Lisbon = EU Constitution?

JustSomeone

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I've no interest in reading Bonde's 'analysis'

Fair enough. I have no interest in your opinion of something you haven't read.

Here is the actual text of the consolidated treaties, annotated with what is new in Lisbon

Thanks. I've read them multiple times.

and what was in the Constitution and is still included.

Ooh. Thanks. That will be new to me. I haven't seen the Constitutional bits tagged in the treaties before.

I don't think it includes stuff dropped from the Constitution, but then it seems no one is interested in that anyway.

Apart from the original poster, presumably.

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

Apart from the original poster, presumably.

True enough, s/he can take it as an 'at least this much has changed' link then.

JustSomeone

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

No problem, here you go:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Seriously? RTE's editorial on a leaked draft is the best you've got?
Can you give me anything more formal?

Scofflaw

JustSomeone wrote: »

Please point to something in the treaty which has changed. Anything. Anything at all.

The treaty, now. Not the worthless "guarantees" which have no legal standing, unless they become protocols. Even if a move is made for them to become protocols at some point in the uncertain future, they can be challenged under the actual Treaty. Remember the Treaty? At that point it will be the European Courts who will decide whether or not the guarantees are valid. These "guarantees" are just legal opinions from those who really want you to vote Yes. They are no more than that. They can't be.

They can be, and they are. They're international agreements, like Kyoto or any other treaty, and are fully binding under international law.

When turned into Protocols, they will have exactly the same legal force as anything in Lisbon. A claim against them is either (a) that they should be in Lisbon itself (why?), or (b) that the other member states plan on tricking us.

If you believe the latter, then you should obviously vote No, because clearly the whole EU thing is just a mad international trick to screw Ireland over. If you believe the former - why? Why should the Guarantees go into Lisbon itself? They're legally binding on all the member states, and turning them into Protocols is also legally binding. You can vote on them exactly as if they're part of Lisbon, because they're legally bound to become part of the EU treaties exactly as Lisbon will - unless, of course, you believe that they're just trying to hoodwink us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

Seriously? RTE's editorial on a leaked draft is the best you've got?
Can you give me anything more formal?

The editorial explains what international treaties are, how they work and tells you that that is the form the guarantees will take. The text of the guarantees (draft or otherwise) doesn't affect their legal standing.

But here you go:

2. Legal status of the Irish Guarantees
The Irish Guarantees include a document called a Decision of the Heads of State or
Government of the 27 Member States of the EU, meeting within the European Council, on
the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon. 6
The Decision closely follows the form and precedent used in the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement,
which was negotiated among the then 12 Member States of the EEC to allow Denmark to hold a
second referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.
EU Heads of State or Government agreed that the Decision is “legally binding and will take effect
on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon”.7 If the second referendum on the Lisbon
Treaty is passed, Ireland’s instrument of ratification which will also refer to the Decision, will be
lodged in Rome with the Italian Government which acts as depositary for EU treaties.8
In public international law, the crucial element in determining the legal effect of the document is
the intention of the parties (i.e. the Heads of State or Government) to be legally bound under
international law. This intention is evidenced in the express statement by the Member States at
the 19 June 2009 European Council meeting that the “Decision gives legal guarantee” and “is
legally binding”.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) gives Heads of State or Government full
powers in international law to conclude international agreements, which may be termed treaties,
protocols, decisions etc.9 Such agreements are binding on the Member States by a variety of
means, including “signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.”10 In accordance with
Article 29.5 of the Constitution of Ireland, the Decision, together with the Lisbon Treaty, will be
laid before Dáil Éireann after they enter into force.
In compliance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Decision (like the
Lisbon Treaty) will be registered in the Treaty Section of the UN Secretariat in New York after it
enters into force. Registration is the prerequisite for an international agreement to be capable of
being invoked before organs of the United Nations. States may register an instrument with the
Treaty Section only if it constitutes an international agreement; accordingly, registration will be
further clear evidence of the Decision’s legally binding character in international law. The
Edinburgh Agreement was also registered with the United Nations.
The Decision agreed on 19 June, like the Edinburgh Decision on the Maastricht Treaty,
constitutes an interpretative agreement that falls within the scope of Article 31 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. This article states that all parties to a treaty must interpret its
provisions in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their
context and must respect any agreement or instrument made in that context. The Decision
constitutes such an agreement.
The Member States have undertaken to include the provisions of the Decision as a protocol to be
attached to the two founding treaties of the EU at the time of the conclusion of the next accession
treaty. This could take place as early as 2010, should Croatia be ready to join the EU at this time.
Although the Protocol containing the provisions of the Decision will not be part of any future
accession treaty, it will be subject to ratification in the Member States at the same time as that
treaty.
4
The Decision, as a legally binding agreement in public international law, is in no way superior or
inferior to the EU treaties, which are also international treaties subject to the same rules of public
international law. Both are governed by the same rules in international law. The effect of putting
the provisions of the Decision into a protocol is therefore an additional security measure, but the
fact that the Decision has legally binding character in international law is sufficient to bind the
governments of the Member States.
In accordance with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Member
States and the EU institutions, which operate within the competence given to the Union by the
Member States, will have an obligation to interpret the Lisbon Treaty in line with the Guarantees
in accordance with the rules of public international law, such as good faith and respect for
international treaties (referred to as pacta sunt servanda). The Decision is to be used for the
purpose of clarifying the Lisbon Treaty and the European Court of Justice will interpret the
Lisbon Treaty in light of their terms.

http://iiea.com/documents/lisbon-the-irish-guarantees-explained
Needs PDF Viewer

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

A claim against them is either (a) that they should be in Lisbon itself (why?), or (b) that the other member states plan on tricking us.

If you believe the latter, then you should obviously vote No, because clearly the whole EU thing is just a mad international trick to screw Ireland over.

You should also start fuelling your tanks, because if they are willing to tear up a treaty, they don't need any other pretext to invade, abort, conscript and tax us.

JustSomeone

Scofflaw wrote: »

The claim that Lisbon was "designed to avoid referendums" is obvious drivel

Fine, will you be taking the opportunity to correct Dr Fitzgerald, then?

"The most striking change [between the Lisbon treaty and the Constitution treaty] is perhaps
that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will
have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the
provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual
amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity
as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the
constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have
simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of
ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
[Dr Garret FitzGerald, Irish Times, 30 June 2007.]

Scofflaw

JustSomeone wrote: »

Fine, will you be taking the opportunity to correct Dr Fitzgerald, then?

"The most striking change [between the Lisbon treaty and the Constitution treaty] is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."
[Dr Garret FitzGerald, Irish Times, 30 June 2007.]

What exactly am I supposed to do here? Kowtow and retreat in fear because I don't agree with a comment from Garret (who has no idea that you're quoting him or that I'm disagreeing with that quotation) made before the Treaty was even signed?

I have no problem disagreeing with that Garret quote. Where is your argument?

fearing the authoritay!
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

JustSomeone wrote: »

... I came here to learn.

I find that hard to believe.

JustSomeone

Scofflaw wrote: »

unless, of course, you believe that they're just trying to hoodwink us.

Not so much that. The Treaty, whatever you think of it, was a hard-fought, debated, challenged and finally agreed document. A lot of work was put into it. The Irish guarantees were churned out in comparatively little time. I have my concerns that these rush jobs may be a little flawed and open to challenge - and so subsequently overruled by the European Courts. That's my only concern with them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

JustSomeone wrote: »

Not so much that. The Treaty, whatever you think of it, was a hard-fought, debated, challenged and finally agreed document. A lot of work was put into it. The Irish guarantees were churned out in comparatively little time. I have my concerns that these rush jobs may be a little flawed and open to challenge - and so subsequently overruled by the European Courts. That's my only concern with them.

They can't be. So don't worry, be happy.

Scofflaw

JustSomeone wrote: »

Not so much that. The Treaty, whatever you think of it, was a hard-fought, debated, challenged and finally agreed document. A lot of work was put into it. The Irish guarantees were churned out in comparatively little time. I have my concerns that these rush jobs may be a little flawed and open to challenge - and so subsequently overruled by the European Courts. That's my only concern with them.

In their current legal state as binding international agreements they aren't subject to the ECJ. Once they become Protocols they can't be changed by the ECJ. They're also fairly straightforward, even if they took a year's negotiation.

The main point about them, though, remains that they are guarantees that what is not in the Treaty is not in the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JustSomeone

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

They can't be. So don't worry, be happy.

Ummm can you offer any substance for that?

There seem to be a number of conflicts between the "Guarantees" and the Treaty. I don't share your confidence that the Guarantees would withstand a legal challenge.

JustSomeone

Scofflaw wrote: »

The main point about them, though, remains that they are guarantees that what is not in the Treaty is not in the Treaty.

To me, it looks like they also guarantee that what IS in the Treaty IS NOT in the treaty.

Scofflaw

JustSomeone wrote: »

Ummm can you offer any substance for that?

There seem to be a number of conflicts between the "Guarantees" and the Treaty. I don't share your confidence that the Guarantees would withstand a legal challenge.

How do you legally challenge an international agreement? And who are you suggesting will do it?

Also, what conflicts, exactly?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

PomBear wrote: »

in simple terms about 95%

after France and Holland rejected it, the EU needed a plan B which is the Lisbon Treaty

In simple terms, we are all chimpanzees.

marco_polo

JustSomeone wrote: »

To me, it looks like they also guarantee that what IS in the Treaty IS NOT in the treaty.

How so?

Scofflaw

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In simple terms, we are all chimpanzees.

Nah. Chimpanzees is 98.8% - 95% gets us rats and pigs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

The Lisbon Treaty is the constitution with just enough taken out to avoid referenda in most countries which required one for the constitution. This is a fact which has been admitted to countless times, just do a quick Google for it. another reason to oppose Lisbon in my view. they didn't like the democratic response so they designed the new treaty to bypass it.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty is the constitution with just enough taken out to avoid referenda in most countries which required one for the constitution. This is a fact which has been admitted to countless times, just do a quick Google for it. another reason to oppose Lisbon in my view. they didn't like the democratic response so they designed the new treaty to bypass it.

Perhaps you can tell us how many countries required a referendum for the Constitution?

The only EU members with any legal requirement for referendums on EU treaties are Ireland and Denmark.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nah. Chimpanzees is 98.8% - 95% gets us rats and pigs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Even better.

marco_polo

Funny anti-Lisbon rant in the Times from John Walters substitute.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0918/1224254794768.html

This extract sums it up nicely.

Just one example. At present, individual states fund the EU. But Lisbon empowers the EU to impose its own taxes. See Article 259, which amends Article 269 in the Rome or Maastricht treaties, neither of which runs to 269 articles, to create Article 311 of a so-called “consolidated” treaty which supposedly consolidates all three treaties but is not itself a treaty – and has no legal force. What fun this is! And how lucrative for treaty lawyers.

Hi Tony ever heard of the Nice Treaty? The rest of the article displays a similar profound lack of knowledge.