptually be...i.e

1.The Franco/German faction that believe that the EU is a project that should be supported by political machinations and will which would evetually lead to a central Europe

and

2.The Anglo saxon group that sees the EU purely in terms of economics...free market,economic bloc etc

That is where I think the problem lies...an average european citizen especially in western europe agrees with the Anglo saxons but I believe the european elite and decision makers see the EU potentially becoming the next super power and possibly overtake the US in terms of influence and wealth,but like an earlier poster mentioned it is more complex and convoluted than they think.

I think Brussels has every right to aspire to rule the world ( given the fact that they have the strategic potentialities eg population,stability,location,education etc)... but they have to realise that its an extremely difficult,gradual and painstaking process.The US as we know today had to survive civil war and lots of constitutional constraints(and still invariably continue to do so) to attain their current status.I believe that the EU elite want to proverbially build rome in a day...so they are becoming ruthless in their efforts.

No matter the explanations for Lisbon2...the fact still remains that Irish voters indicated that they were not in favour of the treaty and any "so called" democratic organisation should have respected that .

I think it is disingenuos of people that claim that Ireland should not determine the future of the rest of europe...thats an absurdity....Ireland is a member country that has supposedly has as much rights as France or Britain.If Ireland objects to any notion in the treaty ,they have a constitutional right to oppose it...I also agree with those who say that if the treaty was open to a referenda in all member states then the treaty would have long extinguished.

Europe is not made up of uneducated,unenlightened or sychophants that would not be able to read between the lines.Lisbon 2 is a confirmation that Brussels is not ready to adequately meet its objectives...Mandelson ,Barroso and the likes may be happy but I doubt if every average right thinking EUROPEAN would be...essentially because they are aware that if that could happen to Ireland then it would inevitably affect them at some point...

K-9

netron wrote: »

indeed.. so true.

and the bit where the Council of Ministers agrees on something, INCLUDING the UK minister, only for it to turn up as Daily Mail banner headlines weeks later and the UK guy going "oh thats something from Brussels, vote for me"

Completely agree on that, we do it too. The ones on Peat bogs and eel fishing spring to mind with us. Our own Govt. has a habit of blaming the EU for things, the school water rates being another good one.

netron

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Your reasons for voting no are mostly my reasons for voting yes!

Isn't diversity wonderful!?

Also you do realise your quoted charter only governs laws that come from the EU, not national ones.

OMG the EU are banning themselves from torturing me?? The cads!

wrong - they are called "fundemental rights" for a valid reason.

of course national laws can overrule them - for a time - but ultimately the ECJ will overrule those national laws.

as for banning themselves from torture - thats fine - but why add "degrading treatment"? you're missing my point.

BlitzKrieg

netron wrote: »

indeed.. so true.

and the bit where the Council of Ministers agrees on something, INCLUDING the UK minister, only for it to turn up as Daily Mail banner headlines weeks later and the UK guy going "oh thats something from Brussels, vote for me"

ok here's the bit I dont understand then. If you can accept that our governments has had a direct hand in the EU process, even in the bad decisions, then who the hell are these Brussels *elite* everyone talks about???

PopeBuckfastXVI

netron wrote: »

wrong - they are called "fundemental rights" for a valid reason.

of course national laws can overrule them - for a time - but ultimately the ECJ will overrule those national laws.

as for banning themselves from torture - thats fine - but why add "degrading treatment"? you're missing my point.

Probably to get around someone using interrogation techniques like waterboarding, animal attacks, sleep deprivation, forced standing, naked pyramid stacking etc. which they claim aren't torture.

netron

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Your reasons for voting no are mostly my reasons for voting yes!

Isn't diversity wonderful!?

Also you do realise your quoted charter only governs laws that come from the EU, not national ones.

OMG the EU are banning themselves from torturing me?? The cads!

all i'm trying to say is - i had a quick look at that Charter and in nearly EVERY point i could find problems with it.

However, more importantly in the preamble , the charter does not say where these rights are derived from.

EU Charter preamble:
"Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the
Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice."


So the Union is "conscious" of its heritage, and because of this "heritage" it gives us these rights. "It" as in the European Union bestowing us with these rights.

