How will history record the Lisbon Referendum?

Scofflaw

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

technically he has a point. We don't have any legal guarantees if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty, we have a single guarantee to make the other guarantees legal, onle once we ratify a new treaty though.

The European Council agreed that after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the provisions of the Decision would be attached to the EU Treaties as a protocol, which will give full Treaty status to the legal guarantees. This will be done at the time of the conclusion of the next EU accession Treaty, which is likely to be in 2010 or 2011.

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/

under Article 48 though:

Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.


with that self amending clause, there isn't too much need for a new treaty.

Both of those claims are incorrect. The content of the guarantees becomes legally binding on ratification of Lisbon, as does the agreement to put them into the EU treaties as Protocols. Article 48 allows only for minor changes without a new treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

technically he has a point. We don't have any legal guarantees if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty, we have a single guarantee to make the other guarantees legal, onle once we ratify a new treaty though.

The European Council agreed that after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the provisions of the Decision would be attached to the EU Treaties as a protocol, which will give full Treaty status to the legal guarantees. This will be done at the time of the conclusion of the next EU accession Treaty, which is likely to be in 2010 or 2011.

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/guarantees/

under Article 48 though:

Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.


with that self amending clause, there isn't too much need for a new treaty.

Until you quote the rest of it and you see this:


Simplified revision procedures

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. 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.

P. Breathnach

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Utter Rubbish

You do a bit of that, don't you?

P. Breathnach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... And putting the word fact in capitals does not make it a fact

I can't accept that as a fact, because you did not capitalise it.

MrMatisse

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You do a bit of that, don't you?

Ah sure why not.

Its my last day in the forum before i leave it back to the 3 people who usually use it to debate the various eu directives such as those as regulating the level your allowed to listen to your mp3 player at.

MrMatisse

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I can't accept that as a fact, because you did not capitalise it.

Well i suppose you will just have to make a leap of faith on this one.

P. Breathnach

Really-Stressed wrote: »

... Its my last day in the forum before i leave it back to the 3 people ...

... and a dog. I can't believe you forgot the dog! Just because he doesn't have keyboard skills and can't actually post. But surely every so often you hear that growl in the background, and once in a while you get bitten in the ass.

MrMatisse

P. Breathnach wrote: »

... and a dog. I can't believe you forgot the dog! Just because he doesn't have keyboard skills and can't actually post. But surely every so often you hear that growl in the background, and once in a while you get bitten in the ass.

i just thought that was the mods:D

yiddo_til_i_die

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You are blaming the Nice treaty for something our government did



Would you please educate yourself? you've had two years ffs:

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_faq.html

But that is what is meant by self-amending, it gives the politicians the right to amend the treaties, themselves, in accordance with constitutional law. It is this kind of self-amending clause, among other things that triggered our right to a referendum, as it was related to increasing the competencies of the EU.


Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure

2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

the emboldened bit, means that the EU can increase or reduce it competencies, if it (and it will be a separate legal entity), if it so decides.

Lisbon covers a lot of the things that would trigger our right to a referendum, such as militarisation, EU citzenship, the increase in competencies of the EU. Therefore, reducing the possibility for the need for future referenda.

It we ratify it, we would be granting the same powers to the Irish Government (and therefore the EU) to ratify treaties without the need for referenda. The only reason there may be a need for a referendum, if if there is a clash with our constitution.

This is easily circumnavigated simply by wording the future treaties very carefully - see the avoidance of referenda on the EU Constitution by renaming it the Lisbon Treaty.


If we were to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, then we would ratify those parts that are triggering our constitutional right to a referendum, now. With the ability to amend existing treaties, and the ability to circumnavigate memeber state constitutions - see the parliamentary ratification of the "EU Constitution"/Lisbon Treaty, it would ultimately come down to the European Courts to interpret what it is we actually ratified.

One would have to question, whether or not a treaty that we have already ratified could conflict with our constitution - if of course we have legally given the right to someone to change the contents of it.

The legal right to change the contents of the existing treaty, would again be decided upon by the European courts, who are the only body charged with interpreting the treaties - but the legal right to change "a contract" after "the contract" has been signed, would be enshrined in law, and deemed to be in accordance with the Irish constitution.

Again, an issue for the European courts

Theoretically, and indeed almost certainly, it means that no future treaty will be deemed to conflict with the constitution of any of the member states, for this reason - thereby meaning that EU legislation decided upon by the politicians (without the need to hold referenda), would supercede Irish law.


This could leave us open, and raises the very real question of whether we can trust that the politicians of Europe will always be acting in our best interests, and indeed if they truly know what our best interests are - if they do not need to ask us?

yiddo_til_i_die

efla wrote: »

Hopefully with a south park episode - the sectarian conduct of both 'sides' has been nothing short of comical.

man that would be frickin' hilarious to see!!

Dinner

Right you've posted paragraphs 1 and 2 so far. Only 2 more posts until we get to para 4!

Sam Vimes

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

But that is what is meant by self-amending, it gives the politicians the right to amend the treaties, themselves, in accordance with constitutional law. It is this kind of self-amending clause, among other things that triggered our right to a referendum, as it was related to increasing the competencies of the EU.


Article 48
1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure

2. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

the emboldened bit, means that the EU can increase or reduce it competencies, if it (and it will be a separate legal entity), if it so decides.

That's the ordinary revision procedure, the one we use now with treaties and stuff

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

Lisbon covers a lot of the things that would trigger our right to a referendum, such as militarisation, EU citzenship, the increase in competencies of the EU. Therefore, reducing the possibility for the need for future referenda.

Firstly it doesn't do two of those things (it does increase the competences) and secondly,that's like saying that agreeing to buy a house from someone "reduces the possibility for the need for them to sell you the same house again"
Of course if we agree to give them a competence then we won't be asked to give them the same competence again. That sentence is meaningless.

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

It we ratify it, we would be granting the same powers to the Irish Government (and therefore the EU) to ratify treaties without the need for referenda. The only reason there may be a need for a referendum, if if there is a clash with our constitution.

No they can't ratify treaties, they can make minor changes within the competences given to them by the treaties.

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

This is easily circumnavigated simply by wording the future treaties very carefully - see the avoidance of referenda on the EU Constitution by renaming it the Lisbon Treaty.

That is not true but Id say there's little point in me elaborating so I won't

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

If we were to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, then we would ratify those parts that are triggering our constitutional right to a referendum, now. With the ability to amend existing treaties, and the ability to circumnavigate memeber state constitutions

....in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements......

No they can't

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

- see the parliamentary ratification of the "EU Constitution"/Lisbon Treaty, it would ultimately come down to the European Courts to interpret what it is we actually ratified.

One would have to question, whether or not a treaty that we have already ratified could conflict with our constitution - if of course we have legally given the right to someone to change the contents of it.

The legal right to change the contents of the existing treaty, would again be decided upon by the European courts, who are the only body charged with interpreting the treaties - but the legal right to change "a contract" after "the contract" has been signed, would be enshrined in law, and deemed to be in accordance with the Irish constitution.

Again, an issue for the European courts

Theoretically, and indeed almost certainly, it means that no future treaty will be deemed to conflict with the constitution of any of the member states, for this reason - thereby meaning that EU legislation decided upon by the politicians (without the need to hold referenda), would supercede Irish law.


This could leave us open, and raises the very real question of whether we can trust that the politicians of Europe will always be acting in our best interests, and indeed if they truly know what our best interests are - if they do not need to ask us?

I decided to stop individually addressing your points. Needless to say you do not understand the simplified revision procedure or the ordinary revision procedure or the difference between the two. Please educate yourself before you continue to post false information in the public domain like this

smokingman

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Ah sure why not.
Its my last day in the forum before i leave

Aww, why go? The job ending today?
:rolleyes:

MrMatisse

smokingman wrote: »

Aww, why go? The job ending today?
:rolleyes:

Dont worry, ill be in after hours and the business forums.

I wont be far.

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could they not, for example, give corporations looking at Ireland incentives to set up somewhere else or refuse to allow the change of the fisheries policy that our fishermen want? Just two of many possible things an undemocratic bullying organisation can do with the power they currently have if we piss them off.

exactly what they are doing now

fligedlyflick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Both of those claims are incorrect. The content of the guarantees becomes legally binding on ratification of Lisbon, as does the agreement to put them into the EU treaties as Protocols. Article 48 allows only for minor changes without a new treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

no they don't, they apparently come into existence with new members. gordon brown had to fight of criticism by declaring any legal guarantees for ireland will not come into affect until there is another expansion of the eu.
and, any guarantees we received are minor, so in fact our minor guarantees can be changed without the consent of the irish people

yiddo_til_i_die

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh, mate, I hate Fianna Fail and our politicians and don't listen to anything they say. Instead I have looked up the facts and what I have given you above is a fact. If you don't want to believe that a decision within the EU is legally binding and that there is a massive conspiracy involving thousands of members of 27 governments and the United Nations to trick the Irish people so the EU can force abortion on us and raise our taxes you can do that but please take it here where it belongs. In this forum people discuss reality.

I don't think anyone is doubting whether an EU decision is legally binding or not, indeed that is part of the issue, where EU decisions will become legally binding and will supercede Irish law.

This fact, and it will be a fact if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty, must be taken in the context of the new QMV rules which clearly favour Germany and France. It must also be taken in the context of the legal case history of the EU, which would be enshrined in EU law and would therefore superced Irish law, by the appeals process alone. Once one such case is tried, the precedent is set in ireland, and will be referenced in future cases - due to common law. This of course, all happens legally and over a period of time, not by force but by our co-operation - were we to ratify this treaty.

