What Does The Lisbon Treaty Mean For Iom?

[Skeddan]

John, one thing I didn’t mention which also led me to the interpretation I gave is a reading of Article 311 (where clause c is found) in its entirety. In what I understand is the current version there are six paragraphs, with clause c in the sixth and final paragraph. The first five concern how the treaty applies to various states and territories of Member States. Paragraph 6 begins ‘notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs’ (those which might otherwise make the treaty applicable to the territories which Para 6 deals with). Clause a of Para 6 then states that the treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands and clause b states it shall not apply to the UK’s Sovereign base area in Cyprus (clause b seems to have been modified to add ‘except to the extent… ‘). Clause c thus fits into the ‘treaty shall not apply’ / ‘apply only within limited defined scope’ group found in Para 6.

 

This placing IoM within the Para 6 group and the wording is quite different from the way that, for example, the Åland Islands are treated (paragraph 5):

 

The provisions of this Treaty the Treaties shall apply to the Åland Islands in accordance with the provisions set out in Protocol 2

 

If the treaty provisions concerning IoM had this sort of wording and was not in the Para 6 group, then I would interpret the external provisions being applicable to IoM as you do.

[Freggyragh]

oldmanxfella - this might not be important to you, but it is to me as I and most of my immediate family are protocol 3 Manx - not entitled to EU provisions relating to employment or establishment. I don't plan to, but I might want to retire to Spain, or go and work in Dublin, or travel to France without having to take out special health insurance. I would like to know more about my rights. If Skeddan has reasonable grounds to question John's interpretation, and John is willing to debate the point I would be very grateful to both of them.

[oldmanxfella]

oldmanxfella - this might not be important to you, but it is to me as I and most of my immediate family are protocol 3 Manx - not entitled to EU provisions relating to employment or establishment. I don't plan to, but I might want to retire to Spain, or go and work in Dublin, or travel to France without having to take out special health insurance. I would like to know more about my rights. If Skeddan has reasonable grounds to question John's interpretation, and John is willing to debate the point I would be very grateful to both of them.

 

So am I - I have no working rights in the EU.

 

I'm not objecting to anything other than Mr Skeddans smart arse tone when somebody posts something he does not like. Its not really adding to the debate all these long wided "I know better than you, and I'll quote the minutae until you give up" threads.

 

From my limited understanding I agree with John. I think the EU Convention on Human Rights is more relevant to us affected by Protocol 3 that what is contained directly within the Treaty of Lisbon.

 

I'm sure I'll be shot down in a very long "told you so" thread for that one too.

[Freggyragh]

OMF - I don't think you understand this any better than I do then, because the I don't think that EU convention on human rights is part of the law here. I can live with Skeddan's brusque manner as long as he knows what he's talking about (which is a bit beyond me).

[John Wright]

Well, and not to shoot you down oldmanxfella but the Convention on Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU but with the Council of Europe

 

Skeddan I am not going to argue is depth, you have taken a miusguided and wrong view. i doubt I will ever convince you

 

However for waverers and doubters the terst is not Vienna but common sense and plain logic and even plainer English

 

Ignore Rome, Lisbon protocols, whether 2 or 3 and start from basics

 

6 Countries set up a treaty between them to govern how they grow, subsidise and market marbles. They exclude the possibility of marbles being imported by a common external tarrif. Its terms only affect the six countries, no one else, They also put in a common right to settle in any country.They don't have to mention any one or any where else. They later let into the treaty arrangements, after negotiation, a seventh country which also has a marbles industry. By historic accident country 7 has an appurtenance which constitutionally is not part of contry 7 but whose residents share in its nationality and culture (in the broadest sense) and its economy. They have a huge marbles industry. If their marbles are kept out of the 7 it will ruin the appurtenance, but their output is small fry by comparison to the market in the 7. To protect the appurtenance a protocol to the treaty admitting 7 says that notwithstanding the apputenance is not in the treaty or marble market it will be allowed to sell its marbles within the territory of the 7 and a provision that says that residents of the appurtenance can move and live in country 7 freely but not in countries 1 to 6.

 

The seven later expand the ambit of the treaties to include boiled sweets. They exclude the appurtenace from the boiled sweets extension however confirming that the origial exception is as far as they want to go. The appurtenance doesn't have a boiled sweets industry at the time.

 

Finally the 7 expand to 10 and also covers frogs legs. A new treaty is required, again the apurtenance is kept in for marbles (and settling in country 7) but excluded for boiled sweets and frogs legs

 

All these things are internal to the Treaties.

