Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Two questions today about vetoing and our Constitution: Can anyone describe the Veto thing and how we veto now and how it will change or is it very complex?

The veto is very simple. It means that if a piece of legislation is proposed which nearly everyone else supports, we can simply say "no", and the legislation cannot go ahead.

Thank you again for replying ibis.

Vetoing: this means we pass legislation or not, simple as that?

No, it only enables countries to refuse legislation. The veto cannot be used to pass legislation, because it's a 'stop order'.

Auditor #9 wrote:

When we are voting on legislation in the Council then our MEPs do it

Er, no. The Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) consists of Ministers from the various countries and relevant departments - so agricultural legislation is considered by Agriculture Ministers from the member states. MEPs sit in the Parliament, which is separate.

Auditor #9 wrote:

and they are usually united by country or would our half dozen (?) MEPs vote according to ideology do you think - there's no hard and fast history or rule there?

MEPs virtually never vote by country. They vote with their EP party, and those are ideological, not national.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Forgive my ignorance but maybe the council of ministers isn't the same as a body of MEPs?

Indeed, it isn't. The EU has three main legislative institutions:

1. the Commission: this consists of Commissioners, who are heads of the different departments of the EU civil service, such as it is. The Commission proposes legislation, but can only propose it where the EU has 'competence' (ie, the member states have agreed to handle that area of legislation via the EU).

2. the Council: this consists of national Ministers - which Irish Minister is there depends on what legislation is under discussion. The Council can refuse or pass legislation proposed by the Commission, sometimes by itself, sometimes in tandem with the Parliament. Most decisions are taken by QMV (ie majority votes), but some are subject to the veto (where a single country can block the legislation all by itself).

3. the Parliament: this consists of elected MEPs. It has the power to dismiss the Commission. It also has to be consulted on legislation, but currently gets to vote only on a limited amount of it.

So legislation comes out of the Commission, and mostly goes to the Parliament for consultation and the Council for acceptance/rejection. Some legislation has to be accepted both by the Council and the Parliament to pass into law - this is called "co-decision".

Auditor #9 wrote:

Anyway, how will Lisbon change whatever it is that we do now - this the issue of QMV I take it?

The changes Lisbon makes are:

1. about 35 new areas become subject to QMV rather than veto. The full list contains 50, but some of them are not relevant to Ireland (because we have an opt-out), or are essentially the same thing (the ability to join a group listed separately from the ability to leave the group).

2. quite a lot more legislation will be subject to being passed by Parliament as well as the Council.

3. there are a couple of new 'shared competences'.

Changes that will happen either way:

1. the Commission will be reduced below the current 1 Country = 1 Commissioner

2. we lose our thirteenth MEP - although we are expected to get it back at the next Parliament if our population continues to grow.

Keep asking!

Class post ibis - brevity being the soul of wit. I was going to consult a manual on it but zzzz life is too short for that. Did any of ye know all that before? I bet ye didn't.

Nomination for post of the week at the end of the week, anyone?

seconded - great post

Yes, a good post.

So more power is going to the parliament? And this is the undemocratic treaty? From what you say a lot of power shifts fro the council to the parliament. Seems like a sideways shift in the democratic scheme of things. Parliament is remote and un-national, but the MEPs are elected directly by the hoi polloi. The Council boyos are also directly elected, but we don't get to say who gets cabinet (and by extension Council) positions.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

DeGaulle wrote:

I will vote Yes as I always do on European referendums.

As regards the tax issue, I don't think it is really relevant. In any case, the idea that Ireland should be an Anglo-American tax-haven is the complete antithesis of the ideals of those who fought for our freedom from 1916 onwards.

The taxes being paid by British, American and many other countries' companies are crucial in funding our health, education and social welfare systems. If it wasn't for the pro-active campaign to bring foreign direct investment here we'd still be saddled with high unemployment, low productivity, very poor access to international markets and a poor pool of knowledge and intellectual property in this country. British, American and other countries' companies have been enormously beneficial to Ireland and they have been critical in creating the resources we require to tackle social problems and to build an Ireland in which all the children are cherished equally. Our low taxes and reputation as a very congenial place to base HQ operations and so on should be defended to the last.

what would have happened had set our tax rates at 13% instead of 12%...? what if our growth rate had been 4% instead of 5%?

lostexpectation wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

DeGaulle wrote:

I will vote Yes as I always do on European referendums.

As regards the tax issue, I don't think it is really relevant. In any case, the idea that Ireland should be an Anglo-American tax-haven is the complete antithesis of the ideals of those who fought for our freedom from 1916 onwards.

The taxes being paid by British, American and many other countries' companies are crucial in funding our health, education and social welfare systems. If it wasn't for the pro-active campaign to bring foreign direct investment here we'd still be saddled with high unemployment, low productivity, very poor access to international markets and a poor pool of knowledge and intellectual property in this country. British, American and other countries' companies have been enormously beneficial to Ireland and they have been critical in creating the resources we require to tackle social problems and to build an Ireland in which all the children are cherished equally. Our low taxes and reputation as a very congenial place to base HQ operations and so on should be defended to the last.

what would have happened had set our tax rates at 13% instead of 12%...? what if our growth rate had been 4% instead of 5%?

I don't know, it is very hard to surmise about historical possibilities. That What If? Programme by Diarmuid Ferriter is a classic case in point there. The world is too complex to be making judgements like that.

What we do know is that low and lowering taxes have been a critical acclerant of our economic growth, development and progress over the past two decades. Allied to real and substantive investment in our education and infrastructure and a very propitious legal environment, we can build on our strong foundations of a young, English-speaking, euro-using member of the world's biggest economy to become the world's most advanced economy.

i think you know what im getting at, boom-bust etc is not crucial to our economy thank you very much

I changed my vote from Don't know to cautious Yes.

Thanks to Helium 3 for posting this on P.ie.

The RefCom leaflet that is coming through our letterboxes these days does not contain the wording we are being asked to vote on. This is a departure from previous practice I think. The referendum wording is the wording we are being asked to insert into the Constitution and wording that we are being asked to take out of the Constitution.

Whatever about reading the whole Lisbon treaty in all its glory, we really do need to read the text that we are being asked to vote into and out of our Consitution.

Here then is the current text of the relevant part of the Constitution and the wording of the referendum, drawing on the relevant section of the RefCom website. I include the RefCom's comments on the provisions that it chooses to comment on. Their comments are in bold italic inside brackets:

The current wording of Article 29.4 of the Constitution is as follows:

1° The executive power of the State in or in connection with its external relations shall in
accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution be exercised by or on the authority of the
Government.

2° For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of the State in or in connection with its
external relations, the Government may to such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may
be determined by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure used or
adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or league of nations with which the State
is or becomes associated for the purpose of international co-operation in matters of common
concern.

3° The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by
Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community
(established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic
Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). The
State may ratify the Single European Act (signed on behalf of the Member States of the
Communities at Luxembourg on the 17th day of February, 1986, and at the Hague on the 28th day
of February, 1986).

4° The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of
February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.

5° The State may ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the
Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Amsterdam on
the 2nd day of October, 1997.

6° The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.11, 2.5 and
2.15 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 5° of this section and the second and fourth Protocols set
out in the said Treaty but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of
the Oireachtas.

7° The State may ratify the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties
establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts signed at Nice on the 26th day of
February, 2001.

8° The State may exercise the options or discretions provided by or under Articles 1.6, 1.9, 1.11,
1.12, 1.13 and 2.1 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section but any such exercise
shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common
defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section where that
common defence would include the State.

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.

11° The State may ratify the Agreement relating to Community Patents drawn up between the
Member States of the Communities and done at Luxembourg on the 15th day of December, 1989.


Proposed changes (Script in bold italics involves explanations of the changes)

It is proposed to delete the current subsections 9° and 11°

Subsection 9° is re-cast as subsection 15° with the additional reference to the Treaty of Lisbon;
Subsection 11° is effectively redundant as the Luxembourg Patents Convention never came into
force

It is proposed to renumber the current subsection 10° as subsection 9° and add the following
subsections:

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)

14° The State may agree to the decisions, regulations or other acts under—
i Article 1.34(b)(iv),
ii Article 1.56 (in so far as it relates to Article 48.7 of the Treaty referred to in
subsection 4° of this section),
iii Article 2.66 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 65.3 of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union),
iv Article 2.67 (in so far as it relates to subparagraph (d) of Article 69A.2, the third
subparagraph of Article 69B.1 and paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 69E of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union),
v Article 2.144(a),
vi Article 2.261 (in so far as it relates to the second subparagraph of Article 270a.2
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), and
vii Article 2.278 (in so far as it relates to Article 280H of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union),
of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of this section, and may also agree to the decision under
the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 137.2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (as amended by Article 2.116(a) of the Treaty referred to in the said subsection
10°) but the agreement to any such decision, regulation or act shall be subject to the prior approval
of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(This deals with the provisions in the Treaty of Lisbon which allow the European Council to
agree certain changes to the governing Treaties. Some of these changes could come into effect
only when ratified by the Member States in accordance with their own requirements – this could
mean that a referendum would be required in Ireland. This amendment to the Constitution
would allow Ireland to agree at the European Council to allow certain decisions which currently
require unanimity to be made by QMV but this could be done only with the prior approval of the
Oireachtas.)

15° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common
defence pursuant to—
i Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this section, or
ii Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of this section, where that common
defence would include the State.

...

There you have it.

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks to Helium 3 for posting this on P.ie.

The RefCom leaflet that is coming through our letterboxes these days does not contain the wording we are being asked to vote on. This is a departure from previous practice I think. The referendum wording is the wording we are being asked to insert into the Constitution and wording that we are being asked to take out of the Constitution.

Whatever about reading the whole Lisbon treaty in all its glory, we really do need to read the text that we are being asked to vote into and out of our Consitution.

There's a fierce lack of patience here....I don't know about anyone else, but I had a little orange and white booklet put through the door marked "Statement for the Information of Voters", which contains the amendment wording in English and Irish - return address is the "Referendum Returning Officer". One for everyone on the electoral register.

Next we'll have a complaint that the government didn't issue us with a booklet outlining when it would be sending us booklets...but the government always does issue information in advance of the polling day for referendums. You'd swear people might be making political capital by pretending it's not happening!

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks to Helium 3 for posting this on P.ie.

The RefCom leaflet that is coming through our letterboxes these days does not contain the wording we are being asked to vote on. This is a departure from previous practice I think. The referendum wording is the wording we are being asked to insert into the Constitution and wording that we are being asked to take out of the Constitution.

Whatever about reading the whole Lisbon treaty in all its glory, we really do need to read the text that we are being asked to vote into and out of our Consitution.

There's a fierce lack of patience here....I don't know about anyone else, but I had a little orange and white booklet put through the door marked "Statement for the Information of Voters", which contains the amendment wording in English and Irish - return address is the "Referendum Returning Officer". One for everyone on the electoral register.

Next we'll have a complaint that the government didn't issue us with a booklet outlining when it would be sending us booklets...but the government always does issue information in advance of the polling day for referendums. You'd swear people might be making political capital by pretending it's not happening!

Wouldnt worry about it Ibis - we are firmly in the land of Spin at the moment, especially online - I have been slowly plodding on with the canvassing and over the last week the reception has been getting a lot better as the information is reaching people and we're even being thanked for calling around and explaining stuff - Im finding people are curious about the No campaign and don't quite believe the fantastical vistas being put out for from that direction - but they do need this queries anwered in a straightforward knowledgeable fashion - The Yes side will have to put in the time and shoeleather.

That said - time to get the runners on for another spin around the neighbourhood

Catch yis later.

Not worried Edo - only posted it for information - discussion purposes. Enjoy the canvass, hope there are no dogs.

Garret Fitzgerald and Richard Boyd-Barrett were just on 6 1 there. I'm warming to this Treaty, but I wouldn't be able to say I'm a Yes voter because of it!

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks to Helium 3 for posting this on P.ie.

The RefCom leaflet that is coming through our letterboxes these days does not contain the wording we are being asked to vote on. This is a departure from previous practice I think. The referendum wording is the wording we are being asked to insert into the Constitution and wording that we are being asked to take out of the Constitution.

Whatever about reading the whole Lisbon treaty in all its glory, we really do need to read the text that we are being asked to vote into and out of our Consitution.

There's a fierce lack of patience here....I don't know about anyone else, but I had a little orange and white booklet put through the door marked "Statement for the Information of Voters", which contains the amendment wording in English and Irish - return address is the "Referendum Returning Officer". One for everyone on the electoral register.

Next we'll have a complaint that the government didn't issue us with a booklet outlining when it would be sending us booklets...but the government always does issue information in advance of the polling day for referendums. You'd swear people might be making political capital by pretending it's not happening!

Just to finish the reference to p.ie I went on to post the referendum wording in the post that cactus flower mentions.

I am interested that someone says they have received a separate document from a returning officer. Anyone else get one of those? It would be interesting to know if they are being sent out by each returning officer in every constituency. None reached me so far alas.

Helium Three wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Thanks to Helium 3 for posting this on P.ie.

The RefCom leaflet that is coming through our letterboxes these days does not contain the wording we are being asked to vote on. This is a departure from previous practice I think. The referendum wording is the wording we are being asked to insert into the Constitution and wording that we are being asked to take out of the Constitution.

Whatever about reading the whole Lisbon treaty in all its glory, we really do need to read the text that we are being asked to vote into and out of our Consitution.

There's a fierce lack of patience here....I don't know about anyone else, but I had a little orange and white booklet put through the door marked "Statement for the Information of Voters", which contains the amendment wording in English and Irish - return address is the "Referendum Returning Officer". One for everyone on the electoral register.

Next we'll have a complaint that the government didn't issue us with a booklet outlining when it would be sending us booklets...but the government always does issue information in advance of the polling day for referendums. You'd swear people might be making political capital by pretending it's not happening!

Just to finish the reference to p.ie I went on to post the referendum wording in the post that cactus flower mentions.

I am interested that someone says they have received a separate document from a returning officer. Anyone else get one of those? It would be interesting to know if they are being sent out by each returning officer in every constituency. None reached me so far alas.

I posted the lot Helium Three ("sighs" "these young people have got no stamina to go back more than two posts" )

Is it on the internet somewhere?

I'm listening to Pat Kenny radio from yesterday where he had Tony Benn on arguing against Brian Lenihan and as Pax believes against Pat Kenny himself.

Benn is arguing that the Lisbon Treaty is opening out into a Federal System and worse, he thinks there's going to be a botched job made of it because democracy is getting further removed further from people and the result of this botched bureaucratic federalism will be that it will soon collapse like the soviet union did and Nationalism will rise in the vacuum where democracy should be...

He believes that we should go overtly for a Federal project (whatever that is) instead of this botched constitution by stealth...

Is democracy getting removed from us? Should we be able to directly elect people to the European executive organs?

What is Federalism and what does it mean in this context?

The link to the PK page on RTE -

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

- if clicked you must go underneath the photo of PK for the show 'Monday'; first you will hear a ten minute report about Aircoach sneaking fellas in in luggage in the hold or something like that. It ends with PK saying totally without humour "The Gardai are looking into the (suit)case"

Pax's thread
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35567

Tony Benn quoting Tom Paine:
"My country is the world, my religion is to do good" - what a quote...

I look forward to having a listen later. I liked Benn in the 80s. Some of these leftists I felt did care. The conservatives were right but everyone knew they didn't give a bolldollox if half the country died.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'm listening to Pat Kenny radio from yesterday where he had Tony Benn on arguing against Brian Lenihan and as Pax believes against Pat Kenny himself.

Benn is arguing that the Lisbon Treaty is opening out into a Federal System and worse, he thinks there's going to be a botched job made of it because democracy is getting further removed further from people and the result of this botched bureaucratic federalism will be that it will soon collapse like the soviet union did and Nationalism will rise in the vacuum where democracy should be...

He believes that we should go overtly for a Federal project (whatever that is) instead of this botched constitution by stealth...

Is democracy getting removed from us? Should we be able to directly elect people to the European executive organs?

What is Federalism and what does it mean in this context?

The link to the PK page on RTE -

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/todaywithpatkenny/

- if clicked you must go underneath the photo of PK for the show 'Monday'; first you will hear a ten minute report about Aircoach sneaking fellas in in luggage in the hold or something like that. It ends with PK saying totally without humour "The Gardai are looking into the (suit)case"

Pax's thread
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35567

Tony Benn quoting Tom Paine:
"My country is the world, my religion is to do good" - what a quote...

Ah yes, the old "Lets directly elect the institutions but not create a Federal State" argument.

seinfeld wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

What is Federalism and what does it mean in this context?

Ah yes, the old "Lets directly elect the institutions but not create a Federal State" argument.

I did ask a question in the middle of all that, sorry if it was hidden...

I appreciate that creating an enormous super-institution like the EU will automatically mean that a lot of the localness and immediacy of democracy will have to be sacrificed and this might not be a bad thing - a bigger collective if organised right could make better overall decisions for the totality in theory. At some point though, all the more important global decisions will be made by the wider Community - protecting the environment, energy and defense policies, education and social policies etc which may be a good thing for efficiency and function but in our ordinary lives do we live organically or mechanically?

