The Lisbon vote

Articles 23 - 27 concern diplomatic protection, qualified majority voting in the council, citizens rights (petition, Ombudsman, languages), and the shared competence of the Internal Market. Somehow from this ragbag you're drawing conclusions that don't bear any relation to what's in the Treaty.[/quote]

I have not refered to these articles I was refering to article 188.
 
Articles 23 - 27 Concern Diplomatic Protection, Qualified Majority Voting In The Council, Citizens Rights (petition, Ombudsman, Languages), And The Shared Competence Of The Internal Market. Somehow From This Ragbag You're Drawing Conclusions That Don't Bear Any Relation To What's In The Treaty.
Click to expand...

I think i was refering to 188. But if you actually read my thoughts on this i think I have a point. your free to disagree
 
Hasty repost there as you realised you did actually refer to them (posts 427 & 429) :D

Please give me the ladybird version of your thoughts because I'm having great difficulty following it.
 
Mary Lou is worried about our Corporation Tax!!!!
Yeah, I 'm sure she is. Having read the literature and listened to them all, I'm Yes.
Also if Sinn Fein say NO, for me that 's the best reason in the world to say YES, YES and YES!!!!
Can't accuse me of being coy!!!
 
television said:
No, Not if the government is idelogically bend on introducing privitisation (as is the case with Mary Harney) . If this is the case then this section of the treaty actually gives them room within the euroepan project to do that.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is that if the Irish people democratically elect a government with a mandate to privatise health and education services then there is nothing in this treaty to prevent exactly that from happening? Well put the kids in the basement and load the shotgun Ma, society may very well be on the verge of collapse.

What you are asking for (the means to prevent citizens from electing a government with a mandate to privatise health and education services) is more profoundly undemocratic than the treaty you proport to be against.

I suggest a move to Burma where you will find the political structure more to your liking.
 
What you are asking for (the means to prevent citizens from electing a government with a mandate to privatise health and education services) is more profoundly undemocratic than the treaty you proport to be against.
Click to expand...
1. I am not asking for that. The rest of your argument does not work.

2. I actually aggree with you here. In that yes people have a right to vote for harney or anyone else that advocates privatisation. any yes if they do then she/whatever party has a mandate for privatisation. However I am of the opinion that privatising services such as health and education is a very negative step. And i would suggest that the kicking that the PDs got in the last election that the irish people do not have the apetite for privatisation. then again I'm not claiming to speak for the Irish people
 
GeneralZod said:
Hasty repost there as you realised you did actually refer to them (posts 427 & 429) :D

Please give me the ladybird version of your thoughts because I'm having great difficulty following it.
Click to expand...


If you actually care to read the full text of what I quote you would see that the article I am quoting is refering to the articles you quote but it is not those articles. Please, before you go on a know it all rant and start speaking of ladybirds be careful to actually read the articles I am quoting rather than glancing at numbers and then feeling smug. perhaps your right in that you do need the lady bird version:)
 
GeneralZod said:
Hasty repost there as you realised you did actually refer to them (posts 427 & 429) :D

Please give me the ladybird version of your thoughts because I'm having great difficulty following it.
Click to expand...


157) An Article 188 B shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 131; it shall be amended as
follows:
(a) the first paragraph shall be replaced by the following:
"By establishing a customs union in accordance with Articles 23 to 27, the Union shall contribute, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers.";

Is this clear enough for you or are you going to try and wrangle your way out of it.​
 
redstar said:
The Constitution already has this wording (Art 29.4) ...
10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the
Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or
by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties
establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State

Read the amendment in context with the rest of the wording ... http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ReferendumWordingEnglish.pdf
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't " already have this wording "

If you read carefully, the word "Communities " has been deleted in the proposed amendment. What was the matter with that particular word that it had to be removed?
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, the current unamended Irish Constitution art 29.4.10 has this wording...

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the
Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or
by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties
establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

The proposed amendment drops the words 'by the Communities' to allow formal membership of the 'European Union', and artl 29.4.10 becomes artl 29.4.11. No need for the word 'Communities', as it will be dropped in favour of the term 'Union'.
The main thrust of the wording remains the same as now, pre-Lisbon
ie No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted .... which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union ... from having the force of law in the State

Voting No to Lisbon will not change this part.
 
Mods,

Does the moratorium on Lisbon discussion apply to this thread ? Just saw in the Irish Times that they are not publishing any letters today regarding the Lisbon Referendum because of the moratorium.
 
michaelm said:
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.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand what I am saying. My reading of the section is that the treaty is constitutional and the laws etc enacted in Ireland as a result of the treaty are constitutional. It does not say that the treaty supersedes the constitution; it says that the treaty and the laws which flow from it are within the bounds of the constitution. It is not legally sound to pass an amendment which allows other changes to the constitution without a referendum therefore such an amendment would not pass scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
 
redstar said:
Mods,

Does the moratorium on Lisbon discussion apply to this thread ? Just saw in the Irish Times that they are not publishing any letters today regarding the Lisbon Referendum because of the moratorium.
Click to expand...

That would be a bit harsh. Unless the mods start deleting all the posts from one side of the argument, I can't see any harm in continuing a balanced discussion. Its interesting to see the different viewpoints and interpretations on the same thing!
 
dazza21ie said:
Why do people (from the no side) presume we will get a better deal if we vote no.
Click to expand...
IMHO Nice is a better deal than Lisbon.
Purple said:
You misunderstand what I am saying.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think I did. I think we have a different interpretation of the same thing. I think the end result is the same.
redstar said:
Does the moratorium on Lisbon discussion apply to this thread ?
Click to expand...
The moratorium only applies to broadcast media and is voluntary.
elefantfresh said:
How can one side say it will NOT affect the corporate tax and the other say that it WILL.
Click to expand...
The problem with the veto on Corporation Tax is that once it's gone it's gone. If tax was really a sovereign matter, as Brian Cowen suggests, and the EU really had no intention to harmonise same, they would put a line in the treaty to the effect that 'The EU has NO competency in relation to tax'. I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the very near future, a compromise where Ireland and others with low CT rates agree a new minimum rate of 20% in order to stave off harmonisation or Enhanced Cooperation.
 
michaelm said:
The problem with the veto on Corporation Tax is that once it's gone it's gone. If tax was really a sovereign matter, as Brian Cowen suggests, and the EU really had no intention to harmonise same, they would put a line in the treaty to the effect that 'The EU has NO competency in relation to tax'. I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the very near future, a compromise where Ireland and others with low CT rates agree a new minimum rate of 20% in order to stave off harmonisation or Enhanced Cooperation.
Click to expand...


Do you agree that Lisbon has no bearing on this matter one way or the other.
I posted quite a long post in the Great financial debate section about this a few weeks back.
 
michaelm said:
I think the end result is the same.The moratorium only applies to broadcast media and is voluntary.
Click to expand...
Great, thanks , michaelm - I wasn't sure about that.

The problem with the veto on Corporation Tax is that once it's gone it's gone. If tax was really a sovereign matter, as Brian Cowen suggests, and the EU really had no intention to harmonise same, they would put a line in the treaty to the effect that 'The EU has NO competency in relation to tax'. I wouldn't be surprised to see, in the very near future, a compromise where Ireland and others with low CT rates agree a new minimum rate of 20% in order to stave off harmonisation or Enhanced Cooperation.
Click to expand...

What you say here about Corp Tax is true with or without the Lisbon Treaty. Voting No won't change any moves towards Enhanced Cooperation by those countries who want to do it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top