My Red Lines

[Squire Allworthy]

That came out like from someone who is definitely not Irish.
However.

Wouldn't it be a sickening feeling for that mentality if Ireland was "dumped out right NOW, etc, etc" and Ireland actually survived!

Do you like lemons?

Lemon juice is very nice on Irish trout.

I wouldn't describe myself as particularly Irish. I am a mongrel and home is where ever I end up. So no particular national loyalty at all. Indeed the country I was born in I have never lived in except on holiday.

Outside Europe, right now, Ireland would go down fast. Doubtless it would eventually recover. But Ireland, UK and all the rest need to face the reality of this Century. Europe either hangs together and we positively make something worthwhile of it or we all sink.

[eurosceptic]

HBAP. The maastrict protocol doesnt cover TCOFR in my view as it is not a treaty or a treaty amendment. It is a pre-existing document being elevated from aspirational to legal status. Secondly as abortion could be ruled a service (its even a public service across the water, paid for by the taxpayer) it then falls under title 3 of TFEU which can be amended without ratification and could be amended to insist on the unconditional free movement of services.
You correctly point out that the irish government cannot be compelled to conscript (as far as i can see) but you miss the point that with its own legal identity the EU can raise it own army independently of the member states, we would be real citizens of said union with legally enforceable duties (which will be decided later). With solidarity and mutual assistance member state governments could be compelled to hand over their citizens as a resource of the union. While a long shot it isnt unrealistic.

[seabhcan]

HBAP. The maastrict protocol doesnt cover TCOFR in my view as it is not a treaty or a treaty amendment. It is a pre-existing document being elevated from aspirational to legal status. Secondly as abortion could be ruled a service (its even a public service across the water, paid for by the taxpayer) it then falls under title 3 of TFEU which can be amended without ratification and could be amended to insist on the unconditional free movement of services.

So all things that are considered services in one state will be legal in all others? What about drinking beer under 18 as is legal in German or buying guns over the counter as is legal in Finland?

Do you have anything to back up this claim?

with its own legal identity the EU can raise it own army independently of the member states

I have a legal identity - can I raise an army also?

[eurosceptic]

Thats the whole problem with TCOFR it will have to go to the ECJ many many times before its true meaning becomes clear. Problem is if it does things we didnt anticipate then we are snookered. Abortion is a service in most EU states that is a fact.
Whos to say what you describe might come about in an ECJ judgement given the vagueness of lisbon.
What i have to back up this claim is a copy of the lisbon treaty. Take a read of TCOFR, title 3 of TFEU and the self amending mechanism. Then reread the maastrict protocol.

Unfortunately seabhcan your independent republic of S aint recognised internationally so you will have to force a secession treaty out of us (best of luck with you, yourself and you.)

[seabhcan]

Thats the whole problem with TCOFR it will have to go to the ECJ many many times before its true meaning becomes clear. Problem is if it does things we didnt anticipate then we are snookered. Abortion is a service in most EU states that is a fact.
Whos to say what you describe might come about in an ECJ judgement given the vagueness of lisbon.
What i have to back up this claim is a copy of the lisbon treaty. Take a read of TCOFR, title 3 of TFEU and the self amending mechanism. Then reread the maastrict protocol.

Euro, you really should stop flogging this horse. Its long dead. No ECJ court can possibly rule that abortion is legal in Ireland because the EU treaties explicitly recognise Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion.

Personnaly I think abortion should be legal, so I hate the fact that the EU can't possibly enforce a modernisation on Ireland, but it can't, because the treaties explicitly prevents the ECJ from doing this. Ireland is mentioned by name, as is the specific article in the Irish constitution which bans abortion.

There is no way, in any possible ECJ ruling, that the abortion ban could be over turned.

Its impossible.

Unfortunately seabhcan your independent republic of S aint recognised internationally so you will have to force a secession treaty out of us (best of luck with you, yourself and you.)

So your agree that there might be some other requirement for raising an army besides a legal personality? There are 4.3 million citizens in Ireland and about 1 million businesses, charities and other bodies which have legal personalities. How many of them have legal armies? How many times has your local Credit Union raised an army? What about the Spar shop across the road. Both have legal personalities, yet I don't think they have raised a single army between them.

Looked at the other way - are all armies that do exist in the world raised by entities with legal personalities? Can the Chinese state sue or be sued? How about Sudan, South Ossettia or Hamas? Did the Republic of Ireland get a legal personality first, or raise an army first?

Can you show any causal relationship between the gaining of a legal personality and the raising of an army?

[FutureTaoiseach]

Thats the whole problem with TCOFR it will have to go to the ECJ many many times before its true meaning becomes clear. Problem is if it does things we didnt anticipate then we are snookered. Abortion is a service in most EU states that is a fact.
Whos to say what you describe might come about in an ECJ judgement given the vagueness of lisbon.
What i have to back up this claim is a copy of the lisbon treaty. Take a read of TCOFR, title 3 of TFEU and the self amending mechanism. Then reread the maastrict protocol.

Unfortunately seabhcan your independent republic of S aint recognised internationally so you will have to force a secession treaty out of us (best of luck with you, yourself and you.)

