The shite the no camp come out with for reasons is crazy, like the EU will force abortion on us. Do any of you actually know how the EU works and its competences? This treaty is mostly to streamline the decision making process, it's impossible to get things done in Brussels with so many members. I'll most certainly be voting yes and convincing everyone I know to do the same
Georgie,
Welcome to UI. I have not heard any No campaigner mention abortion and I certainly haven't. I would consider that an odd approach indeed.
Would you not agree that the EU has been doing fine at the present moment in time with its decision making process? It doesn't strike me as an entity in chaos. Far from it.
I'm an admirer of Dr Fitzgerald...
Yeah so am I but I strongly disagree with him on this one.
Georgie,
You should write press releases for Young Fine Gael!
This treaty entrenches the expolitative and poisonous neo-liberal modus operandi at the heart of the EU.
It's a case of the elite know best and the rest of us should shut up and go along with it. Sorry, but I have a brain and I like to use it.
Inch by inch those who claim to be a republican party wish to surrender that which was dearly gained throughout the centuries at the most expensive cost. I hope its not a case of fighting one bully just to hand it to another on a platter !
On Saturday Edition on newstalk this morning the yes side were forced to admit that if Lisbon passes it will be for the ECJ to interpret the Charter of Fundamental Rights, not the Supreme Court. This effectively turns the ECJ into our real Supreme Court, with the Irish Supreme Court reduced to a US-style state supreme court. This and the European Public Prosecutor and the Treaty provisions for "specialised courts" constitute a European Federal Legal system. Vote no.
Here is what Gerard Hogan SC has said about the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in terms of it overriding the Irish Constitution:
"IT Thursday, April 24, 2008
Charter 'could eclipse' Supreme Court
CAROL COULTER, Legal Affairs Editor
THE ROLE of national supreme courts and constitutional courts in the EU could, over time, be eclipsed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to a leading constitutional lawyer. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become enforceable under the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Gerard Hogan SC was speaking at a private conference of the Irish European Law Forum in UCD last January last.
At it he reiterated many of the issues he raised on previous occasions, including in The Irish Times, concerning the charter and its predecessor, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights.
He went on to say at the conference that much would depend on the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to key phrases in the new charter that related to the implementation of EU law.
The charter states the rights it enshrines are only enforceable by the courts when EU law is being implemented.
Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said.
He questioned the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall under the competence of EU legislation.
One example is the right to marry and found a family. He pointed out there is no EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation, so it is unclear why such a right should be stated, as it is only enforceable if EU law is being implemented.
The same could be said of many of the other rights in the charter, he said, including the rights of the child, the right to criminal due process and the right to healthcare, he said.
Mr Hogan stated the charter had many positive aspects, including that it created a proper legal basis for a challenge to the validity of EU legislation on human rights grounds, but still contained problematic aspects.
In particular, it was unclear as to when a state would be "implementing Union law" and when it would be implementing purely domestic law, given the transposition of EU directives into domestic law.
The "implementation of EU law" condition could also be triggered by accidental factors like nationality or travel, he said."
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/irelan ... 70357.html
The full link didn't come up will try to fix it.
Here is the link. to the Article referencing what Hogan said.
I have a question: Will Ireland have an EU Commissioner if this Con Treaty is ratified?
James we will only have one for 2 out of 3 five year terms.
Free Europe? Vote YES at www.FreeEurope.info
Brian
How does it work exactly?
Do you mean to say that Ireland will have an EU Commissioner for the first 10 years and then no representation for years 11 through 15?
Ok, I have found the answer to my question.
" Loss of commissioner
The treaty would deprive Ireland of the right to be represented in the European Commission – the body which has the monopoly on proposing all EU laws – for one third of the time. This means five out of every 15 years, which will have a major impact on our power to influence EU law. Nor can the member states decide on who should be their commissioner – the European Parliament can veto their choice. "
" End of veto
This treaty would increase the areas where majority voting rather than unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers would decide policy. The system would change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 18 existing areas of lawmaking, and from unanimity to qualified majority in 49 new or extended legal bases.
