More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

robindch

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Who said we have to keep moving forward?

I'd have thought the answer was rather obvious.

As society changes and technology develops and changes the way that people live, laws and rules have to change too. If they don't, then you end up with the kind of fossilization of society that the bible recommends and few enough would want that, even from amongst the religious.

That's not some Orwellian "master plan" as you seem to think, but a fundamental requirement of a functioning society. One wonders what the place would be like if the legislature had chosen to go with Biblical or Victorian rules for road use, telephony, financial fraud, international trade and so on.

.

JC 2K3

What kind of technological developments came about that require a more federal, centralised Europe?

robindch

JC 2K3 wrote: »

What kind of technological developments came about that require a more federal, centralised Europe?

I won't comment on the fact that the Lisbon Treaty doesn't create a more federal or centralized Europe.

WRT developments in technology, here's an easy one -- the EU offers a good way to encourage the kind of multinational co-operation that's required to deal with the increase in cross-border financial crime (money laundering, card fraud and so on) that's a result of the rising level of electronic funds transfer. There's an EU page on financial crime and how the EU is dealing with it here. With the arrival of SEPA over the next few years in Ireland and elsewhere and the concomitant removal of national barriers to entry in the payments game, new forms of fraud will be possible and new cross-border defences will have to be built.

The updated terms for this are laid out in Article 86 of the consolidated version of the EU Treaty, aka Lisbon.

BTW, in my real life, I work in the payments industry and a lot of that happens out in the Middle East. The EU is currently working on concluding a financial services agreement with Dubai. The UAE banks are up in arms about this, since the EU's Anti-Money Laundering directive with which the banks must comply is going to damage their business, since a large portion of them deal with countries and regimes which, to say the least, deal in hot money -- Iran and the 'Stans principally.

I presume you're happy enough to see that the EU is using its international weight to enforce banking transparency and to help cut down on money laundering?

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to point out whats wrong with "my offering" in post 137, I know a lot of people who voted no for this reason and I'm waiting to see if you have any counter to this claim or even if you think its acceptable.

This was an argument from Sinn Fein and Libertas. The rebuttal is that the article states changes "shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" which would mean a referendum in our case.

So what's the problem?

Tim Robbins

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Who said we have to keep moving forward? Whose master-plan are we being forced to follow?
De Valera put a spanner in the works for sure, the crafty bugger.
.

I still think you're a troll so I am not going to bother replying to that.

robindch

JC 2K3 wrote: »

What kind of technological developments came about that require a more federal, centralised Europe?

Even simpler one -- the EU came down on the mobile phone companies a while back and told them to reduce their roaming charges, or else face a top-to-bottom international competition audit. The phone companies complied and internal GSM roaming charges were slashed.

Moral of the story -- increasing international-co-operation in specific areas is an effective remedy against increasingly powerful international consortia.

.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Even simpler one -- the EU came down on the mobile phone companies a while back and told them to reduce their roaming charges, or else face a top-to-bottom international audit. The phone companies complied and internal GSM roaming charges were slashed.

They also gave Microsoft a slating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This was an argument from Sinn Fein and Libertas. The rebuttal is that the article states changes "shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements" which would mean a referendum in our case.

So what's the problem?

Well lets read what it says after that:

TreatyofLisbon Art48,P5 wrote:

If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

This means that as long as 4/5ths of the members agree to a change, it comes into effect regardless if any other countries have ratified it or not. If less than 6 countries oppose the change (and that number will grow when the union accepts more countries) then the ratifications are made and no decisions are made with respect to those countries who haven't accepted the changes for two years. After two years the issue is referred to the European Council. There is no explanation of what this entails, so what do you think the outcome would be? Do you think the European Council is going to undo 2 years of work to suit 1/5th (at most) of the members? Or do you think they'll do what they're doing now, just bully those countries that don't bend over? (Thats even if they do anything and not just have the issue bouncing around the Council, ignoring it until becomes forgotten)

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well lets read what it says after that:

This means that as long as 4/5ths of the members agree to a change, it comes into effect regardless if any other countries have ratified it or not. If less than 6 countries oppose the change (and that number will grow when the union accepts more countries) then the ratifications are made and no decisions are made with respect to those countries who haven't accepted the changes for two years. After two years the issue is referred to the European Council. There is no explanation of what this entails, so what do you think the outcome would be? Do you think the European Council is going to undo 2 years of work to suit 1/5th (at most) of the members? Or do you think they'll do what they're doing now, just bully those countries that don't bend over? (Thats even if they do anything and not just have the issue bouncing around the Council, ignoring it until becomes forgotten)

I don't see what the problem is. The European Union works on the principle on consenus. It's a not tyrannical autocratic dictatorship. A matter will be referred to the Europan Council who will then try to facilitate an appropriate action. There's no mention that you'll be bullied there. I think you're appealing to fear.

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is. The European Union works on the principle on consenus. It's a not tyrannical autocratic dictatorship. A matter will be referred to the Europan Council who will then try to facilitate an appropriate action. There's no mention that you'll be bullied there. I think you're appealing to fear.

Jim Corr explains everything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPfszpqq2o4

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. It's sophistry to say "voluntary or otherwise" as it is only voluntary. That's the key point which are missing and the reason why it is not double think.

Hold on; all that at issue is whether or not the EU has a defence dimension - not how it decides to organise that dimension. Doublethink is involved in pretending the dimension is not there.

The situation is similar, but not identical, to someone saying 'there is no Irish Defence Force' because membership of that force is voluntary. This unreality was present in the way Irish participation in 'EU Battlegroups' was presented by Willie O'Dea as if this didn't mean that Irish troops might someday find themselves in a battle as part of an EU group.

At some stage we have to acknowlege that Europhiles fudge EU issues. They sowed the wind, and now they're reaping the whirlwind.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The sad thing is that most no voters (judging by boards.ie and media coverage) seem to not have an iota of what a mess we are in and do not seem bothered about how to find a resolution.

But, in fairness; this is in a situation where no-one has really identified why voted down Lisbon matters. There's a reasonably coherent starting point in the position of what exactly it is that the EU cannot agree within existing decision making structures.

But what tends to be said in response to that kind of pertinent question is 'its all too complex to explain'. Which, to be honest, is pure laziness by the Yes campaign. We've effectively had both the Taoiseach and our Commissioner tell us 4look, we couldn't be arsed to understand the thing ourselves. Its just some load of bollocks the EU want us to sign up to. I guess we should, so.'

A nuclear power station is a pretty complex thing. But we don't need to explain every little detail about how one works if we're trying to persuade people we might need one.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

Hold on; all that at issue is whether or not the EU has a defence dimension - not how it decides to organise that dimension. Doublethink is involved in pretending the dimension is not there.

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

There's nothing contradictory.

Tim Robbins

Holy toenail!
Jim Corr initials J C. Freaky or what!

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

There's nothing contradictory.

Its contradictory for folk to pretend there is no defence dimension while an EU force headed by an Irish officer is operating in Chad. It really could not be plainer.

Now, I know some folk believe anything (remember, we have to throw in a few gratuitous atheist comments to keep some tie between the thread and the forum). But surely we should be guided by revealed evidence. I feel troops operating as a common unit and exchanging shots with other armed personnel is a bit of a giveaway. But maybe you are right and our troops were just sent to Chad by God to test our faith.

robindch

Schuhart wrote: »

Its contradictory for folk to pretend there is no defence dimension while an EU force headed by an Irish officer is operating in Chad. It really could not be plainer. [....] But surely we should be guided by revealed evidence.

Well, the Irish Defence Forces seem to think that they're deployed according to a mandate delivered by the UN:

Irish Army wrote:

The Defence Forces is deployed under UN Security Council Resolution 1778 (Sep 2007) as part of the UN mandated, EU-led peace-enforcement mission EUFOR Chad/CAR to protect refugees, IDP s, NGO s and civilians in danger.

As you say, let's follow the evidence

In any case, regardless of who sent them there, do any of the "no" voters here object to the few hundred Irish troops being in the country, or view that deployment (and the one in Lebanon, and the Irish military observers in Darfur and so on) as violations of Irish military neutrality?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Well, the Irish Defence Forces seem to think that they're deployed according to a mandate delivered by the UN:As you say, let's follow the evidence

In any case, regardless of who sent them there, do any of the "no" voters here object to the few hundred Irish troops being in the country, or view that deployment (and the one in Lebanon, and the Irish military observers in Darfur and so on) as violations of Irish military neutrality?

Exactly. This is what I have been trying to point UN mandate. Hence no double think.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is. The European Union works on the principle on consenus. It's a not tyrannical autocratic dictatorship. A matter will be referred to the Europan Council who will then try to facilitate an appropriate action. There's no mention that you'll be bullied there. I think you're appealing to fear.

Do you not see the massive amount of wriggle room that gives them? I think you've read the Treaty with rose-tinted glasses on.
Look at the situation that we are in now. We, according to our constitutional requirements, have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and voted against it, and yet most countries who have approved the Treaty are going to implement it anyway. Even by the new Treatys rules that isn't enough to start implementing a change to the constitution (18/27 countries is not 4/5ths of the members). (And by current rules, all member states need to approve the treaty for it to come into effect.) they expect that at the end of the ratification process they can come back to Ireland and sort out the problem. what if the situation boils down to the fact that most Irish people don't see anything wrong with Europe the way it is, and don't particularly want to take a step towards having a "United States of Europe" Do you honestly think they will undo the ratification if no agreements can be made?

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you not see the massive amount of wriggle room that gives them? I think you've read the Treaty with rose-tinted glasses on.

I think you have the paranoia glasses on. Your drawing conclusions without evidence. You think you are spotting gaps and then filling them as you see.
What's your suggestion? Not to refer it back to the council? If then refer it to whom and why?

Look at the situation that we are in now. We, according to our constitutional requirements, have had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and voted against it, and yet most countries who have approved the Treaty are going to implement it anyway. Even by the new Treatys rules that isn't enough to start implementing a change to the constitution (18/27 countries is not 4/5ths of the members). (And by current rules, all member states need to approve the treaty for it to come into effect.) they expect that at the end of the ratification process they can come back to Ireland and sort out the problem. what if the situation boils down to the fact that most Irish people don't see anything wrong with Europe the way it is, and don't particularly want to take a step towards having a "United States of Europe" Do you honestly think they will undo the ratification if no agreements can be made?

Ok you haev conflated a few issues there and ended up with a superstate appeal to fear argument. I will try and take them out separately and deal with them:
1. Lisbon cannot be ratified with Ireland. However, what can happen is the exact same treaty can be ratified without Ireland, just called something else.
So countries who are ratifying it, cannot implement it. They can implement a variant of it that doesn't include Ireland.
2. "Even by the new Treatys rules that isn't enough to start implementing a change to the constitution (18/27 countries is not 4/5ths of the members). (And by current rules, all member states need to approve the treaty for it to come into effect.)".

??

3. "what if the situation boils down to the fact that most Irish people don't see anything wrong with Europe the way it is, and don't particularly want to take a step towards having a "United States of Europe" Do you honestly think they will undo the ratification if no agreements can be made?"

I don't know what you are saying here. United states of Europe is just rhetoric and not logical. What exactly does it mean? Again you are just appealing to fear and not logic.

4.
"...undo the ratification if no agreements can be made" - sorry completely lost you now. What ratification? How can you undo something that has no agreement?

I have seen nothing logical in your arguments. Just appeals to fear and sloppy rhetorical meaningless slurs.

We are going to need something more constructive than this to move forward.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

what if the situation boils down to the fact that most Irish people don't see anything wrong with Europe the way it is, and don't particularly want to take a step towards having a "United States of Europe"

The Lisbon Treaty is not a step in the direction of a USE. It is simply a mild rejiggling of some of the structures and decision-making processes, in most areas to give more power to national parliaments and European citizens, but in the area of foreign policy, to be able to speak with a unified voice to the USA, China, Russia and so on. With its updated voting rights and through the EU, Ireland has a voice far in excess of its size, though you certainly wouldn't have found this out from either the yes or the no campaigns.

Regardless of whether or not the Irish electorate "don't see anything wrong with Europe the way it is", the EUs' structures need to be revamped for excellent, and incontrovertible, legal reasons. The constitution was the first attempt, the Lisbon Treaty is the second and it's not immediately clear to me why 450-odd million people should have to sit down and renegotiate a treaty which was blocked by a referendum in which the balance of around 60,000 people was carried, not by any principled objection to the content, but by ignorance of what they were voting on, and how referendums work. And that the democratic process is broken in this country is far more worrying than unsubstantiated comments by one side about the arrival of a United States of Europe.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty is not a step in the direction of a USE. It is simply a mild rejiggling of some of the structures and decision-making processes, in most areas to give more power to national parliaments and European citizens, but in the area of foreign policy, to be able to speak with a unified voice to the USA, China, Russia and so on. With its updated voting rights and through the EU, Ireland has a voice far in excess of its size, though you certainly wouldn't have found this out from either the yes or the no campaigns.

Regardless of whether or not the Irish electorate "don't see anything wrong with Europe the way it is", the EUs' structures need to be revamped for excellent, and incontrovertible, legal reasons. The constitution was the first attempt, the Lisbon Treaty is the second and it's not immediately clear to me why 450-odd million people should have to sit down and renegotiate a treaty which was blocked by a referendum in which the balance of around 60,000 people was carried, not by any principled objection to the content, but by ignorance of what they were voting on, and how referendums work. And that the democratic process is broken in this country is far more worrying than unsubstantiated comments by one side about the arrival of a United States of Europe.

I think many no voters have this obdurate irrational paranoia and it is pretty hard to reason with most of them. Judging by what I have read on boards, there's about as much chance as yes vote being carried in another referendum as there would be J C and Richard Dawkins applying for a civil union.

This comes down to trust. People don't use logic at all in this. The Yes just didn't have much trust. Several reasons for this:

1. Bertigate
2. Cowen and McCreevy admitting they didn't even read it.
3. Coughlan not knowing how many commisioners there were.

People were presented with something that was too complicated for them so it came down to trust.

The best stratedgy would be for the yes side to get some scandal on libertas which would create some sort of reactionary swing back to lisbon.

Something similar happened in Nice two, where a few journo's got some scandal linking the no voters to a neo-facist grouping.

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

Well, the Irish Defence Forces seem to think that they're deployed according to a mandate delivered by the UN:As you say, let's follow the evidence ?

I think we need to study the evidence a little more carefully.

As that decision indicates, they are part of an EU military formation operating under a UN mandate. The mandate (as I understand it) just means there presence in the country is lawful. But they simply are part of an EU force - so the doublethink remains in spades in folk are under the impression that an EU force with a UN mandate ceases to be an EU force.

Look at the language of that UN mandate Authorizes the European Union to deploy. There isn't a mention of Ireland in that mandate, because we're irrelevant. The force deployed is organised through the defence arrangements that the EU has in place - its defence dimension.

The defence dimension that the pro Europe camp tries to pretend doesn't exist, while complaining that the No camp are dishonest (which they frequently are) on claims about abortion.

robindch wrote: »

In any case, regardless of who sent them there, do any of the "no" voters here object to the few hundred Irish troops being in the country, or view that deployment (and the one in Lebanon, and the Irish military observers in Darfur and so on) as violations of Irish military neutrality?

I don't know if they do, but certainly avoidance of any military dimension in the EU has featured as an issue among what we might broadly call the anti-EU lobby. Which is presumably why we have this fog erected over the arrangements already in place.

Hopefully its clear that I don't have a particular problem with the EU having a defence dimension or, indeed, with the mission in Chad. I simply object to the disinformation in the Irish domestic political space about it. That failure to engage with significant aspects of the European agenda (in favour of pretending that the EU is a place that exists to give us grants and wants us be a tax haven for their residents forever) is one of the reasons (IMHO) that we have a no vote.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

it's not immediately clear to me why 450-odd million people should have to sit down and renegotiate a treaty which was blocked by a referendum in which the balance of around 60,000 people was carried, not by any principled objection to the content, but by ignorance of what they were voting on, and how referendums work.

Its not immediately clear where you've gotten your numbers. 450-odd million people don't need to renegotiate the treaty because i) 450-odd million people didn't write the thing in the first place, and ii) it wasn't voted in the 18 countries its been accepted by 450-million people, it was voted in in all these countries by their respective governments, a combined number of about 5000 "yes" votes altogether. So the real question is, why should Ireland ratify something when there is a balance of 110,000 "no" votes (862,415 "no" vs 752,451 "yes") against it, and the other countries 5000 "yes" votes come only from their politicians, not the 450-odd million people living there.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not immediately clear where you've gotten your numbers. 450-odd million people don't need to renegotiate the treaty because i) 450-odd million people didn't write the thing in the first place,

No, they didn't -- they left it up to the civil servants and elected representatives who have the broad experience of international law and international treaties that enables them to make informed decisions in these areas. And having negotiated the treaties, the same bodies (by and large) ratified them -- it would be a rather schizophrenic government that will not ratify a treaty which it negotiated itself

Hence the understandable irritation in the capitals of Europe, that a tedious negotiating process that's taken years to unfold has been junked by 60,000 people who, had they voted the other way, would not have derailed the ratification process for reasons entirely unconnected with what was on offer.

It's the subversion of the system that bugs me far more than the rejection of the Treaty.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

No, they didn't -- they left it up to the civil servants and elected representatives who have the broad experience of international law and international treaties that enables them to make informed decisions in these areas. And having negotiated the treaties, the same bodies (by and large) ratified them -- it would be a rather schizophrenic government that will not ratify a treaty which it negotiated itself

Civil servants who aren't elected, and elected representatives who never read the treaty. And sure its not like elected representatives don't know exactly what the public want and need, as shown by how we agreed by with our elected officials when we went to vote and how our country is run perfectly in its health, infastructure etc departments :rolleyes:

robindch wrote: »

Hence the understandable irritation in the capitals of Europe, that a tedious negotiating process that's taken years to unfold has been junked by 60,000 people who, had they voted the other way, would not have derailed the ratification process for reasons entirely unconnected with what was on offer.

It's the subversion of the system that bugs me far more than the rejection of the Treaty.

This might be irritating to them, but unfortunately this is what is known as the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. This is how its been for years and the only subversion is that those capitals are ignoring our decision

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This might be irritating to them, but unfortunately this is what is known as the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. This is how its been for years and the only subversion is that those capitals are ignoring our decision

In fact Mark no two democracies are the same. This is one of the problems with using rhetoric and arguments like "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS".

The second problem with your argument there is that there must always be a process to resolve disagreement. Otherwise your democratic process (whatever that may be) has failed. Negotiation is usually the way disagreement is resolved.

If you are insisting that 500 million people (are we including the kids?) must have a yeah or nay say, well then by logical conclusion:
Either
1. 500 million must have a direct say in the negotiation
or
2. Politicans must keep guessing what exactly no voters want and keep running subsequent referenda until a yes vote is passed.

There is no other logical possible course of action and either of the above two would mean it would take infinity to get anything done.

