True or False: If Lisbon is passed...

Dr. Baltar

The Republic of Ireland will no longer have to have a referendum on future treaties and the Dáil will either pass or reject treaties from then on.
Can I get an answer to this please?

Dinner

False. See paragraph 4 of article 48 for more details.

EDIT: That covers the so called 'self amending' part of the Lisbon treaty. All other new treaties will be as normal.

turgon

+1 to Dinner, it is false.

See government White Paper Chapter 12 paragraph 3.

conchubhar1

or see the article stated above of the actual treaty...
better

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

or see the article stated above of the actual treaty...
better

Or is it maybe that the poster who posted the Treaty link is "better" in your view than the poster who posted the White Paper link?

Why do you think White Papers are there? They are made so everyone doesn't have to read the treaty document and they give an overview of its contents. Therefore, for a simplified overview, the White Paper is possibly more desirable as it is written in "easier" language.

conchubhar1

no -

as stated read the treaty it is better in it is legally binding

---

if you have a infeority complex leave me out of it - there was even a hint of what you said in what i said

not even something that could be misconstrued that way - you went out of your way to make that claim

turgon

Define "better" in the context of a presumably non-legally versed bystander seeking simple reassurance?

andrew

AFAIK, any further amendment to Lisbon cannot extend it's powers further. So any change to the things the EU can do beyond what they already do would still require a referendum.

conchubhar1

it is a legal document

it was drafted by the eu

it has full merit as it is the actual text

---
fairly simply why it should be first port of call if you have a specific claim to check
like here

i am not debating the validity or use of the white paper report

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ifairly simply why it should be first port of call if you have a specific claim to check
like here

Within the context of judge seeking a solid textual basis. However, this is someone who is merely interested in the content, not the phrasing. Thus, seeming as the White Paper is more "digestible," it would appear to provide a faster and easier answer. No?

conchubhar1

again i am not debating the use of the white paper

but, when there is one claim to be debunked or checked up - check it up in the actual treaty as it has the article numbers given (before you btb)

turgon

Ok you are completely ignoring the context. I say the white paper is a better method of people getting informed, as they will not get dogged down.

But hey, if you said that Ireland was still using punts Im sure there is no imaginable way I could convince you otherwise.

conchubhar1

it is legaly binding

it is for one article - this is the third time i will say this, i am not debating the use of the white paper

christ....

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

Ok you are completely ignoring the context.

the context is one issue
one article

with a reference posted first to the actual treaty - which is law.


it couldnt be simpler (it being my point and not you)

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

the context is one issue
one article

Do you even know what context means? In this case it means:

Definition of context wrote:

The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

The circumstance is a presumably non-legally versed bystander seeking reassurance on a particular question. The circumstance is not a European Judge seeking to interpret the text.

In this case the most suitable text is that which delivers the answer quickly and easily, and without need to think about difficult phrasing.

conchubhar1

in the context of this thread and the ops question
one question - answered with a reference to the treaty article 48....

what dont you grasp???/\

turgon

Sorry Im going to finish with this thread, Ive a pain from all that head banging.

conchubhar1

oh by the looks of it you got your head banged along the way - no doubt

good evening - it was an absolute torture trying to speak equaly to someone who cant grasp a fairly simple comment that the treaty is legaly binding.
therefore better.

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

good evening - it was an absolute torture trying to speak equaly to someone who cant grasp a fairly simple comment that the treaty is legaly binding

Please show me where I denied that the treaty is legally binding.

conchubhar1

you didnt

then you agree it has a higher authority
and as easy to navigate to article 48 in that as it is to whatever page in the white papers

i like the white papers - im not debating its use. in relation to the op and the post that came before yours

looking this article in the treaty i better than looking it uo in the white report

turgon

"Better" is a purely subjective word.

In this case, I would define it as the method by which the desired information is found with maximum speed and ease. The White paper satisfies this because a) it is smaller (I just flicked through it to find the relevant information, a method of search made redundant in such a large text as the whole Treaty) and b) it is easier to read in terms of grammar.

conchubhar1

it is easier to read - yes
it is not legaly bind

i would go with the slightly harder and 100% stone cold fact option

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it is easier to read - yes
it is not legaly bind

i would go with the slightly harder and 100% stone cold fact option

Fair enough. I wouldnt.

Now, I think its about time the both of us stopped acting like little schoolgirls!

conchubhar1

fair eneough

Hamsey

Sir Baralot wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland will no longer have to have a referendum on future treaties and the Dáil will either pass or reject treaties from then on.
Can I get an answer to this please?

If Lisbon is adopted, the EU itself will in future decide what is a treaty or what is just a revision.

Revisions come in two sizes.

The Ordinary Revision Procedure - which requires the approval of every state and could involve a referendum in Ireland.

The Simplified Revision Procedure - which only requires the approval of the European Council. This approval will have to be by a unanimous decision unless the Council has previously decided otherwise.

The point is that the EU itself will in future decide what kind of revision is involved.

Now there's a toughie. If they want to change the rules, should they decide themselves on what the "revision" will be, or should they let the Irish and perhaps other nations of Europe decide by a democratic referendum?

Hitman Actual

Hamsey wrote: »

If Lisbon is adopted, the EU itself will in future decide what is a treaty or what is just a revision.

Revisions come in two sizes.

The Ordinary Revision Procedure - which requires the approval of every state and could involve a referendum in Ireland.

The Simplified Revision Procedure - which only requires the approval of the European Council. This approval will have to be by a unanimous decision unless the Council has previously decided otherwise.

Where are you getting the underlined part from? [Edit to add: Are you talking about the Passarelle Clause? Unanimity is required to go from unanimity to QMV, if that makes sense.]

The Simplified Revision Procedure is shown below. Some points you seem unclear on:

• This procedure only applies to part 3 of the TFEU, which is a small part of the Treaties.
• It cannot be used to increase the Competences of the EU.
• It still must be "approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". This may require a referendum in Ireland, although it's unclear how Crotty applies when EU Competences are not being increased. But at the very least, it must come back to the Dail for approval.
• Also, remember that the European Council is the heads of state of all member nations. The people you are referring to as "they", i.e. the European Council, is the heads of state of all member nations. Decisions aren't being made by some invisible entity in Brussels.

Simplified Revision Procedure, Article 48 wrote:

Simplified revision procedures
6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

Hamsey wrote: »

The point is that the EU itself will in future decide what kind of revision is involved.

As already pointed out, in this particular procedure, the "EU" is the heads of state. I'm not convinced you understand how the EU works.

Hamsey wrote: »

Now there's a toughie. If they want to change the rules, should they decide themselves on what the "revision" will be, or should they let the Irish and perhaps other nations of Europe decide by a democratic referendum?

No point answering that, as everything you've said before it is wrong. [Edit to add: But one point worth making is that the EU has no input on how member states ratify amendments. It's purely a domestic matter for the states themselves.]

Hamsey

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Where are you getting the underlined part from? [Edit to add: Are you talking about the Passarelle Clause? Unanimity is required to go from unanimity to QMV, if that makes sense.]

precisely once the Council has decided on QMV for an area then there is no more unanimity there.

Sorry but "They" was used loosely throughout for any grouping or gathering of EU officials or leaders as opposed to the general electorate.

Hitman Actual

Hamsey wrote: »

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Where are you getting the underlined part from? [Edit to add: Are you talking about the Passarelle Clause? Unanimity is required to go from unanimity to QMV, if that makes sense.]

precisely once the Council has decided on QMV for an area then there is no more unanimity there.

Sorry but "They" was used loosely throughout for any grouping or gathering of EU officials or leaders as opposed to the general electorate.

But regarding the Passerelle Clause, you make it sound like Ireland has no control over the issue. Unanimity is still required for the issue to be changed to QMV. Also, whatever amendments are decided on must still come back to the member country for ratification. It may not require a referendum, but it still comes back to the Dail at the very least.

There's actually very little difference between the two amendment procedures (ordinary and special). And Special only applies for one small part of the Treaties. [Edit to add: And it cannot increase the Competences (i.e. powers) of the EU]. You seem to think there's a serious issue here; I honestly don't see what it is.

cfcj

Ok help me out here, I'm not great understanding the treaty, I guess lots are in the same boat.

My dilemma is that I'm finding it difficult to...

a: Its so hard to read the actual treaty as you need to have all previous treaties in front of you and constantly have to reference them.

b: get pass the the seed of fear that the 'no camp' have planted, yes even I know its scaremongering but its not a cut and dry treaty, not like they are asking us a simple question right?. I don't get the whole point of it... is it just a legal thing to regulate all the other treaties or is there hidden things in there that can be manipulated later that we don't agree with. I have no idea who to believe.

This is my opinions and thoughts by the way, don't shoot me... I want to make the right choice and I wasn't in Ireland when the first referendum was held so I missed out on the debates.

ohh, but David Cameron of the UK Conservitave Party praised Ireland for voting no last time.... hmmm don't like it when we are on the same page as that lot

I thought it was hilarious that Nicolas Sarkozy has threatened to come to help get the treaty through, scold us like the naughty kids we are no doubt. (RTE News 'If it is of use, I would even be ready to travel to Ireland to support them,' he said.)

Also a point I thought of was if last time it was said that not enough people understood the treaty and so voted no therefore we must hold it again, etc. Surely thats a bit weak cause if most people vote 'yes' this time around, still don't understand it but they think we are going to be, say.. kicked out of Europe if we don't say 'yes' and be hated by all the other EU members, surely that mean we should have it again?!

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's way easier to read the consolidated treaties that are the result of the Lisbon amendments.

The Consolidated treaties are here:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:SOM:en:HTML

If you find something you are particularly worried about, the first thing to do is to check that it's not already in the existing treaties, and if it's not ask for help here; there seems to be loads of people willing to help out.

molloyjh

Just to answer the OP with the actual text from the Treaty....

Article 48 Section 4 states:

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

Which obviously means referenda here where is affects our Constitution.