Thats a tad different to what the Americans have...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

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

And it goes on:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

If someone can point me to a fundemental right of EU citizens to abolish the EU, i'm all ears.

netron

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Probably to get around someone using interrogation techniques like waterboarding, animal attacks, sleep deprivation, forced standing, naked pyramid stacking etc. which they claim aren't torture.

without a doubt i agree they are referring to those. trouble is "degrading treatment" can be interpreted in many more ways than that.

thats why i think the article should just refer to torture - as defined by an outside independent body , like say the UN or a Geneva Convention

its in the wrong place in a Charter of Fundemental Rights to refer to "degrading treatment"

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well, if I'm not wrong, your concern with avoiding degrading treatment, is along the lines of me saying 'Two priests walk into a bar, and then bugger each other senseless, cause they're gay' might violate someone's right to avoiding degrading treatment.

If your definition holds up, (which I can't see), I can still say that, the thing is, the EU can't.

I suspect we're going to wind up agreeing to disagree, so let's save ourselves some trouble and just get there now!?

BlitzKrieg

netron wrote: »

"Article 7
Respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications."

Disagree - this could put a muzzle on the press investigating public figures and their private lives.

How many EU states have freedom of the press? (genuine curiosity)

"Article 9
Right to marry and right to found a family
The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights."

Disagree - the right to found a family is none of governments business. If i want to have kids , thats my business. Not because of "national laws".

But do you not want to have your *business* protected from others who might disagree with your choice (*cough* gay marriage in some countries)

"Article 10
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

Disagree - doesnt take account of cults, such as Scientology. In my view if a cult is damaging to society, government should have the right to restrict it.

Germany classed Scientology as a Cult and thus its rights were removed, recently I believe they have turned this over, but they are now facing the same issue in France. If classed as a cult they loose all of these freedoms.

netron

"Article 31
Fair and just working conditions
1. Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity."

what does "dignity" mean? A Muslim could say his workplace is "undignified" because he has to worked alongside uncovered women.

(insert other religions here... this is wide open to endless legal cases...)

"2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave."

thats employment law - its not a fundemental human right.

disagree.


"Article 32
Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work
The employment of children is prohibited. The minimum age of admission to employment may not be lower than the minimum school-leaving age,"

which is bollocks - when i was 14 , i WANTED to work during the summer holidays off school. and i did. helped the family - times were hard in the 80s. limit should be set to age 12 maybe.

disagree.

"Article 35 Health Care
Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices."

disagree. health care isnt a "right". thats down to the individual to look after themselves and to lead a heathly lifestyle. i'm in favour of private healthcare and health insurance.

if health care is a "right" , what about access to water? oh wait - we've got all the water privatised in the UK and you have to pay for it.


" Article 50
Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."

The UK abolished its own "double jeopardy" laws quite recently , because of advances in DNA technology - and this had led to the convictions of murderers and rapists who would have gotten off scot free.

Disagree. The DNA tech forensic stuff nowadays is light years ahead of what the cops had in the 70s or earlier.

With article 50 , that would not be allowed.

Article 50 ignores completely the fact that forensic tech is advancing and allows us to incriminate folks that got off in the past.

Disagree.

netron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

How many EU states have freedom of the press? (genuine curiosity)

thats a good question - it varies a heck of a lot. Libel Laws are restrictive in the UK, but in Spain its more of a free for all (i think).

I think the worst place for press freedom is probably France.
Might be wrong though.

netron

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well, if I'm not wrong, your concern with avoiding degrading treatment, is along the lines of me saying 'Two priests walk into a bar, and then bugger each other senseless, cause they're gay' might violate someone's right to avoiding degrading treatment.

If your definition holds up, (which I can't see), I can still say that, the thing is, the EU can't.

I suspect we're going to wind up agreeing to disagree, so let's save ourselves some trouble and just get there now!?

my definition can hold up if it comes under employment law - and as such that can be referred to the ECJ.

but yeah - lets agree to disagree. i'm going to vote No. there's just too many unknowns, and unknown unknowns ( to paraphrase a Rumsfeld..)

netron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

But do you not want to have your *business* protected from others who might disagree with your choice (*cough* gay marriage in some countries)

good point. didnt think of that.

whilst i agree with what you are saying (to prevent homophobic attacks) surely thats something that should be settled at an extremely local level rather than at EU level?


i guess they have good intentions. but that right to privacy could be misused by national governments to restrict the press on investigating celebs and politicians. as the cliche goes - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

netron

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Germany classed Scientology as a Cult and thus its rights were removed, recently I believe they have turned this over, but they are now facing the same issue in France. If classed as a cult they loose all of these freedoms.

Article 10 of the Charter would overturn that decision.

Or at least the Church of Scientology could legally use Article 10 in a court case at the ECJ.

i have no idea how the ECJ would rule on that one.

netron

another point

we have a taoiseach who has written a begging letter to the British government

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0618/breaking70.htm

think about that.

no matter what your politics , thats not a good position to be in , is it?

K-9

netron wrote: »

another point

we have a taoiseach who has written a begging letter to the British government

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0618/breaking70.htm

think about that.

no matter what your politics , thats not a good position to be in , is it?

How is it a begging letter?

Hitman Actual

netron wrote: »

all i'm trying to say is - i had a quick look at that Charter and in nearly EVERY point i could find problems with it.

However, more importantly in the preamble , the charter does not say where these rights are derived from.

EU Charter preamble:
"Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the
Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice."

You seem to believe from your last few posts that everything in the Charter is fair game as regards the ECJ. This is completely wrong. The charter does not extend the scope of application of the Union’s law beyond the powers of the Union, nor does it establish any new powers or tasks for the Union. Member states Constitutions are also protected from the potential influence of the CoFR. Of course, you'll say that the ECJ can over-rule all of this, but that's just an easy, speculative answer with no substance.

Article 6 TEU (ex Article 6 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.

2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union's competences as defined in the Treaties.

3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.

Article 51 CoFR Title VII wrote:

Field of application
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.

Article 52 CoFR Title VII wrote:

Scope and interpretation of rights and principles
2. Rights recognised by this Charter which are based on the Community Treaties or the Treaty on European Union shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

4. In so far as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.

5. The provisions of this Charter which contain principles may be implemented by legislative and executive acts taken by institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, and by acts of Member States when they are implementing Union law, in the exercise of their respective powers. They shall be judicially cognisable only in the interpretation of such acts and in the ruling on their legality.

Article 53 CoFR Title VII 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.

netron

K-9 wrote: »

How is it a begging letter?

"I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the constructive engagement we have had .."

slurp slurp slurp

"The Decision we adopt tomorrow"

slurp slurp slurp


"I want to emphasise sincerely, that this is necessary if I am to call, and win, a second referendum."

i am your poodle. suck suck suck...

PopeBuckfastXVI

netron wrote: »

"I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation for the constructive engagement we have had .."

slurp slurp slurp

"The Decision we adopt tomorrow"

slurp slurp slurp


"I want to emphasise sincerely, that this is necessary if I am to call, and win, a second referendum."

i am your poodle. suck suck suck...

You've got an odd definition of sucking up.

netron

Hitman Actual wrote: »

You seem to believe from your last few posts that everything in the Charter is fair game as regards the ECJ. This is completely wrong. The charter does not extend the scope of application of the Union’s law beyond the powers of the Union, nor does it establish any new powers or tasks for the Union. Member states Constitutions are also protected from the potential influence of the CoFR. Of course, you'll say that the ECJ can over-rule all of this, but that's just an easy, speculative answer with no substance.

agreed - but if the Charter is not important and does not overrule national laws, then what is the point of it?

explain to me - WHAT IS THE POINT OF IT?

netron

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've got an odd definition of sucking up.

its bloody obvious that a bit of sucking up has happened.

why write a letter to a British PM that has woeful figures in the polls and is on the way out?

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

How is it a begging letter?

