Lisbon Treaty

[mypost]

My mistake.:confused:

The "franglais" humour that upset you so much, was to demonstrate how stupid it is that a foreign head of state would demand referendums here, after one has being held. Because, when you examine his statement, that's effectively what he said.

We've had the opportunity to give our opinion, and have done so. For the sake of democracy, it's very important that we uphold the outcome of refs in our and other countries, and protect those citizens in Europe who were prevented from having them at all.

There is no "getting around" the result. The treaty requires a referendum here, any attempt to ratify it through parliament without a Yes vote in a referendum would be illegal, be subject to a tonne of legal challenges, lead to anarchy, and a guaranteed election defeat. The treaty is therefore aborted. When those in power accept that reality, we can relax knowing the Nice Treaty remains in operation in the EU.

[OneRedArmy]

Hugely amused that the No camp (and Mypost) are referring to a blatantly partisan British commissioned poll to support their point.

Interestingly your purile and infantile anti-French "humour" is also beloved of the English.

I thought we'd become more European in the last 30 years and finally broken the dependency link with the UK but clearly old habits die hard in some areas.

[pete]

If you wish to discuss Sarkozy there is already a separate thread about him.

[mypost]

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/without-the-eu-we-are-only-a-small-island-1442581.html

Fortunately sir, you cannot overlook the simple fact:

"In legal terms, all member states are equal on the council."

It's the legal position, not the population size, that counts.

[pete]

Todays Irish Times says it all for me

http://www.irishtimes.com/feeds/images/opinion/1217279097510.jpg

[OneRedArmy]

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/without-the-eu-we-are-only-a-small-island-1442581.html

Fortunately sir, you cannot overlook the simple fact:

"In legal terms, all member states are equal on the council."

It's the legal position, not the population size, that counts.That will be a nice blanket to cling to when were sitting on the outside of a two speed Europe (with the Brits).

"I told you we were right".....:rolleyes:

[mypost]

That will be a nice blanket to cling to when were sitting on the outside of a two speed Europe (with the Brits).

:rolleyes:

What "two-speed Europe"? The Brits ratified it a couple of weeks back. Any benefits for them?? :confused: No.

[OneRedArmy]

What "two-speed Europe"? The Brits ratified it a couple of weeks back. Any benefits for them?? :confused: No.Schengen and EMU are the first two examples.

Also the British position is very different. They (as a nation) at least are honest about their Euro-skepticism. Lisbon is an irrelevance for them as Labour will be slung out on their ear and the Tory's will start rolling back the UK's commitment to Europe. With us as their lapdogs given whats gone on over the last few months.

[mypost]

If you want, the use of the Euro is another example. But for all the doomsday scenarios of "two-speed Europe", it hasn't affected the lives of citizens. So citing those as examples of "two-speed Europe" are far-fetched.

You can't unify this continent. The people, cultures, languages, and the politics/policies of the sovereign states are so different and diverse, that what's good for one country, is not automatically good for others, and so a one size fits all political policy, is simply not going to work in Europe.

[Macy]

FIANNA FÁIL spent less than a quarter of what Fine Gael spent on commercial advertising in the Lisbon Treaty campaign, figures obtained by The Irish Times indicate.

Libertas, the anti-treaty entity run by businessman Declan Ganley, spent more on commercial advertisements than all the political parties put together, according to the figures.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0730/1217368580622.html

And Cowen was surprised that they couldn't get the vote out! FF obviously took their eye of the ball completely, and took a Yes vote for granted. Never mind all the finger pointing at apparent lies from the No side, maybe the Cowen should be looking in a mirror..

[jebus]

And Cowen was surprised that they couldn't get the vote out! FF obviously took their eye of the ball completely, and took a Yes vote for granted. Never mind all the finger pointing at apparent lies from the No side, maybe the Cowen should be looking in a mirror..

Hardly surprising they assumed people would vote for them no matter what given the result of the last general election though is it

[pete]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0730/1217368580622.html

And Cowen was surprised that they couldn't get the vote out! FF obviously took their eye of the ball completely, and took a Yes vote for granted. Never mind all the finger pointing at apparent lies from the No side, maybe the Cowen should be looking in a mirror..

Those figures only relate to official advertising so doe snot include leaflets & posters so could be misleading.

[Macy]

Hardly surprising they assumed people would vote for them no matter what given the result of the last general election though is it
While at least 40% of the electorate are obviously a bit dim, but even I wouldn't under estimate how effective FF campaigns are, when they bother to put their backs into it.


