Lisbon & Citizenship

PopeBuckfastXVI

Just want to respond to this post:

tonycascarino wrote: »

NO - Turn us all into real citizens for the first time of this new post-Lisbon European Union, owing obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to our own country and State, and its constitution and laws, in the event of any conflict between the two. One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. Article 9 TEU would give us an "additional" EU citizenship, on top of our national citizenship. This would be a real EU citizenship for the first time, with associated citizens' rights and duties, and would be quite different from the notional or symbolical EU "citizenship" of today. We would still retain our national citizenship post-Lisbon, but it would be subordinate to our EU citizenship in any case of conflict, as is the case with citizens of such Federal States as Germany, the USA, Switzerland, Australia, Canada.

Here is the existing TEU, Pre Lisbon (Post Amsterdam):

‘1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.’

and here is how Lisbon amends it:

In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall
receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a
Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to
national citizenship and shall not replace it.

So you can see Citizenship was 'established' by Amsterdam, not by Lisbon, and the Lisbon wording was changed as some felt that 'complements' implied defects in National citizenship, whereas 'additional to' cannot be interpreted that way.

Nothing sinister here, despite what some might claim.

No mentions of responsibilities, loyalties or obligations.

Iwasfrozen

Sounds like the usual lies from the naughty No side.

conchubhar1

additional to - means it is less than. as in under amsterdam it was complement to

both mean they do not superseded your own nationality.

Rb

Yeah but you're forgetting the fact that Sarkozy will come over and stick micro-chips and barcodes on the lot of us if this goes through.

conchubhar1

pff - as if that hasnt happened already.....

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rb wrote: »

Yeah but you're forgetting the fact that Sarkozy will come over and stick micro-chips and barcodes on the lot of us if this goes through.

Look I know it's ridiculous, and shouldn't have to be argued, but the above interpretation of the change from 'complements' to 'additional to' is actually given by the OP as a reason to vote 'no' coupled with his hyperbole around loyalties and wars and such.

It's not a straw man I've just made up, it's actually something the OP believes as truth, unless he is purposely lying.

And he's selling it as the truth, so while you might think it's ridiculous, if he believes it, there's every chance someone else might believe it if they read his ridiculous interpretation, without reference to the actual change that was made.

So I have a choice, I can either point out where he's glaringly wrong, or I can let it slide and assume everyone will know it's BS, even though I know the OP actually believes it himself.

If I do the first I run the risk of a bit of 'omg everyone knows that's BS, why not bang on about microchips etc. pfff' from you, but if I do the second I run the risk of someone actually believing that sh*te, and voting 'no' because of it.

Welcome to the frustrating world of a 'yes' advocate!

asti_mivec

The problem with this treaty is that it is deliberatly made incredibly confusing to help the governments to push it on the people as a good idea.

I see that they have managed to get the wrong ideas into the OPs head here as the original quote from the Amsterdam treaty is absolutely meaningless in terms of legally binding citizenship.

Lisbon is trying to tie up an awful lot of loose ends that have been left dangling by previous treaties etc.

Folks, we rejected this first time around (Thankfully) and we should not be forced into a second referendum on the EXACT same treaty because our money grabbing corrupt government are looking out for only them and not us!!!

People, if we need to post certain sections of the treaty to be seen as "knowing what we are talking about" then please tell me what you make of the below in terms of our citizenship:

"in accordance with well settled case law of the EU Court of Justice (ECJ), the Treaties and the law adopted by
the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions
laid down by the said case law"

I think that sums up the intentions there. If that doesn't make you want to vote NO then I wonder what you're really looking for in this country!

Scofflaw

asti_mivec wrote: »

The problem with this treaty is that it is deliberatly made incredibly confusing to help the governments to push it on the people as a good idea.

That would be the same people who then vote against it on the basis that it's incredibly confusing? No, they didn't make it "deliberately confusing" - it's exactly the same as Nice or Maastricht or any other EU treaty.

asti_mivec wrote: »

I see that they have managed to get the wrong ideas into the OPs head here as the original quote from the Amsterdam treaty is absolutely meaningless in terms of legally binding citizenship.

Lisbon is trying to tie up an awful lot of loose ends that have been left dangling by previous treaties etc.

Folks, we rejected this first time around (Thankfully) and we should not be forced into a second referendum on the EXACT same treaty because our money grabbing corrupt government are looking out for only them and not us!!!

People, if we need to post certain sections of the treaty to be seen as "knowing what we are talking about" then please tell me what you make of the below in terms of our citizenship:

"in accordance with well settled case law of the EU Court of Justice (ECJ), the Treaties and the law adopted by
the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions
laid down by the said case law"

I think that sums up the intentions there. If that doesn't make you want to vote NO then I wonder what you're really looking for in this country!

