Law Professor 'Dissects' the supposed Irish Guarantees

AuRevoir

Professor of Law Steve Peers dissects the irish "guarantees" in this piece for statewatch. He makes a number of critical points :

1- It is not known when the next accession treaty is coming.
2- Any conflict between a decision and the treaties, the treaties win.
3- Any conflict between a protocol and the treaties will be resolved by the ECJ.
4- The decision does not conflict with the treaties in any way.
5- The declarations are non-binding and can at most have advisory value.
6- Associating a declaration with our instrument of ratification is worthless.

In short this confirms a con-job from multiple angles.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf

Scofflaw

AuRevoir wrote: »

Professor of Law Steve Peers dissects the irish "guarantees" in this piece for statewatch. He makes a number of critical points :

1- It is not known when the next accession treaty is coming.
2- Any conflict between a decision and the treaties, the treaties win.
3- Any conflict between a protocol and the treaties will be resolved by the ECJ.
4- The decision does not conflict with the treaties in any way.
5- The declarations are non-binding and can at most have advisory value.
6- Associating a declaration with our instrument of ratification is worthless.

In short this confirms a con-job from multiple angles.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf

It confirms the guarantees as reiterations of what's already not in the Treaty for the satisfaction of people who thought they were. They'll be protocols rather than declarations, though. Also, I see that he's ignored what is probably the most important for most people, which is keeping the Commissioner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

I'll also add this post from molloyjh's new home on politics.ie, where someone (perhaps you?) has posted exactly the same OP:

mollyjh wrote:

I like how you have neglected to mention this little piece from the article:

One important difference is that there was no commitment made in 1992 to turn the Decision into a Protocol at any future point, whereas Ireland has secured this commitment in 2009. Also, the summit conclusions of 2009 confirm that the Decision is legally binding, whereas the summit conclusions of 1992 did not.

And this....

As for the 2009 Decision, there is no reason to doubt that this interpretation is equally valid again. In fact, this time around, the EU leaders have explicitly accepted that the Decision is legally binding. Furthermore they have explicitly stated that it does not amend the main Treaty. It must follow that in the event of conflict between the Treaties and the Decision, the main treaties would take precedence.

The crucial question is then whether there is a conflict between the Decision and the Treaties. The quick answer is that there is no conflict. This will be explained in detail in the second analysis of the guarantees.

Therefore it (the decision to retain permanent Commissioners) is legally binding, does not conflict with the Treaties and therefore there is no reason that the ECJ need ever get involved. Thanks for that euroskeptic. A great reason to vote Yes.

The Conclusion reads:

The 2009 Decision is legally binding but is subordinate to the Treaties in the event of conflict. However, there does not appear to be any conflict between the Treaties and the Decision.

If the 2009 Decision is turned, as promised, into a Protocol to the Treaties, it will be as binding as the rest of the Treaties and cannot be struck down by the EU courts in the event of any conflict with the rest of the Treaties (or for any other reason).

The 2009 Declarations are not legally binding, but can probably be used as an aid to interpret the Treaties. This will certainly be the case if they are attached to a future protocol to the Treaties.

The commitment of December 2008 to adopt a decision on the number of Commissioners will be legally binding once adopted. It cannot be adopted before the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified. However, if the Treaty of Lisbon is not ratified, there must already be fewer Commissioners than the number of Member States, starting from November 2009.

The general jist of the article being that the Commissioner decision is legally binding and does not conflict with the Treaties. The other declarations are not legally binding, but the precedent set in 1992 by the Danes indicates strongly that they will be adhered to. Further to that we have been promised to have the declarations as Protocols in the next Treaty which is more than the Danes got and means they will be legally binding.

