Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
10 REAL reasons to vote NO to Lisbon
Comments
-
I think it's too simplistic an approach to have a lot of meaning but different approaches possible:
Election to election difference rather than such a broad average.
Looking at percentage difference rather than absolute difference.
We'd also have to develop some argument that General Election apathy can spill over into EU elections, looking at Local Elections might be more apt perhaps? I think most of us would agree that voter apathy is both a narrow and a broad phenomenon. We'd have people specifically apathetic about specific elections but many would be apathetic about all elections. Arguably General Elections are viewed as the most important across Europe (we can't use constitutional referenda because they're not used in some European countries) but equally Local election apathy might be an interesting window on "lesser election apathy" where people vote in General Elections (and where applicable Referenda on Constitutions) and ignore "less important" elections.0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »If they already have the freedom to do this, why are they inserting this enabling power into our Constitution? It suggests to me they are unsure of their ground on this matter. The fact remains that the relevant provision was not in the original Lisbon I legislation, and it has to be asked why it has been inserted into the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009.
My understanding is the Government has had the freedom to join Schengen at any time, subject to approval by the Oireachtas, since 1998, under the provisions of Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution.
As such, the Government are not inserting an "enabling power" for Schengen into the constitution, since they already have it.
Rather they seem to be using the proposed amendment for Lisbon II to rephrase much of the provisions of Article 29.4.3 onwards, presumably with the intention of making the relevant articles neater and possibly even easier to understand.
Personally, I am not sure it is much of an improvement but, since Article 29.4.3 onwards are a mess, I guess they have to try.0 -
My understanding is the Government has had the freedom to join Schengen at any time, subject to approval by the Oireachtas, since 1998, under the provisions of Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution.
As such, the Government are not inserting an "enabling power" for Schengen into the constitution, since they already have it.
Rather they seem to be using the proposed amendment for Lisbon II to rephrase much of the provisions of Article 29.4.3 onwards, presumably with the intention of making the relevant articles neater and possibly even easier to understand.
Personally, I am not sure it is much of an improvement but, since Article 29.4.3 onwards are a mess, I guess they have to try.
The Treaty referred to is the Treaty of Amsterdam. Therefore, here are the referenced articles of it mentioned in Article 29.4.6 of the Irish Constitution:Article 29.4.6 wrote:6° The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and 2.15 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 5° of this section and the second and fourth Protocols set out in the said Treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.11.ÙTitle VI shall be replaced by the following:
"Title VI
PROVISIONS ON POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
Article K.1
Without prejudice to the powers of the European Community, the Union's objective shall be to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice by developing common action among the Member States in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and by preventing and combating racism and xenophobia. That objective shall be achieved by preventing and combating crime, organised or otherwise, in particular terrorism, trafficking in persons and offences against children, illicit drug trafficking and illicit arms trafficking, corruption and fraud, through:
-closer cooperation between police forces, customs authorities and other competent
authorities in the Member States, both directly and through the European Police
Office (Europol), in accordance with the provisions of Articles K.2 and K.4;
-Ùcloser cooperation between judicial and other competent authorities of the Member
States in accordance with the provisions of Articles K.3(a) to (d) and K.4;
16 Part One
-Ùapproximation, where necessary, of rules on criminal matters in the Member States, in
accordance with the provisions of Article K.3(e).
Article K.2
1.Ú Common action in the field of police cooperation shall include:
(a)Ùoperational cooperation between the competent authorities, including the police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services of the Member States in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences;
(b) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information, including information held by law enforcement services on reports on suspicious financial transactions, in particular through Europol, subject to appropriate provisions on the protection of personal data;
(c) cooperation and joint initiatives in training, the exchange of liaison officers, secondments, the use of equipment, and forensic research;
(d) the common evaluation of particular investigative techniques in relation to the detection of serious forms of organised crime.
2.Ú The Council shall promote cooperation through Europol and shall in particular, within a period of five years after the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam:
(a)enable Europol to facilitate and support the preparation, and to encourage the coordination and carrying out, of specific investigative actions by the competent auth orities of the Member States, including operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity;
(b) adopt measures allowing Europol to ask the competent authorities of the Member States to conduct and coordinate their investigations in specific cases and to develop specific expertise which may be put at the disposal of Member States to assist them in investigating cases of organised crime;
(c) promote liaison arrangements between prosecuting/investigating officials specialising in the fight against organised crime in close cooperation with Europol;
(d) establish a research, documentation and statistical network on crossborder crime.
Article K.3
Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:
Treaty of Amsterdam 17
(a)facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;
(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary
to improve such cooperation;
(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;
(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent
elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism
and illicit drug trafficking.
Article K.4
The Council shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities referred to in Articles K.2 and K.3 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State.
Article K.5
This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
Article K.6
1. In the areas referred to in this Title, Member States shall inform and consult one another within the Council with a view to coordinating their action. To that end, they shall establish collaboration between the relevant departments of their administrations.
2. The Council shall take measures and promote cooperation, using the appropriate form and procedures as set out in this Title, contributing to the pursuit of the objectives of the Union. To that end, acting unanimously on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, the Council may:
(a)Ùadopt common positions defining the approach of the Union to a particular matter;
(b) adopt framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regÜ
ulations of the Member States. Framework decisions shall be binding upon the
Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. They shall not entail direct effect;
(c) adopt decisions for any other purpose consistent with the objectives of this Title,
excluding any approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. These decisions shall be binding and shall not entail direct effect; the Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall adopt measures necessary to implement those decisions at the level of the Union;
18 Part One
(d) establish conventions which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Member States shall begin the procedures applicable within a time limit to be set by the Council.
Unless they provide otherwise, conventions shall, once adopted by at least half of the Member States, enter into force for those Member States. Measures implementing conventions shall be adopted within the Council by a majority of two thirds of the
Contracting Parties.
3. Where the Council is required to act by a qualified majority, the votes of its members shall be weighted as laid down in Article 148(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and for their adoption acts of the Council shall require at least 62
votes in favour, cast by at least 10 members.
4. For procedural questions, the Council shall act by a majority of its members.
Article K.7
1.Ú The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction, subject to the conditions laid down in this Article, to give preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of framework decisions, and decisions on the interpretation of conventions established under this Title and on the validity and interpretation of the measures implementing them.
2. By a declaration made at the time of signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam or at any time thereafter, any Member State shall be able to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings as specified in paragraph 1.
3. A Member State making a declaration pursuant to paragraph 2 shall specify that either:
(a)any court or tribunal of that State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in paragraph 1 if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, or
(b) any court or tribunal of that State may request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in paragraph 1 if that court or tribunal
considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment.
4. Any Member State, whether or not it has made a declaration pursuant to paragraph 2, shall be entitled to submit statements of case or written observations to the Court in cases which arise under paragraph 1.
5. The Court of Justice shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law enforcement services of a Member State or the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
6. The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions in actions brought by a Member State or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement,
infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers. The proceedings provided for in this paragraph shall be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure.
7.The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to rule on any dispute between Member States regarding the interpretation or the application of acts adopted under Article K.6(2) whenever such dispute cannot be settled by the Council within six months of its being referred to the Council by one of its members. The Court shall also have jurisdiction to rule on any dispute between Member States and the Commission regarding the interpretation or the application of conventions established under Article K.6(2)(d).
Article K.8
1.Ú A Coordinating Committee shall be set up consisting of senior officials. In addition to its coordinating role, it shall be the task of the Committee to:-Ùgive opinions for the attention of the Council, either at the Council's request or on its
own initiative;
-Ùcontribute, without prejudice to Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to the preparation of the Council's discussions in the areas referred to in Article K.1.
2.Ú The Commission shall be fully associated with the work in the areas referred to in this Title.
Article K.9
Within international organisations and at international conferences in which they take part, Member States shall defend the common positions adopted under the provisions of this Title. Articles J.8 and J.9 shall apply as appropriate to matters falling under this Title.
Article K.10
Agreements referred to in Article J.14 may cover matters falling under this Title.
Article K.11
1.Ú The Council shall consult the European Parliament before adopting any measure referred to in Article K.6(2)(b), (c) and (d). The European Parliament shall deliver its opinion within a timeÜlimit which the Council may lay down, which shall not be less than three months. In the absence of an opinion within that time limit, the Council may act.
2.Ú The Presidency and the Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of discussions in the areas covered by this Title.
20 Part One
3.Ú The European Parliament may ask questions of the Council or make recommendations to it. Each year, it shall hold a debate on the progress made in the areas referred to in this Title.
Article K.12
1.Ú Member States which intend to establish closer cooperation between themselves may
be authorised, subject to Articles K.15 and K.16, to make use of the institutions,
procedures and mechanisms laid down by the Treaties provided that the cooperation
proposed:
(a)Ùrespects the powers of the European Community, and the objectives laid down by this
Title;
(b) has the aim of enabling the Union to develop more rapidly into an area of freedom, security and justice.
2.Ú The authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority at the request of the Member States concerned and after inviting the Commission to present its opinion; the request shall also be forwarded to the European Parliament. If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the granting of an authorisation by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity. The votes of the members of the Council shall be weighted in accordance with Article 148(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. For their adoption, decisions shall require at least 62 votes in favour, cast by at least 10 members.
3.Ú Any Member State which wishes to become a party to cooperation set up in accordance with this Article shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, which shall give an opinion to the Council within three months of receipt of that notification, possibly accompanied by a recommendation for such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary for that Member State to become a party to the cooperation in question. Within four months of the date of that notification, the Council shall decide on the request and on such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary. The decision shall be deemed to be taken unless the Council, acting by a qualified majority, decides to hold it in abeyance; in this case, the Council shall state the reasons for its decision and set a deadline for reÜexamining it. For the purposes of this paragraph, the Council shall act under the conditions set out in Article K.16.
4.Ú The provisions of Articles K.1 to K.13 shall apply to the closer cooperation provided
for by this Article, save as otherwise provided for in this Article and in Articles K.15 andK.16. The provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community concerning the powers of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the exercise of those powers shall apply to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Treaty of Amsterdam 21
5.Ú This Article is without prejudice to the provisions of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union.
Article K.13
1.Ú Articles 137, 138, 138e, 139 to 142, 146, 147, 148(3), 150 to 153, 157 to 163, 191a
and 217 of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply to the provisions
relating to the areas referred to in this Title.
2.Ú Administrative expenditure which the provisions relating to the areas referred to in
this Title entail for the institutions shall be charged to the budget of the European
Communities.
3.Ú Operational expenditure to which the implementation of those provisions gives rise shall also be charged to the budget of the European Communities, except where the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise. In cases where expenditure is not charged to the budget of the European Communities it shall be charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise.
4.Ú The budgetary procedure laid down in the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply to the expenditure charged to the budget of the European Communities.
Article K.14
The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State,and after consulting the European Parliament, may decide that action in areas referred toin Article K.1 shall fall under Title III a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions relating to it. It shall recommend the Member States to adopt that decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.'5.ÙThe following Article shall be inserted:
"Article 5a
1.Ú Member States which intend to establish closer cooperation between themselves may be authorised, subject to Articles K.15 and K.16 of the Treaty on the European Union, to make use of the institutions, procedures and mechanisms laid down by this Treaty, provided that the cooperation proposed:
(a)Ùdoes not concern areas which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community;
(b) does not affect Community policies, actions or programmes;
(c) does not concern the citizenship of the Union or discriminate between nationals of Member States;
(d) remains within the limits of the powers conferred upon the Community by this Treaty; and
(e) does not constitute a discrimination or a restriction of trade between Member States and does not distort the conditions of competition between the latter.
2.Ú The authorisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament.
Treaty of Amsterdam 25 If a member of the Council declares that, for important and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the granting of an authorisation by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the Council, meeting in the composition of the Heads of State or Government, for decision by unanimity. Member States which intend to establish closer cooperation as referred to in paragraph 1 may address a request to the Commission, which may submit a proposal to the Council to that effect. In the event of the Commission not submitting a proposal, it shall inform the Member States concerned of the reasons for not doing so.
3.Ú Any Member State which wishes to become a party to cooperation set up in accordance with this Article shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, which shall give an opinion to the Council within three months of receipt of that notification. Within four months of the date of that notification, the Commission shall decide on it and on such specific arrangements as it may deem necessary.
4.Ú The acts and decisions necessary for the implementation of cooperation activities shall be subject to all the relevant provisions of this Treaty, save as otherwise provided for in this Article and in Articles K.15 and K.16 of the Treaty on European Union.
5.Ú This Article is without prejudice to the provisions of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union.Article 2.15 wrote:The following title shall be inserted in Part Three:
"Title IIIa
VISAS, ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION AND OTHER POLICIES RELATED TO FREE
MOVEMENT OF PERSONS
Article 73i
In order to establish progressively an area of freedom, security and justice, the Council
shall adopt:
(a)Ùwithin a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, measures aimed at ensuring the free movement of persons in accordance with Article 7a, in conjunction with directly related flanking measures with respect to external border controls, asylum and immigration, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73j(2) and (3) and Article 73k(1)(a) and (2)(a), and measures to prevent and combat crime in accordance with the provisions of Article K.3(e) of the Treaty on European Union;
(b) other measures in the fields of asylum, immigration and safeguarding the rights of nationals of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73k;
(c) measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters as provided for in
Article 73m;
(d) appropriate measures to encourage and strengthen administrative cooperation, as provided for in Article 73n;
(e) measures in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters aimed at a high level of security by preventing and combating crime within the Union in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union.
Article 73j
The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 73o, shall, within a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, adopt:
(1)Ùmeasures with a view to ensuring, in compliance with Article 7a, the absence of any
controls on persons, be they citizens of the Union or nationals of third countries, when crossing internal borders;
(2)Ùmeasures on the crossing of the external borders of the Member States which shall establish:
(a)Ùstandards and procedures to be followed by Member States in carrying out checks on persons at such borders;
(b) rules on visas for intended stays of no more than three months, including:
(i)Ùthe list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement;
28 Part One
(ii)Ùthe procedures and conditions for issuing visas by Member States;
(iii)a uniform format for visas;
(iv) rules on a uniform visa;
(3)measures setting out the conditions under which nationals of third countries shall have
the freedom to travel within the territory of the Member States during a period of no
more than three months.
Article 73k
The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 73o, shall, within a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, adopt:
(1)Ùmeasures on asylum, in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and other relevant treaties, within the following areas:
(a)Ùcriteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is responsible for considering an application for asylum submitted by a national of a third country
in one of the Member States,
(b) minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers in Member States,
(c) minimum standards with respect to the qualification of nationals of third countries
as refugees,
(d) minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing
refugee status;
(2)Ùmeasures on refugees and displaced persons within the following areas:
(a)Ùminimum standards for giving temporary protection to displaced persons from
third countries who cannot return to their country of origin and for persons who
otherwise need international protection,
(b) promoting a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the
consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons;
(3)Ùmeasures on immigration policy within the following areas:
(a)Ùconditions of entry and residence, and standards on procedures for the issue by
Member States of long term visas and residence permits, including those for the
purpose of family reunion,
(b) illegal immigration and illegal residence, including repatriation of illegal residents;
(4)Ùmeasures defining the rights and conditions under which nationals of third countries
who are legally resident in a Member State may reside in other Member States.Measures adopted by the Council pursuant to points 3 and 4 shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing in the areas concerned national provisions which are compatible with this Treaty and with international agreements. Measures to be adopted pursuant to points 2(b), 3(a) and 4 shall not be subject to the five year period referred to above.
Article 73l
1.Ú This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
2.Ú In the event of one or more Member States being confronted with an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries and without prejudice to paragraph 1, the Council may, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, adopt provisional measures of a duration not exceeding six months for the benefit of the Member States concerned.
Article 73m
Measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having crossÜborder implications, to be taken in accordance with Article 73o and insofar as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, shall include:
(a)improving and simplifying:
-Ùthe system for crossÜborder service of judicial and extrajudicial documents;
-cooperation in the taking of evidence;
-the recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial cases, including decisions in extrajudicial cases;
(b) promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning the conflict of laws and of jurisdiction;
(c) eliminating obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings, if necessary by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure applicable in the Member States.
Article 73n
The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 73o, shall take measures to ensure cooperation between the relevant departments of the administrations of the Member States in the areas covered by this Title, as well as between those departments and the Commission.
Part One
Article 73o
1.Ú During a transitional period of five years following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission or on the initiative of a Member State and after consulting the European Parliament.
2.Ú After this period of five years:
-the Council shall act on proposals from the Commission; the Commission shall examine any request made by a Member State that it submit a proposal to the Council;
-Ùthe Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, shall take a decision with a view to providing for all or parts of the areas covered by this Title to be governed by the procedure referred to in Article 189b and adapting the provisions relating to the powers of the Court of Justice.
3.Ú By derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, measures referred to in Article 73j(2)(b) (i)
and (iii) shall, from the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, be adopted by the
Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after
consulting the European Parliament.
4.Ú By derogation from paragraph 2, measures referred to in Article 73j(2)(b) (ii) and
(iv) shall, after a period of five years following the entry into force of the Treaty of
Amsterdam, be adopted by the Council acting in accordance with the procedure referred
to in Article 189b.
Article 73p
1.Ú Article 177 shall apply to this Title under the following circumstances and conditions: where a question on the interpretation of this Title or on the validity or interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community based on this Title is raised in a case pending before a court or a tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon.
2.Ú In any event, the Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction to rule on any measure or decision taken pursuant to Article 73j(1) relating to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
3.Ú The Council, the Commission or a Member State may request the Court of Justice to give a ruling on a question of interpretation of this Title or of acts of the institutions of the Community based on this Title. The ruling given by the Court of Justice in response to such a request shall not apply to judgments of courts or tribunals of the Member States which have become res judicata.