In some manner we need to be involved in decisions which affect our direct community, if this isn't catered for then I imagine that there may be a nationalistic backlash because there will be the view that local power and influence is going even farther away, leaving locals feeling more like stewards than citizens. My question is can federalism be drawn up so as to empower the smallest units of community within the larger body or organisation?

I do feel that belligerent Nationalism is a genuine fear though an extreme - before we arrive at that there is the democratic power loss or shift of focus of power that may also be demoralising and damaging for localities.

Auditor #9 wrote:

In some manner we need to be involved in decisions which affect our direct community

I've become less and less convinnced of this as time has gone on.

Local democracy gets a lot of lip service in Ireland, but I can't think of any area in which I would prefer decisions (of consequence) to be made by the elected members of my local authority ahead of the Oireachtas.

The Waste Management Act 1996 is a case in point. Labour Environment Minister Brendan Howlin had this great idea of making Waste Management a reserved function for Local Authorities. Local democracy in action, hoorah!

The only problem was that by 2000, no Local Authority had actually put together a Waste Management Plan, as none of them could agree on where to site landfill.

Cue FF amendment to Act that made Waste Management an Executive function again.

Sad really.

Off all the places that there should be no executive action and more direct is in localities; people know their own locality yet there is no consultation incorporating the local community. Chambers of Commerce go someway towards exercising this but that's only one sector of the community represented and there doesn't seem to be the will there for inclusion of the wider community.

Our democracy is creaking and needs an overhaul from the grassroots up and I don't think this Treaty will do anything to remedy that and possibly everything to exacerbate it.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Off all the places that there should be no executive action and more direct is in localities; people know their own locality yet there is no consultation incorporating the local community. Chambers of Commerce go someway towards exercising this but that's only one sector of the community represented and there doesn't seem to be the will there for inclusion of the wider community.

Our democracy is creaking and needs an overhaul from the grassroots up and I don't think this Treaty will do anything to remedy that and possibly everything to exacerbate it.

Feck it - our attitude needs an overhaul from the roots up. Other European nations manage to reply to the question "do you mind having a waste plant in your locality" with "well, it has to go somewhere, so it's our duty if it's the best site" as opposed our NIMBY whining and bitching. We don't hold our politicians to account - why would we, when we don't even hold ourselves to account?

ibis wrote:

Feck it - our attitude needs an overhaul from the roots up. Other European nations manage to reply to the question "do you mind having a waste plant in your locality" with "well, it has to go somewhere, so it's our duty if it's the best site" as opposed our NIMBY whining and bitching. We don't hold our politicians to account - why would we, when we don't even hold ourselves to account?

I'm interested on how the EU does/will impact local communities but it seems up to now that it has been castrated with respect to laws and directives created with an aim in protecting the environment. What is local agenda 21?

I found a whiners whingeing site built for combating an infestation of windfarms in Derrybrien in Galway in 2005. I'm posting it because I found it in relation to searches for info on woodlands for another thread but it has relevances for discussion on EU law and directives and their impact or lack of it on local communities.

Normally I am a fan of windfarms but sometimes I think there may be a point in looking at where they go and who puts them there and whether the local community benefits or not and this goes for development in general. In a smaller way their battle reminds me of the Rossport one and possibly the incinerator in Dublin as well as numerous others that are going on around the country at the moment including Tara. This stuff deserves it's own thread if not forum but the general questions are there about the EU and have to be brought down to local level at some point. Why aren't EIAs carried out on these developments? What is Local Agenda 21 and can local people invoke environmental law easily (I'm assuming this is the main way the EU affects us locally - through environmental prescriptions only) and indeed should they in some cases? (Galway cryto? Local Tescos and Lidls cropping up?)

And the inevitable question which I don't really expect anyone to know - will Lisbon adjust the influence of directives and laws and whatever with regard to local community issues.

http://www.woodlandleague.org/communities/derrybrien/

Is that chunk the only change to Bunreacht ? Article 29.4.
No other changes ??

There are lots of references to the Treaty articles in there. If I was thorough I would cross reference all of them to ensure I am happy with the new provisions. But am I that thorough ?

Kate P wrote:

Put it to bed so. I'm all ears.

Petition is a sop. Two are sitting in dusty office somewhere: one re Strasbourg and one re disability.

absolutely, the commission merely has to consider petitions there is no onus on them to actually do anything with them. given the current speed of movement in the eu i imagine they would gather a lot of dust.