If we still have the offence of treason stephen collins should be charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Printable View
If we still have the offence of treason stephen collins should be charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Do either of you understand the Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
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.
Is the lisbon treaty history rather than current affairs.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Still, nothing really to do with the Constitution though.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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........
That's the crux of the issue, and the rules we adhere to.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
It suits your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
I don't follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by shantykelly
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Oh wait, thats democracy working.....
We should all be very proud!
I would say its current affairs as they are trying to work out a suitable date in the near future for a second vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
.....Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Do explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
P.S. Read Student Mullet's post on the last page before you reply, it might save you some time.
"Ireland has destroyed the EU", they cry.
Really:rolleyes:
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/...rld_war_3.html
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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"
It's the whole point of Lisbon. :o The creation of a EU President, representing 27 states, to tackle the challenges presented by Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
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.
So you want Ireland to follow Russia's lead and alienate ourselves from Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
How long, how long must we sing this song?Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
The vast majority of the French, Dutch, Germans etc. were against Lisbon. We are only p1ssing off the EU elite.
This is a different tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Russia is outside the EU and clearly doesn't care what the EU thinks. mypost seems to be happy with this attitude so I'm wondering would he want Ireland to act likewise?
Frankly, the EU has no right to hold "emergency meetings" over Russia. Russia and Georgia are non-EU, sovereign nations, and their disputes are local issues for them to sort out. The EU should not be getting involved, and any involvement, or "sanctions" meted out to Russia by Brussels is counter productive.
Don't be ridiculous. You don't think if Germany attacked Britain, the irish government would be holding meetings?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
The Georgian conflict great affects the EU, and they met to discuss it
Germany and the UK are part of the EU, therefore it would be in Ireland's interests. Not that we could do much in any case.
So you're not only against the Lisbon Treaty you're actually against the current powers the EU has? (despite you arguing in favour of the status quo in the Lisbon thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Lets cut to the chase, are you in favour of any of the below
1) Ireland withdrawing from EU
2) EU reverting to a pre-Maastricht free trade area
3) Full break up of the EU
None of the above can/will happen, so pointless discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
I don't see what business it is that the EU should get involved in the Georgia-Russia war. Neither country is part of the EU, nor is a candidate country, while the Russians laughed at Sarkosy by not complying with his ceasefire. Not only that, but they're not going to respond well to summits and the idea of sanctions imposed on them, which may lead to a more hardline stance from Moscow towards the EU.
When do we think Lisbon II vote will be? This year or next spring?
Preferably Never. It will save the government time and money, and it will save us from having to uphold the original verdict.