Article 73q
The application of this Title shall be subject to the provisions of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland and to the Protocol on the position of Denmark and without prejudice to the Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Treaty of Amsterdam 31 Article 7a of the Treaty establishing the European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland.'Article 1
The Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, signatories to the Schengen agreements, are authorised to establish closer cooperation among themselves within the scope of those agreements and related provisions, as they are listed in the Annex to this Protocol, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Schengen acquis’. This cooperation shall be conducted within the institutional and legal framework of the European Union and with respect for the relevant provisions of the Treaty on European Union and of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Article 2
1. From the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Schengen acquis, including the decisions of the Executive Committee established by the Schengen agreements which have been adopted before this date, shall immediately apply to the thirteen Member States referred to in Article 1, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article. From the same date, the Council will substitute itself for the said Executive Committee.
The Council, acting by the unanimity of its Members referred to in Article 1, shall take any measure necessary for the implementation of this paragraph. The Council, acting unanimously, shall determine, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Treaties, the legal basis for each of the provisions or decisions which constitute the Schengen acquis.
With regard to such provisions and decisions and in accordance with that determination, the Court of Justice of the European Communities shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the relevant applicable provisions of the Treaties. In any event, the Court of Justice shall have no jurisdiction on measures or decisions relating to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
As long as the measures referred to above have not been taken and without prejudice to Article 5(2), the provisions or decisions which constitute the Schengen acquis shall be regarded as acts based on Title VI of the Treaty on European Union.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall apply to the Member States which have signed accession protocols to the Schengen agreements, from the dates decided by the Council, acting with the unanimity of its Members mentioned in Article 1, unless the conditions for the accession of any of those States to the Schengen acquis are met before the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Article 3
Following the determination referred to in Article 2(1), second subparagraph, Denmark shall maintain the same rights and obligations in relation to the other signatories to the Schengen agreements, as before the said determination with regard to those parts of the Schengen acquis that are determined to have a legal basis in Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
With regard to those parts of the Schengen acquis that are determined to have legal base in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, Denmark shall continue to have the same rights and obligations as the other signatories to the Schengen agreements.
Article 4
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which are not bound by the Schengen acquis, may at any time request to take part in some or all of the provisions of this acquis.
The Council shall decide on the request with the unanimity of its members referred to in Article 1 and of the representative of the Government of the State concerned.
Article 5
1. Proposals and initiatives to build upon the Schengen acquis shall be subject to the relevant provisions of the Treaties.
In this context, where either Ireland or the United Kingdom or both have not notified the President of the Council in writing within a reasonable period that they wish to take part, the authorisation referred to in Article 5a of the Treaty establishing the European Community or Article K.12 of the Treaty on European Union shall be deemed to have been granted to the Members States referred to in Article 1 and to Ireland or the United Kingdom where either of them wishes to take part in the areas of cooperation in question.
2. The relevant provisions of the Treaties referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall apply even if the Council has not adopted the measures referred to in Article 2(1), second subparagraph.
Article 6
The Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway shall be associated with the implementation of the Schengen acquis and its further development on the basis of the Agreement signed in Luxembourg on 19 December 1996. Appropriate procedures shall be agreed to that effect in an Agreement to be concluded with those States by the Council, acting by the unanimity of its Members mentioned in Article 1. Such Agreement shall include provisions on the contribution of Iceland and Norway to any financial consequences resulting from the implementation of this Protocol.
A separate Agreement shall be concluded with Iceland and Norway by the Council, acting unanimously, for the establishment of rights and obligations between Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one hand, and Iceland and Norway on the other, in domains of the Schengen acquis which apply to these States.
Article 7
The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority, adopt the detailed arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council.
Article 8
For the purposes of the negotiations for the admission of new Member States into the European Union, the Schengen acquis and further measures taken by the institutions within its scope shall be regarded as an acquis which must be accepted in full by all States candidates for admission.
ANNEX
SCHENGEN ACQUIS
1. The Agreement, signed in Schengen on 14 June 1985, between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders.
2. The Convention, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990, between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, implementing the Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen on 14 June 1985, with related Final Act and common declarations.
3. The Accession Protocols and Agreements to the 1985 Agreement and the 1990 Implementation Convention with Italy (signed in Paris on 27 November 1990), Spain and Portugal (signed in Bonn on 25 June 1991), Greece (signed in Madrid on 6 November 1992), Austria (signed in Brussels on 28 April 1995) and Denmark, Finland and Sweden (signed in Luxembourg on 19 December 1996), with related Final Acts and declarations.
4. Decisions and declarations adopted by the Executive Committee established by the 1990 Implementation Convention, as well as acts adopted for the implementation of the Convention by the organs upon which the Executive Committee has conferred decision making powers.Article 1
Subject to Article 3, the United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community. By way of derogation from Article 148(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes of the members of the Council concerned as laid down in the said Article 148(2). The unanimity of the members of the Council, with the exception of the representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, shall be necessary for decisions of the Council which must be adopted unanimously.
Article 2
In consequence of Article 1 and subject to Articles 3, 4 and 6, none of the provisions of Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community, no measure adopted pursuant to that Title, no provision of any international agreement concluded by the Community pursuant to that Title, and no decision of the Court of Justice interpreting any such provision or measure shall be binding upon or applicable in the United Kingdom or Ireland; and no such provision, measure or decision shall in any way affect the competences, rights and obligations of those States; and no such provision, measure or decision shall in any way affect the acquis communautaire nor form part of Community law as they apply to the United Kingdom or Ireland.
Article 3
1. The United Kingdom or Ireland may notify the President of the Council in writing, within three months after a proposal or initiative has been presented to the Council pursuant to Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community, that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of any such proposed measure, whereupon that State shall be entitled to do so. By way of derogation from Article 148(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a qualified majority shall be defined as the same proportion of the weighted votes of the members of the Council concerned as laid down in the said Article 148(2).
The unanimity of the members of the Council, with the exception of a member which has not made such a notification, shall be necessary for decisions of the Council which must be adopted unanimously. A measure adopted under this paragraph shall be binding upon all Member States which took part in its adoption.
