Why Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty the first time around

passive

aurelius79 wrote: »

So here we see that there are actually no provisions in our constitution that guarantee our right as a sovereign nation to make our own laws. This is quite contrary to the "Yes" side that claim we will retain sovereignty in matters of law. The EU now has the constitutional right to implement any law they wish.

I was trying to google the text of the constitution, to post the next couple of lines or whatever tiny clarification would be necessary to expose this as BS, but you know what? It's doesn't matter anymore, I'm not going to waste my time (anyway there are others *Scoughlaw* much more qualified to do so).

Your misinformation is no use, the referendum already happened and, thankfully the Irish people had more sense than to listen to you and those like you who twisted, rewrote and blatantly lied at every possible turn to try make them afraid of nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2009_map.svg

oscarBravo

What was the text of the corresponding article prior to the amendment?

BlitzKrieg

*cough*

from the constitution before the treaty of lisbon

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.

source: http://www.constitution.ie/reports/ConstitutionofIreland.pdf


someone should update the constitutions website...

View

aurelius79 wrote: »

Ok, let's forget about the European Constitution for just one second. Let's have a look at our own constitution. Which provision in our constitution ensures our right to refuse compliance with a European law?

There is no such provision. There is not much point in being a member of an organization if you are going to refuse to accept its rules and procedures. And, lest you forget, the people voted in favour of this back in 1972 in the referendum on membership of the then European Communities.

aurelius79 wrote: »

This is quite contrary to the "Yes" side that claim we will retain sovereignty in matters of law.

The Yes side didn't claim this - try to get a grip on basic law.

aurelius79 wrote: »

The EU now has the constitutional right to implement any law they wish.

Again, false. The EU is governed by Treaties. These set out the specific areas it can operate in. All other areas belong to the member states. If the EU acts in these areas, it is acting ultra vires.

Indeed, if you did some research, you'd see that the EU's laws are passed by the MEPs (almost always) and/or the member states. Your claim makes about as much sense as saying that the Oireachtas can pass laws without having TDs and Senators involved in the process.

aurelius79

View wrote: »

There is no such provision. There is not much point in being a member of an organization if you are going to refuse to accept its rules and procedures. And, lest you forget, the people voted in favour of this back in 1972 in the referendum on membership of the then European Communities.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees our right to sovereignty as a member of the EU. In fact, article Article 29.10 expressly states that our constitution is essentially worthless when it come to EU law.

The ban on capital punishment will not stand if the EU passes a law to allow it. Conscription is now possible. The implications of Article 29.10 are mind-boggling. Our constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.

I really don't care what people voted on in 1972. They were probably as well informed as we were about the Amsterdam Treaty back in 1998.

View wrote: »

The Yes side didn't claim this - try to get a grip on basic law.

Sorry? The Yes campaign ensured us that our military would not be forced into service by the EU as provided by our constitution. Well, we've established that the constitution is now worthless.

View wrote: »

Again, false. The EU is governed by Treaties. These set out the specific areas it can operate in. All other areas belong to the member states. If the EU acts in these areas, it is acting ultra vires.

I have no idea what safeguards other European nations have to protect sovereignty rights but our own safeguards have been rendered null and void. How do we know our troops won't be conscripted into the EU army? How do we know we won't be burdened by EU taxes? Oh, they gave us their word.

View wrote: »

Indeed, if you did some research, you'd see that the EU's laws are passed by the MEPs (almost always) and/or the member states. Your claim makes about as much sense as saying that the Oireachtas can pass laws without having TDs and Senators involved in the process.

Yes, yes. Our government can't pass laws without involving corrupt TDs and Senators. Haven't you been following the tribunals at all? Even our former Taoiseach Bertie was involved in illegal activity. Tell me I'm wrong.
So what makes MEPs any different? Are they so incorruptible? Let's not forget our own Charlie McCreevy is an MEP.

passive

Seriously... we did this before, like a thousand times. Can we just put this guy outside and talk about actual things?

BlitzKrieg

will we talk about the climate pledge?

passive

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

will we talk about the climate pledge?

I dunno... It'd be off topic in this thread, and I'd have to google it. I'm not actually well informed, just irritable.

BlitzKrieg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8407112.stm

ITS OVER 7 BILLION! (internet meme meet EU, EU meet the internet...)

View

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8407112.stm

ITS OVER 7 BILLION! (internet meme meet EU, EU meet the internet...)

Small change in comparasion to NAMA :rolleyes:

View

aurelius79 wrote: »

Now we get to the heart of the matter.

Seriously, go off and read some basic stuff on our constitution and on the EU. Make sure you include some stuff on the division of competences between the two.

Just remember one point - the clause you cite as "EU law trumps our constitution" has been around (in one form or another) since 1972. If it trumped our constitution as you claim, then we wouldn't have had any referenda on EU matters after that, as it would have totally undermined the entire basis for the judgment in the Crotty case (where a provision in the constitution was interpreted to mean that a referendum was needed prior to the Oireachtas ratifying the SEA in 1987).

PS Charlie McCreevy isn't an MEP.

Scofflaw

aurelius79 wrote: »

Now we get to the heart of the matter. There is nothing in our constitution which guarantees our right to sovereignty as a member of the EU. In fact, article Article 29.10 expressly states that our constitution is essentially worthless when it come to EU law.

The ban on capital punishment will not stand if the EU passes a law to allow it. Conscription is now possible. The implications of Article 29.10 are mind-boggling. Our constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.

I really don't care what people voted on in 1972. They were probably as well informed as we were about the Amsterdam Treaty back in 1998.



Sorry? The Yes campaign ensured us that our military would not be forced into service by the EU as provided by our constitution. Well, we've established that the constitution is now worthless.



I have no idea what safeguards other European nations have to protect sovereignty rights but our own safeguards have been rendered null and void. How do we know our troops won't be conscripted into the EU army? How do we know we won't be burdened by EU taxes? Oh, they gave us their word.

Expanding slightly on View's exhortation to go and read up on 'division of competences' - the basic reason that none of this can happen is because the EU doesn't have either any legal right to make it happen, or the necessary force to make it happen without the legal right.

The EU is, in essence, just a multilateral legal framework for the member states to do things jointly. It has a permanent but very small civil service, a total budget only very slightly larger than Irish GDP which is completely controlled by the member states, and absolutely every decision made "by the EU" is subject to the member states. The EU can do only what the member states allow it to do - talk of it imposing anything on the member states is meaningless.

I appreciate that the EU as an overwhelming and irresponsible outside force is a good deal more exciting than the EU as a kind of permanent internateionl joint working group managed by committee, but I'm afraid the latter is the reality, not the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aurelius79

Scofflaw wrote: »

Expanding slightly on View's exhortation to go and read up on 'division of competences' - the basic reason that none of this can happen is because the EU doesn't have either any legal right to make it happen, or the necessary force to make it happen without the legal right.

The EU is, in essence, just a multilateral legal framework for the member states to do things jointly. It has a permanent but very small civil service, a total budget only very slightly larger than Irish GDP which is completely controlled by the member states, and absolutely every decision made "by the EU" is subject to the member states. The EU can do only what the member states allow it to do - talk of it imposing anything on the member states is meaningless.

I appreciate that the EU as an overwhelming and irresponsible outside force is a good deal more exciting than the EU as a kind of permanent internateionl joint working group managed by committee, but I'm afraid the latter is the reality, not the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If you had made this argument two years ago I would have accepted it but the truth is that the EU now has an unelected central federal government, the first president of which is Herman Van Rompuy. What is the role of this new federal government? One can only assume that it will function just like the U.S. presidency.

Dinner

aurelius79 wrote: »

One can only assume that it will function just like the U.S. presidency.

You can assume that if you like but you'd be wrong.

oscarBravo

Dinner wrote: »

You can assume that if you like but you'd be wrong.

Well, that seems to be the pattern to date - why stop now?

aurelius79

Care to provide any hard facts to back up your position? Any facts at all? Then maybe you can explain to me what the function of this new wing of government might be?

BlitzKrieg

to chair european council meetings because firstly its not the president of the eu, its the president of the european council. He has no executive powers (so nothing like the US president) he has no voting power (so he has no power of council decisions) no budgetary powers (he has no taxation control then) no legaslative powers (he cant have any input on lawmaking) and his chief job is to take what the european council has decided and go and tell the other institutions of the EU their decisions.

As the position previously entailed when it was rotated among member states leaders. The problem though it was inconsistent, sometimes they were very active in EU affairs othertimes because of issues on the national level they were very inactive, so it was decided to make it a position with no national issues interfering with the role by making it independent of the member state rotation.

aurelius79

The European Council has absolutely nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy. Herman Van Rompuy will be the first president of the European Union. Please make sure you have the facts before making a comment, it just adds to the confusion about what the hell is actually going on.

BlitzKrieg

you sir are incapable of understanding facts

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

Herman Van Rompuy (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɦɛɾmɑn vɑn ˈɾɔmpœy̆] Pronunciation-Herman Van Rompuy.ogg (help·info), born 31 October 1947 in Etterbeek, Brussels), is a Belgian Flemish politician, currently serving as the President of the European Council.

aurelius79

"Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian prime minister, has emerged as the favourite to become the first president of the European Union, despite being almost unknown on the international stage ."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/6494387/Haiku-loving-Belgian-PM-Herman-Van-Rompuy-in-line-for-EU-presidency.html

aurelius79

"Harmless ‘nice guy’ Herman van Rompuy favourite for EU presidency."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6905539.ece

BlitzKrieg

aurelius79 wrote: »

"Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian prime minister, has emerged as the favourite to become the first president of the European Union, despite being almost unknown on the international stage ."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/6494387/Haiku-loving-Belgian-PM-Herman-Van-Rompuy-in-line-for-EU-presidency.html

it helps to actually read the article you are quoting

The Belgian's front-runner status to hold the President of the European Council job for the first five years could benefit David Miliband's candidature for the post of EU foreign minister.

oscarBravo

aurelius79 wrote: »

The European Council has absolutely nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy. Herman Van Rompuy will be the first president of the European Union. Please make sure you have the facts before making a comment, it just adds to the confusion about what the hell is actually going on.

Now you're just being annoying.

If you're just here to spread fact-free rants about stuff you quite obviously don't have the first idea about, please stop. If you're interested in discussing the topic - for values of "discuss" that involve being open to the possibility that you might be wrong - then please feel free to do so.

BlitzKrieg

f*ck it

Look from the treaty itself

Article 15

1. The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof. It shall not exercise legislative functions.

2. The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.

3. The European Council shall meet twice every six months, convened by its President. When the agenda so requires, the members of the European Council may decide each to be assisted by a minister and, in the case of the President of the Commission, by a member of the Commission. When the situation so requires, the President shall convene a special meeting of the European Council.

4. Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus.

5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

6. The President of the European Council:

(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;

(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;

(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.

The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.

here's a link to the treaty:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:EN:HTML

knock yourself out and try and find president of the EU or EU president.

aurelius79

"The post was created by the Treaty of Lisbon and was subject to a debate over its exact role. Prior to Lisbon, the Presidency rotated in accordance with the Presidency of the Council of the European Union."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council#President

The position is no longer the same as it was prior to Lisbon. The fact is we don't know what the president's currently is. This is my point. Lisbon changed the workings of the EU and we are still unsure what that means for member states.

BlitzKrieg

Are you admiting now that you were wrong when you said:

The European Council has absolutely nothing to do with Herman Van Rompuy. Herman Van Rompuy will be the first president of the European Union. Please make sure you have the facts before making a comment

Cause it looks like you've changed your tune.

oscarBravo

aurelius79 wrote: »

The fact is we don't know what the president's currently is.

The president's role is defined in the treaty, as quoted by BlitzKrieg.

aurelius79

No I'm not admitting I was wrong. The European Council pre-Lisbon and the European Council post-Lisbon are different things. It's role has changed considerably. The EU should hae changed the name completely.

oscarBravo

aurelius79 wrote: »

No I'm not admitting I was wrong. The European Council pre-Lisbon and the European Council post-Lisbon are different things. It's role has changed considerably. The EU should hae changed the name completely.

What has changed? Details, please, with reference to the treaty.

BlitzKrieg

how has the european council changed considerable?

What new powers has it been granted what new roles does it embody in the EU?

Considering how great you have been at providing facts so far I assume you can give us examples of these new powers that european council has been given.