Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

For the "If you don't know, vote no" brigade.

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Not necessarily. You have only considered the removal of an extreme sentence, and on purpose to support you point. If the sentence removed was say "The EU shall make steps to make the Euro the main reserve currency" I doubt many people would change their minds. It is impossible to discern what effect the missing 5% had.


  • Options
    #93
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, you could always have the governments of the two countries that rejected the original treaty take the concerns that were expressed by their people back to the negotiating table, and negotiate a new treaty that specifically addresses those particular concerns.
    .....and then put it back to the people to see if they agree that the changes are sufficient to vote yes? But maybe that's just crazy talk.

    As I said in another thread-why did they rip the constitution up and go with a load of amendments to previous treaties (Lisbon) instead of fixing the broken bits of the constitution and sticking it back to the french and dutch for their appraisal?


  • Options
    #94
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    turgon wrote:
    That's not fair really. Phototoxin said they read the treaty and understood it and based on that they decided to vote no.
    Yea but you're the one arguing that 95% the same is effectively 100% the same. All I'm saying is that there can be a lot of important stuff in that 5% so don't judge it on percentages how similar they are.


  • Options
    #95
    VoidStarNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭VoidStarNull


    In my opinion, the main effect of the change from the Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty is that it stopped a trend which seemed to making the EU into a state, rather than an inter-governmental organization.

    Under the Constitution, the EU would have had a flag and an anthem which all member states would have been required to recognize. It would have had a Constitution (obviously), and EU directives etc. would have been renamed as "EU laws".

    These issues were not particularly substantive. But they were obviously intended to create the idea in people's minds that the EU was on the road to becoming a state. They have now been removed, and the EU under Lisbon will remain a boring old inter-governmental organization.


  • Options
    #96
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    murphaph wrote: »
    .....and then put it back to the people to see if they agree that the changes are sufficient to vote yes? But maybe that's just crazy talk.
    Maybe. What changes to the constitution would have been sufficient to satisfy the (apparently very substantial) percentage of the electorate that voted against the proposal simply as a protest against the government?
    As I said in another thread-why did they rip the constitution up and go with a load of amendments to previous treaties (Lisbon) instead of fixing the broken bits of the constitution and sticking it back to the french and dutch for their appraisal?
    ...as well as having to stick it back to those countries that had already ratified it, because now that treaty has changed. Starting to get complicated...

    In all honesty, I reckon the main reason for scrapping the constitution and replacing it with an amending treaty was to avoid the need for referenda. I realise that statement will kick off the usual foaming at the mouth about democratic deficits et al, but it's a perfectly pragmatic move.

    The previous treaties were ratified through parliamentary process in most member states. It worked. None of those states burst into flames. The jackbooted EU secret police haven't kicked down any doors that I've heard about.

    Then a new type of treaty comes along, and suddenly the whole process of EU evolution gets greatly complicated by referenda in countries that are not used to having them for this purpose, and chaos ensues. People vote for reasons unrelated to the treaty itself. The whole process grinds to a halt.

    Is it really so unreasonable that the EU collectively looked at its experiences and said, this approach works; this one doesn't?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Maybe. What changes to the constitution would have been sufficient to satisfy the (apparently very substantial) percentage of the electorate that voted against the proposal simply as a protest against the government?
    None. I suggest they govern better to avoid their people protesting at the poor performance of their governance though.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...as well as having to stick it back to those countries that had already ratified it, because now that treaty has changed. Starting to get complicated...
    With respect, that's a nonsense argument OB. It is no more complicated than creating an entirely new process of amendment (Lisbon) which needs ratification by ALL member states, even those who already ratified the proposed constitution! It is FAR LESS complicated in fact as it only involves tweaking the constitution to remove (what the YES side claim) are the silly symbolic things that caused the constitution to fail at both french and dutch referenda.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    In all honesty, I reckon the main reason for scrapping the constitution and replacing it with an amending treaty was to avoid the need for referenda. I realise that statement will kick off the usual foaming at the mouth about democratic deficits et al, but it's a perfectly pragmatic move.
    Thanks for your honesty. It is blindingly obvious that the political elite chose this convoluted path to keep the essence of the constitution rolling while bypassing the referendum method of ratification in as many states as possible. I never thought I'd thank dev for his silly Bunreacht but I do now. You call it pragmatism.....I think there's something more sinister in it and the political elite do not want to engage with the ordinary european public on any of this. It's not good enough to say "people vote for their governments and give them a mandate to do x, y and z" because this issue is of greater importance than any national or local one. It deserves proper europe-wide debate and it hasn't happened.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The previous treaties were ratified through parliamentary process in most member states. It worked. None of those states burst into flames. The jackbooted EU secret police haven't kicked down any doors that I've heard about.
    You may scoff at those of us who believe there are higher powers at play here but some day you may realise there are. I may be completely wrong of course and what you see is what you get but I don't think so.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Then a new type of treaty comes along, and suddenly the whole process of EU evolution gets greatly complicated by referenda in countries that are not used to having them for this purpose, and chaos ensues. People vote for reasons unrelated to the treaty itself. The whole process grinds to a halt.
    ....or perhaps because people WANT the process to grind to a halt? Or is 'The European Project' a runaway train whose brakes cannot be applied by its citizens? The more I think about this the more I pray we get a NO result to send a clear message (seeing as the french and dutch messages weren't clear enough) to the political elite that we are not happy the way things are 'progressing'.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Is it really so unreasonable that the EU collectively looked at its experiences and said, this approach works; this one doesn't?
    Who is the EU? It's not me or you. You mean the political elite of the EU? It is unreasonable that 'they' looked at their experiences with annoying people like french and dutch citizens voting against their proposals and then carefully orchestrating future treaties to minimise the 'risk' of the citizens of Europe putting a spanner in the works.


  • Options
    #98
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Call Me Jimmy wrote: »
    1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
    2. The EU shall enslave you.

    And now one that is 95% the same as above

    1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
    2. The EU shall never enslave you.

    So you see there can be big differences in that 5%.

    Just to be horribly annoying Jimmy :D you'll find that's 50% not 5% ;)


  • Options
    #99
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    murphaph wrote: »
    None. I suggest they govern better to avoid their people protesting at the poor performance of their governance though.
    Quite. I don't see how it addresses the problem of what to do about the rejected treaty, though.
    With respect, that's a nonsense argument OB. It is no more complicated than creating an entirely new process of amendment (Lisbon) which needs ratification by ALL member states, even those who already ratified the proposed constitution! It is FAR LESS complicated in fact as it only involves tweaking the constitution to remove (what the YES side claim) are the silly symbolic things that caused the constitution to fail at both french and dutch referenda.
    I respectfully disagree.

    Suppose the constitution had been tweaked to address French and Dutch concerns. It then goes back to the countries that voted for it, for re-ratification. They then decide they're unhappy with some of the provisions, so while France and Holland are voting yes, the original 'yes' countries vote no. So now you've got to find a change that addresses the concerns of both countries. Worse still, the countries that previous accepted it have decided they have a problem with their government, and reject what they had previously accepted as a protest vote.

    What's the logical approach? Figure out what's actually broken, and fix it. In this case, it's clear that parliamentary ratification was working, and popular ratification isn't, so you make the necessary changes to allow parliamentary ratification again (where possible).
    Thanks for your honesty. It is blindingly obvious that the political elite chose this convoluted path to keep the essence of the constitution rolling while bypassing the referendum method of ratification in as many states as possible. I never thought I'd thank dev for his silly Bunreacht but I do now. You call it pragmatism.....I think there's something more sinister in it and the political elite do not want to engage with the ordinary european public on any of this. It's not good enough to say "people vote for their governments and give them a mandate to do x, y and z" because this issue is of greater importance than any national or local one. It deserves proper europe-wide debate and it hasn't happened.
    I think the very use of the phrase "political elite" betrays a perspective that's unlikely to be happy with pretty much any treaty negotiated between 27 governments.
    You may scoff at those of us who believe there are higher powers at play here but some day you may realise there are. I may be completely wrong of course and what you see is what you get but I don't think so.
    I reserve the right to be skeptical for a simple reason: we've been told the political elite are scheming to take over our lives with every single EU treaty to date. The New World Order (Euro edition) has thus far stubbornly refused to materialise.

    Mild sarcasm aside, there's nothing - nothing - in my reading of the treaty to suggest that anything untoward is being planned.
    ....or perhaps because people WANT the process to grind to a halt? Or is 'The European Project' a runaway train whose brakes cannot be applied by its citizens? The more I think about this the more I pray we get a NO result to send a clear message (seeing as the french and dutch messages weren't clear enough) to the political elite that we are not happy the way things are 'progressing'.
    I guess all those mass protests, riots, barricades etc. that we've been seeing in France as a result of their parliamentary ratification of the treaty is a clear indicator of just how unhappy they are with the direction Europe is heading, yeah?
    Who is the EU? It's not me or you.
    It's an organisation of countries.
    You mean the political elite of the EU?
    No, I usually mean what I say.
    It is unreasonable that 'they' looked at their experiences with annoying people like french and dutch citizens voting against their proposals and then carefully orchestrating future treaties to minimise the 'risk' of the citizens of Europe putting a spanner in the works.
    I'll direct you to FionnMatthew's excellent posts on the topic of responsible citizenry, and the civic duties it imposes. When I believe that people will vote for or against the merits of a proposal that's put to them, I'll agree that the people should decide.

