Transparent bias in IRC Lisbon guide

marco_polo

papachango wrote: »

'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?

Look up ^^ (Sticky thread )

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

K-9

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/App/NewsRoom/loadDocument.aspx?id=339〈=en&directory=en%2fec%2f&fileName=108622.pdf

papachango

Much obliged for that


with regard to earlier posts on the 'Bias' front. Has anyone any further thoughts on the Broadcasting commision of Irelands trampling of citizens 'constitutional' right to have equal airtime allocated to both the yes and No campaigns on the state broadcaster RTE. As was ruled on by the Supreme court in the Coughlan case. Just a thought, havent seen much about it. It is blatantly illegal though don't you think?

I never had much faith in RTE though, it kills me to pay my licence fee every year, because its not like they don't rake in millions in private advertising. The BBC fair enough as they are not allowed to advertise so a fee is fair enough to watch their content.

papachango

Thanks for the document links folks. But to me this is not a 'legal text' like the treaty of Lisbon.

It is more like the summarised minutes (Presidency conclusions) of a meeting of the BEC. unless I am missing something.

From what I read, if a decision was to be taken, to implement the points concerned. I understand from reading these minutes that they would not come into effect until the next accession treaty came into place.

Would that mean no guarantees until Turkey or some other country joins or something?

Can someone please post a link to the 'Actual Guarantees' please?

marco_polo

papachango wrote: »

Thanks for the document links folks. But to me this is not a 'legal text' like the treaty of Lisbon.

It is more like the summarised minutes (Presidency conclusions) of a meeting of the BEC. unless I am missing something.

From what I read, if a decision was to be taken, to implement the points concerned. I understand from reading these minutes that they would not come into effect until the next accession treaty came into place.

Would that mean no guarantees until Turkey or some other country joins or something?

Can someone please post a link to the 'Actual Guarantees' please?

That is it am am afraid, if you look some of the existing protocols and declarations attached to the current treaties many are written in a similar non-legal language. The guarantees will be registered as a seperate international agreement at the time the treaty is ratified and will be legally biinding under international law.

I posted some links for further reading a while ago in another post if you are interested.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62020785&postcount=2251

K-9

papachango wrote: »

Much obliged for that


with regard to earlier posts on the 'Bias' front. Has anyone any further thoughts on the Broadcasting commision of Irelands trampling of citizens 'constitutional' right to have equal airtime allocated to both the yes and No campaigns on the state broadcaster RTE. As was ruled on by the Supreme court in the Coughlan case. Just a thought, havent seen much about it. It is blatantly illegal though don't you think?

I never had much faith in RTE though, it kills me to pay my licence fee every year, because its not like they don't rake in millions in private advertising. The BBC fair enough as they are not allowed to advertise so a fee is fair enough to watch their content.

I see your point, but it must be difficult for RTE to fulfil this on a practical basis.

I'd find Vincent Browne on TV3 fairly unbiased, though probably No leaning.

papachango wrote: »

Thanks for the document links folks. But to me this is not a 'legal text' like the treaty of Lisbon.

It is more like the summarised minutes (Presidency conclusions) of a meeting of the BEC. unless I am missing something.

From what I read, if a decision was to be taken, to implement the points concerned. I understand from reading these minutes that they would not come into effect until the next accession treaty came into place.

Would that mean no guarantees until Turkey or some other country joins or something?

Can someone please post a link to the 'Actual Guarantees' please?

It does say they come into effect if the Treaty is passed.

Scofflaw

papachango wrote: »

Thanks for the document links folks. But to me this is not a 'legal text' like the treaty of Lisbon.

It is more like the summarised minutes (Presidency conclusions) of a meeting of the BEC. unless I am missing something.

From what I read, if a decision was to be taken, to implement the points concerned. I understand from reading these minutes that they would not come into effect until the next accession treaty came into place.

Would that mean no guarantees until Turkey or some other country joins or something?

Can someone please post a link to the 'Actual Guarantees' please?

You can certainly have them from the Department of Foreign Affairs if you prefer. However, the European Council's published proceedings are authoritative.

cordially,
Scofflaw

papachango

So the guarantees will definitely 'NOT' be in effect after Lisbon then. ok grand. That is that cleared up.
We 'WILL' have to wait until the next accession treaty comes along, most likely with Turkey or similar, 'BEFORE' these guarantees come into play 'LEGALLY'.
Has anyone any timeframes on this? The sooner the better i think we'd all agree. I believe these guarantees are the only reason there is growing support for the Lisbon treaty. For them not to be actually happening indefinitely is surely misrepresentation by the government.
Do the guarantees not have a proviso. ie that if the next accession treaty is not within 'x' number of months/years our guarantees come into place immediately and legally anyhow after this time period. It would seem like a terminal oversight by the government if they do not.
Its just a bit worrying if there is a conflict/war in the meantime, or we're forced to lower our corporation tax until the next countries join. Thats gonna be bad for jobs. A heart attack for investment. And 'maybe' for wages indirectly.
I am not comfortable with Ireland having its 'Pants down', as it were, until the next country joins.

Is 'Authoritative' the same as 'Legal'?

papachango

Sorry K-9 my reading of it means that the legal guarantees become actual 'legal guarantees' when Lisbon is ratified. Which will then be implemented into the treaty at the conclusion of the next accession treaty. (point 5(vi))

I am pretty sure thats what it says. Hence the minutes of the 'presidency conclusions' of the BEC outlines the form the legal guarantees will take when the Lisbon treaty is passed.

We could be looking at 15 years, realistically, before the guarantees come into force legally, during which time we could be from pillar to post with normalisation headaches. Only to go through it all again if and when there is another accession treaty.

I hope I am missing something.

Scofflaw

papachango wrote: »

Sorry K-9 my reading of it means that the legal guarantees become actual 'legal guarantees' when Lisbon is ratified. Which will then be implemented into the treaty at the conclusion of the next accession treaty. (point 5(vi))

I am pretty sure thats what it says. Hence the minutes of the presidential conclusions of the BEC outlines the form the legal guarantees will take when the Lisbon treaty is passed.

We could be looking at 15 years, realistically, before the guarantees come into force legally, during which time we could be from pillar to post with normalisation headaches. Only to go through it all again if and when there is another accession treaty.

No. Let's clarify this - the legal status of the guarantees is as binding international agreements between the 27 member states. Until they become Protocols, they are of less legal weight than the treaties in any ECJ judgement, but they are still legally binding international agreements, and are already in force.

Please do not try to claim further that the guarantees are legally dubious, because it is not factually accurate. Deal with them as they are, or leave the topic alone.

Nor, of course, is the next accession even vaguely likely to be Turkey. It is, as I'm sure you're well aware, Croatia, which is expected to accede in the next couple of years. Again, I advise you not to repeat this claim, because, again, it's quite false, and I rather think you know it.

regards,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

papachango wrote: »

Sorry K-9 my reading of it means that the legal guarantees become actual 'legal guarantees' when Lisbon is ratified. Which will then be implemented into the treaty at the conclusion of the next accession treaty. (point 5(vi))

I am pretty sure thats what it says. Hence the minutes of the 'presidency conclusions' of the BEC outlines the form the legal guarantees will take when the Lisbon treaty is passed.

We could be looking at 15 years, realistically, before the guarantees come into force legally, during which time we could be from pillar to post with normalisation headaches. Only to go through it all again if and when there is another accession treaty.

I hope I am missing something.

Luckily the legal experts disagree. Next time perhaps you could just post your preconcieved thoughts on the matter like the quoted post first time around, instead of wasting peoples time pretending to make a genuine request for information when you have no intention of actually taking any of it on board.

K-9

papachango wrote: »

So the guarantees will definitely 'NOT' be in effect after Lisbon then. ok grand. That is that cleared up.
We 'WILL' have to wait until the next accession treaty comes along, most likely with Turkey or similar, 'BEFORE' these guarantees come into play 'LEGALLY'.
Has anyone any timeframes on this? The sooner the better i think we'd all agree. I believe these guarantees are the only reason there is growing support for the Lisbon treaty. For them not to be actually happening indefinitely is surely misrepresentation by the government.
Do the guarantees not have a proviso. ie that if the next accession treaty is not within 'x' number of months/years our guarantees come into place immediately and legally anyhow after this time period. It would seem like a terminal oversight by the government if they do not.
Its just a bit worrying if there is a conflict/war in the meantime, or we're forced to lower our corporation tax until the next countries join. Thats gonna be bad for jobs. A heart attack for investment. And 'maybe' for wages indirectly.
I am not comfortable with Ireland having its 'Pants down', as it were, until the next country joins.

Is 'Authoritative' the same as 'Legal'?

But the Guarantees say it will come into effect once Lisbon is passed. Do you have a reason, a practical example, why we shouldn't trust it?

It will certainly be not Turkey as Scofflaw pointed out, Turkey could be 2023 before that is a real possibility.

The time frame is once Lisbon is passed, these guarantees are passed. Do you have a reason to doubt otherwise? Preferably something where sovereign Govts. in the EU ignored mutually agreed guarantees post a Referendum AND then teared them up?

papachango

Okay so Croatia, we reckon, could be the next accession treaty in a couple years or so. Doesn't change my point, just the timescale, but that is also relevant too.

Nothing sinister going on here by the way, unless seeking clarification is a crime these days.
With respect scofflaw I do not share your interpretation of the guarantees. For instance let's take a test case...

The only way to 'guarantee' who is correct would be to take a legal case to see whose interpretation of the guarantees is correct.

We would have to fight out our differences in the European Court of Justice. The ECJs ruling would be final, not yours. As the ECJ has not made a ruling and the guarantees have not yet been contested, we cannot tell what the outcome will be. The ECJ has very little allegiance to ireland if its a choice between upsetting the big boys and us. If the ECJ ruling was not in your favour how would that make you feel? Our guarantees cannot guarantee that this situation will not arise.

Anyway its a non starter as the guarantees are not part of the Lisbon treaty, and hence the not a part of the forthcoming referendum on October the 2nd.

So for raising my concern, as an informed legal person and concerned citizen, will I be getting a ban now Scofflaw? Hardly seems fair, but go ahead if you must.

marco_polo

papachango wrote: »

Okay so Croatia, we reckon, could be the next accession treaty in a couple years or so. Doesn't change my point, just the timescale, but that is also relevant too.

Nothing sinister going on here by the way, unless seeking clarification is a crime these days.
With respect scofflaw I do not share your interpretation of the guarantees. For instance let's take a test case...

The only way to 'guarantee' who is correct would be to take a legal case to see whose interpretation of the guarantees is correct.

We would have to fight out our differences in the European Court of Justice. The ECJs ruling would be final, not yours. As the ECJ has not made a ruling and the guarantees have not yet been contested, we cannot tell what the outcome will be. The ECJ has very little allegiance to ireland if its a choice between upsetting the big boys and us. If the ECJ ruling was not in your favour how would that make you feel? Our guarantees cannot guarantee that this situation will not arise.

Anyway its a non starter as the guarantees are not part of the Lisbon treaty, and hence the not a part of the forthcoming referendum on October the 2nd.

So for raising my concern, as an informed legal person and concerned citizen, will I be getting a ban now Scofflaw? Hardly seems fair, but go ahead if you must.

Is this the latest line that is eminating out of the no camp? Having finally conceeded that the guarantees are watertight in international law, there may be a boogie man in the ECJ closet.

I guess all you need to show for Abortion for example, is a precedent where the ECJ claimed competency in a legislative area not granted by the treaties, then proceeded to overturn a members states constitutional prohibition on the matter, all the while ignoring a protocol already in the treaties reafirming the position of the member states constitutional position and a seperate legally binding guarantee that says the same thing as the protocol.



Simple eh?

K-9

papachango wrote: »

Okay so Croatia, we reckon, could be the next accession treaty in a couple years or so. Doesn't change my point, just the timescale, but that is also relevant too.

Nothing sinister going on here by the way, unless seeking clarification is a crime these days.
With respect scofflaw I do not share your interpretation of the guarantees. For instance let's take a test case...

The only way to 'guarantee' who is correct would be to take a legal case to see whose interpretation of the guarantees is correct.

We would have to fight out our differences in the European Court of Justice. The ECJs ruling would be final, not yours. As the ECJ has not made a ruling and the guarantees have not yet been contested, we cannot tell what the outcome will be. The ECJ has very little allegiance to ireland if its a choice between upsetting the big boys and us. If the ECJ ruling was not in your favour how would that make you feel? Our guarantees cannot guarantee that this situation will not arise.

Anyway its a non starter as the guarantees are not part of the Lisbon treaty, and hence the not a part of the forthcoming referendum on October the 2nd.

So for raising my concern, as an informed legal person and concerned citizen, will I be getting a ban now Scofflaw? Hardly seems fair, but go ahead if you must.

I think the problem is you are ignoring all the evidence provided. Your concerns aren't even to do with the EU, they are to do with international agreements being ignored.

It is going to Conspiracy Theory lengths.

papachango

K-9 its not an issue for me that the EU partners parliaments/countries will not fulfill their promise, I believe they have acted in good faith. However the issue for me is the possibility of the protocols/guarantees getting overruled by the ECJ. Which is I believe not only possible, but, according to my own interpretation, a very arguable and very winnable case which would see the guarantees suffer. That's my point. Not that they dont exist but that legally they are questionable. Hope I've clarified what I mean by this. The guarantees haven't been 'stress tested' yet. The Lisbon treaty would carry more weight than the guarantees/protocols and the Lisbon treaty would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ, not the protocols. It is clear that the Lisbon treaty has not changed to accommodate the guarantees as that would mean re ratification all over again. So to summarise, the Lisbon treaty has not changed and would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ over any case involving the 'guarantees' /protocols, as a treaty carries more weight than these. Because the Lisbon treaty seemed to call into question many issues of concern to ireland, the guarantees were sought. But the treaty would overrule the guarantees in any legal challenge or case, so we're back to square one. That is the chink in the armor I believe.

K-9

papachango wrote: »

K-9 its not an issue for me that the EU partners parliaments/countries will not fulfill their promise, I believe they have acted in good faith. However the issue for me is the possibility of the protocols/guarantees getting overruled by the ECJ. Which is I believe not only possible, but, according to my own interpretation, a very arguable and very winnable case which would see the guarantees suffer. That's my point. Not that they dont exist but that legally they are questionable. Hope I've clarified what I mean by this. The guarantees haven't been 'stress tested' yet. The Lisbon treaty would carry more weight than the guarantees/protocols and the Lisbon treaty would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ, not the protocols. It is clear that the Lisbon treaty has not changed to accommodate the guarantees as that would mean re ratification all over again. So to summarise, the Lisbon treaty has not changed and would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ over any case involving the 'guarantees' /protocols, as a treaty carries more weight than these. Because the Lisbon treaty seemed to call into question many issues of concern to ireland, the guarantees were sought. But the treaty would overrule the guarantees in any legal challenge or case, so we're back to square one. That is the chink in the armor I believe.

Can you back this up? What is your case? You have been shown the case against, so what would over ride all these points?

marco_polo

papachango wrote: »

K-9 its not an issue for me that the EU partners parliaments/countries will not fulfill their promise, I believe they have acted in good faith. However the issue for me is the possibility of the protocols/guarantees getting overruled by the ECJ. Which is I believe not only possible, but, according to my own interpretation, a very arguable and very winnable case which would see the guarantees suffer. That's my point. Not that they dont exist but that legally they are questionable. Hope I've clarified what I mean by this. The guarantees haven't been 'stress tested' yet. The Lisbon treaty would carry more weight than the guarantees/protocols and the Lisbon treaty would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ, not the protocols. It is clear that the Lisbon treaty has not changed to accommodate the guarantees as that would mean re ratification all over again. So to summarise, the Lisbon treaty has not changed and would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ over any case involving the 'guarantees' /protocols, as a treaty carries more weight than these. Because the Lisbon treaty seemed to call into question many issues of concern to ireland, the guarantees were sought. But the treaty would overrule the guarantees in any legal challenge or case, so we're back to square one. That is the chink in the armor I believe.

Where do you see the conflict between the treaties and the guarantees?

papachango

Oh please I am trying to be objective and put forward a view for objective assessment, not to get personal. Conspiracy theories do not exist in my book.

K-9

papachango wrote: »

Oh please I am trying to be objective and put forward a view for objective assessment, not to get personal. Conspiracy theories do not exist in my book.

Put it forward. How would they argue against, objectively?

papachango

I personally don't see a conflict. But that was not my point. surely you can see that

K-9

papachango wrote: »

I personally don't see a conflict. But that was not my point. surely you can see that

I see your point. Basically getting guarantees is pointless. Fair enough.

papachango

So to summarise, the Lisbon treaty has not changed and would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ over any case involving the 'guarantees' /protocols, as a treaty carries more weight than these. Because the Lisbon treaty seemed to call into question many issues of concern to ireland, the guarantees were sought. But the treaty would overrule the guarantees in any legal challenge or case, so we're back to square one. That is the chink in the armor I believe.

to put it in a base logic such as in computer terms what we would have is 'circular reference'.

This would then need to be ruled on by the ECJ which can rule either for or against.

papachango

No getting the guarantees was the only way to get a second referendum happening, so hardly worthless I think you'd agree.

marco_polo

papachango wrote: »

So to summarise, the Lisbon treaty has not changed and would be the deciding factor in any ruling by the ECJ over any case involving the 'guarantees' /protocols, as a treaty carries more weight than these. Because the Lisbon treaty seemed to call into question many issues of concern to ireland, the guarantees were sought. But the treaty would overrule the guarantees in any legal challenge or case, so we're back to square one. That is the chink in the armor I believe.

to put it in a base logic such as in computer terms what we would have is 'circular reference'.

This would then need to be ruled on by the ECJ which can rule either for or against.

The first part is where logic goes into meltdown.

Disappointing really, I was hoping at least for an outlandish scenario where the CCCTB combined with the Charter of Fundamental rights and the Passerelle clause could be use to reclassify abortion under Health and Safety legislation and sneak it in that way.

Or something to that effect.

K-9

papachango wrote: »

No getting the guarantees was the only way to get a second referendum happening, so hardly worthless I think you'd agree.

So getting pointless guarantees that the ECJ will over rule wasn't worthless?

Scofflaw

papachango wrote: »

Okay so Croatia, we reckon, could be the next accession treaty in a couple years or so. Doesn't change my point, just the timescale, but that is also relevant too.

Nothing sinister going on here by the way, unless seeking clarification is a crime these days.
With respect scofflaw I do not share your interpretation of the guarantees. For instance let's take a test case...

The only way to 'guarantee' who is correct would be to take a legal case to see whose interpretation of the guarantees is correct.

We would have to fight out our differences in the European Court of Justice. The ECJs ruling would be final, not yours. As the ECJ has not made a ruling and the guarantees have not yet been contested, we cannot tell what the outcome will be. The ECJ has very little allegiance to ireland if its a choice between upsetting the big boys and us. If the ECJ ruling was not in your favour how would that make you feel? Our guarantees cannot guarantee that this situation will not arise.

This is another one of those things where one pretends that something like this:

Irish Guarantees wrote:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

is made out to be of uncertain interpretation. It's not, rather obviously - it's extremely plain.

papachango wrote: »

Anyway its a non starter as the guarantees are not part of the Lisbon treaty, and hence the not a part of the forthcoming referendum on October the 2nd.

And that's not accurate either. They are part and parcel of what we're voting on, whether they're in the Lisbon Treaty or not. They're effectively an additional mini-treaty which will amend the EU treaties - just as Lisbon does - sometime in the next couple of years. That they will amend the treaties isn't in doubt either, because that's part of the guarantee itself, and legally binding the moment Lisbon is ratified. And they are contingent on Lisbon. You vote Yes, you get Lisbon, and you get the guarantees, you vote No, you get neither.

That's what you're voting on. If you prefer to ignore some of what you're voting on because you don't believe in it, that's your privilege, just as it is to vote on the invisible teapot in Lisbon if you happen to believe in that. That's entirely up to you. Claiming that something is true when it's not, or vice-versa, on the other hand, isn't.

papachango wrote: »

So for raising my concern, as an informed legal person and concerned citizen, will I be getting a ban now Scofflaw? Hardly seems fair, but go ahead if you must.

You're welcome to air whatever concerns you have in respect of the guarantees or any other matter, as long as you do it with regard for truth. If, on the other hand, you intend to argue that what is true is not, then I can't see that that adds anything positive to the debate, really.

regards,
Scofflaw

papachango

Not if Ireland really wants to ratify Lisbon, no.

papachango

I think I'll leave you to it to be honest, the water is way to muddy on this forum to get much clarity of any kind. Though thanks for the help, when it was help. But no thanks to the uber sensitivity about other things. Say what you like about the points I made but they are valid concerns.
Speaking of worries about the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Yes I do have grave concerns about its intent and impartiality. Justice is not high on the commissions book at the moment when in fact, Jacques Barrot the current EU Justice commissioner is a convicted criminal and the vice president of the Barosso commission. Perhaps that is OK with you but it is far from OK with me. Just because barosso's over here in Ireland extolling the virtues of the treaty and the guarantees, doesn't mean I should not have valid concerns about the office, the commission and barosso's right hand man when he is in fact a crook. Perhaps one of you could tell me that it is not true and the current commission employs stand up people. Its not like barrot holds a junior role or anything and then you want me to trust th ECJ. Jesus wept!

Scofflaw

papachango wrote: »

I think I'll leave you to it to be honest, the water is way to muddy on this forum to get much clarity of any kind. Though thanks for the help, when it was help. But no thanks to the uber sensitivity about other things. Say what you like about the points I made but they are valid concerns.
Speaking of worries about the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Yes I do have grave concerns about its intent and impartiality. Justice is not high on the commissions book at the moment when in fact, Jacques Barrot the current EU Justice commissioner is a convicted criminal and the vice president of the Barosso commission. Perhaps that is OK with you but it is far from OK with me. Just because barosso's over here in Ireland extolling the virtues of the treaty and the guarantees, doesn't mean I should not have valid concerns about the office, the commission and barosso's right hand man when he is in fact a crook. Perhaps one of you could tell me that it is not true and the current commission employs stand up people. Its not like barrot holds a junior role or anything and then you want me to trust th ECJ. Jesus wept!

No, but I'd love to see you actually debate the value of the Treaty to Ireland instead of just throwing FUD around.

regards,
Scofflaw