What Does The Lisbon Treaty Mean For Iom?

[John Wright]

I agree it will have creeping and increasing effect, just as Protocol 3 has had

 

Skeddan the rest of your post is scandalous and a total misinterpretation of Lisbon and the ability of the EU directly or indirectly, member by member to deal with the IOM

 

Lets start with Rome and Protocol 3

 

IOM is not in EEC, however because of its close links with UK it is treated as in for certain things and the vast majority of manxmen and women are allowed to settle and work in the EEC outsude UK. That does not stop the EU, the 9 as they then were from entering into arrangements or treaties with the IOM or for its benefit.

 

Those special provisions for the IOM continue under Lisbon, but c does not mean what you think

 

c means IOM is treated specially for the things reserved in protocol 3 That is all it means. For the limited provisions of c/Protocol 3 we are in.

 

Otherwise we are outside. The provisions which are internal will not apply, the provisions which are external can apply

 

So lets take an independent democratic European country Z, not yet in the EU and with no protocol 3 and not bound to the EU via the EEA (ie not Switzerland, Norway or Iceland) and test your summations

 

First Z has no free trade in goods and second none of its citizens can go live and work in the EU. The IOM has both except for those with 4 Manx grandparents.

 

The EU can enter into treaties and agreements with IOM and Z in so far as IOM is outside EU. This is an external provision

 

Article 218 applies to IOM and Z in so far as IOM is outside EU. This is also an external provision

 

Art 3.2 applies to neither the IOM or Z as it is an internal provision relating to minority languages within the EU. Neither IOM or Z are in the EU. However it may be able to assist by the back door. After all its wording is Europe not the EU's so it could set up a centre for Manx (or Z ) Studies, and fund it as long as it is not in either IOM or Z

 

Art 212 is external and applies to IOM and Z in so far as IOM is outside EU. Eg EU Savings Directive we are complying with. No doubt Z has caved in as well.

 

5. Outside of being in via protocol 3 the IOM is part of the rest of the world as is Z. This is external and could be applied to IOM or Z

 

So the IOM is on the same level playing field as the US or Russia

 

Finally the UK IOM relationship is different to the EU IOM relationship. The EU has to respect the UN Charter in its relationship with the IOM in so far as IOM is mot in EU under protocol 3. The UK should, but doesnt have a written constitution or Treaty of Lisbon to remind it.

 

Skeddan I would love to debate the entry of IOM into EU and how to democratise the EU. Just look what it has done to Val d Aran and Aranese in a member state which is giving huge degrees of autonomy to the regions with EU regional funding and look at the other side of the Franco Spanish border at the poverty on the French side where it is all centralised. No wonder Scotland and Wales want out UK and into the EU

[John Wright]

What the Lisbon Treaty will do:

 

A bigger role for national parliaments

Greater transparency of what the EU can or cannot do

A greater focus on global challenges

More streamlined EU institutions

A full-time President of the European Council

A High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

More majority voting

 

 

What the Lisbon Treaty won't do:

It will not create a European super-state.

The UK won't lose it's UN seat.

It won't take away control over UK foreign policy.

The UK won't lose control of its borders.

[Cronky]

I am against British Membership of the EU and have always been so.

 

Common agreements between States on matters of mutual benefit such as NATO or the Commonwealth are sensible as long as they do not stray from their original mandate.

 

In the case of the EU it has strayed way, way beyond the original 'Common Market' plan that we were originally sold. My parents were allowed to vote for or against the Common Market. However, my generation have never been given a vote on the expansion of the Common Market into the monolith power that the EU has become.

 

When you discuss, and promote, something new like the Lisbon Treaty it is important to note that this is not the result of a democratic process. This is a 'Treaty' that we will be subject to without choice. That is undemocratic.

 

If there are to be changes in the way the EU operates or extensions to it's power then there needs to be a referendum on the matter. Simple as that.

[bluemonday]

in very limited circumstances in criminal matters only

 

John, re Power of exclusion.

Out of interest, has that ever been legally challenged?

