a few questions on the "L" word - sitting on the fence looking in

walrusgumble

I voted no in lisbon the last time round, mainly becasue I was not happy with additional areas being sent over to qmv as oppose to the veto. I was not concerned with taxation etc because the treaty and even the draft constitution to me was clear that it was not included in lisbon (this time)

I was worried about defence thou. i am happy to see the protocols, although it may (or may not) have being clear before. At least we can take some postives out of the last referendum debacle in the sense that Europe spelt it out to those who have genuine fears in relation to family rights, abortion and divorce.

I can't remember the union ever rescinding similar protocols or other protocols allowing member states to opt out of certain issues, without their consent, so I think I can trust the Union, can you?. Has there been any examples before?

If I can ask a genuine and frank question: do the Irish have something really to fear and if so what?

Maybe if those fears are expressed now, then effort can be made to explain whether or not the fears are well founded, no matter how genuine. Doing this, in light of previous legislation and court rulings of the European Union

With regard to sovereignity one positive note on Lisbon, as seen, funny enough, in the draft constitution: do people not think that its a great idea that national parliaments will now get a chance to have a say or recommendation when legislation in brussels is being drafted? Its not like member states governments are completely divorced from each other regarding rights, regulations, cultures etc. with good relationships. Couldn't a group of small countries (eg country's similar to us like hungary and poland, and even as the past has shown team up with the uk) gather together to lobby against certain proposals?

Is it now time for the dail to have a full time minister to deal with eu matters (or at least responsible for seeing legislation is transposed into domestic law and to be the mouth piece for explaining the eu to us)

Although a seperate issue, but why does rte or tv3 pay such little attention and time to programmes dedicated to the eu compared to bbc? why is rte's programmes on in the dead of late sunday night? regardless of what anyone thinks, the eu is core part of our laws etc and effects every day life.

I remember, during the constitutional debate, i checked the european barometer report (see www.europa.eu) and I believe that many of the reports had shown the ireland was regularily in the top 4 when it came to acceptance and co-operation and voting yes to various work at Brussels. (pitty about the dodgy history with implementing the directives on time and in an effective manner) - i am willing to be stood corrected on this.

Can anyone recall at least 3-4 irish MEPs coming home and telling the nation that there was a certain issue in parliament that they were not happy with? (for sitting meps at the last election, should that not have being a core issue and what they achieved? - did that really come up?) or whether our ministers came home frothing in the mouth over some issues?

Can someone more knowledgeable pick out 5-8 different scenerios, with exception to taxation, family rights etc when the Irish in either the council or parliament voted against something but that issue succeeded by the majority of the said institution and ireland had to put up with it. and where there were no offers of protocols or opt out clauses provided? (as seen in some eu legislation regarding third country nationals and other immigration / emigration matters like schegin? (spelling)).

With regard to law and order, hasn't the EU been understanding with regard to the different legal systems of the uk and ireland? There is now european arrest warrants and we have Europol and Interpol, our legal systems have not blown up, have they?

What is this craic coming from cóir that minium wage will be drastically reduced to less than €2 per hour by the EU?, wouldn't the member state be responsible for those affairs? one thing the EU, as seen in the preamble / recitial of Directive 2004 / 38 EC (free movement of people legislation) and the Treaties state is that they wish to remove all obstacles for people to move freely to another member state in the interest of the common market etc... surely, one country providing really low wages is going to put off an italian etc from coming to ireland and for an irish person wishing to go to italy etc? my understanding is that free movement of goods people etc is esstential for all countries and for the union to work? surely people don't believe that the each member state's relevant trade unions or the ordinary people themselves would tolerate their leaders to reduced their relevant minium wage standards to this low, without proper justification? surely even the leaders and their parties rely on the good auld ordinary salt of the earth labourer and brickie for votes? surely if each leader wanted to, they could possibly try and succeed in reducing minium wage on their own, without resorting to europe? surely no member state government would even want to be dictated by europe on this issue?

One thing i have found confusing with the text, or to be honest more what interpretaions i have heard: in the future, when the EU wish to to create new competence over issues like abortion (which is just as senstive an issue in other member states) or where they wish to transfer further issue like defence and security or even taxation from veto to qmv (where not covered by lisbon or previous treaties), does this still mean a new treaty will have to be enforced and that lisbon does not change how we irish agree to the chages? or does lisbon allow the council (of ministers vote in order to transfer competence) if lisbon does not effect our right to have future referendums, then how is our soverignty attacked further than it already is?

do you really believe that a majority of irish people / yes campaigners really would go out of their way by voting and campaigning for a yes vote in order to diminish the country's standing in europe?

what are the alternatives now that there is now over 25 states? could each state really enjoy a fixed number of MEP's as a small country (daft idea) I understand that the treaty is trying to focus on Institutional reform in the Commission, Council, Parliament, Bank etc.


this post intends simply to ask question by a person (me and others like me) who are now sitting on the fence

please please please - no insults and no personal attacks no matter how tempting. if you have something to say, please could you provide sources, if possible, to back it up

thanks

chughes

Walrus, I hope you don't mind me throwing in another question. I heard a farmer being interviewed on the radio yesterday and he said he's voting No because it would mean that Napoleanic Law would be introduced here. The implication for him is that he cannot leave his farm to one son, it has to be divided equally among all his children. Is he right in saying this ?

Raskolnikov

chughes wrote: »

Walrus, I hope you don't mind me throwing in another question. I heard a farmer being interviewed on the radio yesterday and he said he's voting No because it would mean that Napoleanic Law would be introduced here. The implication for him is that he cannot leave his farm to one son, it has to be divided equally among all his children. Is he right in saying this ?

There is no provision whatsoever in the treaty on inheritance law.

walrusgumble

chughes wrote: »

Walrus, I hope you don't mind me throwing in another question. I heard a farmer being interviewed on the radio yesterday and he said he's voting No because it would mean that Napoleanic Law would be introduced here. The implication for him is that he cannot leave his farm to one son, it has to be divided equally among all his children. Is he right in saying this ?

ehhh. is that true or are you joking?

if its true i don't know. are you saying that you heard a farmer on the radio say that the eu would bring in a law that would completely prevent a farm to be left to one issue regardless if the farmer provided for the other children by other means?

Where does the treaty say that those areas would allow this?, if you don't mind?. would that go against a person's right to property etc, as seen in the human rights charter? would the irish farmers association and law & order & farmers (old fine gael), the conservatives in the uk or other argicultural based countries tolerate this?

i would imagine, and correct me if i am wrong, but irish law itself, one way or another (eg succession act and case law) would not allow other children to be completely ignored by a will if they were not previously provided for by their parents (unless of course children tried to kill/cause harm etc to parent in the past). open to be corrected. i am sure litigants could be fully able to resort to national courts without relying on european law to avail of any possible entitlement

not all families want or wish to inherit the farms and continue with farming (considering the prices and hardship small farmers go through to make profit) surely giving the farm to a son / daughter who will do something constructively with it would be better economically in the long run? how would that be in the interest of common agriculture policies? surely this could not be all or nothing?

chughes

No, it's no joke. I heard the interview on Newstalk yesterday. He wasn't just some random farmer, he was speaking on behalf of some organisation he's a member of. His issue over inheritance was the principle of Napoleonic law with regard to inheritance. According to him, in France and Germany a farm is left to all the children and in order to keep the farm viable, the all the siblings become shareholders, even if only one of them actually farms the land. He reckons this would be unworkable in Ireland. I suppose his fear is that whoever didn't inherit a share in the farm would have grounds to take a court action.

Sam Vimes

The treaty was written by dozens of people over the course of five years with representatives from all member states, big and small, Ireland included. So here's a rule of thumb to follow:

If someone tells you that something is in the treaty that sounds absolutely fcuking mental and would lead any sane person to vote against it regardless of political leanings, they are lying. There are large numbers of people who have ulterior motives for rejecting anything that comes out of the EU and they will say anything to trick people into thinking the EU is evil

walrusgumble

chughes wrote: »

No, it's no joke. I heard the interview on Newstalk yesterday. He wasn't just some random farmer, he was speaking on behalf of some organisation he's a member of. His issue over inheritance was the principle of Napoleonic law with regard to inheritance. According to him, in France and Germany a farm is left to all the children and in order to keep the farm viable, the all the siblings become shareholders, even if only one of them actually farms the land. He reckons this would be unworkable in Ireland. I suppose his fear is that whoever didn't inherit a share in the farm would have grounds to take a court action.

fair enough. its pretty clear this arrangement would definitely not work in ireland. jesus, land and other properties cause enough rows and fall outs with families in this country at it is. at least the ECJ is there.

but as an above person said, there are no provisions regarding inhertiance in eu law (as of now). thats what i believed to be always the case anyway. it would have problems and might conflict with the current ECHR and Charter (assuming it comes in - ie state could argue what is in the best interests etc). i am sure there would be a lot of countries like ireland who would make big noise over this, surely.

i would make (an unqualified one) an argument that such a provision is not required anyway. under irish law, if a child who is not happy that he or she got nothing in the will or previous inheritance/gifts , providing he or she has a case (as you would imagine each case is different) then they would be free to seek redress in our national courts under national inheritiance laws - well at least get a hearing