2. If after a reasonable period of time a measure referred to in paragraph 1 cannot be adopted with the United Kingdom or Ireland taking part, the Council may adopt such measure in accordance with Article 1 without the participation of the United Kingdom or Ireland. In that case Article 2 applies.
Article 4
The United Kingdom or Ireland may at any time after the adoption of a measure by the Council pursuant to Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission that it wishes to accept that measure. In that case, the procedure provided for in Article 5a(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Article 5
A Member State which is not bound by a measure adopted pursuant to Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall bear no financial consequences of that measure other than administrative costs entailed for the institutions.
Article 6
Where, in cases referred to in this Protocol, the United Kingdom or Ireland is bound by a measure adopted by the Council pursuant to Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the relevant provisions of that Treaty, including Article 73p, shall apply to that State in relation to that measure.
Article 7
Articles 3 and 4 shall be without prejudice to the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union.
Article 8
Ireland may notify the President of the Council in writing that it no longer wishes to be covered by the terms of this Protocol. In that case, the normal treaty provisions will apply to Ireland0 -
I think it's too simplistic an approach to have a lot of meaning but different approaches possible:
Election to election difference rather than such a broad average.
Looking at percentage difference rather than absolute difference.
We'd also have to develop some argument that General Election apathy can spill over into EU elections, looking at Local Elections might be more apt perhaps? I think most of us would agree that voter apathy is both a narrow and a broad phenomenon. We'd have people specifically apathetic about specific elections but many would be apathetic about all elections. Arguably General Elections are viewed as the most important across Europe (we can't use constitutional referenda because they're not used in some European countries) but equally Local election apathy might be an interesting window on "lesser election apathy" where people vote in General Elections (and where applicable Referenda on Constitutions) and ignore "less important" elections.
As far as I know, the local election level suffers from far lower turnout in the UK at least than general elections. I suspect that the determining factor is how much power each level is perceived to have - and the local and European levels are perceived, quite correctly, to have less power than the national level.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I see the results is already skewed in Italy, Greece, Beligum and luxembourg had/still has Compulsory voting. Therefore we cannot say there is less interest with the EU as it not a good barometer. A good comparsion is to compare Eu elections to Local and National electionsOh, alright then:
Country|Average general election turnout|Election turnout c.1970|Election turnout c.2002|Change from 1970–2002|Compulsory voting|Average turnout in Euro elections 1979–99|Average 2004/9|Change|Difference|Type of Electoral system
Belgium|92.78|91.5|90.6|-0.9|Yes|89.4|90.6|1.2|2.1|PR
Austria|88.74|91.8|80.4|-11.4|No|58.3|44.2|-14.1|-2.7|PR
Sweden|88.51|88.3|81.4|-6.9|No|39.9|41.69|1.79|8.69|PR
Luxembourg|88.33|90.1|86.5|-3.6|Yes|89.6|91.05|1.45|5.05|PR
Italy|88.08|93.2|81.4|-11.8|Yes-until-1993|79.1|68.39|-10.72|1.09|Mixed
Denmark|86.85|87.2|87.1|-0.1|No|50.2|53.72|3.52|3.62|List-PR
Germany|85.35|91.1|82.2|-8.9|No|58|43.15|-14.85|-5.95|PR
France|82.24|84.2|79.7|-4.5|No|53.2|41.7|-11.51|-7.01|Majority
Netherlands|81.84|79.1|73.2|-5.9|No|44.6|38.01|-6.6|-0.7|PR
Greece|81.01|79.60*|89|9.4|Yes|78.6|57.92|-20.69|-30.09|PR
Portugal|77|91.70*|61|-30.7|No|49.8|37.69|-12.11|18.59|PR
Spain|73.64|79.40*|73.8|-5.6|No|61.9|45.02|-16.88|-11.28|PR
Finland|73.64|83.6|65.2|-18.4|No|45.2|39.87|-5.34|13.07|PR
UK|72.99|72.2|59.4|-12.8|No|32.3|36.61|4.31|17.11|Plurality
Ireland|71.23|77.8|62.7|-15.1|No|53.9|58.61|4.71|19.81|PR-STV
Interesting - lies, damned lies, and statistics, as they say. A couple of dramatic results (Greece and Spain), but otherwise not exactly conclusive evidence of something specifically wrong with the European elections.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I see the results is already skewed in Italy, Greece, Beligum and luxembourg had/still has Compulsory voting. Therefore we cannot say there is less interest with the EU as it not a good barometer. A good comparsion is to compare Eu elections to Local and National elections
That comparison is what's in the table, though...? The "Difference" column is the difference between the change in general election voting and European election voting - the average fall in general election turnout is 8.5%, the average fall in European election turnout is 6.4%. Not much difference, really.
The biggest changes are in the ex-dictatorships, followed by Germany. However, Germany, it should be recalled, absorbed ex-communist East Germany in the period under consideration.
quizzically,
Scofflaw0 -
The one major issue I have with this referendum is the fact that it is happening at all.
When we voted No last June that should have been it.
Regardless of how many Yes campaign supporters wish to believe that we have to vote Yes the second time or else we'll be in for it from Europe, the fact remains that just like with the Nice treaty we the people of Ireland voted against ratification and we were then told that we had to vote again.
The fact is that if we had voted Yes and there had been a popular movement from the people of the EU against this treaty we would still not have had a chance to vote No a second time.
We have the right to give them the answer they want and nothing else.
To me this is an example of what the mentality at the top level of the European Union is towards its people.
They don't give a damn what we think and when we differ with them they bully us into agreeing with them.
To me these are the hallmarks of people who do not have the best interests of their constituents at heart, to be honest if feels more like thinly veiled totalitarianism and the fact that supposedly intelligent people will arrive of forums such as this and defend the EU's behavior and ridicule those of us who oppose this illegal second referendum makes for a sad commentary on our society.