[John Wright]

Not yet

 

In the correct circumstances it will be and so will work permits

[triskelion]

If there are to be changes in the way the EU operates or extensions to it's power then there needs to be a referendum on the matter. Simple as that.

In a Parliamentary democracy? Anyway, referenda are simply a terrible way of deciding on these matters, being a rather blunt tool. First and foremost, they tell you nothing about why people actually oppose it or their rational basis for this. People who 'hate the continentals' may be entitled to their view, but they are not best placed to decide on international agreements. So a blanket yes/no referendum would in fact be anti-democratic by reducing the debate to only two positions, which is far from ideal when you consider the complexities of the treaty.

 

Of course, it would be farcical to have a referendum on every clause, so it is much more preferable to have Parliament vote on it. You could make the argument that it remains a yes/no issue there also, but it is the Parliamentary system that resulted in the 'red lines' that allow the UK to opt in or out of certain aspects, rather than anything the general public might have mustered.

 

Referenda are suitable for very local issues such as polling the residents of an estate over speed bumps, but they are entirely unsuitable for making a decision on something as large and complex as a major international agreement.

[bluemonday]

Thanks for the quick reply John.

On

In the correct circumstances it will be and so will work permits

When that happens, what's your personal view on the likely outcome?

[Cronky]

Referenda are suitable for very local issues such as polling the residents of an estate over speed bumps, but they are entirely unsuitable for making a decision on something as large and complex as a major international agreement.

 

Completely disagree. My parents voted in a referendum on the Common Market. If that was all that had transpired we would not be having this discussion!. However, function creep has allowed the Common Market to become something much bigger than we were sold initially.

 

We whould have had a referendum on the expansion of the EU.

[ai_Droid]

We whould have had a referendum on the expansion of the EU.

 

We? We're not even in the EU.

[bluemonday]

Quite right - swings and roundabouts.

[Cronky]

The Isle of Man Tday website has a piece on Peter Karrans visit to the conference in Guernsey:

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/Future-of-f...r-in.3719765.jp

 

Mr Karran said: 'What worries me personally is that the UK Independence Party, who are not people I would really consider political allies, seemed to be talking a lot of sense. Some 70 per cent of legislation is being done by the EU for the UK parliament, it's a very concerning situation.'

 

Mr Karran said many in the Crown dependencies were not aware of the important impact of the Lisbon Treaty on a whole range of issues including, for example, fishing policy because they were not directly involved.

 

'It's not remote from us,' he insisted.

[Skeddan]

John, thanks for your comments on Lisbon, and your views on what clause c means.

 

In reading your views I was looking forward to seeing something put forward to substantiate your interpretation – perhaps a bit of the treaty I had missed, some EU instrument or annex that should be taken account of and which I had missed or the like. Unfortunately there wasn’t; only a statement of your assertion as to what it means (together with some helpful illustrations to clarify your interpretation).

 

Despite trying as I might to understand the basis for your interpretation I have not been able to, and hope that the following might clarify my difficulties with this.

 

You state:

 

“the provisions which are external can apply”.

Please would you explain the basis for your contention that those ‘external provisions’ of the Lisbon Treaty which are not ‘necessary to ensure the implementation of Protocol 3’ do apply to IoM? (If that is indeed your view).

 

I fully accept that your interpretation sounds very good and what might be wished for, and very much the kind of thing one might think the Treaty might provide for. The only trouble is that as far as I can see this isn’t what the Lisbon Treaty actually says.

 

Clause c says:

 

c ) this Treaty shall apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands originally set out in [Protocol 3]

(my italics)

 

My understanding is that like any other international treaty, the Lisbon Treaty should be interpreted in accordance with the rules set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. (see also for example Koeck, H.F, Professor of Law and Dean of the Faculty of Law, Johannes Kepler University of Linz, whose comments I take to be equally applicable to the Lisbon Treaty. Professor Koeck memorandum)

 

Using the Vienna Convention to construe this, I think it is safe to say that the ordinary meaning of clause c is plainly that the provisions of the Treaty do not apply to IoM (except to the extent necessary for the implementation of Protocol 3).

 

If this is correct, this interpretation means the external provisions which would apply to ‘country Z’ do not apply to IoM in the manner you suggest.

 

Assuming there is no disagreement as to the ordinary meaning of clause c, to substantiate your interpretation I would think one would have to show:

 

i) the provisions of Protocol 3 are such that all the external provisions of the Lisbon Treaty apply to IoM by virtue of this. or;

 

ii) alternative rules of interpretation to the Vienna convention that override the Vienna rules of interpretation of treaties, and show these are such that the Treaty can be construed in the manner you posit. or;

 

iii) something in the text of the Treaty, an annex to the Treaty, or an instrument or agreement made and accepted by the parties to the Treaty, and show that this extends these provisions of the Treaty to IoM notwithstanding what is clearly stated in clause c. or;

 

iv) relevant rules of international law which support the interpretation you posit, and by which this interpretation should be accepted on the ‘principle of legality’, ‘repugnance to jus cogens norms’ or the like. or;

 

v) show that the ‘ordinary meaning’ is manifestly absurd or unreasonable, and show supplementary or extrinsic material which shows the intention of the Member States (including the UK) was to apply these external provisions as you posit.

 

Maybe you know of some EU law that overrides the Vienna Convention, or know of some annex, agreement or instrument which modifies what is given in the text of the Treaty and which I have missed. If so, I stand to be corrected in my interpretation, and would be grateful if you could provide the reference to this.

 

If your interpretation that the non-Protocol 3 external provisions of the Lisbon Treaty are applicable to IoM is based on iv) or v) above, then I’d be interested in your view on this – I think it is far from being as clear-cut as you appear to make out, and think strong objections could be raised to such arguments – and would be happy to provide these. There may of course be some other argument to substantiate your interpretation – such as the one suggested in i) - in which case please could you clarify these. I have not sought to address these arguments here given your evidently strong conviction as to the correct interpretation. From this it seems there may perhaps be some annex or other such instrument or something else I have missed that sets this out in clear-cut ‘black letter’ terms that leaves no room for doubt.

 

 

Skeddan the rest of your post is scandalous and a total misinterpretation of Lisbon

I don’t know about it being scandalous (other than that it might be thought scandalous if indeed these external provisions are not made applicable to IoM – but clearly that is not what you mean by this). Maybe my interpretation stands to be corrected, but it is not given without some consideration as to how the Treaty should be interpreted or attempting to interpret this as you suggest. Please don’t think it is a deliberate bad faith misrepresentation of the kind that might be called scandalous.

 

If this is a “total misinterpretation” of the Lisbon Treaty, then please would you show the error in my interpretation and substantiate your view as to the correct interpretation. I am aware I have not addressed your points on the ‘internal provisions’ as yet – I suggest leaving this aside until the question of the applicability of the ‘external provisions’ have been dealt with.

 

Please be assured that I am seeking this clarification in good faith – if my interpretation is demonstrably wrong, I would of course like to be put right on this. I hope that seeking such clarification as to the basis for your interpretation does not seem unreasonable.

[oldmanxfella]

Please be assured that I am seeking this clarification in good faith – if my interpretation is demonstrably wrong, I would of course like to be put right on this. I hope that seeking such clarification as to the basis for your interpretation does not seem unreasonable.

 

A broken record ... hiss ... hiss .. hiss ....

[Skeddan]

[oldmanxfella]

A broken record ... hiss ... hiss .. hiss ....

 

Is this the sound of a hissy fit?

 

As it happens oldmanxfella I was thinking of you when I wrote this. You thought seeking clarification of your claimed £300m pa / £270m pa tax benefit from the UK was unreasonable and did not want to provide it (and it turned out to be bogus). If you are anything to go by one can’t count on someone being willing to be put right on the forums and fronting up to that. It’s a waste of time if the person you are responding to is not willing to listen or be persuaded. I won’t say more.

 

 

Your problem is that even when someone like John, a qualified lawyer familiar with the manx constitution, tries to respond to you in a way that imparts his knowledge on a subject that you raised and admit you know little about you still can't help posting like a condescending arsehole.

 

Turn the record off. Nobody here is admiring your intellect from afar.