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

BlitzKrieg · 22-07-2009 5:35pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

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

ok for the 10 000th time

from the article you linked

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.”

highlighted segment. The charter of rights gets its legal basis from being attached to the lisbon treaty. If its not attached to the treaty the charter has no legal basis.

Secondly from lisbon itself:

The Charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or
establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined by the Treaties.

the basis of union law is the treaty, the charter has been specified that it cannot change union law and it cannot change the treaties.

Finally protocol 35

Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in
the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of
Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

So the run it down one last time

charter on its own has no powers

charter + lisbon has legal powers

legal powers provided by lisbon

Protocol 35 > Lisbon on irish constitution

therefore Protocol 35 > charter

If this goes to court and someone uses the charter as an argument for a ruling in favour of abortion, it is as richard greene said himself supported by the legal powers provided by lisbon, but lisbon's legal powers are outright in plain english have no affect on Irish constitution article 40.3.3

Therefor there is no legal basis to argue that lisbon = abortion.

Until you can show me how it gets around protocol 35 then this issue is debunked.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-07-2009 5:37pm

He's almost entirely incorrect.

"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.”

If the ECJ is 'under no obligation to consider any other law besides EU law'. Then why are they interpreting national laws?

The Guarantees are as legally binding as Lisbon under international law.
See here for a description of their legality:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

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.”
The ECR will only apply to laws made by the EU. Even at that nothing in the ECR grants the 'right' to an abortion. Somebody might bring a challenge, but they'd be as successful as me if I brought a challenge to the European Court over my right to free ice cream for life from the Government.

“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.”
Again the ECR only applies to European law, not to Irish law, the EU is expressly forbidden from bringing in any law on abortion in Ireland by this:

SECTION A: RIGHT TO LIFE, FAMILY AND EDUCATION
Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon attributing legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or in the provisions of that Treaty in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice affects in any way the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life in Article 40.3.1, 40.3.2 and 40.3.3, the protection of the family in Article 41 and the protection of the rights in respect of education in Articles 42 and 44.2.4 and 44.2.5 provided by the Constitution of Ireland.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

RandomName2 · 22-07-2009 5:38pm

bayviewclose wrote: »

"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.

To the extent that the Charter is useful it is superfluous.
To the extent it is not superfluous the Charter undermines sovereignty.

You would think that European states after 2,000 years would individually know how to classify citizens and the type of rights that citizens should possess (and you'd be right). I really don't like the idea of anybody telling the Irish State that the Irish State's views on the rights of those living in Ireland are incorrect... and if this wasn't going to be the case, (i.e. if it were merely going to affirm the status quo) why have the Charter in the first place?

Edit: I am not talking about abortion by the way!

BlitzKrieg · 22-07-2009 5:48pm

why have the Charter in the first place?

Originally it was a declaration by EU states and had no power or role beyond being simply a statement of the standards the EU upholds.

Applying it as a legal element to lisbon is curious, at most I assume its a confirmation that the standards the members had already agreed to in the original declaration are perserved as the EU grows and that new members also agree to the standard.

Could be an extra unofficial element to the accension programme. Obviously at the moment Turkey would have issues stepping up to the charter's standards.

oscarBravo · 22-07-2009 5:52pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

I really don't like the idea of anybody telling the Irish State that the Irish State's views on the rights of those living in Ireland are incorrect...

As has been said before, Euroskepticism is a perfectly valid reason for opposition to Lisbon. What's annoying is the constant attempts to dress it up as something it's not.

Spiritoftheseventies · 22-07-2009 6:32pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

As has been said before, Euroskepticism is a perfectly valid reason for opposition to Lisbon. What's annoying is the constant attempts to dress it up as something it's not.

yes some interesting points there. Two and a half month to Lisbon anyway. More research required.

RandomName2 · 22-07-2009 10:10pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

As has been said before, Euroskepticism is a perfectly valid reason for opposition to Lisbon. What's annoying is the constant attempts to dress it up as something it's not.

I'm pro-free trade and I'm not a nationalist (liberate Cork from the tyranny of Dublin, Scots from the oppression of London, Brittany from the dictatorship of Paris, yawn, etc. etc.)

But I suppose I must admit to being a euroskeptic, somewhat reluctantly, and even if it is a derogatory term.

I find it a shame that the polarising influence of recent changes to the nature of the eu has had the effect of making comments upon such change as being representative of overarching loyalties to either the 'skeptic' camp or the would-be 'progressive' camp.

Mind you, just because you mightn't like vivisection does not automatically make you a Creationist, and just because you might not like the introduction of tazers does not make you a Luddite...

djpbarry · 23-07-2009 9:49am

bladespin wrote: »

I'm not going to spend hours researching the treaty, it's up to them ('yes' campaign) to 'sell' it to me...

Ah, democracy Irish-style: I demand that you respect my vote! Now can somebody please tell me what the hell it is I’m voting on?

oscarBravo · 23-07-2009 10:03am

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, democracy Irish-style: I demand that you respect my vote! Now can somebody please tell me what the hell it is I’m voting on?

Shamelessly stolen for sig

tolosenc · 23-07-2009 10:46am

The poll worries me.

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, democracy Irish-style: I demand that you respect my vote! Now can somebody please tell me what the hell it was I voted on?

FYP

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 11:11am

obl wrote: »

The poll worries me.

FYP

That really is more accurate. Asking what you're voting on is responsible citizenship. The problem here is that people had no idea what they were voting on and didn't seem that interested

RandomName2 · 23-07-2009 11:16am

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, democracy Irish-style: I demand that you respect my vote! Now can somebody please tell me what the hell it is I’m voting on?

'Hello, I'm Joe Bloggs Ahern. Vote for me.'
'Why?'
'Party loyalty.'
'Okay, but what's your policies?'
'Mumble mumble.'
'What, what was that? Could you speak up? Please, speak up?'
'The existing manifesto vis-a-vis the current incumbant who may or may not be in office when I may or may not take office would have the effect vis-a-vis his manifesto, in such terms that it is not my manifesto, that it would be overwritten. Furthermore in these terms such proceedures would be taken in light that my manifesto would be seperate, and possibly different - depending on circumstances and criteria - and then could be possibly implemented, dependent upon my being elected, and of course upon circumstances of how the party does as a whole within the scope of -'
'Shut up! I have no idea what you're talking about'
Well, as a voter that's your responsibility.
'Well, what about this: I won't vote for you.'
'You do not know what issues you are voting on. Please try again.'
'Respect my vote.'
'Please try again.'

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 11:19am

RandomName2 wrote: »

'Hello, I'm Joe Bloggs Ahern. Vote for me.'
'Why?'
'Party loyalty.'
'Okay, but what's your policies?'
'Mumble mumble.'
'What, what was that? Could you speak up? Please, speak up?'
'The existing manifesto vis-a-vis the current incumbant who may or may not be in office when I may or may not take office would have the effect vis-a-vis his manifesto, in such terms that it is not my manifesto, that it would be overwritten. Furthermore in these terms such proceedures would be taken in light that my manifesto would be seperate, and possibly different - depending on circumstances and criteria - and then could be possibly implemented, dependent upon my being elected, and of course upon circumstances of how the party does as a whole within the scope of -'
'Shut up! I have no idea what you're talking about'
Well, as a voter that's your responsibility.
'Well, what about this: I won't vote for you.'
'You do not know what issues you are voting on. Please try again.'
'Respect my vote.'
'Please try again.'

Right, so you've shown that Joe Bloggs Ahern is an idiot and that he is not a good source of information. What does that say about the way you should vote on a treaty? Does the fact that Joe Bloggs Ahern is not a good source of information mean there are no sources of information?

RandomName2 · 23-07-2009 11:53am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, so you've shown that Joe Bloggs Ahern is an idiot and that he is not a good source of information. What does that say about the way you should vote on a treaty? Does the fact that Joe Bloggs Ahern is not a good source of information mean there are no sources of information?

Okay, the voter should educate himself (even if it is the politician's responsibility to be a good source of information).

But given that that hasn't happened 'If in doubt, don't' I think is entirely applicable. I think voter apathy was partially casued by the fact that people who were inclined towards a 'no' vote from the start felt that their vote would be disregarded (due to Nice/Nice II), which would provide a disincentive to truely engage with the issues of the vote. And, predicatably, such assumptions about 'no' votes counting for nothing were proven absolutely correct (even with a high turnout). The excuse about the voter being ignorant does not, in reality, bear much weight. How well informed were the 'yes' side? Does it matter? No.

The 'yes' side would say: talk about the treaty itself and not about side issues.

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 12:03pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, the voter should educate himself (even if it is the politician's responsibility to be a good source of information).

Our politicians are useless. This is not news and it's not Europe's fault that they're useless.

RandomName2 wrote: »

But given that that hasn't happened 'If in doubt, don't' I think is entirely applicable. I think voter apathy was partially casued by the fact that people who were inclined towards a 'no' vote from the start felt that their vote would be disregarded (due to Nice/Nice II), which would provide a disincentive to truely engage with the issues of the vote. And, predicatably, such assumptions about 'no' votes counting for nothing were proven absolutely correct (even with a high turnout).

If the no votes counted for nothing, the treaty would currently be implemented. It is not, therefore their votes counted for something. The government did a survey to ask the people of the country why they voted no, then they went to Europe to get those issues addressed, got them addressed and are now asking people to reconsider. I don't see the big deal, that's how business is done in Europe. Five years of work doesn't just get dropped because some people have objections to 5% of it

RandomName2 wrote: »

The excuse about the voter being ignorant does not, in reality, bear much weight. How well informed were the 'yes' side? Does it matter? No.

The 'yes' side would say: talk about the treaty itself and not about side issues.

It matters a lot when people are using ignorance of the treaty as a reason to vote no to it.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 23-07-2009 12:14pm

It's also a problem that there is this myth that the treaty is incomprehensible and not possible to read, when it's actually quite readable (when looking at the consolidated versions).

If you hear that something is unreadable, and designed to be unreadable, then why would you bother reading it, especially if the person telling you it's unreadable is also telling you that there's no consequences if you vote 'no', and that its totally acceptable to vote 'no' without reading it.

If anyone actually does read the treaty, they'll find it, as I have found it, incredibly uninteresting, and really quite boring, which very much helps you put it down and say, f*ck it, I trust <public person>'s judgement on it, I'll vote 'yes'/'no'.

P. Breathnach · 23-07-2009 12:17pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

... The 'yes' side would say: talk about the treaty itself and not about side issues.

Have you no sense of irony? Most of the discussion of side issues by the yes side has been in responding to matters raised by the no side.

marco_polo · 23-07-2009 12:22pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, the voter should educate himself
(even if it is the politician's responsibility to be a good source of information).

Both of those point are true.

But given that that hasn't happened 'If in doubt, don't' I think is entirely applicable.

If by applicable you mean that is what happen then I agree, if you mean that is the correct course of action then I wholeheartedly disagree.

I think voter apathy was partially casued by the fact that people who were inclined towards a 'no'
vote from the start felt that their vote would be disregarded (due to Nice/Nice II),
which would provide a disincentive to truely engage with the issues of the vote.
And, predicatably, such assumptions about 'no' votes counting for nothing were proven absolutely correct
(even with a high turnout).

We didn't ratify the treaty so that is incorrect about the vote being disregarded. Also people voting no because they knew their vote would be disregarded is a new one to me.

The excuse about the voter being ignorant does not,
in reality, bear much weight. How well informed were the 'yes' side? Does it matter? No.

In the previous section you were claiming that people didn't bother to inform themselves due to apathy?
There is ample evidence that this is what happend in a signifigant proportion of cases. Why are there a load of superfluous protocols then?

The 'yes' side would say: talk about the treaty itself and not about side issues.

Like debating the issues in hand and not deploying smokescreens such as like what other countries are doing to ratify and implying that second referendumn are somehow less democratic? If so then great.

20goto10 · 23-07-2009 1:12pm

I voted Yes the 1st time around and I will be voting No the 2nd time around because of the legal guarantees which I strongly disagree with.

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 1:15pm

20goto10 wrote: »

I voted Yes the 1st time around and I will be voting No the 2nd time around because of the legal guarantees which I strongly disagree with.

I am very confused by this. The legal guarantees do nothing but confirm what's in the treaty and, more importantly, what's not. They don't actually change anything other than keep the commissioner because that seemed to be so important to people.

What is your problem with the guarantees as opposed to the treaty exactly?

Dinner · 23-07-2009 1:16pm

20goto10 wrote: »

I voted Yes the 1st time around and I will be voting No the 2nd time around because of the legal guarantees which I strongly disagree with.

Wait what?

The protocols are guarantees on issues that are not in the treaty. So the guarantees existing and Lisbon passing has the same effect as the guarantees not existing and Lisbon passing.

20goto10 · 23-07-2009 1:29pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am very confused by this. The legal guarantees do nothing but confirm what's in the treaty and, more importantly, what's not. They don't actually change anything other than keep the commissioner because that seemed to be so important to people.

What is your problem with the guarantees as opposed to the treaty exactly?

No it does more than that in my opinion. It ensures that Ireland is left out of any EU wide reforms on issues such as military, taxation, workers rights and abortion.

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 1:32pm

20goto10 wrote: »

No it does more than that in my opinion. It ensures that Ireland is left out of any EU wide reforms on issues such as military, taxation, workers rights and abortion.

It doesn't ensure that at all. The guarantees ensure that the Lisbon treaty does not force us to partake in any of the above and nothing more. They do not prevent us from changing our minds at some point in the future. Our position on all of those issues is exactly the same before and after ratification

20goto10 · 23-07-2009 1:37pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It doesn't ensure that at all. The guarantees ensure that the Lisbon treaty does not force us to partake in any of the above and nothing more. They do not prevent us from changing our minds at some point in the future. Our position on all of those issues is exactly the same before and after ratification

In that case, what is their purpose? It's a bit naive to think that we could still go ahead and partake in any of these issues and simply claim the decision has nothing to do with Lisbon therefore the legal guarantees have no meaning.

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 1:41pm

20goto10 wrote: »

In that case, what is their purpose? It's a bit naive to think that we could still go ahead and partake in any of these issues and simply claim the decision has nothing to do with Lisbon therefore the legal guarantees have no meaning.

During the campaign an awful lot of lies were spread about what the treaty apparently did. These guarantees spell out in simple language that none of these scaremongering lies were true so that people who rejected the treaty based on those issues would change their minds

bladespin · 23-07-2009 1:43pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, democracy Irish-style: I demand that you respect my vote! Now can somebody please tell me what the hell it is I’m voting on?

Your comedy amuses but belittles the constitution we live by, mocking me and my vote or my reason for voting 'no' is lots of fun, it's also the fastest way to another rejection of the treaty.
Sitting high and mighty in the politics section of boards, tut-tuting at those that voted 'no' is fine for you, but at the moment the poll says you're the one who needs to get the joke and realise you've got to convince people to say 'yes', scoffing at them for not working that out for themselves obviously isn't working.

If I'm to vote on something then I'm entitled to be informed what it is, if anyone turns to me and says 'just vote yes' then I'm immediately going to be suspicious and default to 'no', could possibly blame the cynicism of todays society for that one

The treaty wasn't even going to be provided to us the first time around, it was up to the press to actually provide the information in the end, the 'no' camp were more than happy to give info on it BTW (correct or incorrect).

Furious-Dave · 23-07-2009 1:46pm

It's like this:

Voter: I'm voted no because I'm concerned that we will be forced to allow abortion.

Government: Hang on we'll check for you...No, we can guarantee that abortion is not an issue in the Lisbon treaty.

There is nothing more to the guarantees than that.

K-9 · 23-07-2009 1:47pm

20goto10 wrote: »

In that case, what is their purpose? It's a bit naive to think that we could still go ahead and partake in any of these issues and simply claim the decision has nothing to do with Lisbon therefore the legal guarantees have no meaning.

The assurances are more clarifications than anything else.

Now, on abortion, basically they are saying it is an internal Irish matter and it is up to the Irish people to decide. Now, you might not agree with that but I think the majority would prefer that we decide for ourselves on it, not the EU.

The Neutrality one is basically the same idea.

Taxation and the Workers Rights one seem to be more clarifications, than anything else.

I can see where you are coming from but if there was real doubts over the EU interfering in these matters, the Treaty wouldn't stand a hope in hell of getting through!

Sam Vimes · 23-07-2009 1:47pm

This part:

bladespin wrote: »

Your comedy amuses but belittles the constitution we live by, mocking me and my vote or my reason for voting 'no' is lots of fun, it's also the fastest way to another rejection of the treaty.
Sitting high and mighty in the politics section of boards, tut-tuting at those that voted 'no' is fine for you, but at the moment the poll says you're the one who needs to get the joke and realise you've got to convince people to say 'yes', scoffing at them for not working that out for themselves obviously isn't working.

And this part:

bladespin wrote: »

If I'm to vote on something then I'm entitled to be informed what it is, if anyone turns to me and says 'just vote yes' then I'm immediately going to be suspicious and default to 'no'.

are contradictory. What people are scoffing at are people who are rejecting the treaty for bullsh!t reasons without informing themselves of what it is. Fair play to you if you want to find out about the treaty, you will be encouraged no end on this forum for that.

However, pointing the finger at our useless government and saying "it's their job to tell me, I can't be bothered finding out for myself" will inevitably drawn scorn.

Our government is useless, you will find very few people here who will contest that, so it's your job as a European citizen to bypass them and find out for yourself. Posting on this forum is a good start

K-9 · 23-07-2009 1:49pm

bladespin wrote: »

Your comedy amuses but belittles the constitution we live by, mocking me and my vote or my reason for voting 'no' is lots of fun, it's also the fastest way to another rejection of the treaty.
Sitting high and mighty in the politics section of boards, tut-tuting at those that voted 'no' is fine for you, but at the moment the poll says you're the one who needs to get the joke and realise you've got to convince people to say 'yes', scoffing at them for not working that out for themselves obviously isn't working.

If I'm to vote on something then I'm entitled to be informed what it is, if anyone turns to me and says 'just vote yes' then I'm immediately going to be suspicious and default to 'no', could possibly blame the cynicism of todays society for that one

The treaty wasn't even going to be provided to us the first time around, it was up to the press to actually provide the information in the end, the 'no' camp were more than happy to give info on it BTW (correct or incorrect).

Did you not read the Referendum Commission booklet?

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

Comments