Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Sam Vimes

John Lacken is wrong, simple as that. Our constitution guarantees the right of the unborn and it will still guarantee the right of the unborn if Lisbon is passed. This is a case of "a lie told often enough becomes the truth"

P. Breathnach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

... Let me assure you, lest you are worried, that sole authority to hold referenda in Ireland is vested in the Government of the Irish Republic.

Close, but no cigar.

Just to be precise, it's the Oireachtas that has the function.

PopeBuckfastXVI

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Close, but no cigar.

Just to be precise, it's the Oireachtas that has the function.

Woops...

BlitzKrieg

have they been debunked. In regards to abortion this Lisbon Treaty and abortion these from letters pages of Irish times last Saturday. Impression i get is that certain Europeans are lobbying for a change in our laws.

And there is a whole thread just below this one debunking both of those letters


but the key points very quickly

protocol 35 protects the irish constitution. It specifies nothing linked to the treaty can change or remove the article in the irish constitution on abortion. the charter of human rights entry in the treaty of lisbon specifies it does not have the power to change or remove anything from the lisbon treaty or any associated treaties

protocol 35 is in lisbon, urgo aboriton cannot be forced into irish law until the article in the irish constitution is removed be referendum by an irish government initiative.

So please just drop the abortion debate its a load of bunk.

PopeBuckfastXVI

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So please just drop the abortion debate its a load of bunk.

Yes especially as nobody even voted 'no' because of abortion, I bet this is just another 'yes' strawman... :rolleyes:

Spiritoftheseventies

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And there is a whole thread just below this one debunking both of those letters


but the key points very quickly

protocol 35 protects the irish constitution. It specifies nothing linked to the treaty can change or remove the article in the irish constitution on abortion. the charter of human rights entry in the treaty of lisbon specifies it does not have the power to change or remove anything from the lisbon treaty or any associated treaties

protocol 35 is in lisbon, urgo aboriton cannot be forced into irish law until the article in the irish constitution is removed be referendum by an irish government initiative.

So please just drop the abortion debate its a load of bunk.

So then if lets say Abortion is declared a "human right" under an Eu Charter, our abortion ban then wont then be deemed unlawful and challenged in a higher court?

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

So then if lets say Abortion is declared a "human right" under an Eu Charter, our abortion ban then wont then be deemed unlawful and challenged in a higher court?

No

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

So then if lets say Abortion is declared a "human right" under an Eu Charter, our abortion ban then wont then be deemed unlawful and challenged in a higher court?

That is exactly right. Our constitutional ban on abortion will not be affected by anyone in the world who declares it a human right.

It can only be affected by a referendum in the Republic of Ireland.

bladespin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here's a slogan for you: "If you don't know, kindly stay at home and leave it to the people that do"

Sam, please, that's the most ridiculous statement you've made, you're doing away with democracy and inclusion there.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Now is your chance to understand it

Guys, Ireland is a part of Europe, they understand how our system works and why this had to go to referrendum, therefore it should have been simplified so the average joe (me) could understand what it was for.
I'm not going to spend hours researching the treaty, it's up to them ('yes' campaign) to 'sell' it to me, if they had done that right in the first place this debate might not be happening but they trated us with contempt (both Europe and our 'yes' group) assuming we'd just do as we were told, that's my reason for voting no.

BlitzKrieg

bayviewclose wrote: »

So then if lets say Abortion is declared a "human right" under an Eu Charter, our abortion ban then wont then be deemed unlawful and challenged in a higher court?

See the issue is not the act of abortion itself, its the EU's declaration to respect irish law on the subject.

THe courts use the treaties as their guideline to rule on laws, the treaties themselves are designed so they dont specifiy specific member states or subjects, because as a international treaty they need to be fluid. If they started specifying specific issues then we would be needing to vote on new treaties every year because of the amount of technical information that needs updated.

So yes the treaty itself has to be vague.

THis is where protocols come in, if a member state feels very strongly about something specific they can request a protocol which is essentially a footnote at the end of the treaty specifying that the courts cannot use the treaty as justification to interfere in that national area. Ireland for years now has had a protocol specifying that the article in the irish constitution about abortion cannot be altered or removed by any power in the treaty.


Alot of member states have protocols, denmark and the Uk quite a few.



In the end protocol says treaties cant change irish stance on abortion, charter of human rights is tied to the treaties and has a specific line that says it does not have the power to alter the treaty or grant it new powers.

Since the courts use the treaty as their base of power they cannot use it to force a change in irish law.

Abortion is irrelevent here, you can swap it with any other term. Say we have a constitution article saying funny hats are worn every sunday and we go get a protocol protecting that article, and then the eu have a charter that says no hat should be funny and tie it to a treaty, that charter will have no power because its tied to a treaty which is tied to protocol that says the treaty cannot change the constitutional article.


For it to change we the irish people must change the article itself.

Sam Vimes

bladespin wrote: »

Sam, please, that's the most ridiculous statement you've made, you're doing away with democracy and inclusion there.

On the contrary. What's ridiculous is suggesting that people should be making decisions that affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people armed with nothing but their own personal prejudices, a pack of lies they've been fed, and a hatred of Fianna Fail. Do you honestly think that leads to good decision making?

bladespin wrote: »

Guys, Ireland is a part of Europe, they understand how our system works and why this had to go to referrendum, therefore it should have been simplified so the average joe (me) could understand what it was for.
I'm not going to spend hours researching the treaty, it's up to them ('yes' campaign) to 'sell' it to me, if they had done that right in the first place this debate might not be happening but they trated us with contempt (both Europe and our 'yes' group) assuming we'd just do as we were told, that's my reason for voting no.

Once again, our politicians are useless. Neither of us contests that. In what way does that mean that we should reject a treaty from the European Union?

why should the default be "no" to an organisation that lifted us from being a primitive backwater that was completely dependent on England to one of the richest nations in the world? you can argue that we were lifted up because of all the US companies that came here but a large factor in their decisions was that we were in the EU

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That is exactly right. Our constitutional ban on abortion will not be affected by anyone in the world who declares it a human right.

It can only be affected by a referendum in the Republic of Ireland.

Another extract.
The Irish Times reports that the European Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three women to the Irish Government’s ban on abortion. The case will get a full hearing before the court’s 17 judges.The women claim the law jeopardises their heath and wellbeing and violates their human rights. One of the three women is at risk of an ectopic pregnancy where the foetus develops outside the womb. The courts decision would be binding on the Irish state. The Irish Times indicates that the Government will launch a “robust defence of the State’s restrictions on abortion”. After several referendums in Ireland and rulings by the country’s higher courts, abortion remains illegal but may be performed if there is a substantial risk to the mother’s life.

if this guarentee is cast iron why did European Court even agree to hear case?

marco_polo

bladespin wrote: »

Sam, please, that's the most ridiculous statement you've made, you're doing away with democracy and inclusion there.



Guys, Ireland is a part of Europe, they understand how our system works and why this had to go to referrendum, therefore it should have been simplified so the average joe (me) could understand what it was for.
I'm not going to spend hours researching the treaty, it's up to them ('yes' campaign) to 'sell' it to me, if they had done that right in the first place this debate might not be happening but they trated us with contempt (both Europe and our 'yes' group) assuming we'd just do as we were told, that's my reason for voting no.

Actually in a properly functioning democracy, it is your duty to inform yourself on the issues and vote what you believe to be in the best interest of the country. No selling should be required.

It appears that some people want to be spoonfed by a Government they don't even trust?

BlitzKrieg

guys, Ireland is a part of Europe, they understand how our system works and why this had to go to referrendum, therefore it should have been simplified so the average joe (me) could understand what it was for.

three things

1. Its the responsibility of the irish government not europe, the treaty does not specify itself to individual member states beyond localisation to native language. The treaty needs to be complicated because its a legal document between 27 member states on top of numerous prior treaties and numerous other international institutions. To simplify the treaty itself would to leave it open to legal abuse.

2. THe government did produce a website and sent out flyers outlining what the treaty changed, they did it far too late, but they did it. Was there an issue with the information they put out?

3. Again as I said in 1, it was the governments responsibility, they f*cked up because they thought that just a year before during a general election the EU was not an issue AT ALL, and in fact the parties that were anti-EU all lost seats (Sinn Fein) therefore they might have felt a bit over confident that the treaty would pass as a non issue. I laugh now at how much of a f*ck up that was for them, but at the same time I understand their mistake. How could lisbon not be an issue with anyone until suddenly 3 months before the referendum its the greatest attack on irish life!?!?!?!?!?!

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Another extract.
The Irish Times reports that the European Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three women to the Irish Government’s ban on abortion. The case will get a full hearing before the court’s 17 judges.The women claim the law jeopardises their heath and wellbeing and violates their human rights. One of the three women is at risk of an ectopic pregnancy where the foetus develops outside the womb. The courts decision would be binding on the Irish state. The Irish Times indicates that the Government will launch a “robust defence of the State’s restrictions on abortion”. After several referendums in Ireland and rulings by the country’s higher courts, abortion remains illegal but may be performed if there is a substantial risk to the mother’s life.

if this guarentee is cast iron why did European Court even agree to hear case?

