More Lisbon scaremongering from Micheal Martin

[DeGaulle 2.0]

I'm not buying it. This is the man who promised to end waiting lists in 2 years. There's a similar ring of truth' to this too. The second yes campaign looks like a rehash of the first one, again telling us why we should'nt vote no, rather than why we should vote yes. That tells the Irish psyche that it's a bad deal - otherwise why the bullying and threats of consequences from voting no? The real problem is the Charter and while it remains, Lisbon remains stillborn. A second no will strike a blow for freedom and democracy against arrogant elites who think that the will of free peoples should not count unless the latter likes the answer. It is like 1800 again, with the same bullying from foreign politicians to give 'the right answer' and similar motives from some national politicians supporting ratification. Will we re-enter the new 'Union' and allow history to repeat itself, for the sake of Merkel and Sarkozy smiling at Martin on Six One?

FT,

the Act of Union in 1800 did not contain a procedure by whcih Ireland could unilaterally leave the UK. The Lisbon Treaty does give a procedure for a country to leave the EU - see article 49A. Your comparison is ludicrous.

Quite apart from anything else, the Parliament if Ireland in 1800 was not a democratic institution.

[hiding behind a poster]

The real problem is the Charter and while it remains, Lisbon remains stillborn.

FT, you may be obsessed with the Charter, but most people aren't. There's no chance of an opt-out from it, indeed such an opt-out would probably torpedo any chance of a second referendum succeeding. What you need to realise is that your vote is irrelevant to the government - not because they're elites, arrogant, condescending, anti-democratic or whatever other rubbish you're having yourself. Its because there are sufficient people out there who voted No either for spurious reasons like "wanting to give the government a bloody nose", or who voted No because of concerns about non-existent parts of the Treaty - i.e the belief that it could lead to abortion, harmonised tax rates, loss of neutrality, etc etc, for the government to feel that they can win a referendum by addressing THOSE concerns, rather than having to seek wholesale changes which would take years to negotiate, and bring the whole process back to square one.

Now I don't doubt that you have many happy joyous dreams that the Irish people voted No because they share your fetish about the world's only democratically-elected "elites", but again, they don't. That kind of talk is the talk of the hardcore eurosceptics, the Anthony Coughlans of this world who have opposed every EU Treaty, and been wrong about each one too. They'll vote No anyway, so there's no point in the government trying to change their minds. What you're suggesting is akin to saying that because a state like Kentucky is hardcore Republican, a Democrat must appeal to Kentucky in order to win a presidential election (incidentally, not far off your suggested stretegy for the Democrats earlier this year).

So accept it. The Charter stays. Without it, the trade unions and many others would go from Yes to No in a flash. There will be crystal-clear statements on abortion, neutrality and tax, with possibly something on us having a permanent Commissioner for Hand-Baskets. And thus it will be a lot harder for the LibertasLiars to scaremonger when faced with plain English.

[FutureTaoiseach]

FT, you may be obsessed with the Charter, but most people aren't. There's no chance of an opt-out from it,

Then how come Poland and the UK have such an opt-out via Protocols? Is Ireland being treated as a second-class member of the EU?

indeed such an opt-out would probably torpedo any chance of a second referendum succeeding.

I thought you said most people aren't concerned about the Charter? Seems contradictory.

What you need to realise is that your vote is irrelevant to the government - not because they're elites, arrogant, condescending, anti-democratic or whatever other rubbish you're having yourself. Its because there are sufficient people out there who voted No either for spurious reasons like "wanting to give the government a bloody nose", or who voted No because of concerns about non-existent parts of the Treaty - i.e the belief that it could lead to abortion, harmonised tax rates, loss of neutrality, etc etc, for the government to feel that they can win a referendum by addressing THOSE concerns, rather than having to seek wholesale changes which would take years to negotiate, and bring the whole process back to square one.

One mans "spurious" is another man's "legitimate". It boils down to how the ECJ interprets the Treaty and the Charter, and we have enough recent experience, such as the Chen and Metock cases, to know that the ECJ can be very unpredictable on that score. I for one have had enough of their interference in our asylum system, and am not going to vote to expand it further through the Charter just so the baby-barristers in Fine Gael and Labour can go to the ECJ with free legal-aid to make money from it.

Now I don't doubt that you have many happy joyous dreams that the Irish people voted No because they share your fetish about the world's only democratically-elected "elites", but again, they don't. That kind of talk is the talk of the hardcore eurosceptics, the Anthony Coughlans of this world who have opposed every EU Treaty, and been wrong about each one too. They'll vote No anyway, so there's no point in the government trying to change their minds. What you're suggesting is akin to saying that because a state like Kentucky is hardcore Republican, a Democrat must appeal to Kentucky in order to win a presidential election (incidentally, not far off your suggested stretegy for the Democrats earlier this year).

Anthony Coughlan was right about Nice in predicting the influx of cheap labour from Eastern Europe, something dismissed and condemned by that oracle Dick Roche in 2002. You still fail to realise that in spite of 4 years of overwhelming evidence and the recent Prime Time Investigates program exposing the rampant exploitation of migrant labour in this country.

So accept it. The Charter stays. Without it, the trade unions and many others would go from Yes to No in a flash.

Even with the Charter most of the unions were either on the fence or on the no side, so why should it help the yes side next time?

There will be crystal-clear statements on abortion, neutrality and tax, with possibly something on us having a permanent Commissioner for Hand-Baskets. And thus it will be a lot harder for the Libertas Liars to scaremonger when faced with plain English.

They will consist of non-binding declarations from the same people who promised to end waiting-lists in two years, as well as a promise (which knowing Fianna Fail will be broken) to deal with the Commissioner in yet another(!) treaty in 2011 which will only come into force if Croatia votes for it in a referendum. Whoa!

It still leaves a number of potent "no" campaign issues unresolved and ready for Lisbon 2, including:

Ireland's vote halved, Germany's doubled.
Loss of scores of vetoes including energy and - at the Oireachtas's pleasure - Justice and Home Affairs, including asylum and immigration. That will go down well on the doorstep.
An unelected President of the European Council.
The Charter allowing the ECJ to overrule the Supreme Court - as Gerard Hogan implicitly acknowledged as I quoted in my post on the other thread.
Article 48 and the self-amending provisions.

[hiding behind a poster]

Then how come Poland and the UK have such an opt-out via Protocols? Is Ireland being treated as a second-class member of the EU?


I thought you said most people aren't concerned about the Charter? Seems contradictory.

Ok, I'll clarify (though I thought it was obvious). We won't get an opt-out from the Charter because our government doesn't want such an opt-out. An opt-out would go down like a lead balloon among all those who welcome progressive employment legislation as one of the major benefits of the EU. People see that legislation governing equal pay, maternity leave, parental leave, and the Working Time Act got its impetus from the EU, and have more confidence in the EU than in our own system to deliver such progressive legislation.

One mans "spurious" is another man's "legitimate". It boils down to how the ECJ interprets the Treaty and the Charter

No it doesn't, because the ECJ has no right to interpret either the Treaty or the Charter. Its ONLY role is to ensure that the Charter is being interpreted the same way in terms of laws being made in the member states as a consequence of the Charter. And when interpreting the Charter, it must refer to the original intention of the Council of Ministers when framing the relevant legislation. You know that full well.

Anthony Coughlan was right about Nice in predicting the influx of cheap labour from Eastern Europe, something dismissed and condemned by that oracle Dick Roche in 2002.

No, he was wrong. The Nice Treaty did not result in a huge influx of cheap labour. Our own sovereign government, in an absolutely sovereign decision, with ZERO EU input, chose to waive the right to a seven-year derogation from the free movement of labour to and from the NAS. I know you like to blame the EU for everything, but in this case you can't. It was our own government.

You still fail to realise that in spite of 4 years of overwhelming evidence and the recent Prime Time Investigates program exposing the rampant exploitation of migrant labour in this country.

Roll your eyes all you like, but the arrival of migrant labour is not as a consequence of Nice, and its exploutation is due to failures of regulation by own own government. Again, nothing to do with the EU.

They will consist of non-binding declarations from the same people who promised to end waiting-lists in two years, as well as a promise (which knowing Fianna Fail will be broken) to deal with the Commissioner in yet another(!) treaty in 2011 which will only come into force if Croatia votes for it in a referendum. Whoa!

But youer problem is that, like the editorial-writers of British newspapers, you believe that the EU is a big nasty project that's out to undermine our country - despite there being zero evidence of that. The Brits have a suspicion of Europe, for reasons best known to themselves, and you're falling for their phoney anti-Europeanism.

It still leaves a number of potent "no" campaign issues unresolved and ready for Lisbon 2, including:

Ireland's vote halved, Germany's doubled

Lie.

Loss of scores of vetoes including energy and - at the Oireachtas's pleasure - Justice and Home Affairs, including asylum and immigration.

Go on then, name the vetoes. There are something like 67 vetoes lost. Now needless to say, that doesn't mean that every veto lost is a broad issue in itself, like "Energy". So, let's hear you name the other vetoes lost. For all you know they could be on contentious issues like the shape of road-signs. But you don't know, anyway.

An unelected President of the European Council.

So you now want an EU-wide presidential election? Mind-boggling.

The Charter allowing the ECJ to overrule the Supreme Court - as Gerard Hogan implicitly acknowledged as I quoted in my post on the other thread.

Wrong. How many more times do you need it explained to you? You have extracted far more from Hogan's remarks than what he actually said.

Article 48 and the self-amending provisions

Ah yes, you mean the Article 48 where ANY change to the Treaty has to be ratified by EVERY MEMBER STATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OWN RATIFICATION PROCEDURES. That's what Article 48 explicitly states. And you know what that means, don't you - it means that if ANY amendment to the Lisbon Treaty contravenes either our Constitution or the Crotty Judgement, then we must have a referendum.

You know that well, don't you? But no doubt you'll try and bullsh*t your way out of it with another of your stupid "I prefer to interpret black as white" statements.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Ah yes, you mean the Article 48 where ANY change to the Treaty has to be ratified by EVERY MEMBER STATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OWN RATIFICATION PROCEDURES. That's what Article 48 explicitly states. And you know what that means, don't you - it means that if ANY amendment to the Lisbon Treaty contravenes either our Constitution or the Crotty Judgement, then we must have a referendum.

You know that well, don't you? But no doubt you'll try and bullsh*t your way out of it with another of your stupid "I prefer to interpret black as white" statements.

And parts of the Referendum Bill 2008 would have changed Ireland's "own ratification procedures". See section 13 for example:

The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on
the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the 35
area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the
European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European
Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State,
but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both 40
Houses of the Oireachtas.

The significance of saying it requires only the consent of the Oireachtas is that it ensures it won't require a referendum to remove the veto on JHA in the future. So Article 48 is pertinant to this debate. And there are loads of other sections of that bill with similar provisions in other areas of EU competences, including:

12° The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or
under Articles 1.22, 2.64, 2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68 and 2.278 of the Treaty
referred to in subsection 10° of this section and Articles 1.18 and 30
1.20 of Protocol No. 1 annexed to that Treaty, but any such exercise
shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the
Oireachtas.

4° The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts
under—
i Article 1.34(b)(iv),
ii Article 1.56 (in so far as it relates to Article 48.7 of the 45
Treaty referred to in subsection 4° of this section),
iii Article 2.66 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph
of Article 65.3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union),
9
iv Article 2.67 (in so far as it relates to subparagraph (d) of
Article 69A.2, the third subparagraph of Article 69B.1 and
paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 69E of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union),
5 v Article 2.144(a),
vi Article 2.261 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph
of Article 270a.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union), and
vii Article 2.278 (in so far as it relates to Article 280H of the
10 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),
of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of this section, and may
also agree to the decision under the second sentence of the second
subparagraph of Article 137.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (as amended by Article 2.116(a) of the Treaty
15 referred to in the said subsection 10°), but the agreement to any such
decision, regulation or act shall be subject to the prior approval of
both Houses of the Oireachtas

The reality hbap is that in a huge range of areas, the constitutional amendment we voted down in June would have radically changed Ireland's "own ratification procedures".

[zeleneye]

And parts of the Referendum Bill 2008 would have changed Ireland's "own ratification procedures".

Seems to me your gripe is with the referendum bill and not Lisbon.

And now for a typical FT gesture...