This means that it would be much more difficult for member state governments to block proposals. Removing the power of veto would therefore reduce the incentive to find consensus. The treaty would allow the European Parliament to reject proposals from the commission in 19 of the policy areas currently decided by majority voting, and in many of the new areas of EU law-making. While this gives it more scrutiny over the commission, it is no compensation for the loss of a national veto in 67 other areas of voting in the council.
Small countries like Ireland have little influence in the parliament, with 12 out of 750 MEPs. So the European Parliament could easily overrule a government acting in line with its electoral mandate. The parliament, for example, approved the EU water directive which is the reason for water charges in Irish schools. It also approved the postal directive, due to come fully into force in 2011, which may fragment the national postal service. The electricity directive, which has increased prices in Ireland, also got the parliament’s approval.
These directives say there has to be a market in these services. It means the EU can offer access to Europe-wide public services to transnational corporations via the General Agreement on Trade in Services in the WTO. This would all but remove democratic control of essential services. "
Much more information can be got from this source
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/9
All very alarming for the people of Ireland, in my humble opinion. If it wasn't good enough for the people of France - when they voted against it - and it wasn't good enough for the people of Holland - when they also voted against it - then the people of Ireland should also vote No.
Thanks for the link to that article, Brian. I just had a look. Very worrying indeed.
James,
I agree. I really don't see Ireland having much influence under the new proposals, and I'm not confident that any Irish government would have the guts to stand up against something that the EU wanted to impose upon us.
"...I'm not confident that any Irish government would have the guts to stand up against something that the EU wanted to impose upon us."
UI,
Such as corporate tax harmonisation proposals that the EU will start pushing if the people of Ireland are foolish enough to vote for this Con Treaty.
This corporate tax harmonisation proposal has the power to destroy Ireland's economy in a short perid of time.
And yet Bertie Ahern said in Boston just a few days ago that it would be an act of lunacy for the people of Ireland to vote No to the Con Treaty! Amazing! Is he more concerned for the people of Ireland or is he more concerned about landing a plum job for himself in Brussels?
Only today Dermot Ahern has been quoted in the Irish Times as saying it won't be a disaster if Ireland votes no.
James
"Is he more concerned for the people of Ireland or is he more concerned about landing a plum job for himself in Brussels?"
Good question. It is extraordinary how seeemingly all the main parties in favour of the Treaty are willing to insult the people who have genuine concerns about this Treaty.
Brian,
That's interesting. Do you happen to have a link to that story? I couldn't find it on their site.
UI,
Apparently a subscription to The Irish Times is required to read what Dermot Ahern said.
Important update from Libertas.org
"Alliance for a weaker Ireland" won't win
Written by Libertas
Friday, 02 May 2008
The Irish Alliance for Europe don't have a monopoly on being pro-European, and they should wake up to the fact that "pro-Europe" does not always equate with "Pro-Brussels", Libertas is saying today.
Libertas Campaign Director David Cochrane was responding to the groups announcement that they will spend €750,000 on a campaign to scare Irish people into supporting the Lisbon treaty.
He said that it was important that the group stuck to the facts of the Treaty, and avoided political points scoring.
"I have only one question for the Alliance for Europe.
Why is it a good idea for Ireland to give up its right to veto future world trade agreements, given the risk of the current round of talks to the Irish farming community?
It's a simple question.
Otherwise I welcome their commitment to Europe. It's very laudable.
It's simply unfortunate that they think that a commitment to Europe means joining with Bertie Ahern and Enda Kenny in trying to sell the Irish people a contract for a weaker Ireland".
http://www.libertas.org/content/...ent/view/271/1/
Thanks for the link, James. What are the odds on them dealing with that point I wonder?
Commenting by HaloScan
