Yes to Lisbon...what would it mean for the no campaign?

[ibis]

It is disappointing you make such claims. I hope you don't actually believe it and are just repeating the SF claims.

BTW SInn Fein first claimed a European Army was being created in the 1972 referendum. They claimed it again with the Single European Act, then with Masstricht, then with Amsterdam, then with Nice I and Nice II. I've read all the Sinn Fein leaflets from the period. There have been academic studies done about Sinn Fein's constant repeating of the same claims. And when the next referendum comes around, SF will claim, again, that the new treaty will create a new European army.

what next referendum ?

I thought this was the final tidying up Treaty ?

Ah go away [shakes stick]

[jjcarroll]

what next referendum ?

I thought this was the final tidying up Treaty ?

Who said that?

[ibis]

what next referendum ?

I thought this was the final tidying up Treaty ?

Who said that?

The IEA, amongst others:

The Treaty is to be the last institutional reform adopted by the European Union for some time, designed to prepare the EU and its Member States to collectively face future challenges, such as international terrorism and trans-border criminality, climate change, energy and food security, global poverty and stimulating growth and innovation in the Union's economy.

[FutureTaoiseach]

It would mean we had lost and in all likelihood, it would be our last EU referendum. No Irish politician on the yes side has given a guarantee that future treaties would be put to a referendum. As a democrat I would accept the result as the will of the people, despite how terrible it would be to Irish sovereignty and independence. The Federal Republic of Europe would be born, and Irish independence ended. Cowen would get to be Lord Mayor of Ireland, and Dail Eireann reduced to a glorified county-council. Our men and women sent to wars in a Euroarmy by what I call the neucons, probably against Iran, which Sarkozy is increasingly critical of relative to his predecessor Chirac. Berlusconi is also a neucon, because of his support for the war in Iraq. Brown is definitely a neucon too. The European Defence Agency will organise the relevant military planning.

Meanwhile the EU Federal legal system is completed. The European Public Prosecutor is established, as provided for in Lisbon. His powers can be expanded by unanimity under the Treaty, and this will no doubt happen to turn him into a Federal prosecutor. The provisions for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to become legally binding, and for what the Treaty calls "specialised courts", are the icing on this rather horrible cake. All Irish court rulings almost without exception can be set aside by the ECJ, which will effectively become a Federal Supreme Court.

Can the Yes side say that they will accept the result if it is a no vote? Or maybe they don't, given a certain Irish MEP's vote in the European Parliament against a resolution respecting the result of the Irish referendum.

I think if we vote No we will be doing the EU a favour in the long-run. That is because European history shows that in the long-run, no constitutional arrangement can survive without popular-consent. An EU built on ignoring public opinion is a house of straw and will not be stable in the long run. An EU built on public opinion on the other hand will be built on firm foundations and be more stable and long-lasting. Otherwise we'll have to have a Bastille moment sometime in the future. I refuse to eat cake.

[Earnest]

It would mean we had lost and in all likelihood, it would be our last EU referendum. No Irish politician on the yes side has given a guarantee that future treaties would be put to a referendum.

Why do you think previous treaties have been put to a referendum? Because the Attorney-General has advised that the Supreme Court might rule them unconstitutional otherwise. Why would future Attorneys-General suddenly depart from this procedure?

As a democrat I would accept the result as the will of the people, despite how terrible it would be to Irish sovereignty and independence. The Federal Republic of Europe would be born, and Irish independence ended. Cowen would get to be Lord Mayor of Ireland, and Dail Eireann reduced to a glorified county-council.

County councils have the powers given by the Oireachtas. Whatever argument there may be about the powers of the EU, there is no question of it being able to operate outside the fields given to it by the treaties.

Our men and women sent to wars in a Euroarmy by what I call the neucons, probably against Iran, which Sarkozy is increasingly critical of relative to his predecessor Chirac. Berlusconi is also a neucon, because of his support for the war in Iraq. Brown is definitely a neucon too.

There's no Euroarmy and no provision for one in Lisbon. And nothing to allow Irish men and women to be sent anywhere without the consent of an Irish government.

The European Defence Agency will organise the relevant military planning.

The EDA is about military equipment, not about planning wars.

Meanwhile the EU Federal legal system is completed. The European Public Prosecutor is established, as provided for in Lisbon. His powers can be expanded by unanimity under the Treaty, and this will no doubt happen to turn him into a Federal prosecutor. The provisions for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to become legally binding, and for what the Treaty calls "specialised courts", are the icing on this rather horrible cake. All Irish court rulings almost without exception can be set aside by the ECJ, which will effectively become a Federal Supreme Court.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a charter of our rights against the EU. Where the Irish government breaks our rights and is not acting under EU legislation, it will be a matter for our Supreme Court. The ECJ can set aside only those court rulings which are contrary to EU law.

Can the Yes side say that they will accept the result if it is a no vote? Or maybe they don't, given a certain Irish MEP's vote in the European Parliament against a resolution respecting the result of the Irish referendum.

There's no point of the Yes side making promises. It is not the Yes side in Ireland that will reopen the matter, but the 26 countries that will have decided Yes.

I think if we vote No we will be doing the EU a favour in the long-run. That is because European history shows that in the long-run, no constitutional arrangement can survive without popular-consent. An EU built on ignoring public opinion is a house of straw and will not be stable in the long run. An EU built on public opinion on the other hand will be built on firm foundations and be more stable and long-lasting. Otherwise we'll have to have a Bastille moment sometime in the future. I refuse to eat cake.

The Bastille moment happened in France and the Netherlands, and has been taken into account. Obviously in the long run you are right. But in any negotiation, there comes a time to recognise you've achieved what can be achieved in this phase.

[stannis]

The no campaign appears primarily to be based on maintaining sovereignty, not aligning ourselves militarily and a general dislike of money being spent on military campaigns by governments no matter what the circumstances.

Well ,at least it's good that someone in the yes camp can come up with a more fair appraisal of the views of their opponents than "they're anti-EU, boo hoo".

[rockyracoon]

It means the no campaign lost. It also means that if the yes campaign wins, we will not have a second referendum on the issue unlike the last referendum when the government and euroelite didn't like the result.

[ibis]

As a democrat I would accept the result as the will of the people, despite how terrible it would be to Irish sovereignty and independence. The Federal Republic of Europe would be born, and Irish independence ended. Cowen would get to be Lord Mayor of Ireland, and Dail Eireann reduced to a glorified county-council.

County councils have the powers given by the Oireachtas. Whatever argument there may be about the powers of the EU, there is no question of it being able to operate outside the fields given to it by the treaties.

Indeed. The Oireachtas grants powers to the EU - not the reverse. The Lisbon Treaty contains a mechanism for taking those powers back, and a clear statement that the EU has only the powers granted to it.

[rockyracoon]

Ibis - do you have an alarm that goes off everytime someone posts a new Lisbon thread?

[ibis]

Ibis - do you have an alarm that goes off everytime someone posts a new Lisbon thread?

If I did, it would obviously be a slow one, give this thread started yesterday evening!