The Lisbon Treaty

[Mokong]

 

The third point is probably a good thing - letting people who know very little about what they are deciding one vote on every little change is going to see some awful decisions get made. It also defeats the idea of electing an MP/senator to represent you.

 

I see the constitution as not only the basis of our main laws and regulations as to how the country operates but also as a means to ensure the people maintain last word on how the country is regulated and operated. Afterall the government is elected by the people to serve the people. The government is charged with the duties of the general and day to day running of the country, and ensuring law and order are up held. But when it comes to the changing of these laws or the changing of how the country is run it should be the people who are to decided as it is the people the changes will effect the most.

 

For example, it is in our constitution that Abortion is illegal in our country.

 

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

 

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

 

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

 

We have had a referendum on this is the past in which it was voted against allowing abortions in this country. This is an easy example of how our constitution can be over-ruled by EU law under Lisbon, as abortion is legal in most (if not all) other EU countries it will likely be in EU Law that is legal. And since under Lisbon it makes EU Law superior to that of national laws in all cases of conflict, abortion could be made legal in Ireland and therefore our constitution altered without a single vote from the public.

 

Now I for one would favour the legalisation of abortion in this country, if we had a vote to alter that in our constitution tomorrow i would vote yes. But if it were made legal by way of EU law being made superior to national law that would be a big disrespect to our constitution and to our people.

 

Our right to a referendum is to ensure the government do not gain absolute power and that they serve the people, a right I feel everyone everywhere should be entitled to.

 

Not only this but Lisbons "self-amending" clauses are totally undemocratic. If it is ratified the EU will be able to make any changes they want without need for any voting or public opinion. As such we have no idea what Lisbon truely is at this stage. They could have a just put enough in it to help them get it its initial ratification but have a whole bunch of amendments ready to go once it is, citing it's "self-amending" policies. This is in effect absolute power, which I think we can all agree "corrupts absolutely". I would never trust myself if I had absolute power, never mind a bunch of politicians.

 

As for "what if one other country was invaded", of course I would want to see Ireland support our allies in times of need, so long as our triple-lock policy is observed (Neutrality in Ireland is generally taken to mean non-participation in a conflict unless approved by the so called triple-lock (the Government, Dáil Éireann, and the UN Security Council); troops cannot be deployed without the expressed agreement of all 3).

It isn't really the "coming to the aid" part that concerns me, it is how the increase in military operations is so eventually the EU can be a world power akin to that of the USA, to be an interventionist military power to do just what the USA is doing today: police the world and fight "anti-democrats" and "terrorists" across the globe, with pre-emptive wars in the name of "peace-keeping".

[Shino]

You clearly believe in what you want to see, I have yet to see proof that the Lisbon treaty comes above national constitutions. And you also fail to realise, that the EU is already a super power and doesn't need an army do make its point across the world.

[stev2604]

The 4th point is irrelevant. I bet you that a good number of the victims of the July 5th bombings in London were neutral towards the war in Iraq. Did the terrorists give a shit about that fact? No. Neutrality is, in reality, a personal thing, and unfortunately, if someone wants to attack you, they'll attack you, regardless of your views.

 

How many bombings have we had in Ireland as a result of the war in Iraq?

 

Exactly, because we are a neutral country.

[Shino]

How many bombings have we had in Ireland as a result of the war in Iraq?

 

Exactly, because we are a neutral country.

 

How many bombings we've had in Portugal since the war in Iraq?

 

Exactly, and we're a founding member of NATO. Neither neutrals or allied matter for the terrorist, they'll go for big and random targets.

[The fish]

Fuck it, I typed out a massive block of text, and then my computer restarted.

 

I'll do it again later, I have revision to do right now...

 

How many bombings have we had in Ireland as a result of the war in Iraq?

 

Exactly, because we are a neutral country.

 

See what Shino said, and, no offence to Dubliners or anything, but what would pretty much anyone on the planet see as a bigger target? London or Dublin?

[Mokong]

Fuck it, I typed out a massive block of text, and then my computer restarted.

 

I'll do it again later, I have revision to do right now...

