the referendum commission's information leaflet for the forthcoming lisbon 2 referendum arrived in my house today.
for those who haven't received it yet, there is an online copy here:
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_guide.pdf
it seems to be as bland and boring as they could possibly make it.
is anyone in authority getting exercised about this referendum? (COIR don't count)
"Even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that although you probably wouldn’t there’s no probability that you certainly would". Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes Prime Minister
Watch out for the pro-Yes subliminal messaging.
It's utterly and completely biased. For example:In fact, the Commissioner issue was not included in the Council "decisions". It was merely a political promise, included in a EC statement, which is not legally-binding. Indeed the fact that, unlike taxation and family law, the Commissionership was not included in the Council decisions (which are an instrument of EU law though subordinate to the Treaties which will mean the ECJ striking them down if they conflict withe Treaties) suggests bad faith by the other member states, who will be free to renege of the promise after a yes vote.Furthermore: [quote"]The European Council (Heads of Government) adopted a decision in June 2009 on a number of issues which had concerned some of the Irish electorate in the 2008 referendum. This decision is sometimes described as providing assurances of guarantees to Ireland that certain irish laws will not be affected by the Lisbon Treaty in areas of: The right to life, family and education, taxation, security and defence. This decision would be part of an international agreement that binds the member states.[/quote] Not true. The ECJ would have the power to strike down the decisions if they are regarded as contravening the Treaties. Furthermore, even if deposited with the UN as the elites claim, this will not prevent the ECJ annulling them, as it did to an EU regulation implementing a freeze on terrorist assets on September 3rd last year. Also, on neutrality:Originally Posted by Referendom Commission leaflet
In fact, the Shannon issue proves that the Irish govt has no 'policy on neutrality'. But in any case, Article 28A, while referring to the character of certain states' policies, does not mention Irish neutrality specifically. Indeed, if we consider Irish foreign policy at present as not being neutral, then by definition neutrality cannot be protected. The govt's foreign and defence policy has been one of progressive integration into NATO, through joining Partnership for Peace in explicit violation of a General Election promise to put the issue to a referendum. Note the reference to Lisbon being consistent with NATO membership:Member states would be obliged to adi another member state which is tje victim of armed aggression, in accordance with the UN Charter, but this must not compromise the character of certain states' policies, including Ireland's policy on neutrality....It would be a matter for each member state to decide whether to participate in the European Defence Agency, and to decide on its own level of military spendingSo clearly, the Lisbon CFSP provisions amount to de-facto NATO membership for Ireland. Furthermore, the requirement for member statesto "improve their military capabilities" overrules the guarantees - as the Treaties do as the highest constitutional law of the EU. In that context, it seems likely that Ireland will be forced to increase defence spending despite having a €21 billion deficit. Indeed, it is possible that the EDA can use its powers "to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector" would allow it to dictate Irish military spending in this country, as well as to force the mobilisation of Irish and EU troops. It is an EU Pentagon, and will be in a strong position to implement the plans supported by EU CFSP High Representative Javier Solana for a European army of 300,000 troops. One thing the Commission leaflet is correct about is that the statement on workers-rights is not legally binding:The European Council declaration on workers' rights is a political statement. It is not legally binding
Last edited by FutureTaoiseach; 31st August 2009 at 08:06 PM.
There is also an extended guide on their website. here is the link:
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbo...nded_guide.pdf
"Even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that although you probably wouldn’t there’s no probability that you certainly would". Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes Prime Minister
Don't worry Factorem, I'm prepared:
To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.
Can you name one of the main reasons that people voted Yes that needs correction?
To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give every one his due.
You look younger than I imagined.Don't worry Factorem, I'm prepared:
[SIZE="4"]Fianna Fáil[/SIZE]
[COLOR="DarkGreen"] The Land agents party[/COLOR].
Probably the main reason was that they didn't know what they were voting for and just followed Cowen's call.
[SIZE="4"]Fianna Fáil[/SIZE]
[COLOR="DarkGreen"] The Land agents party[/COLOR].
Lack of information.
The completely spurious claim that the Lisbon Treaty is necessary to deal with global climate change.
When put to Yes representatives (and unfortunately this has not been often), none of them has been able to explain how expressly mentioning climate change in the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU any greater competence to take measures to protect against global climate change than the existing Nice Treaty does under the existing free movement and environment competences do, particularly in light of the carbon cap and trade legislation has been introduced under the existing Nice Treaty.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks