Lisbon - The Legal Guarantees

Scofflaw

Mother says wrote: »

Sorry, the 'they' I was referring to was the Irish Government. I assume the EC compiled the guarantees on the basis of whatever the Irish government told them we (the Irish) were worried about.
Perhaps they could have added a guarantee stating that the Treaty is in fact very easy to understand despite what we may have been told.

Also a guarantee that we would all get ponies for Christmas, I suppose. If we want to vote on complex international treaties, complex international treaties are what we get to vote on...the view that they should be made simple for us to vote on rather ignores what they're actually for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

bug wrote: »

They promised us legal guarantees, I watched Michael Martin on prime time nodding at Mary Lou of all people, in agreement after she stated that they would wait and see after the legal guarantees were obtained.
We didn't get them. We got assurances. We were promised legal guarantees.

The word guarantee is a synonym of assurance. Look mate if you're voting no because you think the guarantees aren't really guarantees you're barking up the wrong tree. Vote no if you want but please do it for an actual reason and not because of one of many diversionary tactics from no campaigners. The fact that the Irish people are believing all this crap is the reason people talk about our reputation being damaged

bug wrote: »

They didn't address it or renegotiate it. Its the same treaty. And you know, they might just get the same damn result. Im not saying that they doctored any survey. I never said that at all!

You said

bug wrote: »

Putting a treaty in front of the people is democratic.

Investigating their reasoning as to voting one way or another by means of a "poll" and using it as a means to re-run the vote is undemocratic.

If you think the poll was valid why put it in quotes as if to say "so called poll"? And they addressed the major issues highlighted the poll. Since you don't think they addressed the major issues you can't think the poll was valid can you

It was just that the major issues weren't actually in the treaty and so didn't require a change. Really we should be embarrassed that they had to go and get these guarantees because we were afraid of a load of stuff that was never going to happen

What issues do you have that they didn't address?

Stark

bug wrote: »

Investigating their reasoning as to voting one way or another by means of a "poll" and using it as a means to re-run the vote is undemocratic.

A "one chance, take it as it is or leave it" approach to democracy isn't necessarily the best thing. Investigating people's reasons for voting No, making an attempt to address those reasons, then asking people if they're satisfied with those attempts is perfectly democratic imo.

bug wrote:

They didn't address it or renegotiate it. Its the same treaty. And you know, they might just get the same damn result. Im not saying that they doctored any survey. I never said that at all!

Of the reasons given for rejecting the treaty, the only one that actually related to the treaty itself was the commissioner thing. And we now get to keep a full-time commissioner (something which we wouldn't have had under Nice). So that's one concern that has been addressed with a change. Others like abortion, taxation and neutrality had been previously addressed and Lisbon did nothing to affect these issues. So the only means of addressing those was through assurances.

If people can come up with other reasons for voting No, then I'm sure the EU will be willing to address them. Though I think people on both sides will agree that a third referendum would be out of the question at this point so it leaves the future of the EU stuck between a rock and a hard place.

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

I did have a copy of the annotated version that Peadar O'Brion did, but the link keeps breaking.

There aren't huge differences in the text of the Constitution and the consolidated post-Lisbon text of the EU treaties. However, dropping the 'state-like' language and the symbols (flag, anthem, etc) was a much bigger thing than it's made out to be. The Constitution involved a political claim to state-like status, Lisbon doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I found the link somewhere here on boards but can't find it again! Anyway, I did note that Article 3a[4] confirms that "National security remains the sole responsibility of each member state" so I have no issue with that.

Over the past few months my no vote has softened somewhat because, in my opinion, most of the changes proposed in Lisbon could probably be instigated one way or the other eventually even if the treaty is not ratified. I also really do not appreciate the involvement of the UKIP party, or any other extreme right wing party, encouraging a No vote.

My one remaining stumbling block is regarding the new role of the High Representative for foreign ... position. According to Article 15b QMV applies when adopting a decision defining a union action or position on a proposal by the HR. Am I correct in that? The reason this worries me is because if a union position is taken, for example, on Iran, Ireland would be included in that position whether they had voted for or against it. The Eu and the US are currently planning increased sanctions against Iran because they "think" Iran are creating a nuclear weapon. I do not want to see another Iraq and I know that if there is one country in the world that the Iranians respect, it is Ireland. I would not like to think that Ireland would be precluded from negotiating with Iran by being tied to a EU position that they may not entirely agree with. Can you help me out of my dilemma?

nesf

whatisayis wrote: »

My one remaining stumbling block is regarding the new role of the High Representative for foreign ... position. According to Article 15b QMV applies when adopting a decision defining a union action or position on a proposal by the HR. Am I correct in that? The reason this worries me is because if a union position is taken, for example, on Iran, Ireland would be included in that position whether they had voted for or against it. The Eu and the US are currently planning increased sanctions against Iran because they "think" Iran are creating a nuclear weapon. I do not want to see another Iraq and I know that if there is one country in the world that the Iranians respect, it is Ireland. I would not like to think that Ireland would be precluded from negotiating with Iran by being tied to a EU position that they may not entirely agree with. Can you help me out of my dilemma?

I imagine (but cannot prove) that said Representative won't have a free hand to set foreign policy for the EU and that it will continue to come from the Council of Europe. More along the lines of a single spokesman for a group rather than a position of power. (I'm after forgetting the details since it was discussed last year, but Scofflaw or another may remember them)

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

I found the link somewhere here on boards but can't find it again! Anyway, I did note that Article 3a[4] confirms that "National security remains the sole responsibility of each member state" so I have no issue with that.

Over the past few months my no vote has softened somewhat because, in my opinion, most of the changes proposed in Lisbon could probably be instigated one way or the other eventually even if the treaty is not ratified. I also really do not appreciate the involvement of the UKIP party, or any other extreme right wing party, encouraging a No vote.

My one remaining stumbling block is regarding the new role of the High Representative for foreign ... position. According to Article 15b QMV applies when adopting a decision defining a union action or position on a proposal by the HR. Am I correct in that? The reason this worries me is because if a union position is taken, for example, on Iran, Ireland would be included in that position whether they had voted for or against it. The Eu and the US are currently planning increased sanctions against Iran because they "think" Iran are creating a nuclear weapon. I do not want to see another Iraq and I know that if there is one country in the world that the Iranians respect, it is Ireland. I would not like to think that Ireland would be precluded from negotiating with Iran by being tied to a EU position that they may not entirely agree with. Can you help me out of my dilemma?

The Council of Ministers can act by QMV on foreign policy issues only where it is making decisions on carrying out a policy agreed unanimously by the European Council, or where the European Council has unanimously agreed that the Council will act by QMV - although neither of those apply to any decision with "military or defence implications". So Ireland either has a veto at the European Council level, or a veto at the Council of Ministers, but it always has a veto on EU foreign policy.

This is Article 31 of the consolidated version, which is the result of 15b Lisbon:

1. Decisions under this Chapter shall be taken by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where this Chapter provides otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. When abstaining in a vote, any member of the Council may qualify its abstention by making a formal declaration under the present subparagraph. In that case, it shall not be obliged to apply the decision, but shall accept that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other Member States shall respect its position. If the members of the Council qualifying their abstention in this way represent at least one third of the Member States comprising at least one third of the population of the Union, the decision shall not be adopted.

2. By derogation from the provisions of paragraph 1, the Council shall act by qualified majority:
- when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position on the basis of a decision of the European Council relating to the Union's strategic interests and objectives, as referred to in Article 22(1),
- when adopting a decision defining a Union action or position, on a proposal which the high representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has presented following a specific request from the European Council, made on its own initiative or that of the high representative,
- when adopting any decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position,
- when appointing a special representative in accordance with Article 33.

If a member of the Council declares that, for vital and stated reasons of national policy, it intends to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The high representative will, in close consultation with the Member State involved, search for a solution acceptable to it. If he does not succeed, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for a decision by unanimity.

3. The European Council may unanimously adopt a decision stipulating that the Council shall act by a qualified majority in cases other than those referred to in paragraph 2.

4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

5. For procedural questions, the Council shall act by a majority of its members.

The points in paragraph 2 all follow on (except the last) from a unanimous decision of the European Council.

Foreign policy remains really quite strictly intergovernmental, by unanimity. Ireland cannot be forced into a foreign policy position it finds objectionable. If you think about it, if it were possible to force a country to adopt a position it objected to, any one state could always be outvoted - and I cannot imagine for an instant the UK or France, for example, accepting that.

It's very much the case that the High Representative's job is to carry out the policy agreed by the member states unanimously. That does mean that a lot of the time the EU won't have a foreign policy position at all, but that's life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you think about it, if it were possible to force a country to adopt a position it objected to, any one state could always be outvoted - and I cannot imagine for an instant the UK or France, for example, accepting that.

This is the most crucial point to keep in mind. Most of the doomsday stuff would never be accepted by other EU Governments. The other smaller countries would never accept a system where they were effectively powerless, ditto for larger countries and a system that minimised their power to a huge degree.

Anything that affects Ireland's position affects the position of the other countries. Keep this in mind, abortion law remains something left to the State as much because some countries are heavily pro-choice as others are pro-life. To try and find a middle ground on these issues would simply upset almost everyone.

Stark

whatisayis wrote: »

My one remaining stumbling block is regarding the new role of the High Representative for foreign ... position. According to Article 15b QMV applies when adopting a decision defining a union action or position on a proposal by the HR. Am I correct in that? The reason this worries me is because if a union position is taken, for example, on Iran, Ireland would be included in that position whether they had voted for or against it. The Eu and the US are currently planning increased sanctions against Iran because they "think" Iran are creating a nuclear weapon. I do not want to see another Iraq and I know that if there is one country in the world that the Iranians respect, it is Ireland. I would not like to think that Ireland would be precluded from negotiating with Iran by being tied to a EU position that they may not entirely agree with. Can you help me out of my dilemma?

Further to what Scofflaw says, the bill that will amend our constitution to allow us to ratify Lisbon includes the following:

"The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to — i. Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section, orii. Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10 of this section, where that common defence would include the State.".

This essentially gives us the same protections as we had in Nice and means the Irish state is constitutionally obliged to use its veto if the situation arises.

ro09

NiamhDunk wrote: »

Just saw this video recently,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHju2n5HzwQ


Could someone please clarify the situation re these legal guarantees.

Gordon Brown seems to say that these guarantees have made no alteration whatsoever to the treaty....

If that is the case then what exactly has changed from the last referendum to appease the original concerns of voters?

The Truth is - nothing has changed we are voting on the same treaty AGAIN! just like the Nice Treaty.

People need to realise that all EU LAW supersedes our Constitutional Law - take a look at Article 29 of our constitution -

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

marco_polo

ro09 wrote: »

The Truth is - nothing has changed we are voting on the same treaty AGAIN! just like the Nice Treaty.

People need to realise that all EU LAW supersedes our Constitutional Law - take a look at Article 29 of our constitution -

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

It has been there since 1973, get with the program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

whatisayis

Thanks for the clarification Scofflaw and nesf. I can honestly say that I am now an undecided voter as opposed to an absolute no.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification Scofflaw and nesf. I can honestly say that I am now an undecided voter as opposed to an absolute no.

I don't mind how anyone votes (although I'd rather they voted Yes), but I do mind people voting on the basis of either lack of information or misinformation. The former is the besetting sin of the Yes campaigns, the latter of the No campaigns - omission and commission, if you like.

Whichever way you vote, I'm glad if the debate here has helped clarify issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fess

whatisayis wrote: »

My one remaining stumbling block is regarding the new role of the High Representative for foreign ... position. According to Article 15b QMV applies when adopting a decision defining a union action or position on a proposal by the HR. Am I correct in that? The reason this worries me is because if a union position is taken, for example, on Iran, Ireland would be included in that position whether they had voted for or against it. The Eu and the US are currently planning increased sanctions against Iran because they "think" Iran are creating a nuclear weapon. I do not want to see another Iraq and I know that if there is one country in the world that the Iranians respect, it is Ireland. I would not like to think that Ireland would be precluded from negotiating with Iran by being tied to a EU position that they may not entirely agree with. Can you help me out of my dilemma?

I'd dearly love it if your suspicions were to be proven correct. In particular with respect to the theater you mention our foreign policy is a disgrace and, if we, as a nation, ever develop a sense of shame, will prove to be a burden to future generations.

The Iran dictatorship probably likes Ireland a lot (although I think respect would be pushing it when referring to a lapdog nation like Ireland) and why wouldn't they, we're their EU bully stick when needed. Check out Michael Martin on the subject of Israel and contrast that with his complete, and I mean complete, silence on Iran's never ending human rights violations. Then there's the fact that Ireland was one of the few EU nations which refused to open its embassy to Iranians injured while protesting the june stolen "election." I'm reliably informed that our Tehran "diplomats" spent that week cowering behind their desks while making sure the doors remained bolted. I doubt that there's very much respect on the Iranian street for a nation such as ours, a nation whose foreign minister is little more than a poodle to those responsible for the disappearance, torture, rape and murder of so many innocent and blameless Iranians.

Only last September he (Michael Martin) gave that regime excellent head when praising them for their contribution to stability in the Middle East. A regime which, unlike Iraq, is simultaneously developing nuclear tech and upgrading its delivery systems. A regime whose Minister of Defence is wanted by Interpol for his part in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina (85 killed, 150 injured). A regime which arms, trains and funds both Hezbollah and Hamas. You can say many things about such a regime but unless you want to be taken for a complete toady, or a headcase, the one thing you'll never say about them is that they are a stabilizing influence in the ME, or anywhere else. But that's exactly what our Foreign Minister said, presumably, to order.

If we are to have an independent foreign policy it would be a fine thing if we were to exercise it in pursuit of something more noble than grasping at any opportunity to genuflect before totalitarian regimes. Then again, even with the knowledge of the holocaust and its horrors, Ireland didn't waste any time sending, what was left of, Nazi Germany our condolences on the death of Herr Hitler. Not a lot has changed it would seem.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Fess wrote: »

I'd dearly love it if your suspicions...

Posts on general Irish foreign policy will likely get more of a response in the general politics forum here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=99

Welcome to boards, btw

nesf

Fess wrote: »

I'd dearly love it if your suspicions were to be proven correct. In particular with respect to the theater you mention our foreign policy is a disgrace and, if we, as a nation, ever develop a sense of shame, will prove to be a burden to future generations.

The Iran dictatorship probably likes Ireland a lot (although I think respect would be pushing it when referring to a lapdog nation like Ireland) and why wouldn't they, we're their EU bully stick when needed. Check out Michael Martin on the subject of Israel and contrast that with his complete, and I mean complete, silence on Iran's never ending human rights violations. Then there's the fact that Ireland was one of the few EU nations which refused to open its embassy to Iranians injured while protesting the june stolen "election." I'm reliably informed that our Tehran "diplomats" spent that week cowering behind their desks while making sure the doors remained bolted. I doubt that there's very much respect on the Iranian street for a nation such as ours, a nation whose foreign minister is little more than a poodle to those responsible for the disappearance, torture, rape and murder of so many innocent and blameless Iranians.

Only last September he (Michael Martin) gave that regime excellent head when praising them for their contribution to stability in the Middle East. A regime which, unlike Iraq, is simultaneously developing nuclear tech and upgrading its delivery systems. A regime whose Minister of Defence is wanted by Interpol for his part in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina (85 killed, 150 injured). A regime which arms, trains and funds both Hezbollah and Hamas. You can say many things about such a regime but unless you want to be taken for a complete toady, or a headcase, the one thing you'll never say about them is that they are a stabilizing influence in the ME, or anywhere else. But that's exactly what our Foreign Minister said, presumably, to order.

If we are to have an independent foreign policy it would be a fine thing if we were to exercise it in pursuit of something more noble than grasping at any opportunity to genuflect before totalitarian regimes. Then again, even with the knowledge of the holocaust and its horrors, Ireland didn't waste any time sending, what was left of, Nazi Germany our condolences on the death of Herr Hitler. Not a lot has changed it would seem.

Fess, this would make an excellent separate topic in the main Politics forum. Please start a new thread there, I'm sure it'll generate plenty of debate.

the groutch

realismpol wrote: »

The lisbon treaty was never put to a popular vote throughout europe. Guess why? Governments know exactly how the people would vote and thus made sure they weren't given that option.

exactly, so much for democracy

realismpol

Fess wrote: »

I'd dearly love it if your suspicions were to be proven correct. In particular with respect to the theater you mention our foreign policy is a disgrace and, if we, as a nation, ever develop a sense of shame, will prove to be a burden to future generations.

The Iran dictatorship probably likes Ireland a lot (although I think respect would be pushing it when referring to a lapdog nation like Ireland) and why wouldn't they, we're their EU bully stick when needed. Check out Michael Martin on the subject of Israel and contrast that with his complete, and I mean complete, silence on Iran's never ending human rights violations. Then there's the fact that Ireland was one of the few EU nations which refused to open its embassy to Iranians injured while protesting the june stolen "election." I'm reliably informed that our Tehran "diplomats" spent that week cowering behind their desks while making sure the doors remained bolted. I doubt that there's very much respect on the Iranian street for a nation such as ours, a nation whose foreign minister is little more than a poodle to those responsible for the disappearance, torture, rape and murder of so many innocent and blameless Iranians.

Only last September he (Michael Martin) gave that regime excellent head when praising them for their contribution to stability in the Middle East. A regime which, unlike Iraq, is simultaneously developing nuclear tech and upgrading its delivery systems. A regime whose Minister of Defence is wanted by Interpol for his part in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Argentina (85 killed, 150 injured). A regime which arms, trains and funds both Hezbollah and Hamas. You can say many things about such a regime but unless you want to be taken for a complete toady, or a headcase, the one thing you'll never say about them is that they are a stabilizing influence in the ME, or anywhere else. But that's exactly what our Foreign Minister said, presumably, to order.

If we are to have an independent foreign policy it would be a fine thing if we were to exercise it in pursuit of something more noble than grasping at any opportunity to genuflect before totalitarian regimes. Then again, even with the knowledge of the holocaust and its horrors, Ireland didn't waste any time sending, what was left of, Nazi Germany our condolences on the death of Herr Hitler. Not a lot has changed it would seem.

He sent a letter?? So let me get this straight. Irelands foreign policy is and has been a disaster because a letter of condolence was sent to the nazi's following hitlers death. Yes history books will record with shame the many millions that died under the lethal ink of irelands foreign policy. Ok then. God knows all those wasted live's on U.N missions in lebannon, the congo were just for nothing then eh? Even though ireland is recognised worldwide in international circles as having one of most professional peacekeeping forces, now, according to you, our foreign policy is a disaster because we don't engage of what you consider 'noble causes'.

Did it ever cross your mind that the irish adminstration at the time may have not known of the full horrors of the concentration camps etc in germany which didn't become known immeadiately after hitlers death and to which no doubt ireland's leaders at the time did not have access to?

Whats noble by the way. Can you define what noble is? See im thinking that one half of the world sees what they are doing as noble and the other half see's what they are doing as noble. So what does that tell you?

You sound like a chickhawk neocon the way your talking. This is ireland we are talking about here not the u.s military. Get a grasp on reality will you. No doubt we can look forward to you sending yourself or perhaps your kids to far flung places in order to satisfy your need to engage in 'noble' causes once lisbon is passed. The only thing is you won't be having a say where your going.

passive

realismpol wrote: »

Did you know that 90 per cent of all surveys can be made to justify whatever particular goal a certain person or organisation has? Interesting eh?

No, but I suspect you know that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot...

realismpol

passive wrote: »

No, but I suspect you know that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot...

you are applying a function to a data set right? would that data set smell say similiar to the smell of bovine feces?