Its all above board and legal, its just a question of what your principles are and what kind of Europe you want for your children, moreso than yourself, because these changes will not come to fruition immediately.

truthisfree

I think the No vote last time aroused a whole lot of interest around the Eu as regards why other member states had not been asked to choose the EU constitution Particularly as there was such an astounding hard-sell done on it to the Irish people!

I am sorry but I cannot come back in to debate the point, as most people like myself I have to work to make ends meet. The debate is over now anyway, do the decent thing and say no.

It does not matter which way the vote goes, a much bigger cat is out of the bag in Ireland and the EU. I know that in 10 years I will be proud to have been part of the people who belong to no group or party, but went and took the time and trouble to read and understand the Treaty and voted NO.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

exactly what they are doing now

Actually they're not giving those corporations incentives, what you're talking about came from the Polish government.

But anyway, you say that they are capable of all these anti-Ireland things even now but the idea that they will increase this behaviour that you think they're engaged in in any way when we throw the document they spent 5 years and millions writing in the bin is "rubbish". You seem to have very inconsistent views on this matter......

Scofflaw

fligedlyflick wrote: »

no they don't, they apparently come into existence with new members. gordon brown had to fight of criticism by declaring any legal guarantees for ireland will not come into affect until there is another expansion of the eu.
and, any guarantees we received are minor, so in fact our minor guarantees can be changed without the consent of the irish people

Sigh. No, you're mixing up the fact that they're not immediately Protocols with the question of whether they're legally binding. They're legally binding, but they're not Protocols until the next accession treaty - that means they are inferior in European law until that happens, but not that they're not legally binding at all.

The guarantees have exactly the same legal status as the Good Friday Agreement or Denmark's Edinburgh Agreement - both the content of them, and the agreement to turn them into Protocols. The difference - and the only difference - with ours, is that ours will be written into the EU treaties over the next couple of years as an enduring testament to our national paranoia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

I don't think anyone is doubting whether an EU decision is legally binding or not,

Oh you'd be surprised

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

indeed that is part of the issue, where EU decisions will become legally binding and will supercede Irish law.

EU decisions are already legally binding and EU law already supercedes Irish law and has done since 1973. It was a requirement of us joining.

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

This fact, and it will be a fact if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty, must be taken in the context of the new QMV rules which clearly favour Germany and France.

QMV cannot be used for the simplified revision procedure, all decisions must be unanimous. All of this is in the article if you read the whole thing and not just the bits the no campaign highlights.

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

The difference - and the only difference - with ours, is that ours will be written into the EU treaties over the next couple of years as an enduring testament to our national paranoia.

Brilliant

Unfortunately true

yiddo_til_i_die

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have provided you with irrefutable proof that the guarantees are legally binding completely independent of our government and politicians and you have refused to accept it. What am I supposed to say to someone who insists that black is white no matter how conclusively it is proven that black is in fact black?

Now, whether this is simply a case of honest misunderstanding or persistent dishonesty is a question for the Mods, but I would like to point out that it is not the guarantees that are binding, rather one guarantee - singular.

Indeed, that single guarantee is not what the public is being lead to believe will become legally binding, the perception that has been created is that the taxation guarantee, the abortion guarantee, the neutrality guarantee, and any other ones, will become legally binding if we ratify the Treaty. This however is not the case.

What will become legally binding is a single guarantee, to make those other guarantees legally binding, at the accession of the next treaty - the need for which would be negated by Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty - the legal right to amend existing treaties.

Therby making the taxation guarantee, the abortion guarantee, the neutrality guarantee, and any other ones, not legally binding - until that point in the future which may never materialise.

Therfore the issue is two-fold, firstly it is not the legality of it that is the issuee, rather what is actually guaranteed - and that is one single guarantee.

Secondly are the guarantees, that the Irish people are being lead to believe will be enshrined in law going to become legally binding if we ratify the treaty? The answer is No.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On this issue you are outside the boundaries of reality. The guarantees are binding. This is as certain as the knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow. You have been lied to by anti-EU extremists who are feeding on your mistrust of the government. You are a pawn in their plan to disrupt and eventually destroy the greatest peace project the world has ever seen.

The guarantees would not become legally binding, if we ratify the treaty.

fligedlyflick

and the disgrace in which we were asked to vote twice on the same document, in fact, our lasting testimony to europe will be forever tarred as whipping boys and weak pushovers, willing to bow to pressure and gentlemen's agreements,
"i believe ireland has voted no to the protocol regarding blowing the moon up",

"never mind, they shall vote again, FOR I AM TONY BLAIR"

Sam Vimes

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

Now, whether this is simply a case of honest misunderstanding or persistent dishonesty is a question for the Mods, but I would like to point out that it is not the guarantees that are binding, rather one guarantee - singular.

