What does a NO vote Mean?

K-9

We should stick on our own and not make any international agreements with anybody as they could possibly, at some stage, probably never though, be over turned.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

The legal guarantees are not part of this amendment and will not be until they become a Protocol attached to any future change to a Treaty.

You've been around this forum long enough to know that's not true.

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

We should stick on our own and not make any international agreements with anybody as they could possibly, at some stage, probably never though, be over turned.

If they are for overturning agreements, why bother supposedly sneaking stuff for the ECJ to rule on into Lisbon in the first place? Why not just not put it in there and do it anyway, which is more or less what's being suggested about the guarantees.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've been around this forum long enough to know that's not true.

The legal guarantees are not part of the Treaty. That was my point. Ok, so they have legal status when the treaty is ratified and in the meantime the UN puts them in a safe place.

That still does not change the fact that they are not part of the Treaty and what we are voting on is the same document we voted on last year. The unamended, unchanged Treaty of Lisbon.

prinz

StealthRolex wrote: »

That still does not change the fact that they are not part of the Treaty and what we are voting on is the same document we voted on last year. The unamended, unchanged Treaty of Lisbon.

We're voting on the package as a whole.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

The legal guarantees are not part of the Treaty. That was my point. Ok, so they have legal status when the treaty is ratified and in the meantime the UN puts them in a safe place.

That still does not change the fact that they are not part of the Treaty and what we are voting on is the same document we voted on last year. The unamended, unchanged Treaty of Lisbon.

And the guarantees that are attached to it.

The guarantees are dependent on the treaty being passed, and will be enforced if the treaty is enforced, you agree with that much.
Now take the next logical step:
The treaty being passed is dependent on our vote, and the guarantees are dependent on the treaty being passed.
Therefore by the transitive law the guarantees are dependent on our vote.

This is a formal logical proof, it is indisputable.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

The legal guarantees are not part of the Treaty. That was my point. Ok, so they have legal status when the treaty is ratified and in the meantime the UN puts them in a safe place.

That still does not change the fact that they are not part of the Treaty and what we are voting on is the same document we voted on last year. The unamended, unchanged Treaty of Lisbon.

The treaty of Lisbon contains a clause that allows the EU to reduce the size of the commission. One of the guarantees says that they have agreed not to use this clause in 2014 as they were planning and of course the agreement is legally binding. They have also agreed that the provisions that people thought could bring in abortion, taxation, loss of neutrality and conscription will never be used in the manner that certain groups claimed they would

Therefore the fact that they are not included in the text of the treaty is completely irrelevant. I honestly cannot fathom why people find this so hard to comprehend.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This is a formal logical proof, it is indisputable.

the legality of the guarantees has been indisputable for a long time. It hasn't stopped people trying to dispute them anyway

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the legality of the guarantees has been indisputable for a long time. It hasn't stopped people trying to dispute them anyway

well someone can try to dispute a formal logical proof all they want, but they will be objectively wrong, and look kind of silly.

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the legality of the guarantees has been indisputable for a long time. It hasn't stopped people trying to dispute them anyway

I am not sure why they are still bothering to try and undermine the guarantees. There is simply not enough time left to scaremonger about abortion, tax and neutrality now anyway.

Mikefitzs

If you vote no your children and grandchildren will have a vote on constitutional issues in the future.

If you vote yes they will never have to vote because we will no longer have a constitution in Ireland.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

well someone can try to dispute a formal logical proof all they want, but they will be objectively wrong, and look kind of silly.

Looking silly hasn't seemed to stop anyone yet either

Sam Vimes

Mikefitzs wrote: »

If you vote no your children and grandchildren will have a vote on constitutional issues in the future.

If you vote yes they will never have to vote because we will no longer have a constitution in Ireland.

That's not true.

edit: I'm going to add that my "List of Lisbon lies". Ta

Bob_Harris

Mikefitzs wrote: »

If you vote yes they will never have to vote because we will no longer have a constitution in Ireland.

Kids are pretty stupid these days so maybe that's a good thing :pac:

PopeBuckfastXVI

marco_polo wrote: »

I am not sure why they are still bothering to try and undermine the guarantees. There is simply not enough time left to scaremonger about abortion, tax and neutrality now anyway.

It's not about abortion, tax or neutrality, it's about adding to the 'aura of uncertainty' surrounding the treaty, leading on to the next logical step: if you don't know, vote no.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's not about abortion, tax or neutrality, it's about adding to the 'aura of uncertainty' surrounding the treaty, leading on to the next logical step: if you don't know, vote no.

Ah good aul' FUD. The tool of all good extremists and special interest groups

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah good aul' FUD. The tool of all good extremists and special interest groups

I'm not saying voting no will legalise paedophilia, all I'm asking is are you prepared to risk it?

Mikefitzs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not true.

edit: I'm going to add that my "List of Lisbon lies". Ta

So what are we voting to change??? Qualified majority voting eradicates the need for our Irish constitution. After 2014 all major desicions will be taken by the major powers in Europe and Ireland will no longer have a veto on this.

Now go back and read the treaty and you'll see that I am not telling lies. How dare you call me a liar :mad: for giving my opinion on what way I have understood the treaty after reading it.
It is written so that it is neither understandable nor informative and can be replaced at any point if we vote yes.

Sam Vimes

Mikefitzs wrote: »

So what are we voting to change??? Qualified majority voting eradicates the need for our Irish constitution.

No it doesn't. QMV already applies in 63 areas (I think it is)

Mikefitzs wrote: »

After 2014 all major desicions will be taken by the major powers in Europe and Ireland will no longer have a veto on this.

A veto on what exactly?

Mikefitzs wrote: »

Now go back and read the treaty and you'll see that I am not telling lies. How dare you call me a liar :mad:

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm sure you believe what you're saying. You have been lied to.

Mikefitzs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't. QMV already applies in 63 areas (I think it is)

A veto on what exactly?

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm sure you believe what you're saying. You have been lied to.

If we vote yes QVM will cover everything because Lisbon can be changed at any point when passed.

This is our current veto The Lisbon Treaty.

Thanks for not calling me a liar.
This is the way that I have interpreted the treaty from trying to read it, not from the yes or no side. I wish people would take time before voting to read as much of the treaty as possible and to vote on their own interpretation, not what others are telling them.

Sam Vimes

Mikefitzs wrote: »

If we vote yes QVM will cover everything because Lisbon can be changed at any point when passed.

I'm afraid that's not true either. Under article 48 certain explicitly limited changes can be made. These changes must be unanimous and must be in line with each country's constitutional requirements, which in our case means a referendum for any significant changes. This procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the union (ie remove vetoes).

Here's article 48:http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html

The important bits:

That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

Our constitution is just as valid if Lisbon is passed as it is today

prinz

Mikefitzs wrote: »

If you vote yes they will never have to vote because we will no longer have a constitution in Ireland.

Mikefitzs wrote: »

Now go back and read the treaty and you'll see that I am not telling lies. How dare you call me a liar :mad: for giving my opinion on what way I have understood the treaty after reading it..

Seeing as how you have read the Treaty could you please point out the Article, Section etc which removes/voids/cancels/bins our Bunreacht?

Noreen1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the legality of the guarantees has been indisputable for a long time. It hasn't stopped people trying to dispute them anyway

It would appear that not everyone with legal qualifications agrees with that statement:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/top-lawyers-report-queries-guarantees-given-on-treaty-1899782.html

My personal background is in business, particularly company law. Therefore, when a group of law specialists come together to advise caution, I tend to pay careful attention!

Noreen

prinz

Noreen1 wrote: »

My personal background is in business, particularly company law. Therefore, when a group of law specialists come together to advise caution, I tend to pay careful attention!
Noreen

You mean a select few who are also heavily involved in the No to Lisbon campaign already, via connections with various groups such as PANA?

Personally I give more credence to the vast majority of independent and campaign neutral legal specialists.

Sam Vimes

Noreen1 wrote: »

It would appear that not everyone with legal qualifications agrees with that statement:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/top-lawyers-report-queries-guarantees-given-on-treaty-1899782.html

My personal background is in business, particularly company law. Therefore, when a group of law specialists come together to advise caution, I tend to pay careful attention!

Noreen

"But the lawyer, who was commissioned by the Independence and Democracy Group to analyse the guarantees, said that it was "highly improbable" the Government would be forced to introduce conscription or abortion if the treaty was ratified."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence/Democracy

The Independence/Democracy Group in the European Parliament was a group of eurosceptic and eurorealist political parties in the 2004-2009 term of the European Parliament. It collapsed following the 2009 European elections after losing many of its MEPs.
...
Chaired by Nigel Farage MEP

UKIP

Myth busted

Mikefitzs

prinz wrote: »

Seeing as how you have read the Treaty could you please point out the Article, Section etc which removes/voids/cancels/bins our Bunreacht?

Passerelle Article 48 TEU
Explaination (courtesy of Wiki)
A Passerelle Clause (also known as an Escalator Clause) is a clause within treaties of the European Union that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas.
Certain matters in the Council of Ministers are decided by unanimous voting and certain by qualified majority voting. The distinction is laid down in treaties and cannot normally be changed without a new treaty. Under the passerelle clause, voting on certain areas can switch from unanimity to QMV if the European Council unanimously approves this. This decision cannot be later reversed without treaty change.

Anything can be changed once this is passed without our consent.

ei.sdraob

Mikefitzs wrote: »

Passerelle Article 48 TEU
Explaination (courtesy of Wiki)
A Passerelle Clause (also known as an Escalator Clause) is a clause within treaties of the European Union that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas.
Certain matters in the Council of Ministers are decided by unanimous voting and certain by qualified majority voting. The distinction is laid down in treaties and cannot normally be changed without a new treaty. Under the passerelle clause, voting on certain areas can switch from unanimity to QMV if the European Council unanimously approves this. This decision cannot be later reversed without treaty change.

Anything can be changed once this is passed without our consent.

highlighted something for ya

:rolleyes:

Mikefitzs

Under the passerelle clause, voting on certain areas can switch from unanimity to QMV if the European Council unanimously approves this.

A change here will not reflect our constitution and can be changed without the consent of the Irish people, therefore the decisions will be taken by the council of ministers not by future referendum.

I am not a legal expert, business person nor a politician.
I am a low paid manual worker that has taken the time out to try to understand this. This is my understanding the way that I read it. Unfortunatley I don't see anyone giving accurate information that can be believed same as last year.

Whatever my opinion I would like people to research as mush as they can and VOTE either way, people need to make up their minds themselves.

Sam Vimes

Mikefitzs wrote: »

Under the passerelle clause, voting on certain areas can switch from unanimity to QMV if the European Council unanimously approves this.

A change here will not reflect our constitution and can be changed without the consent of the Irish people, therefore the decisions will be taken by the council of ministers not by future referendum.

I am not a legal expert, business person nor a politician.
I am a low paid manual worker that has taken the time out to try to understand this. This is my understanding the way that I read it. Unfortunatley I don't see anyone giving accurate information that can be believed same as last year.

Whatever my opinion I would like people to research as mush as they can and VOTE either way, people need to make up their minds themselves.

If voting to move something from unanimity to QMV would effect our constitution the Taoiseach would be legally required to veto it or have a referendum before approving it

Sam Vimes

http://europeanmovement.ie/index.php?id=8936