Those figures only relate to official advertising so doe snot include leaflets & posters so could be misleading.
Yeah, so said Micky Martin on Morning Ireland - of course they spent much more on leaflets :rolleyes: He's fast being shown up as the new Dick Roche when it comes to waffle.

[mypost]

FF obviously took their eye of the ball completely, and took a Yes vote for granted.

The polls had indicated otherwise for the past week, but right up until the first box was opened on the morning of the count, they thought they had it. :rolleyes: Citing the % turnout as the reason, despite the analysis of it only taken on the back of the Nice 2 turnout. :confused:

[Student Mullet]

If you want, the use of the Euro is another example. But for all the doomsday scenarios of "two-speed Europe", it hasn't affected the lives of citizens. So citing those as examples of "two-speed Europe" are far-fetched.
These three examples, the euro, the interest rate on your mortgage and not needing your passport to travel have definitely affected the lives of people.

[mypost]

150th thread post: :)

http://europenews.dk/en/node/12250

[dfx-]

Since was not having a referendum denying rights?

"Let's assume there was a referendum". I stopped reading there.

[mypost]

"Let's assume there was a referendum". I stopped reading there.

As did the other 26 heads of state

Meanwhile: http://www.herald.ie/opinion/letters/irish-law-attacked-in-european-court-1443999.html

[mypost]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0802/1217368880440.html?via=mr

Just as well he's a journo, because you wanted want to have him as a lawyer, seem as he doesn't understand this sovereign nation's constitution. :rolleyes:

As Charlton asked Dunphy: "You call yourself a proper journalist??"

[BohsPartisan]

Schengen and EMU are the first two examples.



Dead right, and look what happened to Rod Hull!

[seanfhear]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0802/1217368880440.html?via=mr

Just as well he's a journo, because you wanted want to have him as a lawyer, seem as he doesn't understand this sovereign nation's constitution. :rolleyes:

As Charlton asked Dunphy: "You call yourself a proper journalist??"

If we still have the offence of treason stephen collins should be charged.

[OneRedArmy]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0802/1217368880440.html?via=mr

Just as well he's a journo, because you wanted want to have him as a lawyer, seem as he doesn't understand this sovereign nation's constitution. :rolleyes:

As Charlton asked Dunphy: "You call yourself a proper journalist??"


If we still have the offence of treason stephen collins should be charged.Do either of you understand the Constitution?

The Constution didn't decide that we needed a referendum every time we entered a European Treaty, an unelected Supreme Court did.

Contemporary assessment of a document written many generations ago is a difficult business (eg US constitution and the right to bear arms).

Many pages back I referred to the disquiet in legal circles at the decision reached in Crotty vs An Taoiseach.

Its decision in respect of the 3rd Amendment is ripe for being put back in front of the Supreme Court as given the crux of Lisbon seems to be coming down to whether or not we get to keep a Commissioner that isn't even allowed to represent our interests, its hard to argue that it has any real impact on the constitution.

[seanfhear]

Is the lisbon treaty history rather than current affairs.

[mypost]

Do either of you understand the Constitution?

its hard to argue that it has any real impact on the constitution.

It's not hard to understand, that all EU Treaties require the consent of the Irish people in a referendum, in order to be ratified. They are part of the rules of this state, and one which all governments here must live under. There are NO exceptions.

[dfx-]

Still, nothing really to do with the Constitution though.

[OneRedArmy]

It's not hard to understand, that all EU Treaties require the consent of the Irish people in a referendum, in order to be ratified. They are part of the rules of this state, and one which all governments here must live under. There are NO exceptions.Its an interpretation of the Supreme Court, which can be overturned by the very same Court at any time. Its got nothing to do with rules of the state or any guff like that.

The Supreme Court erred on the side of caution and threw out the previous approach that each European treaty should be individually assessed as to whether it altered the Constitution post 3rd amendment (and therefore rightly required a referendum to be held) and decided that every European Treaty, regardless of whether it impacted the Constitution, should go to a referendum.

No doubt getting back our (non-existant) Commissioner and re-stating our (non-existant) neutrality will make it all worthwhile though........

[mypost]

The Supreme Court decided that every European Treaty, regardless of whether it impacted the Constitution, should go to a referendum.

That's the crux of the issue, and the rules we adhere to.

[OneRedArmy]

That's the crux of the issue, and the rules we adhere to.It suits your opinion.

In light of:
1) the rationale behind many voters decision on Lisbon (for mistaken or other misjudged reasons, as proven by subsequent polls)
2) the farce that was Nice I and II (where legally impotent "guarantees" suceeded in overturning a No vote)
3) the reality that many of the changes in European treaties don't materially alter the Constitution and in any case are covered by the 3rd Amendment

why shouldn't the Government ratify Lisbon and force a Supreme Court review of Crotty?

As for seanfhear's comment re treason, there aren't enough eye-rolling smilies to adequately respond to that.

[Student Mullet]

The Supreme Court ... decided that every European Treaty, regardless of whether it impacted the Constitution, should go to a referendum.I'm not certain but I don't think that this is true. My understanding is that the court decided that the treaty under consideration required a referendum and since then the governments decided put all treaty's to referendum.

[mypost]

It suits your opinion.

the reality that many of the changes in European treaties don't materially alter the Constitution and in any case are covered by the 3rd Amendment

why shouldn't the Government ratify Lisbon and force a Supreme Court review of Crotty?

It can't be ratified in bits and bobs. It must be ratified as one full document, as in every other member state, and can't be without permission via referendum here. Any attempt to do so without it, is effectively breaking the law of the state, and will be instantly thrown out of court.

[OneRedArmy]

I'm not certain but I don't think that this is true. My understanding is that the court decided that the treaty under consideration required a referendum and since then the governments decided put all treaty's to referendum.My apologies, Student Mullet, you are correct. The Supreme Court ruled only in respect of the particular referendum that was put in front of it in 1987. Sucessive Governments have interpreted the decision conservatively.


It can't be ratified in bits and bobs. It must be ratified as one full document, as in every other member state, and can't be without permission via referendum here. Any attempt to do so without it, is effectively breaking the law of the state, and will be instantly thrown out of court.I don't follow.

Are you saying

1)that there is legislation in place preventing the Government from ratifying the Treaty? Can you point me to that legislation?; or

2) are you referring to the bit of the Constitution that says that the result of a referendum must be respected?; or

3) Or are you saying you believe Government would be going against the Crotty decision?

[shantykelly]

ORA, there may be the technical ability to push through either a legal showdown on Lisbon ratification, and hence future referenda, but does anyone believe that any of the main parties have the political will to do so, knowing that in all liklihood it will be political suicide. Irish people are thran at times; if the government ignore the referendum decision and force through bits and pieces, would this not give ammunition to the 'No' camp? A government that ignores a clearly made decision, especially following so much publicity over it, would not have long left to live.

[OneRedArmy]

ORA, there may be the technical ability to push through either a legal showdown on Lisbon ratification, and hence future referenda, but does anyone believe that any of the main parties have the political will to do so, knowing that in all liklihood it will be political suicide. Irish people are thran at times; if the government ignore the referendum decision and force through bits and pieces, would this not give ammunition to the 'No' camp? A government that ignores a clearly made decision, especially following so much publicity over it, would not have long left to live.I think you're most probably correct they have no appetite for it. But IMHO a face-saving second referendum after some empty promises from Brussels (a la Nice) is considerably more embarrassing to us as a nation.

[mypost]

Lisbon II would be a different beast to Nice II. Another referendum on the same document, will be instantly rejected by No advocates/campaigners. Hollow guarantees, declarations, concessions etc would make no difference. We've had a referendum, the political establishment will have to accept the outcome, even though they don't like it. It's about democracy, stupid.

[pete]

The government can easily decide to ratify bits of the Treaty via the Dail. All they have to do is commission research that shows majority of people support certain aspects. The Commission issue would be an easy one to start with as could be explained that we risk losing entirely based on Nice vote if we don't sign up to current proposals. I don't believe there is any legal way this can be blocked.

They can also pick at sections of the 53% no vote saying they were confused. How many people voted based on gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion or any of the other spurious issues.

[mypost]

The government can easily decide to ratify bits of the Treaty via the Dail.

Can't. The document must be ratified as one full document, not in 20 pieces. That's the way it's been ratified in every other country in the EU, so that's the way it has to be ratified here, and only after approval by public referendum.

[OneRedArmy]

Hollow guarantees, declarations, concessions etc would make no difference.Why not, they worked last time. Whats changed since then other than issues that are irrelevant to Lisbon such as where we are in the economic cycle, the number of immigrants, our financial burden as a net contributor etc?

Oh wait, thats democracy working.....

We should all be very proud!

[dublinred]

Is the lisbon treaty history rather than current affairs.

I would say its current affairs as they are trying to work out a suitable date in the near future for a second vote.

[mypost]

Why not, they worked last time.

.....


Lisbon II would be a different beast to Nice II.

[pete]

Can't. The document was must be ratified as one full document, not in 20 pieces. That's the way it's been ratified in every other country in the EU, so that's the way it has to be ratified here, and only after approval by public referendum.

I agree that the Lisbon Treaty has to be ratifief in one piece however I am unaware of any legal barrier to separately implementing other issues that also happen to be included in Lisbon. Lisbon No vote does not restrict the government at all legally. Politics is a different matter.

[mypost]

I agree that the Lisbon Treaty has to be ratifief in one piece however I am unaware of any legal barrier to separately implementing other issues that also happen to be included in Lisbon. Lisbon No vote does not restrict the government at all legally. Politics is a different matter.

No part of the Treaty can be ratified in part, it's either the whole shebang or none at all, and we have very specific requirements here, in order for it to be ratified. There is no possibility of seperately implementing issues in order to "get around" that legal position.

[SMorgan]

Do either of you understand the Constitution?

The Constution didn't decide that we needed a referendum every time we entered a European Treaty, an unelected Supreme Court did.

On a forum that people write some very silly things the above statement rules supreme. A breath taking gem thats made all the better by question it starts off with.

[OneRedArmy]

On a forum that people write some very silly things the above statement rules supreme. A breath taking gem thats made all the better by question it starts off with.Do explain?

P.S. Read Student Mullet's post on the last page before you reply, it might save you some time.

[mypost]

"Ireland has destroyed the EU", they cry.

Really (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0808/1218125658433.html):rolleyes:

[mypost]

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11986010

[mypost]

While French President Nicolas Sarkozy has played a useful role, with his six-point program, in de-escalating the war between Russia and Georgia, his conclusion that Europe could have acted more effectively had the Lisbon Treaty already been adopted, is all the more confusing. What if, for example, the European President had been Tony Blair, and the ambassador had been David Miliband or Giuliano Amato? In that event, the European Union would most likely already be at war with Russia today. The British Centre for European Reform is already calling for setting up EU combat units, so that we can wage our wars in Central Europe on our own, without the United States.

As the Italian journalist Paolo Bozzacchi has reported in the weekly Oggi, in the aftermath the Italian Parliament's ratification of the EU treaty, the Brussels EU bureaucracy is feeling a new surge of confidence, and now thinks that they could have the treaty signed, sealed, and delivered before next year's elections for European Parliament—despite Ireland's "No" vote.

That would be the worst possible outcome, because the design of the Lisbon Treaty, which foresees the militarization of the EU, along with the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the establishment of an oligarchical dictatorship in a federal state that could do whatever it pleased, stems from the same motivation as the policy of encirclement of Russia and China. The idea that Europe has to be transformed into a militarized empire, in order to meet "the great challenges" (by which is meant Russia, China, and, in the view of some, the United States), is a sure-fire recipe for World War III.

The events in the Caucasus should be enough to extinguish enthusiasm anyone might have for this monstrous Tower of Babel.

http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3534to_world_war_3.html

[pete]

Sarkozy might have a point regarding EU President as it might have helped the US & EU having some sort of reaction plan in place for Russia aggression in Georgia.

[mypost]

The Russians have already shown what they think of EU Presidents devising ceasefires. Just carry on regardless.

One can only shudder what they'd do, with a EU President they don't get on with, as outlined in my last post. And in that case, we'd all be screwed, given the "united" position.

[OneRedArmy]

The Russians have already shown what they think of EU Presidents devising ceasefires. Just carry on regardless.

One can only shudder what they'd do, with a EU President they don't get on with, as outlined in my last post. And in that case, we'd all be screwed, given the "united" position.Thats possibly the most ridiculous post you've ever made. Which is quite a feat, as you're fishing from a deep pool.

Whats it got to do with Lisbon anyway?

Its like step, step, enormous leap to something completely unrelated to the subject matter.

Surely what Sarkozy did was a Maastricht power. Are you against that too?

I can see it as a Libertas or Coir poster:

"Yote yes on Lisbon = certain nuclear annihilation"

[mypost]

Whats it got to do with Lisbon anyway?

It's the whole point of Lisbon. :o The creation of a EU President, representing 27 states, to tackle the challenges presented by Russia.

Russia, an independent sovereign nation, have shown that they won't take notice of what the EU does, whether it's run under Lisbon or not.