 

However to encourage the market in marbles, boiled sweets and frogs legs the 10, in the last treaty, set up a Council to promote the consumption of marbles, boiled sweets and frogs legs in other countries. It does this by giving grants and export subsidies.

 

On your redaing the subsudies could not be given to producers in the 10 to stimulate the market in the apputenance but could everywhere else. In my interpretation the subsidy can be so applied.

 

Saying as Protocol 3 and Lisbon does that the IOM is in for limited purposes and that for those limited purposes and no more the tretay shall apply to the island does exactly what it says on the box free movement of goods, freedom to continue to establish in UK and a limit on establishment elswhere if you have 4 manx grandparents. (it has nothing to do with free emengency health care, none of us qualify for that)

 

Again that is internal, it affects the rules of, not the IOM but of the 7 or 10 who have to follow the treaty in relation to manx marbles and residents

 

Under Lisbon the 27 can externally communally relate. That is with non members There is no restriction on the IOM in its capacity as a non member. They can provide benfit to IOM. Its unlikely as aid will normally not go to wealthy first world countries.

 

Skeddan, I know I have not answered your points by legal reference, it isn't a legal point however.

[Skeddan]

the terst is not Vienna but common sense and plain logic and even plainer English

The test is not whether you convince yourself or I convince myself, who reading the forums is convinced, or even common sense and pragmatic considerations, but what would stand up with the European Court of Justice, since it is there that matters of interpretation of the Treaty would be decided and any dispute ultimately resolved.

 

So far your assertions haven’t convinced me because I can’t possibly imagine what you have said so far would convince the ECJ (who do have to consider legal questions, Vienna etc.). If there is an argument that would stand up in the ECJ without any shadow of doubt, then no worries. If not, maybe it would be a good idea to have something put into the Treaty if only ‘for avoidance of doubt’ (a major risk is still worth mitigating even if it seems unlikely).

 

I see the sense of what you are saying, and I wholeheartedly agree that it would make good sense for the external provisions to apply to IoM. That doesn’t change the fact that this isn’t what the Treaty actually says.

 

If as you suggest above, your interpretation can be substantiated by plain English, presumably in the text of the treaty or an annex, why haven’t you shown this? Clause c plainly says the provisions of the Treaty do not apply to IoM except where necessary for the implementation of Protocol 3. Where is the plain English bit of text that you are reading? As you haven’t produced this even though it would settle the matter conclusively, it seems fair to assume there isn’t anything in plain English that supports your interpretation.

 

As for basing your interpretation on the premiss that EU agreements are paragons of common sense and plain logic, consider 2m tonnes of fish discards, wine lakes and butter mountains.

 

What about the Faeroe Islands? – does Para 6 clause a (“the treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands.”) mean that bits of the treaty do apply to the Faeroes and bits of it don’t in a ‘never mind ordinary meaning and Vienna’ kind of way? Or is it plain English that the treaty does not apply to the Faeroe Islands (full stop)? If so, then so much for your common sense argument. (or is it that your common sense and plain logic only applies to UK appurtenances and not to Danish ones?).

 

Why assume that the same ordinary meaning that disallows application of the Treaty provisions to the Faeroe Islands in clause a, and to the Sovereign Base in Cyprus in clause b cannot also pertain to IoM in a similar way in clause c? What about the obvious point that these are grouped together because they are similar? (or does that kind of common sense and inductive logic not count in interpreting a legal text?).

 

Where is the “common sense, plain logic and plainer English” test when it comes to clause c? You’ve skipped over this entirely, and haven’t shown how one could possibly argue this means anything besides its ordinary meaning. If you stick to your own test when reading clause c, what objection can you have to the reading that that the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty do not apply to IoM except pursuant to Protocol 3?

 

Skeddan, I know I have not answered your points by legal reference, it isn't a legal point however.

Are you seriously saying that interpretation of a treaty is not a legal question?

 

Are you perhaps suggesting a mediation type approach - forget the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, don’t worry about the actual text of the Treaty, forget about what the ECJ might have to say; the matter should be decided on a pragmatic basis which is best all round?

 

When it comes to implementation of the Treaty things are a bit different, and people have to work within the legal constraints (even ones arising from sloppy drafting).

 

 

John, most of all, I'd like to know how and why you are so completely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt about this. If there is a basis for your dogmatic insistence, please reveal it - show Skeddan to be a silly sausage - that's ok. If it's a grey area that could put IoM at a disadvantage and which gets overlooked by misplaced over-confidence and faith in the system, that's not so ok, is it?

[John Wright]

all treaties only have internal effect, to start

 

So the EU treaties do not apply to the Faroes They are not in and have no freedom of movement or trade in goods.

 

That means Faroes are totally external so if EU internally decides to promote European Culture externally they can do so to the Faroes eveb although it is excluded from the internal proviosn of the treaty (being in the EU)

 

The IOM is in for free movement of goods trade and limited movement of persons, a slightly different arrangement. It is out for everything else. So there are part internal and part exernal implications,

 

In so far as it is out or external the same applies as to the Faroes.

 

In so far as it is in it has the benefits and detrimenst. It gets no cash and pays nothing in, becuase those clauses do not apply, for instance.

 

To use one example in Lisbon, members of the EU can use EU money to promote EU culture to countres wich are not in the EU.

 

The IOM is excluded so they cannot collect the cost from the IOM, (internal exclusion) but they can spend EU money for that purpose in either Faroes totally out, IOM, partialy out , Aaland even more slightly differently in and out, etc.

 

The thing is there is no law, or case, to quote. The English is so clear. The propostion I make is trite law, so obvious that it has not and will not need decidong because your argument is falacious and without any merit or foundation

[triskelion]

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.

Just read the article, and it sounds like they got some people from the Crown Dependencies together and UKIP told them they were all screwed. It wouldn't surprise me if Peter, who was invited personally, rather than there as a representative of Tynwald, was invited because he is known to be rather vocal. The entire piece, including Karran's spiel and IOMNewspapers is full of conjecture and with no actual reference to the document itself. Peter (who I almost always disagree with, but concede he is passionate and hardworking) says things like 'Some 70 per cent of legislation is being done by the EU for the UK parliament' which is the standard UKIP shock line and of dubious significance or accuracy.

 

God forbid someone gives the Manx people a breakdown of what this actually means for the Island (if even it is very little).

[hboy]

Just read the article, and it sounds like they got some people from the Crown Dependencies together and UKIP told them they were all screwed. It wouldn't surprise me if Peter, who was invited personally, rather than there as a representative of Tynwald, was invited because he is known to be rather vocal. The entire piece, including Karran's spiel and IOMNewspapers is full of conjecture and with no actual reference to the document itself. Peter (who I almost always disagree with, but concede he is passionate and hardworking) says things like 'Some 70 per cent of legislation is being done by the EU for the UK parliament' which is the standard UKIP shock line and of dubious significance or accuracy.

 

I agree with you. I'm waiting for Peter to announce that he thinks that the BNP may have a lot to offer the manx people. The UKIP have done their usual gloss over job on this - organised a meeting where a lot of people who are easily impressed turn up, and then lit the fuse and nicely retreated.

 

I like Peter very much as a hard working constituency MHK, but the first question you should ask when you get these invites is "Why me". There's usually a reason.

 

The thing I do agree with him on though is that this should be debated in Tynwald and the implications full explained and discussed.

[John Wright]

I think you are conjecturing too far as far as allying PK with UKIP and BNP, but the rest of the article more or less accurately sums up the effect of the EU and Lisbon, in terms of EU origin of UK legislation, which we then follow

[Skeddan]

John, at last! We have your argument:

 

It is just totally obvious and beyond any doubt that external provisions of the treaty apply to IoM and the Faeroes. My argument is fallacious and has no merit or foundation. The language of the treaty is so clear on this is that it cannot be open to question.

 

Additionally we have clarified that in your view the external provisions do also apply to the Faeroe Islands.

 

This is progress… (really).

…

 

So, according to you “this treaty shall not apply to the Faeroe Islands” expressly states in plain English that the external provisions of the treaty apply to the Faeroe Islands.

 

IMO when something says “this treaty shall not apply to X”, then ordinary meaning, common sense, plain logic and plain English is that the treaty does not apply to X – none of it (unless there are some qualifications which follow).

 

Is that interpretation manifestly absurd?

 

You insist that it is so obvious that this isn’t so, and that how I interpret this is patently without merit or foundation. You keep repeating examples to illustrate your interpretation, but without reference to the text which is so clear that your interpretation cannot be seriously questioned.

 

I’ve been at something of a loss to know how to understand what might be the basis for what seemed like Humpty Dumpty dogmatism. When you say my view is fallacious it gave a glimmer of hope that you might be able to point out the fallacy and flaw rather than just repetitiously insisting I am wrong.

 

But if it says the treaty shall not apply to x, then where is the fallacy in thinking this means the treaty shall not apply to x?

 

Your otherwise unaccountable position on this and this illogical impasse, may perhaps (?) be indicating the problem is one of seeing this in two very different ways.

 

Maybe in your view, the idea is that saying that the treaty does not apply to x means that x is not bound to comply with the provisions of the treaty, both internal and external. The provisions of the treaty are binding on the Member States who are signing, and they are being bound to comply with these provisions in dealings with third countries. These ‘no apply’ territories (e.g. Faeroes, IoM) are expressly not bound to comply with these provisions in dealings with third countries. This is all it means, therefore Faeroes and IoM can still be counted as third countries as far as a Member State is concerned. From what I can gather this, or something like this, may be your reading.

 

On the other hand one could say in a treaty that the treaty shall not apply to man-made islands. This doesn’t mean man-made islands are not being bound to comply with the treaty like the parties to the treaty are. Instead it would be taken that these man-made islands are not included in the scope of the treaty.

 

To give another illustration - suppose the Member States of the EU entered into an EU treaty requiring various kinds of economic assistance to African states. Suppose there is a clause in that treaty that says the treaty shall not apply to Zimbabwe. The meaning of that would be fairly clear, wouldn’t it?

 

If clause c is a ‘scope’ limitation of this kind, it would mean that obligations which are binding on the parties to the treaty do not extend to requiring compliance with these obligations in so far as IoM is concerned. That is my reading.

 

You insist this scope limitation interpretation is fallacious, manifestly wrong, without any merit, and totally without foundation. Is it?

 

As you know IoM is not a Member State of the EU and is not a party to the Lisbon Treaty. I assume you are also familiar with the ‘Bevan Despatch’ of 16th October 1950:

 

any treaty or international agreement to which His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom may become a party after the date of the present despatch will not be considered as applying to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man by reason only of the fact that it applies to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and any signature, ratification, acceptance or accession on behalf of the United Kingdom will not extend to the Islands unless they are expressly included.

As explained by Department for Constitutional Affairs:

 

This practice has been agreed by other Member States…

http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/crown/c...issues-itom.htm

 

In short, the UK’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not of itself mean IoM is bound to comply with the provisions of that Treaty unless this is expressly stated, and this position is accepted and agreed by Member States of the EU.

 

Prior to 1951, your interpretation might have had some merit. However it would be contrary to accepted and agreed practice and redundant in the Lisbon Treaty to state that IoM is not bound to comply with the provisions of the Treaty. It would be assumed IoM would not be so bound unless expressly stated that it is being so included. If IoM was a party to the Lisbon Treaty the interpretation that this is some kind of reservation or derogation might also make sense; but that is not the case either.

 

The only substantive reading that is not vacuous, a nullity, or contrary to what is understood to be accepted and agreed practice for over 50 years is that this is a scope limitation. i.e. that the parties to the treaty are not obliged to comply with these obligations as far as IoM is concerned; the Lisbon Treaty does not apply to IoM in the same way as it might be said that a treaty does not apply to man-made islands or Zimbabwe in my illustrations.

 

I hope this might clarify why I don’t accept that it just ‘goes without saying’ that your interpretation is the correct one.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

 

But would people really know what they were voting for? That is, what the Lisbon Treaty is about? I doubt that very much.

[Cronky]

But would people really know what they were voting for?

 

Precisely. My parents thought they were voting for the Common Market which would be an enlarged trading area. They never would have voted for the enlarged EU superstate that we are now faced with.

 

If the people who design the referendum are duplicitous and actively conceal their political intentions then that is very difficult for democracy. I have not the time to plough through the treaty and make my own analysis. That is a deliberate political ploy. Complex smoke and mirrors whereby you conceal you true political intent via excessivley complex legislation.

 

As regards the Isle of Man we will find out over time what the Lisbon Treaty means for us. My hunch is on more mindless and costly backdoor regulation leading to a more homogenous culture and way of doing things.

[Skeddan]

God forbid someone gives the Manx people a breakdown of what this actually means for the Island (if even it is very little).

 

Try a Google search on : "isle of man" + "lisbon treaty" OR "reform treaty"

 

The closest thing you'll find to an assessment of what it means for IoM seems to be here in this thread.

 

This consists of my 'scandalous mispresentation' and John Wright's dogmatic insistance that this is completely without foundation or merit.

 

What more do you want?

 

Maybe something about how the EU might define and prosecute financial crimes against the EU (which may perhaps apply to what might be deemed as tax avoidance in IoM), how extradition law may change (watch out if you travel through the UK and have committed an EU defined crime), or other such possible implications? Maybe if John Wright is correct this will open up new opportunities for IoM - especially in areas of cooperation with EU neighbouring countries - but he hasn't yet given anything to substantiate his interpretation.

 

Short answer is I think it looks like you'll find out what it means for IoM after you've lost any chance to do anything about it.

[Freggyragh]

Where's John gone?