 

 

I look forward to reading it so : peace:

 

no offence to Dubliners or anything, but what would pretty much anyone on the planet see as a bigger target? London or Dublin?

 

None taken, i'm not from Dublin

 

But yeah, you're right there, Dublin would be a small target in comparision. However there are some that believed the government put us under threat when they allowed US aircraft to refuel in Shannon on their way to fight in Iraq. The Government maintained that this didn't contradict our neutrality since we didn't take an active part in the war, I still not sure on that to this day, on the one hand we didn't actively take part in the war on the other our allowing them to refuel aided them to wage their war, our neutrality was on thin ice then i'd say.

 

[/slightly off topic]

 

You clearly believe in what you want to see, I have yet to see proof that the Lisbon treaty comes above national constitutions.

 

I read the quotes before but can't remember if it was online or in a news paper, i'll try search again tomorrow, need bed now.

 

And you also fail to realise, that the EU is already a super power and doesn't need an army do make its point across the world.

 

...only to enforce it

[Hellfire]

*Imperial March plays in the background*

 

that's the second star wars reference I've made in this thread, I can keep on going

[conzer16]

Dublin would be as big of a target as London if Ireland had come out and publicly supported Bush and Blair's war in Iraq.

 

Ireland was neutral in WWII, and in fact was the only western country to send it's condolences to Germany on Hitler's death - that's how neutral we were. (Although some would argue our defence forces were secretly allied with the allies and even that DeValera had secret Nazi tendencies etc etc)

 

Irish neutrality is a BIG issue in Ireland and it can't be swept aside by just declaring that as part of a Union we must sacrifice such an important aspect of our own beliefs, constitution and laws just because the union says so. A union is an organisation that compromises especially when a member has a reservation about something so intrinsic to them. I think it's only fair we can remain neutral. Ireland is not a target of international terrorism because of our neutral policy.

 

If there is a way that our neutrality can be protected via our triple-lock, incorporating a pan-European Defence Force then great. If not, then no thanks. Like I said previously, with Russia's shadow looming over Europe and an energy crisis about to hit, I'd hate to see us allied with Europe against Russia. Our energy issues would escalate quicer than most other continental countries, so I think that with relations between Russia and Europe becoming increasingly frosty then Ireland as a member of an EDF could prove very unpopular in Ireland.

 

Personal opinion - so please don't attack me on it

looking at you Fish.

 

 

The third point is probably a good thing - letting people who know very little about what they are deciding one vote on every little change is going to see some awful decisions get made. It also defeats the idea of electing an MP/senator to represent you.

 

So I take it you're not a democrat. Fair enough.

 

I believe that every person's opinion matters and when it comes to constitutional law and European law every single person is entitled to have their say and cast their vote in a way they see fit. That is how our country was founded as a democratic republic and how we should continue to make our decisions. We are a small European country, one that Europe has benefitted greatly, but at the end of the day if we think something is not in our own interests we have a constitutional right to say no.

 

No matter what the outcome of our vote on June 12th at least every person of eligible voting age has been given the opportunity to voice their own opinion. For a country of 4 million to afford such a right in a union over 100 times that size is a rare thing. In fact it's something that makes me very proud to be Irish.

[Shino]

I completely disagree with the entire post, and I want to say that Lisbon is better qualified to get terrorised by terrorist using terrifying terror devices, so don't jump in front of the line.

 

Also, even if the rest of the EU members agree with leaving Ireland out of whatever and Ireland still be in the EU, do you think someone from the outside of the union says "Damn that EU, being all non neutral on us! Oh wait! Not Ireland, those guys are cool."

 

You cant have one's cake and eat it too.

[conzer16]

Ireland won't be left out of it. It's all of us or none of us.

[The fish]

So I take it you're not a democrat. Fair enough.

 

I believe that every person's opinion matters and when it comes to constitutional law and European law every single person is entitled to have their say and cast their vote in a way they see fit. That is how our country was founded as a democratic republic and how we should continue to make our decisions. We are a small European country, one that Europe has benefitted greatly, but at the end of the day if we think something is not in our own interests we have a constitutional right to say no.