Voting No on the basis that Lisbon gives EU law primacy over ours would be rather silly, though, given that we wrote the primacy of EU law into our Constitution 36 years ago. Primacy of EU law is a consistent and necessary feature of the EU - laws made jointly (through the EU) have to have primacy over laws made individually. Otherwise, there's no meaning to EU law at all - it would be like saying that you'll play football, but only according to your own rules.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RiverWilde

Ah now I can't remember the case - Francovich? - back in the 50's it was stated by the ECJ that EC law has primacy over all national laws ... although the court agreed to respect the tenets of national constitutions. The court felt that by joining the EEC at the time that member states had tacitly agreed to sunder some sovereignty for the benefit of the whole.

You can't join a club ... agree to the rules and then whine when the rules are applied. You're either in or you're out. We've been getting bucket loads of cash from the EEC/EU for decades and now that the cash has been turned off - mostly - and the Union has said, 'Ireland ... it's time to live up to your commitments.' It's a bit rich to then turn around and say no ... we don't like the club anymore. Go away we're Irish!

Riv

asti_mivec

Folks, I was not stating that I will be voting NO purely based on that one section of the treaty that I posted...there are a huge amount of other reasons that we should vote no.

I was merely replying to the OP who was stating that the Lisbon treaty is in fact helping our citizenship by EU citizenship being "additional to" our national identity. I simply don't feel that that one section can be taken at face value.

And River Wilde, of course we can "take" the EU money and still vote NO. Why the hell do we have to be nice about it...do you think that we got all that money for free?? NO, Ireland has a massive national debt that is badly managed by our leaders and these are the people who will no doubt be "looked after" if this treaty is ratified in Ireland.

We have joined the club for certain reasons, the rules are now changing for the worse (in my opinion) - ie. a big state run by unaccountable people with Irish people having no choice but agree with whatever changes are passed by the majority votes, whether they are constitutional here or not - and obviously the changes are major because otherwise we wouldn't have to have a referendum to pass the changes. This is why we CAN and should vote no. We are not obliged to say yes because the EU has "helped" US in the past. And that is a terrible argument for the YES vote and one that shouldn't even be allowed as it is absolute tripe!!! We know that the government has let us down and are feeding us propaganda and misinformation about the treaty in order to get it passed.

If this treaty was trustworthy then surely the governments leaflet "explaining" the treaty would have offered the pros and cons of agreeing to the treaty?

cooperguy

asti_mivec wrote: »

Folks, I was not stating that I will be voting NO purely based on that one section of the treaty that I posted...there are a huge amount of other reasons that we should vote no.

I was merely replying to the OP who was stating that the Lisbon treaty is in fact helping our citizenship by EU citizenship being "additional to" our national identity. I simply don't feel that that one section can be taken at face value.

And River Wilde, of course we can "take" the EU money and still vote NO. Why the hell do we have to be nice about it...do you think that we got all that money for free?? NO, Ireland has a massive national debt that is badly managed by our leaders and these are the people who will no doubt be "looked after" if this treaty is ratified in Ireland.

We have joined the club for certain reasons, the rules are now changing for the worse (in my opinion) - ie. a big state run by unaccountable people with Irish people having no choice but agree with whatever changes are passed by the majority votes, whether they are constitutional here or not - and obviously the changes are major because otherwise we wouldn't have to have a referendum to pass the changes. This is why we CAN and should vote no. We are not obliged to say yes because the EU has "helped" US in the past. And that is a terrible argument for the YES vote and one that shouldn't even be allowed as it is absolute tripe!!! We know that the government has let us down and are feeding us propaganda and misinformation about the treaty in order to get it passed.

If this treaty was trustworthy then surely the governments leaflet "explaining" the treaty would have offered the pros and cons of agreeing to the treaty?

Please state the huge amounts of other reasons then because the lines that you have quoted have been shown to be nessasary and not in any way a bad thing!!

Also how exactly are the leaders going to be "looked after" if the treaty is passed?

And finally the EU will be more accountable and democratic after Lisbon with the co-decision rules as well as the QMV voting system not less. Unless of coarse you would like to explain how im wrong?

RiverWilde

asti_mivec wrote: »

And River Wilde, of course we can "take" the EU money and still vote NO. Why the hell do we have to be nice about it...do you think that we got all that money for free?? NO, Ireland has a massive national debt that is badly managed by our leaders and these are the people who will no doubt be "looked after" if this treaty is ratified in Ireland.

We have joined the club for certain reasons, the rules are now changing for the worse (in my opinion) - ie. a big state run by unaccountable people with Irish people having no choice but agree with whatever changes are passed by the majority votes, whether they are constitutional here or not - and obviously the changes are major because otherwise we wouldn't have to have a referendum to pass the changes. This is why we CAN and should vote no. We are not obliged to say yes because the EU has "helped" US in the past. And that is a terrible argument for the YES vote and one that shouldn't even be allowed as it is absolute tripe!!! We know that the government has let us down and are feeding us propaganda and misinformation about the treaty in order to get it passed.

If this treaty was trustworthy then surely the governments leaflet "explaining" the treaty would have offered the pros and cons of agreeing to the treaty?

So in your view it boils down to which bunch of unaccountable people you like? Ones in Dublin or ones in Brussels?

Brussels isn't unaccountable ... Ireland as a member has it's fair share of input into proceedings. We cannot survive outside of the Union. Splendid Isolation won't work this time.

I think it's totally insane that a country with a population of roughly four million people can tell the rest of Europe to get lost and still expect the benefits of membership of the Union.

We are a small, insignificant little island on the edge of Europe. Membership of the Union gives us a greater say in the running of Europe as a whole and whining about EC membership when we are expected to stand up and be accountable for our actions and take responsibility for things won't change that. Neither will complaining about the shower of eejits in power in Leinster House. Who with a bit of luck will get a very rude awakening at the next general election.

Whether we like it or not this country is a state in a Union ... equivalent to Maine in the United States. The Lisbon treaty is designed to tidy up the previous treaties and ensure the better running of the Union as a whole.

We joined the EEC with our eyes open knowing full well what membership meant. We ratified suceeding treaties ... knowing full well what they meant. We benefit hugely from EU membership.

The way things are going ultimately, Turkey with a bit of luck will sort it's house and be able to join. Iceland may join. For the first time ever we'll have a political Union formed by mutual consent and respect. We can either stand up and join that Union as fully committed citizens or we can sulk.

Which would you prefer?

Riv

asti_mivec

I am not totally sure how the leaders will be "looked after" but I am very certain like everything else in the grand Irish Political scheme that the corruption is rife in the EU as it is here.

And it is primarily for these reasons that I feel that we are better off without the need to join up with a common EU defence force amongst other things.

I don't necessarily think that you are wrong, we are all entitled to our opinion - that's democracy eh! - but I genuinely feel that by agreeing to Lisbon, we are going further down a very bad road that this country (along with the rest of the western world) has been going down for years. There is not enough information out there for me not to be worried about this treaty and I really can't vote yes to something that has so many potential hidden agendas.

Why have any people who have tried to alert the rest of the world to the corruption and greed within the leaders of the EU been sacked and "bullied" over the last few years? It is mainly because these people have seen first hand what is going on and they don't want it to continue, and neither do I.

I haven't got time to go looking or the various sources of information right now, and that is not a cop out. I am genuinely open to learning more about this treaty but so far it is only opinions - and snippets of the treaty can be taken totally out of context and totally contradicted in other parts too - and that is not good enough to make me want to vote Yes.

There are numerous good parts, which can be added afterwards, but we should not be accepting the good with the bad just to keep our political leaders happy.

When I see a government that actually attempts to work for the people then I will start to be less doubtful of changes they desperately want to make. Currently I see a desperate government (and this includes opposition) who have been found out as corrupt lying gits and I don't trust what they are telling me as the whole truth.

We need to start changing our constitution in a way that we (the Irish people) see as fitting with the times that we live in - it is OUR constitution - and we should be the ones to do this on our terms and as such I think that voting NO and then working on an overhaul of the entire governmental system in Ireland including updating the constitution and getting rid of religion from all state affairs is the way we should be looking.

It is our right, it is our country and we should not sell ourselves short.

We don't need to compromise at all, let's vote NO and then push to get the good aspects brought in without any catches?

Scofflaw

asti_mivec wrote: »

We don't need to compromise at all, let's vote NO and then push to get the good aspects brought in without any catches?

Words fail me.

impressed,
Scofflaw

carveone

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

and here is how Lisbon amends it:

In all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it.

Sweet. So does that mean if I get into trouble in some corner of Africa I can go to the UK consulate and ask for help?

r14

You can do that already under current EU citizenship rules.

Iwasfrozen

carveone wrote:

Sweet. So does that mean if I get into trouble in some corner of Africa I can go to the UK consulate and ask for help?

Yep, as long as the country in question doesn't have an Irish embassy.

passive

carveone wrote: »

Sweet. So does that mean if I get into trouble in some corner of Africa I can go to the UK consulate and ask for help?

It would probably be safer and better to not get into trouble in some corner of Africa, though...