Has anyone read the implications of the Lisbon treaty?

Has anyone read the implications of the Lisbon...

Didn't find your answer?

Here are some examples that have been sent to me:

The new nation will be Europe not Britain - we will be forced to accept EU citizenship!

Borders will be meaningless

EU can force us to introduce the EURO

The European Council becomes independent of the Heads of state

Article 8 appears to pave the way for the abolition of Westminster?

Political parties will have to have voters in 10 or more of the former countries to be allowed to exist. Is this bye bye Lib/Lab/Con/UKIP? (and screaming lord Such of course)

The 3 governing bodies are unelected - even though I only have one vote I still want to elect my government

It looks as though the 6 or 7 treaties have taken away all our rights and now are stripping us of our institutions. The Germans have a history of authoritarianism, the French are not far behind the Germans, The Italians have never been able to decide but the east block have never known anything other than this kind of rule. I don't think it sounds like a free society!

New regulations are going to make it impossible for most small businesses to follow and could result in mass dissolutions and unemployment (thank God I am near retirement) but lets see if we can get a debate going on this topic

 

Replies (39)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Stepurhan
By stepurhan
25th Jul 2014 08:55

Reliable Sources?

You say these have been sent to you. Is it possible that this is just anti-EU scaremongering that bears no resemblance to the actual Treaty of Lisbon? There is not a lot of point in starting a debate if the premise it is based on is not true. Do you have any links either to the Treaty itself or independent sources (i.e. not pro or anti-EU groups) referencing its content?

Thanks (3)
avatar
By TerryD
25th Jul 2014 09:39

A quick look at Wikipedia.......

The Treaty of Lisbon expanded the role of Member States' parliaments in the legislative processes of the EU by giving them a prior scrutiny of legislative proposals before the Council and the Parliament can take a position. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for national parliaments "to contribute to the good functioning of the Union" through receiving draft EU legislation, seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected, taking part in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities, being notified of applications for EU accession, taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and with the European Parliament.

The Treaty of Lisbon allows national parliaments eight weeks to study legislative proposals made by the European Commission and decide whether to send a reasoned opinion stating why the national parliament considers it to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity. National parliaments may vote to have the measure reviewed. If one third (or one quarter, where the proposed EU measure concerns freedom, justice and security) of national parliaments are in favour of a review, the Commission would have to review the measure and if it decides to maintain it, must give a reasoned opinion to the Union legislator as to why it considers the measure to be compatible with subsidiarity.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By WhichTyler
25th Jul 2014 09:40

To be honest...

... If it's got nothing to do with Director's Loan Accounts, you are barking up the wrong tree here!

Thanks (4)
avatar
By TerryD
25th Jul 2014 09:44

P.S.

United Kingdom opt-out for justice and home affairs:

Under the former third pillar, the Council of Ministers could adopt measures relating to justice and home affairs. These laws did not come within the body of European Community law, and had only the optional jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The Commission could not bring enforcement action against any member state for failing to implement or for failing to correctly implement third pillar measures.

The UK (and Ireland) have an flexible opt-out from justice and home affairs measures and could choose to participate in them on a case-by-case basis.

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the limitations on the powers of the Court of Justice and the Commission will be lifted after a transitional period of five years which will expire on 30 November 2014.

In order to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and to enforcement actions by the Commission, the UK negotiated an opt-out which allows them the option of a block withdrawn from all third pillar measures they had previously chosen to participate in.

In October 2012 the UK government announced that it intended to exercise this opt-out and then selectively opt back into certain measures.

The use of this opt-out by the UK will not affect the UK's flexible opt-out from justice and home affairs measures, or Ireland's identical opt-out.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TerryD
25th Jul 2014 09:58

In other words, I think you've been fed a load of tosh!

And I can find no mention of the Euro in the thing.

I'm not reading anymore.

Thanks (1)
Replying to accountantccole:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
27th Jul 2014 12:15

Source?

TD9 wrote:
All Member state nationals are already EU citizens.

Rights of free movement are in the main given to EU workers. The problem is that member state nationals cannot enjoy rigths of free movement unless they have moved between member states. Thus UK nationals feel like second class citizens. The solution is to give the same EU rights of free movement to UK nationals even if they have not moved between member states.

The way has been provided for EU citizenship to override nationality and thus worker status becomes more important than where a person is born.

Sounds like the same sort of baseless scaremongering as the opening post. Got a source to back these statements up?
Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
28th Jul 2014 12:56

All of it?

The middle paragraph. being the most extreme assertions, was my main concern if you don't have a link that covers everything you said.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
28th Jul 2014 14:09

No but

No I haven't read it but I'm part way through Tom Clancy's Patriot Games (yet again) so we could discuss that if you want?

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
28th Jul 2014 16:30

Why so reticent?

TD9 wrote:
see any Eu law book.Basic.
If your statements are such a basic part of EU law, you should be able to provide a link. Why are you so reluctant to do so? As it stands, I get the impression that you are hoping that, not having time to do extensive research, I will simply accept your statements at face value. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The more reluctance to back up your statements, the more convinced I become that they bear as little resemblance to the true position as the OP. Care to make an effort to prove that I am mistaken in that belief?
Thanks (1)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By chatman
28th Jul 2014 16:35

Not a reference

TD9 wrote:
see any Eu law book.Basic.

That's not a reference.

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
By mrme89
28th Jul 2014 16:38

Basic

TD9 wrote:
see any Eu law book.Basic.

 

If it's so basic, please provide a link.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to SuiteFiles:
By ShirleyM
30th Jul 2014 15:34

rude and nasty

TD9 wrote:

read the link carefully !

 

Near the bottomr it states the rights cannot be exercised by nationals who have not moved between MS.

If you don't exercise your rights it doesn't mean that you lose those rights and become 2nd class citizens. The rights are still there to be used if required.

 

EDIT: the rude & nasty comment has been removed by the moderators (just in case anyone thought I was referring to the remaining comments being rude & nasty.)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
30th Jul 2014 12:36

?

How can a UK national who has never left the UK have fewer rights than a French national who has never left France?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TerryD
30th Jul 2014 12:40

From a quarterwit
The paragraph says:

"The rights described on this site apply to people who exercise their right to free movement for work purposes."

I don't see the word "only"

And does "the rights described on this site" mean the whole of that website?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Rammstein1:
By ShirleyM
30th Jul 2014 13:02

Eh?

TD9 wrote:

u need to get up to speed with EU LAW.

 

Rights of free movement were never given to eu nationls unless they moved between ms's. The rights cannot be lost because they never had them in the first place.

 

 

So ... do you believe that UK nationals do NOT have the rights of free movement ... until they use the rights? It appears that is what you are saying! What's the difference between the rights of the UK citizens and the other EU citizens?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TerryD
30th Jul 2014 12:48

As neileg says...

So please explain to all us partial wits how that puts a UK citizen who hasn't moved at a disadvantage against a French citizen who hasn't moved?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TerryD
30th Jul 2014 12:56

So what additional meaningful rights would that actually give him compared to the UK guy who hasn't moved?

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnhemming:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
30th Jul 2014 13:08

Point?

TD9 wrote:

eu dir

2004/38

Still allows freedom of movement. Still applies to everyone equally, not uniquely affecting UK citizens. Still does not agree with your initial points.

Well, the link I had to search out said that anyway. Do you have a link that says any different?

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
30th Jul 2014 13:06

Right to move

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the right to free movement only come into existence when someone actually moves to a different country. So if you don't have the right to move freely until you have exercised that right to move freely, no-one can move anywhere.

Your argument makes no sense. An unexercised right is still a right. Choosing not to go to another country now, does not prevent you from going to another country in the future. Even if such a ludicrous state of affairs did apply then, on the basis of the linked information, it would apply to everyone across the EU, not UK citizens uniquely.

Feel free to put forward an argument that makes sense. Further abuse will simply result in you being ignored.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neileg
30th Jul 2014 13:09

I give in

There's no point arguing because there's no substance to the argument. I'm not wasting any more electrons on this.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TerryD
30th Jul 2014 13:13

Blinded by the light
In your original post you said:

"Thus UK nationals feel like second class citizens. The solution is to give the same EU rights of free movement to UK nationals even if they have not moved between member states."

So please explain why we in UK are second class citizens? What additional rights do these incoming workers have that are not enjoyed by their static UK colleagues?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Akkountant:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
30th Jul 2014 16:39

Compare apples with apples?

TD9 wrote:
compare uk rights with rights under 2004/38 which can only be claimed by EU ms nationals who have moved between ms's.
When you point to something that shows that UK citizens do not have the same rights as everyone else under 2004/38 then I might see your point. As it stands, UK nationals appear to have exactly the same rights as nationals of any other EU country, whether they have moved between countries or not.
Thanks (1)
avatar
By TerryD
30th Jul 2014 13:54

Getting dimmer

Maybe if you could answer my question, please (2004/38 doesn't), then full wattage will be resumed.

Thanks (0)
By mrme89
30th Jul 2014 14:01

TD9, I've tried to see the light but there's too much crap in the way.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By andrew.hyde
30th Jul 2014 16:33

Actually...

...this thread seems to me like several bald men arguing over a comb.

(Before anyone accuses me of a baldist comment, let me point out that I am folically challenged myself)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andrew.hyde
30th Jul 2014 16:57

Just stop it now please.

What may have been overlooked is that someone who has never moved between countries DOESN'T NEED any EU rights because he or she is by definition still located in his or her country of birth and (normally) citizenship.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TerryD
30th Jul 2014 17:04

Andrew, it appears that TD9 is asserting that in some way UK nationals within UK are disadvantaged when compared to other EU nationals who have relocated to UK. He just hasn't yet explained in what way.

Thanks (0)
Replying to the_drookit_dug:
By Paul D Utherone
31st Jul 2014 09:29

HUH!?

TD9 wrote:
unless fmr exercised actions cannot be brought in CFI
Waynes World seems apt here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSS6akd7lFQ

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
31st Jul 2014 08:59

Fair Market Rents? Cash Flow?

I see little point in continuing.

Single sentences with unclear abbreviations are not an argument. Every link TD9 has provided has simply shown that UK nationals have exactly the same rights as other EU citizens if they choose to go to other countries. None of them have shown how other EU citizens choosing to move here have any advantage over UK citizens who have never moved. I therefore conclude that no such distinctions exist and that the assertion that UK nationals are disadvantaged is completely wrong.

Unless TD9 actually puts forward a proper, supported, argument rather than meaningless one-liners and unsubstantiated assertions that they are right, I will not participate in this farce further.

Thanks (1)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
31st Jul 2014 09:22

.

Stepurhan,

I think you have made the mistake of attempting to have a rational discussion with an irrational individual. 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to fawltybasil2575:
avatar
By chatman
31st Jul 2014 10:32

Info needs to be relevant.

TD9 wrote:
u have been provided with info.

Info on its own is not enough; it's relevant info that's needed.

Thanks (0)
Replying to David Heaton:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
31st Jul 2014 11:34

preserve us ...

... from Single Issue Fanatics.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Jul 2014 10:32

Possible explanation ...

On the basis of the last paragraph - What restrictions are there?

'.. The rights described on this site apply to people who exercise their right to free movement for work purposes ..'

Whilst this para. does not restrict by specifying 'only', @TD9 seems to believe that there is an implied presumption that it only applies to those who '.. exercise their right to free movement ..' - otherwise why include this para. because if this were not the case the bullet point would be redundant

Believe @TD9 is trying to demonstrate the following:

No move of UK or FR nationals - equal rightsMove of FR but not of UK national - FR national acquires more rights. However, this advantage will be extinguished if UK national also movesMove of both UK and FR nationals - equal rights

On this basis he might be technically right, however, in practical terms @stepurhan is correct in so far as it makes no difference.

Probably an abstruse argument by @TD9 which corrects itself in a real world application

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
04th Aug 2014 15:57

Unexcercised rights

JC wrote:
Move of FR but not of UK national - FR national acquires more rights. However, this advantage will be extinguished if UK national also moves
Actually what I was saying is that, in this situation, both still have equal rights. It is just that in this situation the FR is exercising those rights and the UK national is not. The rights are not brought into existence by moving, they are just only actually used by someone who has moved.

I have a right to not be discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of my race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. The fact that no-one is currently discriminating against me, doesn't mean I don't have that right at this moment.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By TerryD
31st Jul 2014 14:27

Light's gone out

This was all quite amusing yesterday, but now I've drunk my fill. I have, however, discovered the one and only benefit that an incoming EU migrant has over me - he can converse with the shopkeeper in the Polski sklep far better than I can.

Thanks (0)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
By mrme89
31st Jul 2014 16:05

.

TD9 wrote:
u can't expect me to provide free education

 

We don't expect that.

 

Just have the decency to educate yourself before posting though.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
04th Aug 2014 16:30

Look at the actual wording ...

@stepurhan

'.. The rights described on this site apply to people who exercise their right to free movement for work purposes ..'

Afraid I don't have the actual wording for your example on discrimination so cannot comment. Please provide the actual discrimination wording to which you refer or a link to same

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
05th Aug 2014 15:10

Read the wording

JC wrote:
@stepurhan

'.. The rights described on this site apply to people who exercise their right to free movement for work purposes ..'

It's a poorly phrased sentence. If you read the page in its entirety, it's quite clear what it means is that the rights detailed on the page are what are covered by the right to free movement for work purposes. Since the rights are all related to free movement for work purposes, this sentence would otherwise be saying the right to free movement only comes into being when you exercise the right to free movement. That is nonsensical.

Quote:
Afraid I don't have the actual wording for your example on discrimination so cannot comment. Please provide the actual discrimination wording to which you refer or a link to same
Gosh, how clever. Asking the same level of reassurance to a well-known and pretty uncontroversial example as I did to a wild statement pulled out of thin air. Congratulations.

However, since you have asked, it would be hypocritical of me not to provide links anyway. Here is a link to the Gov.UK simplified summary on the rights. This includes a link to the Equality Act 2010 where those rights are recorded in law.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By andrew.hyde
05th Aug 2014 14:45

To revert to the OP

'Borders will be meaningless'. 

As I sat last night commemorating the millions who died in WW1 in a four year squabble over national borders, I thought 'And a bloody good job too.' 

Wasn't it Bevin who summed up his foreign policy as being able to go to Charing Cross station and buy a railway ticket to 'anywhere he damned well liked'?

Thanks (1)