Except the Wiki page, on Google and what invited journalists say...Maybe not. But the Bilderberg group - bankers, politicians, Presidents, media moguls, etc - (ever heard of them?) meet privately on a yearly basis to discuss all manner of world issues. Such meetings set the backdrop against which policy in the EU and elsewhere is framed. Little or nothing is ever reported in the Press.
This is incorrect. I suspect that you know it too.Anyway that's an aside, the matter at hand is whether we want to change our constitution allowing for the ratification of the Lisbon treaty and agreeing that our constitution can not prevent any laws, acts or measures being put into force if they are necessitated by our membership of the new EU, even if they would otherwise be deemed by our Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.
The point is that the Frech and Dutch Government gave their people the chance to vote on the EU Constitution. The UK government promised one. They didn't get the vote the they wanted so they came up with this treaty which as everyone accepts is the constitution with a bit of window dressing and suddenly the rights of these people to vote on the same issues is gone. Thats not democratic. At least we get to vote. If I was a French or Dutch voter, I would be vey annoyed that the right that was afforded to me previously is now taken away from me.
In the UK the Queen (or King) in parliament is sovereign and so a referendum would have no legal status, it would merely be a political cop-out by the elected leaders of the country. The same is the case in most EU countries. Once elected representatives make a decision it is democratic. To suggest that those countries that do not have a constitutional requirement to have referenda are somehow undemocratic is nonsense. Do you think we should have a national vote on every piece of legislation that is voted on in the Dail?
Do you think we should have a national vote on every piece of legislation that is voted on in the Dail?
Never said it was a constitutional requirement for them to have a refernendum. The point remains that the EU constitution was put to a referendum in those Countries because it was seeing as fundamentally changing the way Europe operates and there was serious concern about it. This treaty is exactly the same but because they voted no the previous time, they decided to call the constitution a treaty and take away the referendum. All I am saying is that if I was a Dutch or French voter who rejected the constitution, I would be very annoyed at not having the right to vote on this treaty.
Maybe it's only a book club but I'm not entirely happy that some of our elected representatives attend such secretive, if not secret, meetings.Except the Wiki page, on Google and what invited journalists say...
Steady now, you may have a different opinion but I am honest above all else. The Referendum Commission leaflet(separate from the booklet) posted to all voters detailing the proposed 28th Amendment to our Constitution, the wording of which won't appear on the ballot, clearly states . . .This is incorrect. I suspect that you know it too.
11: No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.
Many EU countries have lower corporation tax than us. The notion that the EU will gang up on us and we will have to fight them all by ourselves is laughable.
"The Commission backs the idea, and the other governments agree, and it is supported by the European Parliament."
Well, I think we're in agreement, the amendment will allow the Irish government to, on foot of instruction from the EU, enact laws, commit acts and adopt measures that would, in the absence of the amendment, be unconstitutional. It says that nothing in our constitution cannot prevent the imposition of EU law here. Whether one is for or against this amendment I think people should read the actual amendment they are to vote on.In other words the "laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section" are constitutional and given that they are constitutional laws passed at EU level are binding in Ireland.
Whether one is for or against this amendment I think people should read the actual amendment they are to vote on.
Fully agree.
With this particular amendment, it means that we may have to adopt unconstitutional conditions of membership of the EU which dont currently exist, but may exist in the future. Even stuff that isnt currently on the radar.
10° The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the
Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007,
and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of
that Treaty.
(This allows for the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon)
11° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the State that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to
in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the
said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to
in this section, from having the force of law in the State.
(This is similar to the existing subsection 10° and allows for the provisions of the Treaty of
Lisbon to be put into effect in Ireland)
12° The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.22, 2.64,
2.65, 2.66, 2.67, 2.68 and 2.278 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of this section and
Articles 1.18 and 1.20 of Protocol No. 1 annexed to that Treaty, but any such exercise shall be
subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(This allows Ireland to opt-in or opt-out of various provisions in relation to The Area of
Freedom, Security and Justice and enhanced co-operation subject to the prior approval of the
Oireachtas – that is the Dail and Seanad).
13° The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on
European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the
Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State,
but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(The Protocol mentioned here is the one which allows Ireland to opt out of the Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice. This clause would allow Ireland to withdraw from the opt-out. The
government has made a declaration which is attached to the Treaty of Lisbon that it will examine
this opt-out within 3 years – declarations are not legally binding)
This is my opinion based on my reading of relivent section of the treaty. I am not parroting anyone but making an analysis based on my reading and on the kind of big business forces that are very influencial around the corridors of power in Europe who ensure such wording to stregthen the possition.
This looks like your own "analysis". The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.
And I absolutly reject your claim.The previous stuff on Article 188 (which bore no relation to what's in the treaty) was straight off the Sinn Fein website.
if we vote no to this treaty,a few in the EU may be a bit miffed for a while...but in a few months the will have to come back to us and re negotiate a more favourable deal. thats how these things usually work. the thing to remember is we are in the driveing seat here.....so lets not sell ourselves short
if we vote no to this treaty,a few in the EU may be a bit miffed for a while...but in a few months the will have to come back to us and re negotiate a more favourable deal. thats how these things usually work. the thing to remember is we are in the driveing seat here.....so lets not sell ourselves short
And we can reject it a second time to get even better etc. etc. The problem is we can overplay that card and IMHO we have reached the end of the tether having already rejected Nice.