I certainly took from that article that Professor Peers considers the decision and declarations to be pretty strong "guarantees". He mentions nothing about them that could lead anyone to believe that the EU will act in anything but good faith re the declarations.

proxily,
scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

AuRevoir wrote: »

Professor of Law Steve Peers dissects the irish "guarantees" in this piece for statewatch. He makes a number of critical points :

1- It is not known when the next accession treaty is coming.
2- Any conflict between a decision and the treaties, the treaties win.
3- Any conflict between a protocol and the treaties will be resolved by the ECJ.
4- The decision does not conflict with the treaties in any way.
5- The declarations are non-binding and can at most have advisory value.
6- Associating a declaration with our instrument of ratification is worthless.

In short this confirms a con-job from multiple angles.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf

I'm astonished you provided the link. It doesn't say half of what you claim in your post.

1 - not mentioned in the article.
2 - coupled with his statement that there are no conflicts, so that's not an issue.
3 - He does not say this in the article. Again, he says there are no conflicts, he also says and I quote:
"If the 2009 Decision is turned, as promised, into a Protocol to the Treaties, it will be
as binding as the rest of the Treaties and cannot be struck down by the EU courts in
the event of any conflict with the rest of the Treaties (or for any other reason)."
4 - Yes he says this, and that's a good thing.
5 - He says of the decision, not the declarations:
"The 2009 Decision is legally binding but is subordinate to the Treaties in the event of
conflict. However, there does not appear to be any conflict between the Treaties and
the Decision."
6 - He makes no such statement.

Again though, thanks for providing the source material.

Here's the conclusion, which sums up his opinion nicely:

Conclusions
The 2009 Decision is legally binding but is subordinate to the Treaties in the event of
conflict. However, there does not appear to be any conflict between the Treaties and
the Decision.
If the 2009 Decision is turned, as promised, into a Protocol to the Treaties, it will be
as binding as the rest of the Treaties and cannot be struck down by the EU courts in
the event of any conflict with the rest of the Treaties (or for any other reason).
4
The 2009 Declarations are not legally binding, but can probably be used as an aid to
interpret the Treaties. This will certainly be the case if they are attached to a future
protocol to the Treaties.
The commitment of December 2008 to adopt a decision on the number of
Commissioners will be legally binding once adopted. It cannot be adopted before the
Treaty of Lisbon is ratified. However, if the Treaty of Lisbon is not ratified, there
must already be fewer Commissioners than the number of Member States, starting
from November 2009

AuRevoir

The thing that annoys me is not a single comma of the rejected Treaty has changed – if there were any changes at all to the Treaty, then all the other member states would have to re-ratify it. But even if the guarantees were legally binding, they do nothing to address Irish concerns. All of the problems with the Treaty remain – the fact that it abolishes the national veto in more than 60 areas of policy, it significantly reduces Ireland’s power to block laws it disagrees with, and it creates powerful new institutions like an EU President and an EU Foreign Minister which will dilute Ireland’s influence in Europe. And despite what EU leaders claim, there is absolutely no guarantee that Ireland will keep its EU Commissioner indefinitely. Forcing Irish people to vote again on exactly the same Treaty, while simultaneously telling them they have listened to their concerns is an extension of the shocking dishonesty that saw EU leaders trying to pretend that the Lisbon Treaty was different from the Constitutional Treaty rejected by France and the Netherlands. EU politics at its worst.

Scofflaw

AuRevoir wrote: »

The thing that annoys me is not a single comma of the rejected Treaty has changed – if there were any changes at all to the Treaty, then all the other member states would have to re-ratify it. But even if the guarantees were legally binding, they do nothing to address Irish concerns. All of the problems with the Treaty remain – the fact that it abolishes the national veto in more than 60 areas of policy, it significantly reduces Ireland’s power to block laws it disagrees with, and it creates powerful new institutions like an EU President and an EU Foreign Minister which will dilute Ireland’s influence in Europe. And despite what EU leaders claim, there is absolutely no guarantee that Ireland will keep its EU Commissioner indefinitely. Forcing Irish people to vote again on exactly the same Treaty, while simultaneously telling them they have listened to their concerns is an extension of the shocking dishonesty that saw EU leaders trying to pretend that the Lisbon Treaty was different from the Constitutional Treaty rejected by France and the Netherlands. EU politics at its worst.

Leaving aside the fact that the Protocols will amend exactly the same treaties that Lisbon amends, and it therefore makes absolutely no difference to anyone whether they go into Lisbon or not, there remains the obvious issue that if the Protocols genuinely don't address people's concerns, then they'll make no difference to people's votes.

The amount of assault they're under by No proponents suggests strongly that they know the guarantees are worth something - perhaps because they address the (false) concerns that No proponents like to raise during the campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AuRevoir

Scofflaw wrote: »

The amount of assault they're under by No proponents suggests strongly that they know the guarantees are worth something - perhaps because they address the (false) concerns that No proponents like to raise during the campaigns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

''Nothing in the declarations materially affects the treaty text. If there was a material difference, then the Treaty would have to be re-ratified in all the other member states”. - Patrick Smyth, Brussels Correspondent for the Irish Times about the supposed 'guarantees' .
http://open-europe.co.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=113

Also as pro-Lisbon journalist James Downey wrote in the Irish Independent:

''The antis are right about one thing, if one thing only. Any guarantees we may get on their concerns will be irrelevant, or worthless, or both.''
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/antilisbon-lobby-must-face-up-to-the-unpalatable-truth-1681217.html

Therefore it is safe to say that it is not just NO siders questioning the validity of these supposed 'guarantees'.

oscarBravo

AuRevoir wrote: »

Any guarantees we may get on their concerns will be irrelevant...

Perhaps because the concerns in question were irrelevant in the first place?

AuRevoir

I can clearly see the pattern that this thread is going, just like all previous threads here. If one said the ocean is blue, another would say no, it's green. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

BlitzKrieg

AuRevoir wrote: »

If I said the ocean is blue, another would tell me no, it's green. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

or that you are both being too simple by applying a basic colour definition to an object that is dynamic...

You both could educate yourselves, find out why the ocean appears blue or green. Everything becomes alot more complicated, but at least its true.


This could be an analogy for something...I dont know?

BlitzKrieg

Also as pro-Lisbon journalist James Downey wrote in the Irish Independent:

''The antis are right about one thing, if one thing only. Any guarantees we may get on their concerns will be irrelevant, or worthless, or both.''
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/antilisbon-lobby-must-face-up-to-the-unpalatable-truth-1681217.html

I love out of context quoting, it makes your point so simple and true

bigger chunk of same article wrote:

Sinn Fein, meanwhile, are in an unspoken alliance with the Catholic conservatives. Sinn Fein has a list of demands as long as your arm which they cannot possibly hope to attain. The conservatives have made more focused demands, but equally unrealistic since they cover issues like abortion, of which the Lisbon Treaty makes no mention.

In my opinion, the Government made a bad mistake by seeking "guarantees" on various contentious details and thereby trying to placate the implacable. The antis are right about one thing, if one thing only. Any guarantees we may get on their concerns will be irrelevant, or worthless, or both.

PopeBuckfastXVI

jodaw wrote: »

I for one will voting NO ... since my voice was not heard last time ...

Out of curiosity, and if I'm not being too inquisitive, why did you vote 'No' the first time?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thanks for your reply

storinius

jodaw wrote: »

I for one will voting NO ... since my voice was not heard last time ... and again and again and again

But your voice WAS heard the last time. That's why we now have a commitment that there will be an Irish commissioner, as well as guarantees on various other issues.

The Irish people are being asked a different question. If you still want to say no, that's fine. No-one is trying to force this down your throat, far from it, you, and everyone else in Ireland, is being given the chance to vote in an open, free and fair election to determine the outcome.

BlitzKrieg

I got bored so I sent James Downey links to the numerous times in this forum and in politics.ie that he has been quoted that segment of his article and I'll see what his response to it will be. Will put it up here if I get one.

PopeBuckfastXVI

jodaw wrote: »

The politician and home and aborad truly do believe that the electorate are a bunch of sheep to be herded !!! When the result comes out ... i have a sneaking suspicion this view will be confirmed !!!

Which kind of begs the question, who herded them the last time?

AuRevoir

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I got bored so I sent James Downey links to the numerous times in this forum and in politics.ie that he has been quoted that segment of his article and I'll see what his response to it will be. Will put it up here if I get one.

Why James Downey alone? Why don't you send Patrick Smyth, Brussels Correspondent for the Irish Times some links about his quote and see what he says since that seems to be blatantly ignored.

PopeBuckfastXVI

jodaw wrote: »

I do not debate that there was populist progranda from the NO side last time out ... But do not underestimate the ability of people to form there own judgements ...

By your question i think you are confirming that you do believe people are sheep to be herded ...

But this time around ... omg it will be the propaganda blast to beat all ... I for one am seriously peed off that my licence fee will contribute to this ...

Anyways ... roll on the referendum :pac:

No I'm pointing out the usual trick of claiming the people are sheeple when they disagree with you, but strong willed, clever, opinion forming, independent heroes when they agree with you.

Furious-Dave

jodaw wrote: »

do not underestimate the ability of people to form there own judgements ...

By your question i think you are confirming that you do believe people are sheep to be herded ...

I think that last time alot of people demonstrated that they form their judgments based on propaganda and out of lack of knowledge and ignorance. For example, I know of a girl who voted No as she felt it would help fight global warming. Lets just hope she was in a major minority

The general public never hold all the facts and, as we saw before, are easily influenced by propaganda, from various sources. So to a certain extent, Yes, I do believe the people should be herded.

BlitzKrieg

AuRevoir wrote: »

Why don't you also send Patrick Smyth, Brussels Correspondent for the Irish Times some links about his quote and see what he says since that seems to be blatantly ignored.

I could but the article you linked wasnt one by him and all sources given for the comment lead back open europe again. Also no contact detail is provided.

The best I can do is follow the source given, which leads to open europe's blog (rolleyes) which has only the following segment on patrick smyth

Paddy Smyth, Brussels correspondent for the Irish Times said, “it is not undemocratic to ask the people to vote again. I would agree with Joe; nothing has changed in relation to the declarations. It is a question of clarifications entirely, apart from the guarantee of an Irish commissioner”.

For an unswerving advocate of the Treaty, this is quite candid stuff. He said: “Nothing in the declarations materially affects the treaty text. If there was a material difference, then the Treaty would have to be re-ratified in all the other member states” and said that “the difference to the Danish case is that Denmark got an opt-out, which was a material change in effect”.

http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/round-2-kicks-off.html

Again though you can see that the original quote is still taken out of context. Though even if its not as damaging as your original quote, I would raise concerns that is still all hearsay from within the openeurope camp, its not an official statement by patrick smyth, its not a recording of him saying this, its someone with a specific agenda saying that he said these. You cannot call that accurate. IF I could find his email address, I would email him to get a verification of the quote. But sadly you need to subscribe to the irish times website so I am having difficulty finding contact details for him. IF I do though I will email him for verification.


EDIT: done, email sent, found a link for him. So when I hear back i'll tell you.

edit2: damn it!

Your message:
From: xxx@gmail.com
Subject: irishtimes.com:EU leaders back Barroso for second five-year term

Could not be delivered because of

550 unknown user <foreign@irishtimes.com>

The following recipients were affected:
foreign@irishtimes.com




Additional Information
======================
Original Sender: <xxx@gmail.com>
Sender-MTA: <192.168.100.17>
Reporting-MTA: <MailMarshal2.irish-times.ie>
MessageName: <B4a48eac30001.000000000001.0001.mml>
Last-Attempt-Date: <17:24:36 Mon, 29 June 2009>

FutureTaoiseach

An important point that needs to be borne in mind in this context is that until such time as these 'guarantees' are included in a Protocol, their only legal-standing in EU law comes from their inclusion in the European Council decision. It should be borne in mind that the ECJ has struck down European Council decisions in the past, and that ought to give the Irish electorate pause before believing they are set in stone. Where there is a conflict between the Treaties and Council Directives, the Treaties win. As evidence for what I'm talking about I present three examples where Council Directives were struck down by the ECJ, here and here:

Germany: ECJ overturns Council Suspension of Deficit Proceedings Against Germany and France 14 July 2004
The ECJ has overturned the Council decision of November 2003 to suspend proceedings against Germany and France for their excessive budget deficits in 2003. The Commission is considering what action to take. By November 2003, it had become clear that Germany and France were running budget deficits in excess of the 3% of GDP allowed under the Maastricht treaty - in Germany's case for the second year in succession. The European Commission proposed to the Council of Ministers in advance of the November 25 "ECOFIN" meeting that they pass a formal resolution threatening both countries with penalties unless they reduced their deficits by at least 0,8% of GDP in 2004 and brought them below the 3% level altogether by 2005. However, "ECOFIN" did not find a majority for this proposal, but did pass a somewhat weaker resolution "welcoming the public commitment" by the two countries to "take all necessary steps" to ensure that the deficit would be below 3% of GDP in 2005. The resolution went on with a number of concrete suggestions to each country and concluded with an item suspending the excessive deficit proceedings pending the results of compliance. The European Commission claimed that the Council was not authorised to pass such a resolution and sued before the ECJ for its annulment. The Court has now found in the Commission's favour, at least in so far as the Council decision to suspend the proceedings was concerned. On paper, this re-establishes the legal position obtaining on November 24, 2003, but the practical implications of this for Germany in July of 2004 after the last parliamentary sitting before the summer recess (the Bundestag does not reconvene until September 6) are not entirely clear. The Commission has announced that it "will study very carefully the full decision of the Court before making more detailed comments or proceeding in any other action".

Commission v. Council ECJ 10-01-2006, ECR [2006] I-00001
By its ruling ECJ annuled Council Decision 2003/106/EC concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (see comment to C-178/03 Commission v. Parliament).

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

An important point that needs to be borne in mind in this context is that until such time as these 'guarantees' are included in a Protocol, their only legal-standing in EU law comes from their inclusion in the European Council decision. It should be borne in mind that the ECJ has struck down European Council decisions in the past, and that ought to give the Irish electorate pause before believing they are set in stone. Where there is a conflict between the Treaties and Council Directives, the Treaties win. As evidence for what I'm talking about I present three examples where Council Directives were struck down by the ECJ, here and here:

It would help if you learned something about the EU institutions. The EU Directives you cite were all produced by the Council of Ministers (i.e. The Ministers of Agriculture, Energy etc).

Council Decisions, on the other hand, are produced by the European Council (i.e. The Heads of State).

They are two completely different bodies - it is like confusing the Dail with the (President's) Council of State.

Now try again, this time - how many Decisions made by the European Council have ever been struck down by the ECJ?

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote: »

It would help if you learned something about the EU institutions. The EU Directives you cite were all produced by the Council of Ministers (i.e. The Ministers of Agriculture, Energy etc).

Council Decisions, on the other hand, are produced by the European Council (i.e. The Heads of State).

They are two completely different bodies - it is like confusing the Dail with the (President's) Council of State.

Now try again, this time - how many Decisions made by the European Council have ever been struck down by the ECJ?

It still constitutes a "decision".

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It still constitutes a "decision".

It also constitutes use of language, but that's irrelevant to the point as well!

amused,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Well Scofflaw, the same cannot be said about this case (European Parliament v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities ), where the ECJ struck down a decision of the Council of the European Union in 2004 concerning the data-transfer agreement with the US (Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04).

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby: 1. Annuls Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and Commission Decision 2004/535/EC of 14 May 2004 on the adequate protection of personal data contained in the Passenger Name Record of air passengers transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection;

Another example (full text here) is Case C-91/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union:

In July 2002, the Council adopted, in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and on the basis of the EU Treaty, a Joint Action concerning the combating of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons1. In order to implement that joint action, on 2 December 2004 the Council adopted a Decision2 with a view to a European Union contribution to the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons. The decision was adopted on the basis of the joint action and the EU Treaty.

When the draft of that decision was discussed, the Commission declared that in its view it should not be adopted under the EU Treaty and on the basis of the CFSP and that it fell rather under Community development cooperation policy and, more specifically, the Cotonou Agreement3. In that context, the Commission stated that it was already preparing a similar financing proposal under the Cotonou Agreement. Following adoption of the decision and taking the view that it was not adopted on the correct legal basis, the Commission requested the Court to annul the decision.

As a preliminary point, the Court points out that Community development cooperation policy concerns not only the economic and social development of developing countries and the campaign against poverty, but also the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. If a measure is to fall within development cooperation policy, it must nevertheless contribute to the pursuit of that policy's economic and social development objectives. In that regard, the Court points out that certain measures aiming to prevent fragility in developing countries, including those adopted in order to combat the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, can contribute to the elimination or reduction of obstacles to the economic and social development of those countries.

The Court reiterates its case-law according to which, in accordance with Article 47 of the EU Treaty, a measure which could be adopted under the EC Treaty cannot have the EU Treaty as a legal basis. Even if a measure simultaneously pursues a number of objectives or has several components, without one being incidental to the other, it cannot for that reason be adopted on the basis of the EU Treaty if it also falls within a competence conferred by the EC Treaty.

In that regard, the first recital in the preamble to the contested decision states that the excessive and uncontrolled accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons not only poses a threat to peace and security, but also reduces the prospects for sustainable development, particularly in West Africa. While the decision forms part of a general perspective of preserving peace and strengthening international security, it also has the specific objective of strengthening the capacities of a group of developing countries to combat a phenomenon which constitutes an obstacle to the sustainable development of those countries. The decision therefore pursues a number of objectives, falling within the CFSP and development cooperation policy respectively, without one of those objectives being incidental to the other.

That conclusion is moreover validated by the content of the decision.

Thus, the Court concludes that, by adopting the contested decision on the basis of the CFSP, even though it also falls within development cooperation policy, the Council infringed Article 47 of the EU Treaty.

Therefore, the Council decision is annulled.

BlitzKrieg

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


You are not listening are you?

European Parliament v Council of the European Union

Another reason to vote yes to lisbon.

Council of European Union will have its title changed to Council of Ministers

So hopefully you will after lisbon is passed stop making a fool of yourself by repeating the same mistake over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Once again

Find one that addressess THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

Scofflaw

I'm afraid so - FutureTaoiseach, you're trying to show that the ECJ can strike down decisions of the the European Council, but you have cited as evidence for that the striking down of a decision of the Council of the European Union instead.

That argues a very fundamental ignorance of the European Union institutions. I would suggest that you might benefit from asking some basic questions (to which you'll get good answers on this forum) rather than putting your foot in it with dogmatic posts full of errors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

I regret not putting a facepalm picture in my post now

RandomName2

Just glancing through this thread.

AuRevoir says that the source claims
1- It is not known when the next accession treaty is coming.

Source says
'At this moment it is not known when the next accession treaty will be drawn up'

Pope says:

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm astonished you provided the link.
1 - not mentioned in the article.

thought that was strange

Zuiderzee

Jesus lads - I just get more confused every time I come here.

Scofflaw, I think you are very smart, and answer each issue.
I was verging towards yes, in some ways influenced by some of your points - particularly on neutrality.

But this treaty is also complex, confusing and can be interperated in too many ways.
Having seen how laws can be twisted and bent, the complexity puts me off.

We have been lied to about PfP in 1997.

I dont believe in the assurances, I dont like the overwhelming propaganda and political weight behind it, and I dont like having to go back and do it again.

djpbarry

Zuiderzee wrote: »

But this treaty is also complex, confusing and can be interperated in too many ways.

Can it? Could you give an example?

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Having seen how laws can be twisted and bent, the complexity puts me off.

What laws are you referring to?

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We have been lied to about PfP in 1997.

Who lied to us? And what has that got to do with Lisbon?

Zuiderzee wrote: »

I dont believe in the assurances...

Doesn't matter - they're completely pointless anyway.