The Protocol which Ireland is seeking to have adopted at a later point will not be attached to the Lisbon Treaty, which will by then have entered into force, but to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The sole purpose of this protocol will be to give Treaty force to the clarifications contained in the Decision, which are entirely in conformity with the Treaties. I want to emphasise sincerely, that this is necessary if I am to call, and win, a second referendum.
Our common goal is to secure the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. I am asking you to give me the help I need to realise this goal.



Equal partners dont write letters in such manner!

K-9

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've got an odd definition of sucking up.

netron wrote: »

its bloody obvious that a bit of sucking up has happened.

why write a letter to a British PM that has woeful figures in the polls and is on the way out?

I don't think you get the 27 member thingy of the EU.

All our equal at all times, not when it suits us.

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

The Protocol which Ireland is seeking to have adopted at a later point will not be attached to the Lisbon Treaty, which will by then have entered into force, but to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The sole purpose of this protocol will be to give Treaty force to the clarifications contained in the Decision, which are entirely in conformity with the Treaties. I want to emphasise sincerely, that this is necessary if I am to call, and win, a second referendum.
Our common goal is to secure the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. I am asking you to give me the help I need to realise this goal.



Equal partners dont write letters in such manner!

What would be your recommendation?

Here, Brown, sit on it, this is how it is?

Hitman Actual

netron wrote: »

agreed - but if the Charter is not important and does not overrule national laws, then what is the point of it?

explain to me - WHAT IS THE POINT OF IT?

Lay off the CAPS dude, no need to shout. The Charter just works in tandem with the rights guaranteed in the member states Constitutions and the ECtHR. It really is just meant to represent another level of protection.

I actually don't think we need it, and I'm sorry now we didn't opt out of it with all the confusion attached to it. And as I already said in another post- I'm a little wary of how it might be interpreted, but when you read through the Treaty and the CoFR, there are a lot of protections against there being any problems associated with it. So I'm really not overly bothered about it.

Hitman Actual

KINGVictor wrote: »

The Protocol which Ireland is seeking to have adopted at a later point will not be attached to the Lisbon Treaty, which will by then have entered into force, but to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The sole purpose of this protocol will be to give Treaty force to the clarifications contained in the Decision, which are entirely in conformity with the Treaties. I want to emphasise sincerely, that this is necessary if I am to call, and win, a second referendum.
Our common goal is to secure the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. I am asking you to give me the help I need to realise this goal.



Equal partners dont write letters in such manner!

And you obviously haven't been following this over the last 6 months or so, because there was always likely to be some opposition to Ireland's requests, due to potential problems it might cause in other member states. You think that our "equal partners" would just bend over for us? There was still a lot if politicking involved in the Irish requests, even as late as yesterday.

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

What would be your recommendation?

Here, Brown, sit on it, this is how it is?

Thanks for your post...BUT

I would not have had any recommendations whatsoever...because why would I have to write him in the first place???

If the EU was as plain and democratic as suggested ..why would I seek the support of any other member nation.My mandate is to represent the Irish people first and foremost ..I think I would be preoccupied performing my role as the representative of Irish republic than be more interested in self preservation....like he said

"I want to emphasise sincerely, that this is necessary if I am to call, and win, a second referendum".

If I was the Cowen I would have respected and accepted the first referendum so there would have been no way I have found myself in the embarassing situation he is now.

conchubhar1

minus the sit on it part - ye pretty much perfect

it is what it is, we have to get on with it

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

Thanks for your post...BUT

I would not have had any recommendations whatsoever...because why would I have to write him in the first place???

If the EU was as plain and democratic as suggested ..why would I seek the support of any other member nation.My mandate is to represent the Irish people first and foremost ..I think I would be preoccupied performing my role as the representative of Irish republic than be more interested in self preservation....like he said

"I want to emphasise sincerely, that this is necessary if I am to call, and win, a second referendum".

Ah right, unfortunately that isn't the way the EU works. If it did, not much would be done. Representing is all well and good but when you are 1 member out of 27 it's good to seek support from other members? No?

Hitman Actual

KINGVictor wrote: »

If the EU was as plain and democratic as suggested ..why would I seek the support of any other member nation.

Are you for real? You think that a "plain and democratic" EU just accepts whatever requests we put to them, with no negotiating with, or looking for support from, other nations?