Transparent bias in IRC Lisbon guide

FutureTaoiseach

I have several problems with the RC booklet:

A: It gives the government side the benefit of the doubt on the guarantees, even though they have yet to be tested in the courts. It states that Ireland "will keep a Commissioner". The problem is that the Commissioner 'guarantee' was not inserted into a Council decision and so is not legally-binding. It also does not clarify what happens after 2014.

B: It states:

Referendum Commission wrote:

Irish neutrality will not be affected - no conscription, no defence alliances

But:

Article 28a(7) TEU as amended by Lisbon wrote:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Even Seán Whelan admitted that it was very unclear what the mutual-assistance clause would mean in practice. I was listening to him on Radio 1 a few days ago. He was unable to say definitively that it would not amount in practice to a mutual defence pact. As such, I am not persuaded at all on this matter. As far as I concerned, the Treaty means what the Treaty says, and nothing extraneous to the Lisbon Treaty can dictate what it means to the ECJ. A parallel I would give: Article 7 of the Constitution confers equality on all citizens. Now suppose for a moment that the Oireachtas decided to pass legislation "clarifying" what this meant e.g. Article 7 doesn't mean equality for women (which of course would be an outrageous thing to do but let's suppose). That would not stand up in the Irish Supreme Court (rightly) and likewise, I feel that the 'guarantees' won't stand up in the ECJ.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I have several problems with the RC booklet:

A: It gives the government side the benefit of the doubt on the guarantees, even though they have yet to be tested in the courts. It states that Ireland "will keep a Commissioner". The problem is that the Commissioner 'guarantee' was not inserted into a Council decision and so is not legally-binding. It also does not clarify what happens after 2014.

B: It states:



But:

Even Seán Whelan admitted that it was very unclear what the mutual-assistance clause would mean in practice. I was listening to him on Radio 1 a few days ago. He was unable to say definitively that it would not amount in practice to a mutual defence pact. As such, I am not persuaded at all on this matter. As far as I concerned, the Treaty means what the Treaty says, and nothing extraneous to the Lisbon Treaty can dictate what it means to the ECJ. A parallel I would give: Article 7 of the Constitution confers equality on all citizens. Now suppose for a moment that the Oireachtas decided to pass legislation "clarifying" what this meant e.g. Article 7 doesn't mean equality for women (which of course would be an outrageous thing to do but let's suppose). That would not stand up in the Irish Supreme Court (rightly) and likewise, I feel that the 'guarantees' won't stand up in the ECJ.

Do not claim that the legal status of the guarantees is "doubtful". It is not doubtful - it is explicit and clear. Deal with them as they are, instead of making false claims about them.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do not claim that the legal status of the guarantees is "doubtful". It is not doubtful - it is explicit and clear. Deal with them as they are, instead of making false claims about them.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Think Mirium O Callaghan made some good points to Taoiseach on Prime Time. That for all the good will in the world, Guarantees and declarations, pretty much only exist between the acting heads of states at the time and that these will be revisited when new heads of states come in.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Think Mirium O Callaghan made some good points to Taoiseach on Prime Time. That for all the good will in the world, Guarantees and declarations, pretty much only exist between the acting heads of states at the time and that these will be revisited when new heads of states come in.

Well to be brutally honest, you're now into the territory of who has the biggest army, if you are going to speculate about ripping up existing treaties, you are only a half step off speculating about being invaded for the foreigner to enforce his will on the Irish people, treaty or no treaty.

Better start increasing the defence budget now, if you actually believe this is probable, or even possible.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well to be brutally honest, you're now into the territory of who has the biggest army, if you are going to speculate about ripping up existing treaties, you are only a half step off speculating about being invaded for the foreigner to enforce his will on the Irish people, treaty or no treaty.

Better start increasing the defence budget now, if you actually believe this is probable, or even possible.

If you saw the interview you would know what I'm talking about. She was referring to fact that it is naive to suggest that any incoming leader of an EU country is one hundred per cent bound by everything in any particular treaty.
So that treaty will be continually amended as Europe continually changes.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

If you saw the interview you would know what I'm talking about. She was referring to fact that it is naive to suggest that any incoming leader of an EU country is one hundred per cent bound by everything in any particular treaty.
So that treaty will be continually amended as Europe continually changes.

Ah, you're talking about Lisbon? We're not bound by it either if we don't ratify any changes.

That's the nature of agreements, it takes two to tango.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I have several problems with the RC booklet:

A: It gives the government side the benefit of the doubt on the guarantees, even though they have yet to be tested in the courts. It states that Ireland "will keep a Commissioner". The problem is that the Commissioner 'guarantee' was not inserted into a Council decision and so is not legally-binding. It also does not clarify what happens after 2014.

B: It states:



But:

Even Seán Whelan admitted that it was very unclear what the mutual-assistance clause would mean in practice. I was listening to him on Radio 1 a few days ago. He was unable to say definitively that it would not amount in practice to a mutual defence pact. As such, I am not persuaded at all on this matter. As far as I concerned, the Treaty means what the Treaty says, and nothing extraneous to the Lisbon Treaty can dictate what it means to the ECJ. A parallel I would give: Article 7 of the Constitution confers equality on all citizens. Now suppose for a moment that the Oireachtas decided to pass legislation "clarifying" what this meant e.g. Article 7 doesn't mean equality for women (which of course would be an outrageous thing to do but let's suppose). That would not stand up in the Irish Supreme Court (rightly) and likewise, I feel that the 'guarantees' won't stand up in the ECJ.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Pulling the old Joe Higgins there. The last sentance of the quoted Lisbon article, that you ommited, seems to provide a rather pertinant answer to your question.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ah, you're talking about Lisbon? We're not bound by it either if we don't ratify any changes.

That's the nature of agreements, it takes two to tango.

Yes we accept this treaty and then in a few years time, another treaty will come before us. And more pressure on people to accept it at face value as in the case of this one. you even saw Cowen say how vital it was for jobs, etc tonight without really dealing with the core issues.
And we can continue to shout down Higgins on such trivial matters of putting in the wrong text into his website (even Pat Cox admitted it was an honest mistake on nine o clock news tonight) but it has again raised the issue of how ECJ rules in terms of industrial relations.
Jobs will come to this country undoubtedly but are companies prepared to pay proper rate.
Again you have a case of Waterford where there have been redundancies left right and centre and companies are saying its because of cost.
What needs to be established is how low they are prepared to go with labour costs for the sake of profits.
That i think may well be key issue in next three weeks.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes we accept this treaty and then in a few years time, another treaty will come before us. And more pressure on people to accept it at face value as in the case of this one. you even saw Cowen say how vital it was for jobs, etc tonight without really dealing with the core issues.
And we can continue to shout down Higgins on such trivial matters of putting in the wrong text into his website (even Pat Cox admitted it was an honest mistake on nine o clock news tonight) but it has again raised the issue of how ECJ rules in terms of industrial relations.
Jobs will come to this country undoubtedly but are companies prepared to pay proper rate.
Again you have a case of Waterford where there have been redundancies left right and centre and companies are saying its because of cost.
What needs to be established is how low they are prepared to go with labour costs for the sake of profits.
That i think may well be key issue in next three weeks.

All due respect BVC, but you're just sounding paranoid now.

The same disastrous claims about what the EU will do to us have been made about every EU treaty up to and including Lisbon, are you not sick of running to help the shepherd from the 'wolf' at this stage?

meglome

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

All due respect BVC, but you're just sounding paranoid now.

The same disastrous claims about what the EU will do to us have been made about every EU treaty up to and including Lisbon, are you not sick of running to help the shepherd from the 'wolf' at this stage?

+1

I'm getting sick of this don't trust the EU/the EU is out to get us rubbish. Not once since we joined in 1973 has the EU forced us to do anything nor have they gone back on a deal with us. Some credit where credit is due people.

meglome

naysavig wrote: »

Educate yourself before you go to the polls. Remember that you have the RIGHT to vote on the lisbon treaty. Love and cherish your freedom

Do I assume the implication is the EU are out to take ours? That seems to be the standard pitch.

BlitzKrieg

uhmm just as a sort of strange update

was at a lisbon debate in coolock this evening and Patricia Mckenna of people's movement, voteno.ie and the Irish anti war movement speakers all subscribed to the same bias in the referendum commission theory which they stated during the debate.

Spiritoftheseventies

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

uhmm just as a sort of strange update

was at a lisbon debate in coolock this evening and Patricia Mckenna of people's movement, voteno.ie and the Irish anti war movement speakers all subscribed to the same bias in the referendum commission theory which they stated during the debate.

Sorry what is so strange about that? Three No campaign groups say there is bias in the Referendum Commission. So there is consensus there right?

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry what is so strange about that? Three No campaign groups say there is bias in the Referendum Commission. So there is consensus there right?

Well it is a serious offence for the referendum commission to produce biased information. Nobody has yet come out and stated what the supposed biased parts are.

Intrestingly she has also yet to follow through on her 'legal advice' that this is the case and take the court action she said she was threatening.

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

Well it is a serious offence for the referendum commission to produce biased information. Nobody has yet come out and stated what the supposed biased parts are.

Intrestingly she has also yet to follow through on her 'legal advice' that this is the case and take the court action she said she was threatening.

Well it was a serious offence by a Yes campaigner (see link below)
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/higgins-hits-back-at-stalinist-claims-he-falsified-lisbon-text-1884032.html
when he said he had doctored parts of treaty for his own purposes when putting it in on his website during the week. What happened was Higgins just put in wrong text and Pat Cox admitted it was an honest mistake. But we can go back and forth on this. End of the day, the booklet said out by RC is merely a very small pamplet on a very complex document. As such it was misleading.

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well it was a serious offence by a Yes campaigner (see link below)
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/higgins-hits-back-at-stalinist-claims-he-falsified-lisbon-text-1884032.html
when he said he had doctored parts of treaty for his own purposes when putting it in on his website during the week. What happened was Higgins just put in wrong text and Pat Cox admitted it was an honest mistake. But we can go back and forth on this. End of the day, the booklet said out by RC is merely a very small pamplet on a very complex document. As such it was misleading.

While it was a nice effort to deflect from the topic at hand, we have a Joe Higgins thread already.

I want to go back and forth on this. The fact that it something is a short is a very odd defination of biased.

What are the biased passages in the document?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Sorry what is so strange about that? Three No campaign groups say there is bias in the Referendum Commission. So there is consensus there right?

What I've noticed over the last few years, in various referenda and election campaigns is that some peoples definition of the word 'bias' has morphed to the following:

bi⋅as
  /ˈbaɪəs/ [bahy-uhs] noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi⋅ased, bi⋅as⋅ing or (especially British) bi⋅assed, bi⋅as⋅sing.

–noun
1. The act of not repeating my lies

marco_polo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

uhmm just as a sort of strange update

was at a lisbon debate in coolock this evening and Patricia Mckenna of people's movement, voteno.ie and the Irish anti war movement speakers all subscribed to the same bias in the referendum commission theory which they stated during the debate.

Actually did they mention any example of this 'bias'?

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

What I've noticed over the last few years, in various referenda and election campaigns is that some peoples definition of the word 'bias' has morphed to the following:

Not going to put words in your mouth so will let you expand on that.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Not going to put words in your mouth so will let you expand on that.

I'm not sure where the confusion is. The fact that several no campaigners are saying the referendum commission is biased does not mean it is biased. It means that they are annoyed that their lies have not been included in the leaflet. The referendum commission is not biased.

If someone says the leaflets from the referendum commission are yes biased what they're actually saying is that the facts are yes biased

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure where the confusion is. The fact that several no campaigners are saying the referendum commission is biased does not mean it is biased. It means that they are annoyed that their lies have not been included in the leaflet. The referendum commission is not biased.

If someone says the leaflets from the referendum commission are yes biased what they're actually saying is that the facts are yes biased

What he said, and beyond the referendum I'm also referring to pretty well most accusations of bias against everyone from public news, to wikipedia from wingnuts of all hues, across the anglophonic world, and likely beyond.

BlitzKrieg

marco_polo wrote: »

Actually did they mention any example of this 'bias'?

No, it was simply a quick remark that you cannot trust the referendum commission to not be bias.

The podcast of it is not up yet, when it is I will link it.

marco_polo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No, it was simply a quick remark that you cannot trust the referendum commission to not be bias.

The podcast of it is not up yet, when it is I will link it.

Thought as much.

Stark

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well it was a serious offence by a Yes campaigner (see link below)
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/higgins-hits-back-at-stalinist-claims-he-falsified-lisbon-text-1884032.html
when he said he had doctored parts of treaty for his own purposes when putting it in on his website during the week. What happened was Higgins just put in wrong text and Pat Cox admitted it was an honest mistake. But we can go back and forth on this. End of the day, the booklet said out by RC is merely a very small pamplet on a very complex document. As such it was misleading.

The "honest mistake" of mixing up the EU constitution and the Lisbon Treaty has been happening all too often. The former has far more to get people wound up and was rightly rejected by the French and the Dutch. Which is why many players campaigning for a No vote prefer to use it in their arguments rather than the actual treaty.

It would be interesting to see what people are claiming is actually false in the Referendum commission pamphlet.

Spiritoftheseventies

Stark wrote: »

The "honest mistake" of mixing up the EU constitution and the Lisbon Treaty has been happening all too often. The former has far more to get people wound up and was rightly rejected by the French and the Dutch. Which is why many players campaigning for a No vote prefer to use it in their arguments rather than the actual treaty.

It would be interesting to see what people are claiming is actually false in the Referendum commission pamphlet.

I think what happened is that the treaty is written in such a complicated way that one word misplaced can catch someone out.
Blair Horan who made the accusations has since been challenged to a public debate by Higgins and in fairness he has accepted it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

I think what happened is that the treaty is written in such a complicated way that one word misplaced can catch someone out.

He then went on to use his new version of the treaty to interpret it though, and still stands by that interpretation.

As I asked before, how many more 'misplaced' words form Joe Higgins opinions?

Stark

bayviewclose wrote: »

I think what happened is that the treaty is written in such a complicated way that one word misplaced can catch someone out.
Blair Horan who made the accusations has since been challenged to a public debate by Higgins and in fairness he has accepted it.

The best way of interpreting the treaty is often to compare it to previous treaties to see how the articles have been interpreted in the past. For example, the oft-quoted Article 48, which some claim makes Lisbon "self-amending" is the exact same article as was in Nice and previous treaties. So it's not something new we're voting for in Lisbon and we've seen that the interpretation of the article means the amendments have to be put to referendum in Ireland. If Lisbon is written in a complicated way, it's because the treaties it supersedes have been written in a complicated way. (And also because it has the read the exact same way in twenty-something different languages).

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure where the confusion is. The fact that several no campaigners are saying the referendum commission is biased does not mean it is biased. It means that they are annoyed that their lies have not been included in the leaflet. The referendum commission is not biased.

If someone says the leaflets from the referendum commission are yes biased what they're actually saying is that the facts are yes biased

There you go with the word lies again. What they said was that the leaflet sent out in past fortnight was very pro biased. Ie it was very general in terms of the changes made. In terms of loss of veto, if it had sent out an additional page detailing what items were linked to QMV it would have helped.
You go to that list on a website and it lays them out but with no real details supplied. it requires having to dig further.
This demonstrates the point. Below a list of items which are affects by QMV.

for instance
Border checks (article 62 FEU treaty), There is no embedded link here. So you have make further searches re second link below which details them further.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/lisbon_treaty/questions_and_answers/new_cases_of_qmv.pdf

http://home.lanet.lv/~tschmit1/Downloads/Schmitz_EuJurispr_diagram3.pdf

Sam Vimes

I just saw a massive ad from the referendum commission on the back of a bus saying "Vote on October 2nd".

But dyslexic people mix up letters so they're clearly telling dyslexic people to "Voteno October 2nd"

How dare they :mad:

papachango

'The guarantees are being submitted to the UN. That gives them the same status as the Lisbon treaty. It's just like Maastricht and the Edinburgh agreement with the Danes.'

I am mega, super chuffed that all of the really informed people can be found here in one spot. So much wisdom and love for the lisbon treaty.

Because I am having a simple fundamental little problem with the guarantees on the Lisbon treaty. I just want it cleared up for myself, as I'm just ignorant joe public, trying hard to get some sort of a handle on all this treaty and promises malarkey. I don't mind admitting I have made mistakes in interpreting the treaty. But that's the problem with treaties and guarantees, its peoples interpretation of them that causes confusions and hence subsequent court cases.

Now the Lisbon treaty is a tortuous read, even the 'simplified' version is like getting your ears smacked on a frosty morning! I would therefore say that the treaty is in fact unreadable, well to the average person anyway. However at least they are documents that I have been able to find, then read and examine and consider.

I cannot find a public 'legal text' of the guarantees so I can read, examine and consider.

Can somebody anywhere please post a link to the guarantees?

Much appreciated people.

By the way The Lisbon treaty is not as good as some people would have you believe. But, equally, in some ways it is not as bad as people think either.

It just depends on your interpretation of it.

I would like a chance to interpret the guarantees....

Can somebody anywhere please post a link to the guarantees?