It's very simple logic. But you and every single no voter I have discussed, debated or heard in the media can't grasp this simple concept.

This is what is so annoying. The logic is so simple but you refuse to accept it, just like creationists refuse to accept simple logic.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think you have the paranoia glasses on. Your drawing conclusions without evidence. You think you are spotting gaps and then filling them as you see.

They're called my "reality glasses". The treaty is written as legal document and should be read as such. You look for the gaps in clauses to see what they actually allow, so you can pre-empt it happening. If you dont, then you'll only find out whats actually possible when someone does it and you're not ready. Its like buying a car, you don't buy a car and then check under the bonnet.

Tim Robbins wrote:

What's your suggestion? Not to refer it back to the council? If then refer it to whom and why?

Well how about how it works now, no change is implemented until everyone agrees with it. Whats wrong with that.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ok you have conflated a few issues there and ended up with a superstate appeal to fear argument. I will try and take them out separately and deal with them:
1. Lisbon cannot be ratified with Ireland. However, what can happen is the exact same treaty can be ratified without Ireland, just called something else.
So countries who are ratifying it, cannot implement it. They can implement a variant of it that doesn't include Ireland.

This would go against the current treaty which states that no changes can be implemented unless all members agree to them. If the other countries try to implemement something that goes against the current EU Treaty, then they'll be breaking EU law.

Tim Robbins wrote:

2. "Even by the new Treatys rules that isn't enough to start implementing a change to the constitution (18/27 countries is not 4/5ths of the members). (And by current rules, all member states need to approve the treaty for it to come into effect.)".

??

Just pointing out that even by the new Treatys rules to haven't been enough members to ratify the treaty to warrant moving ahead with implemementing it.

Tim Robbins wrote:

3. "what if the situation boils down to the fact that most Irish people don't see anything wrong with Europe the way it is, and don't particularly want to take a step towards having a "United States of Europe" Do you honestly think they will undo the ratification if no agreements can be made?"

I don't know what you are saying here. United states of Europe is just rhetoric and not logical. What exactly does it mean? Again you are just appealing to fear and not logic.

Rhetoric is the art of speaking or writing effectively so I don't know hat you're getting at. The "USE" is a situation where officials not elected by the Irish get to make more and laws that effect the Irish interest.

Tim Robbins wrote:

4.
"...undo the ratification if no agreements can be made" - sorry completely lost you now. What ratification? How can you undo something that has no agreement?

This was in referal to the new treatys method for changing itself (that if 4/5ths members agree to new changes, they can implement them and the other countries will be referred to the European council if they still have a problem 2 years after initial implementation of the change). My point was that if, 2 years after initial implementation, after whatever amount of time the European Council spend on the issue, if the change is just incompatable with a country, do you think the European Council will make a recommondation for the other countries to undo the change?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This comes down to trust. People don't use logic at all in this.

So you think its logical to do what someone you believe to be untrustworthy says? Someone you don't trust, who tells you to agree to an article you don't understand, an article the person you don't trust never read in the first place?

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They're called my "reality glasses". The treaty is written as legal document and should be read as such. You look for the gaps in clauses to see what they actually allow, so you can pre-empt it happening. If you dont, then you'll only find out whats actually possible when someone does it and you're not ready. Its like buying a car, you don't buy a car and then check under the bonnet.

There's no point using the ridiculous argument by analogy. Either use logic or admit you are not going to bother.

You must specify the gap, say what it is gap and argue why it is dangerous. You have spotted no gap let alone a deductive argument why it is dangerous.

Well how about how it works now, no change is implemented until everyone agrees with it. Whats wrong with that.

I think you have missed something. The matter is referred back to the council, this doesn't mean the council can force a decision on you, it means the council is responsible for progressing the negotiations. Otherwise who is? Or should it just be forgetten about?

This would go against the current treaty which states that no changes can be implemented unless all members agree to them. If the other countries try to implemement something that goes against the current EU Treaty, then they'll be breaking EU law.

I heard a German Diplomat on RTE 1 the Saturday after the referendum saying there is nothing wrong with that. I have heard several other commentators saying that. Perhaps you could quote the exact EU law being broken.

Just pointing out that even by the new Treatys rules to haven't been enough members to ratify the treaty to warrant moving ahead with implemementing it.

Rhetoric is the art of speaking or writing effectively so I don't know hat you're getting at. The "USE" is a situation where officials not elected by the Irish get to make more and laws that effect the Irish interest.

I'd go with the first definition of rherotic from dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric

"the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast."

This was in referal to the new treatys method for changing itself (that if 4/5ths members agree to new changes, they can implement them and the other countries will be referred to the European council if they still have a problem 2 years after initial implementation of the change). My point was that if, 2 years after initial implementation, after whatever amount of time the European Council spend on the issue, if the change is just incompatable with a country, do you think the European Council will make a recommondation for the other countries to undo the change?

It doesn't matter. You were trying to make a point that EU operational changes could be forced on us. This was categorically incorrect.

May I ask are you a member of Libertas or Sinn Fein? It was a lie they were propagating during the debate.

So you think its logical to do what someone you believe to be untrustworthy says? Someone you don't trust, who tells you to agree to an article you don't understand, an article the person you don't trust never read in the first place?

What I think it really illogical is to vote on debating tactics of Fianna Fail. Again I remind you, it was vote on the treaty. If it was vote on the debating tactics of Fianna Fail, I would have voted no myself.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In fact Mark not two democracies are the same. This is one of the problems with using rhetoric and arguments like "DEMOCRATIC PROCESS".

I'm only talking about one type of democratic process, the European process for making changes to the European Treaty. Rhetoric is just the art of speaking well and there's no problem using the argument of "democratic process" when you are talking about a specific process.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

there must always be a process to resolve disagreement. Otherwise your democratic process (whatever that may be) has failed. Negotiation is usually the way disagreement is resolved.

True, the problem is we were dictated to, to vote "yes"

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. Politicans must keep guessing what exactly no voters want and keep running subsequent referenda until a yes vote is passed.

Would it not have been better for the politicians to sit down, actually read the document and then explain why we should vote "yes" in the first place.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There is no other logical possible course of action and either of the above two would mean it would take infinity to get anything done.

You'd have to wonder how Ireland has gotten anything done in the last 100 years.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's very simple logic. But you and every single no voter I have discussed, debated or heard in the media can't grasp this simple concept.

Which simple concept?

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Civil servants who aren't elected, and elected representatives who never read the treaty.

The Treaty is 300 pages of sentence fragments, out-of-context paragraphs and the like. Basically a diff file if you're familiar with software. I doubt that few have read it, since it's the consolidated treaty that matters and that's 150 pages or so of relatively straightforward text (which I still wager that 99% of the population hasn't read either).

If you have a problem with the process that produced this treaty -- ie, unelected, staffer civil servants who negotiate treaties which implement public policy as defined by elected representatives -- then I suggest you start a revolution and come up with a better system.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This might be irritating to them, but unfortunately this is what is known as the DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

I think I've explained it often enough that a referendum vote which is decided because of something other than the topic of the referendum is not democratic. Yes, it's a vote, but no, it is not a democratic vote. If you cannot see this why this is so at this stage, then there's little point in discussing this any further.

JC 2K3

robindch wrote: »

I presume you're happy enough to see that the EU is using its international weight to enforce banking transparency and to help cut down on money laundering?

I'm happy enough with the EU using its power for that cause, but the fact it has that much power admittedly makes me feel uneasy, and I fear for my privacy. The Lisbon Treaty would have established uniform intellectual property rights and international policing policies for them throughout the EU, which is obviously linked with this, and this is what set alarm bells ringing in my head and swung me to a no vote.