Lisbon 2 The Return!

CCCP^

marco_polo wrote: »

The Council Decisions are legally binding so let me just stop that lie right there.

Back it up in detail please.

Stark

Bambi wrote: »

and then another one if they're wrong again, just be sure

I reckon people feel differently on Nice now, can we run that one again too?

Lisbon overrides Nice. (And fixes quite a few shortcomings like the loss of the precious McCreevy under the terms of Nice).

marco_polo

Bambi wrote: »

and then another one if they're wrong again, just be sure

I reckon people feel differently on Nice now, can we run that one again too?

Sure why not, it is not like the No campaign would even have to reprint any of their posters. Just a few stickers to cover Lisbon with Nice.


Sinn Fein Nice Manifesto

Summary: Nice will
- undermining our sovereignty
- bring us closer into a European Army
- relegate us to the second division of a two-tier European Union.
- Commissioner Loss
- 30 Areas moving to QMV
- Reduced voting power in the Council

ShooterSF

I couldn't help it :P (Sorry sam I know it wrecks your head!)

Sam Vimes

CCCP^ wrote: »

Back it up in detail please.

marco_polo might feel inclined to prove to you that the sky is blue but I have no such inclination. There is absolutely no chance that the EU will go back on these guarantees. None. Whatsoever. It's not going to happen. There might be valid reasons to vote no to this treaty but the farcical idea that the guarantees are there to trick us into voting yes and will promptly be whisked away is not one of them and by repeating this farcical idea you are showing why people talk about Ireland's reputation being damaged by a no vote. It's not just because we're voting no, it's because of things like this

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

The Council Decisions are legally binding so let me just stop that lie right there.

They are only legally-binding if they don't conflict with the Treaty. In a conflict (determined by the ECJ) the Treaty wins.

Stark

CCCP^ wrote: »

Back it up in detail please.

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/

The legally binding guarantees take the form of a decision of the Heads of State or Government of the 27 member states of the EU, meeting within the European Council, on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon. This Decision constitutes an international agreement, which will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

If a second referendum is successful, Ireland’s instrument of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, to be lodged with the Italian Government, will refer to both the Treaty and the Decision. Both the Treaty and the Decision will be registered with the United Nations under Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations which provides that all international agreements to which UN Member States are party should be registered with the UN Secretariat after their entry into force.

The European Council agreed that after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the provisions of the Decision would be attached to the EU Treaties as a protocol, which will give full Treaty status to the legal guarantees. This will be done at the time of the conclusion of the next EU accession Treaty, which is likely to be in 2010 or 2011.

The Solemn Declaration on Workers’ Rights and Social Policy is a clear statement of the importance the EU Member States attach to workers rights, social policy and public services.

At the European Council, Ireland also made a national declaration on its participation in the European Union’s common foreign and security policy and on Ireland’s traditional policy of military neutrality. In the event of Ireland’s ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, this declaration will be attached to Ireland’s instrument of ratification.

Stark

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They are only legally-binding if they don't conflict with the Treaty.

Which they don't.

marco_polo

CCCP^ wrote: »

Back it up in detail please.

Firstly there is a preccedent in the form of the Edinburgh Agreement. Here are the thoughs of one of the danish negotiators of the above on the Irish guarantees, who is of the opnion that the promotion of them to full Protocols in a future treaty is not even legally nescessary.

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

Also there is a legal analysis of the three decisions on tax, neutrality and abortion by State watch here.

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

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They are only legally-binding if they don't conflict with the Treaty. In a conflict (determined by the ECJ) the Treaty wins.

Yes but one cannot Have one's cake and eat it too.

FutureTaoiseach

Stark wrote: »

Which they don't.

Is that not for the ECJ to determine? I know the guarantees themselves say 'Lisbon does not' do this/that etc. But I don't believe we have ever seen this kind of attempt to 'clarify' the contents of an extraneous EU treaty that was not annexed to the Treaty itself. At least the Seville declarations were annexed to Nice. Why can't these assurances be annexed to Lisbon?

I would draw an analogy with the Oireachtas legislating 'clarifications' of the meaning of the Irish Constitution. That wouldn't get very far in the Irish Supreme Court. So why would EU Council decisions (which don't cover the Commissioner or workers-rights btw) stand up in the ECJ?

The Solemn Declaration on Workers’ Rights and Social Policy is a clear statement of the importance the EU Member States attach to workers rights, social policy and public services.

