EU law doesn't overrule Irish law, in fact strictly speaking there aren't any EU laws, there are just directives that are transposed into the law books of member states.
Printable View
EU law doesn't overrule Irish law, in fact strictly speaking there aren't any EU laws, there are just directives that are transposed into the law books of member states.
EU law does overrule Irish law in all those areas covered by our membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I'm not sure why you have suggested that there is no such thing as EU law. That's rather puzzling.
Directives are forms of EU law which are only binding to the members concerned, but where the mode of enforcement has not been specified, thus leaving it to the member state to choose the method by which it is incorporated, or as you have stated - 'transposed', into national law. Regulations are the most powerful form of EU law; they are immediately enforceable, binding in their entirety and applicable in all member states. Once they come into effect, they overrule all national law in the area concerned.
Yes indeed.
Do you really think that we would have bothered with all that recycycling malarkey unless we were bound to by EU directives?
Stutter?Quote:
Originally Posted by punkrocket
Thats nothing, you want to hear (read) me try waste mininimimisationQuote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
I'm torn on this to be honest.
On the one hand I've always been quite pro-Europe, but on the other I look at Iceland and wish I was a citizen of their country. If it comes down to it I'll vote yes I reckon because, and people might take this as a wind up but it isn't, I lost faith in the Irish people's ability to govern ourselves about 10 years ago, nothing that has happened since makes me think that we, as a people, could ever run a fair and just society anyway. We're just too greedy at heart and have zero community spiriti, everyone is just out to milk whatever system they can dry.
I'm not saying the French or German governments are less greedy, but I will contend that they are far more competent than the Irish, well the Germans are anyway, so I'd rather they were in charge
The Germans don't want Merkel running them, but we want her running here?
What Brussels doesn't understand, is that people crave and fight for independence in Europe. A Texan isn't all that bothered if someone in an ivory tower in Washington rules him, but someone in Bratislava or Belfast doesn't want to be ruled by a bureaucrat in Brussels. That will never change.
You obviously haven't met many Texans.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
There's a lot I'd agree with in that sadly and I think I've said so before. Ireland is an instictively conservative place with an instinctively conservative electorate. Pretty much every piece of progressive legislation that we have -be it social, environmental, whatever... we have been dragged kicking and screaming to by big, bad Europe. As a nation we hang together very loosely and expect laws to apply to everyone else but to stop at our gate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Excellent use of alliteration.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
It seems completely pointless for Cameron to have walked away from the talks - after all the UK's political and economic interests are tied up with those of the PIIGS, so he'd stayed at the fiscal union talks, it would have indirectly met our concerns, and the treaty would be more fairly balanced towards the smaller member states.
He had no choice. Germany and France have their eyes on London's financial sector and pressure at home for an EU referendum would have reached fever pitch if he'd agreed to anything.
I wasn't subscribed to this thread, so I'm a bit late in responding: A directive isn't a law, it's a condition in a contract. Again, EU directives only become laws when they're transposed onto the books of the member countries.
Isn't that the case with everybody? The Brits walked away from the negotiating table, because the conditions didn't suit them. The French want our corpo tax rate increased so FDI goes to France. The Germans don't want to bail out other countries, but think other countries should behave like them, and follow their rules. They might all be at summits, but they're really all looking out for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
He seemed thrilled to be isolated and out of the Euro. As if having a 980 billion Pound deficit to deal with, is a much better situation. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
while the likes of Greece and ourselves didn't have much choice but to go along with this deal I'm really surprised conuntries that aren't in a big debt hole eg, Finland, Holland and even countries outside the euro, like Denmark, seem to have agreed so readily to what seems to amount to fiscal union.
Shhhh. The elephant in the room might hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Of course we can vote to eliminate any mention of the Lisbon Treaty from the constitution but as long as it is there,Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
the Lisbon treaty overrides our constitution.
As Ireland is a member state of a federal union, the federal constitution prevails.
Under the Lisbon treaty, 55 national vetoes - allowing Britain and any member state to block EU measures that are against their national interests - are scrapped outright.
Quoted From the Lisbon Treaty as explained by the referendum commission
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbo...nded_guide.pdf
EU laws are made by ‘Special Legislative Procedures’.
Role of national parliaments
At present, national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision-making. If the Treaty enters into force then national parliaments – in Ireland’s case, the Dáiland Seanad - will have time to vet proposals and offer an opinion.
If a number of national parliaments object to a proposal it must be reviewed.Each national parliament has two votes, one for each house of parliament; the Dáiland Seanad have one vote each. In certain circumstances, the review must takeplace if one third of the national parliaments request this. In the case of judicialco-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation, fewer national parliaments– a quarter - would be able to require a review. The Treaty would also give nationalparliaments a specific role in relation to proposed changes to the Treaties.
There are defined areas where Ireland may opt in or out, apart from those defined areas, the process would operate as follows:
The national parliaments must be provided with all relevant policy and legislative documents (for example, green papers, white papers, proposals for directives and regulations)
The parliaments would ordinarily have eight weeks to consider the proposals
The parliaments may send a ‘reasoned opinion’ to the
eu institutions on whether draft legislation complies with the principle of subsidiarity – which is that decisions should be taken at local or national level, rather than at eu level, if possible.
If enough national parliaments vote to send a reasoned opinion, the draft legislation must be reviewed
Each national parliament has two votes. the dáil and seanad have one vote each. in general, one third of the available votes (18 at present) are required to ensure a review; one quarter of the votes (14 at present) is enough in the case of draft legislation in the areas of judicial co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation
The review does not mean that the proposal must be withdrawn. if the proposer (usually, the Commission) wishes to continue with the proposal, it must set out a reasoned opinion on why it considers that the principle of subsidiarity has not been breached
Though the EU has clearly made some fundamental mistakes, the effort to create a large common economic zone is an inevitable trend. Eventually, the entire world will become a single economic zone.
By fundamental mistakes, I refer to the fanaticism of its devotion to the altar of free market neo-liberalism.
This dogma has been exposed as utterly failed and beyond repair. The Lisbon Treaty is a failed treaty but the EU is not beyond repair.
Is it any surprise that neo-liberalism has failed in Europe? These economists have built their theory on a fairytale notion of what Adam Smith was on about, when he introduced the concept of the "hidden hand" in his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" in 1759.
"They (the few lordly masters) are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earthbeen divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it,without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplicationof the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neitherforgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last tooenjoy their share of all that it produces. In what constitutes the real happiness of human life,they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. "
What we have in that text is quasi religious nonsense about Providence having divided the wealth of the earth between a few wealthy masters who are led by an invisible hand (Providence) to distribute the fruits
Some years later, Smith used the "hidden hand" phrase in "The Wealth of Nations" however it is incorrectly interpreted by modern neo-liberal and other economists as referring to the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.
Therein lies the foundation of modern neo-liberal thinking.
More, less or equally as much a fairytale as the Book of Genesis?
Fair play the Martin - criticising the content of the agreement and Kenny's performance in the negotiations on the way in to the meeting where he was going to get the details of the said agreement and negotiations! What a feckin muppet, regardless of whether the comments are ultimately justified.
The above illustrates why I am increasingly frustrated with both politics and probably even more so the media in this country. The tendency towards hysteria and constantly looking for the next sound-bite or angle of attack is smothering all hope of rational debate.
Take the change in disability allowances- I happened to be chatting to a lady who works with the blind and visually impaired (and many of whom have other disabilities) and she said she was all for this as getting too much too soon tends to make recipients dependent and removes the motivation towards getting into the world of work. Noonan said at the time that this change was made after consultation with people in the area. Now, whether the change was sensible or not is one thing- but has it been debated properly at all since the budget? Not that I have seen.
And debates related to the EU are among the very worst of them. They're incredibly important but are all too often hijacked by the people on the extremes because their rantings make better copy.
Even in local media I see a greater and great tendency towards the tabloid culture.
And the worst thing is that it leads to crap government because they're always scared of getting caught on some issue. "When you're explaining you're losing". Except that things are not always simple and sometimes there's a need for calm analysis and a bit of thought.
Not holding my breath though.
Well said! There's a dreadfully low standard of proper debate on political matters. Far too many knee-jerk reactions and playing to the gallery. On top of that, I dislike the sterile language of debate: it's all Carr Communications / Communications Clinic cliche-ridden waffle. I'm half-dreading the next three months waiting for a decision on whether a referendum will be needed or not; all that time for the usual suspects to be trotted out by an increasingly jaded media to regurgutate the same old stories about conscription, abortion, federalism and solidarity - depending on which side of the fence they're on.
On an aside, I suppose that having successfully dumped Kevin Cardiff on Brussels we'll feel all guilty over it and vote in favour of whatever comes our way...