Because the initial case was heard before the referendum so for a start the guarantee is not even in force yet. :rolleyes:


Besides the case and whatever its outcome is has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

Because the initial case was heard before the referendum so for a start the guarantee is not even in force yet. :rolleyes:


Besides the case and whatever its outcome is has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

Re Because the initial case was heard before the referendum so for a start the guarantee is not even in force yet.


Besides the case and whatever its outcome is has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty...

No Im talking about our constitutional Guarentee which says our abortions laws cannot be changed without a referendum. If so why did this case even go to court. And why would any decision made by court if voted in favour of the complainants be binding if it goes against what is in our constitution.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Re Because the initial case was heard before the referendum so for a start the guarantee is not even in force yet.


Besides the case and whatever its outcome is has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty...

No Im talking about our constitutional Guarentee which says our abortions laws cannot be changed without a referendum. If so why did this case even go to court. And why would any decision made by court if voted in favour of the complainants be binding if it goes against what is in our constitution.

I haven't looked into that case but I don't have to because I know that abortion cannot be made legal in Ireland except by a referendum. Anyone that suggests otherwise is wrong and finding out exactly what part of what they are saying is wrong would be a waste of my time

sink

bayviewclose wrote: »

Another extract.
The Irish Times reports that the European Court of Human Rights has agreed to hear a challenge by three women to the Irish Government’s ban on abortion. The case will get a full hearing before the court’s 17 judges.The women claim the law jeopardises their heath and wellbeing and violates their human rights. One of the three women is at risk of an ectopic pregnancy where the foetus develops outside the womb. The courts decision would be binding on the Irish state. The Irish Times indicates that the Government will launch a “robust defence of the State’s restrictions on abortion”. After several referendums in Ireland and rulings by the country’s higher courts, abortion remains illegal but may be performed if there is a substantial risk to the mother’s life.

if this guarentee is cast iron why did European Court even agree to hear case?

Not defending PopeBuckfastXVI, his statement that "our constitutional ban on abortion will not be affected by anyone in the world who declares it a human right." is clearly wrong.

But you're purposely generating FUD by bring in the ECHR and the COE into a debate on Lisbon when they have nothing to do with Lisbon or the EU. From the very article you quoted.

"The court in Strasbourg, which is separate from the EU, adjudicates on human rights issues among the 47 states of the Council of Europe."

Please keep the debate on the Lisbon treaty and it's impact and stop bringing in irrelevant and unrelated issues from completely separate international bodies

bladespin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On the contrary. What's ridiculous is suggesting that people should be making decisions that affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people armed with nothing but their own personal prejudices, a pack of lies they've been fed, and a hatred of Fianna Fail. Do you honestly think that leads to good decision making?

Once again, our politicians are useless. Neither of us contests that. In what way does that mean that we should reject a treaty from the European Union?

why should the default be "no" to an organisation that lifted us from being a primitive backwater that was completely dependent on England to one of the richest nations in the world? you can argue that we were lifted up because of all the US companies that came here but a large factor in their decisions was that we were in the EU

By the people for the people Sam, you've got to convince them all (or the majority anyway).
A 'no' note didn't effect hundreds of millions, a 'no' meant nothing changed.

It wasn't just the politicians, the EU have a fair amount of blame to carry Sarkozy et all should have held their comments and actually contributed some enlightenment.

A lot has changer alright, we're now completely dependent on the US and England. US companies here played a fairly small part, US finance companies offering cheap credit had a lot more to do with our success, let's not forget our corporation tax, that helps a lot too, but the EU hates us for that.

In fact there is an argumnet that the EU has played a part in our economic problems too, loss of control of interest rates helped overheat the economy pushing up inflation, a small but significant side effect of our over commitment to the EU.
You seem to think we owe Europe a 'yes' vote, why?

Sam Vimes

bladespin wrote: »

By the people for the people Sam, you've got to convince them all (or the majority anyway).
A 'no' note didn't effect hundreds of millions, a 'no' meant nothing changed.

It meant that beneficial and necessary changes could not be implemented.

bladespin wrote: »

It wasn't just the politicians, the EU have a fair amount of blame to carry Sarkozy et all should have held their comments and actually contributed some enlightenment.

Yes they should. What that means is you should investigate it yourself, not that you should reject the treaty because Sarkosy's an idiot.

bladespin wrote: »

A lot has changer alright, we're now completely dependent on the US and England. US companies here played a fairly small part, US finance companies offering cheap credit had a lot more to do with our success, let's not forget our corporation tax, that helps a lot too, but the EU hates us for that.

Our corporation tax wouldn't have made nearly as much of a difference if we weren't in the common tax area. Companies setting up in Ireland have access to the whole EU. Our corporate tax rates makes them pick us over other EU countries but if we weren't in the EU the benefit would be much less or gone altogether.

bladespin wrote: »

In fact there is an argumnet that the EU has played a part in our economic problems too, loss of control of interest rates helped overheat the economy pushing up inflation, a small but significant side effect of our over commitment to the EU.

They may have helped but that could have been prevented had our politicians not encouraged it.

bladespin wrote: »

You seem to think we owe Europe a 'yes' vote, why?

No I think we owe them a decent explanation if we're going to reject something so that the treaty can be renegotiated to address our concerns and saying "Brian Cowen and Sarkosy are idiots" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The treaty can't be renegotiated to include a "Brian Cowen's an idiot" clause, although that would be great

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Re Because the initial case was heard before the referendum so for a start the guarantee is not even in force yet.


Besides the case and whatever its outcome is has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty...

No Im talking about our constitutional Guarentee which says our abortions laws cannot be changed without a referendum. If so why did this case even go to court. And why would any decision made by court if voted in favour of the complainants be binding if it goes against what is in our constitution.

Ahem, all of this is happening NOW and has nothing to do with Lisbon FFS.

K-9

marco_polo wrote: »

Ahem, all of this is happening NOW and has nothing to do with Lisbon FFS.

It's impossible to argue or debate with somebody who is convinved the EU will bring in Abortion. The Govt. was wasting its time getting that assurance.

PopeBuckfastXVI

AFAIK the Court does not have the Authority to overturn our Constitutional Ban on Abortion, if they ruled in favour of the three women, and we refused to allow abortion then we face the following:

It is the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to supervise the execution of Court judgments. This body cannot force states to comply, and the ultimate sanction for non-compliance is expulsion from the Council of Europe.

So they can rule, but we don't have to comply, if it means that much to us.

I'm open to correction on that.

Sam Vimes

K-9 wrote: »

It's impossible to argue or debate with somebody who is convinved the EU will bring in Abortion. The Govt. was wasting its time getting that assurance.

I heard the treaty brings in mandatory abortion for everyone under the age of 18 (72nd trimester abortions) and conscripts everyone over 18 into the new super army :eek:

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I heard the treaty brings in mandatory abortion for everyone under the age of 18 (72nd trimester abortions) and conscripts everyone over 18 into the new super army :eek:

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/07/20/lisbon-treaty-force-abortion-ireland-eu-charter-human-rights/
discuss.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/07/20/lisbon-treaty-force-abortion-ireland-eu-charter-human-rights/
discuss.

Nope. It's lies and it will still be lies no matter how many links you can provide saying otherwise

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/07/20/lisbon-treaty-force-abortion-ireland-eu-charter-human-rights/
discuss.

That blog has it's own comment section.

If you're not prepared to even give your own opinion on it's subject, why should I or anyone else?

bladespin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What that means is you should investigate it yourself, not that you should reject the treaty because Sarkosy's an idiot.


No I think we owe them a decent explanation if we're going to reject something so that the treaty can be renegotiated to address our concerns and saying "Brian Cowen and Sarkosy are idiots" just doesn't cut it I'm afraid. The treaty can't be renegotiated to include a "Brian Cowen's an idiot" clause, although that would be great

I like your points there
I'd almost vote for it if they could insert the Cowen comment, any chance of exiling BC somewhere cold too? That'd be a definate winner with me :P

P. Breathnach

bayviewclose wrote: »

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/07/20/lisbon-treaty-force-abortion-ireland-eu-charter-human-rights/
discuss.

It links to this site: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ -- serious raving loony stuff.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That blog has it's own comment section.

If you're not prepared to even give your own opinion on it's subject, why should I or anyone else?

"Under the Treaty the national laws of each member state will be interpreted not through the state’s courts, he said, but by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that is under no legal obligation to consider any other law besides EU law. This means, Greene wrote, that the government’s much-touted guarantees “are not part of any EU treaty (including the Lisbon Treaty), so cannot be considered EU law.”

The main danger is the EU’s Charter of Rights which is attached to the Treaty and becomes legally binding on all EU member states if Lisbon is passed. This Charter, Greene said, “will be the basis of a legal challenge to Ireland’s abortion laws which will surely be brought before the European Court of Justice.”

“This is the core of the problem. Any protocol on the right to life (or on family law) can come into conflict with the Charter – and the European Court of Justice can use the charter to overrule the conflicting protocol and impose abortion on the Irish people.”

For one, what happens if an eu citizen living over here. disagrees with our abortion ban. if they can prove that abortion is a human right they can surely take their case to to the ECJ. and then what happens.

If we are within EU and we have Eu citizens living here there will surely come a time when they will claim their rights are being infringed on.