The Solemn declaration has no force in international law. Indeed even the elites admit that the workers-rights declaration is non-binding. All it does in any case is to state that the EU 'attaches importance' to workers' rights, which will be news to observers of the Laval/Viking case.

humanji

CCCP^ wrote: »

Now, the government, under pressure from the other EU states, wants to run another vote to see if A) people will be frightened enough to vote Yes because "we're in recession because we voted No and if we weren't in the EU we would be Reykjavík on the Liffey"

And you say the Yes side are scaremongering?

CCCP^ wrote: »

Nobody is talking about deny people the right to vote,

Actually, you are. You see:

CCCP^ wrote: »

but dress it up whatever way you like, this is the same treaty as before.

It's the same treaty, but a different referendum. You want to stop the second referendum from happening. You want to stop people from voting, simply because you voted in the last referendum and are afraid that that result may be beaten.

CCCP^ wrote: »

Not respecting peoples vote is undemocratic.

Luckily the peoples vote has been respected. Unfortunately the peoples right to vote isn't.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Is that not for the ECJ to determine? I know the guarantees themselves say 'Lisbon does not' do this/that etc. But I don't believe we have ever seen this kind of attempt to 'clarify' the contents of an extraneous EU treaty that was not annexed to the Treaty itself. At least the Seville declarations were annexed to Nice. Why can't these assurances be annexed to Lisbon?

I would draw an analogy with the Oireachtas legislating 'clarifications' of the meaning of the Irish Constitution. That wouldn't get very far in the Irish Supreme Court. So why would EU Council decisions (which don't cover the Commissioner or workers-rights btw) stand up in the ECJ?The Solemn declaration has no force in international law. Indeed even the elites admit that the workers-rights declaration is non-binding. All it does in any case is to state that the EU 'attaches importance' to workers' rights, which will be news to observers of the Laval/Viking case.

Con you elabourate on the relevant aspects where you see the potential for conflicts to arise?

Bearing in mind the following established hierarchy:
Member states Constitutions > Treaties

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

Con you elabourate on the relevant aspects where you see the potential for conflicts to arise?

Bearing in mind the following established hierarchy:
Member states Constitutions > Treaties

Potentially all of the Council decisions. Suppose, for example, Leinster House legislated to 'clarify' that equality (Article 40.1 of Constitution) did not apply to women. That would likely be struck down by the Irish Supreme Court. Likewise, when the European Council states that Lisbon 'does not affect the field of application' of Irish taxation law, the ECJ may beg to differ in the following scenario. Suppose Enhanced Cooperation (9 countries) was invoked to impose CCCTB (destination-taxes), as threatened by Taxation Commissioner Laslo Kovacs (who has claimed 2/3rds of countries support the plan) on companies on the basis of sales-destination. In my opinion, if the Irish government challenged this in the ECJ, and tried to invoke the 'guarantee' on taxation in its defence, the ECJ could rule that Article 113, by outlawing "distortions of competition", legitimised CCCTB, which would undermine the attractiveness of the Irish corporate-tax rate:

Article 113 TFEU wrote:

]The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

I also have more substantial concerns that the guarantee may fall foul of the new Article 269 TFEU as amended by Lisbon:

Article 269 TFEU wrote:

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain itsobjectives and carry through its policies. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category.

Sounds to me like the Council will be empowered by Lisbon to levy European taxes.

CCCP^

humanji wrote: »

And you say the Yes side are scaremongering?



Actually, you are. You see:

It's the same treaty, but a different referendum. You want to stop the second referendum from happening. You want to stop people from voting, simply because you voted in the last referendum and are afraid that that result may be beaten.


Luckily the peoples vote has been respected. Unfortunately the peoples right to vote isn't.

Sorry. As I can only speak for myself and vote for myself, I know what I will be doing on October 2nd, voting No. If it is passed, I'd respect that and learn to live with it. I'm not afraid it will be passed, though it being passed this time as alot to do with our current economic climate and you can't deny it.

ShooterSF

Domo230 wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty, the perfect example of TL:DR

Semi-colon.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

and then another one if they're wrong again, just be sure

I reckon people feel differently on Nice now, can we run that one again too?

I'd like a ban on Divorce, maybe we can run that one!