I'm sure my comments will be pounced on and my character attacked for what I have said here, but as far as I can see, away from the contents of the Lisbon treaty and the arguments surrounding it, there is no valid reason for this referendum to be held and the EU by forcing us to vote again is showing a complete lack of respect for us and our opinions, surely reason enough to shoot down their re dressed constitution once again.0 -
To me these are the hallmarks of people who do not have the best interests of their constituents at heart, to be honest if feels more like thinly veiled totalitarianism and the fact that supposedly intelligent people will arrive of forums such as this and defend the EU's behavior and ridicule those of us who oppose this illegal second referendum makes for a sad commentary on our society.
You do realise that it's not actually illegal, right? Right?
I'll go out on the limb here say that you are aware that it's not illegal. Why did you say it was?
Was the second divorce referendum illegal? After all, it was voted upon and rejected. So that should be that right?
The first referendum was held.
It was rejected.
The government asks the public why it was rejected (through the statistical analysis of surveys).
The response was that the overwhelming number of no voters didn't understand the treaty, with others voting for silly reasons such as neutrality, abortion and so on.
Any dispute this far?
Next, the government goes to the EU with these results and asks if the concerns can be addressed to reassure the public.
EU draws up the protocols.
The Irish governments decides in light of these concerns being satisfied another referendum is warranted.
Where is the undemocratic bit?
Should the public never be allowed to change their mind?
If someone offers you a cup of tea and you say no, are they ever allowed to offer you another cup of tea again?0 -
nullzero wrote:We have the right to give them the answer they want and nothing else.
Actually, we have the right to return them whichever answer we prefer - and they have the right to keep asking in the hopes it will also be the one they prefer.
mildly,
Scofflaw0 -
You do realise that it's not actually illegal, right? Right?
I'll go out on the limb here say that you are aware that it's not illegal. Why did you say it was?
Was the second divorce referendum illegal? After all, it was voted upon and rejected. So that should be that right?
The first referendum was held.
It was rejected.
The government asks the public why it was rejected (through the statistical analysis of surveys).
The response was that the overwhelming number of no voters didn't understand the treaty, with others voting for silly reasons such as neutrality, abortion and so on.
Any dispute this far?
Next, the government goes to the EU with these results and asks if the concerns can be addressed to reassure the public.
EU draws up the protocols.
The Irish governments decides in light of these concerns being satisfied another referendum is warranted.
Where is the undemocratic bit?
Should the public never be allowed to change their mind?
If someone offers you a cup of tea and you say no, are they ever allowed to offer you another cup of tea again?
When Ireland goes to its people for a referendum on an EU treaty there is only supposed to be one referendum.
The divorce referendum was an internal referendum and had nothing to do with the EU.
I can't think of how different the Lisbon Treaty could be to the people of Ireland deciding if they should have the right to divorce one another.
The divorce referendum was a national issue, just like any referendum about abortion or gay marriage etc may be in the future.
In as much as we define democracy within the EU as having our stipulations of membership upheld and our voice respected the second referendum is undemocratic.
I'm sure we can all agree that had the Lisbon treaty been ratified last June then we would never have had a chance to change our minds to say No in a second referendum.
Do you not see the double standards?
Are you that convinced that the EU is an incredibly benevolent instiution?
Please feel free to lampoon my opinions further.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, we have the right to return them whichever answer we prefer - and they have the right to keep asking in the hopes it will also be the one they prefer.
mildly,
Scofflaw
They don't have the right to keep asking.
Our national constitution calls for the respect of the will of the people, and that is a thorn in the side of the EU right now.
We will have no more referendums on any EU treaties in the future should we ratify Lisbon.
Do you trust people to always use their rever accumulating power for the greater good?
In the event that some tyrant became a force in the EU and started to introduce crazy legislation would we not want a voice?
We won't have that option once Lisbon is ratified and that alone is reason enough to vote NO.
The staus quo doesn't always remain the same, we can't remove our right to hold referendums on potentially important issues because we think the EU might treat us like a naught child if we vote NO.
If that's the EU's response, it's a wholly unethical orgainisation.
I don't not believe it is, and I don't believe we should be afraid to vote No, regardless of how many scare mongers there are saying otherwise.0 -
They don't have the right to keep asking.
Our national constitution calls for the respect of the will of the people, and that is a thorn in the side of the EU right now.
We will have no more referendums on any EU treaties in the future should we ratify Lisbon.
Do you trust people to always use their rever accumulating power for the greater good?
In the event that some tyrant became a force in the EU and started to introduce crazy legislation would we not want a voice?
We won't have that option once Lisbon is ratified and that alone is reason enough to vote NO.
The staus quo doesn't always remain the same, we can't remove our right to hold referendums on potentially important issues because we think the EU might treat us like a naught child if we vote NO.
If that's the EU's response, it's a wholly unethical orgainisation.
I don't not believe it is, and I don't believe we should be afraid to vote No, regardless of how many scare mongers there are saying otherwise.
Who ever said the EU was ethical? They want Europe to remain strong player in the world. Do you really think they care greatly if we think this referendum is fair or not? And if that case came about that we ever got some crazed lunatic in power trying to do whatever, again if we got to that stage do you think he would care what voice we had? Similarily do you believe the masses are capable of governing themselves?0 -
Scofflaw, could you do us a favour and ban a few more of these no-voter conspiracy nuts. Why don't you just ban them immediately instead of playing around with them.
Only intellectual analyses allowed here, and as I'm sure you will agree no-voter=conspiracy nut. End of argument.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:0 -
worldrepublic wrote: »Scofflaw, could you do us a favour and ban a few more of these no-voter conspiracy nuts. Why don't you just ban them immediately instead of playing around with them.
Only intellectual analyses allowed here, and as I'm sure you will agree no-voter=conspiracy nut. End of argument.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I'm very yes but at the same time it doesn't seem like the right way of discussing/debating things. I don't agree with what you say so I ban you...0 -
worldrepublic wrote: »Scofflaw, could you do us a favour and ban a few more of these no-voter conspiracy nuts. Why don't you just ban them immediately instead of playing around with them.
Only intellectual analyses allowed here, and as I'm sure you will agree no-voter=conspiracy nut. End of argument.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I wouldn't agree with that at all. There are certain arguments which belong in the Conspiracy Theories forum, on the basis that they require a level of paranoia well outside normal limits - the EU as a Satanist conspiracy to usher in the reign of the Antichrist is the one that springs to mind, although that one might equally be bounced off to the Religion forum.
As to banning No posters - on the contrary, I'd like to see more of them, as long as they don't mind sticking to the forum rules.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I wouldn't agree with that at all. There are certain arguments which belong in the Conspiracy Theories forum, on the basis that they require a level of paranoia well outside normal limits - the EU as a Satanist conspiracy to usher in the reign of the Antichrist is the one that springs to mind, although that one might equally be bounced off to the Religion forum.
As to banning No posters - on the contrary, I'd like to see more of them, as long as they don't mind sticking to the forum rules.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Thanks Scofflaw
0 -
... As to banning No posters - on the contrary, I'd like to see more of them, as long as they don't mind sticking to the forum rules.
That's a position that I would support.
It would be nice, though, if it were possible to devise rules that required participants to have some regard for accuracy, truth, and logic. The number of misinterpretations and misrepresentations posted in the European debates would try a saint. I would like to applaud Scofflaw for showing more patience than we would expect from any saint.0 -
The reality with aspects of the Lisbon Treaty is that some of it isn't black and white. Some of it is open to differing, and equally legitimate, interpretations. That is the reality that you need to understand.P. Breathnach wrote: »That's a position that I would support.
It would be nice, though, if it were possible to devise rules that required participants to have some regard for accuracy, truth, and logic. The number of misinterpretations and misrepresentations posted in the European debates would try a saint. I would like to applaud Scofflaw for showing more patience than we would expect from any saint.0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »The reality with aspects of the Lisbon Treaty is that some of it isn't black and white. Some of it is open to differing, and equally legitimate, interpretations. That is the reality that you need to understand.
Some of it is open to differing, and equally legitimate, interpretations. On the other hand, nearly all of it is clear, and some of the differing interpretations here are not equally legitimate -- indeed, some of them are preposterous.0 -
worldrepublic wrote: »Scofflaw, could you do us a favour and ban a few more of these no-voter conspiracy nuts. Why don't you just ban them immediately instead of playing around with them.
Only intellectual analyses allowed here, and as I'm sure you will agree no-voter=conspiracy nut. End of argument.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
If we started banning people from Politics for not being well informed on issues this would become a very empty place very quickly.0 -
Advertisement
-
When Ireland goes to its people for a referendum on an EU treaty there is only supposed to be one referendum.
I've never heard of this law. Can you show me the legislation? Or perhaps this is your preference, which is very different from the law.The divorce referendum was an internal referendum and had nothing to do with the EU.
True, but nonetheless it was a constitutional referendum. Was the second vote undemocratic?In as much as we define democracy within the EU as having our stipulations of membership upheld and our voice respected the second referendum is undemocratic.
Everything was upheld. Lisbon was not ratified. How on Earth can it possibly be undemocratic to have another vote? Don't you see the irony of your point of view?! It is undemocratic to hold a vote! Actually it's very democratic. As I've said before you may argue that it is annoying to have to vote again, but the law allows the government to run another referendum. I think if it's a no there will be no further EU referenda for years, but the government could ask again, and again, and again. It won't happen, it might be annoying, but it's not undemocratic.I'm sure we can all agree that had the Lisbon treaty been ratified last June then we would never have had a chance to change our minds to say No in a second referendum.
Do you not see the double standards?
For the umpteenth+1 time of responding to this... I'll quote myself from a previous thread... Yes, we will be asked to vote again if the answer is yes. Just as this is asking again after the yes to Nice... and Nice was asking again after the yes to Maastrict... and Maastrict was asking again after the SEA... and so on...
Yes. Show me proof otherwise and other than Lisbon2 which is happening because the Irish government and opposion believe it is in our best interests.Are you that convinced that the EU is an incredibly benevolent instiution?Please feel free to lampoon my opinions further.
I'm debating, not lampooning.
Ix.0 -
Oh well, if the conspiracy nuts succeed with their no campaign, then we CAN have Lisbon III. The problem is that what Europe needs is the ability to fast-track change. Also, we have transferred most power over to the centralised parliament already so why not finish the transfer once and for all. There is only one other alternative scenario:
The Irish voters go ahead and vote no, again, thinking how clever they are.... and then the Lisbon Treaty goes through anyway. Ha!
The yes side just cannot lose -just face up to it.... you cannot beat the enlightened establishment views of Yes voters.
0 -
worldrepublic wrote: »Oh well, if the conspiracy nuts succeed with their no campaign, then we CAN have Lisbon III. The problem is that what Europe needs is the ability to fast-track change. Also, we have transferred most power over to the centralised parliament already so why not finish the transfer once and for all. There is only one other alternative scenario:
The Irish voters go ahead and vote no, again, thinking how clever they are.... and then the Lisbon Treaty goes through anyway. Ha!
The yes side just cannot lose -just face up to it.... you cannot beat the enlightened establishment views of Yes voters.
I have never read such a pile of self gratifying garbage in my life.
As for Mr Quote Tower before you...
Do you not see the undemocratic side of an institution that does not respect the will of the people and uses fear mongering to get the answer it wants from the people when they have already said No to what they want.
I personally see no need for an EU that has massive centralised power.
We do not need and EU that is a "force on the world stage", the old version, the EEC was a great thing.
Now we are heading towards a United States of Europe so to speak.
In such an orgainisation as outlined by the Lisbon treaty, smaller countries will not always have a voice.
It would therefor be logical to ask why we would want to be in a situation where our decisions are made for us on a range of issues especially when as a country we have fought rather hard over quite a considerable amount of time to not have others make our decisions for us.
I'm all for a fair, fully democratic version of the EU.
As things stand as and as we are going at the moment that is not what we will be getting.
I don't believe we should cut ourselves off from the EU, and I believe there can be a lot of positives from being part of a bigger organisation, but not at the price that the Lisbon Treaty asks.
As for Worldrepublic's views, I think you are an incredibly pompous person with a very self satisfied view of the world.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it the de facto belief system to be revered above all others.
Being anti Lisbon doesn't make somebody a paranoid conspiracy theorist, that is a huge generalisation made to undermine people and to be honest I think it's incredibly childish.
You believe yourself to be enlightened, but in truth you couldn't be any more un enlightened.
Best of luck to you in your endevours in always being right, following the establishment view blindly is a great thing especially when you have no analytical prowess of your own.0 -
Do you not see the undemocratic side of an institution that does not respect the will of the people and uses fear mongering to get the answer it wants from the people when they have already said No to what they want.
Are you talking about the Irish government? They are the ones that are asking us to vote again (well some people won't vote again, and some will be voting for the first time). What's undemocratic about multiple votes? Surely more votes = more democracy? Either way it's nothing to do with the other EU member states, or the EU itself.
That statement is also a million miles away from your previous claim that the second referendum is 'illegal'. I take it you are admitting you were wrong, and are withdrawing the original claim?I personally see no need for an EU that has massive centralised power... the old version, the EEC was a great thing.
I'm all for a fair, fully democratic version of the EU.
Does not compute...I believe there can be a lot of positives from being part of a bigger organisation, but not at the price that the Lisbon Treaty asks.
What price is that, exactly?0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »Are you talking about the Irish government? They are the ones that are asking us to vote again (well some people won't vote again, and some will be voting for the first time). What's undemocratic about multiple votes? Surely more votes = more democracy? Either way it's nothing to do with the other EU member states, or the EU itself.
That statement is also a million miles away from your previous claim that the second referendum is 'illegal'. I take it you are admitting you were wrong, and are withdrawing the original claim?
Does not compute...
What price is that, exactly?
I don't know what you're getting at to be honest.
I have said that Lisbon will not allow for any more referendums = Less democracy.
On/Off right to a comissioner = Less democracy.
Repeating the referendum until they get the answer they want given that there would never be an opportunity to vote again for the No side if the treaty is ratified = Less democracy.
The EU as a fully inclusive democratic body in which all members get a say, does "compute".
It makes more sense than the Lisbon treaty alternative.0 -
I don't know what you're getting at to be honest.
I have said that Lisbon will not allow for any more referendums = Less democracy.
On/Off right to a comissioner = Less democracy.
Repeating the referendum until they get the answer they want given that there would never be an opportunity to vote again for the No side if the treaty is ratified = Less democracy.
The EU as a fully inclusive democratic body in which all members get a say, does "compute".
It makes more sense than the Lisbon treaty alternative.
What does not compute for me, is that you are both 'all for the EU' being a far more political organisation that is 'fully democratic' while at the same time, want to go back to the almost wholly undemocratic EEC.
The Irish government control the running of referenda, if you want to call them undemocratic, fine, I disagree (on your reason), but again, it's nothing to do with the EU.
On another point, Lisbon does not stop referenda, that is a common, but incorrect, belief.
You are also incorrect if you believe that the nomination of a Commissioner is being removed by Lisbon, this has changed since the first referendum. So the government (and EU) have addressed your concern about the nomination of a Commissioner by Ireland, do you still think it's unfair of them to ask you to vote on the new deal?0 -
As for Mr Quote Tower before you...
Do you not see the undemocratic side of an institution that does not respect the will of the people and uses fear mongering to get the answer it wants from the people when they have already said No to what they want.
That would be me, I assume.
No I do not see the undemocratic side of an institution which did not conclude ratification of the Lisbon treaty, listened to our government explain why people voted no, agreed with our government various guarantees to clarify aspects of the treaty (the treaty did not need to change since the points clarified were that the issues were not affected by the treaty), then left it up to our government to decide whether to ask the people a second time.
Who is fear-mongering here? Do you think there was any fear-mongering on the no-side during the last referendum?
The people said No. Correct. This is an important issue, which has been clarified since the last vote. How can it be undemocratic to ask the people whether those clarifications (and further information, which was another major issue for no-voters) have changed their minds?
I have to say, this argument on the No side of "No means no, forever" is really starting to sound like Ian Paisley in the bad times up North. No. No, I don't want to talk about it. No, I do NOT want you to address my concerns. No, I do NOT want more information. No. No, I do NOT want any further votes.
Ix.0 -
Interestingly Ix, the poster in question listed his (presumably) main concerns which were:
Article 48 will block further referenda in Ireland.
Countries will lose the right to nominate a Commissioner for 5 of every 15 years.
Of these 2 concerns, the first one is false, and a misconception.
The second has been addressed since the first referendum.
I'm very interested to know, if, having learned that his first concern was unfounded, and his second has been addressed, he will still maintain that he shouldn't have the right to vote again.0 -
FutureTaoiseach wrote: »The Treaty referred to is the Treaty of Amsterdam.
It would help if you read what you post.
Let's see what those protocols say:
So, at any time Ireland can request to take part in some or all of the Schengen acquis (As indeed it already has for part of the Schengen acquis if memory serves me correctly).Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union/Protocol 2
.....
Article 4
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which are not bound by the Schengen acquis, may at any time request to take part in some or all of the provisions of this acquis.
The Council shall decide on the request with the unanimity of its members referred to in Article 1 and of the representative of the Government of the State concerned.
....
Title IIIa being:Originally Posted by Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland/Protocol 4
Article 1
Subject to Article 3, the United Kingdom and Ireland shall not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title IIIa of the Treaty establishing the European Community....
In other words, that is the opt our of Title IIIa.Article 2.15
The following title shall be inserted in Part Three:
"Title IIIa
VISAS, ASYLUM, IMMIGRATION AND OTHER POLICIES RELATED TO FREE
MOVEMENT OF PERSONS
But, there is always an opt in:
And since that nice article in the constitution allows the Government to use the Provisions of the protocols when it so choose, it can join Schengen anytime it likes. Lisbon doesn't alter it one way or another. Try again, FT...Article 8
Ireland may notify the President of the Council in writing that it no longer wishes to be covered by the terms of this Protocol. In that case, the normal treaty provisions will apply to Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement