Re: EU becoming like the USSR

PopeBuckfastXVI

ART6 wrote: »

So why do a number of newspapers (and, I believe, some senior EU politicians although I can't immediately name them) keep insisting without challenge that the "guarantees" have no basis in law? My (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue is that the Treaty would have to be ratified again by all member states if Ireland's "guarantees" were actually made legally binding. That at least is what the media seem to be saying, is it not? Are they wrong?

Hi Art6,

I haven't seen any papers claiming they aren't legally binding, nor have I seen any EU politicians claiming that either. It's possible someone like UKIP might be claiming that, but I don't listen to them so I wouldn't know.

Here is an article from RTÉ which explains the legally binding nature of the guarantees.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

ixtlan

KINGVictor wrote: »

I think you grossly misunderstand my position.I have never said nor would I ever imply we leave the EU.My arguement is that the EU as a body is very detached from its citizenry and increasingly trying to enforce its political objectives ( however noble they are).It would backfire at some point.If I use your analogy...we had concerns and they tried to address them but did not include them in the treaty we are to vote on again...but like you said they might(being the operation word) include it in a future treaty....how plausible is that?

In my reply to your post I never mentioned leaving the EU. I pointed out your words...

KINGVictor wrote: »

I think the idea of addressing concerns is quite patronising.In a democracy,the popular vote carries weight and decides the result ( shocking but true).

This appears to say that you want a no to mean no, with no discussions of the reasons, and no attempt to move forward with any resolution to the no. Taken at face value then there is no point trying to fix this treaty or indeed trying to negotiate any new one. Interestingly you yourself seem to suggest, and I think you might be right, that if we really took this position in the long term we might have to leave the EU.

It's very plausible, indeed certain, they will include the gurantees in a future treaty. Countries do not casually dismiss formal international treaties, especially considering this is a treaty that just confirms what almost everyone thinks is in the treaty already.

Let's compare it to another treaty. Ireland last year signed a treaty banning cluster munititions. Although many (all?) EU states signed it is as far as I know not included in an EU treaty. Does that make our signing worthless? How likely is it that we will break the treaty? Surely not likely since we have never even used such munitions. Likewise for the other EU states, they will honour the guarantee agreement for 2 reasons 1/ Because they signed it! And countries do not sign treaties unless they mean to honour them and 2/One cannot imagine any scenario where there's a benefit to any state in breaking the treaty since it only states the obvious anyhow!

Ix.

brianthebard

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Whether he was speaking as an ambassador, or as a German, or as a friend of Ireland, doesn't matter that much: was he speaking the truth?

I think it does matter; what Scofflaw was saying is that when the pro-EU ambassador expressed an opinion he agreed with he's not speaking for everyone in his country, etc, but when another politician in Britain he doesn't agree with speaks he is interfering with the Irish vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi Art6,

I haven't seen any papers claiming they aren't legally binding, nor have I seen any EU politicians claiming that either. It's possible someone like UKIP might be claiming that, but I don't listen to them so I wouldn't know.

Here is an article from RTÉ which explains the legally binding nature of the guarantees.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1245253622.33/

The nature of the guarantees seems to be still up for debate, and there are some issues as to which form they will take and whether that will mean the other member states have to ratify or re-ratify the whole thing. I find it amusing that you immediately went to the argument that its all a eurosceptic plot to confuse people though.

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

I think it does matter; what Scofflaw was saying is that when the pro-EU ambassador expressed an opinion he agreed with he's not speaking for everyone in his country, etc, but when another politician in Britain he doesn't agree with speaks he is interfering with the Irish vote.

I'm sure Scofflaw can speak for himself, but I think he was pointing out the irony of the OP welcoming comments from one EU politician, while decrying comments from another.

brianthebard wrote: »

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1245253622.33/

The nature of the guarantees seems to be still up for debate, and there are some issues as to which form they will take and whether that will mean the other member states have to ratify or re-ratify the whole thing. I find it amusing that you immediately went to the argument that its all a eurosceptic plot to confuse people though.

The problem is that article is from *before* the guarantees were given, so yes, the nature at that point was still up for debate, but that nature has now been defined as being a legally binding international treaty.

Out of curiosity Brian, just supposing the guarantees weren't legally binding, are you personally fearful that abortion or conscription or a military alliance would be brought in without them?

Hitman Actual

brianthebard wrote: »

I think it does matter; what Scofflaw was saying is that when the pro-EU ambassador expressed an opinion he agreed with he's not speaking for everyone in his country, etc, but when another politician in Britain he doesn't agree with speaks he is interfering with the Irish vote.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1245253622.33/

The nature of the guarantees seems to be still up for debate, and there are some issues as to which form they will take and whether that will mean the other member states have to ratify or re-ratify the whole thing.

That was two days before the EC 'Decision' was finalised. And the fact that it was a Decision is important, even from your own link:

wrote:

The advantage of a "'decision' is that its a legally binding text, you can deposit at the UN, but it comes into force immediately," one diplomatic source said.

"With a protocol there is always the risk that 18 months down the track some member states won't want to ratify it."

Scofflaw deals with the guarantees very well in another thread, I'll try to dig it out. Edit to add: This is the thread. The debate between Scofflaw and bokspring71 covers the issue well.

brianthebard wrote: »

I find it amusing that you immediately went to the argument that its all a eurosceptic plot to confuse people though.

If you were following this forum since the guarantees were finalised, you would have seen that the ardent No-voters are very much trying to confuse the issue. While it's not quite a super-coordinated plot, there's no question that it's part of the arsenal of the No campaign this time around. Edit to add: Again, look at the thread I've just linked for examples of the No side using the guarantees to promote a No vote.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm sure Scofflaw can speak for himself, but I think he was pointing out the irony of the OP welcoming comments from one EU politician, while decrying comments from another.

I think they were both doing the same thing tbh.

The problem is that article is from *before* the guarantees were given, so yes, the nature at that point was still up for debate, but that nature has now been defined as being a legally binding international treaty.

Out of curiosity Brian, just supposing the guarantees weren't legally binding, are you personally fearful that abortion or conscription or a military alliance would be brought in without them?

Fair enough it was beforehand, it still shows why there is confusion. Why would you ask me that, have I ever suggested that I am worried about those things? Would you like to paint me as a crazy pro-life eurosceptic?

Hitman Actual wrote: »

If you were following this forum since the guarantees were finalised, you would have seen that the ardent No-voters are very much trying to confuse the issue. While it's not quite a super-coordinated plot, there's no question that it's part of the arsenal of the No campaign this time around.

Are those people members of UKIP?

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

Why would you ask me that, have I ever suggested that I am worried about those things? Would you like to paint me as a crazy pro-life eurosceptic?

Absolutely not, I've no desire to do that. What I'm curious about is, why you would use a dated article to call in to question the nature of the guarantees, if those guarantees are unrelated to your concerns?

This seems to be happening a lot:

I don't believe the rubbish about Abortion, or Conscription, or Tax Harmonization.
I'm not sure the Guarantees on those things are legally binding though.
I don't trust the government or the other EU governments to include them in the next treaty.

What's the implication there? If you're not worried about those issues, if they are just red herrings, why are you questioning the legal status of the guarantees related to them?

I've yet to see that circle squared.

Hitman Actual

brianthebard wrote: »

Are those people members of UKIP?

Oops, I missed that point in the earlier post. I've no idea if they are or not, but I think the point still stands that, imo, the guarantees are being attacked by the No side to spread more FUD.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Absolutely not, I've no desire to do that. What I'm curious about is, why you would use a dated article to call in to question the nature of the guarantees, if those guarantees are unrelated to your concerns?

This seems to be happening a lot:

I don't believe the rubbish about Abortion, or Conscription, or Tax Harmonization.
I'm not sure the Guarantees on those things are legally binding though.
I don't trust the government or the other EU governments to include them in the next treaty.

What's the implication there? If you're not worried about those issues, if they are just red herrings, why are you questioning the legal status of the guarantees related to them?

I've yet to see that circle squared.

I used the first article that came up in Google. I only wanted to see if there was a non-sceptic source for the confusion, which there was. I would thank you to point out where I specifically questioned the legal status of the guarantees, or said that I didn't believe they were legally binding, or where I said I didn't trust the EU or government to include them? I merely condensed what was in the article to show why there was confusion amongst people. Obviously I missed the boat somewhat in my choice of article, but it more than adequately shows why people are still confused about the issue. Confusion is perhaps still ongoing because of the different guarantees that are legally binding, and the non binding workers rights one?

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Oops, I missed that point in the earlier post. I've no idea if they are or not, but I think the point still stands that, imo, the guarantees are being attacked by the No side to spread more FUD.

Its a very very different point though wouldn't you say?

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

I used the first article that came up in Google. I only wanted to see if there was a non-sceptic source for the confusion, which there was.

No worries, it happens.

brianthebard wrote: »

I would thank you to point out where I specifically questioned the legal status of the guarantees, or said that I didn't believe they were legally binding, or where I said I didn't trust the EU or government to include them?

Well if you do believe the guarantees are legally binding, and that you do trust they will be included in the next EU treaty then we're fully in agreement.

brianthebard wrote: »

I merely condensed what was in the article to show why there was confusion amongst people. Obviously I missed the boat somewhat in my choice of article, but it more than adequately shows why people are still confused about the issue.

Yes there *was* confusion, but now there shouldn't be. There's no reason why there should still be confusion.

Hitman Actual

brianthebard wrote: »

Its a very very different point though wouldn't you say?

Very different? No, I wouldn't say very different. The end result is the same whether it's an orchestrated plot by a larger group to spread FUD on the issue, or just many individuals using the tactic. At the end of the day, it's still FUD.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

No worries, it happens.


Well if you do believe the guarantees are legally binding, and that you do trust they will be included in the next EU treaty then we're fully in agreement.

If people ratify the treaty, then yes I believe they will be included. I never stated otherwise.

Yes there *was* confusion, but now there shouldn't be. There's no reason why there should still be confusion.

Well if there's two different types of guarantee then that will confuse people.

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

If people ratify the treaty, then yes I believe they will be included. I never stated otherwise.



Well if there's two different types of guarantee then that will confuse people.

Yes I agree, and also it's exploitable. I think the government shouldn't have gone for the 'protocol' route at all, and should have just stuck with them being separate international agreements.

If you have a look around the forum you'll find plenty of posts claiming the government won't necessarily add the protocols to the next treaty, calling them things like 'politicians promises', while studiously ignoring their already legally binding nature. I personally don't think that's an accident.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

I think it does matter; what Scofflaw was saying is that when the pro-EU ambassador expressed an opinion he agreed with he's not speaking for everyone in his country, etc, but when another politician in Britain he doesn't agree with speaks he is interfering with the Irish vote.

Er, no, I'm pointing out that the No campaigns complain about one, while channelling foreign eurosceptical politicians (Farage, Hannan, Bonde, Klaus), organisations (OpenEurope, the Bruges Group, UKIP, the Tories), and media (Mail, Telegraph, etc). The online debate is full of British eurosceptics and US NWO-heads - I see politics.ie is currently overrun with a guy called Freeborn John, who is a well-known eurosceptic obsessive.

I have no difficulty upholding the right of other member states - and their citizens - to comment on Lisbon and on our vote, but No proponents want it to be only the 'right' kind of comment. The German Ambassador is "vilifying us", the French Minister is "threatening us", but when the leader of the Conservative Party proposes -specifically - overturning our vote, he's "defending democracy". Bull, hysteria, and victimology.

brianthebard wrote: »

The nature of the guarantees seems to be still up for debate, and there are some issues as to which form they will take and whether that will mean the other member states have to ratify or re-ratify the whole thing. I find it amusing that you immediately went to the argument that its all a eurosceptic plot to confuse people though.

There is only doubt on one side, you see, which does make it a little suspicious. The guarantees are being done in exactly the same way as the Edinburgh Agreement - legally binding international agreements that will be turned into protocols and added to the treaties. They are not being put into Lisbon, because the other member states are not prepared to re-ratify Lisbon.

Now, you may be honestly under the impression that the guarantees are 'still up for debate', but there are people who are equally honestly under the impression that Lisbon brings in abortion - and they're wrong, too.