    Do you think it's acceptable that an international treaty should be rejected for reasons that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the contents or intentions of the treaty itself?


  • Options
    #100
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Just to be horribly annoying Jimmy :D you'll find that's 50% not 5% ;)

    The texts are 95% the same, which is what is said about the constitution and the lisbon treaty I thought.


  • Options
    #101
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Call Me Jimmy wrote: »
    The texts are 95% the same, which is what is said about the constitution and the lisbon treaty I thought.

    Sorry man, was just teasing over the mathematics of a very specific quote,
    "1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
    2. The EU shall enslave you.

    And now one that is 95% the same as above

    1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
    2. The EU shall never enslave you.

    So you see there can be big differences in that 5%."

    In that 50% has changed, but I guess you mean only one word has changed.

    Though I doubt that's whats meant about the constitution. Id imagine it's 95% of the changes not the actual words, if it were god they might be identical.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Sorry man, was just teasing over the mathematics of a very specific quote,
    "1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
    2. The EU shall enslave you.

    And now one that is 95% the same as above

    1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
    2. The EU shall never enslave you.

    So you see there can be big differences in that 5%."

    In that 50% has changed, but I guess you mean only one word has changed.

    Though I doubt that's whats meant about the constitution. Id imagine it's 95% of the changes not the actual words, if it were god they might be identical.

    Ok but what I meant was 5% of the text had changed (one word) but effectively that makes a difference to 50% (one law). I thought people said 95% of the text from the constitution was kept in the lisbon treaty but I realise I must have misunderstood this or misheard.


  • Options
    #103
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do you think it's acceptable that an international treaty should be rejected for reasons that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the contents or intentions of the treaty itself?
    I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but I disagree with it however as you asked me a direct question above I will answer: I believe the citizens have the right to vote whatever way they want on an international treaty, even if the reason has nothing to do with the contents of the treaty, yes. That may infuriate some people but I fervently believe that if one is suspicious of the motives of the treaty then that's a perfectly fine reason to vote against. I remain thoroughly inconvinced that the motives for this treaty are not more sinister than some believe. I'm not a full-blown conspiracy theorist with tin hat but I am deeply suspicious of who is really in charge. I believe the people are certainly not in charge and the manner in which the politicians (and unelected beaurocrats) decided to run with this process.

    You are coming at this from a position of wanting the EU to roll forward. I want relationships between our european neighbours to be as good as possible. However, I do not believe an EU 'state' is positive and I believe that Lisbon facilitates it or is the precursor of something that will.


  • Options
    #104
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    murphaph wrote: »
    I believe the citizens have the right to vote whatever way they want on an international treaty, even if the reason has nothing to do with the contents of the treaty, yes.
    Fair enough. I vehemently disagree with you.

    Assuming you have voted, or will vote no, I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere: you're one of the very, very few people I've seen express a coherent reason for voting that way, even if I disagree with it.


  • Options
    #105
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Fair enough. I have cast my vote, yes, I mean no.:pac:

    May the best argument win!


  • Options
    #106
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    murphaph wrote: »
    Fair enough. I have cast my vote, yes, I mean no.:pac:

    May the best argument win!

    Unfortunately I don't think it will come down to that.


  • Options
    #107
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    Gobán Saor wrote: »
    Have you guys ever bought a house? If you did, I presume you didn't sign for it until you read all the deeds and understood them fully. What, you didn't?! They were too complicated?? You trusted your solicitor??? Sure, everybody knows they're all on the take, aren't they?

    Look folks, some things, especially legal things are just complicated. The bundle of deeds that denotes ownership to a simple 3-bed semi-d in Dublin is far more "unintelligible gibberish" than the Lisbon treaty is and far more difficult to comprehend.

    Now, of course land deeds could be simplified and the Lisbon treaty could be better drafted. So could the Finance Act each year - that governs your life to a far greater extent than Lisbon does. Yet nobody suggests there's some sort of democratic deficit because its written by unelected civil servants, passed by TDs who never read it and imposed an a populace that doesn't understand a fraction of it.

    Cop on. Do you seriously expect a document that sets out detailed rules for 500 million citizens in 27 different countries to be easy to understand? If your attitude is "I'm not voting for it until I understand it" then stop complaining and start reading it. There's enough material on the internet alone to keep you busy until polling day.

    How would you feel if your solicitor said to you, "you have to sign the deeds for this property now, no other property and I'm not tolerating anything other than you signing this document now, as I have instructed you"???

    The example given by the OP above is infantile in the extreme. There is no worldly comparison between the Finance Act and the Lisbon Treaty. By accepting Lisbon, we will likely never again be asked to vote in relation to an EU treaty. If we collectively take issue with the Finance Act, we can vote the government behind out in an absolute maximum of five years time. We can't vote out an EU President that was never elected in the first place, can we!?!


  • Options
    #108
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    By accepting Lisbon, we will likely never again be asked to vote in relation to an EU treaty.

    Why do people continue to repeat this lie? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #109
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    IRLConor wrote: »
    Why do people continue to repeat this lie? :rolleyes:
    For the same reason people have been repeating lies throughout the campaign: throw enough mud, some will stick.


  • Options
    #110
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    IRLConor wrote: »
    Why do people continue to repeat this lie? :rolleyes:

    Source: Libertas.org. I doubt it would be still here if it were not true and I doubt the Referendum Commission would be quoted below if it were not true...

    8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

    Article 48 of the Treaty enables changes to be made to it after ratification without the constitutional requirement for another referendum in Ireland. This is confirmed by the independent Referendum Commission on its website which states: there “may” be a requirement for a referendum to implement such changes.


  • Options
    #111
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Source: Libertas.org. I doubt it would be still here if it were not true and I doubt the Referendum Commission would be quoted below if it were not true...

    8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

    Article 48 of the Treaty enables changes to be made to it after ratification without the constitutional requirement for another referendum in Ireland. This is confirmed by the independent Referendum Commission on its website which states: there “may” be a requirement for a referendum to implement such changes.

    The requirements for a referendum don't change. If the treaties are being amended by a 'treaty' presently and it doesn't affect our constitution we don't need a referendum. The Lisbon treaty allows us to amend by single amendments. If after Lisbon is ratified the treaties are being amended by an 'amendment' if it affects our constitution then we still need a referendum. The only thing that changes is the size of the treaty/amendments. Treaties because of their nature of being expensive and complex tend to deal with many issues at once, an amendment can deal with a single issue at a time. So rather than voting on a few thousand little change and one or two big ones. With an amendment we only need to vote on the one or two big ones and the dail can ratify the rest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Source: Libertas.org. I doubt it would be still here if it were not true and I doubt the Referendum Commission would be quoted below if it were not true...

    8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum

    Article 48 of the Treaty enables changes to be made to it after ratification without the constitutional requirement for another referendum in Ireland. This is confirmed by the independent Referendum Commission on its website which states: there “may” be a requirement for a referendum to implement such changes.

    Wrong end of the stick dude.

    Here's how it works:

    Method of changing EU institutions|Pre-Lisbon|Post-Lisbon
    Treaty to replace current treaties (Crotty case will definitely apply)|Referendum|Referendum
    Treaty to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case applies)|Referendum|Referendum
    Treaty to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case does not apply)|Ratification by the Dail|Ratification by the Dail
    Simple amendment to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case applies)|Not possible|Referendum
    Simple amendment to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case does not apply)|Not possible|Ratification by the Dail


    Notice how it's the decision in the Crotty case that determines whether we get a referendum and not the Lisbon treaty?

    The Lisbon Treaty does not affect the ruling in the Crotty case. It does add a new way of amending the treaties that wasn't there before but that way is no more or less subject to the Crotty ruling than the old ways.


  • Options
    #113
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    IRLConor wrote: »
    Wrong end of the stick dude.

    Here's how it works:

    Method of changing EU institutions|Pre-Lisbon|Post-Lisbon
    Treaty to replace current treaties (Crotty case will definitely apply)|Referendum|Referendum
    Treaty to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case applies)|Referendum|Referendum
    Treaty to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case does not apply)|Ratification by the Dail|Ratification by the Dail
    Simple amendment to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case applies)|Not possible|Referendum
    Simple amendment to amend current treaties (where the Crotty case does not apply)|Not possible|Ratification by the Dail


    Notice how it's the decision in the Crotty case that determines whether we get a referendum and not the Lisbon treaty?

    The Lisbon Treaty does not affect the ruling in the Crotty case. It does add a new way of amending the treaties that wasn't there before but that way is no more or less subject to the Crotty ruling than the old ways.

    Yeah, to settle the argument, the fact still is that this treaty CAN be altered without reference to the people by way of a referendum. Also, see how it's complicated, vague and completely open to intepretation. Also, the Crotty case was decided in our Supreme Court. We also have the small little matter of our constitution and Irish law apparently being subordinate to EU law if the Lisbon Treaty is carried, which may end up putting a particular construction on the Crotty case in the future. The fact that there was a Crotty Judgement ought to be a good enough reason to vote no to Lisbon.


  • Options
    #114
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Yeah, to settle the argument, the fact still is that this treaty CAN be altered without reference to the people by way of a referendum.

    Which is exactly the same situation as we have now.

    We can have a treaty changing the way the EU works that does not currently require a referendum.
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Also, see how it's complicated, vague and completely open to intepretation.

    I don't see that at all, where is it open to interpretation? I certainly could see that it's open to misinterpretation (either accidentally or malevolently).
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Also, the Crotty case was decided in our Supreme Court. We also have the small little matter of our constitution and Irish law apparently being subordinate to EU law if the Lisbon Treaty is carried,

    That also hasn't changed in any significant way. See my explanation here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56214679&postcount=336
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    The fact that there was a Crotty Judgement ought to be a good enough reason to vote no to Lisbon.

    Because otherwise the lizard men would have gotten away with it? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #115
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    We also have the small little matter of our constitution and Irish law apparently being subordinate to EU law if the Lisbon Treaty is carried, which may end up putting a particular construction on the Crotty case in the future.

    That is often said, but is inaccurate. Quite apart from the fact that the existing amendment to the Constitution in respect of EU law has exactly the same force as the new one, there is the further fact that the amendment only makes EU law exempt from the Constitution - it does not render the Treaties themselves, or EU law superior to the Irish Constitution.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #116
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭carveone


    IRLConor wrote: »
    We can have a treaty changing the way the EU works that does not currently require a referendum.

    I'd argue that the solidarity clause (we agree to provide "aid and assistance") adds a kind of transfer or limitation of sovereignty in foreign policy. This is where the Crotty supreme court judgement in 1987 comes in - this limitation can only be agreed to by the people in referendum. Without that clause, there would be no referendum (as far as I can tell).
    That also hasn't changed in any significant way. See my explanation here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56214679&postcount=336

    I'd add to this the post by scofflaw here which helps clarify the links the Crotty judgement has with this referendum.


  • Options
    #117
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭carveone


    carveone wrote: »
    This is where the Crotty supreme court judgement in 1987 comes in - this limitation can only be agreed to by the people in referendum. Without that clause, there would be no referendum (as far as I can tell).

    Er, which is what IRLConor just said in post 112... Pretty table btw :)


  • Options
    #118
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    IRLConor wrote: »
    Which is exactly the same situation as we have now.

    We can have a treaty changing the way the EU works that does not currently require a referendum.



    I don't see that at all, where is it open to interpretation? I certainly could see that it's open to misinterpretation (either accidentally or malevolently).



    That also hasn't changed in any significant way. See my explanation here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56214679&postcount=336



    Because otherwise the lizard men would have gotten away with it? :rolleyes:

    At the end of the day, I can go down to easons and buy a copy of our constitution and I can read it. I've been asked to basically replace this understandable and perfectly workable device called our constitution with something entirely open ended, which politicans have said is basically unreadable without a dozen treaty textbooks beside you. Our constitution has served us very well up until now, to replace it with unreadable bullsh*t I think is a mistake.


  • Options
    #119
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    At the end of the day, I can go down to easons and buy a copy of our constitution and I can read it. I've been asked to basically replace this understandable and perfectly workable device called our constitution with something entirely open ended,

    No you haven't.

    Our constitution has been overruled by EU law since the 70s.

    Or are you saying that the Lisbon Treaty is somehow less comprehensible than the entire body of EU law to date?


  • Options
    #120
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    Is this comparable to a constitution in that sense seeing as it isn't a constitution and is instead an amending treaty? Or is it really a constitution with just a different name?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    Source: Libertas.org. I doubt it would be still here if it were not true...
    *Falls off chair in fits of laughter*
    Darragh29 wrote: »
    I've been asked to basically replace this understandable and perfectly workable device called our constitution with something entirely open ended, which politicans have said is basically unreadable without a dozen treaty textbooks beside you.
    You've been asked to do nothing of the sort; do you have ANY idea what you're voting on?


Advertisement