 

I'm sorry, but how the fuck does what I've said mean I am not a democrat? I'm saying it's better to have people elect politicians who represent their views and let them cast their vote in the best interests of those that they represent (y'know, like in pretty much every liberal democracy in the world) than let people who know very little about whatever it is the referendum is on have a vote on it.

 

We vote in MP's as we believe that not only will they make the decision would, but also because they will make an informed one.

 

Everyone's opinion does matter, but people cannot be expected to know all the complicated details and effects of every single piece of legislation. This is, as I've said, why we have MP's/senators.

 

I think what this boils down to is that you're afraid of loosing something which makes your country slightly unique - you're being nationalistic.

 

Dublin would be as big of a target as London if Ireland had come out and publicly supported Bush and Blair's war in Iraq.

 

No, it really wouldn't. London is a world city with a population of 4 times that of Dublin. It would be a target, probably, but not one as often threatened as London.

[Jamba]

I'm saying it's better to have people elect politicians who represent their views and let them cast their vote in the best interests of those that they represent (y'know, like in pretty much every liberal democracy in the world) than let people who know very little about whatever it is the referendum is on have a vote on it.

 

 

This is one of the most important decisions that any European countries have had to and probably will have to face ardount this time. It's a one off decision not the day-to-day running of the country or the long term implementation of "roadmaps" drawn up as a result of an election.

 

I don't understand how you can suggest that the majority of people are stupid. They are totally uninformed and that is entirely the Governments fault. The democratic thing to do would be to hold an informed referrendum.

 

I don't know particularly much at all about the Treaty itself. I find it taxing enough to get through the disturbing mess that is UK politics but I'm still horrified as to the fact that our refferendum has been taken away from us quite purposefully.

[conzer16]

I think what this boils down to is that you're afraid of loosing something which makes your country slightly unique - you're being a nationalistic.

 

I'm a nationalist. So what? I think you have a very polarised view of European politics fish. You cant seem to be able to accept that other people outside of your circle have other ideas and other philosophies. Grow up a bit.

 

I don't understand how you can suggest that the majority of people are stupid. They are totally uninformed and that is entirely the Governments fault. The democratic thing to do would be to hold an informed referrendum.

 

I don't know particularly much at all about the Treaty itself. I find it taxing enough to get through the disturbing mess that is UK politics but I'm still horrified as to the fact that our refferendum has been taken away from us quite purposefully.

 

Well said Jamba. Informed referenda make sense for the people, the parties and the politics involved.

 

It's disappointing that more countries in the EU don't have such a chance to voice their opinion.

[Shino]

I wouldn't expect a mechanic to know about computers, or a doctor do know about mechanics. Same applies here, assuming the majority of the people in any country isn't a lawyer, I wouldn't expect them to be qualified to understand something so complex as this. And from what I've read here, the Irish ARE being informed by their government, but dismiss it as biased information.

[Charlie]

We vote in MP's as we believe that not only will they make the decision would, but also because they will make an informed one.

 

But that hardly ever happens. How often do they get a free vote on the big matters in Parliament? Most of the time they have to vote along party lines. They get normally get one where it's a matter of conscience but other than that it doesn't normally happen.

 

Our whole political system is flawed.

[Hellfire]

Tbh honest I don't really care about referendums asides from more "personal" choices like abortion and euthanasia. People are misinformed, saying it's entirely the governement's fault is just wrong, no matter how much information is lying around or spoon fed to them, most wouldn't care. And then there's the problem that usually people vote not only based in misinformation and warped perspectives they also like to vote the opposite of what the government thinks.

Of course that I don't condemn those who make a referendum, but I don't think it should be the reasoning behind such a decision. People voted for their leaders, they were already given the oportunity to speak their mind about who they want making decisions for the country. But to be frank, I don't know much about UKs political system.

It seems to me that a lot of people are basing themselves on the recurrent point of view that UK is part Switzerland ands stand apart from the world, despite the fact that they're part of UE.

[The fish]

I'm a nationalist. So what? I think you have a very polarised view of European politics fish. You cant seem to be able to accept that other people outside of your circle have other ideas and other philosophies. Grow up a bit.

 

I find it ironic that you're telling me to grow up when you are both a.) a nationalist, and b.) have obviously not actually read what I've said.

 

I quite blatantly do accept that others have different ideas and philosophies (I'd like you to tell me how I don't) - in fact, the very presence of me arguing against other's ideas show I accept they exist. There is a possibility that you are suggesting that I should accept other's views as being entirely equal to my own. This is a bit of an odd concept, as everyone is biased towards their own ideas to an extent, and, well, I don't view certain arguments as valid ones.

 

I should point out that both Mokong and Stev*insert random numbers here* mentioned that Ireland will lose representation at the European Parliament once every 5 years, and, well, I agree that that part is indeed something that seriously needs rectifying.

 

European politics have proven themselves (a good example being the CAP) to be effective, and, in the case of the CAP, too effective.

 

Oh, and if we're talking about polarised views, judging by what you've said, you seem to be under the impression that democracy is either absolute or non-existent, never representational.

 

Our whole political system is flawed.

 

To quote Winston Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". Flawed > entirely inoperable.

 

Also, you vote (in theory) for the candidate who belongs to the party that will best represent your views.

[Mokong]

I'm saying it's better to have people elect politicians who represent their views and let them cast their vote in the best interests of those that they represent (y'know, like in pretty much every liberal democracy in the world) than let people who know very little about whatever it is the referendum is on have a vote on it.

 

The main reason we say a lot of people are not informed enough is because the people who are meant to help provide them with that information (the government) have not done their jobs right.

 

Back in 1937 when Ireland had a vote to first ratify the very first Constitution of the Irish Republic, a draft copy of that constitution was widely available across the country and could be bought for 2 pence, much less than the cost of a pint of beer at the time. Today a copy of the Lisbon Treaty can be bought for 45 euro, much much more than a pint a beer. And even if you did buy it, it is useless unless you also have copies of the other treaties to which its "amendments" refer.

 

And from what I've read here, the Irish ARE being informed by their government, but dismiss it as biased information.

 

I'm in Ireland right now, and I can tell you the government have done nothing to help inform me. There was a commission set up that was meant to send handbooks explaining the treaty to every household. I have still not received mine, even though they were meant to start sending months ago. But what I've been told by people who have gotten is, is that it can't be read. Because it is the treaty of lisbon. And as such cannot be fully understood without a copy of the treaties that lisbon is "amending" which were not provided.

 

And any piece of info I've actually seen from the government usually has a nice little "vote yes" logo at the end, so I would question its unbiasedness.

 

You clearly believe in what you want to see, I have yet to see proof that the Lisbon treaty comes above national constitutions. And you also fail to realise, that the EU is already a super power and doesn't need an army do make its point across the world.

 

Ok I tried looking again, didn't find exactly where i first read it, but found this, which I think is better, the full article can be found HERE

 

Similarly to the unconstitutional and undemocratic practices of the national parliaments in most of the member states to adjust the domestic law to serve the interests of the EU-federalism, rather than obeying the national laws, the very same deviation from the extant basis of the law can be captured on an international level. The Lisbon Treaty itself, specifically, Declaration 17. reveals this:

“At the time of the first judgment of this established case law … there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice.†(FINAL ACT (2007/C 306/02): 17. Declaration concerning primacy)

 

First, this reasoning is a profoundly dishonest way to make a legally binding statement by avoiding including such statement in the treaty in a straightforward fashion.

 

Second, the primacy of the Union law determines the overall primacy of the Union over the member states, because the law making (legislative) and law enforcing functions are the very basis of all other state functions, and it is the primacy of the law that will ultimately determine the control of one political unit over another in every possible aspect: the political, financial, economical, social, etc.