Indeed, that single guarantee is not what the public is being lead to believe will become legally binding, the perception that has been created is that the taxation guarantee, the abortion guarantee, the neutrality guarantee, and any other ones, will become legally binding if we ratify the Treaty. This however is not the case.

What will become legally binding is a single guarantee, to make those other guarantees legally binding, at the accession of the next treaty - the need for which would be negated by Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty - the legal right to amend existing treaties.

Therby making the taxation guarantee, the abortion guarantee, the neutrality guarantee, and any other ones, not legally binding - until that point in the future which may never materialise.

Therfore the issue is two-fold, firstly it is not the legality of it that is the issuee, rather what is actually guaranteed - and that is one single guarantee.

Secondly are the guarantees, that the Irish people are being lead to believe will be enshrined in law going to become legally binding if we ratify the treaty? The answer is No.



The guarantees would not become legally binding, if we ratify the treaty.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh. No, you're mixing up the fact that they're not immediately Protocols with the question of whether they're legally binding. They're legally binding, but they're not Protocols until the next accession treaty - that means they are inferior in European law until that happens, but not that they're not legally binding at all.

The guarantees have exactly the same legal status as the Good Friday Agreement or Denmark's Edinburgh Agreement - both the content of them, and the agreement to turn them into Protocols. The difference - and the only difference - with ours, is that ours will be written into the EU treaties over the next couple of years as an enduring testament to our national paranoia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

Now, whether this is simply a case of honest misunderstanding or persistent dishonesty

I'm asking that question myself

yiddo_til_i_die

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Good man. You're showing exactly why this treaty should never have been put to a referendum here and why it wasn't in any other country.

perhaps an example of why democracy is essential?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

and the disgrace in which we were asked to vote twice on the same document, in fact, our lasting testimony to europe will be forever tarred as whipping boys and weak pushovers, willing to bow to pressure and gentlemen's agreements,
"i believe ireland has voted no to the protocol regarding blowing the moon up",

"never mind, they shall vote again, FOR I AM TONY BLAIR"

Our lasting testimony will be:

Us: "WE DON'T WANT YOU TO RAISE OUR TAXES. NO TO LISBON"

EU: "Um, we're not going to raise your taxes and never were. Will you accept it now?"

Us:" HOW DARE YOU ASK US AGAIN JUST BECAUSE YOU CLARIFIED THAT WE HADN'T A FCUKING CLUE WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON"

Yes indeed we'll look quite the idiots

Sam Vimes

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

perhaps an example of why democracy is essential?

So that people can be lied to, believe those lies and vote based on them

sensibleken

If it goes through i think it will be remembered as how basic reform was nearly derailed.

If it fails i think it will be remembered as how the irish derailed basic reform because of gulability to non sense.

either way it should be studied by scientists as an example of non-sense propaganda on a par with the 1948 italian general election.

im sick of this whole campaign

marco_polo

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

Now, whether this is simply a case of honest misunderstanding or persistent dishonesty is a question for the Mods, but I would like to point out that it is not the guarantees that are binding, rather one guarantee - singular.

Indeed, that single guarantee is not what the public is being lead to believe will become legally binding, the perception that has been created is that the taxation guarantee, the abortion guarantee, the neutrality guarantee, and any other ones, will become legally binding if we ratify the Treaty. This however is not the case.

What will become legally binding is a single guarantee, to make those other guarantees legally binding, at the accession of the next treaty - the need for which would be negated by Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty - the legal right to amend existing treaties.

Therby making the taxation guarantee, the abortion guarantee, the neutrality guarantee, and any other ones, not legally binding - until that point in the future which may never materialise.

Therfore the issue is two-fold, firstly it is not the legality of it that is the issuee, rather what is actually guaranteed - and that is one single guarantee.

Secondly are the guarantees, that the Irish people are being lead to believe will be enshrined in law going to become legally binding if we ratify the treaty? The answer is No.



The guarantees would not become legally binding, if we ratify the treaty.

I have listened to quite enough of this. As I posted yesterday.

A Council Decision is a instrument of secondary EU legislation and is legally binding on all parties under EU law.

This council decision is seperately being registered as an international agreement under the terms vienna convention making it legally binding under international law also.

Primary EU law is laid down in treaties and the protocols, declarations etc annexed to the treaties.

Obviously primary law takes precedence over secondary law when put before the ECJ, so if there is a conflict between the treaties and the guarantees, then the treaties win.

99.9% of people agree that there is nothing contained within the treaties that could possibly conflict with the guarantees, as the guarantees are a statement of what is not contained within primary EU law.