Bullet Point Lisbon

FutureTaoiseach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The Danes voted twice on the same treaty.

Do you not think the result of the second Nice referendum justified it's being held?

I'll reserve judgement on the second Lisbon referendum until the result is known. Obviously if it's another 'no' it's been waste of time to have it.

There is a major difference. Denmark, in the Edinburgh Agreement, received not merely clarifications but actual optouts, including from the Euro, judicial-cooperation, European citizenship and the CFSP. We have received no optouts from the provisions of Lisbon that we did not already have at the time of Lisbon I.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is a major difference. Denmark, in the Edinburgh Agreement, received not merely clarifications but actual optouts, including from the Euro, judicial-cooperation, European citizenship and the CFSP. We have received no optouts from the provisions of Lisbon that we did not already have at the time of Lisbon I.

Why is that a "major difference", and the agreement on the Commission not? What opt-outs should we have sought?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why is that a "major difference", and the agreement on the Commission not? What opt-outs should we have sought?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Commission issue is not unique to Ireland and therefore does not constitute an optout. Personally, an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have been the minimum I would have required to even consider switching to a yes vote.

Macha

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Commission issue is not unique to Ireland and therefore does not constitute an optout. Personally, an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have been the minimum I would have required to even consider switching to a yes vote.

Why? What is wrong with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?? I still have yet to hear a reason why it is a bad thing.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... Personally, an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have been the minimum I would have required to even consider switching to a yes vote.

I don't believe that.

It is unimaginable that there are any circumstances in which you would consider switching to a yes vote.

Scofflaw

taconnol wrote: »

Why? What is wrong with the Charter of Fundamental Rights?? I still have yet to hear a reason why it is a bad thing.

One word, I suspect: immigration.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Commission issue is not unique to Ireland and therefore does not constitute an optout. Personally, an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights would have been the minimum I would have required to even consider switching to a yes vote.

I didn't suggest that the Commission decision is an opt-out - I asked why it wasn't a "major difference".

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't believe that.

It is unimaginable that there are any circumstances in which you would consider switching to a yes vote.

As someone who voted yes to Amsterdam and Nice (both times), and who actively argued for Nice, even to the extent of going on South East radio to press for a yes vote, I don't have to prove myself to anyone. My pro-European credentials are clear. Indeed, I believe I am pursuing pro-Irish and pro-European goals in opposing Lisbon.

Scofflaw wrote:

I didn't suggest that the Commission decision is an opt-out - I asked why it wasn't a "major difference".

Because Lisbon already mentioned the fact that the member states could decide to retain the Commissioner.

One word, I suspect: immigration.

Not immigration per se. The potential for interference in our asylum-system is a big factor for me though and I would be lying were I to deny it. We are in a recession and that has to be taken into account in my opinion.

Macha

Yeah but you still haven't explained what your problem is with the Charter

FutureTaoiseach

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah but you still haven't explained what your problem is with the Charter

The Irish people and politicians, of themselves, will be powerless to amend it, unlike our Constitution. I don't want to increase the jurisdiction of the ECJ into the area of fundamental rights. It would make it too powerful for my liking. I especially have concerns about Articles 15 and 19(1). Cathryn Costello and others wrote a book on Irish asylum policy some years back in which she conceded the Charter could have implications for Irish asylum law, notably in the area of the right to work.

Now let's leave aside for a moment the question of whether you think asylum seekers should have the right to work. The fact that the UK has a limited optout from the Charter could mean that the rules governing this area in Ireland would be more liberal than those of the UK, where they can't work. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the likely consequences of such a situation.

Article 15 wrote:

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

Everyone? That certainly isn't the case here at present and I don't believe it should be. We should retain the right to protect the Irish labour market in these recessionary times.

Article 19 wrote:

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited

Cue challenges in the ECJ to deportation-orders. None of the ECJ's business in my opinion.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish people and politicians, of themselves, will be powerless to amend it, unlike our Constitution.

That's your idea of a pro-European position?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's your idea of a pro-European position?

Yes. I'm standing up for the French and Dutch peoples who don't want the integration involved in this Treaty. I also feel I'm standing up for 500 million EU citizens denied any kind of vote on it at all. I want the EU to succeed, but that can only happen if it listens to its people. Sometimes the patient has to take medicine it doesn't like in order to save its life. That is the metaphor I would use. We are saving Europe from itself.

Macha

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Irish people and politicians, of themselves, will be powerless to amend it, unlike our Constitution. I don't want to increase the jurisdiction of the ECJ into the area of fundamental rights. It would make it too powerful for my liking.

Yes, damn those pesky fundamental rights like women getting equal pay and the removal of the marriage ban.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

We should retain the right to protect the Irish labour market in these recessionary times.

Do you understand the function of emigration in recessionary times as well? Although, of course, I'm sure you have no problem with emigration.

Edit: DON'T bring up the boring, whinge about European's not having a right to vote. It's already been dealt with and unless you have a problem with representative democracy then it is a total non-issue.

FutureTaoiseach

taconnel wrote:

Yes, damn those pesky fundamental rights like women getting equal pay and the removal of the marriage ban.

I credit campaigners in this country with those advances in human rights.

BlitzKrieg

dumdedum


Treaty of european Union Article six, section 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

Charter of fundemental rights

chapter 7 (title vii) article 51

section 1

1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies 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.

Macha

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I credit campaigners in this country with those advances in human rights.

Sorry, are you delusional? It's pretty obvious you only do that because it suits your argument.

These items came into law as a result of the Equal Pay Directive .

And the head of the ICTU agrees that it is because of our membership of the EU that this happened:

"this not only transformed the workplace for Irish women but also gave a strong underpinning to the demands from women’s organisations and unions for major changes in the role of women in Irish society – changes, which still reverberate with us today"

Next you'll be telling me that all of Ireland's environmental legislation is because of national campaigning as well.

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

dumdedum


Treaty of european Union Article six, section 1




Charter of fundemental rights

chapter 7 (title vii) article 51

section 1

Gerard Hogan SC says that it is impossible to know exactly what that means, and that it could be triggered, for example, by travel. My suspicion is that the ECJ might interpret Article 51 in such a way as to treat the text of the Charter itself as "Union law". Remember that Article 6 TEU will say that the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties". The Treaties already override the Irish Constitution by virtue of Article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution. Were that to happen, then the Constitution would be subordinate to it.

BlitzKrieg

My suspicion is that the ECJ might interpret Article 51 in such a way as to treat the text of the Charter itself as "Union law". Remember that Article 6 TEU will say that the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties". The Treaties already override the Irish Constitution by virtue of Article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution. Were that to happen, then the Constitution would be subordinate to it.

Article 53

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.

translation: This charter will not conflict the following legal entities, EU law, international agreements from member states and/or the EU, the convention of human rights and most importantly each member states own constitution.

seeing as the Treaty says that the way to interpet the charter is via title 7 (which the above is part of) there is very little room for suspicions.

FutureTaoiseach

Gerard Hogan said the Charter of Fundamental Rights could "eclipse" the Irish Supreme Court.

Irish Times wrote:

THE ROLE of national supreme courts and constitutional courts in the EU could, over time, be eclipsed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to a leading constitutional lawyer. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become enforceable under the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Gerard Hogan SC was speaking at a private conference of the Irish European Law Forum in UCD last January last.
At it he reiterated many of the issues he raised on previous occasions, including in The Irish Times, concerning the charter and its predecessor, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights.
He went on to say at the conference that much would depend on the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to key phrases in the new charter that related to the implementation of EU law.
The charter states the rights it enshrines are only enforceable by the courts when EU law is being implemented.
Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said.
He questioned the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall under the competence of EU legislation.
One example is the right to marry and found a family. He pointed out there is no EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation, so it is unclear why such a right should be stated, as it is only enforceable if EU law is being implemented.
The same could be said of many of the other rights in the charter, he said, including the rights of the child, the right to criminal due process and the right to healthcare, he said.
Mr Hogan stated the charter had many positive aspects, including that it created a proper legal basis for a challenge to the validity of EU legislation on human rights grounds, but still contained problematic aspects.
In particular, it was unclear as to when a state would be "implementing Union law" and when it would be implementing purely domestic law, given the transposition of EU directives into domestic law.
The "implementation of EU law" condition could also be triggered by accidental factors like nationality or travel, he said."..

BlitzKrieg

wayhey!

we are back to quoting *experts*

Why EU rights charter poses no threat to sovereignty

Objections to incorporating the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights in Irish law are largely political, despite a legal veneer, writes Eugene Regan

Gerard Hogan's criticism of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights (Irish Times, February 20th) is based more on political than legal grounds but in both respects is entirely misplaced. The concerns of Mr Hogan have in any event been addressed by the Convention on the Future of Europe Working Group on the charter to the satisfaction no doubt of both Ireland and the United Kingdom, who to date have been the only member-states objecting to the incorporation of the charter into the EU treaties.

Whether or not the EU should have a role in legislating on social policy, which Mr Hogan suggests in his article of last week is best left to member-states, is a political choice which was made at the time of the adoption of the Treaty of Rome, providing as it did for the establishment of a single market and a Social Fund, and in the case of Ireland at the time of our entry in the Community in 1973.

To suggest that the EU should have no role in this area is to propose that we should roll back 30 years of EU social legislation which, according to authoritative reports, such as that of the chairman of the Forum on Europe, has transformed the world of work, in particular for women, and laid down a basic framework of rights and minimum standards of social protection in such areas as equal pay, equal opportunity, health and safety at work, protection of workers in the case of insolvency or transfer of undertakings, rights of part-time workers and social protection and health service entitlements of Irish, and other EU workers, employed in other member-states.

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not provide for any greater role for the EU to legislate on social policy, contrary to what is claimed by Gerard Hogan. The charter specifically provides that its provisions do not extend the competence of the Union and this is reinforced in an amended article 51(2) of the charter under consideration in the convention.

Mr Hogan states that the Government probably hoped that there would be "a decent interval" before it and the Irish public would have to confront once again fundamental reforms of the EU. If this is the case then it is extraordinary that we should have agreed in the Nice European Council of December 2000 to hold another Inter-Governmental Conference in 2004.

It cannot be overlooked that the reforms currently under consideration in the Convention on the Future of Europe, in relation to competences of the EU, simplification of the treaties, the legal status of the charter and the role of national parliaments in EU matters, represent a response by EU leaders to public demand for greater transparency and clarity in the conduct of EU affairs.

Mr Hogan states that the substantive rights protected by the charter are laid out in a manner appropriate to a federal state. However, the same rights are laid out in a similar manner in the European Convention of Human Rights to which Ireland adheres, yet no issue of federalism has ever been raised in that context. Although in both cases, it must be acknowledged that the upholding of human or fundamental rights is subject to review by an external court. If this in itself constitutes a form of federalism, Ireland has willingly accepted in both cases this element of federalism for some considerable time.

Mr Hogan maintains that the charter will supersede national constitutions and laws when member-states are implementing Union law, and thereby restrict in some manner the higher level of protection afforded by the Irish Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as Ireland's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights does not restrict the application of the Irish Constitution, neither does the charter, both instruments representing minimum standards for the protection of fundamental rights. This is made explicit in Article 53 of the charter which provides that: "Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised . . . by member-states' constitutions."

Mr Hogan is mistaken when he states that the charter elevates to super-constitutional status matters which ought to be left to legislation, such as the respect for the Geneva Convention on political asylum. Respect for the Geneva Convention by the Union and member-states when adopting measures on asylum is already guaranteed by article 63 of the EC Treaty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights does no more that reiterate that guarantee.

He suggests that the most controversial feature of the charter is its attempt to give socio-economic rights protected legal status. However, the charter merely provides that socio-economic rights, which are generally listed as policy principles rather than rights per se, only become judiciable when there is a piece of legislation adopted by member-states in a Union context giving effect to such principles or rights and a specific national measure implementing such Union legislation. This is similar to the procedure followed in our own Constitution in relation to the Directive Principles of Social Policy.

Thus social principles and rights come into play only when legislative Acts have been adopted giving effect to them. The convention working group on the charter, in order to put this matter beyond dispute, has recommended an amended article 52(5) which provides that social rights and principles "shall be judicially cognisable only in the interpretation of such Acts and in the ruling on their legality". It follows that one cannot invoke these principles or rights in courts of law unless there is legislation implementing them.

The legal issues raised by Gerard Hogan have been addressed comprehensively by the Convention Working Group on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which reported in October 2002. The political arguments now being advanced by Mr Hogan in his article should not cloud that fact.

Eugene Regan is a practising barrister and author of a recent Institute of European Affairs publication on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?docID=489&locID=61

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

As someone who voted yes to Amsterdam and Nice (both times), and who actively argued for Nice, even to the extent of going on South East radio to press for a yes vote, I don't have to prove myself to anyone. My pro-European credentials are clear...

I find that so difficult to believe that I am not even going to try.

BlitzKrieg

and this is why I hate it when a discussion turns to quoting other people, the discussion on the issue stops because there is nothing that can be said about quoting other people.

Which is a shame.

marco_polo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

and this is why I hate it when a discussion turns to quoting other people, the discussion on the issue stops because there is nothing that can be said about quoting other people.

Which is a shame.

This post is correct.

Scofflaw

I've pointed out before that "argument by quotation" is essentially just the same as argument from authority, but somewhat worse in that we're not required to accept each other's authorities.

If people are going to refer to the arguments of experts, which is not on the face of it unreasonable, then we may need to make it so that you have to refer to the argument and present your defence of their argument - which must be more than "they said so".

moderately,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

so the charter...

seems to only apply to EU law and is specified not to conflict with the constitution...So anyway left it can f*ck with Ireland?

Spiritoftheseventies

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

so the charter...

seems to only apply to EU law and is specified not to conflict with the constitution...So anyway left it can f*ck with Ireland?

Re the Charter hasn't it been pretty much established that we are through our constitution protected by any changes the EU may seek to implement here.
Can some one in bullet point lay out terms of the charter and how it would affect us.

PopeBuckfastXVI

See people like FT have no problem, I'm sure, with *us* having the right not to be 'collectively expelled' by our government (or any other government) implementing EU law. It's all about what the 'asylum seekers' will do, and when you are that terrified of the other, you lose rationality when it comes to weighting probabilities. You could tell him the charter won't interfere with National law, when not implementing EU law, but he'll just reply that while there's a chance, no matter how infinitesimal the probability, that it could apply, he'll be voting 'no'.

He claims that an opt-out from the charter would be the minimum required for him to consider voting yes. Well fortunately his thinking is severely in the minority, and most Irish people don't have any problem with the charter, as it barely register's, if at all, in any research so why would the government renegotiate Lisbon to appease such irrational, uncommon fears?

FT's world view is based on irrational fears of bogeymen, waiting to swamp us with their otherness, which leads to irrational conclusions, and irrational weighting of probabilities. You might as well argue with a brick wall, because there's always going to be that 'chance'.

My take on the Charter is as follows:

The EU will not be able to pass a law that carries a death sentence.
Your government will not be able to pass a law when implementing EU law which carries a death sentence.
Your government is still free and easy to put you to death under their own laws.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

See people like FT have no problem, I'm sure, with *us* having the right not to be 'collectively expelled' by our government (or any other government) implementing EU law. It's all about what the 'asylum seekers' will do, and when you are that terrified of the other, you lose rationality when it comes to weighting probabilities. You could tell him the charter won't interfere with National law, when not implementing EU law, but he'll just reply that while there's a chance, no matter how infinitesimal the probability, that it could apply, he'll be voting 'no'.

He claims that an opt-out from the charter would be the minimum required for him to consider voting yes. Well fortunately his thinking is severely in the minority, and most Irish people don't have any problem with the charter, as it barely register's, if at all, in any research so why would the government renegotiate Lisbon to appease such irrational, uncommon fears?

FT's world view is based on irrational fears of bogeymen, waiting to swamp us with their otherness, which leads to irrational conclusions, and irrational weighting of probabilities. You might as well argue with a brick wall, because there's always going to be that 'chance'.

My take on the Charter is as follows:

The EU will not be able to pass a law that carries a death sentence.
Your government will not be able to pass a law when implementing EU law which carries a death sentence.
Your government is still free and easy to put you to death under their own laws.

My take on the Charter is as follows:

RE The EU will not be able to pass a law that carries a death sentence.
Your government will not be able to pass a law when implementing EU law which carries a death sentence.
Your government is still free and easy to put you to death under their own laws.

Is this binding in all EU states?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Is this binding in all EU states?

Is what binding, that they won't be able to contravene the charter when implementing EU law, but can when implementing purely national law?

I believe so, as usual I'm open to correction though...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Imagine in a few years Turkey* joins the EU, and many Turkish factories are polluting at levels above those prohibited by EU law.

Now Ankara can say 'don't worry about it Brussels, we'll crack a few heads and execute a few CEO's, then the rest of the companies will soon fall into line, and our government won't get any fines for having too much pollution'.

If we pass Lisbon, and include the charter, then that won't be an option for them.

*Merely an example, even if it's not realistic, to show how the charter might apply.