 

Third, according to this declaration it is not necessary to stipulate the primacy of the Union law in the present and the future EU-treaties, because the primacy of the Union law is already in effect. This declaration clearly claims that the EU has been following and will follow the practice of placing the Union law above national laws without existing contractual basis. By such a statement the EU has admitted that it has been continually breaching international laws by positioning itself with sovereign legal functions above other sovereign countries without any prior international agreements. In essence, this declaration attempts to legalise what is illegal by retrospectively legalising former illegal acts of arbitrarily overriding existing international agreements, and it is an attempt to maintain legality of the current illegal status quo, claiming that this practice will remain in place, despite the fact that the lack of contractual basis is still the case.

 

"The End of National Sovereignty

And in fact, what emerges from the declarations issued by the conference of governments concerning the reform treaty, is that henceforth, the Union's laws are to be given precedence over those of the member-states. In Declaration 27, it says explicitly: "The conference points out that the treaties, and the laws set into place by the Union on the basis of those treaties, in harmony with current ongoing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and under the conditions defined by that ongoing jurisdiction, have precedence over the laws of the member-states."

And in an opinion issued by the Legal Service of the European Commission on June 22, 2007, it says: "According to European Court of Justice ongoing jurisdiction, the precedence of EU law is one of the the pillars of the law of the Union.... The fact that this principle of precedence is not incorporated into the future treaty, does not alter the fact of its existence, nor of the existing ongoing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice." Come again? EU law has precedence over German law, but that's not even part of the treaty? And just in order to find this radical revision, one must look it up in the Declarations, and then, just to be sure, look it up once again in a court opinion, which states why this principle doesn't appear in the treaty text, but is in force nevertheless? [2]

 

 

 

Urging the ratification – either with or without referendums – of an international treaty that contains such provision is by itself the abolition of the very basis of the international law. Elimination of the guiding principles of international laws on constitutional and sovereignty-related terms, such as arbitrarily overruling the laws of sovereign countries, entails a serious international conflict and is already a valid basis for an international litigation case against the evidently unjust and unlawful practices of the Court of Justice.

 

And here's another good video on the subject I found last night

 

 

Now I gotta go pack a suitcase, going away for work tomorrow (gotta be up at 4.30... 4 FRACKING 30, damn it) going to be away for 5 nights and since its for work, doubtfull i'll get much chance to find a net cafe.... not even sure if there is one nearby, i don't recall seeing one last year... though luckily I get back evening of the 11th, just in time to vote on the 12th

 

: peace:

[Shino]

That text obviously proves that I'm not qualified to read it as I didn't understand the only part that wasn't completely biased.

 

The video is the most blatant piece of propaganda I've seen in a long time. We can see damn well they don't give a fuck about the referendum, their the opposition doing opposition stuff so they get tv time and gain popularity for them and their party.

[Jamba]

I wouldn't expect a mechanic to know about computers, or a doctor do know about mechanics. Same applies here, assuming the majority of the people in any country isn't a lawyer, I wouldn't expect them to be qualified to understand something so complex as this. And from what I've read here, the Irish ARE being informed by their government, but dismiss it as biased information.

 

That's not a fair comparison to make though. You don't need to get extremely technical about how the EU works to inform people of what is in the Lisbon Treaty. The populations opinion may also have to be developed through education as well, which I don't think is a big ask considering (yes I'm going to say this again) that it's such a very important decision. People know what they want, know if they want the EU to affect the way that their own country runs.

 

What I want to know is: why are people so scared to have referendums? If people vote something in then they will be happier and more confident in it. Surely thats a good thing.

[Shino]

There's insanely large risks if this fails and Europe can't afford to be fractured again.

[danny]

I would rather that the UK was more closely alligned with the US than the European Union. I would be happy if we left the EU tomorrow.

[conzer16]

WELL DONE IRELAND.

 

The EU MUST learn that it cannot steamroll decisions without consulting it's people.

 

Well done.

[gaggle64]

Yes, how dare the EU pile millions of Euro's of funding to regrow a previously failing Irish economy and turn it into a runaway tiger market success. This'll learn 'em.

[conzer16]

Yes because thats what the referendum and treaty was all about wasnt it

 

The FRENCH said no.

The DUTCH said no.

The IRISH said no.

 

Take a hint Europe. The constitution/Lisbon treaty is not wanted by the people.