If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

Again with the inane analogies. It's not required that you understand a contract only that someone you trust understands it.

Bull.

#1: I don't trust any of our political parties one single bit anyway.
#2: Even if I did, I would never sign any contract without understanding it myself. That's just insane. For all you know you could be signing away your house.

Besides, I don't believe that the government has any positive arguments on why Lisbon should pass. All they have are warnings about what will happen to us if it doesn't. That's not good enough. What benefits does Ireland get out of passing this treaty? And I don't mean benefits such as "being at the heart of Europe", I mean what, in the actual text of the Lisbon Treaty, will actually benefit the people of this country?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Besides, I don't believe that the government has any positive arguments on why Lisbon should pass. All they have are warnings about what will happen to us if it doesn't. That's not good enough. What benefits does Ireland get out of passing this treaty?

My car is telling me it needs a service. I haven't heard any positive arguments for servicing it. All I keep hearing are warnings about what will happen to the car if I don't get it serviced. That's not good enough. What benefit will I get out of servicing the car?

It seems really bizarre to me that avoiding negative consequences isn't considered a reason for doing something.

And that's leaving aside that the only way you could possibly have avoided hearing any positive arguments by now is to have stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted "LA LA LA LA" at the top of your voice any time one was mentioned.

And I don't mean benefits such as "being at the heart of Europe", I mean what, in the actual text of the Lisbon Treaty, will actually benefit the people of this country?

Ah, here we go. The new Ireland at its finest: unless there's something concrete in it for me (ideally wads of filthy lucre) I'm not interested, and bugger the consequences for everyone else.

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

That terminology is not specific enough to arrest my concerns, particularly in the context of passerelle clauses like Article 48 and Article 352 of the TFEU. I want an absolute ban on CCCTB to be inserted into a Treaty or the Council decisions. I was responding to a question on whether I felt the assurances safeguarded our taxation system. Now I know we're told that with respect to Article 48 and the simplified revision procedure, national constitutional requirements must be met. But I would argue that the text of the proposed constitutional amendment in Ireland may provide for that bar to be more easily met this time than in the past. Note the govt's proposed Article 29.4.4:

4° Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the member states of that Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples.

I'm also wondering would that amendment have implications of the capacity of the Crotty Judgement to force referenda to secure ratification of future EU treaties, since the govt could term such treaties as reflecting Ireland's "commitment to the European Union...to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples"?

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bull.

#1: I don't trust any of our political parties one single bit anyway.
#2: Even if I did, I would never sign any contract without understanding it myself. That's just insane. For all you know you could be signing away your house.

Neither of those two points counter mine. #2 is weird, would you read every single word of a contract for buying a house or would you trust your solicitor's explanation of it? #1 has nothing to do with my point.

BlitzKrieg

n the aftermath of the defeat of Lisbon I, the onus on the No campaigners was to articulate a clear alternative route forward, that they would have liked to have seen pursued by the Government at EU negotiations.

And in their defence, Sinn Fein did release a list of changes they felt were necesary.
A number of which the gaurantee's addressed.

freyners

nesf wrote: »

Neither of those two points counter mine. #2 is weird, would you read every single word of a contract for buying a house or would you trust your solicitor's explanation of it? #1 has nothing to do with my point.

yes but your solictitor actually would read the contract!
unlike the vast majority of the gov/opposition but who feel that they still understand it even though almost none of them can read it

Blitzkrieg, one thing, yes they were covered by the guarentees, its just a shame they are't legally binding and can and will be overturned as soon as it causes the slightest bit of trouble for france/germany etc.

BlitzKrieg

Blitzkrieg, one thing, yes they were covered by the guarentees, its just a shame they are't legally binding and can and will be overturned as soon as it causes the slightest bit of trouble for france/germany etc.

uhh.

The Decision of the 27 EU Heads of States or Government agreed at the June European Council on Ireland’s legal guarantees will constitute an international agreement, which will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. This will be legally binding under international law and will be registered with the United Nations.

From the DFA and the thread stickied at the top of the forum.

oscarBravo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And in their defence, Sinn Fein did release a list of changes they felt were necesary.
A number of which the gaurantee's addressed.

...and the rest of which wouldn't have a prayer of being agreed with the other 26 member states.

It's the usual trick of saying "we can negotiate a better treaty", which is easy to say when you don't have to do the negotiating.

nesf

freyners wrote: »

yes but your solictitor actually would read the contract!
unlike the vast majority of the gov/opposition but who feel that they still understand it even though almost none of them can read it

Yup, but what makes you think that the Government and Oppositions don't have legal people to read it for them? I would trust the opinion of a legal expert over your average politician's on something like this any day.

BlitzKrieg

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and the rest of which wouldn't have a prayer of being agreed with the other 26 member states.

It's the usual trick of saying "we can negotiate a better treaty", which is easy to say when you don't have to do the negotiating.

But at least its a response, which is more then most gave post lisbon from the no campaign.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

That terminology is not specific enough to arrest my concerns, particularly in the context of passerelle clauses like Article 48 and Article 352 of the TFEU. I want an absolute ban on CCCTB to be inserted into a Treaty or the Council decisions. I was responding to a question on whether I felt the assurances safeguarded our taxation system. Now I know we're told that with respect to Article 48 and the simplified revision procedure, national constitutional requirements must be met. But I would argue that the text of the proposed constitutional amendment in Ireland may provide for that bar to be more easily met this time than in the past. Note the govt's proposed Article 29.4.4:

Indeed - and I would like a pony, but there we go. Lisbon doesn't contain a specific commitment to ending CCCTB, but I'll take the above as a tacit admission that you finally understand that Lisbon has no impact on CCCTB.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I'm also wondering would that amendment have implications of the capacity of the Crotty Judgement to force referenda to secure ratification of future EU treaties, since the govt could term such treaties as reflecting Ireland's "commitment to the European Union...to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples"?

No. New treaties cannot be an obligation of membership, and thereby protected. It is a silly concern.

amused,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

uhh.



From the DFA and the thread stickied at the top of the forum.

Did not the data-transfer agreement between the US and the EU, which was annulled by the ECJ, also constitute an international agreement? Why will this one be any different in terms of its legal-standing?

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Did not the data-transfer agreement between the US and the EU, which was annulled by the ECJ, also constitute an international agreement? Why will this one be any different in terms of its legal-standing?

You're clutching at straws. The EU has far less capacity to make international agreements than do the member states (because the EU is an arrangement between states, and not a federation).

hatrickpatrick

nesf wrote: »

Neither of those two points counter mine. #2 is weird, would you read every single word of a contract for buying a house or would you trust your solicitor's explanation of it?

I would indeed read the whole bloody thing and if there was anything even remotely suspicious sounding in it that I didn't understand I would ask for a detailed explanation.

#1 has nothing to do with my point.

Sorry, I assumed you were playing the "we elected the government so they can speak for us and there's no need for a referendum" card. What IS the point you were trying to make then?

finbar10

Scofflaw wrote: »

No. New treaties cannot be an obligation of membership, and thereby protected. It is a silly concern.

amused,
Scofflaw

I've been interested in finding out the possible legal implications (if any) of this proposed new subsection 4:

Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the member states of that Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples.

It is after all the main difference between what we voted on last time and will vote on this time.

Is it merely a vague aspiration statement or does might it have real legal teeth? I don't really know. I wouldn't dismiss it so easily though. I wouldn't have thought the wording of the previous constitutional amendment would have affected Crotty. This new addition perhaps muddies the waters this time.

Previous constitutional amendments to ratify EU treaties have merely given permission for us to be members of the EU or given permission for the government to ratify the treaties. This proposed subsection is qualitatively different. It constitutionally commits us and binds us to the EU. What implications might that have? It's hard to say.

Perhaps the most informed opinion I've seen on this topic was a post on another website. I won't cut and paste that post here (it perhaps would be bad etiquette to that person). But here is a link to it http://www.politics.ie/1907795-post133.html . I think I'll still have concerns about this subsection until some of the points made in the post I reference have been properly addressed by someone with real legal expertise. Hopefully something the referendum commission will eventually do.

FutureTaoiseach

proposed Article 29.4.4. wrote:

Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the member states of that Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well-being of their peoples.

I think it should be universally agreed that the implications of this kind of language would be to prevent the Irish govt using the secession mechanism contained in Lisbon, while this terminology remains in the Irish Constitution. Are we agreed that this is the case? After all, it's hard to have a "commitment" to an organisation you are not a member of.

ei.sdraob

I really dont understand where NO crowd get the whole EU is evil mindset? doesn't the past and current performance of the Union speak for itself?? we clearly benefited from EU membership and EU benefited from us in return


Lets for a minute entertain the crazy notion that EU will somehow turn evil, then if anything we should vote YES to lisbon! why?


because Lisbon provide with a mechanism for leaving the EU which doesn't exist now


so if we pass Lisbon and EU decides turn into an "evil empire" we cut the ties and we would have a method of doing so
:cool:

nesf

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry, I assumed you were playing the "we elected the government so they can speak for us and there's no need for a referendum" card. What IS the point you were trying to make then?

My point was that if there was any group whose opinion you trusted on such a matter than their opinion on it could be sufficient. Without training we normal people wouldn't spot suspicious or dodgy things in a treaty anyway!

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I really dont understand where NO crowd get the whole EU is evil mindset? doesn't the past and current performance of the Union speak for itself?? we clearly benefited from EU membership and EU benefited from us in return

Lets for a minute entertain the crazy notion that EU will somehow turn evil, then if anything we should vote YES to lisbon! why?

because Lisbon provide with a mechanism for leaving the EU which doesn't exist now

so if we pass Lisbon and EU decides turn into an "evil empire" we cut the ties and we would have a method of doing so
:cool:

The mechanism for departure from the EU is undermined by the proposed Article 29.4.4. of the Constitution ("commitment" to the EU). The EU is not evil, but is flawed. Lisbon exacerbates those flaws while pretending to address them. We want binding controls on the EU legislative process, not some consultative figleaves like those contained in the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments or the Citizens Initiative. Centralisation has gone far enough, and the single interest rate contributed to the housing-bubble by foisting Franco-German interest rates on this country.

I find it ironic that we are expected to credit the EU with the Celtic Tiger, but not hold them partly responsible for the other 2/3rds of our time as a member when we had mass unemployment and mass-emigration. :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The mechanism for departure from the EU is undermined by the proposed Article 29.4.4. of the Constitution ("commitment" to the EU). The EU is not evil, but is flawed. Lisbon exacerbates those flaws while pretending to address them. We want binding controls on the EU legislative process, not some consultative figleaves like those contained in the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments or the Citizens Initiative. Centralisation has gone far enough, and the single interest rate contributed to the housing-bubble by foisting Franco-German interest rates on this country.

I find it ironic that we are expected to credit the EU with the Celtic Tiger, but not hold them partly responsible for the other 2/3rds of our time as a member when we had mass unemployment and mass-emigration. :rolleyes:

erm we took that cheap money and blew it, no one held a gun to our heads and forced us to waste money on useless construction


ffs lets put the blame where it belongs :cool:

the sheeple who bought into the crazy bubble scheme and the government for not having the balls to say no and curb the bubble and instead of fueling it more

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I find it ironic that we are expected to credit the EU with the Celtic Tiger, but not hold them partly responsible for the other 2/3rds of our time as a member when we had mass unemployment and mass-emigration. :rolleyes:

And what evidence do you have that the doldrums of the 70s and 80s were because we were part of the EU?

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think it should be universally agreed that the implications of this kind of language would be to prevent the Irish govt using the secession mechanism contained in Lisbon, while this terminology remains in the Irish Constitution. Are we agreed that this is the case? After all, it's hard to have a "commitment" to an organisation you are not a member of.

So you're saying we couldn't leave without a referendum... I'm happy enough with that, aren't you?

BlitzKrieg

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Did not the data-transfer agreement between the US and the EU, which was annulled by the ECJ, also constitute an international agreement? Why will this one be any different in terms of its legal-standing?

Is it registered with the UN?

I find it ironic that we are expected to credit the EU with the Celtic Tiger, but not hold them partly responsible for the other 2/3rds of our time as a member when we had mass unemployment and mass-emigration.

yeah cause we had the infastructure to sustain a economic boom during the 70's..

FutureTaoiseach

nesf wrote: »

And what evidence do you have that the doldrums of the 70s and 80s were because we were part of the EU?

And what evidence do you have that the boom of the 1990's was because of the EU? The yes side constantly claim the EU was responsible for the boom. I didn't say the EU was to blame for the 1970s/80s. What I said was that the yes side is trying to have it both ways, but crediting the EU when things go well and not doing so when things go badly.

Is it registered with the UN?

No. But we have another example of the ECJ not respecting the UN, which is therefore pertinant to the general point you appear to be making as to the relevance of the UN to this debate. Did you know that the ECJ struck down an EU anti-terrorism regulation implementing a UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on suspected terrorists? What does that say about the likelihood that the ECJ will pay a blind bit of notice to registering the Council agreement at the UN?

On September 3, the European Court of Justice delivered an unprecedented and stunning blow to the international terrorism sanctions regime by annulling the EU freezing of assets imposed on Yassin Al Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation pursuant to a UN Security Council Resolution (ECJ Press Release and ECJ ruling.pdf)...To establish its competence, the Court argued that “an international agreement cannot affect the allocation of powers fixed by the Treaties or, consequently, the autonomy of the Community legal system”. It follows, according to the Court, that “the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty, which include the principle that all Community acts must respect fundamental rights.”

This is another example of how the ECJ cannot be trusted to abide by agreements pursuant to international law insofar as it pertains to the UN.

BlitzKrieg

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And what evidence do you have that the boom of the 1990's was because of the EU? The yes side constantly claim the EU was responsible for the boom.

drive from dublin to cashel maybe?

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And what evidence do you have that the boom of the 1990's was because of the EU? The yes side constantly claim the EU was responsible for the boom.

beside all the infrastructure directly or partially funded by EU?


the companies who's exports accounted for the first boom came here to quote their own CEO's

"because Ireland is uniquely positioned between US an is a full EU member"

would Intel / Microsoft / SAP / Google / younameit

came to Ireland if there was no access to the common market, low taxes, and educated english speaking populace

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

drive from dublin to cashel maybe?

Keynesianism doesn't work. Look at Japan's lost decade for example.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

No. New treaties cannot be an obligation of membership, and thereby protected. It is a silly concern.

amused,
Scofflaw

Have you just effectively put the "rejecting this one treaty means we should leave the EU" fallacy to rest? If so, thanks. 'Bout time someone did it.

I really dont understand where NO crowd get the whole EU is evil mindset? doesn't the past and current performance of the Union speak for itself?? we clearly benefited from EU membership and EU benefited from us in return

Yes. Does that mean we should agree to every change to the EU? The EU as it today bears much less resemblance to the organization we originally joined. More and more control is being channeled away from the national governments and into the EU parliament. Do you want that? Do you want your voice to compete not only with Irish opposition, but to opposition from every other EU country as well?

Which do you have more chance of winning? The National Lottery or the EuroMillions?

Lets for a minute entertain the crazy notion that EU will somehow turn evil, then if anything we should vote YES to lisbon! why?

because Lisbon provide with a mechanism for leaving the EU which doesn't exist now

so if we pass Lisbon and EU decides turn into an "evil empire" we cut the ties and we would have a method of doing so

Would it not be better if we had a way to stop it from turning evil in the first place rather than just leaving? If the Irish government turned evil, would you rather just give up and leave the country or stay here and try to campaign for change?

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I find it ironic that we are expected to credit the EU with the Celtic Tiger, but not hold them partly responsible for the other 2/3rds of our time as a member when we had mass unemployment and mass-emigration. :rolleyes:

Eh, because the EU doesn't run the country.

Seeing as the country has been an economic failure for about 70/85 years that probably has more to do with it.

Anyway, why would anybody hold them responsible?

tolosenc

finbar10 wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought the wording of the previous constitutional amendment would have affected Crotty. This new addition perhaps muddies the waters this time.

Tbh, 95-100% of Lisbon could have been enacted without a referendum and in spite of Crotty.