Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, will have "the same legal value as the Treaties".

But which you conveniently left out (as you always do) TCOFR only applies to EU law and cannot apply to member state law. (FT has a habit of leaving out that key fact, as it would disprove his many zany claims about it.)

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which under Article 6 TEU as amended by Lisbon, will have "the same legal value as the Treaties".

Thank you for that.

One things for sure the complexities of this bloody treaty will increase the number of alchoholics in Ireland

Again we already have a tread on this!!!

We have a cast iron legal agreement with the E.U., that forbids then from legislating Abortion in Ireland!!!

Coirs Richard Greens arguments on RTE Sunday news are food for thought.

He believes the Human Rights treaty clauses will be interpreted by the EU courts in such manner as to force pro-abortion legislation onto the Irish statute book.

Fair play to Brendan Purcell on "Marian Finucane" on Radio 1 this morning on how the Charter will make the ECJ a Federal Supreme Court. Hardly a religious-nutter.

Originally Posted by USER1234

We have a cast iron legal agreement with the E.U., that forbids then from legislating Abortion in Ireland!!

No we don't. If it's not in the Treaties, it's not binding on the ECJ. The Maastricht Protocol does not mention abortion - it only mentions Article 40.3.3., and Article 40.3.3. does not define "the unborn" which it claims to protect. The ECJ may use Article 7 on the right to privacy and to form a family to open the doors to legal abortion in Ireland by claiming that abortion is part of the process of 'forming a family' in the context of deciding how many children to have. Also, the right to privacy was the basis of Roe v Wade in the US in 1974. This court has shown itself to be utterly shameless in its twisting of EU law to increase its own powers. Remember when they struck down our marriage-of-convenience laws last year in the Metock case, or when they decided in the Chen case that parents of EU citizens had residency rights in the EU? That had no explicit basis in the Treaties but the ECJ came out with them anyway. Where EU treaties are concerned, experience indicates you have to read between the lines aswell.

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

Fair play to Brendan Purcell on "Marian Finucane" on Radio 1 this morning on how the Charter will make the ECJ a Federal Supreme Court. Hardly a religious-nutter.No we don't. If it's not in the Treaties, it's not binding on the ECJ. The Maastricht Protocol does not mention abortion - it only mentions Article 40.3.3., and Article 40.3.3. does not define "the unborn" which it claims to protect. The ECJ may use Article 7 on the right to privacy and to form a family to open the doors to legal abortion in Ireland by claiming that abortion is part of the process of 'forming a family' in the context of deciding how many children to have. Also, the right to privacy was the basis of Roe v Wade in the US in 1974.

And, of course, all of this ignores the FACT that under the Irish Constitution women have a right to an abortion, where there is a threat to the life of the mother, including the risk of suicide. If a European court forces the government to legislate for it, it will be on the basis that our constitution already guarantees the right, but the state has failed to legislate for it.

Originally Posted by Cato

And, of course, all of this ignores the FACT that under the Irish Constitution women have a right to an abortion, where there is a threat to the life of the mother, including the risk of suicide. If a European court forces the government to legislate for it, it will be on the basis that our constitution already guarantees the right, but the state has failed to legislate for it.

Well it's certainly true that the ECJ could include the X Case as partial justification for introduction of abortion into Ireland, in terms of claiming they are not violating the Maastricht Protocol because the Irish Constitution theoretically allows for abortion.

Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach

Fair play to Brendan Purcell on "Marian Finucane" on Radio 1 this morning on how the Charter will make the ECJ a Federal Supreme Court. Hardly a religious-nutter.No we don't. If it's not in the Treaties, it's not binding on the ECJ. The Maastricht Protocol does not mention abortion - it only mentions Article 40.3.3., and Article 40.3.3. does not define "the unborn" which it claims to protect. The ECJ may use Article 7 on the right to privacy and to form a family to open the doors to legal abortion in Ireland by claiming that abortion is part of the process of 'forming a family' in the context of deciding how many children to have. Also, the right to privacy was the basis of Roe v Wade in the US in 1974. This court has shown itself to be utterly shameless in its twisting of EU law to increase its own powers. Remember when they struck down our marriage-of-convenience laws last year in the Metock case, or when they decided in the Chen case that parents of EU citizens had residency rights in the EU? That had no explicit basis in the Treaties but the ECJ came out with them anyway. Where EU treaties are concerned, experience indicates you have to read between the lines aswell.

You are an absolute and first rate LIAR.

You know full well that the protocol refers to the constitutional provisions covering abortion and NO OTHER. Article 40.3.3 is the "right to life" article inserted by will of the people as there was no explicit reference, up until then, to the rights of the unborn. Your continued perpetuation of the fallacy that this is not the abortion provision fails, again and again, to accept this fact and to understand the huge amount of litigation re abortion before the Supreme Court since which deal explicitly with this article and NO OTHER.

Now, you have strange views on other things, but here you are out and out LYING.

Very well put by Cato & Future Taoiseach.
Just saw your post Corelli.There is no need to be abusive.It detracts from any validity your arguments might have

Originally Posted by The Field Marshal

Very well put by Cato & Future Taoiseach.
Just saw your post Corelli.There is no need to be abusive.It detracts from any validity your arguments might have

Thats not abuse. You obviously have not been here long. Taoiseach is well able for a good robust row!!