Martin: Don’t focus on details of Lisbon

[eurosceptic]

Ibis. The obscure and theoretical means by which you are executed is as follows.
1- Ratify Lisbon and create the European Public Prosecutor
2- Unanimous Council vote gives him scope over murder of EU employees and murders on EU properties.
3- Blow up the dawson street office and kill someone.
4- EPP not DPP prosecutes you.
5- Jury convicts you of murder.
6- EPP seeks death penalty in accordance with EU directive agreed the year before in their unanimously agreed "anti-terrorism" directive.
7- Judge passes sentence.
8- You appeal sentence on what grounds as TCOFR allows death penalty during times of war.

Not impossible as you claim.

[eurosceptic]

Setanta lisbon is self amending as it can change by its own devices. That is an amending treaty is not required for chapter 3 of TOR. As said chapter is quite wideranging a lot is possible without "creating new competences". It is also the perfect excuse to avoid a referendum.

[setanta]

Setanta your more detailed reference to the laval judgement proves what point exactly? My point stands that taking the charter into account a very very poor judgement was made that damaged workers rights. So it is reasonable to expect more of the same if and when the charter becomes a fully legalised document.

The Charter was referenced alongside a number of other international agreements to demonstrate that the ECJ had jurisdiction to make the decision it did. The Charter was NOT used by the court to support the judgement itself. If you re-read the judgement (and incidentally I doubt if you have even read it a first time) you will see that.

The Charter does not undermine workers rights as you, a right-winger hostile to organised Labour, have claimed. That is a lie.

As for our public services veto. Read the section on health services, our veto is conditional on "shall not prejudice our ability to provide health services" or something very similar. This makes our veto conditional and subject to review by the ECJ.

What section in what document? You even appear not to have the reference yourself if you are so unsure as to the wording of it. Provide the reference and I will go look at it.

Please stop using personal attacks, it really lowers the tone of this website.

Please stop repeating NO side lies that have been repeatedly shown to be false, it really lowers the tone of debate.

[setanta]

Ibis. The obscure and theoretical means by which you are executed is as follows.
1- Ratify Lisbon and create the European Public Prosecutor
2- Unanimous Council vote gives him scope over murder of EU employees and murders on EU properties.
3- Blow up the dawson street office and kill someone.
4- EPP not DPP prosecutes you.
5- Jury convicts you of murder.
6- EPP seeks death penalty in accordance with EU directive agreed the year before in their unanimously agreed "anti-terrorism" directive.
7- Judge passes sentence.
8- You appeal sentence on what grounds as TCOFR allows death penalty during times of war.

Not impossible as you claim.

LOL! What age are you? 15? 12?

[jpc]

OK lads (good to have you backing each other up again - do you both work for the European Commission?)

I won't try to explain the details of the ECJ judgements to you.
I'll just repeat the question I asked earlier (and got no reply to)

The Council is happy to give all sorts of "clarifications" and "reassurances" on things that have nothing got to do with the Lisbon Treaty.
So, why didn't they agree to give a "legally binding" declaration on public services?
(or on workers rights - but maybe that's for another thread)

Could it be that it cuts a bit close to the bone?

Worth as much as a trade union comfort letter when the day of reckoning arrives.

[setanta]

Setanta lisbon is self amending as it can change by its own devices. That is an amending treaty is not required for chapter 3 of TOR. As said chapter is quite wideranging a lot is possible without "creating new competences". It is also the perfect excuse to avoid a referendum.

I provided extensive notes and references taken in full and in context directly fom the Treaty to demonstrate that the claim that Lisbon is self-amending is completely false. It is another NO side lie.

You have provided what exactly in rebuttal? You make some badly worded comment about the Treaty of Rome. Perhaps if you take the time to write a proper sentence and provide the references I might be able to follow your argument, such as it is. However, all that you appear to be doing is repeating the lie.

[eurosceptic]

Setanta We will try again. On laval.
1- The simplified revision mechanism does not require a new treaty. Hence the treaty amends by its own provisions, hence the term self-amending. Simplified revisions would probably meet the crotty criteria for parliamentary ratification.
2- I will get the exact quote from the article on public services but public heath service veto is subject to conditions post-lisbon.
3- I dont share that analysis of laval. The ECJ saw no conflict with the charter provisions in its judgement. So we can expect more of the same from the ECJ.
4- Hysterical accusations of "lies" dont serve debate on this website well. Isnt this what you accuse the eurosceptic press of.

On the death penalty. I have outlines a theoretical means which disproves ibis's claim that its "impossible". I note you have not attacked the arguement in any way, just again resorted to personal attacks.

[eurosceptic]

Setanta our veto on trade in public health services is diluted as follows: It can be invoked only if "risks seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services or prejudicing the responsibility of the Member State to deliver them" article 188 - 4b

[setanta]

Setanta We will try again. On laval.
1- The simplified revision mechanism does not require a new treaty. Hence the treaty amends by its own provisions, hence the term self-amending. Simplified revisions would probably meet the crotty criteria for parliamentary ratification.
2- I will get the exact quote from the article on public services but public heath service veto is subject to conditions post-lisbon.
3- I dont share that analysis of laval. The ECJ saw no conflict with the charter provisions in its judgement. So we can expect more of the same from the ECJ.
4- Hysterical accusations of "lies" dont serve debate on this website well. Isnt this what you accuse the eurosceptic press of.

On the death penalty. I have outlines a theoretical means which disproves ibis's claim that its "impossible". I note you have not attacked the arguement in any way, just again resorted to personal attacks.

You are simply repeating a series of false assertions that have already been comprehensively knocked down. You are following the standard operating procedure of NO side europhobes.

1. Make a claim, any claim, attacking the Lisbon treaty (or the EU).

2. When presented with clear and uncontrovertable evidence that the claim is untrue, repeat the claim as often as possible.

3. When called on this tactic attack your opponent and accuse them in turn of not playing fair.

4. Repeat as necessary.

It is these dishonest tactics that have led directly to the collapse of the credibility of the NO campaign. The Irish people have been once bitten by these tactics, but will be pretty unforgiving if they are repeated by NO campaigners in the second referendum.

[eurosceptic]

Back to personal attacks then. The basis of the yes campaign. Dont play the ball play the man. It can still result in victory though.