The problem with accepting that it's genuinely believed by No proponents that the guarantees are of dubious legal value is that it's rather evident that there are no non-eurosceptic sources still debating the "value" of the guarantees, and that No proponents are having to hark back to before the Council decisions were finalised in order to find anything mainstream that agrees with them. The article you've pointed to, for example, precedes the issue of the guarantees - here is a more recent one from the same source, which may help you. Here is Klaus, again, same source, saying that the guarantees do change the Treaty:

"I find this amusing and above all undignified," Klaus, whose country holds the EU presidency until the end of the month, told Saturday's edition of the Pravo daily.

"We all know that it's impossible to square the circle, but it is exactly what these countries have tried to do. To say that the concessions don't change anything about the Lisbon Treaty is silly," he added.

The No campaigns will undoubtedly fight on the basis that the guarantees are somehow "worthless" (either legally, or practically, or politically, or, most likely, all those meanings conflated together and shifted around as they're challenged), but let's be quite clear - it's a lie.

cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes I agree, and also it's exploitable. I think the government shouldn't have gone for the 'protocol' route at all, and should have just stuck with them being separate international agreements.

As in the last referendum campaign its up to the government to get the message right.

If you have a look around the forum you'll find plenty of posts claiming the government won't necessarily add the protocols to the next treaty, calling them things like 'politicians promises', while studiously ignoring their already legally binding nature. I personally don't think that's an accident.

That's fine, but other people's posts are not mine. You should go on the post presented to you, instead of the UKIP conspiracy theory.

brianthebard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no, I'm pointing out that the No campaigns complain about one, while channelling foreign eurosceptical politicians (Farage, Hannan, Bonde, Klaus), organisations (OpenEurope, the Bruges Group, UKIP, the Tories), and media (Mail, Telegraph, etc). The online debate is full of British eurosceptics and US NWO-heads - I see politics.ie is currently overrun with a guy called Freeborn John, who is a well-known eurosceptic obsessive.

I have no difficulty upholding the right of other member states - and their citizens - to comment on Lisbon and on our vote, but No proponents want it to be only the 'right' kind of comment. The German Ambassador is "vilifying us", the French Minister is "threatening us", but when the leader of the Conservative Party proposes -specifically - overturning our vote, he's "defending democracy". Bull, hysteria, and victimology.



There is only doubt on one side, you see, which does make it a little suspicious. The guarantees are being done in exactly the same way as the Edinburgh Agreement - legally binding international agreements that will be turned into protocols and added to the treaties. They are not being put into Lisbon, because the other member states are not prepared to re-ratify Lisbon.

Now, you may be honestly under the impression that the guarantees are 'still up for debate', but there are people who are equally honestly under the impression that Lisbon brings in abortion - and they're wrong, too.

The problem with accepting that it's genuinely believed by No proponents that the guarantees are of dubious legal value is that it's rather evident that there are no non-eurosceptic sources still debating the "value" of the guarantees, and that No proponents are having to hark back to before the issue of the guarantees in order to find anything mainstream that agrees with them. The article you've pointed to, for example, precedes the issue of the guarantees - here is a more recent one from the same source, which may help you. Here is Klaus, again, same source, saying that the guarantees do change the Treaty:

The No campaigns will undoubtedly fight on the basis that the guarantees are somehow "worthless" (either legally, or practically, or politically, or, most likely, all those meanings conflated together and shifted around as they're challenged), but let's be quite clear - it's a lie.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for the reply but this has already been clarified at this point I think.

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

As in the last referendum campaign its up to the government to get the message right.

That's fine, but other people's posts are not mine. You should go on the post presented to you, instead of the UKIP conspiracy theory.

Yes FF certainly aren't the best at, well, anything really. Oh for a Labour government!

I'm confused about the UKIP conspiracy comment?

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes FF certainly aren't the best at, well, anything really. Oh for a Labour government!

I'm confused about the UKIP conspiracy comment?

When someone brought up the issue of guarantees you immediately assumed it was UKIP or a similar group that were spreading misinformation. You then made it very clear that you felt I was doing the same thing.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Nope, if you read my post, it was claimed some Politicians in the EU made the claim. I merely said that I hadn't seen it, and added that if it came from someone like UKIP I wouldn't have seen it, pretty much inviting a source, that's all.

I thought you were, but as it turns out you're weren't, I apologise.