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Potentially all of the Council decisions. Suppose, for example, Leinster House legislated to 'clarify' that equality (Article 40.1 of Constitution) did not apply to women. That would likely be struck down by the Irish Supreme Court. Likewise, when the European Council states that Lisbon 'does not affect the field of application' of Irish taxation law, the ECJ may beg to differ in the following scenario. Suppose Enhanced Cooperation (9 countries) was invoked to impose CCCTB (destination-taxes), as threatened by Taxation Commissioner Laslo Kovacs (who has claimed 2/3rds of countries support the plan) on companies on the basis of sales-destination. In my opinion, if the Irish government challenged this in the ECJ, and tried to invoke the 'guarantee' on taxation in its defence, the ECJ could rule that Article 113, by outlawing "distortions of competition", legitimised CCCTB, which would undermine the attractiveness of the Irish corporate-tax rate: Quote:

Hmmmmmm, imposing destination taxes would be "distortion of competition" and not allowed.

You keep bringing this point up, it keeps being refuted on various different levels and you still keep insisting on it!

Johnny Bitte

I wont be voting this time as a mate is leaving work on that date so it either drink with him or vote on something I have have already voted on.

Drink it is my friends.

CCCP^

The_Goose135 wrote: »

I wont be voting this time as a mate is leaving work on that date so it either drink with him or vote on something I have have already voted on.

Drink it is my friends.

Democracy takes another sucker punch as The_Goose fails to exercise his franchise.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

I'd like a ban on Divorce, maybe we can run that one!



Hmmmmmm, imposing destination taxes would be "distortion of competition" and not allowed.

You keep bringing this point up, it keeps being refuted on various different levels and you still keep insisting on it!

The Treaties are what counts. They are the basic-law/constitution of the EU. It is the ECJ - and only the ECJ - that determines whether matters extraneous to the treaties are in keeping with them or not.

Dyr

snyper wrote: »

Voted yes the first time.

Will vote yes again.

We need europe more than they need us.

We'll still be part of europe even if we vote No twenty times but keep that to yourself

RandomName2

Bambi wrote: »

We'll still be part of europe even if we vote No twenty times but keep that to yourself

Folk such as Blitzkrieg and Vimes on Boards can shake their heads all they like when they look at Coir posters calling for No votes.

Saw Fianna Fail posters today.

:eek::eek::eek:

Vote Yes: We need Europe.

Or another (undisclosed organiser) Vote Yes: I feel safer in Europe

Since when has this been a referendum on EU membership?

Either the political proponents of Lisbon have no idea what Lisbon is about or they are deliberatly lying.

Are the contents of Lisbon so complicated that our politicans cannot decipher them, or so repugnant that they choose to ignore them, or perhaps our 'political representatives' are merely treating the public with complete disrespect (or maybe a mixture of the above?)

CCCP^

Snyper wrote: »

Voted yes the first time.

Will vote yes again.

We need europe more than they need us.

I'm sick of that little dog mentality we have with regards to the EU. It's great to be a part of the EU, but I believe Ireland could be just as successful without the EU if Ireland wasn't led by the least among us. We have huge potential as a country, always have, and I am not prone to this attitude of us being on our knees to somebody else, we were at that for far too long.

Jack Sheehan

CCCP^ wrote: »

I'm sick of that little dog mentality we have with regards to the EU. It's great to be a part of the EU, but I believe Ireland could be just as successful without the EU if Ireland wasn't led by the least among us. We have huge potential as a country, always have, and I am not prone to this attitude of us being on our knees to somebody else, we were at that for far too long.

Please explain how. What is this 'Huge Potential'? Because as far as I can see we were a depressed backwater before we joined the EU and I'll be damned if were going to leave it.

ShooterSF

RandomName2 wrote: »

Folk such as Blitzkrieg and Vimes on Boards can shake their heads all they like when they look at Coir posters calling for No votes.

Saw Fianna Fail posters today.

:eek::eek::eek:

Vote Yes: We need Europe.

Or another (undisclosed organiser) Vote Yes: I feel safer in Europe

Since when has this been a referendum on EU membership?

Either the political proponents of Lisbon have no idea what Lisbon is about or they are deliberatly lying.

Are the contents of Lisbon so complicated that our politicans cannot decipher them, or so repugnant that they choose to ignore them, or perhaps our 'political representatives' are merely treating the public with complete disrespect (or maybe a mixture of the above?)

Excellent post. It's fun to watch both sides ignore the idiocy on their side while foaming at the mouth over the other side's. Hell I'm guilty of that at times myself at times.

Stark

RandomName2 wrote: »

Folk such as Blitzkrieg and Vimes on Boards can shake their heads all they like when they look at Coir posters calling for No votes.

Saw Fianna Fail posters today.

:eek::eek::eek:

Vote Yes: We need Europe.

