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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Cowan hasn't read Lisbon Treaty?
Options
-
11-06-2008 12:57pm#1
Comments
-
I have read the full text, he's not missing much. There are no good dirty bits in it.
In fairness, the man has a bunch of legal advisors to do that for him. If I had a trained lawyer at my beck and call to read the treaty and answer questions on it I probably wouldn't have read it.
The only reason I read it was because there's no-one I could trust to do it for me.0 -
-
-
-
I suggest giving it a go! You'll either laugh at how poorly it's wrote when as all writers tell you you should write with the reader in mind or your head'll explode (This writer takes no responsabilty if it does ). Thing is all over the place.
But the problem is where else do you turn. An "impartial" commission that states "We will retain some of our vetoes" but leaves out the rest of the logical impartial sentence "and loose others"
Or , God help us the posters on the lampost.
"Dont be bullied" Huh? without further statement that is bullying.
"Vote yes for more jobs" So wait if I vote yes steve down the street is gonna suddenly have money to open a shop and hire me as an assistant.... again a statement without a "how?" filled in.
It's part of the reason I have decided how I'm voting. Though I wont say here for fear of turning this from lack of information debate to a Yes/No one for now 0 -
Advertisement
-
Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »I agree, honesty has no place in politics
Exactly Remember with all the systems out there only two Irish men have ever won big chunks of money betting on the horses.
1) Martin Cahill (A.K.A The General)
and
2) Bertie Ahern
:D:D:D:D 0 -
This has been a very misleading tactic of the no side, albeit due to a rather ill-advised comment by the Taoiseach. What he said was that he had not read it cover-to-cover. That's not the same thing as not reading it. He was intimately involved in the negotiations, so I'm sure he's angry that people keep making it sound like he never read any. It's not reasonable to expect him to quote chapter and verse like a bible.
I think the point he was trying to make was that you should be able to make a reasonably informed decision about the treaty without reading it cover to cover. For example concentrate on the clauses that both sides point to.
Ix.
So he expects me to add my signature to a blank cheque on something that he hasn't fully read? i know, i know, you'll say it's not a blank cheque. Just using a bit of rhetoric
i should have put the word 'full' in front of the word 'text' in the op. Personally don't expect him to be able to quote it chapter & verse, but wouldn't have thought he'd think it wise to admit to not having read all of it. Just doesn't instill confidence in me about the Yes side.
They seem to just be issuing gloomy warnings about further job losses if we vote No (which will probably happen either way) and repeat this nonsense about how we wont be at the heart of Europe anymore if we reject Lisbon0 -
-
I suggest giving it a go! You'll either laugh at how poorly it's wrote when as all writers tell you you should write with the reader in mind or your head'll explode (This writer takes no responsabilty if it does ). Thing is all over the place.
Well, as far as legal writing the treaty appears to me to lie somewhere between the Firearms Acts (straightforward) and the Taxes Consolidation Act (really, really hard to understand).
Legal stuff is written for precise meaning not for ease of reading.It's part of the reason I have decided how I'm voting. Though I wont say here for fear of turning this from lack of information debate to a Yes/No one for now
You're one of those crazy no people aren't you? 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
TBH, I wouldn't look to the yes campaign for help. They're doing a really bad job.
Look here for posts by Scofflaw or sink. They pretty much always cite sources when arguing so you can validate the accuracy of their claims independently.
There in lies the big problem with both sides. Pure lazyiness I've already pointed out some of the problems with the posters. It's all just catchphrases buzzwords and sometimes just VOTE YES or VOTE NO (if you get a chance look at the back of some of them) like some kinda poor man's attept at subliminal messaging. I think both sides watch too much Derren Brown Even in bigger things like the commissioner thing no side has actually come out and said it's changing anyway regardless or the tax veto which FF lazilly (sp?) put in as "a reason to vote yes" when they meant it's not a reason to vote no as it stays the same regardless.
Both sides are guilty of this half arsed effort. Personally though I'd prefer it the treaty came to us in the format we wan't to do this this this and this specifically and here's the changes we need to make. As it is were just been given (vaguely) the list of changes and are left to speculate as to what they are for.
Oh and from the earlier question yes I am one of those "crazies" 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
There in lies the big problem with both sides. Pure lazyiness I've already pointed out some of the problems with the posters. It's all just catchphrases buzzwords and sometimes just VOTE YES or VOTE NO (if you get a chance look at the back of some of them) like some kinda poor man's attept at subliminal messaging. I think both sides watch too much Derren Brown Even in bigger things like the commissioner thing no side has actually come out and said it's changing anyway regardless or the tax veto which FF lazilly (sp?) put in as "a reason to vote yes" when they meant it's not a reason to vote no as it stays the same regardless.
Both sides are guilty of this half arsed effort. Personally though I'd prefer it the treaty came to us in the format we wan't to do this this this and this specifically and here's the changes we need to make. As it is were just been given (vaguely) the list of changes and are left to speculate as to what they are for.
So the No side is allowed have misleading slogans (to say the least) but if the yes side uses short points to refute bull**** lies and get support for yes vote then it's not on? How can the yes side compete if they can't also have slogans or short bullet points in their campaign?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement