Pay no attention. The only valid opinions on EU matters are those that are positive!Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach
The docile Irish have said YES but the reasons why will never be addressed.
http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty...barometer.html
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." – George Bernard Shaw
You said the ECJ struck down a UN Resolution.
What the ECJ actually did was to strike down an EC Regulation - a completely different action.
As I already asked, if your claim about the new article in the Irish Constitution is correct, then why wasn't it used by the No campaign?
The so-called Czech opt-out is nothing of the kind. It's a clarification that the Charter of Fundamental Rights doesn't do what it doesn't do anyway.You can't possibly say that with a straight face. Bending over backwards would have been renegotiation. At the very least we should have gotten the Czech optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which President Klaus proved was acheivable. This useless govt didn't even ask for a renegotiation. They went to Brussels on their knees and told them to proceed with ratification. Where have you been?
The same applies to the UK and Poland and their respective 'opt-outs'.
Here's some expert legal opinion on the value of those 'opt-outs':
[FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=3][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=3][FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=3][SIZE=2]Finally, brief mention must be made of Protocol (No. 30) on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU to Poland and to the United [FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT]Kingdom. [/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=3][FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=3][FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=3]
[SIZE=2][FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT]It should be noted at the outset that this Protocol, by the UK Government’s own admission,[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT]is an interpretive Protocol rather than an optout, in fact leading some to question the need for it, legally, at all. [/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=2]It is certainly likely that the demand for this special protocol was essentially political. [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=2]Dougan attributes it to the Government’s willingness to bow to the forceful yet overly simplistic and sometimes dishonest claims made by sections of the media and [/SIZE][SIZE=2]political parties about the detrimental impact of the Charter on the UK’s flexible employment arrangements, all against a backdrop of needing to make the Lisbon Treaty look different from the Constitutional Treaty. [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=GaramondMT][FONT=GaramondMT][SIZE=2]He concludes that the Protocol emerges as a fantasy solution to a fantasy problem: ‘the Charter is not actually a serious threat to UK labour law; for its part, the Protocol is not really an [/SIZE][SIZE=2]opt-out from anything.’[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE]
The UK government, and the European Union Committee of the House of Lords agreed:
[FONT=Plantin-Italic][/FONT][FONT=Plantin-Italic]The UK and Polish Protocol[/FONT]
[FONT=Plantin]5.84. The United Kingdom and Poland have secured a Protocol, which under new Article 51 TEU will have the same legal value as the Treaties, on the application of the Charter in the UK and Poland...[/FONT]
[FONT=Plantin][FONT=Plantin-Italic]i. A Charter opt-out?[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Plantin]5.85. Some witnesses seemed to consider that the Protocol effectively constituted an opt-out from the Charter (pp E148, E156). However, [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]Professor Dashwood considered the Protocol to play a role in assisting [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]interpretation of the Charter only: “The Protocol is not an opt-out for the [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]United Kingdom; it is an interpretative protocol” (Q E332). This was a view [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]echoed by Dr Sariyiannidou: “[The Protocol] does not say that the Charter [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]is not binding in the UK and in this respect it does not amount to an ‘optout’” (p G36). The ETUC referred to “opt out” as “inaccurate terminology” (p G29).[/FONT]
[FONT=Plantin]5.86. The Government also viewed the Protocol as an interpretation guide rather than an opt-out. The DWP [Department for Work and Pensions] said categorically, “The UK Protocol does not constitute an ‘opt-out’. It puts beyond doubt the legal position that nothing in the Charter creates any new rights, or extends the ability of any court to [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]strike down UK law” (p G27). The DIUS and the DCSF referred to Articles [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]51 and 52 of the Charter and the Protocol as providing “some useful [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]clarification of the effect of the Charter rights” (p G25). Professor Shaw [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]suggested that in fact, the Protocol was a “Declaration masquerading as a [/FONT][FONT=Plantin]Protocol” (Q E70). Indeed, she considered it extraordinary that the Member States should purport to instruct British courts as to how they were supposed to interpret the Charter (Q E73).[/FONT]
[FONT=Plantin]5.87. [/FONT][FONT=Plantin-Bold]The Protocol is not an opt-out from the Charter. The Charter will apply in the UK, even if its interpretation may be affected by the [/FONT][FONT=Plantin-Bold]terms of the Protocol.[/FONT]
Last edited by marmurr1916; 18th November 2009 at 05:36 PM.
What I said was that an EU Regulation had been struck down, but that just as an EU instrument implementing one element of international law (the relevant UNSC Resolution), the ECJ could likewise strike down the EU Council decisions with respect to the so-called 'guarantees'.
They should have used it btw.
Enjoy it, boys and girls.
The enemy of my enemy is the enemy of my enemy. There are lies, damn lies and Fine Gael confusions. "I don't understand." Alan "it's only 79 punts" Shatter
The alternative 'logic' goes something like this:
(i) Bilderberg does not exist -it's merely a conspiracy theory for nutjobs.
(ii) Mainstream newsflash -Bilderberg does exist -it's not a conspiracy theory so in fact the nutjobs were doubly wrong for being right to be wrong [starts to sweat].
(iii) conclusions: none (because as a sheep-person I cannot think without making repeated reference to a pre-given, explicit and prescribed western-world consensus).
Your final paragraph is "stunningly superficial" (cf. Z. Brezinski).
And a little good news for, as far as I can make out, most of those who believe that the proposed President will be immensely powerful: Van Rompuy: 'Turkey will never be part of Europe'
See, he's not all bad...
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
He said it in Opposition. As an EU official says (underlining the cynicism of the EU elites):"Things that are said in opposition, as David Cameron will soon find out, are different from what you find yourself saying when in government." "Serious politics, however, is to judge someone by what they say and do when in power," the official said.
Judging someone by what they say and do when in power isn't cynical."Things that are said in opposition, as David Cameron will soon find out, are different from what you find yourself saying when in government." "Serious politics, however, is to judge someone by what they say and do when in power," the official said
It's what voters do at every election.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
