End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Nice treaty. Hey, you're the one claiming that our EU commissioner represents our interests. Got an example of Charlie McCreevey doing that lately?

You are correct about such subtleties as the oath, but the reality is that these people are citizens of a country that they more than likely admire.

As I said before, whether you care to admit it or not, it is influence. Influence, that for periods of time, we will be losing.

When 2014, assuming a yes vote, comes around: how long are we without our Commissioner?

daithifleming wrote: »

Come on, bonkey. These people must have something to do whilst they recover from their latest excursion into Brazilian fart fetish porn.

I live in hope that someday you will post something sensible in here.


But the hope is fading.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so why cant the Pro side present a simple argument?????

Why can't the anti side present an honest one?

OK...stop, stop stop. I can hear your outrage from here. I know thats completely unfair of me. I take it back. Seriously...I didn't mean to suggest that everyone on the anti side is presenting a dishonest argument.

What I should have asked is why can't some of the anti side present an honest argument....just like what you should have asked is why can't some of the pro side present a simple one.

The answer, in both cases, is that some of each side have done just that. Some of hte pro side have presented a simple explanation, and some of the anti side have presented an honest one.

So then the problem becomes how does one recognise the honest, informed objection, and the honest, informed support over those who are either ill-informed, or dishonest about how they present the information.

Personally, I don't see a solution to that. Legal documents are complex things...its why we need a court to determine how our own constitution should be interpreted, for example. So sooner or later, we rely on someone to "dumb it down" for the common Joe like me. And of course, then you have someone else arguing that the dumbed-down presentation is inaccurate/lies/missing-important-stuff. Then you get the rebuttals, the counter-points, those weighing in with an opinion, and....you end up with an 80-page thread full of all sorts of confusion.

Now...given that we're on the Conspiracy Theories forum, lets ask the classic question that gets asked here. Qui bene? Who benefits from making sure that people are confused about the issue? Who benefits from making sure that there isn't a clear understanding of the contents of the document that people will be asked to vote on?

Well, there's two answers to that one as well....

On one hand, we could argue that it benefits the politicians, because they can then get pretty-much anything they like included into law while the public accepts a load of plamás about how its all for our good.

On the other hand, we see people saying that we should vote no because we don't know what we're voting for. Surely you have to admit that these people's argument is only strengthened the more confused the whole affair become? Make loud noises about how we're being taken for a ride....ensure that no coherent disucssion can take place....any time a clear, concise summary is offered, ensure that the same old allegations of lies/omissions/half-truths are made.....

and isnt a coperfastened treaty treaty supposed to be black and white, this is what you can do, this is what you cant, clearly written down for posterity, kinda like a constitution, not something that some faceless beurocrat can alter next year to suit his new purpose.

Now...hold on a sec. Either you know and understand what is in the treaty, or you're making claims that are adding to the very confusion that you're complaining about.

Its almost as though you're trying to make everyone aware of how much confusion there is, whilst adding to the confusion yourself all the while making the argument that this confusion is why we should vote no. Why...that would make you part of one of the two groups who stand to benefit from the very thing you're complaining about.

Fortunately, I'm not the type of guy to make allegations, so I'd never suggest that this is what you're doing...merely ask that you consider you've been the unwitting scapegoat of some shadowy anti-Lisbon-Treaty group who've manipulated people like yourself into causing confusion, adding confusion, and arguing that confusion is a reason to vote no.

daithifleming wrote: »

Why are you looking for a logic debate in the conspiracy forum?

Try here:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055221452

Sorry, I want to discuss the treaty, not read some incomprehensible rambling thread where there are seventeen different conversations going on.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Sorry, I want to discuss the treaty,

I bet you want the freedom to raise objections that you've seen here and there....stuff that people claim the treaty says, and stuff that people claim the treaty will result in.

No?

daithifleming wrote: »

Sorry if things can't be made simple enough for you.

Is that the best cheap shot you can come up with?

I feel sorry for you.


My remark about that aimless thread stands.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

There won't be a NO vote.

Given that you refer to people ducking out and cheap shots in two consecutive posts, I'll just point that this is a cheap-shot attempt at ducking my question.

If you want to fault people for not answering questions, then answer those put to you.

If you prefer, I'll put it the way you did in post 63:

Assuming a NO vote, how long are we without our Comissioner as of 2009?

I'm guessing, though, that it doesn't suit your position to answer it, because it will become clear that on this issue, a YES vote results in a preferable situation.

bonkey wrote: »

Assuming a NO vote, how long are we without our Comissioner as of 2009?

I don't know, you've made the incorrect assumption that I am familiar with that aspect of the Nice treaty.

Ask it of OB, or, more likely, you already know the answer yourself.

Otherwise try: here.

I'm guessing, though, that it doesn't suit your position to answer it, because it will become clear that on this issue, a YES vote results in a preferable situation.

You've also made an incorrect assumption here. I am undecided, I am not anti-Lisbon, or a No campaigner.

Traps only work when they are based on good assumptions.

---

I am using this forum, ludicrous as it sounds, to ask questions, of people like OB, who have more time than I and have read the Treaty.

Like I've said before, we have another silly decision by admin that conversation be stifled on Boards. This is, I feel, the best outlet right now.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I don't know, you've made the incorrect assumption that I am familiar with that aspect of the Nice treaty.

And you don't see a problem with that? You don't see a problem that you're concentrating on what will result from a Yes vote, without having a clue what it is that you should be comparing it to?

Ask it of OB, or, more likely, you already know the answer yourself.

Otherwise try: here.

Given that you seemed so concerned about the change of status, I made the assumption that you'd have checked out what it was changing from, once made aware that the situation as of 2008 will not remain either which way.

You've felt its important to understand what the changes in 2014 would be, and you've gone and found that information out. Whether intentionally or not, you've presented this change as somehow being a bad thing because of how the system works today, in 2008.

You're now showing nothing but absolute reluctance to find out what it is you should be comparing to....the changes that come into effect in 2009.

Traps only work when they are based on good assumptions.

I'm not setting any trap. I'm pointing out how I feel the issue should be approached.

My only assumption is that you're showing inconsistent logic, which is what you're doing. You don't seem to care about what it is you should be comparing the Lisbon Treaty to...which are exactly what you will be voting to support should you vote No. You've just admitted to not being au fait with the existing Treaties. Do you not think its as important to know the ramifications of voting to maintain them as it is to know the ramifications of voting to replace them with the Lisbon Treaty?

I am using this forum, ludicrous as it sounds, to ask questions, of people like OB, who have more time than I and have read the Treaty.

And then telling those self-same people that you've no interest in going to where there is a long-running, active discussion on the topic. Several questions have been asked here that have already been answered there...but you seem to be suggesting that OB is at fault for referring you to where it is already answered, rather than writing up the answer a second time, just for you.

Should everyone with questions expect such individual treatment?

Like I've said before, we have another silly decision by admin that conversation be stifled on Boards.

One minute you argue that there's seventeen conversations going on at once, then you want to argue that conversation is being stifled.

Similarly, you assert that you can't ask questions in politics without hacks jumping in from both sides with all sorts of misleading stuff, but somehow feel that asking in a Conspiracy Theories forum with a lesser degree of moderation is going to allow a discussion with more control.

Do you actually believe that there is even a slim chance that there will be a NO vote?

More than a slim chance. I think there's a very good chance, being made better every day by the confusion thats being sown that I addressed in a post here earlier today.

Bit if you believe there isn't a hope, then why is it important to be informed? Why does it matter?