Lisbon Treaty Part Trois

marco_polo

Since the establishment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in 1952, its mission has been to ensure that "the law is observed" "in the interpretation and application" of the Treaties.As part of that mission, the Court of Justice:
reviews the legality of the acts of the institutions of the European Union,
ensures that the Member States comply with their obligations under Community law,
interprets Community law at the request of the national courts and tribunals.
The Court thus constitutes the judicial authority of the European Union and, in cooperation with the courts and tribunals of the Member States, it ensures the application and uniform interpretation of Community law.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities, which has its seat in Luxembourg, consists of three courts: the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance (created in 1988) and the Civil Service Tribunal (created in 2004).
Since their establishment, approximately 15 000 judgments have been delivered by the three courts.

Thanks for that, basically as I suspected it confirms that the ECJ is confined to interpretation of the laws as defined by the treaties (and by extension under international law any additional protocols ).

So you are wrong.

TheZohanS

It seems as if the Yes camp have failed again.

When it comes to being certain about specifics regarding the Treaty all you hear is "I'm not sure" , "if, if if" and "it would be bad form" or "there's no precident" (every day new precidents are set).

Yet if anyone that voices their opinion and is not going to blindly give their "Yes" vote on something as important as this Treaty are called "scaremongers".

People have the right to vote "No" and Ireland will not get kicked out of the E.U. because of it.

So my advice to the "Yes" campaigners out there is to get their act together and and not vote "Yes" because generations of their family were FF'ers and it's the "right" way to vote.

I will now leave this thread utterly unconvinced by the "Yes" campaigners, you have completely failed.

marco_polo

jacool wrote: »

I would like to hear all the YES people actually acknowledging that the NO voters first time round (and I don't think that "The_Minister" can prove his listing, because I'm not in any of those groups !) helped to get these extra guarantees/concessions (disregarding whether or not they are legally applicable or not - better people than me can resolve that) ! I'm not hearing the gratitude for us being theoretically in a better position this time round, thanks to the NO voters.

The majority of Yes voters are aware that the areas of concern covered by the legally binding guarantees were not even affected by the treaty in the first place, so 'thanks' isn't really due.

Two points to bear in mind.
1. Its easier vote NO than YES on a 300 page document, because then you know that you haven't sanctioned any crazy hidden clauses down the back of page 233 ! I'm not saying they are there, just not everyone will read it all.

But many people will and have read the treaty including armies of legal experts. The treaty has been well searched by some No campaigners looking for such clauses. But they still haven't found anything funnily enough. If there was something it would be in the public domain long ago.

2. Its also easy to vote NO for your own reasons and believe that you are not aligning yourself with all the other groups who are voting NO, because your reasons don't have to coincide with theirs. Just imagine! Some people may vote NO for their own, valid reasons - not through scare-mongering by Libertas, etc.

Nobody denies that there are legitimate reasons for voting no.

Dyr

Dinner wrote: »

The Millward Brown study?

It found that 42% of no voters did so because they didn't understand it and over a quarter did so for reasons such as neutrality, because it was a 'bad deal', losing the commisioner and then the other smaller reasons such as abortion, conscription etc.

lollers, let's just abolish this messy referendum business altogether and amend our constitution through EU sponsored surveys :pac:

thelordofcheese

jacool wrote: »

I would like to hear all the YES people actually acknowledging that the NO voters first time round (and I don't think that "The_Minister" can prove his listing, because I'm not in any of those groups !) helped to get these extra guarantees/concessions (disregarding whether or not they are legally applicable or not - better people than me can resolve that) ! I'm not hearing the gratitude for us being theoretically in a better position this time round, thanks to the NO voters.

that depends, personally i read the guarantees as saying, in a rather weary voice, "no, we can't change your corpo tax, no you won't be forced into the EU superarmy and no, there will be no forcing of ireland to have abortions" all the time wondering why they need to provide guarantees on what is already in the damn treaty.

jacool wrote: »

Two points to bear in mind.
1. Its easier vote NO than YES on a 300 page document, because then you know that you haven't sanctioned any crazy hidden clauses down the back of page 233 ! I'm not saying they are there, just not everyone will read it all.

I really fucking hate this method of reasoning. Look, you have the right to vote, with that right comes the responsibility to be an informed voter. That's how the system is meant to work.

If you shirk your part of the deal and complain that it's too much work, then your vote carry about as much worth as just writing "penis penis penis" on the ballot.
And the best part is people who advocate this idea of vote no if you can't be arsed will also shriek the loudest about democracy not being respected, when they show it no respect themselves.

And this kind of reasoning also applies to the yes side, before anyone goes off on one. If your line of reasoning is that unsavoury groups are against it therefore you should vote for, you might want to think long and hard about how stupid that is, then get back to doing some critical reasoning.

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

It seems as if the Yes camp have failed again.

When it comes to being certain about specifics regarding the Treaty all you hear is "I'm not sure" , "if, if if" and "it would be bad form" or "there's no precident" (every day new precidents are set).

Yet if anyone that voices their opinion and is not going to blindly give their "Yes" vote on something as important as this Treaty are called "scaremongers".

People have the right to vote "No" and Ireland will not get kicked out of the E.U. because of it.

So my advice to the "Yes" campaigners out there is to get their act together and and not vote "Yes" because generations of their family were FF'ers and it's the "right" way to vote.

I will now leave this thread utterly unconvinced by the "Yes" campaigners, you have completely failed.

Ok take your ball and run along home so. Sorry for asking you to back up you 'opinions' with facts. Won't happen again.

thelordofcheese

TheZohan wrote: »

It seems as if the Yes camp have failed again.

When it comes to being certain about specifics regarding the Treaty all you hear is "I'm not sure" , "if, if if" and "it would be bad form" or "there's no precident" (every day new precidents are set).

What shit.
You ask a question that is based on multiple assumptions and what-if's and are then surprised that people can't predict the outcome of this future world you've created.

Does the phrase 'chewbacca defense' mean anything to you?

Dinner

Bambi wrote: »

lollers, let's just abolish this messy referendum business altogether and amend our constitution through EU sponsored surveys :pac:

What exactly are you saying? That the EU paid off Millward Brown?

What would be the point in that? The government want Lisbon passed right?

So then, wouldn't they want to address the concerns in order to get it passed?

Seems you just don't really want proof.

jacool

thelordofcheese wrote: »

that depends, personally i read the guarantees as saying, in a rather weary voice, "no, we can't change your corpo tax, no you won't be forced into the EU superarmy and no, there will be no forcing of ireland to have abortions" all the time wondering why they need to provide guarantees on what is already in the damn treaty. I really fucking hate this method of reasoning. Look, you have the right to vote, with that right comes the responsibility to be an informed voter. That's how the system is meant to work. If you shirk your part of the deal and complain that it's too much work, then your vote carry about as much worth as just writing "penis penis penis" on the ballot. And the best part is people who advocate this idea of vote no if you can't be arsed will also shriek the loudest about democracy not being respected, when they show it no respect themselves. And this kind of reasoning also applies to the yes side, before anyone goes off on one. If your line of reasoning is that unsavoury groups are against it therefore you should vote for, you might want to think long and hard about how stupid that is, then get back to doing some critical reasoning.

.
Firstly, I might state that I will refrain from using bad language in my reply, just a personal thing.
Secondly, I merely stated reasons why people could vote NO, never advocating it.
Thirdly, you misunderstand the principles of voting if you think that "your vote carry about as much worth as just writing "penis penis penis" on the ballot." Strictly speaking, such a vote would be a spoiled vote and would not count as a "No" vote.
Fourthly, I am jealous of your ability to know that as you read the guarantees that they were done "in a rather weary voice".

to "The_Minister" - sorry, I didn't read where you had said that others voted no. Mea culpa for that.

tolosenc

The_Minister wrote: »

*The Libertarians - there isn't really an organisation of them in Ireland, but I've haven't met a single libertarian who isn't extremely anti-Lisbon.

Hi.

TheZohanS

Last post on this (I promise):

• We are being asked to vote "Yes or No" on the Lisbon Treaty, no "if" or "buts" and we cannot tag any conditions onto our vote.
• We have one opportunity to vote Yes or No on this Treaty.
• If we vote Yes then the treaty is self amending UNLESS our constitution dictates another referendum. We will not get another shot at voting Yes or No on the Treaty
• Nobody in the Yes campaign can give 100% assurances that the new Protocols will not be challenged in the future and become null and void.

There are far too many uncertainties in voting Yes.

When the Yes campaigners on this thread refer to an argument as "sh!t" and make references to Star Wars characters to make and argument....well it does not instill confidence in what they are preaching about. :pac::pac:.

So we are being asked to give our Yes vote, a definitive answer, and we are receiving no 100% concrete guarantees as stated above.

Think about it.

Dinner

Lets pretend for a second, that the protocols can be challenged.

First, who would challenge them, and for what reason? Since the protocols are just stating what is not in the treaty, why would anyone challenge them?

Second, has anyone ever challenged the Edinburgh and Seville Declarations, what about the Good Friday Agreement? Why would they start now?

marco_polo

TheZohan wrote: »

Last post on this (I promise):

• We are being asked to vote "Yes or No" on the Lisbon Treaty, no "if" or "buts" and we cannot tag any conditions onto our vote.
• We have one opportunity to vote Yes or No on this Treaty.
• If we vote Yes then the treaty is self amending UNLESS our constitution dictates another referendum. We will not get another shot at voting Yes or No on the Treaty
• Nobody in the Yes campaign can give 100% assurances that the new Protocols will not be challenged in the future and become null and void.

There are far too many uncertainties in voting Yes.

When the Yes campaigners on this thread refer to an argument as "sh!t" and make references to Star Wars characters to make and argument....well it does not instill confidence in what they are preaching about. :pac::pac:.

So we are being asked to give our Yes vote, a definitive answer, and we are receiving no 100% concrete guarantees as stated above.

Think about it.

The treaty can only be ammended with the agreement of all member states and any issues that require a referendum the government will have to call one. If you do not have faith in the Government to act in our best interests on the other issues then you have an issue with representative democracy not with Lisbon.

Still waiting to hear how the ECJ could rule on International treaties and Protocols. Either show a preceedent, or a plausible hypothetical situation, or have the good grace to admit you were mistaken.

Sam Vimes

jacool wrote: »

I would like to hear all the YES people actually acknowledging that the NO voters first time round (and I don't think that "The_Minister" can prove his listing, because I'm not in any of those groups !) helped to get these extra guarantees/concessions (disregarding whether or not they are legally applicable or not - better people than me can resolve that) ! I'm not hearing the gratitude for us being theoretically in a better position this time round, thanks to the NO voters.

We're not in a better position, we're in exactly the same position except the government was put in the embarrassing situation of having to go to Europe and say the Irish people weren't bothered trying to understand the treaty and could they please write it in smaller words.

the guarantees just confirmed that the liars were lying, nothing more

Sam Vimes

TheZohan wrote: »

Last post on this (I promise):

• We are being asked to vote "Yes or No" on the Lisbon Treaty, no "if" or "buts" and we cannot tag any conditions onto our vote.
• We have one opportunity to vote Yes or No on this Treaty.
• If we vote Yes then the treaty is self amending UNLESS our constitution dictates another referendum. We will not get another shot at voting Yes or No on the Treaty
• Nobody in the Yes campaign can give 100% assurances that the new Protocols will not be challenged in the future and become null and void.

There are far too many uncertainties in voting Yes.

When the Yes campaigners on this thread refer to an argument as "sh!t" and make references to Star Wars characters to make and argument....well it does not instill confidence in what they are preaching about. :pac::pac:.

So we are being asked to give our Yes vote, a definitive answer, and we are receiving no 100% concrete guarantees as stated above.

Think about it.

Our guarantees were already in the treaty. Their purpose was to put people's mind at ease who thought things like the treaty brought in conscription, abortion and loss of neutrality, which was about 33% of voters.


They cannot be changed except by unanimous decision either through the Dail or if changing any of them would require a change to our constitution they would require a referendum. These guarantees are no easier to change than any other EU rules. I am right now giving you a 100% guarantee of this. Things can be changed without a referendum right now with Dail approval as long as they don't require a change to the constitution.

What are you afraid of being changed exactly? Only a limited number of things can be changed, a large number cannot, such as the competences of the EU cannot be increased without a referendum so our tax and neutrality cannot be effected.

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

The treaty can only be ammended with the agreement of all member states and any issues that require a referendum the government will have to call one. If you do not have faith in the Government to act in our best interests on the other issues then you have an issue with representative democracy not with Lisbon.

This is true. People who have a problem with this should really be leading a revolution against the government so they can install a system of direct democracy where there is no government and everyone votes on everything.

The government makes decisions every day that have implications a hundred times greater than the Lisbon treaty, which is by and large pretty boring, so you lot better hurry up and storm Leinster house

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

A vital part of the democratic process is that funding a survey can negate a referendum result :pac:

No, a vital part of the democratic process is finding out why people voted No. Such is the spread of the No vote, certain sections don't want any analysis of that vote.

TheZohan wrote: »

Guarantees that are not really guarantees



Lots of things get registered with the UN and are ignored afterwards.


We would all like to make an informed decision. But like your post below there are way too many "if"'s.

We're not backing horses here.

So why take a chance on bad form?

We need to be 100% certain.

[/quote]

Oh, looks like I have a stalker! If they ignore these guarantees the EU is signing it's own death warrant for future referenda in Ireland. It's as simple as that. I don't have Nostradamus powers though or a fear of change or a fear of them bloody foreigners.

TheZohan wrote: »

Just because it's lodged with the UN doesn't mean it's legal.

Protocols can be challenged.

If a Protocol is challenged and the challenge is upheld the Protocol can be rejected thus making it null and void.

TheZohan wrote: »

How is a simple statement of facts scaremongering

Can you repeat the question.

Are you telling me that Protocols can not be challenged?

So you admit it IS possible.


My point was these "guarantees" that are not in fact guarantees are lodged with the UN, the fact that they hold them does not mean anything and does not make them legally binding.

Still no evidence, just the usual scare mongering.

The_Minister wrote: »

No quote, I was in the room.
I think that the other countries have learned their lesson, they've made it clear that they aren't going to interfere this time unless they are specifically invited to (and even then they are pretty reluctant).

Eh what?
The people voting No are
*The Communists
*The Nazi's
*The Socialists
*The right-wing Catholics
*The Libertarians
*The Euro-sceptic.
*The American military industry
If it comes down to whose side has the 'better' people there is really no contest.
There are respectable people voting No, and I know some of them, but most of the campaigners are not people I would respect politically.


Poll conducted by an unbiased polling company which is held in high regard.
People voted No based on things like conscription.

It is telling who are the main proponents of a No vote. The usual nay sayers and harbingers of doom.

Sam Vimes

K-9 wrote: »

It is telling who are the main proponents of a No vote. The usual nay sayers and harbingers of doom.

Pretty much

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO

themont85

K4t wrote: »

A truly horrible post.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, anybody who voted against Lisbon for reasons such as abortion or conscription are fools.

And the people who say that they didn't vote yes because of the government are too.

And people who voted against it because 'I didn't understand it'.

And people who were like 'We're Ireland, look how rich we are, we don't need Europe'. Look at us now with our reliance on stamp duty and VAT. France and Germany may have suffered in the downturn, but their policies didn't put them anywhere near the **** heap that some of our tax policies did.

You may deride the leaders of various countries but there was years of work put into that treaty. Ireland is ignored Brusseles right now, the only messages they got about our vote was that it was for irrelevant and fearful reasons. It was undone by moronic issues irrelevant to it.

If we don't vote yes now I truely despair at this electorate.

Sam Vimes

themont85 wrote: »

In your opinion.

In my opinion, anybody who voted against Lisbon for reasons such as abortion or conscription are fools.

And the people who say that they didn't vote yes because of the government are too.

And people who voted against it because 'I didn't understand it'.

Which covers >50% of no voters, well more than enough to swing it the other way