Or another (undisclosed organiser) Vote Yes: I feel safer in Europe

Since when has this been a referendum on EU membership?

Either the political proponents of Lisbon have no idea what Lisbon is about or they are deliberatly lying.

Are the contents of Lisbon so complicated that our politicans cannot decipher them, or so repugnant that they choose to ignore them, or perhaps our 'political representatives' are merely treating the public with complete disrespect (or maybe a mixture of the above?)

The posters are just about visibility, to prompt people to think about the Treaty. It's a complicated enough document and you're not going to summarise it on one panel poster.

CCCP^ wrote:

I'm sick of that little dog mentality we have with regards to the EU. It's great to be a part of the EU, but I believe Ireland could be just as successful without the EU if Ireland wasn't led by the least among us. We have huge potential as a country, always have, and I am not prone to this attitude of us being on our knees to somebody else, we were at that for far too long.

I wouldn't like to think where Ireland would be if we only had Fianna Fáil to rely on with no outside support to fall back on. The EU has done a lot for us over the years in terms of financial support and dragging us out of the Catholic conservative dark years. Even now, with the financial crisis that's going on, the European central bank is providing us with funds to support NAMA (while overseeing the thing to make sure FF don't skim too much off the top), as well as providing unemployment grants to hard hit areas like Limerick.

Not that I would vote Yes purely out of sense of gratitude though, I think the Treaty still has a lot to offer small countries in terms of representation in Europe and I think we stand to do even better out of the EU arrangement by supporting rather than rejecting it.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Treaties are what counts. They are the basic-law/constitution of the EU. It is the ECJ - and only the ECJ - that determines whether matters extraneous to the treaties are in keeping with them or not.

No point pointing out anything to you whatsoever on taxation.

ShooterSF

Stark wrote: »

The posters are just about visibility, to prompt people to think about the Treaty. It's a complicated enough document and you're not going to summarise it on one panel poster.

Sorry but posters are pointless and have no use. Remind people to think about the treaty? Why do we not have "Think about Lisbon" posters? The whole lot should be banned. Waste of money.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Potentially all of the Council decisions. Suppose, for example, Leinster House legislated to 'clarify' that equality (Article 40.1 of Constitution) did not apply to women. That would likely be struck down by the Irish Supreme Court. Likewise, when the European Council states that Lisbon 'does not affect the field of application' of Irish taxation law, the ECJ may beg to differ in the following scenario. Suppose Enhanced Cooperation (9 countries) was invoked to impose CCCTB (destination-taxes), as threatened by Taxation Commissioner Laslo Kovacs (who has claimed 2/3rds of countries support the plan) on companies on the basis of sales-destination. In my opinion, if the Irish government challenged this in the ECJ, and tried to invoke the 'guarantee' on taxation in its defence, the ECJ could rule that Article 113, by outlawing "distortions of competition", legitimised CCCTB, which would undermine the attractiveness of the Irish corporate-tax
rate:

Rates of any direct taxation are not and have never bee considered distortion of competition. Discriminitaing against other member states on the other hand has aleays been considered distortion of competition. I refer you to Article 81.1d yet again, which I presume you did not get around to reading yesterday?

Article 81 [101]
[ex Art. 81 EC, amended] [143 ]
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common internal market, and in particular those which:

(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, therebyplacing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementaryobligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with thesubject of such contracts.

......

I also have more substantial concerns that the guarantee may fall foul of the new Article 269 TFEU as amended by Lisbon: Sounds to me like the Council will be empowered by Lisbon to levy European taxes.

Which it already has the power to do under Nice under the very same article. Nothing has changed except for minor changes in the proceedure. It still requires both unaminity of all member states and Parliamentary approval.

Article 269 EC
Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall lay down provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Community, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with
their respective constitutional requirements.

Stark

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry but posters are pointless and have no use. Remind people to think about the treaty? Why do we not have "Think about Lisbon" posters? The whole lot should be banned. Waste of money.

Unfortunately the country is full of idiots who will vote based on how many visual cues they encounter. Sorry if that's insulting to those who'll will be voting Yes/No based on valid reasons, but it's true. It's why TDs have to stick pictures of their mugs on every lamp post coming up to every election. If they don't, they'll have people walking into the ballot box thinking "Well I don't know what he/she looks like, so I'm going to vote for Bertie as I've seen him around the place".

If you only have "No" posters everywhere, you will have people who will simply think "well everyone is telling me to vote No, so it must be the right choice".

Now if it was up to me, both sides would be banned from sticking up posters.