The biggest impact of the Charter would be on immigration and asylum policy. 60% of judicial-reviews, according to official figures in this country, are on asylum-cases - an astonishing figure. These reviews last on average around 2 years, and by that time the relevant persons have put down roots in this country and stand little chance in practice of being deported due to humanitarian appeals and media campaigns by the IRC etc. By giving the ECJ a role in asylum cases, that will only start the clock again and leave their asylum cases in limbo for another 2 years (which is about how long ECJ cases take to come to court). That is one reason some on the Left support the Charter - they see it as a way to impose their vision of an amnesty-based asylum-system on Ireland. The relevant parts of the Charter are the parts stating 'collective expulsions are forbidden' and of the 'right to asylum'. Never before in the international history of constitutions (which the Charter and Lisbon effectively are) has asylum law been inserted into a national constitution. We are tying ourselves to an unpredictable evolution in Irish asylum and immigration law. While opposed to racism, I don't believe these measures will reduce it. Quite the contrary in fact. Sadly, an immigration and asylum system that does not have the confidence of the public is more likely to be fertile ground for racism. By outsourcing asylum and immigration policy to an unaccountable and unelected court, we would be undermining representative and direct democracy in this country, as it is a part of national sovereignty to be able to decide who can and cannot come to this country. Don't tell the Irish people that the biggest demographic and societal change in this country for 400 yrs should be excluded from the parameters of political debate.

[seabhcan]

The relevant parts of the Charter are the parts stating 'collective expulsions are forbidden' and of the 'right to asylum'.

Never before in the international history of constitutions (which the Charter and Lisbon effectively are) has asylum law been inserted into a national constitution.

Lisbon is not a national constitution. It is an international treaty by definition, and "collective expulsions" are already banned by several international treaties that Ireland has signed up to. All international treaties have the force of law in Ireland, and are superior to domestic law, by definition.

Yet again, you are talking crap.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Lisbon is not a national constitution. It is an international treaty by definition, and "collective expulsions" are already banned by several international treaties that Ireland has signed up to. All international treaties have the force of law in Ireland, and are superior to domestic law, by definition.

Yet again, you are talking crap.

Wrong. The European Convention on Human Rights is subordinate to the Irish Constitution where a conflict arises. The only Treaties that supersede the constitution are those whose ratification required a constitutional amendment which was attained by referendums. ECJ rulings do override the Irish Constitution, and by expanding the jurisdiction of the ECJ you further undermine the Irish Constitution and the supremacy of the Irish constitution over Irish law in areas of fundamental rights.

[seabhcan]

Wrong. The European Convention on Human Rights is subordinate to the Irish Constitution where a conflict arises. The only Treaties that supersede the constitution are those whose ratification required a constitutional amendment which was attained by referendums. ECJ rulings do override the Irish Constitution, and by expanding the jurisdiction of the ECJ you further undermine the Irish Constitution and the supremacy of the Irish constitution over Irish law in areas of fundamental rights.

International treaties override Irish law in all cases, but not the constitution. So in the unlikely situation where there was an Irish law enforcing collective expulsions and the constitution said nothing on the issue, the Irish law would be void because it is in conflict with the international treaties we signed.

In the impossible situation where Ireland's constitution was changed to support collective expulsions, the international treaties could be ignored, but you are correct, the ECJ would set us straight.

Personnally, I think this is a good thing. Ireland should respect the rights of all people here and there should be no ethnic cleansing operations (aka collective expulsions)

I take it you support ethnic cleansing?

[hiding behind a poster]

HBAP. The maastrict protocol doesnt cover TCOFR in my view as it is not a treaty or a treaty amendment. It is a pre-existing document being elevated from aspirational to legal status. Secondly as abortion could be ruled a service (its even a public service across the water, paid for by the taxpayer) it then falls under title 3 of TFEU which can be amended without ratification and could be amended to insist on the unconditional free movement of services.

Your view is wrong - for the simple reason that the Maastricht Protocol explicitly refers to any future treaties and amendments after Maastricht - and says that NOTHING in those treaties can affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3. Now at any one time, the EU is operated by one treaty, and one treaty only - and the absolute limits of what the EU can do are made clear in that Treaty. Also, every other organ of the EU, such as the ECJ, gets its authority from one source only - namely whichever EU Treaty is in operation. So, be it Nice, or Lisbon, NOTHING carried out by the EU can affect 40.3.3, because whatever Treaty is in force is either an amendment to or a successor of the Maastricht Treaty. The EU could introduce free abortions with packets of cornflakes for all the effect it would have on abortion in Ireland - where Article 40.3.3 would continue to be interpreted by the Irish, and the Irish alone. You can call abortion a right, a service, or anything you like - THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE IRISH POSITION.

You correctly point out that the irish government cannot be compelled to conscript (as far as i can see) but you miss the point that with its own legal identity the EU can raise it own army independently of the member states, we would be real citizens of said union with legally enforceable duties (which will be decided later). With solidarity and mutual assistance member state governments could be compelled to hand over their citizens as a resource of the union. While a long shot it isnt unrealistic.

Its more than unrealistic, its completely legally impossible. You might as well say that because Lisbon doesn't explicitly rule out EU citizens being forced to live on the moon, that could happen too. But to address your point anyway, the EU CANNOT raise an army in member states, because that suggests the EU has competence in defence matters, WHICH LISBON DOES NOT GIVE IT.