Referendum on Lisbon Treaty

Kev_ps3

Do you know what I find funny, the fact that the govermant are hell-bent on wanting us to vote yes to this treaty yet do not tell us what it is about in plain simple language.
This would have been a better way to do things - send out a leaflet to every household in the county about the simple facts and tell the Irish public to make up their own mind. The way they are going about it make me wonder. I guess it comes down to whether you trust this goverment or not. Do they really care about the Irish people or is the economy and the elite more important to them? I think anyone who follows current affairs knows the answer to that one.

spank_inferno

I think something will be sent out to everyone before the referendum Kev.
As far as I can tell the treaty is a set of reforms on how the EU manages itself. Like a large company restructuring itself it requires "buy in" from all parties involved.

I dont know why Ireland has referendums for all treaties, but we do.
So when the "yes" side say Ireland will benefit from voting yes... we may, we may not its impossible to prove. The same can be said for the 'no' side.

Seeing that the treaty is just about structural reform I'm likely to vote yes.
If only to let the EU move on and do some governing.

oscarBravo

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Do you know what I find funny, the fact that the govermant are hell-bent on wanting us to vote yes to this treaty yet do not tell us what it is about in plain simple language.
This would have been a better way to do things - send out a leaflet to every household in the county about the simple facts and tell the Irish public to make up their own mind.

You mean like the nice little explanatory leaflet that arrived in through my letterbox this morning from the Department of Foreign Affairs?

spank_inferno wrote: »

I dont know why Ireland has referendums for all treaties, but we do.

Because the Supreme Court says we have to.

spank_inferno

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because the Supreme Court says we have to.

Ok, right so. There is obviously an article in the constitution that deems such things necessary. Why not have that article changed in its own referendum....
A referendum to end european referendums.

oscarBravo

I can't see people voting for it. I'm not sure I would.

Scofflaw

spank_inferno wrote: »

Ok, right so. There is obviously an article in the constitution that deems such things necessary. Why not have that article changed in its own referendum....
A referendum to end european referendums.

There's no specific article, I think. It's an outcome of the Crotty judgment.

"In 1987, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution required that Ireland's ratification of the Single European Act receive the approval of the people, as Title III would fetter the State's freedom in the conduct of its foreign relations. (Crotty v An Taoiseach (1987) IR 713, available online)


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Do you know what I find funny, the fact that the govermant are hell-bent on wanting us to vote yes to this treaty yet do not tell us what it is about in plain simple language.
This would have been a better way to do things - send out a leaflet to every household in the county about the simple facts and tell the Irish public to make up their own mind. The way they are going about it make me wonder. I guess it comes down to whether you trust this goverment or not. Do they really care about the Irish people or is the economy and the elite more important to them? I think anyone who follows current affairs knows the answer to that one.

The Referendum Commission is also sending out a leaflet in advance of the referendum date, as far as I know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll requote this for your convenience:

Have you done as I asked and read the thread? Are you here to discuss the treaty, or to soapbox?

What is it you want from me oscar? do you want me to shut up is that it? And why are you quoting me your final statement from a thread which you closed before I had a chance to even respond to said statement? I wasnt sure I was even allowed to respond to that statement on this thread or elsewhere, since you had decreed that that conversation was not to be allowed continue.

TBH, I'm on eggshells here as to what I am or am not allowed to say on this forum. I get the distinct feeling that the first thing I say that you deem not appropriate will result in perma ban for me.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

What is it you want from me oscar? do you want me to shut up is that it?

I want the same thing I want from everyone who posts in this forum: to contribute something of value to the discussion. In this case, "something of value" doesn't involve claims which have been repeatedly made and repeatedly debunked. I don't think it's too much to ask that you familiarise yourself with the state of the debate before joining in.

And why are you quoting me your final statement from a thread which you closed before I had a chance to even respond to said statement? I wasnt sure I was even allowed to respond to that statement on this thread or elsewhere, since you had decreed that that conversation was not to be allowed continue.

This thread is the "conversation" on the Lisbon Treaty. If you want to join in, please feel free to do so, but if you rehash points that have been repeatedly gone over, be prepared to have this pointed out to you.

TBH, I'm on eggshells here as to what I am or am not allowed to say on this forum. I get the distinct feeling that the first thing I say that you deem not appropriate will result in perma ban for me.

Read the forum charter. Read this thread. If you have something to contribute to the debate, please do so. Most particularly, if you feel something that has been said - by anyone, including me - in this thread is incorrect, please feel free to offer a reasoned criticism.

Also, if you've anything else to say about my moderation of this forum, do so in the appropriate place - the feedback thread you've already started. I'd also appreciate if you remove the link to it from your signature, or at the very least reduce the size of it: it contravenes the boards.ie signature rules.

Back on topic.

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I want the same thing I want from everyone who posts in this forum: to contribute something of value to the discussion.

mmm... and you get to decide whats of value eh? why isnt the story about the leaked memo of value then?

oscarBravo wrote: »

In this case, "something of value" doesn't involve claims which have been repeatedly made and repeatedly debunked.

Can you please point out even one claim I have made in this thread, or indeed the one you arbitrarily killed off which has been repeatedly debunked? the only claim I can see that I've made is that this leaked memo furore highlights the contempt with which the political elite view the general citizenry. please show me where this has been repeatedly debunked.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think it's too much to ask that you familiarise yourself with the state of the debate before joining in. This thread is the "conversation" on the Lisbon Treaty. If you want to join in, please feel free to do so, but if you rehash points that have been repeatedly gone over, be prepared to have this pointed out to you.

How about you let me start a thread of my own to discuss the issue I want to discuss, and then you can feel free to join in. You see, I do think its too much to expect someone to "familiarise" themselves with hundreds upon hundreds of postings, many of which are not relevant to the point at hand - and I hope the senior mods are going to step in and remove this nonsensical ruling re: one thread only for lisbon. (now dont go accusing me of off topic discussion, as I am only responding to your own statement on said off topic matter: "I don't think it's too much to ask that you familiarise yourself with the state of the debate before joining in. ")

oscarBravo wrote: »

Read the forum charter. Read this thread. If you have something to contribute to the debate, please do so. Most particularly, if you feel something that has been said - by anyone, including me - in this thread is incorrect, please feel free to offer a reasoned criticism.

Thanks for the advice. I think I have done so above.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

mmm... and you get to decide whats of value eh? why isnt the story about the leaked memo of value then?

I'll try to make this clear and to the point. I didn't comment on the value or otherwise of the thread you posted. I closed the thread and asked that you discuss the topic in the thread dedicated to the topic. I also asked that you familiarise yourself with the contents of the thread before posting.

Can you please point out even one claim I have made in this thread, or indeed the one you arbitrarily killed off which has been repeatedly debunked? the only claim I can see that I've made is that this leaked memo furore highlights the contempt with which the political elite view the general citizenry. please show me where this has been repeatedly debunked.

I didn't comment on the content of the thread you posted, I asked that you not go over ground that had already been covered.

How about you let me start a thread of my own to discuss the issue I want to discuss, and then you can feel free to join in.

How about you follow the rules we've set out for this forum, and I promise to do the same for any forum you moderate.

You see, I do think its too much to expect someone to "familiarise" themselves with hundreds upon hundreds of postings, many of which are not relevant to the point at hand - and I hope the senior mods are going to step in and remove this nonsensical ruling re: one thread only for lisbon. (now dont go accusing me of off topic discussion, as I am only responding to your own statement on said off topic matter: "I don't think it's too much to ask that you familiarise yourself with the state of the debate before joining in. ")

What you fail to understand is that you're not the first person who's too lazy to read the discussion before wading into it, and it's already gone around in circles several times at this stage, usually with people making the same tired points that have been repeatedly rebutted.

The problem is that if you just jump right in and make such claims, someone else - who has bothered to familiarise themselves with the discussion to date - ends up doing your homework for you and trawling back through the thread looking for the last three or four times they debunked the same old nonsense.

Once more, lest I be misunderstood, I'm not saying that you have posted something that has already been rebutted, I'm asking you to check which claims you might make have already been rebutted before you make them. In other words, I'm asking that you add something to the debate, rather than rehash it.

Finally, in case I've been unclear up until now, this discussion is explicitly forbidden by the forum charter (you have read the forum charter, right?), and any further discussion of it outside the relevant Feedback thread will be deleted.

Moriarty

Off-topic posts from jessop1, myself and scofflaw deleted after having that little dispute resolved

Overheal

At the same time: does anyone care to give us their synopsis of the last 40 pages of hilarity? My eyes are burning..

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

At the same time: does anyone care to give us their synopsis of the last 40 pages of hilarity? My eyes are burning..

No side: FUD
Yes side: Patronising sneers

I'll see what I can do once I'm actually awake!


cordially,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

Many people on the yes side (govt ministers etc) are saying that the treaty is neccesary to streamline the EU and make it work now that there are 27 members- out of interest can someone tell me why this treaty/constitution wasn't voted on before the 12 newest members joined, because that would've made more sense to me if it were true?

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

Many people on the yes side (govt ministers etc) are saying that the treaty is neccesary to streamline the EU and make it work now that there are 27 members- out of interest can someone tell me why this treaty/constitution wasn't voted on before the 12 newest members joined, because that would've made more sense to me if it were true?

Actually, the Nice Treaty does contain streamlining provisions that will come into force if Lisbon doesn't. For example, if Lisbon is not ratified, the size of the Commission will be reduced next year, and Commissioners will go on rotation (exact details to be agreed by unanimity).

However, those measures were agreed before the member states actually joined - Lisbon contains what might be described as the 'updated versions' of the various proposals after some practical experience was gained.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nacho libre

AngryHippie wrote: »

fair enough.

Still No though.

(Farming Family)

Is this because of Peter Mandelson's plans? Perhaps a deal maybe worked out on this so the IFA don't instruct their members to vote no on the Lisbon treaty.

Gonkster

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Do you know what I find funny, the fact that the govermant are hell-bent on wanting us to vote yes to this treaty yet do not tell us what it is about in plain simple language.
This would have been a better way to do things - send out a leaflet to every household in the county about the simple facts and tell the Irish public to make up their own mind. The way they are going about it make me wonder. I guess it comes down to whether you trust this goverment or not. Do they really care about the Irish people or is the economy and the elite more important to them? I think anyone who follows current affairs knows the answer to that one.

The same applies to all the other EU states, I guess it's up to us to back up the French and the Dutch.
I've linked a vid about it but obviously touched a nerve with the forum admins..perhaps because I didn't explain it at length (I'm guessing here) , although what at length means precisely is merely in the admins opinion and the video contents are irrelevant. How exactly my own opinion would be of any use/relevance is beyond me...
I suppose this is a fine example of what life will be like with a yes vote.
(not that it matters on the forums ofc, it's their site they can do what they like)
If you're interested it's on the we are change ireland website, which is easily located by google in 10 seconds flat and avoids the direct video linking problem.
Look for the End of Nations EU Takeover section.

Moriarty

Gonkster, I suggested you search through this thread to see where the video was linked last and the debate around the video so that we wouldn't be rehashing arguments which were had a few days/weeks ago.

If you're interested in actually debating any of the substantive issues on the lisbon treaty itself, this is the thread to do it in.

Gonkster

Yep I've spotted the pm this morning cheers.
It's buried in here somewhere, I'll go find it lol.

Gonkster

bonkey wrote: »

When we signed the treaty of Rome, thats what were were aiming for.

Since then, what is being aimed for has changed (and changed more than once), and this change has been reflected in the need for subsequent referenda in Ireland, where we once again had to choose...whether we wished to follow the new course, or not.



With respect, its impossible to ever know the full consequences of any action.

I would point out that you cannot predict the full consequences of a no vote. So, if not knowing the consequences of voting yes means you cannot vote yes, not knowing the consequences of voting no means you cannot vote no. So it would appear that you will have to abstain from voting. Unfortunately, you also don't know the full consequences of that...which leaves you in somewhat of an impossible position....you insist that you shouldn't do something without being able to understand the full consequences, but no matter what you do, you will end up in that position.

I would suggest that the only way to resolve this is to accept that full knowledge of consequences cannot be a prerequisite to taking an action.

The alternative is to accept that you are selectively applying this logic to justify a decision that you are making for other reasons.

Call me cynical here but the very reason that people do not understand what is going on with the EU is precisely why they should vote no.
The EU treaty should be as simple to read and understand as the Irish constitution, it should be published in full, rather than only on a complete basis only after it is ratified.

oscarBravo

Gonkster wrote: »

Call me cynical here but the very reason that people do not understand what is going on with the EU is precisely why they should vote no.

We've been over this. If you don't understand the consequences of voting yes, then you don't understand the consequences of voting no, so why should you vote either way?

The EU treaty should be as simple to read and understand as the Irish constitution, it should be published in full, rather than only on a complete basis only after it is ratified.

Leaving aside that it's a little impractical to suggest that a treaty between 27 countries should be as simple as a single country's constitution, the myth that it won't be published in full until after ratification has also been thoroughly debunked.

bonkey

Gonkster wrote: »

Call me cynical here but the very reason that people do not understand what is going on with the EU is precisely why they should vote no.

So they vote no...and don't know where the EU is going anyway.

If you don't know what the results of either option are, concluding that this means you should choose one over the other isn't cynical...its illogical.

You should either refrain from voting, or find a different reason on which to base your decision.

If it is that you don't know where its going in either case, but feel more comfortable by one form of ignorance than another, then thats your choice to freely make.

The EU treaty should be as simple to read and understand as the Irish constitution,

Ireland requires a court to interpret the legal ramifications of its consitution....those legal ramifications being the entire purpose of hte constitution in the first place.

Thats a strange definition of "simple to understand".

it should be published in full, rather than only on a complete basis only after it is ratified.

No disagreement from me on that one.

LostinBlanch

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I find this megathread very unwieldy. Especially when trying to unpick various arguments about aspects of what everyone agrees is a very complex treaty.

I know some have mooted the idea of a subforum in politics, but some of the mods don't agree. Or is that just my misunderstanding of the situation?

Perhaps we should have a poll to decide should we have a subforum for dealing with different aspects of the treaty.

IRLConor

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else, but personally I find this megathread very unwieldy. Especially when trying to unpick various arguments about aspects of what everyone agrees is a very complex treaty.

TBH, the thread is a little easier to read than the Treaty, if a little more frustrating at times.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I know some have mooted the idea of a subforum in politics, but some of the mods don't agree. Or is that just my misunderstanding of the situation?

Perhaps we should have a poll to decide should we have a subforum for dealing with different aspects of the treaty.

If there was a separate forum there would have to be a bunch of locked stickies at the top in the form:

"Myth: <Oft-repeated myth about the Lisbon Treaty> - Read before posting"

And insta-bans for anyone who re-posts about them.

oscarBravo

There's a proposal for a subforum, along with my reason for opposing it, in the appropriate place, which this isn't.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

it should be published in full, rather than only on a complete basis only after it is ratified.

No disagreement from me on that one.

It has been. The EU consolidated version is here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

IRLConor wrote: »

TBH, the thread is a little easier to read than the Treaty, if a little more frustrating at times.



If there was a separate forum there would have to be a bunch of locked stickies at the top in the form:

"Myth: <Oft-repeated myth about the Lisbon Treaty> - Read before posting"

And insta-bans for anyone who re-posts about them.

You could simply have a thread - debunked Lisbon Treaty myths - stickied at the top of this forum, one post per myth. It's only going to be there a couple of months.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gonkster

You'll find that there's links to addendums not published in the "consolidated" version.
The whole things just a joke. As for not voting...what would be the point? If every single one of us abstains then it would make sense, but I can't see that happening!
If I can't make heads or tails of it all, then I sincerely doubt that most of the politicians can either. I've noticed a few admissions that some haven't even bothered to read it.
I'll be voting no quite simply because we have been given the chance to make a difference here and the arguments against implementation seem quite solid and simple to follow. Not to mention the French and Dutch have made their feelings plain about it.
Perhaps with a no vote the EU might actually attempt to simplify things somewhat?

LostinBlanch

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a proposal for a subforum, along with my reason for opposing it, in the appropriate place, which this isn't.

Thanks Oscar, I have just posted there.